Johnny Sorrow Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Here's the deal, man. When a person goes over to the Observer site and reads something as fucking stupid as this: One of my favorite gimmicks the NFL does is the “Super Bowl Slump” where the losing team almost always misses the playoffs the next year. What a great angle to get over how devastating it is to lose in the Super Bowl. it's gonna get made fun of. To be fair, Dave didn't write that article, but it was published on the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Fair enough. We all know Dave has little to do with quality control of what does and doesn't go up on that website though. Maybe he should get more involved, but he's an old man with a family, doesn't he have enough on his plate already? Nothing is perfect. I place the blame squarely on Alvarez & co. for that type of shit, and I know better than to read any "articles" posted there anyway I'm sorry for ranting btw, I don't like to get combative over stupid shit like this, but I did not appreciate the dismissive, holier than thou tone of John's post. I understand he's been around the webs a lot longer than I have, respect, no ill will meant and hopefully none taken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 John, aside from my making the stupid mistake of pointing to Pats/Colts, something I really should have known, isn't everything else I said true and at the root of what Dave is trying to say? Let's take a look at what you said: The schedule is built to maximize exposure of the best teams in primetime games This is incorrect. There are a max number of primetime games that any one team can appear on. The Colts aren't in 16 primetime games. The Colts best drawing match-ups (such as this year's Colts-Pats game) aren't all on prime time. These limitations have been explained several times by people here on PWO, and probably several times on Dave's board. What happens is that Dave and Dave Marks read about two sentences into a post, get defensive, and think "Here's another attack of Dave" and skip reading the rest of the post. Then the go on buying their own incorrect believe about the Booking of the NFL/NBA/Etc. Which makes us walk through it again. In a sense, it's a waste of our time because folks like you will skip right over this post. Next... and to give national games on Sunday the best matchups. We talked about this one before. Colts-Pats was on CBS this year, not on the national NBC broadcast (Philly-Giants) or the national ESPN broadcast (SD-DEN). One can argue that Philly-Giants was a "ratings draw", but it's not as big of one was Manning-Brady. The ESPN game... well, no one other than delusional Chargers or Bronco fans would think it's a bigger draw. Again: there are limits to what the NFL puts into primetime. Read the thread and see how we explain what those limits are, and why the NFL is willing to leave Colts-Pats on NBC (i.e. to make NBC happy come next contract negotiations). They introduced flex scheduling to put the games with the most heat on tv. We went throught he limitations of the flex several times, including the right of NBC and FOX to protect certain games, and also the overall limit of the number of times a team can be in primetime. And why do you think the Pats and Colts play every single year? This was explained. Every three seasons, the AFC East and AFC South are "paired" where everyone in each division plays everyone in the other. In the other two seasons in a three-season cycle, thee divisions play one game against the other based on the prior season's placement: #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, #3 vs #3, #4 vs #4. This isn't "booked" to get good games, but instead a legacy from the prior "parity" concept of the NFL where bad teams get weaker schedules and good teams get tougher ones. The currect schedule leaves less room for that, but there still are elements of it which remains one of the reasons you see teams move towards the middle. So you were 0-3. Again, this happens every time someone points out to Dave he's wrong on this, or someone tries to defend Dave. I'm sorry I don't read and study every word of every inane argument you guys have to know what has and hasn't been shot down previously. That's the problem. Dave and Dave Fan gets so defensive about being criticised or errors being pointed out that they never slow down to see where they're wrong, or admit they were wrong. If they slow down even slighty, they then morph the their claim into something else... which has to be shot down as well. People wonder where the snarkiness and firmed headdropping comes from: it's due to having to explain the same type of shit over and over and over again in the face of either willful or defensive ignorance. Usually when I see stupid arguments and pissing fights on these boards I just skip past it all because it never makes for interesting reading, The problem with this one is that some folks have been trying to correct the stupidity, and educate folks a bit. But the desire to Not Be Wrong or even admit not knowing what they're talking about is leading folks to become even more stupid. I "get it," because it's a simple concept that had eluded me. I'm not going to go do whatever stupid puro shit I don't care about and shift the topic on you. Guess I'm the exception to your well traveled rules of A and B outcomes to this argument. Except that in your attempt to shot back at us in the last point, you claimed you were right on everything else. You weren't, so there's another wasted post here correcting it. The reason it's wasted is because you even admit that you haven't bothered to read what other people have said about NFL scheduling, and instead are just pulling claims out of your ass. Which doesn't make you an exception, but instead a perfect example of A and B outcomes in these types of discussions. There are people trying to offer up facts. There are others offering up