ECW dates in June

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom Misnik

unread,
May 16, 1994, 8:44:44 AM5/16/94
to
mr. ECW here again---
Perhaps in my being annoyed that all Evan had to say was to
rip the booking and not talk about the great job Dave did and what
a cool weekend it was at the Arena is that I actually do agree with
you all that the travelling and moving about is bad planning and
I was too concerned in sticking up for them and trying to
explain the reasoning instead of agreeing.

I'm sure the thing with the halls, etc is why, but I want
to find out for sure which I can do and I'll pass on that
it's being percieved badly.


and again
I remain
Mr ECW

Herb Kunze

unread,
May 17, 1994, 4:11:43 PM5/17/94
to
In article <2r8k0n$s...@search01.news.aol.com>,
DScherer <dsch...@aol.com> wrote:
>Herb has, seemingly, lessened the time he spent here, as have
>Gary Will, and a bevy of other net.gods.
>
>If we want to take control of this group we will have to learn restraint. It
>is very easy to get caught up into Evan's trap, but as one who has argued with
>him for the last time, I feel confindent in saying that it is an exercise in
>futility.

Between the terminal in my office and the dial-in from home, I do log
in at least once a day (when I'm in town and healthy). I suppose I've
lessened the amount of time I've put into posting things because I've
had little to say on the topics at hand. I don't care about fantasy
stuff, Pancrase and other shooting promotions, YKYBWTMW, and all of
Evan's arrogant bullshit. When Andy asked me why I didn't join in on
IRC on Sunday, I said, "Well, I didn't really have anything to say."

The signal-to-noise ratio in this newsgroup has never been lower.
Gary Will, who you also mentioned above, complained about this before
he seemingly disappeared and it's even worse now. It used to be a
newsgroup and now it's more of a BBS echo, with all of the shit that
comes with it.

What's sad is that several people with lots of knowledge and lots of
videos, etc., have been added into the mix over the time that the
newsgroup has plummetted in quality. This should have helped improve
things, yet, somehow, only a tiny percentage of all that knowledge
ever makes it to the group. I remember when differing opinions gave
rise to interesting (and wrestling-related) *debates*; now, the
smallest (perceived, or not) slight results in an epic flame war (see
most any "argument" involving Evan, the year-end awards post, most any
"discussion" of abililty or promotional styles).

I think it's understandable that we're all human and we'll all
occasionally post something that really didn't merit it -- it could
have been left to e-mail or even left unsaid. If that was a tiny
percentage of the posts made to the group -- that is, if everybody
thought about whether what they had to say really served the whole
newsgroup --, things would improve. Right now, though, the flippant,
off-the-cuff posts dominate the newsgroup.

Dave, I've been trying to speak only when I have something to say.

Herb...

Andy - Patrizio

unread,
May 17, 1994, 9:20:09 PM5/17/94
to
hek...@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:

> lessened the amount of time I've put into posting things because I've
> had little to say on the topics at hand. I don't care about fantasy
> stuff, Pancrase and other shooting promotions, YKYBWTMW, and all of
> Evan's arrogant bullshit. When Andy asked me why I didn't join in on
> IRC on Sunday, I said, "Well, I didn't really have anything to say."

Well, IRC is rarely an extension of the group. If you'd been part of the net
addresses of the stars you'd have had a blast. If it bores you, you leave.
Or you can do like Dave and stay for five minutes. (since that's as long as he
can last. :pppp)


>
> The signal-to-noise ratio in this newsgroup has never been lower.
> Gary Will, who you also mentioned above, complained about this before
> he seemingly disappeared and it's even worse now. It used to be a
> newsgroup and now it's more of a BBS echo, with all of the shit that
> comes with it.

The worst thing is, I see all of the troubles on this group coming from
students, not the AOL/Delphi brain-dead crowd that everybody complains about.
All our troublemakers have an .edu address, which bugs me more...

> What's sad is that several people with lots of knowledge and lots of
> videos, etc., have been added into the mix over the time that the
> newsgroup has plummetted in quality. This should have helped improve
> things, yet, somehow, only a tiny percentage of all that knowledge
> ever makes it to the group. I remember when differing opinions gave

Heh. You think I'm gonna put on the group who I deal with? I'm not giving away
my Michinoku Pro source. :-) Tape dealings are totally anonymous, Herb. You've
never revealed any of your sources to me, except the late Dave Fields (I say
late because he lost access to the group at work, which is ridiculous. He's
in LA... let him use netcom like Robert Strauss).

