kjh Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 Yeah, World title belts in wrestling have always been a promotional prop. It really is rose tinted nonsense to suggest otherwise. Even Babinsack's buddy Bruno regularly lost matches via count-out or blood stoppage as WWWF champion and he was a champion that was well protected in that era. However, to be fair, Babinsack may be right about "very little" of his columns being (easily) available for free online. But that's only due to the original wrestlingobserver.com website disappearing when Dave merged his website with Bryan Alvarez's Figure Four website and because the f4wonline.com "Full News, Radio and Column Archive" is a misnomer that only stores about three month's worth of content. The point still remains that the book solely contains articles that were once made available for free on the Internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 Seriously, why is "wrestling belts are treated as a prop" used as a pejorative? They're inanimate objects used in a work of performance fiction. That is the precise definition of "prop". What part of that do people like Babbysack disagree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 I am amazed after all this time that people who say the following things still think they're making original points: * that the title belts have to mean something * that clean finishes are good * that too much is given away on free TV I'm sure others can add more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 However, to be fair, Babinsack may be right about "very little" of his columns being (easily) available for free online. But that's only due to the original wrestlingobserver.com website disappearing when Dave merged his website with Bryan Alvarez's Figure Four website and because the f4wonline.com "Full News, Radio and Column Archive" is a misnomer that only stores about three month's worth of content. The point still remains that the book solely contains articles that were once made available for free on the Internet.His specific wording was "very little of these pieces were available nationwide" so if they were all from WO.com he'd be lying. The implication was that they were from local Pittsburgh area magazines and newspapers that he's written for. I am amazed after all this time that people who say the following things still think they're making original points: * that the title belts have to mean something * that clean finishes are good * that too much is given away on free TV I'm sure others can add more. Tag teams need to matter again. Wrestling needs to be more like MMA/MMA needs to be more like wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I am amazed after all this time that people who say the following things still think they're making original points: * that the title belts have to mean something * that clean finishes are good * that too much is given away on free TV I'm sure others can add more. Conversely, not enough is given away on free TV. That one has finally started to fade, although not until after several years of long free TV Finlay/Rey/Hardys/Murderer/Christian matches. Tag teams need to matter again. Wrestling needs to be more like MMA/MMA needs to be more like wrestling. Wrestling promos shouldn't be scripted. WWE is inferior to [insert promotion here] for [hackneyed reason X]. Fans don't want to see clean-cut bayfaces in this bold new era of 12 years ago. Predictable = bad. Unpredictable = good. Nobody wants to see long-term champions (when a long-term champion is present). Everybody wants to see long-term champions (when a long-term champion isn't present). The money is in the chase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 For the record, I do agree with a few of those things, I just hate hearing them all the time from people who think they're really making a great point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I am amazed after all this time that people who say the following things still think they're making original points: * that the title belts have to mean something * that clean finishes are good * that too much is given away on free TV I'm sure others can add more. What really bothers me are those who toss out such points, but then will turn around and grumble about something when the obvious is addressed. For example: * If a belt is made to mean something, they then complain it's on the wrong wrestler. * If a clean finish happens, they then complain the guy doing the job shouldn't be doing a clean job. * If a free TV show doesn't give away a lot, then either the matches are too short or there is too much talking. Not saying every writer who addresses the obvious makes these complaints, but some writers just never seem to be satisfied with how something is presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkeats Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I never really understood the "there's not enough wrestling on the show" complaint. I love watching old school stuff and there's not a tremendous amount of actual wrestling on those shows either. The "non-wrestling" content was a lot better, though. I guess people just got spoiled during the Monday Night War era. The odd thing is, even without the amount of main event matches that today's shows have, I enjoy watching stuff from the late 70's-early 80's more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I agree with the last post, the object of TV is to build to house shows and PPV's which has been mostly forgotten these days and I would love to see WWE go back to a squash match formula with a match featuring high midcarders as the main event or main event guys mixed in with the midcarders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I agree with the last post, the object of TV is to build to house shows and PPV's which has been mostly forgotten these days and I would love to see WWE go back to a squash match formula with a match featuring high midcarders as the main event or main event guys mixed in with the midcarders. Except for the fact that the last 20 or so years houseshows have been rendered meaningless unless someone gets injured at one. Now PPVs on the other hand should still be built up, instead of being thrown together only a few weeks prior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Hence why I said that house show importance has waned since the Monday night wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 18, 2010 Report Share Posted January 18, 2010 Amateur Wres~! Inside MMA TV report featuring the legendary Dan Gable PDF Print E-mail ***A very special edition of Inside MMA, coming LIVE from Iowa City, IO, where the University of Iowa prepares to host Oklahoma State University in the most anticipated wrestling showdown of the year. Da Man, Dan Gable is in the house, and we learn all about the storied and strong history of the two biggest wrestling institutions in the world, and how it all ties into MMA. But most importantly we get to see Randy Couture sporting a mullet and a porn star moustache.