nonsense. The people with the facts not only have to shoot down the original nonsense, but additional nonsense offered up in defense, then the original nonsense when it comes back to like like a zombie, and on and on. The point isn't NFL = pro-wrestling, that's the oversimplification you guys choose to label it by. The point is SPORTS ARE ENTERTAINMENT. Pro-wrestling is FAKE SPORT MEANT TO ENTERTAIN. Therefore any comparison to REAL SPORT is not outlandish, especially not the way pro-sports have evolved in this country where the emphasis is on the show as much as the game. And if you had read this and other threads, you'll see how people have talked about sports in entertainment terms. You'll see actual valid comps, and also shooting down ones that are nonsense. After all, Soap Operas are Entertainment as well, as are primetime drama and comedy series. Plenty of people have made comps to them as well over the past two decades (and probably longer). There are valid comps. There's also bullshit comps. Some folks have attempted to correct the bullshit ones. Dave doesn't verbalize it very well, It's not just the poor verbalization. It's the poor and factually incorrect parallel's he draws, along with his total unwillingness to admit he's wrong when it's pointed out to him. The morphing and shape shifting of arguments is an old habit of his. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I'm sorry for ranting btw, I don't like to get combative over stupid shit like this, but I did not appreciate the dismissive, holier than thou tone of John's post. I understand he's been around the webs a lot longer than I have, respect, no ill will meant and hopefully none taken The dismissive tone is because you admit not reading the thread and repeat claims that the posters in the thread have already taken the time to explain and shoot down at length. Some of it several times. You expect us to greet with cheer the latest Davefender running in the same old stuff? Flip the roles. What if Dave had to go over his facts on Montreal for the 14th time, with Vince & Shawn Defender brigning up the same argument that he's been shooting down for a decade. You think that Dave isn't going to be dismissive and holier than thou? Honestly? I think some of us here have read Dave's comments on Montreal over the years and would agree that he got more than a bit testy as it went on and on and on. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Fair enough. We all know Dave has little to do with quality control of what does and doesn't go up on that website though. Maybe he should get more involved, but he's an old man with a family, doesn't he have enough on his plate already? Nothing is perfect. I place the blame squarely on Alvarez & co. for that type of shit, and I know better than to read any "articles" posted there anyway I'm sorry for ranting btw, I don't like to get combative over stupid shit like this, but I did not appreciate the dismissive, holier than thou tone of John's post. I understand he's been around the webs a lot longer than I have, respect, no ill will meant and hopefully none taken For what it's worth, Bryan swears up and down that it's only Dave who puts the "columns" up, does the vague headlines, puts random stuff behind the paywall, etc, and gets angry at me if I email him about something stupid on the front page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Was "RAW rating was a" a Dave brainchild? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Missy Hyatt goes to Strikeforce: Learns what she already knew as a kid watching wrestling The last time I watched Strike Force was when Nick Diaz fought Evangelista Cyborg. I told a fellow old school wrestler to watch the fight for the wrestling psychology. You had a heel champion in Diaz that overlooked his underdog challenger. The underdog in Cyborg gave the champion a big beating only to lose cleanly by the champion. The end result was the baby face challenger raised his stock by coming very close to beating the champion. The heel champion got over by cleanly beating his opponent & flipped somebody off on camera to still gain the ire of the crowd. I thought to myself, why can’t wrestling lay out a match with the heel champion gains a clean win to gain heat & builds up interest to eventually be beaten? The Fedor Emalienko VS. Antonio Silva fight told an amazing story from a wrestling stand point. Fedor was beyond over in the building based on his won-loss record & mystique. John Cena had nothing on Fedor in being a babyface last night in New Jersey Antonio Silva came across almost like Andre The Giant as a heel in the manor that the fight played out. You had the baby face go toe to toe with his larger foe. Silva had the baby face reeling at times. Fedor would deliver flurries that had the crowd on their feet. The second round had Antonio Silva gain the advantage & came close to choking out Fedor on several occasions. People were literally on their feet & going nuts for Fedor barely escaping every submission attempt. The crowd went nuts when Fedor reversed a knee bar in to an ankle lock. The best description I could think of would be a Dusty Rhodes or Hulk Hogan comeback in their prime. Silva came across as such a monster heel by waving his finger that the ankle lock was not hurting him to a round of boos at the end of the second round. People were hoping that Fedor would come out in the third round to finally make his comeback in beating Silva. When the doctors stopped the fight for Fedor’s swollen eye, the crowd was angry for a few seconds. When they saw the swollen eye & face of Fedor, they showed genuine empathy. When looking at this fight thru a wrestling perspective. I saw the biggest baby face sell for his opponent, have flurries of comebacks, come close to defeat, & then lose by a referee stoppage. The end result was Silva gained the respect of the crowd for beating Fedor cleanly. Fedor became even more over with fans