Now let's be fair... I deleted that part of your post, but you lumped Pancrase
in with the eternal YKYBWTMPW posts. Yes, the latter has worn out its welcome
and is now in my kill file, along with rspwc. But Pancrase? That's just
your personal dislike, since you don't care for shoot wrestling. BTW, you
really should give it a look. It'll only take 10 minutes to watch the
whole thing. :-)

Aside from trading, most of us get the Observer. After Meltzer reports it,
we can debate a little, try and figure out what he was trying to say (:-)),
or maybe add news if it's local. But by and large if it's in the Observer,
it's rather moot to repeat it here.

What's the alternative? Moderating the group?

--
Andy Patrizio |
Stamford, CT | Lead us not into temptation... we can find it for
a...@shell.portal.com | ourselves.

Herb Kunze

unread,
May 18, 1994, 1:23:33 PM5/18/94
to
Apologies for the wrestling-unrelatedness of this post, but the quality
of the group merits it...

In article <2rbqg9$k...@news1.svc.portal.com>,
Andy - Patrizio <a...@shell.portal.com> wrote:


>hek...@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>> The signal-to-noise ratio in this newsgroup has never been lower.
>> Gary Will, who you also mentioned above, complained about this before
>> he seemingly disappeared and it's even worse now. It used to be a
>> newsgroup and now it's more of a BBS echo, with all of the shit that
>> comes with it.
>The worst thing is, I see all of the troubles on this group coming from
>students, not the AOL/Delphi brain-dead crowd that everybody complains about.
>All our troublemakers have an .edu address, which bugs me more...

As Internet grows and more people talk about the infobahn, we'll have
to find ways to deal with newcomers to the group. Most people are
good enough to read for a while and get acquainted with the group and
the practices of the net. That has always been my suggestion to
newbies who e-mail me about the group and how to become a part of it.
Unfortunately, it seems that the percentage of newcomers nowadays
who do this is quite small. Over here at UofWaterloo, there is talk
about forcing anybody who wants a userid with net access to take a
course on it first.

>> What's sad is that several people with lots of knowledge and lots of
>> videos, etc., have been added into the mix over the time that the
>> newsgroup has plummetted in quality. This should have helped improve
>> things, yet, somehow, only a tiny percentage of all that knowledge
>> ever makes it to the group. I remember when differing opinions gave
>Heh. You think I'm gonna put on the group who I deal with? I'm not giving away
>my Michinoku Pro source. :-) Tape dealings are totally anonymous, Herb. You've
>never revealed any of your sources to me, except the late Dave Fields (I say
>late because he lost access to the group at work, which is ridiculous. He's
>in LA... let him use netcom like Robert Strauss).

I never meant that everybody should list who they trade with. I meant
that as more people get access to a greater variety of wrestling, it
should increase the depth of the group. Talk about Pancrase amongst
half-a-dozen people, for example, is evidence of this, but the good
is usually balanced by flames that fall out of it.

>Now let's be fair... I deleted that part of your post, but you lumped Pancrase
>in with the eternal YKYBWTMPW posts. Yes, the latter has worn out its welcome
>and is now in my kill file, along with rspwc. But Pancrase? That's just
>your personal dislike, since you don't care for shoot wrestling. BTW, you
>really should give it a look. It'll only take 10 minutes to watch the
>whole thing. :-)

I never said that these things were not valid topics for the newsgroup.
I said I was uninterested in them. It's a combination of the increase
in noise and the increase in topics that are of no interest to me that
has caused my participation in discussions to wane as of late. I didn't
mean to equate the increase in topics that are of no interest to me with
the drop in quality of the group.

>Aside from trading, most of us get the Observer. After Meltzer reports it,
>we can debate a little, try and figure out what he was trying to say (:-)),
>or maybe add news if it's local. But by and large if it's in the Observer,
>it's rather moot to repeat it here.

I know what you mean, Adam. The problem is that a couple dozen people
post the same thing read in the Observer or heard from an Observer source.
Some duplication is understandable because of the time it takes for some
sites to get new articles, but these days things are crazy. Every day,
there are several posts on the WCW / Barry Windham thing that are a
weird mix of reality, Observer musings and imagination.

