Ridiculous quotes from WO.com columnists

[Dylan Waco]

Ill remember to bring a pen and piece of with me the next time I listen to his 2 hour podcast.....

 

tomk, pick any major fight any fight go back and listen to Coughlin's analysis.

So, for clarification's sake, you're saying Coughlin is a quality analyst on his podcasts, but one whose analysis is so completely unremarkable that you can't actually remember any specifics about anything he's ever said without writing it out immediately after he says it for future reference? I mean, I guess it's possible to analyze a fight well without actually being able to deliver that analysis in a compelling manner, but is he really so unmemorable that you literally can remember nothing about anything he's ever said on his podcasts without taking notes as it happens?

 

Seriously why are you being such an utter cunt here?

 

 

 

"Please stop with the personal attacks"

[S.L.L.]

Ill remember to bring a pen and piece of with me the next time I listen to his 2 hour podcast.....

 

tomk, pick any major fight any fight go back and listen to Coughlin's analysis.

So, for clarification's sake, you're saying Coughlin is a quality analyst on his podcasts, but one whose analysis is so completely unremarkable that you can't actually remember any specifics about anything he's ever said without writing it out immediately after he says it for future reference? I mean, I guess it's possible to analyze a fight well without actually being able to deliver that analysis in a compelling manner, but is he really so unmemorable that you literally can remember nothing about anything he's ever said on his podcasts without taking notes as it happens?

 

Seriously why are you being such an utter cunt here?

Because I'm trying to pin down what's so great about Coughlin, and his lone defender on this board is dancing around the issue. If that comes off as cuntish, you only have yourself to blame for making what should be a very simple issue very difficult. But with each post, we are painting a clearer picture of the matter.

 

I spent the last year not subscribing to F4W due to college so I don’t have any recent examples and those examples I did have been forgotten due to a very hectic year. Of course now you are now going to claim that Coughlin's analysis is forgettable or something.

No, I'm not. Instead I'm going to claim that Coughlin is being defended as a great analyst by someone who - by his own admission - doesn't read his written pieces, and hasn't listened to his podcasts (the core of his defense) in a year. Officially, the defense is "Coughlin does quality fight analysis in his podcasts", but as we dig deeper, we now see the defense is "I remember the podcasts Coughlin was doing a year ago featured quality fight analysis - though it's been a while, and I can't remember any specifics - so I'm quite certain that he's maintained that level of quality in 2010". It's not a very strong argument, and it's buried under a very misleading one.

 

Before that I would be listening during work or hungover on a Saturday morning before I went to the bookies I was not listening for archival purposes, I was listening for near term (fight to fight, I wasnt compiling dossiers on every fighter), entertainment purposes.

 

I don't want to assume my mental processes are the same as everyone else's, so folks can feel free to correct me on this, but I'm pretty sure that one doesn't necessarily have to set their minds to "archival mode" in order to remember something after the fact, nor is it impossible for someone who is in "short term entertainment mode" to remember details after the fact. TomK has not done TNA Impact Workrate Reports in years, but I can remember details about them very easily, and I was not reading them in "archival mode".

 

Still, if you were listening to them while doing other things, I can understand why it doesn't stick out in your memory that much. When you're trying to do two things at once - regardless of what mode your mind is in - it's hard to deliver your full attention to both things. Or if you're using a podcast as background entertainment. I've been there. You're not going to latch on to everything that's said. That's fine. But the official defense of Coughlin is "Coughlin does quality fight analysis in his podcasts". Now the defense is "I remember the podcasts Coughlin was doing a year ago featured quality fight analysis, though it's been a while, I can't remember any specifics since even when I was listening to it regularly, I was mostly doing so as background noise to keep me entertained while I did other things, so I wasn't really listening to what he was saying that closely, and I have a hard time remembering things when I don't actively set my brain to "archival mode", which I was not doing here. But I do have vague recollections of him being a good fight analyst, so I'm quite certain that he's maintained a high level of quality in 2010."

 

His technical analysis typically picks up on one or two habits/tics/quirks of fighters which I have never previously heard discussed normally which have a strong factor in the outcome of the fight. It is why people on F4W listen to him, like I said before it is his calling card. If you want greater detail on that ask people who have listened more consistently or intently than I have this year failing that you could yourself you know actually listen to his shows.