by hoping that his hint at retirement will not happen until he avenges his loss. Everybody was leaving the building in a state of shock that Fedor lost two in a row. All they kept talking about was the possibility of Fedor coming back in to the tournament in a alternate spot. I was amazed on why wrestling can’t create a baby face that was as over as Fedor. I also realized that nobody in wrestling can understand the concept in which a baby face can lose & still get over. Plus Strike Force elevated the stock of Antonio Silva as a possible drawing card in the future. The chase for a rematch can possibly bring in even more interest & money for the future. There is even money on the table for a Fedor comeback. To be fair, when Missy sticks to talking about wrestling she makes some good points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Another bit of Dave wisdom to file under "Why Dave Should Never, Ever Compare Wrestling/MMA to Other Sports": UFC clearly had become the major league after Pride went down, so it would be like someone who was an NFL star, going to Canada or the UFL or somewhere, still winning games. But if it’s three years since he played in the NFL, would he still be considered the best quarterback in football? Well, if he was a legend and still performing in a winning manner against lesser competition, if nothing else, there would be intrigue. There’s no right or wrong here. No Dave, that player would no longer be considered the best quarterback in football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 There have been interesting things written about the Fedor loss. The Observer piece isn't one of them. And while the football comparison is goofy, the thing is there is no sport he could use to make the analogy he wanted to make. I mean I guess rollerderby. But if he instead said "when Mike Tyson left the top promoter in the world (Don King) in 89, if Tyson had continued to perform on a high level would he still be considered a top heavyweight?" it would also be a horrible comparison. If Manny Paquaio leaves Top Rank promotions and ends up working for Duva promotions (or Gary Shaw or some Native American reservation based boxing promotion company) for next three years and is thus blackballed from working Arum promoted talent---Paquaio would still be considered top level competitor and whoever Arum pushed would be seen as a paper champion. If in 1922, the papers discovered that Babe Ruth was actually a mulatto and then could no longer compete in MLB and had to leave the Yankees for the Ohio Octaroons... MMA isn't like other sports. It isn't promoted the way other sports are promoted and there really are no analogies that make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Joe Babinsack on Bruce Hart's book. Dylan can back me up (and I'll probably try to get my review for Cageside finally done over the weekend), but to see that book as anything other than the ramblings of a pathological liar with a similarly pathological hatred of Bret is pretty out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Joe Babinsack on Bruce Hart's book. Dylan can back me up (and I'll probably try to get my review for Cageside finally done over the weekend), but to see that book as anything other than the ramblings of a pathological liar with a similarly pathological hatred of Bret is pretty out there. I read the review when it was on the front page. In addition to what you said I found it one of the worst structured Babby columns in some time (hellva feat). This paragraph in particular annoyed the fuck out of me: Bruce decidedly avoids the details of his family. He dances around Davey Boy Smith with an impressive display of constraint, and yet …. well, it is an honorable approach considering how everything reportedly played out. It’s just an interesting situation where you have the opportunity to explain things, and nothing gets said. What exactly is he referring to here? Look forward to your review, Bix. A podcast would be probably be cool too if anyone would track him down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Bruce's wife left him for Davey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Bruce's wife left him for Davey. Thats fair enough but how is someone reading the review to know that? The Harts being the Harts it could be anything. It could be the post-Owen Hart death family rift or Davey's death or anything too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Bruce's book is totally insane. I cannot imagine anyone with even a passing knowledge of wrestling history not sniffing out most of the bullshit and even someone with no knowledge of history would be able to tell pretty easily that everything Bruce says about Bret is likely to be a hate filled lie. Among the things Bruce claims that definitely aren't true: He claims he worked a series of WWF house shows with his family members and they tore the house down working "Stampede" style until a road agent (Lanza IIRC) told him he was just a school teacher, that the matches sucked because of him and then demanded he basically stand on the apron and do little to nothing. Bruce claims that he complied with these demands, the matches got worse but Lanza complimented him for doing his job. The problem is no such house show run ever existed. He claims that he and Bret went down to Amarillo, TX to meet up with Dory Jr. and co. over the Summer and in the process tells an awesome Terry Funk rib story that I hope is true. Having said that he also claims that on the trip down they were chased out of multiple counties by violent redneck gangs who assumed they were draft dodging hippies. He claims Bret reached over his dying mother and attempted to choke his sister as their mother was literally expiring in front of them. He claims he ghost wrote Bret's Calagary Sun column for years. He claims that Smith Hart was in no way to blame for the missing gate receipts of the infamous Stampede tour to