Dave Meltzer stuff

[sek69]

I'd be fine with that as long as "casual" didn't end up being used like the n-word like it tends to in some gaming circles.

[Matt D]

I think that's the appropriate way to classify wrestling fans -- hardcore fans and casual fans.

There's hardcore, there's casual, and then there's oddball.

 

I think we generally fall into that last class. The category I see as hardcore fans like Davey Richards a lot.

[jdw]

I think that's the appropriate way to classify wrestling fans -- hardcore fans and casual fans.

That's typically what one does in other forms of fandom.

 

On the other hand, I think "casual" limiting to most people online. Those 6M who "like" the WWE's webpage are a massive chunk of the people who watch the WWE's programing around the world. Those aren't "casual" fans. They watch is most weeks.

 

In sports, we term "casual fans" as the folks who go to Dodger Stadium 1-3 times a year, and maybe watch a few games on TV, and don't pay massive attention to the Dodgers.

 

We hear the term used for the NFL: lots of casual fans watch the Super Bowl, but they're not watching the 10+ Packers games a year. Of course lots of non-fans watching the Super Bowl because it's an Event. But casual is a slice above that: they know the rules of football, know some of the storylines, know some of the stars, maybe have a team the know a bit more about (such as the home team).

 

Your serious fan might be the guy who watches 10+ games a year of the home team.

 

The hardcore watches all of them... talks to friends about them... reads and watches and listens to a fair amount of stuff on the team. Obviously there are levels of hardcore fandom: those freaking Hogs in DC are massive hardcore (and frankly crackers). But when I'm out in DC with Jeremy and Lee, Jeremy has the DirecTV package... they flip around watching a crapload of cames on a Sunday. Jeremy reads Football Insiders and can drop high end info on me like I use to be able to drop Jamesian info on Baseball back in the day. Are they hardcore NFL fans? Not as nuts as the Hogs, but Jeremy is a hardcore fan, and Lee watches a lot of NFL games during the course of the year, and not just her team (the Colts).

 

Would I be a casual NFL fan? I'm not sure. I watch a pretty fair amount of NFL. Far more than a casual fan who might watch a few Sunday Night Football games a year, a game on Thanksgiving, the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl. I don't watch as much NFL right now as I do college football, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that I watch at least 75+ NFL games on TV a season. Is that casual in a season that if you have a "home team" that wins the Super Bowl and watch just their games you'd end up watching 19-20 games? Doesn't seem casual.

 

So...

 

A WWE Fan who "likes" their Facebook page and let's day watches Raw three times a month and say SmackDown onces a month (for arguments sake let's say he's a Raw fan and not an SD fan)... that's 48 WWE programs a year. 3 Raw's a month is more than enough to keep up with all the storylines. 96 hours of WWE tv a year.

 

Is that casual?

 

Relative to how much some of us might watch, sure.

 

But I'd say he's more of a "regular Raw watcher/fan", and thus a Regular WWE Fan.

 

I think most fans who go to WWE.com and the WWE's facebook page are Regular Wrestling Fans.

 

I don't know where one crosses the line between "regular" and "hardcore".

 

I watched every Lakers game this year. Talked a lot about them, read a lot. We had a 39 page thread on them last season which was largely just three Lakers Fans shooting the shit / arguing / going on benders about the team. A lot of hours devoted to watching and talking and bullshitting about the team. Casual? No. Regular? At least, but I use to feel like a regular one when watching 50+ regular season games and reading the box scores and recaps of the rest. All 82... that was a serious committment when there's also NFL, NCAA Football (8-11 hours every Saturday), Duke Basketball (watches all that were available) and ManU (watches all that were available which was a lot... even those pre-season exhibitions in the US ).

 

Do you have to read the freaking WON to be a "hardcore WWE Fan"? I mean... those fuckers actually LOVE the WWE a hell of a lot more than Alverez and Meltzer and most of us. They watch the shit because they LOVE it, not because it pays the bills like it does for Dave and Bryan or because they're freaking masocists like some of us WWE watches before we eject.