1. Actually, I couldn't, because I don't subscribe to WO/F4W, and I have no real desire to.

 

2. Even if I did, I'd rather not dig into a podcast by someone whose available (written) work suggests he's clueless, just to roll the dice on the possibility he might be better based on vague recollections of half-listened shows from a year ago.

 

3. Even if they were any good, I'm really not a huge MMA fan, so the shows don't hold much interest for me. I'm in this argument for the "ridiculous WO.com columnist" aspect, not the "finding quality MMA podcasts" aspect. If Coughlin is not as ridiculous as his writing suggests, I might not be so quick to judge him harshly. That's really my whole stake in this.

 

4. Who outside of THE BOARD~ has listened to his podcasts more regularly or more intently than yourself that I could ask?

 

5. As someone who - by your own admission - hasn't been a WO/F4W subscriber for a year, and who mainly listened to Coughlin's podcasts as background entertainment when you did, telling me to listen to the shows for proof of Coughlin's quality when you yourself have not listened to them is a truly bizarre defense. Telling me I should do something that you yourself are not doing - essentially asking me to prove your point for you - is not going to fly with me.

 

6. When I was in college, I had a professor who taught me that the fundamental difference between religion and science was that science bases it's beliefs in observable evidence, whereas religion bases it's beliefs in faith. I'm a religious man, but I am not so quick to worship at the Church of Coughlin considering his faith-based defenses ("I vaguely recall his analysis being good", "I haven't followed directly for a year, but I believe his analysis is of high quality", "I never followed that closely, but there are others who believe", "I haven't listened in a year, but even without listening to them myself, I have faith that if you listen to these shows, you'll become a believer", etc.) could be easily trumped by scientific evidence to the contrary. He may also have scientific evidence to support him as a good analyst, but I don't know what it is, and you're pretty much saying here that you are incapable of providing any. And if you can't do that, you may as well just withdraw from the argument, because it's obvious that your presence here is becoming a needless distraction from the matter at hand.

[tomk]

Coughlin wasn't obtuse, he was being willfully obtuse. Seeing things that weren't there, because like a lot of people over on the figure four board, he doesn't like Snowden for whatever reason. Really it would be odd to get kicked off a website for burying a competing journalist when Alvarez and Meltzer has made habits of late of doing the same thing.

 

What could be worse than the jailbait thread, possibly hiring a homophobe who thinks that the Unabomber was a tool of Al Gore and that everyone who disagrees with him is a Marxist.

Society as a rule judges pedophilia as being worse than political quackery.

But even if you were a sexual libertine, if you're running a website where you regularly take shots at Vince Russo: you don't want to give Xavier von Erck an opening to come after you.

[Bix]

But even if you were a sexual libertine, if you're running a website where you regularly take shots at Vince Russo: you don't want to give Xavier von Erck an opening to come after you.

I'll give prizes to anyone who sics him on them.

[tomk]

I wouldn't wish Von Erck on anyone.

Meltzer is a guy who has provided a really important resource. It's the reason to criticize: I wish he wouldn't get caught up in some of his more ridiculous foolishness. I would hate to see him stuck in position of defending himslef against the kind of publicity that a Von Erck would bring.

[goodhelmet]

Who is XVE?

[Ditch]

XVE = PervertedJustice = people who exposed RF as a pedo.

[Bix]

And he was some sort of radical Russo supporter before that.

[rovert]

"Please stop with the personal attacks"

Wasnt calling him one I just said he was acting like one. Never had any problems with SLL.

 

Jeepers SLL your post is simply not worth the effort replying to especially after just coming home after finishing Christmas shopping. I dont know why you have a hard on for me or Coughlin. You probably have a better memory than I do, Im fine with that. You are entitled to your opinion about his writing but he is excellent in my opinion at breaking down fights in the opinion of his listeners as well as his colleagues. While Koscheck-GSP is in most people's memory a foregone and it is of course a rematch Mike's break down this week was once again thorough and entertaining.

 

After this year quiz me about non-logical processes, not podcasts then you might get a definitive answer out of me, SLL!