**** http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/11979/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Todd Martin pretends to not know who Don Johnson and Jon Heder are for his entire Raw recap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Todd Martin pretends to not know who Don Johnson and Jon Heder are for his entire Raw recap. Ugh, what a turd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Just wait till next week with the guys from Psych. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Just wait till next week with the guys from Psych.I bet he won't realize it's a USA show even if they plug it every segment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Todd Martin is obnoxiously bad. I can't imagine people reading him for any other reason than to marvel at both how obnoxious and how terrible his writing is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 The worst part is he's not even creatively obnoxious. He could have referred to Johnson as "Nash Bridges", but instead went for the oh-so-inventive "Miami Vice Guy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Yes Todd is "boring" bad not "entertaining" bad. "Who's Tubbs?" Tool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Just wait till next week with the guys from Psych.I bet he won't realize it's a USA show even if they plug it every segment. Sadly that won't be true. "Next week the hosts of Raw are actors from the USA show “Psych.” The hits just keep on coming." - Todd Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 I read Todd to see how outraged he can get over the smallest things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 http://toddwmartin.blogspot.com/2010/01/ww...-report_18.html I know of Heder as the actor from Napoleon Dynamite, School for Scoundrels and Blades of Glory. I thought all three were bad movies and that Heder isn't a very good actor. I'm not sure I could have identified him by name a month ago, but I know who he is. As far as Don Johnson goes, I know of the TV series Miami Vice as a kind of quintessentially 80s TV crime drama that Michael Mann produced. I definitely didn't know Johnson by name nor could I have identified him from a picture. With movies, music and sports you can get away with more dated references because new fans will check out the old stuff or be aware of it. I would certainly have no problems with Willie Stargell or Bart Starr references even though their primes were before I was born. Likewise, I've heard Duran Duran songs let alone more enduring acts like Prince or Michael Jackson who were at their peaks in the 80s. And I think a lot of people have gone back and watched Taxi Driver or Tootsie or Annie Hall. But with TV series, people don't tend to go back and watch them after they're off the air unless it's a really enduring sitcom like the Andy Griffith Show or the Brady Bunch. Thus at least to me TV references always seem much more dated. It's a more fleeting form of pop culture. Not identifying those two or the women from that TV show (which I now have completely forgotten without WWE plugging it other than the woman who wrestled was named Maria and is of Greek heritage) is just a way of making a point that it's kind of silly to feature B-list and C-list celebrities so prominently when much of the audience is unlikely to know who they are or to view them as barely celebrities if they do. For some reason this has seemed to bug people both times, although I can't put my finger on exactly why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahoos Leg Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 How old is Todd Martin? I'm in my early 30s and I know who Don Johnson is. And I was a regular viewer of neither Miami Vice nor Nash Bridges. This willful ignorance just seems feigned. Is this all part of a "I'm too cool to keep up with popular culture" schtick that he has going? I only ask because you'd think a journalist--even an "Internet wrestling journalist"--would try to at least have a passing knowledge of what goes on in the world around him. Most of these WO guys must live in Ostrich-town because they apparently live with their heads in the sand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 How old is Todd Martin? He was a "student" back when he created his WC profile in 2001. My recollection was that he was still in college back during the Shawn Michaels For The HOF discussions, which was 2002 range. Don't recall if it was grad school, which would make him a bit older, or early in his undergrad time there. Hell... I can't even remember the school even though it was a running joke for a while. My guess is that he's in his late 20s, probably born in the first half of the 80s. One can see that Miami Vice probably was "before his time" because he was just too young. The show had buzz the first season, peaked in the second season with it's best ratings, fell back in it's third season, and was compleetly past it by it's 4th (1987-88). If Todd was born even in 1980, the show was largely dead by the time he hit 7 years old. It wasn't exactly a series aimed at 5 year olds anyway. I think it's telling his comments about Prince and Jackson. Mike peaked in 1983-85. Prince peaked in 1984. Todd's pretty much copping to that period as being before his time. Considering how hot Mike was with young kids (and I'm not making a joke with that), if Todd was even 5 at that point and liked music, he probably would have dug Mike. I think things flip quickly if you were born in the 1975-78 range. You'd be 8-11 when the show peaked. It would be hard to miss all of that. Not defending Todd and I've had my arguments with him in the past. But one can see this. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 20, 2010 Report Share Posted January 20, 2010 Considering how hot Mike was with young kids (and I'm not making a joke with that), By underlining the fact that you weren't making a joke with that, you just did make a joke. Made me smile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.