 

In the end, we're the feaking Trekies of pro wrestling. Dave and Bryan are the equiv of the editors of Soap Opera Digest, well... back when the Soaps were doing big business rather than dying (though that actually makes the analogy work even better given the state of pro wrestling). Dave and Bryan provide info above and beyond the normal hardcore fandom level, to those folks that are basically batshit crazy about pro wrestling... similar to Dave and Bryan being batshit crazy enough to devote their freaking lives to this shithole of a profession.

 

Okay... I'm rambling here...

 

Anyway, "casual" and "hardcore" are too narrow for what we see in wrestling fandom. The folks who watch the WWE regularly and are big enough fans of the company to "like" the facebook page (as opposed to being embarassed to admit their fandom)... they're not very casual.

 

This is similar to an argument I use to have with that douchebag Scherer where he tried to place fans into neat little buckets the suited his Us vs Them bullshit games. The Us for him were the Real Fans... you know, those folks who'd go to the Bingo Hall and mark out. The people like me and Herb and Dave and even folks like Dean and Phil... they were the Them who Thought Too Much about pro wrestling. That wasn't the right way to being a wrestling fan.

 

Of course it was all bullshit. Sports talk radio at the time was filled with people *thinking* about sports. Mid-90s... so stuff like:

 

* was Griffey Jr. better than Bonds

* was Farve the next great QB?

* A-Rod vs Jetter: who was the better young SS

* Maddux vs Clemens

* where the Braves choking dogs by winning only 1 WS

* was MJ maybe... kind of... could he be... the best of all-time

 

There were literally a thousdan other things like this that Real Sports Fans thought about all the freaking time. They watched the games, read up on it, drank beers with friends while arguing it, and dialed up sports radio to argue about the shit.

 

Real Fans just don't go to games or watch them on TV, shit back and mark out for it, and then do nothing else. They think about that shit until the next game.

 

Of course Mr. Schemer never could cop to being utterly full of shit, and that he was just playing Us vs Them to put the people he didn't like in the Them bucket while playing to rubes who wanted to be in his Us bucket.

 

"The IWC" meme isn't that bad. But it's equally as useless.

 

We Are Wrestling Fans

 

For fucks sake, stop trying to jump through hoops to put parts of us into nifty little buckets that we can kick around.

 

John

[jdw]

FWIW: the above rant wasn't aimed at anyone in the thread, or anything specifically said in the thread. Just at the general sense that after all these years we can't get to a simple level:

 

"I'm a wrestling fan. A pretty big one."

 

And that somehow now being enough.

 

John

[Matt D]

FWIW: the above rant wasn't aimed at anyone in the thread, or anything specifically said in the thread. Just at the general sense that after all these years we can't get to a simple level:

 

"I'm a wrestling fan. A pretty big one."

 

And that somehow now being enough.

 

John

I think we all like semantics too much though, and no selling rants.

 

Anyway, isn't the issue a mark/smark divide anyway? you have the people who watch the product (though they obviously don't believe it's real) and then the people who follow the backstage news. Though I think the rise of social media is what complicates that now.

[jdw]

Anyway, isn't the issue a mark/smark divide anyway? you have the people who watch the product (though they obviously don't believe it's real) and then the people who follow the backstage news. Though I think the rise of social media is what complicates that now.

What % of the fans are marks? Most everyone knows it's fake.

 

John

[Matt D]

Anyway, isn't the issue a mark/smark divide anyway? you have the people who watch the product (though they obviously don't believe it's real) and then the people who follow the backstage news. Though I think the rise of social media is what complicates that now.

What % of the fans are marks? Most everyone knows it's fake.

 

John

 

I think in 1999 or 2011 the term should generally means someone who doesn't follow the backstage elements of the business.

[Cox]

Some of the biggest marks are the ones who follow backstage elements.

[kjh]

I'll trump Cox's statement with "some of the biggest marks are the ones who are backstage".

[Matt D]

I just want to cannibalize some catchy terms here and you people are making it difficult with your logic.

