WWF vs. ECW {Sandman vs.123 Kid}
Bernard Jacob Balkin
If you look at the WWF and you lok at ECW,you realise the WWF
is fake with crummy characters like the 123 Kid,Bob Holly and
Aldo Montoya The Portugeuse Invertibrate.
Could you imagine the Sandman in a handicap match vs Bob Holly
and the 123 Kid.
VARIOUS OUTCOMES
----------------
1:123 Kid does spinning ankle kick, Sandman catches his leg
in his mouth and rips his leg below his kneecap off.
2:Bob Holly tries a flying clothesline , Sandman rips his arms
off in mid air.
3:Sandman does flying clothesline on 123 kid. Kid's head ripped
off
4:Finishing move: 123 kid has to be surgically removed from
Bob Holly's rectum(it's not a pretty sight);
5:Aldo Montoya tries to interfere.Head remove surgically from
own rectum.
Final result:Sandman wins!
Nol...@ix.netcom.com
Try putting Sandman against Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Vader, or Sid.
You picked the twobiggest jobbers in WWF history!
Herb Kunze
In article <NEWTNews.83714...@icon.co.za>,
Bernard Jacob Balkin <ma...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>Could you imagine the Sandman in a handicap match vs Bob Holly
>and the 123 Kid.
the ring, drinks his beer, and smokes his cigarette, while
moronic fans actually cheer this feat. He then goes on to
have a "match" that contains no wrestling, blades fourteen
times, uses 11 different foreign objects brought to the
ring by...ahem...smart..cough...cough...fans, tries one
actual high spot that looks dreadful, much to the cheers
of the...ahem...smart fans. In the end, 1-2-3 Kid and Holly
figure they better turn on each other so that the match can
actually have some wrestling content. Sandman doesn't care
and just pours some beer on Missy's boobs while the..ahem...
smart fans cheer madly.
Herb...
GribNYC
Try this:
Sandman simply Canes everyone in the WWF to death.
Mark Bureau
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
>In article <NEWTNews.83714...@icon.co.za>,
>Bernard Jacob Balkin <ma...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>>Could you imagine the Sandman in a handicap match vs Bob Holly
>>and the 123 Kid.
>
> You forgot the most likely match prediction. Sandman comes to
> the ring, drinks his beer, and smokes his cigarette, while
> moronic fans actually cheer this feat. He then goes on to
> have a "match" that contains no wrestling, blades fourteen
> times, uses 11 different foreign objects brought to the
> ring by...ahem...smart..cough...cough...fans, tries one
> actual high spot that looks dreadful, much to the cheers
> of the...ahem...smart fans.
You forgot to mention here Herb that during this
match, Tyler comes out with a Singapore cane, along
with Raven, never getting closer than 25 feet from
the ring. At this point, the Arena vampires start
their latest chant.. .. .. "Cane Your Dad"
"Cane Your Dad" while those who have also filled
themselves with Molson Ice and Taco Bell taco or
Tony Luke's cheesesteaks join in the festivities.
In the end, 1-2-3 Kid and Holly
> figure they better turn on each other so that the match can
> actually have some wrestling content. Sandman doesn't care
> and just pours some beer on Missy's boobs while the..ahem...
> smart fans cheer madly.
> Herb...
***************************************************************
Mark R. Bureau MariBu Internet Services
mr...@worldnet.att.net
Visit my new and improved Home Page at:
http://www.inter-link.net/~maribu/bureau.htm 770-592-4750
*** "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" **
**************************************************************
Sanjay Mohanta
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
>In article <NEWTNews.83714...@icon.co.za>,
>Bernard Jacob Balkin <ma...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>>Could you imagine the Sandman in a handicap match vs Bob Holly
>>and the 123 Kid.
Having witnessed the growth of ECW since 1993(check his tape list) I am
surprised that you left a few things out on the match.
> You forgot the most likely match prediction. Sandman comes to
> the ring, drinks his beer, and smokes his cigarette, while
> moronic fans actually cheer this feat. He then goes on to
> have a "match" that contains no wrestling, blades fourteen
They outlawed the blade. Besides you forgot his cane.
> times, uses 11 different foreign objects brought to the
> ring by...ahem...smart..cough...cough...fans, tries one
> actual high spot that looks dreadful, much to the cheers
He is starting to connect with those high spots. He usually tries 2 or
3. They are fun to watch though.
> of the...ahem...smart fans. In the end, 1-2-3 Kid and Holly
> figure they better turn on each other so that the match can
> actually have some wrestling content. Sandman doesn't care
This is where he canes the living daylights out of both of the wrestlers
and leaves the arena.....stopping the WWF invasion!
> and just pours some beer on Missy's boobs while the..ahem...
> smart fans cheer madly.
>
> Herb...
And you wouldn't want to see this! Just the reaction of the fans is
enough to want me pay to get this tape!
--
=========================================================================
=
Sanjay Mohanta | e-mail:
s3mo...@mc1adm.UWaterloo.ca
Auditor | phone: (519) 888-4567 x2372
University of Waterloo | fax: (519) 746-3242
Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1 |
=========================================================================
=
Jamie LaBrash
Mark Bureau (mr...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
>
>>In article <NEWTNews.83714...@icon.co.za>,
>>Bernard Jacob Balkin <ma...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>>>Could you imagine the Sandman in a handicap match vs Bob Holly
>>>and the 123 Kid.
>>
>> You forgot the most likely match prediction. Sandman comes to
>> the ring, drinks his beer, and smokes his cigarette, while
>> moronic fans actually cheer this feat. He then goes on to
>> have a "match" that contains no wrestling, blades fourteen
>> times, uses 11 different foreign objects brought to the
>> ring by...ahem...smart..cough...cough...fans, tries one
>> actual high spot that looks dreadful, much to the cheers
>> of the...ahem...smart fans.
>
> You forgot to mention here Herb that during this
> match, Tyler comes out with a Singapore cane, along
> with Raven, never getting closer than 25 feet from
> the ring. At this point, the Arena vampires start
> their latest chant.. .. .. "Cane Your Dad"
> "Cane Your Dad" while those who have also filled
> themselves with Molson Ice and Taco Bell taco or
> Tony Luke's cheesesteaks join in the festivities.
>
> In the end, 1-2-3 Kid and Holly
>> figure they better turn on each other so that the match can
>> actually have some wrestling content. Sandman doesn't care
>> and just pours some beer on Missy's boobs while the..ahem...
>> smart fans cheer madly.
For two people who have never been to the ECW Arena, you both know a
lot about it. Or are you just being pompous windbags?
--
ba...@freenet.carleton.ca -X- Jamie LaBrash -X- jlab...@chat.carleton.ca
"I don't need luck! I need beer!!!" -The Sandman
--X--X---X---X--http://www.eng.carleton.ca/chat/~jlabrash--X---X---X--X--
Mark Bureau
ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jamie LaBrash) wrote:
For someone who has never met me, and as someone who has never
actually said that I have never been to the Arena, that is a
bold assumption to make.
I travel to New Jersey every 6-8 weeks, so the possibility of
me having visited the Arena are better than what you may think.
But, one doesn't have to actually go to the Arena to know a lot
about it, because it comes on TV here in Atlanta on a weekly
basis. I actually was awake this morning at 2:20am taking my
puppy out, so I turned on Prime Sports and watched the remainder
of the ECW show. In that 40 minutes, I saw The Bruise Brothers
fighting The Eliminators outside the ring when suddenly the now
face Ganstas made their appearance with a rubber garbage can to
clear house. During that time, the ring was barraged with garbage,
wood and other materials while many of the ringside fans offered
chairs, boards and other weaponry to the athletes. After the
commericial break, there was another tag team match that ended
with the Gangstas making yet another run-in. Only this time,
the entire ECW line-up (it seemed) filled the ring and began
fighting with each other during another garbage and board storm.
The next spot of the show was the "Hardcore Heaven" highlights
of the Sabu/Van Damme match. Joey Styles explained that
this event was taking place after midnight, and it was 120
degrees in the ring, and that the ring was broken. Sabu was
his awesome self, doing arialsault arialsault. What I didn't
like was that as awesome as Sabu was, the entire match included
a metal folding chair. Almost every spot included the use of
that chair and every spot (with the exception of the last one
where Sabu got the pin) would have been just as effective without
the chair.
The whole time, the crowd was chanting "ECW, ECW, ECW" not just
during the Sabu match, but all the matches I saw.
So Jamie, without being at the Arena, I witnessed an Arena show that
had two brawls in the audience, fans throwing dangerous objects in
the ring, fans doing the ECW mating call, and the explicit use of a
foreign object for the sole purpose of getting a match over. This
was in 40 minutes. I missed the first 20, but I am sure I missed
nothing special.
This account is not far off from anything that Herb or myself
described previously in this thread. Now I admit to a biased
opinion when it comes to ECW, but the televised show speaks
for itself.
See ya!
Mark R. Bureau
****************************************************
"I'm not saying this purely out of self interest,
as I give credit to my primary "competitor," the
Observer, as being one of the only two reasonably
reliable sources for in-depth, insider news in the
wrestling industry." - Wade Keller
****************************************************
You see, I've been playing a game. I have so much
mental influence over him that I have actually made
him do things he normally wouldn't do. He doesn't
realize it, but I control his mind."
- TMIWRTAMS regarding Mark Bureau 12/95
****************************************************
"Your e-mail is not the first time I've read that
TMIWRTAMS thinks our lives would be enhanced by
having him as a friendly part of them." - {BLANK}
****************************************************
"If you ever purchased {blank} from me, I would
refund your money and not honor your purchase"
- TMIWRTAMS :)
****************************************************
"Tell me Candide, why don't you use your real name
when you post. At least when I confront someone,
I have the guts to use my real name."
- TMIWRTAMS to Candide :)
****************************************************
Leiber2000, JimSoks, PeteMarks, DanMo ... sigh
****************************************************
Jamie LaBrash
Mark Bureau (mr...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jamie LaBrash) wrote:
> >For two people who have never been to the ECW Arena, you both know a
> >lot about it. Or are you just being pompous windbags?
> For someone who has never met me, and as someone who has never
> actually said that I have never been to the Arena, that is a
> bold assumption to make.
I believe that you have mentioned that you have never been to the ECW
Arena or else implied that you have never been there.
> I travel to New Jersey every 6-8 weeks, so the possibility of
> me having visited the Arena are better than what you may think.
> But, one doesn't have to actually go to the Arena to know a lot
> about it, because it comes on TV here in Atlanta on a weekly
> basis.
Well why do you have to go to church every week when you can watch it on
TV and learn lots about the lord that way? Why does anyone have to go to
any sporting event when you can watch it on TV and know a lot about it
that way?
> I actually was awake this morning at 2:20am taking my
> puppy out, so I turned on Prime Sports and watched the remainder
> of the ECW show. In that 40 minutes, I saw The Bruise Brothers
> fighting The Eliminators outside the ring when suddenly the now
> face Ganstas made their appearance with a rubber garbage can to
> clear house. During that time, the ring was barraged with garbage,
> wood and other materials while many of the ringside fans offered
> chairs, boards and other weaponry to the athletes. After the
> commericial break, there was another tag team match that ended
> with the Gangstas making yet another run-in. Only this time,
> the entire ECW line-up (it seemed) filled the ring and began
> fighting with each other during another garbage and board storm.
Thanks for the show review. What's your point?
> The next spot of the show was the "Hardcore Heaven" highlights
> of the Sabu/Van Damme match. Joey Styles explained that
> this event was taking place after midnight, and it was 120
> degrees in the ring, and that the ring was broken. Sabu was
> his awesome self, doing arialsault arialsault. What I didn't
> like was that as awesome as Sabu was, the entire match included
> a metal folding chair. Almost every spot included the use of
> that chair and every spot (with the exception of the last one
> where Sabu got the pin) would have been just as effective without
> the chair.
Haven't seen the match yet so I can't comment but if every spot included a
chair it would seem to me to be impossible to recreate most spots that use
chairs without a chair.
> The whole time, the crowd was chanting "ECW, ECW, ECW" not just
> during the Sabu match, but all the matches I saw.
What's wrong with showing your appreciation for something you support?
What's next? Complaining about Braves fans cheering for their team?
> So Jamie, without being at the Arena, I witnessed an Arena show that
> had two brawls in the audience,
Didn't this happen at Bash at the Beach?
> fans throwing dangerous objects in
> the ring,
Why not rally against MLB or NHL then? Haven't you ever seen fans there
showing items onto the playing surface (i.e. giveaways baseballs, Oh Henry
chocolate bars, octupii, rats, etc)
> fans doing the ECW mating call,
Oh lord! Please forgive them for they know not what they are doing!
> and the explicit use of a
> foreign object for the sole purpose of getting a match over.
What the hell else are they going to use a foreign object for? To give
each other makeovers?
> This
> was in 40 minutes. I missed the first 20, but I am sure I missed
> nothing special.
Hell, you could watch most WCW and WWF syndies all year and not miss
anything special. "Special" is only what you consider special, many
others would disagree with you.
> This account is not far off from anything that Herb or myself
> described previously in this thread. Now I admit to a biased
> opinion when it comes to ECW, but the televised show speaks
> for itself.
Then why do you feel the need to constantly bash the product if it "speaks
for itself"?
Wow! What a mature .sig file. There isn't any petty innuendo here.
* jlab...@chat.carleton.ca *
* http://chat.carleton.ca/~jlabrash *
* Carleton University *
* Ottawa, Ontario, Canada *
Yuriy Kleyner
In article <4s9rft$5...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> Jamie LaBrash
wrote:
>> I travel to New Jersey every 6-8 weeks, so the possibility of
>> me having visited the Arena are better than what you may
think.
>
>> But, one doesn't have to actually go to the Arena to know a
lot
>> about it, because it comes on TV here in Atlanta on a weekly
>> basis.
>
>Well why do you have to go to church every week when you can watch
it on
>TV and learn lots about the lord that way? Why does anyone have
to go to
>any sporting event when you can watch it on TV and know a lot
about it
>that way?