the Carribean. He claims he was given the book in Hawaii by Peter Maivia (this may or may not be true but seems hard to believe). He claims that he was offered the book by Vince's people only to be snubbed by Vince when flown in to discuss the terms. He claims that Shane called him about turning his new Stampede He claims that Whalen (who he regards as the best announcer ever which shocked me knowing Bruce's booking style) on air resignation after the Bad News innocent was an angle and disguise Whalen's departure to cover two Calgary Flames games. He claims that the WWE was about to bring him in to team with Pillman for a Badd Company reunion but Bret sabotaged it because he was angry when the children came in the ring at the end of the Calgary Stampede ppv (a ppv he claims was designed in part to set up an angle with him and Austin). He claims that he would have kept Pillman clean and thus implies multiple times that Bret was responsible for Pillman's death. He claims that Bret called him after Owen's death suggesting that McMahon had done it intentionally to punish Owen for Bret's problems with Vince regarding Montreal. He claims that one of Bret's columns (after Bruce quit writing for him of course) was responsible for Davey taking up drug use again and as a result Bret is responsible for the death of DBS. I'm sure I am forgetting other obvious or likely lies. The book is overflowing with bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 He claims that he met his wife in a chance encounter that may have been the result of divine intervention. She was actually a high school student he met while substitute teaching. He claims that after speaking to the investigators, Bret told him that he was sure Vince murdered Owen to get back at Bret for punching him out in Montreal. He says that he met Dynamite and Davey at the same time in a story that I'm pretty sure was proven to be BS when he first told it on WWE Confidential when Davey died. His account of what went down in Montreal is wildly inaccurate and he refuses to believe that Bret had any kind of creative control clause. He says Steve Austin sent a note to Melanie Pillman about being unable to attend Brian's funeral because something else came up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I think Bret did say Vince wanted to bring in Bruce in 97. But Bruce fucked it up when he stiffed Austin outside the ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Who the fuck is Bruce Hart anyway except one of the biggest and most infamous bullshiter on the scene ? Man, this sounds as godawful as Diana's book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Joe Babinsack on Bruce Hart's book. Dylan can back me up (and I'll probably try to get my review for Cageside finally done over the weekend), but to see that book as anything other than the ramblings of a pathological liar with a similarly pathological hatred of Bret is pretty out there. I read the review when it was on the front page. In addition to what you said I found it one of the worst structured Babby columns in some time (hellva feat). Never read Babinsack before. Is he usually that awful? Couldn't help but notice when reading that how poorly it was written Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Schneider Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 He is usually worse. Out of all the awful people who write for the WON page he is the most awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Bruce's book is totally insane. I cannot imagine anyone with even a passing knowledge of wrestling history not sniffing out most of the bullshit and even someone with no knowledge of history would be able to tell pretty easily that everything Bruce says about Bret is likely to be a hate filled lie. There's an easy joke here about Babinsack being totally insane too, so it isn't surprising that he didn't sniff out Bruce's bullshit. But having read a lot of Babinsack, a theme that is almost as prevalent as his hard on for indy wrestling, particularly Shimmer, is that all his book/DVD reviews are worded in such a manner that any criticism is fainthearted and he ends up putting over the product that he's been given a free copy to review. It's part of the reason he's so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 all his book/DVD reviews are worded in such a manner that any criticism is fainthearted and he ends up putting over the product that he's been given a free copy to reviewExcept if it involves gays or Marxists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Bruce's book is totally insane. I cannot imagine anyone with even a passing knowledge of wrestling history not sniffing out most of the bullshit and even someone with no knowledge of history would be able to tell pretty easily that everything Bruce says about Bret is likely to be a hate filled lie. There's an easy joke here about Babinsack being totally insane too, so it isn't surprising that he didn't sniff out Bruce's bullshit. But having read a lot of Babinsack, a theme that is almost as prevalent as his hard on for indy wrestling, particularly Shimmer, is that all his book/DVD reviews are worded in such a manner that any criticism is fainthearted and he ends up putting over the product that he's been given a free copy to review. It's part of the reason he's so bad. Dylan explains why I have sent Babinsack multiple copies of DVDs for the indy promotion I assist with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Judging by Todd Martin's Raw review he wanted Miz/Cena vs. Gabriel/Slater to be a 50/50 affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Bruce Hart is on with Dave & Bryan on this Wednesday. Poor Dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Bruce Hart is on with Dave & Bryan on this Wednesday. Poor Dave. Unlistenable. Lance Storm really buried Bruce on the following edition of the show. 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.