[Ditch]

"Savage was considered an intense, short-tempered guy, some say high strung in that era because he was

so heavily into steroids, which he and the others in the promotion who used them reportedly got from

University of Kentucky football players. Wrestling and the university’s football team had a long sordid

history. In another era, when Jim Barnett lived in town, he would spend big money for lavish parties for the

players, he and his partners would use those parties to get homosexual favors from the players, as

described in the book, “The Thin Thirty,” about the football program of the early 60s."

 

Do I even want to know the details of that last part?

[rovert]

"Savage was considered an intense, short-tempered guy, some say high strung in that era because he was

so heavily into steroids, which he and the others in the promotion who used them reportedly got from

University of Kentucky football players. Wrestling and the university’s football team had a long sordid

history. In another era, when Jim Barnett lived in town, he would spend big money for lavish parties for the

players, he and his partners would use those parties to get homosexual favors from the players, as

described in the book, “The Thin Thirty,” about the football program of the early 60s."

 

Do I even want to know the details of that last part?

http://www.mikemooneyham.com/2007/09/30/th...andals-barnett/

[kjh]

I always thought that book made Jim Wilson's claims against Jim Barnett in his earlier book Chokehold seem a lot more credible.

[El-P]

Oh my boy !

[Ditch]

http://www.mikemooneyham.com/2007/09/30/th...andals-barnett/

Thanks. Mike did a very good job on that.

[jdw]

I'll trump Cox's statement with "some of the biggest marks are the ones who are backstage".

That's vastly more accurate.

 

John

[sek69]

Dave and Bryan did another interview with Bruno. Good stuff, but it cracks me up that he still seems to think drug use didn't exist until 1984. Always struck me odd considering he worked with Superstar Graham.

 

He at least seems to be a little more honest about his fallout with Vince, mentioning he originally came out of retirement to help out but soon realized Vince was just using him to pop houses and was just keeping David around to throw him a bone.

 

Ironically between the Wellness Policy and the PG Era, both of Bruno's biggest issues with current WWE seem to be no longer a stumbling block, but that didn't seem to get brought up at all.

[MikeCampbell]

I'll trump Cox's statement with "some of the biggest marks are the ones who are backstage".

I'll go one better, Keith. Some of the biggest marks are the ones who are in the ring

[kjh]

I'll trump Cox's statement with "some of the biggest marks are the ones who are backstage".

I'll go one better, Keith. Some of the biggest marks are the ones who are in the ring

 

I was grouping in-ring performers with others who may be found backstage.

[Loss]

In 1998 or 1999, Dave did a really funny history of the Undertaker and Kane, making fun of all the times the WWF broke the continuity in their story. Does anyone remember which issue it was in, or does anyone have it and would they possibly be willing to share it? Thanks.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I know that this is indicative of extreme wrestling dorkiness on my part but I immediately recalled that the legendary Herb Kunze transcribed the article you were referring to. At least, I think this is it:

 

Kane is really Glen. I think he was once the Unahomber. As a child, he

was in a fire that killed both his parents. Except his real father was

Paul Bearer, who raised him from the age of nine. Mark was also raised

by Paul Bearer after his parents died in the fire. However, even

though they lived in the same house as children, Mark thought Glen had

died for 20 years until he showed up in St. Louis the day after Brian

died. Brian really died. Mark's parents really didn't. Nor did Glen,

nor did Mark really think Glen died. He knew that was just a clever

wrestling storyline. Nor did they live in the same house. Anyway, Glen

told Paul that Mark set the fire that never took place. Mark wanted to

kill Paul for sayng he murdered his parents because Glen used to fool

around with fires and was the one who set the fire. Paul was having an

affair with Mark's mom and was actually Glen's father. Mark wanted to

kill Paul for that one. Glen and Paul set Mark on fire and choke

slammed him into his mother's bones after they exhumed the grave.

Eventually Mark got so mad that they fought each other. But that was

really a promotional stunt by Vince to draw a buy rate for

Wrestlemania so Mark hated Vince. So because he hated him so much, he

and Glen got together to be his bodyguards. But they got yelled at

because Vince was an ungrateful asshole so they destroyed Vince's

ankle. Actually that was because why? The same reason Paul Wight,

Vince's top enforcer, turned face to get away from Vince being such an

asshole and because Rock was such an asshole and was back with him two

weeks later, in the role of Vince's top enforcer and running in to

help Rock. Anyway, as it turned out, after spending a year fighting

Glen because he'd killed his parents, Mark admitted he was the one who

killed his parents and burned his brother. And the police show up to

arrest wrestlers every Monday but nobody ever questions him. And Paul

loved those parents and Glen, his son. So now, Paul and Mark are back

together. And [Raw scripters] Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara's attention

to the minutest detail make them the greatest script writers on

television.

[Loss]

Outstanding! That's it. Thanks!

[Bix]

From TSM without the awful RSPW.org formatting:

 

Kane is really Glen. I think he was once the Unabomber. As a child, he was in a fire that killed both his parents. Except his real father was Paul Bearer, who raised him from the age of nine. Mark was also raised by Paul Bearer after his parents died in the fire. However, even though they lived in the same house as children, Mark thought Glen had died for 20 years until he showed up in St. Louis the day after Brian died. Brian really died. Mark's parents really didn't. Nor did Glen, nor did Mark really think Glen died. He knew that was just a clever wrestling storyline. Nor did they live in the same house. Anyway, Glen told Paul that Mark set the fire that never took place. Mark wanted to kill Paul for sayng he murdered his parents because Glen used to fool around with fires and was the one who set the fire. Paul was having an affair with Mark's mom and was actually Glen's father. Mark wanted to kill Paul for that one. Glen and Paul set Mark on fire and choke slammed him into his mother's bones after they exhumed the grave. Eventually Mark got so mad that they fought each other. But that was really a promotional stunt by Vince to draw a buy rate for Wrestlemania so Mark hated Vince. So because he hated him so much, he and Glen got together to be his bodyguards. But they got yelled at because Vince was an ungrateful asshole so they destroyed Vince's ankle. Actually that was because why? The same reason Paul Wight, Vince's top enforcer, turned face to get away from Vince being such an asshole and because Rock was such an asshole and was back with him two weeks later, in the role of Vince's top enforcer and running in to help Rock. Anyway, as it turned out, after spending a year fighting Glen because he'd killed his parents, Mark admitted he was the one who killed his parents and burned his brother. And the police show up to arrest wrestlers every Monday but nobody ever questions him. And Paul loved those parents and Glen, his son. So now, Paul and Mark are back together. And Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara's attention to the minutest detail make them the greatest script writers on television.

[KrisZ]

--Georgia Championship Wrestling from last night in Macon, GA before 500 fans: Pain b Chris Nelms, Nigel Sherrod b Danny Horne, Convict Blade b Antonio Garza, Zac Edwards b Congolese Nightmare (managed by Abdullah the Butcher), Vordell Walker b Vic Roze, Tony Atlas & Tommy Rich b Billy Black & Steve Lawler-DQ, Jon & Trey Williams b Simon Sermon & Tommy Too Much, Jake Slater b Micah Taylor. They are bringing in Diamond Dallas Page for two shows on 8/19 in Athens and Augusta. (thanks to Larry Goodman)

WOW Billy Black back from the abyss. That sounds like quite the match.

[Robert S]

Today's repost of a 94 newsletter contains a great satirical rant. Somebody wrote a letter asking "Is it true that The Ultimate Warrior died from a heart attack three years ago and that the WWF found a look-alike to replace the original?" Dave's reply contained such gems as "I think that Warrior rumor got started when someone played the album 'Bad Street USA' backwards and heard Michael Hayes say, 'Buddy is dead. I buried Buddy.'" and "I think people just assumed Ultimate Warrior died when they would regularly overhear WWF officials in 1990 when he had the title phoning the office after house shows saying, 'You should have seen the house tonight. Warrior is dead.' Either that or he was the only one bare-footed in photos for the 1991 Official WWF Calendar."