Jingus Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I guess I can accept that. His matches this year only bored me, while last year they were the type of stuff to induce seizures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *FH* Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Ok what exactly is the problem with Michael Cole?I've never liked him, for a variety of reasons. He always sounded phony and insincere to me (yes, I know, but I mean even by wrestling's standards). His attempts to get over various Announcer Catchphrases came off as even lamer than Ross and Styles doing the same thing. I'd agree that he's gotten better over the years, while Tenay has gotten radically worse. It seems like these awards are often treated more like a Lifetime Achievement deal rather than confining their judgement to solely what has been presented over the past year. Hence the votes for Grisham and Coach, when technically they haven't even been television announcers during the voting period. Who rates Khali??? Again, the voters mistake "Most Overrated" for "most untalented guy in a high-up spot in a company." That actually is Meltzer's definition for the award, though. Not that that makes Khali overrated, anyway.I'm confused, are you saying that the "low talent, high on the card" definition doesn't fit Khali? No, I meant that "overrated," usually, means that something has been rated too highly in the first place. I don't see anyone saying Khali is great and thus, it's incorrect to call him "overrated." I didn't know Dave changed the definition, as it related to the WON awards, to mean "guy whose spot is disproportionate to his talent." I just thought the voters hijacked it every year to protest guys they didn't like or to dismiss guys who didn't fit a narrow definition of "good worker." Maybe there should be separate awards for this vs a true "most overrated" that actually does point out the times where the king is not wearing clothes. I think that would probably generate more discussion than just bleating "lol khali is teh sux0r!!11one." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I just can't listen to Michael Cole, he's a disaster. I never again want to hear him refer to a match as 'this thing'. I never again want to watch a heel cheat to win and hear Cole shout 'he just stole one'. I never again want to go to a commercial break with his assertion that 'the match hangs in the balance'. He's terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Schneider Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I just can't listen to Michael Cole, he's a disaster. I never again want to hear him refer to a match as 'this thing'. I never again want to watch a heel cheat to win and hear Cole shout 'he just stole one'. I never again want to go to a commercial break with his assertion that 'the match hangs in the balance'. He's terrible. You just hate him because he's black Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I just can't listen to Michael Cole, he's a disaster. I never again want to hear him refer to a match as 'this thing'. I never again want to watch a heel cheat to win and hear Cole shout 'he just stole one'. I never again want to go to a commercial break with his assertion that 'the match hangs in the balance'. He's terrible. You just hate him because he's black I forget, does anarchistxx hate gays, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Gays, blacks, jews, women. You name it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest onlxn Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I definitely can't think of a play-by-play announcer going right now that I like as well as Cole. J.R. and Styles have stronger personalities, but they don't service stuff as well... Tenay's the worst thing going... serious ROH Prazak doesn't do much for me. Cole seems kinda dopy, but he gets the right stuff across. Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Reading the list of past winners, I found it hilarious that it took Brody getting murdered to break WCCW's grip on the Most Disgusting Promotional Tactic Award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 It also helped that Fritz had sold off World Class in '88, so he didn't get a full year in. If he hadn't gotten out of the business, I'm sure Fritz would have found a way to win the award a few more times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 I didn't know Dave changed the definition It's who is most overrated or underrated by the promotion.. Whose value the promotion "misunderstands". There should be a better word for it but not something hijacked by readers. Meltz' definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 I may have asked this before, but why was Backlund as WWF champion the Most Disgusting Tactic of 1982? Was that just an especially chill year in wrestling where no one did anything scummy? I mean, Bob may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't say it was a disgusting tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 I may have asked this before, but why was Backlund as WWF champion the Most Disgusting Tactic of 1982? Was that just an especially chill year in wrestling where no one did anything scummy? I mean, Bob may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't say it was a disgusting tactic. I'm not sure what it would be offhand, but there must have been a more disgusting promotional tactic in 1982. Meltzer just really, really hated Backlund, and well, we've seen how his readers tend to take his opinions to heart when voting in the year-end awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'd account it more to limited readership, limited "inside" communication for Meltzer and lack of fast communication. 1982 certainly wasn't like today where we hear of ROH's foibles instantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 I may have asked this before, but why was Backlund as WWF champion the Most Disgusting Tactic of 1982? Was that just an especially chill year in wrestling where no one did anything scummy? I mean, Bob may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't say it was a disgusting tactic. I linked in this thread at Classics to a couple of earlier ones on the topic: Backlund in the 1982 Observer question? I was incorrect in the second thread linked that it meant the end of Bob's chances of getting in the HOF. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *FH* Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 I may have asked this before, but why was Backlund as WWF champion the Most Disgusting Tactic of 1982? Was that just an especially chill year in wrestling where no one did anything scummy? I mean, Bob may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't say it was a disgusting tactic. I linked in this thread at Classics to a couple of earlier ones on the topic: Backlund in the 1982 Observer question? I was incorrect in the second thread linked that it meant the end of Bob's chances of getting in the HOF. John Care to c&p the meat of the argument? I don't feel like getting malware from the Sunshine State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 WC got rid of the spyware. As far as this year's awards go, is it just me or was Dave really weirdly emo about the placements he didn't like, especially when it came to TNA winning worst TV show? Whining that a few weeks of one bad feud made ECW the worst and how TNA must be better because its ratings went up a little and ECW's went down a lot was strange and out of place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 I don't remember Dave going over each award like this since the days of the Yearbooks. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 He did it last year and you said the same thing then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 WC got rid of the spyware.They still have the most noxious part: the posters. I'm currently in an arguement over there in which people are claiming that the WWE has never been racist in its depiction of minorities. I bring up Saba Simba and a bunch of other examples, and get "well, those are just gimmicks, aren't supposed to take 'em SERIOUS or nothin" in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 He did it last year and you said the same thing then. Hell... last year's awards are as forgettable as this year's awards. Superstar's book won Book of the Year, which was a hoot. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 That one link reminded me that Dave apparently under the impression Backlund is shoot retarded and that seems to color his opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Reading through the Backlund stuff, he reminds me a lot of a Bert Blyleven/Tim Raines-type Hall of Fame candidate, who has his supporters who point to facts (great draw at MSG, above average or better worker during most of his title reign with great matches against this, that, or the other opponent, etc) and his detractors use generalities that don't mean anything (like "I was there for Backlund's title reign and he never felt like a Hall of Famer") to make the case against him. As a Blyleven/Raines supporter for the Baseball Hall of Fame, I hope their voters are as progressive as WON Hall of Fame voters would eventually prove to be and put them in the Hall of Fame eventually. I guess that makes Superstar Graham the Jim Rice of the WON Hall of Fame (assuming Rice is voted in next year, which is almost a stone cold lock)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Good analogies. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Reading through the Backlund stuff, he reminds me a lot of a Bert Blyleven/Tim Raines-type Hall of Fame candidate, who has his supporters who point to facts (great draw at MSG, above average or better worker during most of his title reign with great matches against this, that, or the other opponent, etc) and his detractors use generalities that don't mean anything (like "I was there for Backlund's title reign and he never felt like a Hall of Famer") to make the case against him. As a Blyleven/Raines supporter for the Baseball Hall of Fame, I hope their voters are as progressive as WON Hall of Fame voters would eventually prove to be and put them in the Hall of Fame eventually. I guess that makes Superstar Graham the Jim Rice of the WON Hall of Fame (assuming Rice is voted in next year, which is almost a stone cold lock)?Graham's at least a legit HOFer. Rice isn't within a thousand miles based on skill alone. I do agree with the general statement though. Too many people look at this things based on gut emotions and then formulate their arguments and facts afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 As far as this year's awards go, is it just me or was Dave really weirdly emo about the placements he didn't like, especially when it came to TNA winning worst TV show? Whining that a few weeks of one bad feud made ECW the worst and how TNA must be better because its ratings went up a little and ECW's went down a lot was strange and out of place. His response paragraphs were really embarrasing this year. I mean last year I don't remember them being as laugh out loud funny. Not just emo in the sense that he came off genuinely emotionally hurt that "the wrong guy won" but in the contradictions form one response to the next (this time comparing apples to oranges means we shouldn't compare them, this time it means we've compared them incorrectly), the abolutely nut ball arguments about why voters were wrong about most overrated or underrated, how he thought international expansion was reason that Vince was candidate for best promoter, that Tenay and Styles low votes as best announcer were due to bad product, the whole TNA vs. ECW thing, etc etc. And EMLL having a better year in 2007 then 20006? Each response brought more laughs than the last. 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.