>What's the alternative? Moderating the group?

I dunno. Restraint sounds good. Thought about the necessity of
every post sounds good. We'll never get rid of all of the noise
but this would be a good start. It would only leave two real
problems:
1) casual users or newbies who post questions that have been
discussed to death or news that isn't news. And if we respond
to the post with e-mail instead of posting 5 flames, 4 Steve DiSalvo
jokes, and other silly things, that problem is all but gone.
2) Evan. If the rest of us take the high road and just ignore him
most of the time, only paying attention when he makes a good
post, maybe his noise level will drop. A lot of his articles
are responses to responses, so they could have been eliminated
had the responder shown restraint. We know we can't count on
Evan to show any.
2a) Okay, maybe any other personality conflicts should be listed too.
Otto posted a while back about what things were of value to him
and what things weren't. As a result, he was flamed a fair bit
and many jabs were taken at him. But he never bothered to get
heated up about it and retaliate. Evan crossed a line about my
mother, but I just wrote him/it off as stupidity without needing
to post about it. This type of restraint on a larger scale would
help the quality of the newsgroup.
Herb...

Rick Duggan

unread,
May 18, 1994, 6:15:19 PM5/18/94
to
In article <2rdugv$6...@search01.news.aol.com>,
DScherer <dsch...@aol.com> wrote:
>You know what's funny Herb, I don't really like them either but
>Pancrase is different. Get a tape and try it.

Presumably then, you've seen it. What do you make of Meltzer's
review and comments in this last issue? He said that he had
talked with a wrestler who had a combat sports background.
I'm not sure whose opinion he was reporting (his, this wrestler,
or some combination) but Meltzer's final take was that the regular
matches were "90% real" but the title matches were only "60% real".

Is this some sort of reverse work? Back when I was a kid, the
really staunch defenders of wrestling admitted that it was
mostly fake, but that the "title matches were real." Now
it's the regular matches that are more real than the title matches.
I can believe Pancrase is incredibly stiff, but how can it
be "90% real"? Seems to me either it's booked or it's not...

-rick

Rick Duggan - dug...@cc.gatech.edu

DScherer

unread,
May 18, 1994, 4:41:03 PM5/18/94
to
In article <Cpyqr...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>,
hek...@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:

>I don't care about Pancrase and other shooting promotions,

Joel Tscherne

unread,
May 19, 1994, 8:10:00 AM5/19/94
to
As quoted by hek...@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze):

+---------------


> Apologies for the wrestling-unrelatedness of this post, but the quality
> of the group merits it...
>
> In article <2rbqg9$k...@news1.svc.portal.com>,
> Andy - Patrizio <a...@shell.portal.com> wrote:
> has caused my participation in discussions to wane as of late. I didn't
> mean to equate the increase in topics that are of no interest to me with
> the drop in quality of the group.
>

> >What's the alternative? Moderating the group?
>
> I dunno. Restraint sounds good. Thought about the necessity of
> every post sounds good. We'll never get rid of all of the noise
> but this would be a good start. It would only leave two real
> problems:
> 1) casual users or newbies who post questions that have been
> discussed to death or news that isn't news. And if we respond
> to the post with e-mail instead of posting 5 flames, 4 Steve DiSalvo
> jokes, and other silly things, that problem is all but gone.

In my opinion, many posted responses would be better handled via
email. For some reason many people feel the need to answer one person's
questions to the whole world...


--
============================Joel W. Tscherne============================
jo...@wariat.org
shelf...@library.cpl.org
ac...@cleveland.freenet.edu

Robert Rusbasan

unread,
May 19, 1994, 3:39:53 PM5/19/94
to
dug...@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
> Presumably then, you've seen it. What do you make of Meltzer's
> review and comments in this last issue? He said that he had
> talked with a wrestler who had a combat sports background.

I wonder who it was, and what this guy's qualifications are. I
don't think Pancrase is doing something that any other organization
is legitimately doing except for the Ultimate Fight people, so it's
hard to make a comparison. What do you compare it to? Pro style?
No. Martial arts matches or kick boxing, which Meltzer has said are
usually as worked as pro wrestling? No, if we believe him. UWFI?
No. RINGS? No. What, then? Has this guy been involved in some
of the underground combat sports? I wish Meltzer had given as a
little more background on this person he would have us accept as
an expert.