 

 

On the topic of Coughlin writing on his most recent podcast he says that this is article on Scott Smith is one of his more favourite pieces:

http://www.f4wonline.com/index2.php?option...=1&id=18542

 

I think this is the correct article he is talking about, hey how many Scott Smith articles could there be right?

[Johnny Sorrow]

"Please stop with the personal attacks"

Wasnt calling him one I just said he was acting like one.

That's just precious.

 

Anyway, after listening to the latest Bryan and Vinnie show, is it weird that they'd never seen the Piper/ Valentine dog collar match until the other day, or am I just old? I can't imagine being a wrestling fan, let alone "journalist", without having seen that. Granted, maybe it's an age thing but it just seems odd.

[jdw]

That's strange. The top Starcade '83 matches have been out for two decades, and the type of thing you'd think someone like Bryan would have tracked down back in the 90s.

 

John

[KrisZ]

It seems to me just by listening to them that it was WWF & WCW for them and anything pre 1990 they didn't watch until later.

[rovert]

"Please stop with the personal attacks"

Wasnt calling him one I just said he was acting like one.

That's just precious.

Nice one, really adding to things here please, post more. So there isnt a difference in actually being and acting like something? Amazing.

 

Getting bored of passive agressive attempts at board derails, guys. Come it is nearly Christmas.

 

Anyway, after listening to the latest Bryan and Vinnie show, is it weird that they'd never seen the Piper/ Valentine dog collar match until the other day, or am I just old? I can't imagine being a wrestling fan, let alone "journalist", without having seen that. Granted, maybe it's an age thing but it just seems odd.

Im fairly sure they just forgot about it. Vinny at least has to have reviewed it in the newsletter.

[Grimmas]

It seems to me just by listening to them that it was WWF & WCW for them and anything pre 1990 they didn't watch until later.

Its amazing that I have watched longer and seen more of a variety than either of those two. I cringe anytime they start talking about the 80's. I only just turned 30 and I thought Bryan was older than me.

[soup23]

Yeah, I have made that comment before that while I don't expect Bryan or Vinny to lay around and watch old tapes all day, it is still alarming and surprising that they have not watched some of the most "classic" matches. I honestly would be intrigued to know if Bryan has even seen something like Jumbo vs. Misawa 6/8/90. His memory is notoriously bad so maybe he watched some of these matches 15 years ago and has just erased it, but who knows.

[jdw]

Like Soup says, I wouldn't expect them to watch a ton of 80s if it was before them. But would have thought over the years that they would have watch the Big Stuff that's easily out there. Starcades, Manias, etc.

 

Looking at the Piper-Valentine from Graham's site:

 

Roddy Piper defeated NWA US Champion Greg Valentine in a non-title dog collar match at 16:08 by pulling Valentine off the top with the chain, repeatedly punching him, and tying him up to score the win; during the match, Gordon Solie repeatedly said the title was on the line, which was incorrect; after the bout, Valentine attacked Piper and choked him with the chain before leaving the ring (The Best of Starrcade: 1983-1987, Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80s, Born to Controversy: The Roddy Piper Story)

The Best of Starrcade: 1983-1987 video tape was one of the holy grails for folk before finding out about "hardcore tape collecting". If a copy of that was in your video store chain, you'd rent it.

 

Perhaps he isn't a tape collector or even viewer, so didn't rent or buy that when a kid.

 

The other two are recent WWE dvd's:

 

06/14/05: WWE Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80s

11/14/06: WWE - Born to Controversy: The Roddy Piper Story

 

You'd think he'd get at least one of those.

 

John

[Bix]

There was also an incomplete version (albeit enough to decide HOLY SHIT THIS IS AWESOME) on the PWI Lords of the Ring tape, which was a lot more common than both versions of the Starrcade compilation.

 

And you're right: That was the holy grail of stuff in video stores. When I'd stay with my grandparents, I'd always rent lots of wrestling videos because they had a TON of video stores nearby, and I was in awe when I found that (even more so when found out it was on *2 tape*) and watched it. I had already seen Starrcade '86 because my local Blockbuster had it (and I eventually bought that copy), but it was still awesome, and I absolutely loved the dog collar match more than anything else.

 

But yeah, it seems pretty out there that someone who has written about wrestling for a living for as long as he has, been watching as long as he has (and he was already in his early teens at that point), etc. would have never seen that match until the last week.

