So, "Ring of Hell"...

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

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?

 

lol u got dirt on me doggy BAAAAALLLLLLLLLIIIIINNNNNNNN. I wish! My name at the F4W board is Sensei John Kreese, but I only have like 5 posts there.

[rovert]

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

Well I cant disagree with that. As of out of hand it is youve cultivated their perception of you to an extent. That perception isnt helped by in your words going overboard about a book at that point you hadnt even read and especially a book of this nature.

 

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).

 

Still it doesnt turn every act of kindness by Benoit as myth though. Im no Benoit apologist but come on.

[Bix]

Still it doesnt discount every act of kindness by Benoit as myth though.

I've never said that was the case.

[rovert]

Still it doesnt discount every act of kindness by Benoit as myth though.

I've never said that was the case.

 

Going back to your thread on F4W:

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?

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I don't think he meant that Benoit never had any good traits. Just that his neuroses were present his entire life, not just after breaking his neck/Eddie died or whatever breaking point one wants to point to.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

And another thing, and this is sad to say, but Re: that "what a gay bitch" comment, how many wrestlers could you see making that exact same comment? A fucking lot, if you ask me. And obviously, there's something wrong with someone who thinks like that, but if I heard a wrestler call a crying dude a "gay bitch,"* I'd just see it as a manifestation of the homophobia and alpha male syndrome that's so prevalent in wrestling, not as Family Murderer Warning Signs.

 

*Before the murders, I mean. If I heard it now, it'd likely set off some bells that a wrestler was quoting Benoit.

[rovert]

I don't think he meant that Benoit never had any good traits. Just that his neuroses were present his entire life, not just after breaking his neck/Eddie died or whatever breaking point one wants to point to.

If it was a poor choice of words then it was a poor choice of words.

 

Regardless this plays into my view that Randazzo should leave his PR to a professional and not an internet "street team" of some of his friends in the future. I think this was a pretty bad misjudgement on his part IMO.

[Bix]

I don't think he meant that Benoit never had any good traits. Just that his neuroses were present his entire life, not just after breaking his neck/Eddie died or whatever breaking point one wants to point to.

This, and also that they tried to ignore his role in the WWE hazing stories as much as possible in the same way that Dave ignored Flair's drunken flashing habits before the "Flight From Hell" lawsuit.

[Bix]

And another thing, and this is sad to say, but Re: that "what a gay bitch" comment, how many wrestlers could you see making that exact same comment? A fucking lot, if you ask me. And obviously, there's something wrong with someone who thinks like that, but if I heard a wrestler call a crying dude a "gay bitch,"* I'd just see it as a manifestation of the homophobia and alpha male syndrome that's so prevalent in wrestling, not as Family Murderer Warning Signs.

 

*Before the murders, I mean. If I heard it now, it'd likely set off some bells that a wrestler was quoting Benoit.

I think it says something that Jericho cut this story out of his book after the murders but left in the self-punishment with excessive levels of exercise stuff.

[S.L.L.]

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."

Also, it's something that predates Owen's death (they did it when Doink beat Crush half to death with his prosthetic arm in '93, for example). After Owen, it got a name and they added the bit where Jerry Lawler goes to the ring to check on the victim in question. But yeah, never something that was actually used to signal that something bad actually happened.

 

Off-hand, the other one that pops into my head is Randazzo attributing all the success of Kevin Sullivan's Satan-worshiper act to Woman and saying Sullivan had no charisma, which is nonsense and seemed like him reaching to inflate Nancy's importance in the wrestling world to make her role in the narrative feel more significant.

[Bix]

If I remember the Sullivan chapter correctly, he was arguing that Sullivan was aesthetically the least interesting member of the Army of Darkness, which isn't far-fetched at all.

 

As far as the Owen Voice, yes, it was "abused" post-Owen, pre-Vince goes boom but I believe that there were people who included it as part of their indignation against the Vince death angle.

[Dylan Waco]

"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?

 

 

Actualy Pain& Passion is one of the very few wrestling books I haven't read, so I can't comment on a comparison there. On a comparison to every other wrestling book I've ever read? Ring of Hell is an easy winner. It also happens to be one of the more poorly edited books you'll ever see though.