> I'm not sure whose opinion he was reporting (his, this wrestler,
> or some combination) but Meltzer's final take was that the regular
> matches were "90% real" but the title matches were only "60% real".

I found that interesting as well.

> Is this some sort of reverse work? Back when I was a kid, the
> really staunch defenders of wrestling admitted that it was
> mostly fake, but that the "title matches were real." Now
> it's the regular matches that are more real than the title matches.

Meltzer himself said the same thing about RINGS. Apparently some
of the undercard matches were so brutal that he felt they were
legitimate contests. The rationale, of course, would be that they
were worried about the main events being too boring or the wrong
person winning. Most people that question the realness of boxing
also point to the big matches as the ones where a lot of funny
stuff seems to be happening, so there is precedent for this type
of thing.

I started wondering about Pancrase and the UFC people when the UFC
people were talking to Pancrase, RINGS, and UWFI about having fighters
work in the UFC2 show. If UFC and Pancrase are real, and RINGS and
UWFI are simply stiff works, I thought, then why would the UFC people
be putting RINGS and UWFI on the same level of Pancrase? Will the
real shooting promotions please stand up?

> I can believe Pancrase is incredibly stiff, but how can it
> be "90% real"? Seems to me either it's booked or it's not...

Not necessarily. You can send two guys out to wrestler for real
but also tell them that you expect them to send the crowd home
satisfied, so you want them to put on a good show first. In the
past, Meltzer suggested that very thing, that they primarily wanted
to entertain the crowd for the first X minutes of a match, then
after that they fought to win.

Unfortunately, he did not have a clue. It turned out to be wild
speculation on his part, prompted by what he felt was an unnaturally
long running time for a match. Unknown to him at the time, this
was a boxing (?) match or something similar that was done with gloves
and rounds, so of course it was long. Think about that: Meltzer did
not even know such a basic detail as what type of match it was, but
just by looking at the length of it he started drawing sweeping
conclusions about Pancrase's legitimacy. Anyone in the Meltzer-is-God
crowd should chew on that for a while before taking everything he
says at face value.

I haven't seen Pancrase myself (aside from a little handheld video),
so I won't make a similar mistake. I will say that I'd expect people
in title matches to be a little more careful, so that could account
for them being less intense at the beginning. On the other hand,
it is very believable to think that a Japanese wrestling promotion
would try to work their audience. RINGS is actively fighting a
sports magazine there for not acknowledging that their matches are
real competition. UWFI runs PPVs in America with the tagline,
"It's real!". Is Pancrase the real thing, or is it just the next
step up from UWFI and RINGS?

Finally, isn't a little strange how conventional wisdom about shoots
as been turned on its head? I used to read about how real matches
in days gone by were boring because they were so very, VERY
loooooonnnnggg. The wrestlers would get locked into a hold and just
sit there foreeeeeeevvvvvvvveeeeeer, or at least for several hours a
fall. Now Meltzer sees a match time of 25:00 and, based on that
alone, starts thinking Pancrase must be fake because the accepted
wisdom these days is that shoots are very quick. That's nonsense.
Due to rule changes and increased submission skills, shoots probably
would tend to be very short, but there's no reason they couldn't
sometimes go long. The last UFC2, which IMHO was definitely a
complete shoot, had at least one match in round one that went long.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
/ Bob Rusbasan | Dance to the tension \
/ rrus...@nyx.cs.du.edu | of a world on edge \
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Evan Schlesinger

unread,
May 19, 1994, 4:22:48 PM5/19/94
to
In article <2rgfa9$r...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,

Robert Rusbasan <rrus...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>dug...@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>> Presumably then, you've seen it. What do you make of Meltzer's
>> review and comments in this last issue? He said that he had
>> talked with a wrestler who had a combat sports background.
>
>I wonder who it was, and what this guy's qualifications are. I
>don't think Pancrase is doing something that any other organization
>is legitimately doing except for the Ultimate Fight people, so it's
>hard to make a comparison. What do you compare it to? Pro style?
>No. Martial arts matches or kick boxing, which Meltzer has said are
>usually as worked as pro wrestling? No, if we believe him. UWFI?
>No. RINGS? No. What, then? Has this guy been involved in some
>of the underground combat sports? I wish Meltzer had given as a
>little more background on this person he would have us accept as
>an expert.