Hmm, at least to me, you are supporting the other person's point
here.
Yuriy
Pete Barlow
In article <4s9rft$5...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, jlab...@chat.carleton.ca (Jamie LaBrash) writes:
> Mark Bureau (mr...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>> ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jamie LaBrash) wrote:
>> >For two people who have never been to the ECW Arena, you both know a
>> >lot about it. Or are you just being pompous windbags?
>> For someone who has never met me, and as someone who has never
>> actually said that I have never been to the Arena, that is a
>> bold assumption to make.
> I believe that you have mentioned that you have never been to the ECW
> Arena or else implied that you have never been there.
*shrug* You say this like it's an uncommon thing. Did Peter Gammons ever play
pro baseball? Did Mel Kiper ever play pro football? Has Dave Meltzer ever
actually wrestled a pro match? Sports are filled with "experts" who've never
stepped completely into the "arena" which they cover so passionately. On the
other hand, Gammons has been to a ball game, Kiper has been to a football game,
and I'm practically positive Meltzer's been to a show. I think I was there
too, but I can't be sure.
>> I travel to New Jersey every 6-8 weeks, so the possibility of
>> me having visited the Arena are better than what you may think.
>> But, one doesn't have to actually go to the Arena to know a lot
>> about it, because it comes on TV here in Atlanta on a weekly
>> basis.
> Well why do you have to go to church every week when you can watch it on
> TV and learn lots about the lord that way? Why does anyone have to go to
> any sporting event when you can watch it on TV and know a lot about it
> that way?
Jamie makes a helluva point here. There's a huge difference between going to a
live show and watching on TV. For example, unless you happen to be going to a
taping, there don't tend to be as many squashes. *shrug* Anyhow, this is how
the term "armchair quarterback" came into play--people who knew exactly what
play for Montana to call, but had never actually been to a 49er's or Chiefs
game.
Being at Double Tables live was one experience. Watching it again on tape was
another entirely.
>> I actually was awake this morning at 2:20am taking my
>> puppy out,
I won't ask about this. There's no attempt at innuendo here on either his part
or mine, but, uh...
>> so I turned on Prime Sports and watched the remainder
>> of the ECW show. In that 40 minutes, I saw The Bruise Brothers
>> fighting The Eliminators outside the ring when suddenly the now
>> face Ganstas made their appearance with a rubber garbage can to
>> clear house. During that time, the ring was barraged with garbage,
>> wood and other materials while many of the ringside fans offered
>> chairs, boards and other weaponry to the athletes. After the
>> commericial break, there was another tag team match that ended
>> with the Gangstas making yet another run-in. Only this time,
>> the entire ECW line-up (it seemed) filled the ring and began
>> fighting with each other during another garbage and board storm.
> Thanks for the show review. What's your point?
Probably something along the lines of: "And this is wrestling, is it?" Which
I can perfectly understand. When the focus of a wrestling show isn't the
wrestling itself, that becomes a perfectly valid question.
>> The whole time, the crowd was chanting "ECW, ECW, ECW" not just
>> during the Sabu match, but all the matches I saw.
> What's wrong with showing your appreciation for something you support?
> What's next? Complaining about Braves fans cheering for their team?
No, that's been done already. There just don't happen to be many Indian rights
activists in pro wrestling circles. *shrug* Go figure.
>> fans throwing dangerous objects in
>> the ring,
> Why not rally against MLB or NHL then? Haven't you ever seen fans there
> showing items onto the playing surface (i.e. giveaways baseballs, Oh Henry
> chocolate bars, octupii, rats, etc)
It's frowned upon. The franchises concerned (the Expos, Red Wings, and
Panthers respectively, for those of you scoring at home... or even if you're
alone... tm Keith Olbermann) have said on a handful of occasions that they're
not happy with the fans doing that. Actually, I'm not certain whether or not
the Panthers have. The Expos have. The Red Wings did, in a rather left-handed
way--"If you're gonna do it, boil the octopii first. Easier to get off the ice
that way." On the other hand, the NFL has a noise restriction in place,
penalising the home team for the fans' behaviour, and in at least one instance
has changed a game situation because the fans were throwing things. So in
that, it'd be incorrect to say that there isn't a role model to pull an example
from.
The point is, it's up to the franchises themselves to restrict activities, like
throwing things onto the field, and to the leagues involved to put rules in
place to inhibit said actions. Theoretically, therefore, it would also be the
responsibility of ECW to control its fans... something that history is
beginning to show that it doesn't really want to do.
>> and the explicit use of a
>> foreign object for the sole purpose of getting a match over.
> What the hell else are they going to use a foreign object for? To give
> each other makeovers?
Shit, I think I get the point of all the Singapore caning matches now. Sandman
was just trying to make Peaches look prettier.
If you're a talented enough wrestler, you don't need to use a foreign (or
international, whichever) object every time you go to the ring, and you won't
be in a position where you have to do just that because that's the focus of the
company. Draw your own conclusions.
>> This account is not far off from anything that Herb or myself
>> described previously in this thread. Now I admit to a biased
>> opinion when it comes to ECW, but the televised show speaks
>> for itself.
> Then why do you feel the need to constantly bash the product if it "speaks
> for itself"?
To stimulate bright and exciting discussion. D-uh.
Pete.
Jeff Amdur
In article <4s90jv$g...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
mr...@worldnet.att.net (Mark Bureau) wrote:
[a very long and un-Mark Bureau-like signature]
Mark....
In the almost two years I have been looking at rspw, you have been one of
the posters that I have always read and have always respected, which is
why it pains me to see the strain of vindictiveness that your recent
signatures have shown.
I have had cordial and friendly net relations with both you and the
obvious target of your current signature files, which makes this stuff all
the more difficult for me to read.
I would earnestly suggest that any feud you and your adversary may be
currently having be taken to e-mail, or (better still) that the both of
you do what Your Main Man has always suggested and "turn the other
cheek". I have always respected your views, sometimes agreeing, sometimes
disagreeing; but I have recently noticed an uncharacteristic tone of
bitterness in some recent posts.
In other words, I'd like to see that more laid-back Bu of old come back to
rspw. Please!
--
Jeff Amdur
Quality foreign language instruction since 1971 (Oy, gevalt! THAT long?!?)
Quality timekeeping for sports events since 1973
Doing all that stuff at Arundel High School in Gambrills, Md. since 1977
je...@clark.net jef...@aol.com jia...@umd5.umd.edu
sbl...@mail.coin.missouri.edu
Mark, Herb, normally I enjoy reading your writing, but with all due respect,
this particular dialogue is so mind-numbingly ridiculous I *have* to
respond.
In <4s6npn$l...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
mr...@worldnet.att.net (Mark Bureau) writes:
>hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
>
>> You forgot the most likely match prediction. Sandman comes to
>> the ring, drinks his beer, and smokes his cigarette, while
>> moronic fans actually cheer this feat. He then goes on to
>> have a "match" that contains no wrestling, blades fourteen
>> times, uses 11 different foreign objects brought to the
>> ring by...ahem...smart..cough...cough...fans, tries one
>> actual high spot that looks dreadful, much to the cheers
>> of the...ahem...smart fans.
>
> You forgot to mention here Herb that during this
> match, Tyler comes out with a Singapore cane, along
> with Raven, never getting closer than 25 feet from
> the ring. At this point, the Arena vampires start
> their latest chant.. .. .. "Cane Your Dad"
> "Cane Your Dad" while those who have also filled
> themselves with Molson Ice and Taco Bell taco or
> Tony Luke's cheesesteaks join in the festivities.
..and so forth.
You know, it's hard to know where to begin as far as responding to this,
so I'll just start at the beginning and work my way down.
Herb: We all know your anti-ECW bias and your anti-ECW fan bias, so
*please* stop trying to prove your point. I have been to ECW shows -
not many, but some - and OK, fine, some of the fans there are somewhat
mutant in nature. So what? There is going to be that at *any* sporting
event, whether it be a Kansas City Wiz soccer match, a Toronto Argonauts
game, or even a Waterloo Whatevers polo match (if you even *have* sports
there).
As far as the Sandman's smoking and drinking in the ring is concerned...
it's a gimmick. Deal with it. It's not quite as refined as, say, the southern
redneck gimmick, but it's a gimmick nonetheless. (Yes, that's humor, Herb.)
And as far as the Sandman's wrestling is concerned...I'll grant you that
when I first saw him on tape from 1994, I wasn't all that impressed. In
fact, even up to Hardcore Heaven '95, I still wasn't too impressed. But
some of his work since then has been outstanding. And the other thing you
have to remember, too, is that no matter how badly you wish it, Sandman
is never going to be a Jushin Liger. He's never going to do a shooting star
press, unless it's a drink made of tequilla and served in a shot glass.
It's a different style...if you don't care for it, fine, but don't tell us we're
all a bunch of morons because we don't follow Kunzian Wrestling Theory 101.
And Mark: I know you meant your followup to be a rip to the Bleacher
Bums, so I'll deal with it in that fashion. If Sandman's kid is part of
the angle, so what? I've heard all the talk (I don't know your opinion
on it, honestly, but I would suspect you would take to this as well) that
the angle is child abuse, and immoral, and yadda yadda yadda. I don't
buy it. Now, granted, would I put my future child in a situation like that?
No. But if they've properly done their job as parents (which is what one
*has* to assume unless you see direct evidence otherwise), then the kid
is going to be fine. If he's being *forced* to do the angle, well, *then*
you've got a different problem altogether. But I highly doubt he's being
forced into it.
And what of the ECW "vampires" talk? What, just because they like to see
bloody matches, get drunk and have a good time, they're terrible people? I
can think of much worse ways for them to spend Saturday night.
My point is (and I have no idea *why* I have to make this point *again*,
but it seems I must), don't judge all ECW fans by the standards of the
drunk, retarded and clueless - which are a *lot* less than you seem to
think they are.
Steve Black
sbl...@mail.coin.missouri.edu
Herb Kunze
In article <DuFrF...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
Sanjay Mohanta <s3mohant@mc1adm> wrote:
>hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
>>In article <NEWTNews.83714...@icon.co.za>,
>>Bernard Jacob Balkin <ma...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>>>Could you imagine the Sandman in a handicap match vs Bob Holly
>>>and the 123 Kid.
>> the ring, drinks his beer, and smokes his cigarette, while
>> moronic fans actually cheer this feat. He then goes on to
>> have a "match" that contains no wrestling, blades fourteen
>
Most recently, according to Observer reports, the blade is sneaking
back into the picture. Even on the Queens show, with the NY athletic
commission breathing down their necks, Paul Heyman simply left the
blood for the final match, so that the commission couldn't kill the
show. The fans, of course, chanted "We Want Blood!" all night,
understandable because so many medical doctors were in the crowd
(with their frying pans and Nintendo games), relaxing.
If you take the blade away from Sandman, his biggest match moments
are taken away from him.
Somebody else posted that people can like whichever wrestler they
wish. I've never said otherwise, including Sandman. Just in case
there's confusion, my point has always been that the Sandman is
just as lousy a worker as the Undertaker, with some parallels:
no highspots, brawling for the great part of a match, urn gives
life to UT while beer & smokes give life to Sandman after any
beating. Everybody describes the ECW fanbase as being so "smart,"
yet they support pushing this guy to the top of the promotion
based purely on his character. I've had some conversations
where people have actually pointed out the "brilliance" of
mimmicking UT's urn shtick and "making fun" of the WWF in the
process. If it happened once, it would be making fun of the
WWF. If happenes routinely in top matches, I'd beg to differ.
>> times, uses 11 different foreign objects brought to the
>> ring by...ahem...smart..cough...cough...fans, tries one
>> actual high spot that looks dreadful, much to the cheers
>
>He is starting to connect with those high spots. He usually tries 2 or
>3. They are fun to watch though.
He hasn't connected with much of anything I've seen. His top rope
leg drop attempts were not worthy of the greenest rookie. But the
smartest fan base in the world cheers. Remember when Diamond Dallas
Page had his first TV match in WCW against Davey Rich and did a
top rope knee drop, landing square on Davey's groin, before going
on to flub every other wrestling spot in the match? That's what
the Sandman is like. DDP's shitty performance received a lot
of critical posts; Sandman gets praised. DDP has improved to
the point that I'd consider him a passable midcarder; Sandman
shouldn't even be wrestling matches yet (but then, that's not
what he does anyhow).
>> of the...ahem...smart fans. In the end, 1-2-3 Kid and Holly
>> figure they better turn on each other so that the match can
>> actually have some wrestling content. Sandman doesn't care
>
>This is where he canes the living daylights out of both of the wrestlers
>and leaves the arena.....stopping the WWF invasion!
No, no, no. On his way out, his nine year old son stops him
with his own singapore cane at hand. They exchange cane shots
and maybe a few chair shots. Tyler blades, hitting a gusher,
and Sandman can barely keep going because he's blinded by pride.
At that moment of hesitation, Tyler beans Sandman with a fry
pan, knocking him out, and Joey Styles screams that Tyler,
Sandman Jr., has finally become a man. That's when Kimona
Wanalaya comes out and puts her arms around Tyler and the
camera angle finally reveals lipstick marks on his face,
upper chest, and the crotch of his jeans. Tyler grabs
the microphone and says he's going in the back to jack off.
The University-educated Arena crowd praises the artistry
of the angle and comments that Sandman is doing a good
job of raising his son.
>> and just pours some beer on Missy's boobs while the..ahem...
>> smart fans cheer madly.
>>
>And you wouldn't want to see this! Just the reaction of the fans is
>enough to want me pay to get this tape!
Sanjay, we can always just pop over to the Doll House or something
and you can get a better eyeful for the price of a beer. The crowd
in pervert's row at the strip club probably closely matches the
ringside ECW crew, minus the fry pans.
Herb...
Mark Bureau
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
> Most recently, according to Observer reports, the blade is sneaking
> back into the picture. Even on the Queens show, with the NY athletic
> commission breathing down their necks, Paul Heyman simply left the
> blood for the final match, so that the commission couldn't kill the
> show. The fans, of course, chanted "We Want Blood!" all night,
> understandable because so many medical doctors were in the crowd
> (with their frying pans and Nintendo games), relaxing.
Even more recently, here's something I read on another on-line
forum:
**********************************************************************
"The crowd yells for Sabu. ECW gives them Sabu. The crowd yawns.
The crowd yells "We want blood". ECW gives them the blood. The crowd
yawns. After the feature event, some jerks start throwing chairs into
the ring, aiming them at Lori and the 6-year-old Tyler."
**********************************************************************
- Quote from AOL from someone in Allentown
Now granted this wasn't at the Arena, it was in Allentown, PA on
Friday night. For the life of me, I can't seem to ever recall
McCauley Caulken ever having chairs thrown at him in any of his
*acting* roles.
Now, we must remember that this is only acting. If we start to
take it too seriously, and forget our sense of humors, somehow
I think we'll fail to see the good intentions in all of this.
That Mr. and Mrs. Fullington are acting so responsibly by
exposing their young actor to this. I guess those are the
risks you take for being a child prodigy.
See ya!
Herb Kunze
In article <4sboje$p...@news.missouri.edu>,
<sbl...@mail.coin.missouri.edu> wrote:
> Herb: We all know your anti-ECW bias and your anti-ECW fan bias, so
> *please* stop trying to prove your point.
I have no anti-ECW bias. I've gotten a lot of their commercial tapes
from the past year; I wouldn't trade for them if I didn't find
worthwhile element. I wouldn't arrange to get the past many months
of TV either.
I just don't have an ECW love jones like a lot of people here.
I can see their strengths and enjoy them, but I consider Paul
Heyman's ability to manipulate the ECW Arena crowd one of the
strengths.
I do question the intelligence of the ringside fans that are on
every ECW commercial tape or TV show I've seen. I do question
the intelligence of the ECW fans I met at SMW Fanweek. I do
question the intelligence of ECW fans that attend PPVs from
the WWF and WCW to chant or sign for ECW. I do question the
intelligence of a percentage of the stalwart ECW fans that post
to this newsgroup ("alright, 17 tables were broken!" or
anybody that actually praises Sandman's, ahem, work).
>As far as the Sandman's smoking and drinking in the ring is concerned...
> it's a gimmick.
>And as far as the Sandman's wrestling is concerned...
You can like Sandman all you want. Just don't call him a good
worker or deify him like the ECW Arena crowd does, while all the
while clinging to idea that the ECW Arena crowd has the "smartest"
fans in the world. The contradiction is glaring.
I sat through two more ECW commercial tapes this past weekend:
Enter The Sandman from 05/95 and the 02/03/96 Queens NY show.
Why do I watch this stuff if I'm anti-ECW? Because the first
show had an Eddy vs. Dean 30-minute draw and the second had
a Rey vs. Juventud match and a Chris Jericho vs. Rob van Damme
match. Those are definitely going to be good, and maybe something
else would also be good.
In the end, the 05/95 tape had every match in its entirety,
except for Dean vs. Eddy, which was edited to just under 15
minutes. Nothing else on the show was good, but I got two
full matches with the Sandman bleeding up a storm.
The 02/96 tape had a wonderful, but short, Rey vs. Juventud
match (about 12 minutes) and didn't air the Jericho vs. Damme
match. But I got Buh Buh Ray Dudley vs. JT Smith.
I remember when WCW interrupted a Dean vs. Eddy (I think) match
on a live Nitro to show Hulk Hogan arriving at the building and
everybody screamed up a storm at this transgression. Everybody
has assumed that WCW will blow the Cruiserweight stuff, even
though we've had some nice longer (> 15 minutes) matches from
that division. I'm not praising WCW here. I think that despite
the impact of the top angle, a lot of the stuff just isn't building
to things I want to see. I'm just pointing out that everybody
assumes that ECW will use the juniors better, even though they
apparently don't pay them too much respect on their home video
tapes (based on above two tapes; things aren't always that bad).
I should clarify the above and point out that no other matches
were good, but that there were some entertaining moments. I sort
of like Steve Richards' goofy interviews and stuff, but they tend
to stretch for way too long, IMO. Still, one excellent match,
no other good matches, some good moments. That describes almost
every PPV from either the WWF or WCW over the years and quite a
few PPVs in recent times (thanks to the ascension of Michaels
and the coming of Mero in the WWF, and the advent of the Cruisers
and the New Japan guys in WCW) have easily beaten that standard.
ECW only easily wins on bloody brawls. The fans that supported
the supremely untalented Axl Rotten and Ian Rotten in their
bloody feud can surely not be amongst the "smartest" fans in
the world.
>And what of the ECW "vampires" talk? What, just because they like to see
>bloody matches, get drunk and have a good time, they're terrible people?
For the "best fans in the world" to merely be bloodhungry savages
is a good thing?
>I can think of much worse ways for them to spend Saturday night.
At least having them all in one overcrowded Bingo hall increases
the chance of an Act of God improving Philadelphia's demographics.
Herb...
Jeff Amdur
In article <4se2h1$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
mr...@worldnet.att.net (Mark Bureau) wrote:
> **********************************************************************
> "The crowd yells for Sabu. ECW gives them Sabu. The crowd yawns.
> The crowd yells "We want blood". ECW gives them the blood. The crowd
> yawns. After the feature event, some jerks start throwing chairs into
> the ring, aiming them at Lori and the 6-year-old Tyler."
> **********************************************************************
> - Quote from AOL from someone in Allentown
>
> Now granted this wasn't at the Arena, it was in Allentown, PA on
> Friday night.
The point being made in the above quote from AOL was in the context of
amazement at an unusually responsive crowd in Allentown that basically
came to the Ag Hall to bash and criticize ECW. It seemed as if they had
their opinions formed already.
On the other hand, with the exception of one minor incident where the
perpetrator was removed IMMEDIATELY from the premises by the security
people, the Arena crowd behaved. The whole context of the above was that
although one could have expected the worst based on the Allentown
reaction, the Philly reaction was decent and into the matches without
being disruptive, abusive or violent.
Jeff, a.k.a. "someone in Allentown"
Mark Bureau
je...@clark.net (Jeff Amdur) wrote:
>> **********************************************************************
>> "The crowd yells for Sabu. ECW gives them Sabu. The crowd yawns.
>> The crowd yells "We want blood". ECW gives them the blood. The crowd
>> yawns. After the feature event, some jerks start throwing chairs into
>> the ring, aiming them at Lori and the 6-year-old Tyler."
>> **********************************************************************
>The point being made in the above quote from AOL was in the context of
>amazement at an unusually responsive crowd in Allentown that basically
>came to the Ag Hall to bash and criticize ECW. It seemed as if they had
>their opinions formed already.
>Jeff, a.k.a. "someone in Allentown"
But the point I was trying to make with that statement, Jeff
was the point I made back in the Deer Park thread. And that
is, no matter how "responsible" Tyler's parents think they
are, and how much they think they can protect their child
actor, he is still exposed to what you desribed on AOL.
I also pose the question, When has McCauly Caulken ever had
chairs and board thrown at him on the set of a movie?
One more point, your description, whether it was in Allentown,
Philadelphia, Jim Thorpe, Tampa or anywhere is exactly the
trend people were talking about a year ago. No longer is
just seeing Sabu exciting. He's got to be stretchered out.
No longer is just seeing blood exciting, it's gotta gush from
nearly everyone all night. No longer is a 3 table spot exciting,
the athletes have to dive off the balconies. So what happens next,
the crowds get so bored (or yawn) that they start creating
their own excitement by throwing chairs at and hitting a
six year old kid? I wonder where we will first read about
it when he finally does get hit with something, or if
we will hear about the responsible James Fullington grabbing
the punk who hits Tyler and makes an example of him.
See ya!
Mark R. Bureau
Travis Cook
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Herb Kunze wrote:
> I sat through two more ECW commercial tapes this past weekend:
> Enter The Sandman from 05/95 and the 02/03/96 Queens NY show.
> Why do I watch this stuff if I'm anti-ECW? Because the first
> show had an Eddy vs. Dean 30-minute draw and the second had
> a Rey vs. Juventud match and a Chris Jericho vs. Rob van Damme
> match. Those are definitely going to be good, and maybe something
> else would also be good.
>
> In the end, the 05/95 tape had every match in its entirety,
> except for Dean vs. Eddy, which was edited to just under 15
> minutes. Nothing else on the show was good, but I got two
> full matches with the Sandman bleeding up a storm.
I think an important point needs to be raised here. Granted Dean-Eddie
and Rey-Juventud are some of the finest matches a person is likely to
ever see, however, they are not all there is to the wrestling buisiness.
Sandman "bleeding up a storm" also has it's place in wrestling as well.
One does not have to look back terribly far in time to find that most of
the old NWA-affiliated territories spilled seemingly gallons of blood on
every card. The Apter mags seemed to make their living (before the WM1
boom period) by pasting their covers with bloody pictures of The Shiek,
Fred Blassie, and whomever was wreslting Abdullah the Butcher that
month. In short, bleeding is nothing new, it sold twenty years ago, it
sells today. I honestly don't understand your problem with it. As for
The Sandman's work, I can honestly say that I've seen him bust his rear
end over the last year and a half to give the fans their money's worth.
He's not doing shooting star presses, nor should he be expected to. He
is, however, giving everything he has in the ring, which every wrestler
should be expected to.
>
> >And what of the ECW "vampires" talk? What, just because they like to see
> >bloody matches, get drunk and have a good time, they're terrible people?
>
> For the "best fans in the world" to merely be bloodhungry savages
> is a good thing?
See above point. "Bloodhungry savages" are nothing new in wrestling
fans. I find it interesting that you supported SMW (and with
good reason, it was a fine fed) which had a multitude of brawlsbut see some
sort of difference in ECW brawling. Sure it gets a little violent in ECW,
but so did the Kevin Sullivan-Brian Lee spike match.
Brawling, wherever it takes place, has it's fans. It may or may not be
what you like, but it is out there. If you choose not to watch it, then
fair enough, there is no way anyone can fault you for doing so. However,
for those of us who enjoy a little blood and guts with our wrestling, I
don't see what right you have to fault us.
> At least having them all in one overcrowded Bingo hall increases
> the chance of an Act of God improving Philadelphia's demographics.
I'm so terribly sorry for my personal tastes! Perhaps it is time for all
of Phiadelphia, and the rest of the world, to worship at the alter of
good, clean, scientific wrestling! Seriously, I ask again, do we not have
the right to watch what we enjoy?
******************************************************************************
Travis Cook, c59...@showme.missouri.edu
Missouri Tiger Football '94 -- A New Breed Of Cat
Missouri Tiger Football '95 -- Earning Our Stripes
Missouri Tiger Football '96 -- Oh God...we're gonna die...
"I could come out here and wrestle a broom and these people would be
impressed"--Ric Flair during his first Memphis appearance, circa
1982
******************************************************************************
Yuriy Kleyner
In article <Dups2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> Herb Kunze
wrote:
>Travis Cook <c59...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>> Sandman "bleeding up a storm" also has it's place in wrestling
as well.
>
> But that is all he can do.
I don't care what he can do. I do care that Sandman entertains me.
That's a lot more than I can say for Eddie Guerrero or Akira
Hokuto (aim for where it hurts).
>
>>One does not have to look back terribly far in time to find that
most of
>>the old NWA-affiliated territories spilled seemingly gallons of
blood on
>>every card.
>
> No question that the NWA had some bloodbaths.
>
> The Sandman is Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s NWA. He can't wrestle
worth
> a shit, he's willing to bleed a lot and does so, and he has
enough
> influence to keep himself in the spotlight. The only difference
is
> that so-called "smart" fans didn't deify Rhodes, they panned
him.
>
> I have never said that blood doesn't have it's place in
pro-wrestling.
> There are some guys that bled their way through the 1980s that
also
> delivered far more than buckets of blood (Ric Flair comes
immediately
> to mind).
>
>>The Apter mags seemed to make their living (before the WM1
>>boom period) by pasting their covers with bloody pictures of The
Shiek,
>>Fred Blassie, and whomever was wreslting Abdullah the Butcher
that
>>month. In short, bleeding is nothing new, it sold twenty years
ago, it
>>sells today. I honestly don't understand your problem with it.
>
> I'm not talking about what sells Apter magazines. Hulk Hogan
did
> that. Ultimate Warrior did that. And they are, with limited
> exceptions, not guys that are praised by fans in the know, as
> any r.s.p-w survey shows (see awards, for example).
>
> I'm not talking about what draws casual fans or fans who don't
know
> what is really happening in a wrestling match. By all accounts,
> that is not the fanbase at the ECW Arena; correct me if I'm
wrong.
>
> It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have
called
> the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
> supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
I find it's sad when people are unwilling to show respect for
tastes of others and keep insisting that only their preferences are
the right/appropriate ones.
>
>>He is, however, giving everything he has in the ring, which every
wrestler
>>should be expected to.
>
> What does he have? What does he give? I've seen over 20
matches
> with the guy and as far as I can tell the answer is blood,
> nonsensical brawling, and attitude.
I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it. Try it some time. Maybe
then you will finally understand that wrestling is about fun, not
about athleticism.
>
>>> For the "best fans in the world" to merely be bloodhungry
savages
>>> is a good thing?
>>See above point. "Bloodhungry savages" are nothing new in
wrestling
>>fans. I find it interesting that you supported SMW (and with
>>good reason, it was a fine fed) which had a multitude of
brawlsbut see
> some
>>sort of difference in ECW brawling. Sure it gets a little
violent in ECW,
>>but so did the Kevin Sullivan-Brian Lee spike match.
>
> The differences are many.
>
> SMW had one brawl on the upper half of a typical card. ECW has
one
> non-brawl on the upper half of a typical card.
>
> SMW used blood to get some angles over and overdid it a few
times,
> most notably with Sullivan vs. Lee and Sullivan vs. Kanemura;
> surprise, surprise, the supremely untalented Kevin Sullivan used
> blood to stay over.