 

Also the sales of the book tend to indicate that your theory about PR not working well doesn't really hold up. It was far more succesful than the publisher expected. A lot of that had to do with folks like Bix talking it up the net.

 

I helped line up an hour long radio interview for Matthew here in town, which was really my only "PR"/marketing contribution (unless you count reviewing the book for my blog, which is a stretch) and I know for a fact that the book sold very well locally shortly after that interview. So again I think the "triumphalism" approach worked pretty well

[Dylan Waco]

Still it doesnt discount every act of kindness by Benoit as myth though.

I've never said that was the case.

 

Going back to your thread on F4W:

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?

I'm sure you can see the difference between those two things.

 

Also worth noting that the book clearly does do that, and to be honest Jericho's book arguably does as well.

[S.L.L.]

I don't think he meant that Benoit never had any good traits. Just that his neuroses were present his entire life, not just after breaking his neck/Eddie died or whatever breaking point one wants to point to.

If it was a poor choice of words then it was a poor choice of words.

 

Regardless this plays into my view that Randazzo should leave his PR to a professional and not an internet "street team" of some of his friends in the future. I think this was a pretty bad misjudgement on his part IMO.

 

Ultimately, I'm not sure if it made a difference either way, except this way it made all involved - myself included - look like buffoons.

 

The nature of backlash is something that interests me, and that I've written about a few times before. You get enough people annoyed by a heavily-pushed thing and they'll launch a counter-offensive that's just as heavy, even if the situation doesn't warrant it or is counter-productive to their goals. I think after all of the excuse made for Benoit, the semi-excuses made for Benoit, the outright denials of anything being wrong, the limp-wristed acknowledgments of things being wrong but staunch refusal to see anything change, and everything else I put on that bingo card, there was definitely a sect of people who were eager to see Matt tear the business and it's apologists a new one, and reacted with a decidedly sloppy, overeager, transparent message-board-discussion-as-PR-campaign. The backlash to that was that the book was as good as advertised, which came from both the expected Benoit defenders and pseudo-defenders, as well as a lot of the same people who were pushing the book in the first place, because those guys will backlash against anything if you give them half a chance (no dis).

 

But yeah, that was probably a bad idea.

[Bob Morris]

As I've stated before and will state again, the whole reason Ring of Hell exists is to illustrate that the wrestling business is a fucked up business filled with fucked up individuals. It just tells its story in a harsher tone and refuses to play favorites.

 

It's not a perfect book, and as I wrote in my own review, it's not the "gospel" among wrestling books. But it's one I consider a must-read simply for the perspective it will give you on the wrestling business, and honestly, a reality check plenty of people out there need. Not saying anyone in this thread needs it, but I'm sure everyone posting in this thread can think of at least one person somewhere who has left the blinders on when it comes to their favorite wrestling personality.

 

The fact we still keep bringing up stuff about the book six months after its release shows it had an impact on those who read it, even if the wrestling business itself is still going about business as usual (although to be fair, more is being done than there was 20 years ago).

 

As far as anything Meltzer has to say, people should remember that the only way one is going to know the truth is to personally witness it yourself. It doesn't make either Ring of Hell or what Meltzer writes the absolute truth, although both will have some truth to them. And it's not because either Randazzo or Meltzer is intentionally lying... it's simply the version of events they have gathered and thus presented to the reader. It's ultimately up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions, but it's important to take the blinders off regarding whoever you consider to be your favorite wrestler.

[rovert]

Actualy Pain& Passion is one of the very few wrestling books I haven't read, so I can't comment on a comparison there.

This maybe a reason why you liked Ring of Hell so much? As Pain & Passion served as important source material for the Calgary chapters.

 

On a comparison to every other wrestling book I've ever read? Ring of Hell is an easy winner. It also happens to be one of the more poorly edited books you'll ever see though.

I don’t want to start listing books but have you read Foley's first book, Hitman or Jerichos for example?

 

Also the sales of the book tend to indicate that your theory about PR not working well doesn't really hold up. It was far more succesful than the publisher expected. A lot of that had to do with folks like Bix talking it up the net.

The level discourse around the book was more centered on the circumstances of the book than its content. In this aspect the campaign was a failure.