I could be wrong, but I'm gonna make an educated guess and say that he spoke
to Bart Vail.

>I haven't seen Pancrase myself (aside from a little handheld video),
>so I won't make a similar mistake.

Nor have I, but I'd like to think that I can figure out whether it is a legit
shoot or not. I mean, I've seen enough UWFI to know that it looks pretty damn
realistic, but there are things that happen which say otherwise.

>Finally, isn't a little strange how conventional wisdom about shoots
>as been turned on its head? I used to read about how real matches
>in days gone by were boring because they were so very, VERY
>loooooonnnnggg. The wrestlers would get locked into a hold and just
>sit there foreeeeeeevvvvvvvveeeeeer, or at least for several hours a
>fall. Now Meltzer sees a match time of 25:00 and, based on that
>alone, starts thinking Pancrase must be fake because the accepted
>wisdom these days is that shoots are very quick. That's nonsense.

Yeah but the old shoot style matches were almost completely amateur-style
matches. Punches and kicks were not part of the rules. Submission maneuvers
were not the integral part of the old-style of wrestling as it is today.

EVAN
No taglines necessary.

patr...@news.delphi.com

unread,
May 19, 1994, 6:19:16 PM5/19/94
to
jo...@wariat.org (Joel Tscherne) writes:

>> >What's the alternative? Moderating the group?
>>
>> I dunno. Restraint sounds good. Thought about the necessity of
>> every post sounds good. We'll never get rid of all of the noise
>> but this would be a good start. It would only leave two real
>> problems:

>In my opinion, many posted responses would be better handled via


>email. For some reason many people feel the need to answer one person's
>questions to the whole world...

How about a private mailing list? Instead of one where you are
automatically added by sending mail, the moderator has to approve adding
you. Yeah, it's elitist and smacks of local pirate boards (ever try
joining those pricks in #warez?), but how else do you keep the idiots out?

DScherer

unread,
May 20, 1994, 5:24:04 PM5/20/94
to
In article <1994May18....@cc.gatech.edu>,
dug...@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:

"Presumably then, you've seen it. What do you make of Meltzer's
review and comments in this last issue? He said that he had
talked with a wrestler who had a combat sports background.
I'm not sure whose opinion he was reporting (his, this wrestler,
or some combination) but Meltzer's final take was that the regular
matches were "90% real" but the title matches were only "60% real"."

I have the first 5 shows (thanks Joe!). I agree that saying
something is 90% real is like being kind of pregnant. All I can say
is if they are working, they are great workers. Watching ti, it
appears to be a match.

DScherer

unread,
May 21, 1994, 3:35:01 PM5/21/94
to
In article <2rgol4$v...@news.delphi.com>, patr...@news.delphi.com
(PATR...@DELPHI.COM) writes:

>How about a private mailing list? Instead of one where you are
>automatically added by sending mail, the moderator has to approve
adding
>you. Yeah, it's elitist and smacks of local pirate boards (ever try
>joining those pricks in #warez?), but how else do you keep the
idiots out?

If the new moderated group fails, or is shot down, I am all for this.

Oh, and I was just on RIME, I had time on my hands. Anyway, Bob
Rudd, the Czar of Misinformation, stated that this group is all
fantasy posts, Smarks, and people who curse. While he is wrong, as
usual, he is closer to the truth than he ever has been.

We, as a whole, need to try to get this back to being a newsgroup,
and not a glorified BBS echo.

patr...@news.delphi.com

unread,
May 21, 1994, 5:31:47 PM5/21/94
to
dsch...@aol.com (DScherer) writes:

>Oh, and I was just on RIME, I had time on my hands. Anyway, Bob
>Rudd, the Czar of Misinformation, stated that this group is all
>fantasy posts, Smarks, and people who curse. While he is wrong, as
>usual, he is closer to the truth than he ever has been.

He was right by accident. I remember him. That guy's an idiot, although
Dusty (something) is far worse. I remember Sean Ryan'ss tunned reaction
to that guy posting 57 messages in a row. And that was in one day.

DScherer

unread,
May 16, 1994, 4:11:03 PM5/16/94
to
In article <94051608...@ACR.ORG>, "ACRPHL::OPER2"@ACR.ORG (Tom Misnik)
writes:

"I'm sure the thing with the halls, etc is why, but I want
to find out for sure which I can do and I'll pass on that
it's being percieved badly."