[Cox]

Bryan Alvarez's shitty taste in wrestling suddenly makes a whole lot of sense. He hasn't watched a whole lot of good wrestling so he has no real basis of comparison. Of course, he probably should lay off the "omfg SHAWN MICHAELS IS THE BEST WRESTLER EVAHHHHHH" stuff, since he hasn't seen that much compared to most other wrestling fans, and I'd even say it's debatable whether he should have a HOF ballot, but still, we should probably cut the guy some slack if he hasn't really watched that much wrestling outside of WWF/WCW/TNA.

[jdw]

I wouldn't make the case for "taste".

 

I don't think there was a lot of great stuff on the various Mania's of the 80s. But they were important, so I watched them.

 

Bryan came into wrestling in the 90s at an extremely high level of fandom: only the most hardcore actually start their own newsletter in any genre. It's "fan club" level stuff. Then to keep at it and turn it into a business, that's hardcore. Folks who are casual wrestling fans can point to us as being wacky hardcore fans because of the time and money we spend on it, but Bryan, Dave and Wade are at an entirely different level. Not saying they're nuts, or any more of nuts that we are. But to build your *life* around pro wrestling and turning that obsessive fandom into a business is as hardcore as it gets.

 

Given that, you'd think that the Manias and Starcades of the 80s would be the basic Wrestling 101 stuff that Dave or Wade coming along in the 80s would eventually watch. Especially when it's pretty easy to find, without even getting to the level of tape trading / buying that some of us did in the 90s.

 

Bryan was the Dave/Wade that came along in the 90s.

 

I could see someone not going back to watch say the original Wrestling Classic PPV. Or even that Bunkhouse Stampede PPV, though someone with a historic jag to their fandom might want to watch all of those early PPVs as insight into Crockett starting to fail: good leasons there.

 

But the original Starcade, which launched the Big Show movement?

 

It's a bit surprising.

 

John

[soup23]

Even though it is odd that Alvarez has not seen much stuff pre 1990, it is even worse to me that on most weeks Dave doesn't watch Smackdown. The show is usually around an hour and fifteen minutes on DVR and for the most recognized wrestling journalist, its incredible to me that more times that not he doesn't watch the second highest rated show. This would be like Peter King skipping out on Monday Night Football.

[Bix]

I'm pretty sure he watches it, but he doesn't have the time to write it up most weeks due to Yahoo committments.

[jdw]

Agree with the notion that Dave watches it. I don't even think time is that much of an issue, as there's less to watch these days than when this was on the monthly slate back in 1996-99. The wrestling schedule now is pretty light. His MMA schedule is up, but doubt that all of what he watches in a 3 month stretch is up.

 

John

[rzombie1988]

I think the WO guys just watch what they need to watch these days only. Part of it is because it's their job and I think another part of it is that they are a little less interested due to constantly watching current mainstream stuff that isn't so great as well as more interest in MMA. If I watched SD, RAW, TNA and NXT each week in full, I'd want to kill myself. The last thing they probably want to do is watch more wrestling after that. Lately, I think the quality of their wrestling discussions have gone down, especially on the B&V show where they seem really bored lately.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy hearing people gush over great stuff they've never seen before(Although they shit all over Jimmy Valiant and to me that's a sign of wrestling dopiness). And yeah, that Starrcade VHS set was the tits. But now that it was brought up, how incredible was that Lords Of The Ring PWI tape? That was the first time I ever saw World Class, and it was just the coolest thing. AND it has the greatest Adrian Street promo of all time.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

From the latest classic WON posted:

 

Yet another pay-per-view involving a few participants in pro wrestling, although definitely not a pro wrestling PPV will be taking place on 11/12, emanating from Denver. The show, put together by John Milius, the movie director whose credits include "Dirty Harry" and "Conan the Barbarian," will be called "The Ultimate Fighting Championship." The concept is to take a pro boxer, pro wrestler, sumo wrestler, judoka, karate and other martial arts fighters and put them into a one-night tournament, with the idea being to capitalize on the success of martial arts movies depicting the same type of anything goes fight to the finish tournament with men of different fighting styles.

See, I knew if you went back far enough he'd admit it!