 

I helped line up an hour long radio interview for Matthew here in town, which was really my only "PR"/marketing contribution (unless you count reviewing the book for my blog, which is a stretch) and I know for a fact that the book sold very well locally shortly after that interview.

I’ve no problems friends doing friends favours.

 

So again I think the "triumphalism" approach worked pretty well

Not in the area of public opinion from my experience. I think it added a level of sleaze, sensationalism and eye rolling to the book's release.

 

I'm sure you can see the difference between those two things.

Well I tried to clarify it at the time and since then. I never got it until now so it is still suspect for me.

 

The fact we still keep bringing up stuff about the book six months after its release shows it had an impact on those who read it, even if the wrestling business itself is still going about business as usual (although to be fair, more is being done than there was 20 years ago).

I'll argue people are still just talking about the circumstances of the book’s release and NOT the book. This a result of a combination of the pre release “triumphalismâ€, the book not living up to expectations and the author’s delivery of the information contained I the book.

 

I really dont want to come down too hard on you guys but I think that this criticism is warranted.

[sek69]

So basically people are mad that guys went out to hype a book written by an e-friend of theirs. Do these people also go on the internet and complain that a movie or video game wasn't as good as the trailers/commericals because I'm pretty sure that happens too.

 

Sure, you can say that the hype for this book was a bit excessive but there's little doubt (for me at least) that without them doing what they did no one would have even known this book was released.

[Bob Morris]

Sek is correct. I didn't know about the book until Bix mentioned it here. I'm absolutely glad I bought the book... it's not perfect but it tells a story that needs to be told more often because it may be the only way pro wrestling might clean up its act.

 

As much as it's hard to see people who are put on a pedestal start getting exposed that they aren't so perfect after all, sometimes it's necessary to see needed changes happen. Lyle Alzado was loved by many NFL fans and his admittance of taking steroids was a major step in the NFL addressing a problem it had ignored for some time. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens weren't universally loved, but the finger getting pointed at them for usage of performance enhancers was among the things that forced MLB to take a closer look at this.

 

The WWE was forced to take a closer look at the issue of drug usage among its wrestlers following the death of Eddie Guerrero and what happened to Chris Benoit, but there are still plenty of things not just the WWE, but everyone involved in pro wrestling, could do to keep improving the situation.

 

That, in a nutshell, is supposed to be the intent of Ring of Hell... to reveal these things and let it be known that changes need to happen in more than just curbing drug usage. And while Foley, Jericho and Hart might have had better writing styles or finished products than Randazzo, their books were intended to tell their personal tales, not to expose serious problems in the wrestling industry. They may have told you about certain problems they encountered, but in most cases, they were ones most Internet fans knew about (WCW's lack of organization, the Hart family not being one big happy family, certain wrestlers being egotistical, etc.). Ring of Hell did more to bring to light things people may not have known about and that is ultimately its strongest point, regardless of what one thinks of the writing style.

[kjh]

--Quick note that this week's issue of the Observer will be out tomorrow on the web site instead of today. There is a 1991 issue up new right which has a lot of cool stuff, including negotiations that fell through that would have made Jerry Lawler NWA champion when the title still meant something, one of many Paul Heyman suspensions from WCW and the famous bar incident with Brian Pillman, Mike Graham and Sid Vicious and exactly what went down that night. Hopefully this will make a good correction for the paperback version of the "Ring of Hell" book.

[Loss]

Look at Dave with his sneaky snide comments ...

[Guest The 3H's]

Well, he's right.

[kjh]

Just because someone is right doesn't mean they aren't also being snide or patronising. I'm sure Matt Randazzo isn't dense enough to have already forgotten the factual mistakes Dave Meltzer pointed out in his review of his book in the Observer six months ago. The comment to me came across like Dave Meltzer got his feelings hurt for some reason (why, I should have been the one quoted about Brian Pillman and Chris Benoit in WCW, not Bruce Mitchell or Wade Keller).

[Guest The 3H's]

I think you're overreacting.

[rovert]

Just because someone is right doesn't mean they aren't also being snide or patronising.

And Randazzo is an angel.

[Guest The 3H's]

That is what it seems like.