Tom, and a lot of us really, it is easy to lose our train of thought when
dealing with a post that Evan writes. He has a way of getting under people's
skin that i have never encountered before, and hope that I never do again.

I log on today and there are 51 posts. More than half are either written by
him or posted about him, including 12 alone in the "Evan, Evan, Evan" thread.
I will not, again, go into the incredible amount of time Evan must have, as he
answered 6 different posts at 6 diferent times in that thread over a time
period. i will say that like Aids, the Mummers parade, and tax Day, he's not
going to go away.

I have loved this group for years. I have read every article posted since I
got on. That was until about two months ago. Now I read the titles and pick
the ones I want, or if possible the ones that contain no entries from
Northwestern. Herb has, seemingly, lessened the time he spent here, as have


Gary Will, and a bevy of other net.gods.

If we want to take control of this group we will have to learn restraint. It
is very easy to get caught up into Evan's trap, but as one who has argued with
him for the last time, I feel confindent in saying that it is an exercise in
futility.

I am not promising I won't go off topic, or through some barbs out there, but I
am going to try not to.

Obwrestling: For all I have heard, the reason for the show dates is all about
booking buildings, which as anyone who knows anything about wrestling will tell
you, you need a building to run a show.

Powerslam

unread,
May 24, 1994, 1:46:04 PM5/24/94
to
In article <2rj9pk$c...@search01.news.aol.com>, dsch...@aol.com
(DScherer) writes:

<<I have the first 5 shows (thanks Joe!). I agree that saying
something is 90% real is like being kind of pregnant. All I can say
is if they are working, they are great workers. Watching ti, it
appears to be a match.>>

...and bottom line is, did you enjoy watching it? Whether or not it
is an extremely stiff and well-executed work or a completely
legitimate match, as long as it is entertaining, that's what counts!
Also in this thread, I totally agree with Bob R.'s comments on the
Observer's views of Pancrase. I think it is a case of Dave M.
feeling he has to comment occasionally simply because of the success
of the promotion, but he isn't into the style or the fighters enough
to bother to really watch and analyze the promotion objectively. It
looks as if he is trying to find some hammer to use to criticize
rather than evaluate on an entertainment basis.

JoeG

dsch...@news.delphi.com

unread,
May 24, 1994, 6:44:17 PM5/24/94
to
powe...@aol.com (Powerslam) writes:

>In article <2rj9pk$c...@search01.news.aol.com>, dsch...@aol.com
>(DScherer) writes:

>...and bottom line is, did you enjoy watching it? Whether or not it
>is an extremely stiff and well-executed work or a completely
>legitimate match, as long as it is entertaining, that's what counts!

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy it!

>Also in this thread, I totally agree with Bob R.'s comments on the
>Observer's views of Pancrase. I think it is a case of Dave M.
>feeling he has to comment occasionally simply because of the success
>of the promotion, but he isn't into the style or the fighters enough
>to bother to really watch and analyze the promotion objectively. It
>looks as if he is trying to find some hammer to use to criticize
>rather than evaluate on an entertainment basis.

FWIW, Meltzer told me he really likes Pancrase. I think his commentary.
or lack thereof, stem more from the fact that he doesn't really know the
story, which is rarely the case.

I can't wait for Perfect 6 and 7.

Powerslam

unread,
May 25, 1994, 4:46:03 PM5/25/94
to
In article <2ru001$q...@news.delphi.com>, dsch...@news.delphi.com
(DSCH...@DELPHI.COM) writes:

<<FWIW, Meltzer told me he really likes Pancrase. I think his
commentary.
or lack thereof, stem more from the fact that he doesn't really know
the
story, which is rarely the case.>>

If you go back to the beginning of the promotion and the shows, his
comments would tend to prove that you're right (he doesn't really
know the story), since he has flipflopped on a regular basis. That's
my biggest problem with him at times: he gets hung up on some minute
point, and then hammers on it like it was of monumental importance.
When the first results of the show where Shamrock lost to Suzuki came
through, and he stated that Pancrase must be a work if Suzuki lost to
Shamrock, even though he hadn't seen the match nor did he have
details of the win really stuck in my craw. I just get tired of his
"absolute" proclamations that he basis on second-hand knowledge.
There are at least 47 sides to every story!!!

JoeG

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages