So, "Ring of Hell"...

[Johnny Sorrow]

Really? The Haynes shoot is reputable?

There's enough shit out there on the record to show that wrestling is fucked up without using RF Shoots as "sources".

You do understand that lots of books quote interviews others have conducted and it's considered normal, right? I just read this book about standup comedy, a much more mainstream subject, and there are plenty of interviews by others cited. What does it matter? Haynes most likely would've told Randazzo the exact same thing. Should he have left out all of the Benoit & Guerrero (dead guys who he couldn't talk to) quotes from other sources because he didn't interview them himself?

 

Fuck, "Sex, Lies, and Headlocks" comes off better than this and that was full of errors, but the Author never came off like he had an agenda.

It's been awhile since I read that book, but I remember it having a pretty strong "Vince is EVOL" tone. Also, the errors were fixed for the paperback.

 

Whatever, it's all not that important in the long run. Wrestling isn't going anywhere, it's not gonna change,

The newsletter sources revolting is a change, and what's with the trend (starting with Meltzer and continued by you) acting is if this book had a chance to be a giant mainstream crossover hit that shook the entire world? Randazzo's mainstream interviews were minor ones, and it would've taken a big push from a major news outlet that happened to come across the book to get any further.

 

and this book will end up collecting dust at Borders next to the Kane "biography."

Sold out its first 2 printings in 2 weeks.

 

Not at my Borders. I've read the whole thing during visits on my way home from work by taking the one copy and dog earing where I'd left off. So many stories I've heard on shoot videoes.

 

Sex, Lies, and Headlocks in no way had a "Vince is evil" tone. It was pretty much "Here's what happened". Granted, they got a LOT wrong, but the dude did have a fine disertation of the original steroid trial and the BodyBuilding fed stuff.

 

And Bix, chill..man.

 

(starting with Meltzer and continued by you)

I continued something? I'm a 38 year old douchebag. I haven't continued anything in recent years except being dull.

 

I do think that perhaps a book that has an "important" story to tell would make the national radar and not just be argued about by dudes on the internet. No one cares. Because it's Pro Wrestling. I'm not being uncaring or a dick here. But the fact is...no one cares. It's sad, I guess. But no one actually gives a shit outside of a handful of fans of said "terrible" industry. Shit, I was actually awaiting Nancy Grace to have your pal on her show, but no go. It's a dead story to the media now.

 

I'm not saying that's good, it's just the way it is. No one actually cares about the clowns at the Circus or the Elephants. It's a bitch to be sure, but there ya go. The sad truth is that no one gives a shit about Pro Wrestling and what goes on in it, and if a book needs to be written about it to try and alert people to the problems, it shouldn't come off as ramblings of a disgruntled ex-fan.

[Jingus]

Sex, Lies, and Headlocks in no way had a "Vince is evil" tone. It was pretty much "Here's what happened". Granted, they got a LOT wrong, but the dude did have a fine disertation of the original steroid trial and the BodyBuilding fed stuff.

I've heard many times about all the mistakes which were supposedly in SL&H. I've got the apparently "corrected" paperback version, and noticed a few minor errors here and there, getting a couple of dates wrong, that sort of thing. But nothing really important. What all was so thoroughly fucked up in the hardback edition which gave the book its reputation for inaccuracy?

[Bob Morris]

Since I haven't seen this posted in the thread yet, here's a link to a Randazzo column at UGO.com about what can be done to reform pro wrestling.

 

http://www.ugo.com/sports/how-to-reform-pr...tling/?cur=main

 

I think this column at least demonstrates that Randazzo isn't somebody who hates pro wrestling, contrary to the perception some people have. If he truly hated pro wrestling, his suggestion would be to get rid of the business altogether, not to reform it.

[ohtani's jacket]

Found this by accident, Black Cat talking about Mexico and Japan -- http://kuroneko.milkcafe.to/history.html

[rovert]

Matt Randazzo, who wrote "Ring of Hell," is looking for any readers of the book who have any suggestions on corrections or improvements to write him at [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Where do you start?

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Nowhere. This book is infallible and anyone who has the slightest criticism of it is an asshole. Dave Meltzer is a sociopath.

[Bix]

Nowhere. This book is infallible and anyone who has the slightest criticism of it is an asshole. Dave Meltzer is a sociopath.

Shit, I DID say that, didn't I?

[Guest The 3H's]

Basically

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

[rovert]

I think some of you lads should have done a better job proofing it for your buddy.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Nowhere. This book is infallible and anyone who has the slightest criticism of it is an asshole. Dave Meltzer is a sociopath.

Shit, I DID say that, didn't I?

 

You've been a one-man PolishBobStupak Defense Force here, at TSM, at F4W and DVDVR. You clearly don't take criticism of the book well. And S.L.L. made that bizarre comment that Meltzer comes off as someone who would rather see Daniel Benoit die than see WWE go out of business.

 

I didn't think there were too many mistakes in the book. There were some typos and mistakes about dates and such, but less than many other wrestling books I've seen. The thing about Nitro being started as a result of someone playing a joke on Bischoff is something I've never heard before. And shoot interviews aren't exactly the perfect source for information due to the inherent trustworthiness of wrestlers, but who the fuck else is going to tell you about what goes on in wrestling? I doubt that there are too many wrestlers who exaggerate how bad the business is as opposed to those who kayfabe all the awful shit that goes on in an attempt to "protect the business." I also liked the way he seemed to provide a counterpoint to everything Paul Heyman said, because, you know, you don't want to take that guy's word on its own. I still don't get the Kevin Cook and tomk quotes. They just seem like an attempt to say "Hey, I'm going to give a shout-out to my DVDVR budz!" Quoting message board posts for expert analysis in a published book? Well, it IS wrestling. I guess that's the best you're going to get. At least he didn't quote from LordsofPain.

[Loss]

Not a direct criticism of anyone in particular, but I wish we could just argue the points being made about wrestling in the book instead of talking about the author's motives and the motives of those who liked the book. It reminds me of when WWE was going all out to bury Marc Mero personally in the aftermath instead of responding to any of the points he made. There's not really anything shady about someone writing his book and his friends defending it, is there?

 

In Bix's defense, he has both praised and criticized Ring of Hell, just like most people who have read the book. He liked it more than he didn't, but he's not the only one.

[Dylan Waco]

There is also the fact that the folks that hate the book are a lot more annoying than the folks that defend it to a fault. Honestly if I have to read another person say something along the lines of "Randazzo is scum! Why didn't he write more about the positives of our favorite wrestlers!" I may barf. If anything Matthew went overboard at times doing move-by-move play-by-plays to show how fanboys like us could (and did) become so enamored with someone who was at best a walking, brain dead, shell of a human, and at worst something akin to the Manson family. Yet in a book about a guy who off'ed his whole family and the background of the fucked up business that promotes those who take their fake craft so seriously that they are willing to die for it, we are supposed to be upset because there isn't enough talk about the fine technical application of Dean Malenko's top rope gutbuster. WTF?

 

Also I was a little "eh" on the internet sources myself, but then I remember that this is a culture where someone like Jerome Corsi can write a slash and burn book on a future President, relying entirely on internet "sources" and it makes the bestseller list for months. In that light pointing to the very real sick side of internet wrestling geekry (and the few critics within its gates) seems a lot less absurd.

 

Then again what do I know, I am a friend of Matthew's as well and thus must be shilling for the book.

 

[sek69]

I don't know about Meltzer rather seeing Daniel die than the business, but of all the things to take issue with he sure did seem to be most upset about how Pillman was portrayed rather than say, the guy who murdered his family.

 

Also, I agree with Dylan. It's not that the book is a perfectly written masterpiece but a LOT of people are upset over someone breaking "internet kayfabe" if you will and actually admitting wrestling is a scummy profession.

[Loss]

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

 

Has anyone else read this? The comment about Dave preferring Daniel to die over WWE dying got me thinking about it.

 

In the story, Omelas is a utopian city of happiness and delight, whose inhabitants are smart and cultured. Everything about Omelas is pleasing, except for the secret of the city: the good fortune of Omelas requires that an unfortunate child be kept in filth, darkness and misery, and that all her citizens know of this on coming of age.

 

After being exposed to the truth some of the citizens, both young and old chose to leave the Paradise of the city of Omelas.

Rumored to be based on this quote 19th century philosopher William James:

 

Or if the hypothesis were offered us of a world in which Messrs. Fourier's and Bellamy's and Morris's utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?

The main reason I mention this is because while I can't speak for SLL's intentions with saying that, I can say it's possible he didn't mean it as an unimaginably horrible insult. There are people who choose to stay wrestling fans -- millions, in fact -- knowing that someone is suffering greatly for the heightened entertainment of the masses, and there are those who, upon becoming hardcore fans, have chosen to leave in protest (or at least thought about it) because they're uncomfortable with the costs of the entertainment. If philosophers have been wrestling with questions like this for hundreds of years and there are still divisions over it, wrestling fans having divisions over it for 18 months after a tragedy doesn't really seem like a stretch.

 

It's not a completely perfect analogy, but there are similarities.

[Loss]

I should also add that in the past, Dave has said that arguing that wrestling should go away is a waste of time because wrestling isn't going to go away, so the focus should be on making it better.

[S.L.L.]

The main reason I mention this is because while I can't speak for SLL's intentions with saying that, I can say it's possible he didn't mean it as an unimaginably horrible insult. There are people who choose to stay wrestling fans -- millions, in fact -- knowing that someone is suffering greatly for the heightened entertainment of the masses, and there are those who, upon becoming hardcore fans, have chosen to leave in protest (or at least thought about it) because they're uncomfortable with the costs of the entertainment. If philosophers have been wrestling with questions like this for hundreds of years and there are still divisions over it, wrestling fans having divisions over it for 18 months after a tragedy doesn't really seem like a stretch.

Well, fuck, we're all guilty parties to some degree or another, aren't we?

 

Here's the quote in question. I wrote it last July, I don't think my thoughts have changed much since then, my only problem was I'm not sure if I expressed those thoughts clearly. I mean, I try to pick my words carefully, but it doesn't always work out so well.

 

Really, one of the many things that the Benoit murders illustrated to me is that most of the anti-WWE/anti-McMahon people out there are all show and no go. They talk tough when HHH and other 'roid monsters get pushed too hard, or when someone like Eddie Guerrero croaks in a hotel room because of McMahon's policies, and they whine and complain about why things are the way they are, and how things need to change. But the second one of the all-time great workers kills his family and himself, and there's any kind of real outside scrutiny of wrestling's problems, they all rally around their fearless leader to defend the biz, because deep down, they'd rather see Daniel Benoit die than see WWE die. This is essentially how Meltzer comes off here. With him, the mark element is compounded by a "boys in the back" element, since he was tight with Pillman and Benoit and other guys in the business, so I'm sure bad things being said about those guys strikes him on a personal level. Still, he's a reporter. He's kinda expected to look at this with some degree of objectivity, especially when he had previously been bitching about all the things wrong with wrestling. He really seems to be exposing his true colors here, and it's pretty embarrassing.

Comment was meant as an insult, but admittedly it's more complex of a situation than you see in your average internet moron. It's tempered by the acknowledgment that Dave had a personal connection to the scumbags in question, and as such, accusations about them hit him on a personal level that would understandably cloud his judgment further. I'm sure most of us have experienced situations where a friend or loved one fucked up to some degree or another and we're forced to choose between defending the person we care about or dealing honestly with what they did and "betraying" them. Usually, we're talking about minor infractions, but when it's something more serious, it tends to be a really hard choice to make, even if the latter option is clearly the "right" one. So maybe I should have been a little more fair to Dave, as I'm sure reading a book that was basically a laundry list of the horrendous faults of a lot of people he knew and cared about would have put him on the defensive. Objectively, he's still wrong, and he still "comes off" as a guy who would rather see the Daniel dead that the WWE dead, though I doubt he actually thinks along those lines. But in any case, probably unfair for me to expect him to judge the book with a clear head given it's contents and his connection to them.

[kjh]

I don't know about Meltzer rather seeing Daniel die than the business, but of all the things to take issue with he sure did seem to be most upset about how Pillman was portrayed rather than say, the guy who murdered his family.

That really isn't surprising given that Pillman was Dave's best friend in the business and he really wasn't all that close to Benoit. I get the sense that Dave feels he owes it to his best friend for his true story to be out there. Whereas with the Benoits he seems content in the knowledge that we will never know the true story, other than the fact that we do know it wasn't due to one single factor like steroids.

[Bix]

I think some of you lads should have done a better job proofing it for your buddy.

I didn't get to proof the book. He was trying to get it cleared with the publisher to send me the manuscript but it didn't work out.

 

Nowhere. This book is infallible and anyone who has the slightest criticism of it is an asshole. Dave Meltzer is a sociopath.

Shit, I DID say that, didn't I?

 

You've been a one-man PolishBobStupak Defense Force here, at TSM, at F4W and DVDVR. You clearly don't take criticism of the book well. And S.L.L. made that bizarre comment that Meltzer comes off as someone who would rather see Daniel Benoit die than see WWE go out of business.

I was fine with the legitimate criticism of the book, and it was out there, but a hell of a lot of it was dumb. You had:

 

- Karl Stern comparing the writing of the book to getting Jesus Christ killed.

- Dave Meltzer comparing jumping off a cage onto your broken neck to Jim Carrey being really driven.

- The shoot interview & book quoting being an issue when it's a perfectly legitimate piece of journalism. Pain and Passion was actually as guilty of this as Ring of Hell but you don't hear anyone ripping Heath McCoy over it, I guess because it's not a "controversial" book and Pain & Passion had end notes (Ring of Hell was planned as having footnotes but the publisher axed them for space/time considerations).

 

And so on.

[rovert]

I think some of you lads should have done a better job proofing it for your buddy.

I didn't get to proof the book. He was trying to get it cleared with the publisher to send me the manuscript but it didn't work out.

Well then you still went out on a limb to fair degree with it regardless. In a sense you over hyped then and it hindsight.

 

I was fine with the legitimate criticism of the book, and it was out there, but a hell of a lot of it was dumb. You had:

 

- Karl Stern comparing the writing of the book to getting Jesus Christ killed.

- Dave Meltzer comparing jumping off a cage onto your broken neck to Jim Carrey being really driven.

- The shoot interview & book quoting being an issue when it's a perfectly legitimate piece of journalism. Pain and Passion was actually as guilty of this as Ring of Hell but you don't hear anyone ripping Heath McCoy over it, I guess because it's not a "controversial" book and Pain & Passion had end notes (Ring of Hell was planned as having footnotes but the publisher axed them for space/time considerations).

 

And so on.

Well in fairness Bix you framed the book in a topic on F4W with a topic title "Anyone bought Ring of Hell yet? Too hot for WON/F4W?" whether this was send up or not.

 

Also Bix you did write this on F4W:

 

There's a DVDVR discussion that includes a bunch of tidbits:

http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.p...st&p=887101

 

I'm really looking forward to getting my copy as it seems like it's full of new information and totally debunks the "Benoit was a nice, sane guy until a few years before he died" myth that everyone from WWE to most wrestlers to Bryan and Dave have floated. Does anyone here have it yet?

bwt did compare the book to the bible and Ball Four on F4W too

 

So it works both ways.

 

I was more down on the quality of the writing rather than the journalistic aspects of the book.

[Bix]

"Too hot" was clearly a joke based on "too hot for TV" stuff, the Lagana deal, and the fact that yes, Bryan and Dave did push the "HE WAS SUCH A NICE GUY" stuff after covering up his role in the hazing stories that JBL got so much flack for. Hell, before the murders I even brought up that last part at DVDVR in starting a thread about whether or not Benoit got a free pass for cheating on his first wife, leaving her and abandoning his kids, and hazing younger wrestlers. Obviously I went overboard but I never really hid that.

[Dylan Waco]

Honestly the quality of the writing absolutely smokes anything I've seen in any other wrestling book. The problem is not the writing, which is Menckenesque and far above what could have been expected. The problem was the editing which was very bad. You could tell the book was rushed to press. Matthew definitely ran certain words and phrases into the ground because of this, but that shouldn't surprise anyone who is actually used to writing to fit deadlines.

 

To me arguing that the writing sucked is a stretch, especially if we are comparing it to other books on wrestling.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

bwt did compare the book to the bible and Ball Four on F4W too

That BWT guy was just trying to rile people up. If you've ever seen his work at DVDVR or his brief tenure at TSM, you know he's pretty great troll.

 

One thing MRV got wrong in the book is when he referred to the "Owen Voice" as a sort of secret code that lets the fans know that what they are watching is a shoot. No, the Owen Voice is what WWE announcers (and formerly WCW; I'm not so sure about TNA because I can't imagine Mike and Don not shouting for more than 10 seconds at a time) use to make the fans THINK what they're seeing is a shoot. It's used to add extra gravity to situations like Chyna's neck injury, Stacy Keibler collapsing after her mud match with chest pains, and Hogan LAYING THE SMACKDOWN ON THE ROCK'S CRIPPLED ASS NWO STYLE via a big damn truck, so that the fans will say "Oh wow, they're talking all soft like when that dude fell from the ceiling. It must be real."

[rovert]

"Too hot" was clearly a joke based on "too hot for TV" stuff, the Lagana deal, and the fact that yes, Bryan and Dave did push the "HE WAS SUCH A NICE GUY" stuff after covering up his role in the hazing stories that JBL got so much flack for. Hell, before the murders I even brought up that last part at DVDVR in starting a thread about whether or not Benoit got a free pass for cheating on his first wife, leaving her and abandoning his kids, and hazing younger wrestlers. Obviously I went overboard but I never really hid that.

I admire your candor but I feel from an "outsiders" perspective you (and others) did a poor job PR wise for the book. I don’t want to subcategorise people and groups of posters even though some have already. I think most of you have enough sense of self to know how some view you. I think a more reserved approach to plugging a book in the future will pay dividends rather than the triumphalism of this summer.

 

The book didn’t totally debunk the "myth" of Beniot as you put it either.

 

Honestly the quality of the writing absolutely smokes anything I've seen in any other wrestling book.

The problem is not the writing, which is Menckenesque and far above what could have been expected. The problem was the editing which was very bad. You could tell the book was rushed to press. Matthew definitely ran certain words and phrases into the ground because of this, but that shouldn't surprise anyone who is actually used to writing to fit deadlines.

 

To me arguing that the writing sucked is a stretch, especially if we are comparing it to other books on wrestling.

This begs the questions what Wrestling books have you read? I’ve in the past have used Pain & Passion as a comparison piece to Ring of Hell so I will again. I think Pain & Passion is a far superior book. At least you didn’t get the heavy handed use of the English language which made the book a chore to read in many parts. P&P had an even structure and a logical narrative, while Ring of Hell at points didn’t know what it wanted to be. I would dispute any claims that the book was read by the author more than once. With P&P I wasn’t distracted by the writing and the quality of writing didn’t make me question the validity of the book which Ring of Hell did.

 

That BWT guy was just trying to rile people up. If you've ever seen his work at DVDVR or his brief tenure at TSM, you know he's pretty great troll.

Arent you him?

[Bix]

"Too hot" was clearly a joke based on "too hot for TV" stuff, the Lagana deal, and the fact that yes, Bryan and Dave did push the "HE WAS SUCH A NICE GUY" stuff after covering up his role in the hazing stories that JBL got so much flack for. Hell, before the murders I even brought up that last part at DVDVR in starting a thread about whether or not Benoit got a free pass for cheating on his first wife, leaving her and abandoning his kids, and hazing younger wrestlers. Obviously I went overboard but I never really hid that.

I admire your candor but I feel from an "outsiders" perspective you (and others) did a poor job PR wise for the book. I don’t want to subcategorise people and groups of posters even though some have already. I think most of you have enough sense of self to know how some view you. I think a more reserved approach to plugging a book in the future will pay dividends rather than the triumphalism of this summer.

Any pimping at the F4W forum by me would have been dismissed anyway.

 

The book didn’t totally debunk the "myth" of Beniot as you put it either.

"HA-HA! WHAT A GAY BITCH!" (By the way, that story was going to be in Jericho's book before the murders happened).