I don't care. I don't care whether a performance is athletic. I
don't care if the performance is psychologically sound. The movie
with the best actors is not necessarily the movie I enjoy the most.
Movies, just like wrestling, are about what I enjoy. I am not a big
fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like both
men are beating the shit out of each other. Sorry, but I see that
with very few cruiserweights.
> Strangely enough, I haven't ever heard any praise
> in r.s.p-w for his in-ring performances either. The only other
bloodbath
> that I remember was the Night of Legends match where Chris
Jericho cut
> himself with his left hand (having broken his right) and went way
too
> deep. Interestingly enough, the great majority of people that
have
> seen this match and commented on it said they were grossed out.
> Up until the recent blood-ban, ECW used blood like water. The
> vampires chant "we want blood!" during many matches, even during
> some of the classic wrestling matches we agreed upon earlier.
OK, so one brawl per show is OK. What about two brawls? Would
three brawls be OK? BTW, I recently saw a match where for no
apparent reason your favorite female Japanese troll is lying on a
table in a pool of blood.
>
> To sum up these two items - blood and brawls -, they are the
selling
> point of ECW and they were incidental, comparatively infrequent
> occurences in SMW.
So did you only like it when there were no brawls? Or did you like
it when there were brawls as long as brawls were limited? And let
me guess the frequency at which brawls/blood became intolerable was
determined by ....mmmmmmm.....personal taste, maybe?
>
>>Brawling, wherever it takes place, has it's fans. It may or may
not be
>>what you like, but it is out there. If you choose not to watch
it, then
>>fair enough, there is no way anyone can fault you for doing so.
However,
>>for those of us who enjoy a little blood and guts with our
wrestling, I
>>don't see what right you have to fault us.
>
> Sure, there's no reason why somebody who sees a great brawl
shouldn't
> enjoy it. It's not for everyone, but when it's done well, it can
be
> great. That doesn't explain supporting guys like Sandman
What if they enjoy watching the Sandman? Imagine that?
> or, gawd
> forbid, the Rottens or the Harris twins, guys who just brawl
> nonsensically, cutting themselves open in plain sight of any
idiot.
> Supporting a great brawl is also much different than chanting for
> blood during great wrestling matches or bringing foreign objects
> to a match.
>
>>> At least having them all in one overcrowded Bingo hall
increases
>>> the chance of an Act of God improving Philadelphia's
demographics.
>>I'm so terribly sorry for my personal tastes! Perhaps it is time
for all
>>of Phiadelphia, and the rest of the world, to worship at the alter
of
>>good, clean, scientific wrestling! Seriously, I ask again, do we
not have
>>the right to watch what we enjoy?
>
> Everybody can do what they enjoy, even the moronic ECW
ringsiders.
And even the moronic workrate freaks who claim that everybody who
likes different things is a moron.
>
> But at the same time, I can sit back more objectively
You? Objectively? Don't make me laugh. One of the first sentences
on your web page states: "The good stuff invariably takes place in
Japan."
> and realize
> that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s
He is much cooler. I never cheered for Dusty.
> or
> that his gimmick is no less juvenile and insulting than the
Undertaker's.
It's a great mockery of The Undertaker/Hulk Hogan/Kenta Kobashi
(yes, you read right).
Sandman doesn't rely on the beer as an indoubtful ally, he doesn't
always win because of it. When he does use it, it's at the point
where every single fan wants him to because Paul Heyman has made us
hate his opponent and love the Sandman to the degree that we don't
give.
> I can listen to the childish "Show your tits!" chants, the "You
fucked
> up!" chant, the "We want blood!" chant, or the oh-so-smart
"Bischoff
> takes it up the ass!"-type chant;
I hate those chants myself. Don't forget the immortal "BORING".
But people are enjoying themselves, that's the point. Sorry, Herb,
some people like to have fun, but I am sure your idea of fun
involves a blanket and some nudes of Akira.
> I can read show reviews where
> people rave about the violence, about the tables broken, about
the
> insane stunts, about the juice and see them continually demand
that
> the promotion surpasses the previous month's violence, blood,
stunts.
> I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly
conditioned
> by Paul Heyman
And what the fuck do you mean by that? That we like those guys
because of Heyman's storyline? Yes, yes, a million times yes. And
what's the problem with that?
> to support no-talent guys like Sandman, 9-1-1, or the
> Dudleys;
Nah!!!! You mean I don't love those guys because of their great
natural ability???
> I can witness all of this and come to reasonably logical
> conclusions about the fans.
No. I would never chant the kind of idiotisms some Arena fans
chant. But I do love watching ECW. And if you don't like it, move
to Japan.
> And, yes, they can like what they like
> and do what they wish.
>
> This "Act of God" remark (above) generated a burst of supportive
or
> laughing e-mail.
So? Your logic is then because people like it it must be good?
>
>
Herb...
Yuriy
"Did you even think that I cared about winning a match?
I measure wins and losses by pints of blood, by broken bones,
by ice packs that you need just to get to sleep at night."
-The Sandman, ECW TV, March 95.
Yeah, well, your mother is my secret lover.
-Puck, Real World Reunion.
Bill Linn
In article <4se2h1$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, mr...@worldnet.att.net (Mark Bureau) says:
>
>hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
>
>> Most recently, according to Observer reports, the blade is sneaking
>> back into the picture. Even on the Queens show, with the NY athletic
>> commission breathing down their necks, Paul Heyman simply left the
>> blood for the final match, so that the commission couldn't kill the
>> show. The fans, of course, chanted "We Want Blood!" all night,
>> understandable because so many medical doctors were in the crowd
>> (with their frying pans and Nintendo games), relaxing.
>
>Even more recently, here's something I read on another on-line
>forum:
>
>
>"The crowd yells for Sabu. ECW gives them Sabu. The crowd yawns.
>The crowd yells "We want blood". ECW gives them the blood. The crowd
>yawns. After the feature event, some jerks start throwing chairs into
>the ring, aiming them at Lori and the 6-year-old Tyler."
>**********************************************************************
>
>Now granted this wasn't at the Arena, it was in Allentown, PA on
>McCauley Caulken ever having chairs thrown at him in any of his
>*acting* roles.
>
>Now, we must remember that this is only acting. If we start to
>take it too seriously, and forget our sense of humors, somehow
>I think we'll fail to see the good intentions in all of this.
There are no good intentions per se, only to satisfy customers who want angles that
entertain and want them to come back for more.
>That Mr. and Mrs. Fullington are acting so responsibly by
>exposing their young actor to this. I guess those are the
>risks you take for being a child prodigy.
>
Lighten up before you get back to teaching your kids the mythical story written
some 2000 years ago bible thumper.
Bill Linn
hu...@ldd.net
Herb Kunze
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960716...@black.missouri.edu>,
Travis Cook <c59...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
> Sandman "bleeding up a storm" also has it's place in wrestling as well.
But that is all he can do.
>One does not have to look back terribly far in time to find that most of
>He is, however, giving everything he has in the ring, which every wrestler
>should be expected to.
What does he have? What does he give? I've seen over 20 matches
with the guy and as far as I can tell the answer is blood,
nonsensical brawling, and attitude.
>> For the "best fans in the world" to merely be bloodhungry savages
>> is a good thing?
>See above point. "Bloodhungry savages" are nothing new in wrestling
>fans. I find it interesting that you supported SMW (and with
>good reason, it was a fine fed) which had a multitude of brawlsbut see some
>sort of difference in ECW brawling. Sure it gets a little violent in ECW,
>but so did the Kevin Sullivan-Brian Lee spike match.
The differences are many.
SMW had one brawl on the upper half of a typical card. ECW has one
non-brawl on the upper half of a typical card.
SMW used blood to get some angles over and overdid it a few times,
most notably with Sullivan vs. Lee and Sullivan vs. Kanemura;
surprise, surprise, the supremely untalented Kevin Sullivan used
blood to stay over. Strangely enough, I haven't ever heard any praise
in r.s.p-w for his in-ring performances either. The only other bloodbath
that I remember was the Night of Legends match where Chris Jericho cut
himself with his left hand (having broken his right) and went way too
deep. Interestingly enough, the great majority of people that have
seen this match and commented on it said they were grossed out.
Up until the recent blood-ban, ECW used blood like water. The
vampires chant "we want blood!" during many matches, even during
some of the classic wrestling matches we agreed upon earlier.
To sum up these two items - blood and brawls -, they are the selling
point of ECW and they were incidental, comparatively infrequent
occurences in SMW.
>Brawling, wherever it takes place, has it's fans. It may or may not be
>what you like, but it is out there. If you choose not to watch it, then
>fair enough, there is no way anyone can fault you for doing so. However,
>for those of us who enjoy a little blood and guts with our wrestling, I
>don't see what right you have to fault us.
Sure, there's no reason why somebody who sees a great brawl shouldn't
enjoy it. It's not for everyone, but when it's done well, it can be
great. That doesn't explain supporting guys like Sandman or, gawd
forbid, the Rottens or the Harris twins, guys who just brawl
nonsensically, cutting themselves open in plain sight of any idiot.
Supporting a great brawl is also much different than chanting for
blood during great wrestling matches or bringing foreign objects
to a match.
>> At least having them all in one overcrowded Bingo hall increases
>> the chance of an Act of God improving Philadelphia's demographics.
>I'm so terribly sorry for my personal tastes! Perhaps it is time for all
>of Phiadelphia, and the rest of the world, to worship at the alter of
>good, clean, scientific wrestling! Seriously, I ask again, do we not have
>the right to watch what we enjoy?
Everybody can do what they enjoy, even the moronic ECW ringsiders.
But at the same time, I can sit back more objectively and realize
that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s or
that his gimmick is no less juvenile and insulting than the Undertaker's.
I can listen to the childish "Show your tits!" chants, the "You fucked
up!" chant, the "We want blood!" chant, or the oh-so-smart "Bischoff
takes it up the ass!"-type chant; I can read show reviews where
people rave about the violence, about the tables broken, about the
insane stunts, about the juice and see them continually demand that
the promotion surpasses the previous month's violence, blood, stunts.
I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly conditioned
by Paul Heyman to support no-talent guys like Sandman, 9-1-1, or the
Dudleys; I can witness all of this and come to reasonably logical
conclusions about the fans. And, yes, they can like what they like
and do what they wish.
This "Act of God" remark (above) generated a burst of supportive or
laughing e-mail.
Herb...
sbl...@mail.coin.missouri.edu
In <DuLC0...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>In article <4sboje$p...@news.missouri.edu>,
> <sbl...@mail.coin.missouri.edu> wrote:
>> Herb: We all know your anti-ECW bias and your anti-ECW fan bias, so
>> *please* stop trying to prove your point.
> I have no anti-ECW bias. I've gotten a lot of their commercial tapes
> from the past year; I wouldn't trade for them if I didn't find
> worthwhile element. I wouldn't arrange to get the past many months
> of TV either.
Point taken. But your rants against ECW fans get tiresome after the first
9,239,190 times.
> I just don't have an ECW love jones like a lot of people here.
> I can see their strengths and enjoy them, but I consider Paul
> Heyman's ability to manipulate the ECW Arena crowd one of the
> strengths.
As do I. Yet I and most other ECW fans admire that, while the above seems
to imply that you think it's wrong that Paul E. does do that. I'll admit,
when I first started watching ECW - particularly after seeing for myself
Paul E.'s spin on Sabu missing the Three-Way Dance - I thought Paul E.
was playing the fans completely straight. I've since learned better, but I
think of it this way - if *I* can be fooled, that's saying something about
how good he is at working a crowd.
> I do question the intelligence of the ringside fans that are on
> every ECW commercial tape or TV show I've seen.
a) Most of them are the same people every time;
b) A lot of the fans that attend are not only smart to the business, but
fairly intelligent as well;
c) Much of the behavior is as much related to blood-alcohol content as
anything else.
> I do question the intelligence of the ECW fans I met at SMW Fanweek.
Having met the people you're talking about - if you judge ECW fans by
*that* standard, no wonder you have such a negative opinion.
> You can like Sandman all you want. Just don't call him a good
> worker or deify him like the ECW Arena crowd does, while all the
> while clinging to idea that the ECW Arena crowd has the "smartest"
> fans in the world. The contradiction is glaring.
The crowd "deifies" him, as you say, because they like his gimmick.
As I said, nobody is *ever* going to compare him to Jushin Liger, and if
they do, I'd agree that that would be ridiculous. But he *has* vastly
improved as a worker since his early days. If you've seen the early TV
and compared it to what he's done, say, up to December 1995, the
difference is staggering.
> I remember when WCW interrupted a Dean vs. Eddy (I think) match
> on a live Nitro to show Hulk Hogan arriving at the building and
> everybody screamed up a storm at this transgression. Everybody
> has assumed that WCW will blow the Cruiserweight stuff, even
> though we've had some nice longer (> 15 minutes) matches from
> that division. I'm not praising WCW here. I think that despite
> the impact of the top angle, a lot of the stuff just isn't building
> to things I want to see. I'm just pointing out that everybody
> assumes that ECW will use the juniors better, even though they
> apparently don't pay them too much respect on their home video
> tapes (based on above two tapes; things aren't always that bad).
Actually, I'm going to praise WCW here because they have done, for the
most part, a very good job of building up the Cruiserweights. The thought
of seeing Rey Misterio, Jr. and Psicosis over with a WCW crowd is
something I never thought I'd see (though I also though if anyone *could*
have pulled it off, it would've been those two).
But ECW has a proven track record with those people. WCW had had
wrestlers like Scorpio, Benoit and Misterio before, and misused them,
particularly Benoit. When ECW got them, they got them over so far it was
positively scary. The fact is, when WCW got Sabu, Benoit, Guererro and
Malenko, fans had good reason to be terrified at what was going to happen.
For a while, their worst fears were realized - I was ready to reach through
the set and throttle Bischoff when they cut off Guererro-Malenko for Hulk
Hogan entering the building. But in 1996, WCW has learned to give them
the time and the freedom to get themselves over. And I think Nitro's two-
hour format has a lot to do with it.
> I should clarify the above and point out that no other matches
> were good, but that there were some entertaining moments. I sort
> of like Steve Richards' goofy interviews and stuff, but they tend
> to stretch for way too long, IMO. Still, one excellent match,
> no other good matches, some good moments. That describes almost
> every PPV from either the WWF or WCW over the years and quite a
> few PPVs in recent times (thanks to the ascension of Michaels
> and the coming of Mero in the WWF, and the advent of the Cruisers
> and the New Japan guys in WCW) have easily beaten that standard.
> ECW only easily wins on bloody brawls. The fans that supported
> the supremely untalented Axl Rotten and Ian Rotten in their
> bloody feud can surely not be amongst the "smartest" fans in
> the world.
Let's deal with the above points.
1) ECW is only as good as the WCW and WWF PPVs have been over the
years. The difference is that this is the case at nearly every show for
ECW. If you compare a WCW or WWF house show with the average ECW
spot show, the ECW spot show wins hands down. The Arena shows win
by a larger margin, though those who write the reports admit that some
of the stuff is lousy at times. With what would be at stake at a pay-per-
view, I have little doubt that if ECW ever decided to do one, the buyrate
would probably not be all that good, but the match quality compared to
the average WWF or WCW PPV would be so far superior, you have no idea.
I'm convinced of it.
2) Those who love Axl vs. Ian couldn't possibly be smart fans. That shows
me exactly where you come from here. Basically, you don't like bloody
brawls. While I think Axl vs. Ian went over the line for my own personal
taste, a lot of other smart fans enjoy that sort of thing. Smart fans are not
required to like workrate above all else, Herb. Travis Cook, who has also
spoken in this thread, is one of the smartest fans I know, both in terms of
IQ and wrestling knowledge. And he loves matches like the old Mid-South,
World Class, Continental, etc. who *specialized* in bloodfests.
>>And what of the ECW "vampires" talk? What, just because they like to see
>>bloody matches, get drunk and have a good time, they're terrible people?
> For the "best fans in the world" to merely be bloodhungry savages
> is a good thing?
To each their own. :) Seriously, not *all* of the fans are bloodthirsty
savages. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
>>I can think of much worse ways for them to spend Saturday night.
> At least having them all in one overcrowded Bingo hall increases
> the chance of an Act of God improving Philadelphia's demographics.
Obviously, you've never seen Philadelphia. :)
Steve Black
sbl...@mail.coin.missouri.edu
Jeff Amdur
> I don't care what he can do. I do care that Sandman entertains me.
> That's a lot more than I can say for Eddie Guerrero or Akira
> Hokuto (aim for where it hurts).
I am entertained by just about any wrestler who busts his/her ass to put
on a good performance. That would include both Sandman and Guerrero, in
their own ways. (Hokuto I'm just not familiar with; I make no secret of
my ignorance of Japanese wrestling).
> > It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have
> called
> > the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
> > supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
What I like about Sandman is that in spite of an admitted lack of
wrestling ability, he still works his tuchus off during his matches. It
may be largely brawling and blood, but I've never seen him stiff the
public and slacken off during a match, even when he could hardly walk.
>
> I find it's sad when people are unwilling to show respect for
> tastes of others and keep insisting that only their preferences are
> the right/appropriate ones.
I dont think that it's a matter of Herb not being willing to show respect
for Sandman fans but rather an inability to understand why people like
Sandman. I have that same inability when it comes to fans of the Ultimate
Warrior. I have absolutely no respect for UW, but I wouldn't transfer
that lack of respect to UW fans. I've posted plenty of articles bashing
No-Sellwig but I don't think I've bashed his fans (although there seem to
be only three that are regular posters to RSPW).
> >>He is, however, giving everything he has in the ring, which every
> wrestler
> >>should be expected to.
> >
> > What does he have? What does he give? I've seen over 20
> matches
> > with the guy and as far as I can tell the answer is blood,
> > nonsensical brawling, and attitude.
And he gives his all. I can relate to someone who cares about how he
performs (even to the extent of risking bodily harm).
> I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it. Try it some time. Maybe
> then you will finally understand that wrestling is about fun, not
> about athleticism.
And that's called "marking out".
> I don't care. I don't care whether a performance is athletic. I
> don't care if the performance is psychologically sound. The movie
> with the best actors is not necessarily the movie I enjoy the most.
> Movies, just like wrestling, are about what I enjoy. I am not a big
> fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like both
> men are beating the shit out of each other. Sorry, but I see that
> with very few cruiserweights.
I have to partially disagree here. I like variety in cards. Those ECW
shows that I have enjoyed the most contained a balance of athleticism,
psychology, good angles and kick-ass brawls. On the other hand, nine
matches, all with blood and table shots, get boring after a while. Any
nine matches that turn out to be carbon copies of each other would get
dull. IMHO the best wrestling around right now comes from those
cruiserweights, because they combine athleticism, psychology, and "beating
the shit out of each other". My summers in Mexico sold me on the value of
the lightweights to a promotion. I'm glad the US promotions are beginning
to see that value.
> And even the moronic workrate freaks who claim that everybody who
> likes different things is a moron.
Hold on there! I haven't seen that many "workrate freaks" (and I'm proud
to call myself one) bash fans of something different. I may bash the
"something different", especially when it involves Hogan and Warrior; but
I don't think most of us move that bashing to the personal level. Don't
judge all us workrate freaks by the pontifications of one or two.
To me "workrate" doesn't necessarily imply technical wrestling. It
implies giving your all and not defrauding the fans. To me Sandman has a
good workrate, although he's got zero technical wrestling skills. Hogan
on the other hand may have at one time shown some technical skill years
ago in Japan; but he never showed that to us here. As a face, he wrestled
the same exact match over and over again for fifteen years in three
different federations. Warrior, like Sandman, never even had the
technical skill of a Hogan <ugh>. But the difference between Warrior and
Sandman is that Sandman delivers entertaining matches, Warrior just shakes
the ropes and does nothing. Some fans may find all that rope-tugging and
gorilla presses entertaining; I don't begrudge them that. I may not
respect Hogan or Warrior but that doesn't carry over to their fans.
> You? Objectively? Don't make me laugh. One of the first sentences
> on your web page states: "The good stuff invariably takes place in
> Japan."
There *is* good stuff in Japan. There's good stuff here, too. Everybody
brings to any form of entertainment their own unique opinions and biases.
>
> > and realize
> > that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s
>
> He is much cooler. I never cheered for Dusty.
It's a shame that many people just remember Dusty from his terrible
commentary or that last wrestling go-round with Sapphire and the polka
dots. Dusty didn't have a classic body and didn't have much technical
skill, but he was very much like Sandman. He brawled, had the fans behind
him, and always (in his prime, late 70s-mid 80s) gave the fans their $$$
worth. If you look at any tapes of those bloody bullrope matches between
Dusty and Superstar Graham, you'd see what I mean.
> I hate those chants myself. Don't forget the immortal "BORING".
> But people are enjoying themselves, that's the point.
I have to draw the line at the "boring" chants. That's damn
disrespectful. As I have said before, it's a fucking shame that the WWF
of the mid 80s brainwashed many fans to the point that they can no longer
appreciate long matches with psychological buildups. Scorpio-Van Dam
boring? Jericho-Douglas last Friday boring? I didn't understand those
fans. I don't think they were allowing themselves to be entertained.
> No. I would never chant the kind of idiotisms some Arena fans
> chant. But I do love watching ECW. And if you don't like it, move
> to Japan.
But one can enjoy both ECW *and* Japan. One enjoy both WCW *and* WWF,
MEWF and EMLL. I enjoy watching my ECW tapes, but I also enjoy watching
my tapes of 50s wrestling with the Gallaghers, Gorgeous George, Lou Thesz,
Wild Red Berry, and others. If the wrestlers put on a good show in the
ring, I can forget those inter-promotional feuds and even the angles and
just "mark out" on what I see going on.
As Yuriy said earlier:
> I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it. ... wrestling is about fun
The bottom line is that I find all these types fun to watch (although I'm
probably a fossil for marking out for Dory Dixon and Sailor Art Thomas).
When I'm watching wrestling, I don't want to use my brain; hell, I use
whatever brain I have left enough in my job. I want to mark out and enjoy
the matches, whether they involve Lou Thesz trading holds with someone,
Bruno Sammartino in a classic brawl with Zbyszko, Sabu and Van Dam trading
high spots, Malenko and Benoit in a battle of athletic and psychological
wits, or Sandman and Raven beating the shit out of each other. Some of
you may disagree, but they're all entertaining to me in their own way.
Sanjay Mohanta
>
> The Sandman is Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s NWA. He can't wrestle worth
> a shit, he's willing to bleed a lot and does so, and he has enough
> influence to keep himself in the spotlight. The only difference is
> that so-called "smart" fans didn't deify Rhodes, they panned him.
I agree with your comparison but there is one big difference. Whereas
Rhodes called himself the American Dream by(later in his career) showing
videos of himself as a plumber,working at a barn and serving fast food,
Sandman is an American Dream. Think about it. Reports say he has a blue
collar "real" job and he satirizes all the American Beer commercials by
finding himself not only galvanized by it but also using it as lewer to
attract beautiful women. His lack of lustre when performing high spots
is just a method to get more "over" with the fans. Maybe he can perform
Hurricanas, Asai Moonsaults and Shooting Star Presses ubt chooses not too
show himself as being one with the fans. Maybe the WWf should sign him
instead of the plumbers, garbage men they signed now. He wears typically
"weightlifting" pants and sports shoes yet looks(and acts) like a typical
ECW fan that you compalain about Herb. This is an example of excellent
marketing by Heyman and Sandman. Think about it.
I am sure there is a little Sandman in all of us who wishes to pour beer
on women's chests, drink beer and cane our enemies....even one in you
Herb!
Sanjay
Herb Kunze
In article <DusJ...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
Sanjay Mohanta <s3mohant@mc1adm> wrote:
>> The Sandman is Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s NWA. He can't wrestle worth
>> a shit, he's willing to bleed a lot and does so, and he has enough
>> influence to keep himself in the spotlight. The only difference is
>> that so-called "smart" fans didn't deify Rhodes, they panned him.
>Rhodes called himself the American Dream by(later in his career) showing
>videos of himself as a plumber,working at a barn and serving fast food,
>Sandman is an American Dream.
Hey, Sanjay, this could all change if we ever find out what was
in those pictures that Baby Doll had!
>He wears typically
>"weightlifting" pants and sports shoes yet looks(and acts) like a typical
>ECW fan that you compalain about Herb. This is an example of excellent
>marketing by Heyman and Sandman. Think about it.
But the guy wrestles about as well as any of the fans could.
>I am sure there is a little Sandman in all of us who wishes to pour beer
>on women's chests, drink beer and cane our enemies....even one in you Herb!
Maybe when I was thirteen or fourteen.
Herb...
Dave Scherer
Tro...@gnn.com (Yuriy Kleyner) wrote:
A really great reply which made a lot of great points where Herb's
"argument" was concerned.
>In article <Dups2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> Herb Kunze
>wrote:
>> It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have
>called
>> the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
>> supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
>
>I find it's sad when people are unwilling to show respect for
>tastes of others and keep insisting that only their preferences are
>the right/appropriate ones.
Home run Yuriy. Why does it matter what someone likes? And why do
those who dislike a promotion feel the need to condemn those that do?
I just saw Herb's tidbits. He again felt the need to rundown ECW.
It makes no sense to me. If I disliked something as much as Herb does
with ECW and its fans, I would ignore them. That is the rational
thing to do. And yet, I see tirades against ECW's fans from Herb in
almost all of his posts. It's a shame.
>> What does he have? What does he give? I've seen over 20
>matches
>> with the guy and as far as I can tell the answer is blood,
>> nonsensical brawling, and attitude.
>
>I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it. Try it some time. Maybe
>then you will finally understand that wrestling is about fun, not
>about athleticism.
And even moreso, what Herb likes is just as relevant. And I would bet
that 99 times out of 100 Yuriy would not even write the above
sentence, but when someone continually harps on and puts down ones way
of enjoying a product, as Herb has seemingly made it his life's goal
to do, people tend to react less than hospitably.
>I don't care. I don't care whether a performance is athletic. I
>don't care if the performance is psychologically sound. The movie
>with the best actors is not necessarily the movie I enjoy the most.
>Movies, just like wrestling, are about what I enjoy. I am not a big
>fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like both
>men are beating the shit out of each other. Sorry, but I see that
>with very few cruiserweights.
And Herb and you both have the right to like what you like. It's just
a shame that Herb feels the need to put down what he does not like,
and makes you feel the need to defend it.
My advice is to just ignore him, as a lot of the people do. His act
has gotten tired and old.
And that is a shame, because back in the old days when Herb posted
about what he liked, not what he hated, he had a lot of interesting
things to say.
>>>> At least having them all in one overcrowded Bingo hall
>increases
>>>> the chance of an Act of God improving Philadelphia's
>demographics.
Wow, I missed that Herb wrote that. That one, pathetically sad and
bitter statement goes a long way to show you why talking to that
obsessed, angry man is a waste of your time Yuriy.
>> Everybody can do what they enjoy, even the moronic ECW
>ringsiders.
>
>And even the moronic workrate freaks who claim that everybody who
>likes different things is a moron.
Well put.
>>
>> But at the same time, I can sit back more objectively
>
>You? Objectively? Don't make me laugh. One of the first sentences
>on your web page states: "The good stuff invariably takes place in
>Japan."
Herb's objectivity is surely hard to prove.
>> and realize
>> that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s
>
>He is much cooler. I never cheered for Dusty.
It's not about the Sandman Yuriy. For all the newer folks here, there
used to be a strong group of what Herb and some others called "ECW
Posters." He did not like them and a lot of what he is writing stems
from that.
>Sandman doesn't rely on the beer as an indoubtful ally, he doesn't
>always win because of it. When he does use it, it's at the point
>where every single fan wants him to because Paul Heyman has made us
>hate his opponent and love the Sandman to the degree that we don't
>give.
It's about characters, angles, and booking. As much as I love the
lighter guys, I love great booking too. Hogan turning was a joy to
watch. I saw someone posted somewhere that anyone who cheered his
turn was a hypocrite. I say that anyone who doesn't can't appreciate
good booking and tries to be "too smart."
>> I can listen to the childish "Show your tits!" chants, the "You
>fucked
>> up!" chant, the "We want blood!" chant, or the oh-so-smart
>"Bischoff
>> takes it up the ass!"-type chant;
>
>I hate those chants myself. Don't forget the immortal "BORING".
Most of us there hate most of those chants.
>But people are enjoying themselves, that's the point. Sorry, Herb,
>some people like to have fun, but I am sure your idea of fun
>involves a blanket and some nudes of Akira.
Heh heh.
>> I can read show reviews where
>> people rave about the violence, about the tables broken, about
>the
>> insane stunts, about the juice and see them continually demand
>that
>> the promotion surpasses the previous month's violence, blood,
>stunts.
>> I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly
>conditioned
>> by Paul Heyman
>
>And what the fuck do you mean by that? That we like those guys
>because of Heyman's storyline? Yes, yes, a million times yes. And
>what's the problem with that?
There is no problem! That is called booking and giving your audience
what they want. It's not what Herb wants. It's not even always what
I want. But the point it, if one does not care for it, they can not
watch it. Why people like Herb obsess over it is scary to me.
>> And, yes, they can like what they like
>> and do what they wish.
>>
>> This "Act of God" remark (above) generated a burst of supportive
>or
>> laughing e-mail.
>
>So? Your logic is then because people like it it must be good?
Herb has always been one to overstate the support he gets in email
Yuriy. It's great for him because no one can discount it here, but if
you see the amount of support, or lack thereof, he gets here, it will
tell you the real story.
Yuriy, I would have ignored this thread, but I have read your posts
and I like what you write. As one who has let Herb's pettiness engage
himself in rounds of retorts with the Herbivore, I just wanted to try
and save you the trouble.
Read him. Laugh at him. Ignore him.
Dave
The Wrestling Lariat Newsletter
P. O. Box 612
Marmora, NJ 08223-0612
*EMail for current rates*
Michael Rogers
In <Dups2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
Before I comment, I just want to point out that I myself have been and
plan on being in the future an ECW ringsider. I don't plan on
resorting to name calling in making my point here and it's sad that
someone who supposedly takes the high road and portrays himself as
somehow superior and above the "ECW Behavior" cannot avoid childish
name calling.
>
> Everybody can do what they enjoy, even the moronic ECW ringsiders.
Moronic. Very nice, Herb. What a truly insightful observation.
> But at the same time, I can sit back more objectively and realize
> that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s or
> that his gimmick is no less juvenile and insulting than the
>Undertaker's.
Juvenile and insulting. O.K. This paragraph pretty much sums up the
difference between myself and Herb. The Undertaker is a cool
character. Kids like him, many adults like him. I realize Herb is my
mental superior and I kind of drool my way home to my trailer, but I
think Undertaker is the best character Titan ever created. I wish I
was intelligent enough to feel insulted by the Undertaker character, I
mean, you *know* he's not a *real* Undertaker! Than I could
pontificate a sermon such as: "The nerve of Vince McMahon to try and
insult my intelligence by trying to pass this guy off as an actual
undertaker! No one can *realy* get up from that kind of punishment.
How insulting!" Alas, I'm just not on that level. I can't seem to
take wrestling that seriously. I have never felt insulted by a
character, no matter how inane.
> I can listen to the childish "Show your tits!" chants, the "You
>fucked up!" chant, the "We want blood!" chant, or the oh-so-smart
>"Bischoff takes it up the ass!"-type chant;
Or, you could get some friends together, make a trip to the arena and
have fun chanting "childish" chants. Oh, I know, it's bloodthirsty to
chant "We want blood", and I must point out that that chant was not
uttered once both times I've been to the arena, but so what? The
atmosphere is charged and it's certainly not a new chant. I recall
chanting "We want blood" in Gainesville Florida in 1982 during one of
the Flair VS McDaniels series matches. So what? Bischoff takes it up
the ass? Sorry, I think it's funny. Lighten up. Show your tits? I'm
sorry, I thought it had pretty much been established that ECW was
targeting a different crowd than WWF has been. I know you look upon
such behavior with disdain, but you know what? A lot of people are
having fun out with their *friends*. Try it.
> I can read show reviews where people rave about the violence, about
>the tables broken, about the
> insane stunts, about the juice and see them continually demand that
> the promotion surpasses the previous month's violence, blood,
stunts.
> I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly conditioned
> by Paul Heyman to support no-talent guys like Sandman, 9-1-1, or the
> Dudleys; I can witness all of this and come to reasonably logical
> conclusions about the fans. And, yes, they can like what they like
> and do what they wish.
Thanks for the permission. Personally, I have no quarrel with your
opinion of the wrestling skills of 911, The Dudleys and even to a point
Sandman. 911 is not presented as a wrestler, though, and when it comes
to strutting to the ring, grabbing someone and choke slamming them, he
is quite talented. The Dudles need work, no doubt. Are the fans
"expertly trained by Heyman" to support them? If their gimmik didn't
work, they would be booed. Sandman has continued to improve and is far
from no talent. Maybe a better way to denigrate him would be for you
to say something to the effect that based on the criteria *you* use,
he's a no-talent. The criteria I use, that of popularity with the
people who *pay money*, not people who don't give the promotion a dime,
I'd say Sandman is pretty successful.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Yuriy Kleyner
In article <jefam-19079...@news.clark.net> Jeff Amdur
wrote:
>In article <4smh3v$1...@news-e2d.gnn.com>, Tro...@gnn.com (Yuriy
Kleyner)
> wrote:
>
>> I don't care what he can do. I do care that Sandman entertains
me.
>> That's a lot more than I can say for Eddie Guerrero or Akira
>> Hokuto (aim for where it hurts).
>
>I am entertained by just about any wrestler who busts his/her ass
to put
>on a good performance. That would include both Sandman and
Guerrero, in
>their own ways. (Hokuto I'm just not familiar with; I make no
secret of
>my ignorance of Japanese wrestling).
Nakano's partner at WWIII. Actually, she is good, but I brought
her up to sting Herbie.
>
>> > It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have
>> called
>> > the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
>> > supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
>
>What I like about Sandman is that in spite of an admitted lack of
>wrestling ability, he still works his tuchus off during his
matches. It
>may be largely brawling and blood, but I've never seen him stiff
the
>public and slacken off during a match, even when he could hardly
walk.
I must agree. And after watching Sandman from early 1995 and
Sandman from Cyberslam I noticed that he
a) lost enormous amount of weight
b) is much faster
c) doesn't wait for a minute between moving
d) is much more watchable
>>
>> I find it's sad when people are unwilling to show respect for
>> tastes of others and keep insisting that only their preferences
are
>> the right/appropriate ones.
>
>I dont think that it's a matter of Herb not being willing to show
respect
>for Sandman fans
I think it is.
> but rather an inability to understand why people like
>Sandman. I have that same inability when it comes to fans of the
Ultimate
>Warrior. I have absolutely no respect for UW, but I wouldn't
transfer
>that lack of respect to UW fans. I've posted plenty of articles
bashing
>No-Sellwig but I don't think I've bashed his fans (although there
seem to
>be only three that are regular posters to RSPW).
If he doesn't like The Sandman, that's fine with me. If he claims
that only idiots would like Sandman, that a smart fan can not
possibly like Sandman, I do have a problem with that.
>
>> >>He is, however, giving everything he has in the ring, which
every
>> wrestler
>> >>should be expected to.
>> >
>> > What does he have? What does he give? I've seen over 20
>> matches
>> > with the guy and as far as I can tell the answer is blood,
>> > nonsensical brawling, and attitude.
>
>And he gives his all. I can relate to someone who cares about how
he
>performs (even to the extent of risking bodily harm).
>
>> I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it. Try it some time. Maybe
>> then you will finally understand that wrestling is about fun, not
>> about athleticism.
>
>And that's called "marking out".
And that's my goal in watching wrestling, mark out as many times as
possible.
>
>> I don't care. I don't care whether a performance is athletic. I
>> don't care if the performance is psychologically sound. The
movie
>> with the best actors is not necessarily the movie I enjoy the
most.
>> Movies, just like wrestling, are about what I enjoy. I am not a
big
>> fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like
both
>> men are beating the shit out of each other. Sorry, but I see
that
>> with very few cruiserweights.
>
>I have to partially disagree here. I like variety in cards.
I do too.
> Those ECW
>shows that I have enjoyed the most contained a balance of
athleticism,
>psychology, good angles and kick-ass brawls.
AJW and ECW strangely rank as my number two and number one favorite
promotions.
> On the other hand, nine
>matches, all with blood and table shots, get boring after a while.
Any
>nine matches that turn out to be carbon copies of each other would
get
>dull. IMHO the best wrestling around right now comes from those
>cruiserweights, because they combine athleticism, psychology, and
"beating
>the shit out of each other".
I love watching the cruiserweights who DO look like they are beating
the shit out of each other.
> My summers in Mexico sold me on the value of
>the lightweights to a promotion. I'm glad the US promotions are
beginning
>to see that value.
>
>> And even the moronic workrate freaks who claim that everybody who
>> likes different things is a moron.
>
>Hold on there! I haven't seen that many "workrate freaks" (and I'm
proud
>to call myself one) bash fans of something different.
I have seen a couple. Herb is one.
>I may bash the
>"something different", especially when it involves Hogan and
Warrior; but
>I don't think most of us move that bashing to the personal level.
Bash Hogan. Bash Warrior. Bash Sandman. Don't bash the fans.
> Don't
>judge all us workrate freaks by the pontifications of one or two.
I am not judging them. If you read what I said again I am only
talking about a specific portion.
>
>To me "workrate" doesn't necessarily imply technical wrestling.
What I meant above was people who enjoy moves that require high
athleticism.
>It
>implies giving your all and not defrauding the fans. To me Sandman
has a
>good workrate, although he's got zero technical wrestling skills.
Hogan
>on the other hand may have at one time shown some technical skill
years
>ago in Japan; but he never showed that to us here. As a face, he
wrestled
>the same exact match over and over again for fifteen years in three
>different federations. Warrior, like Sandman, never even had the
>technical skill of a Hogan <ugh>. But the difference between
Warrior and
>Sandman is that Sandman delivers entertaining matches, Warrior just
shakes
>the ropes and does nothing.
I agree. I love watching Warrior enter and I enjoyed a couple of
his interviews (Goldust, Sheri) but I hate watching him wrestle.
>Some fans may find all that rope-tugging and
>gorilla presses entertaining; I don't begrudge them that. I may not
>respect Hogan or Warrior but that doesn't carry over to their fans.
And I applaud you for that. That's the difference between you and
Herb.
>
>> You? Objectively? Don't make me laugh. One of the first
sentences
>> on your web page states: "The good stuff invariably takes place
in
>> Japan."
>
>There *is* good stuff in Japan.
Yes. Like I said I enjoy watching AJW or NJ more than WWF or WCW.
> There's good stuff here, too.
Yes. Neither of these statements is the point however. The point
is you shouldn't be prejudiced against anything.
>Everybody
>brings to any form of entertainment their own unique opinions and
biases.
Didn't disagree.
>
>>
>> > and realize
>> > that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the
1980s
>>
>> He is much cooler. I never cheered for Dusty.
>
>It's a shame that many people just remember Dusty from his terrible
>commentary or that last wrestling go-round with Sapphire and the
polka
>dots. Dusty didn't have a classic body and didn't have much
technical
>skill, but he was very much like Sandman. He brawled, had the fans
behind
>him, and always (in his prime, late 70s-mid 80s) gave the fans
their $$$
>worth. If you look at any tapes of those bloody bullrope matches
between
>Dusty and Superstar Graham, you'd see what I mean.
>
I have seen the caged match at the first GAB between Dusty and Flair
and I agree.
>> I hate those chants myself. Don't forget the immortal "BORING".
>> But people are enjoying themselves, that's the point.
>
>I have to draw the line at the "boring" chants. That's damn
>disrespectful.
I agree.
> As I have said before, it's a fucking shame that the WWF
>of the mid 80s brainwashed many fans to the point that they can no
longer
>appreciate long matches with psychological buildups. Scorpio-Van
Dam
>boring? Jericho-Douglas last Friday boring? I didn't understand
those
>fans. I don't think they were allowing themselves to be
entertained.
>
>> No. I would never chant the kind of idiotisms some Arena fans
>> chant. But I do love watching ECW. And if you don't like it,
move
>> to Japan.
>
>But one can enjoy both ECW *and* Japan. One enjoy both WCW *and*
WWF,
>MEWF and EMLL. I enjoy watching my ECW tapes, but I also enjoy
watching
>my tapes of 50s wrestling with the Gallaghers, Gorgeous George, Lou
Thesz,
>Wild Red Berry, and others. If the wrestlers put on a good show in
the
>ring, I can forget those inter-promotional feuds and even the
angles and
>just "mark out" on what I see going on.
So do I. Marking out is the goal of watching wrestling.
>
>As Yuriy said earlier:
>
>> I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it. ... wrestling is about
fun
>
>The bottom line is that I find all these types fun to watch
(although I'm
>probably a fossil for marking out for Dory Dixon and Sailor Art
Thomas).
So do I. Although I am not a fan of mat wrestling.
>When I'm watching wrestling, I don't want to use my brain; hell, I
use
>whatever brain I have left enough in my job. I want to mark out
and enjoy
>the matches, whether they involve Lou Thesz trading holds with
someone,
>Bruno Sammartino in a classic brawl with Zbyszko, Sabu and Van Dam
trading
>high spots, Malenko and Benoit in a battle of athletic and
psychological
>wits, or Sandman and Raven beating the shit out of each other.
Some of
>you may disagree, but they're all entertaining to me in their own
way.
BRAVO!
Herb Kunze
In article <4smh3v$1...@news-e2d.gnn.com>,
Yuriy Kleyner <Tro...@gnn.com> wrote:
>In article <Dups2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> Herb Kunze
>wrote:
>I don't care what he can do. I do care that Sandman entertains me.
>> It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have called
>> the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
>> supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
> I find it's sad when people are unwilling to show respect for
> tastes of others and keep insisting that only their preferences are
> the right/appropriate ones.
I never said that my preferences are right. There are a world of
things that one could love about pro-wrestling. Fans that choose
to love Sandman, however, are ghouls.
You should join up with the "censorship" posters that complain about
moderation. Respecting someone else's right to like what they wish
has nothing to do with respecting the actual choice or respecting
them.
>I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it.
What do you enjoy about the Sandman?
>I am not a big
>fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like both
>men are beating the shit out of each other.
Ah, so you are a ghoul.
>OK, so one brawl per show is OK. What about two brawls? Would
>three brawls be OK? BTW, I recently saw a match where for no
>apparent reason your favorite female Japanese troll is lying on a
>table in a pool of blood.
Yes, the advent of tables in pro-wrestling has been a definite
negative. I won't argue. Now, where did tables get their
biggest push....
>> and realize
>> that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s
>He is much cooler. I never cheered for Dusty.
Why not? What makes the Sandman cooler? That he uses his blade
in clear sight of the audience?
>> that his gimmick is no less juvenile and insulting than the
>> Undertaker's.
>It's a great mockery of The Undertaker/Hulk Hogan/Kenta Kobashi
>(yes, you read right).
Boy, you ECW fans are so smart! Sandman is an artiste!
>> I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly conditioned
>> by Paul Heyman
>And what the fuck do you mean by that? That we like those guys
>because of Heyman's storyline? Yes, yes, a million times yes. And
>what's the problem with that?
I praise Heyman's ability to get you to cheer the Sandman
because he's a mockery of Hogan et. al. In the end, he's getting
ECW fans to spend money on the same talentless crap that they love
to criticize the WWF and WCW for putting out. It's a master stroke.
>> to support no-talent guys like Sandman, 9-1-1, or the
>> Dudleys;
>Nah!!!! You mean I don't love those guys because of their great
>natural ability???
No, I'm sure you love these guys because of the cerebral parody
of their gimmicks, certainly not because Heyman is playing you
for a fool.
Herb...
Dean&Angie
Tro...@gnn.com (Yuriy Kleyner) wrote:
>
>In article <jefam-19079...@news.clark.net> Jeff Amdur
>wrote:
>>In article <4smh3v$1...@news-e2d.gnn.com>, Tro...@gnn.com (Yuriy
>Kleyner)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care what he can do. I do care that Sandman entertains
>me.
>>> That's a lot more than I can say for Eddie Guerrero or Akira
>>> Hokuto (aim for where it hurts).
You've GOT to be kidding me. I like the Sandman as much as the next
shlub but to say he is more entertaining than Guerrero and Hakuto is just
plain goofy.
>>I am entertained by just about any wrestler who busts his/her ass
>to put
>>on a good performance. That would include both Sandman and
>Guerrero, in
>>their own ways. (Hokuto I'm just not familiar with; I make no
>secret of
>>my ignorance of Japanese wrestling).
>
>Nakano's partner at WWIII. Actually, she is good, but I brought
>her up to sting Herbie.
Actually she's GREAT.
>>> > It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have
>>> called
>>> > the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
>>> > supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
>>
>>What I like about Sandman is that in spite of an admitted lack of
>>wrestling ability, he still works his tuchus off during his
>matches. It
>>may be largely brawling and blood, but I've never seen him stiff
>the
>>public and slacken off during a match, even when he could hardly
>walk.
This would make you a workrate freak. Workrate means not wasting a lot
of time between moves or using a lot of rest holds.
if the performance is psychologically sound. The
>movie
>>> with the best actors is not necessarily the movie I enjoy the
>most.
>>> Movies, just like wrestling, are about what I enjoy. I am not a
>big
>>> fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like
>both
>>> men are beating the shit out of each other. Sorry, but I see
>that
>>> with very few cruiserweights.
You've got to be fucking kidding me here. Ever see Chris Benoit, Dave
Fit Finlay and any other junior that wrestles New Japan. You can say what
you want about angles and storylines being deficient, but stiffness is
not a problem with the cruiserweights. ECW wishes they could
have half the stiffness of the New Japan juniors.
Mark Bureau
"John D. Williams" <johndw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I too like certain matches where the wrestlers are working on edge and
>make it look like they are beating the shit out of each other. I don't
>know about you Herb, but I enjoyed the 2/28/93 Stan Hansen vs. Toshiaki
>Kawada match from start to stiff finish. And at the time, I don't
>believe I had ever seen a mens singles match as good as the brutal
>7/29/93 Hansen vs. Kenta Kobashi match. "Perfection" is what I recall
>one letter writer calling it, and ***** is what I recall one editor
>rating it.
>Beyond those two matches, I recall sitting with your favorite newsletter
>editor in Yokohama Arena last March 26th watching Yumiko Hotta and
>Lioness Aksuka beat and stretch the hell out of each other for twenty
>plus minutes. Both the editor and I completly enjoyed this most brutal
>of worked womens matches that either of us had ever seen, which covers
>some ground.
>Of course, Herb, there are more reasons than simply "beating the hell out
>of each other" that we liked these matches. Perhaps for the same reasons
>that you may have enjoyed matches. But I can honestly tell you that one
>of the reasons both I and your favorite newsletter editor liked all three
>of those matches is because the wrestlers worked it on the edge, made it
>look like a fight in a pro wrestling sense, and didn't flinch at being
>stiff with each other.
>Enjoying a great stiff match, where the wrestlers look like they are
>beating the shit out of each other, does not make one a ghoul, Herb.
>That's way too broad of a brush stroke to paint, Herb, irregardless of
>your feelings for ECW and its fans.
John, I think you have missed the intention entirely. Noone
has ever said that blood and violence doesn't have a
place in wrestling. Used at the right times, they both have
an outstanding effect on the matches.
It is when the wrestling suddenly becomes placed third behind
the blood and violence in more than 70% of the matches on a
card where it becomes distasteful, and downright *ghoulish*.
***************************************************************
Mark R. Bureau mr...@worldnet.att.net
Home Page:www.inter-link.net/~maribu/bureau.htm
Internet Prayer Network:www.inter-link.net/~maribu/bu-pray.htm
Travis Cook
On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Herb Kunze wrote:
>
> The Sandman is Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s NWA. He can't wrestle worth
> a shit, he's willing to bleed a lot and does so, and he has enough
> influence to keep himself in the spotlight. The only difference is
> that so-called "smart" fans didn't deify Rhodes, they panned him.
Interesting comparison. I don't know if "can't wrestle worth a shit" is
the way I'd phrase it, but granted, neither are Bob Backlund in the
technical department. I give Sandman and Rhodes both credit for doing
what they do best, but still trying to throw in maneuvers that they had
learned, rather than just remaining dependant upon *solely* what they
could originally do (i.e. Hulk Hogan). I remember seeing Dusty attempt
dropkicks and flying bodypresses. Now, I am not going to try to pass off
that they were *good* dropkicks or bodypresses. but I give him credit
for at least giving it a shot. Sandman as well has tried to expand what
he can do, particularly in the aerial department, as well as some good,
basic wrestling holds. What these two can do well is draw fans to an arena,
because those fans believe that the wrestler in question can go
toe-to-toe with the evil, mean, nasty foe that they're facing this month.
Sandman and Dusty have built their gimmicks on being the everyday average
Joe, and as such (to the marks) have probably had little if any formal
wreslting training. Backlund, on the other hand, was built on being an
all-american, college educated, wrestling technician. If I was a mark, I'd
likely find it much easier to get behind a Rhodes or a Sandman than a
Backlund (likely because, having grown up in a small Missouri town, I
have been around more people "like" Sandman or Rhodes than Backlund).
there is nothing wrong with the Backlund as a face gimmick, but it just shows
how the two types of gimmicks appeal to two different types of people.
>
> I'm not talking about what sells Apter magazines. Hulk Hogan did
> that. Ultimate Warrior did that. And they are, with limited
> exceptions, not guys that are praised by fans in the know, as
> any r.s.p-w survey shows (see awards, for example).
>
> I'm not talking about what draws casual fans or fans who don't know
> what is really happening in a wrestling match. By all accounts,
> that is not the fanbase at the ECW Arena; correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have called
> the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
> supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
I think this raises an important point. We are both looking at this
situation from two different perspectives. I think that what sells Apter
mags and what draws casual fans *is* important to an extent (and, in
reality, a large extent) If people were not drawn to the arenas, we
would not have pro wrestling at all. The "smart" fan base is certainly
important, but no more important than other members of wreslting's fan
base. The last thing I want being a "smart" to do is to make me think
what I enjoy has importance over what anybody who is not so "enlightened"
thinks.
Secondly, I think there is a part of all "smarts" that enjoys looking at
wrestling from the perspective that we did as marks (I know this is the
case with myself). Sometimes we just like to turn off the "smart" part
of our wrestling brains and enjoy the show and the gimmicks. Why do I
like The Sandman? It's not because he's going to do a shooting star
press on anyone, it's because he's the type of character I can identify
with. Sandman fans are not going to tell you that he is the finest
wrestling athelete in the world, but we will tell you that he's "Our
kind of guy". Now, when I go back and look at this from a "smart"
perspective, and realize that he busts his ass doing what he's doing, though
he certainly is no Lou Thesz, I like him on both counts.
>
> What does he have? What does he give? I've seen over 20 matches
> with the guy and as far as I can tell the answer is blood,
> nonsensical brawling, and attitude.
And he does it well....
>
> SMW used blood to get some angles over and overdid it a few times,
> most notably with Sullivan vs. Lee and Sullivan vs. Kanemura;
> surprise, surprise, the supremely untalented Kevin Sullivan used
> blood to stay over. Strangely enough, I haven't ever heard any praise
> in r.s.p-w for his in-ring performances either. The only other bloodbath
> that I remember was the Night of Legends match where Chris Jericho cut
> himself with his left hand (having broken his right) and went way too
> deep. Interestingly enough, the great majority of people that have
> seen this match and commented on it said they were grossed out.
> Up until the recent blood-ban, ECW used blood like water. The
> vampires chant "we want blood!" during many matches, even during
> some of the classic wrestling matches we agreed upon earlier.
Again it is a matter of personal tastes (I don't think that Sullivan-Lee,
Sullivan-Kanemura, or, my personal favorite, The Gangsta's attacking Jim
Cornette were over the line.) If some people were grossed out
by the above, or by Thrillseekers-Bodies, that is their own
perspective, and if it is not their cup of tea, so be it
(FWIW, I loved Thrillseekers-Bodies, it was one of the more
exciting bouts I have ever seen) Nonetheless, I don't think that any
one style can ever claim superiority over any other. I have my personal
tastes, as does everyone who watches wrestling, but when it comes down to
it, all styles have just as much right to be in wrestling as all other
styles. Atheletic Japanese wrestling has it's place right alongside ECW
bloodbaths and SMW's more conventional style. Wrestling is a business,
let us not forget, and different products certainly draw in different
places.
> To sum up these two items - blood and brawls -, they are the selling
> point of ECW and they were incidental, comparatively infrequent
> occurences in SMW.
No argument here, and I think it is clear that both types of styles have
their set of fans. From a buisiness perspective, it's apples and oranges.
>
> Sure, there's no reason why somebody who sees a great brawl shouldn't
> enjoy it. It's not for everyone, but when it's done well, it can be
> great. That doesn't explain supporting guys like Sandman or, gawd
> forbid, the Rottens or the Harris twins, guys who just brawl
> nonsensically, cutting themselves open in plain sight of any idiot.
> Supporting a great brawl is also much different than chanting for
> blood during great wrestling matches or bringing foreign objects
> to a match.
I don't think that Sandman, The Rottens, or the Harris' brawl
nonsensically, I think it makes perfect sense that they brawl, that's
their gimmick. I'm not necesarily saying that I'm a fan of all of the
above, nor am I saying that they should stop working to expand what they
can do, but I am saying that what they do makes sense in that situation. (I
realize that I may be in the minority on this one, so be it).
>
> Everybody can do what they enjoy, even the moronic ECW ringsiders.
>
> But at the same time, I can sit back more objectively and realize
> that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s or
> that his gimmick is no less juvenile and insulting than the Undertaker's.
> I can listen to the childish "Show your tits!" chants, the "You fucked
> up!" chant, the "We want blood!" chant, or the oh-so-smart "Bischoff
> takes it up the ass!"-type chant; I can read show reviews where
> people rave about the violence, about the tables broken, about the
> insane stunts, about the juice and see them continually demand that
> the promotion surpasses the previous month's violence, blood, stunts.
> I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly conditioned
> by Paul Heyman to support no-talent guys like Sandman, 9-1-1, or the
> Dudleys; I can witness all of this and come to reasonably logical
> conclusions about the fans. And, yes, they can like what they like
> and do what they wish.
I have no problem with that. But I can also sit back objectively and see
that Sandman, Rhodes, The Undertaker, blood, and yes, even "Show your
tits" have as much place in the business as Malenko-Guererro. I can also
sit back and say that this is just pro wrestling, there's certain things I
enjoy about it, and certain things I don't. And even though I may not be
able to stand The Ultimate Warrior, The Undertaker, or T.L. Hopper,
somebody out there does, and his or her opinion is just as important as
mine, no more, no less.
John D. Williams
Herb Kunze wrote:
> In article <4smh3v$1...@news-e2d.gnn.com>,
> Yuriy Kleyner <Tro...@gnn.com> wrote:
> >I am not a big
> >fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like both
> >men are beating the shit out of each other.
>
> Ah, so you are a ghoul.
Herb,
I'll stay clear of all the ECW stuff since that's not my turf. But I do
have difficulty with your comments here.
Regards,
--
jdw
Small time, but in that small most greatly lived
The star of England. Fortune made his sword,
By which the world's best garden he achieved...
Chorus
King Henry The Fifth, By William Shakespeare
Epilogue Lines 5-7
Michael Rogers
In <DutI5...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Herb Kunze) writes in part, about the goulish likes and dislikes of
afficianados of Sandman's brand of wrestling:
>>> But [bleeding] is all he can do.
>>I don't care what he can do. I do care that Sandman entertains me.
>
You didn't ask and I'm sure don't care what I like about Sandman, but here goes.
Sandman is a tough, kick ass totally politically incorrect (YIPES! This alone
probably causes many an academian to cringe from publicly enjoying Sandman)
brawler who makes a point of letting everyone know he enjoys kicking a little
ass. He does all the stuff a champion or "real" athelete doesn't do or does in
moderation. Beer is his spinach, his life force. Don't mess with him and don't
take his beers! He's a character so full of negatives and resorts to most
anything in order to win, including a heavy dose of foreign objects. His
ability to work the micophone and his stage presence round out the package. Is
the the greatest wrestler in the world. No, not to me. Doesn't even come
close, but that's based on *my* criteria. Everyone's criteria is different, so
it's very possible that his *is* the greatest to some. Wrestling is, and hold
on to your hats folks (Herb, sit down, take a valium and try and deal with this)
a *work*. It is entertainment. There are different types of entertainment and
different forms within the types. Personal choice reigns supreme, the market
dictates what is successbul, not what is the "best".
>>> It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have called
>>> the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
>>> supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
>> I find it's sad when people are unwilling to show respect for
>> tastes of others and keep insisting that only their preferences are
>> the right/appropriate ones.
>
> I never said that my preferences are right. There are a world of
> things that one could love about pro-wrestling. Fans that choose
> to love Sandman, however, are ghouls.
Yeah, you ghouls! It takes a real ghoul to like Sandman. See, if that's his
whole arsenal then who really cares what the hell Herb thinks?
> You should join up with the "censorship" posters that complain about
> moderation. Respecting someone else's right to like what they wish
> has nothing to do with respecting the actual choice or respecting
> them.
Very true. It takes a much higher level of maturity to respect someone for
making choices that disagree with yours.
>>I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it.
>
> What do you enjoy about the Sandman?
So, if given an honest answer, does *anyone* think that Herb would read it and
say "Oh, I see. You like him because of (fill in the blank). I can respect
that." Ha!
>>I am not a big
>>fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like both
>>men are beating the shit out of each other.
>
> Ah, so you are a ghoul.
Yeah, because see, the point of Pro-Wrestling on Planet Herb is not for men to
beat the hell out of each other, but to put on the best ballet session they can.
Oh, and they must be Japanese. You ghouls, don't you realize that
Pro-Wrestling is not supposed to revolve around fighting?
>>OK, so one brawl per show is OK. What about two brawls? Would
>>three brawls be OK? BTW, I recently saw a match where for no
>>apparent reason your favorite female Japanese troll is lying on a
>>table in a pool of blood.
>
> Yes, the advent of tables in pro-wrestling has been a definite
> negative. I won't argue. Now, where did tables get their
> biggest push....
Yeah! Your push was bigger! Herb, you definitely need to regroup.
>>> and realize
>>> that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s
>>He is much cooler. I never cheered for Dusty.
>
> Why not? What makes the Sandman cooler? That he uses his blade
> in clear sight of the audience?
And how do you explain March, April, May, June? No blade. Oh, sorry, I forgot,
that doesn't agree with your point, so best to ignore it.
>>> that his gimmick is no less juvenile and insulting than the
>>> Undertaker's.
>>It's a great mockery of The Undertaker/Hulk Hogan/Kenta Kobashi
>>(yes, you read right).
>
> Boy, you ECW fans are so smart! Sandman is an artiste!
No Herb, *you* are an artiste. An artiste at using Tidbits as a vehicle for
your anti-ECW campaign.
>>> I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly conditioned
>>> by Paul Heyman
>>And what the fuck do you mean by that? That we like those guys
>>because of Heyman's storyline? Yes, yes, a million times yes. And
>>what's the problem with that?
>
> I praise Heyman's ability to get you to cheer the Sandman
> because he's a mockery of Hogan et. al. In the end, he's getting
> ECW fans to spend money on the same talentless crap that they love
> to criticize the WWF and WCW for putting out. It's a master stroke.
Translation: " You are a blathering idiot because you don't enjoy the same thing
I do and since I am so superior to you you are an idiot and a ghoul to like
something either in addition or instead of what I like."
>>> to support no-talent guys like Sandman, 9-1-1, or the
>>> Dudleys;
>>Nah!!!! You mean I don't love those guys because of their great
>>natural ability???
>
> No, I'm sure you love these guys because of the cerebral parody
> of their gimmicks, certainly not because Heyman is playing you
> for a fool.
Ghouls and fools. Hey, it rhymes! Face it, he doesn't understand it, doesn't
like it and isn't mature enough to respect you for liking it yourself. He's so
far above you in terms of truly knowing what the "sport" is about that I'm
surprised he even deigned to respond to your post. If not for the purpose of
this ongoing self-engrandisement of himself as some sort of wrestling authority
I'm sure he wouldn't have.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
David Stenshein
If I got a million dollars each time Herb was proven he was an idiot I
could buy Turner broadcasting and still have enough money left over to make
Sandman the WCW World champ.
Larry Sternshein
David Stenshein
>I usedta like Sandman, but changed my mind when he frightened me at the
>last con. I thought he wuz gonna beat me six times til Tuesday.
>
>(BTW, plenty of Sandman t-shirts left--if he doesn't kill me first! $10 +p&h!)
Well, I'm Tom Misnik's bodyguard during this years CON and if you are
going to be there I could bodyguard you too. Of coarse this means I'll get
caned but I'm hardcore.....no, I'm just dumb.
Larry Sternshein
New Frontier Wrestling
In article <4su98k$q...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) wrote:
>You didn't ask and I'm sure don't care what I like about Sandman, but
here goes.
>Sandman is a tough, kick ass totally politically incorrect (YIPES! This alone
>probably causes many an academian to cringe from publicly enjoying Sandman)
I usedta like Sandman, but changed my mind when he frightened me at the
last con. I thought he wuz gonna beat me six times til Tuesday.
(BTW, plenty of Sandman t-shirts left--if he doesn't kill me first! $10 +p&h!)
Argh,
Teddi
* Ted Hobgood/Scott Sullivan *
* announcer/commentator for the New Frontier Wrestling Alliance *
* and owner of *
*----------------------> NEW FRONTIER WRESTLING GEAR <-------------------*
*--------- formerly a purveyor of custom-made wrestling ringwear --------*
*--------------------- but that's all belly-up now --------------------*
Herb Kunze
In article <4su98k$q...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Sandman is a tough, kick ass totally politically incorrect (YIPES! This alone
>probably causes many an academian to cringe from publicly enjoying Sandman)
>brawler who makes a point of letting everyone know he enjoys kicking a little
>ass. He does all the stuff a champion or "real" athelete doesn't do or does in
>moderation.
So you like his character?
>> You should join up with the "censorship" posters that complain about
>> moderation. Respecting someone else's right to like what they wish
>> has nothing to do with respecting the actual choice or respecting
>> them.
>Very true. It takes a much higher level of maturity to respect someone for
>making choices that disagree with yours.
Yes, it's far more respectful to disagree with somebody and be silent
about it. Do you know what "respect" means? Observing and questioning
things is just so damn disrespectful!
>> Why not? What makes the Sandman cooler? That he uses his blade
>> in clear sight of the audience?
>And how do you explain March, April, May, June? No blade. Oh, sorry, I
>forgot that doesn't agree with your point, so best to ignore it.
What about the cries for blood both at the Arena and here in r.s.p-w?
What about the return to the blade? During the absence of blood,
Paul Heyman continued to make Sandman (and ECW) "cool" by increasing
the sexual content in the product. Now Sandman gets caned by his
9-year-old son while his wife, commonly known as a slut in ECW
storylines, stands by; that's so "cool."
Herb...
Herb Kunze
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960721...@black.missouri.edu>,
Travis Cook <c59...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Herb Kunze wrote:
>> The Sandman is Dusty Rhodes in the 1980s NWA. He can't wrestle worth
>> a shit, he's willing to bleed a lot and does so, and he has enough
>> influence to keep himself in the spotlight. The only difference is
>> that so-called "smart" fans didn't deify Rhodes, they panned him.
>Interesting comparison. I don't know if "can't wrestle worth a shit" is
>the way I'd phrase it, but granted, neither are Bob Backlund in the
>technical department. I give Sandman and Rhodes both credit for doing
>what they do best, but still trying to throw in maneuvers that they had
>learned, rather than just remaining dependant upon *solely* what they
>could originally do (i.e. Hulk Hogan). I remember seeing Dusty attempt
>dropkicks and flying bodypresses. Now, I am not going to try to pass off
>that they were *good* dropkicks or bodypresses. but I give him credit
>for at least giving it a shot. Sandman as well has tried to expand what
>he can do, particularly in the aerial department, as well as some good,
>basic wrestling holds. What these two can do well is draw fans to an arena,
>because those fans believe that the wrestler in question can go
>toe-to-toe with the evil, mean, nasty foe that they're facing this month.
Don't romanticize the Dusty of the 1980s! He was an absolutely terrible
wrestler/worker that kept himself in the limelight at every opportunity,
even when it was clear that he was not a strong draw with the NWA fanbase
or the casual (mark) fans.
To quote a recent post, the ECW fans have an "advanced mindset." Was
a sizeable percentage of ECW fans also Dusty Rhodes fans in the 1980s?
Hard to believe. How can such "advanced" fans support the Sandman?
Because they like his character and don't care about his, ahem,
wrestling? That sure sounds far "advanced" from the Undertaker,
Ultimate Warrior, and Hulk Hogan fans.
>I think this raises an important point. We are both looking at this
>situation from two different perspectives. I think that what sells Apter
>mags and what draws casual fans *is* important to an extent (and, in
>reality, a large extent) If people were not drawn to the arenas, we
>would not have pro wrestling at all. The "smart" fan base is certainly
>important, but no more important than other members of wreslting's fan
>base. The last thing I want being a "smart" to do is to make me think
>what I enjoy has importance over what anybody who is not so "enlightened"
>thinks.
Since ECW is praised for having the "smartest" fans in the world,
we are not talking about Apter-mag-buying people here. The guys
that ECW fans choose to support are the guys that the "smartest"
fans in the world choose to support. The actions of the ECW
ringsiders, the chants of the ECW Arena crowd, the posts to the
newsgroup: these are all the actions of the "smartest" fans in
the world. Maybe this is why I don't like using "smart" as a
description of wrestling fans.
>Why do I like The Sandman? It's not because he's going to do a shooting star
>press on anyone, it's because he's the type of character I can identify
>with. Sandman fans are not going to tell you that he is the finest
>wrestling athelete in the world, but we will tell you that he's "Our
>kind of guy". Now, when I go back and look at this from a "smart"
>perspective, and realize that he busts his ass doing what he's doing, though
>he certainly is no Lou Thesz, I like him on both counts.
That's two posters who like Sandman's character.
The Rottens also get sweaty and tired when they do their shtick.
Ditto the Harris twins. Does that mean that I should respect
them for it? I'd rather respect guys that bust their asses *and*
actually show some ability that the average drunk in the street
couldn't just as easily posess.
>Atheletic Japanese wrestling has it's place right alongside ECW
>bloodbaths and SMW's more conventional style. Wrestling is a business,
>let us not forget, and different products certainly draw in different
>places.
But which style would the "smartest" fans in the world support?
Maybe a mix? I'd agree with that: a mix that incorporates the
best of each style over a card. Does the typical ECW show provide
that? Somewhat, but with a *heavy* slant on the violent, bloody
brawls.
>I don't think that Sandman, The Rottens, or the Harris' brawl
>nonsensically, I think it makes perfect sense that they brawl, that's
>their gimmick. I'm not necesarily saying that I'm a fan of all of the
>above, nor am I saying that they should stop working to expand what they
>can do, but I am saying that what they do makes sense in that situation. (I
>realize that I may be in the minority on this one, so be it).
"nonsensically" means that they just whack each other and drag each
other to interesting locations of the Arena to whack each other some
more. There's no time for selling. There's no time for psychology.
There's no grace. There's just nonsensical violent and blood.
For example, the one table shot that Bret Hart took in his match against
Diesel had far more impact than any of the table shots I've seen Public
Enemy do. Why? Because Diesel didn't take 5 minutes to set up the
spot, Bret Hart didn't have to lie on the table and wait for Diesel
to get in position. That bump (remember: Bret getting knocked off
the apron through the commentator's table) was real. PE's table
bumps are nonsensical.
>I have no problem with that. But I can also sit back objectively and see
>that Sandman, Rhodes, The Undertaker, blood, and yes, even "Show your
>tits" have as much place in the business as Malenko-Guererro.
"show your tits," "where's our blowjob," and the like really do have
no place in pro-wrestling, do they? Unless you think their place is
with Cro-Magnon fans.
>And even though I may not be
>able to stand The Ultimate Warrior, The Undertaker, or T.L. Hopper,
>somebody out there does, and his or her opinion is just as important as
>mine, no more, no less.
So, you like some characters and dislike others, regardless of their
actual wrestling ability?
It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
Herb...
Yuriy Kleyner
In article <DutI5...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> Herb Kunze
wrote:
>In article <4smh3v$1...@news-e2d.gnn.com>,
>Yuriy Kleyner <Tro...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>In article <Dups2...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> Herb Kunze
>>wrote:
>>> But [bleeding] is all he can do.
>>I don't care what he can do. I do care that Sandman entertains
me.
>
> What do you find entertaining when it comes to Sandman?
I repeat: I do not analyze what it is I enjoy about someone, I
just do.
>
>>> It is sad that fans who are in the know, and who some have
called
>>> the "smartest" or "best" fans in the world, embrace a guy as
>>> supremely untalented as the Sandman and deify him.
>> I find it's sad when people are unwilling to show respect for
>> tastes of others and keep insisting that only their preferences
are
>> the right/appropriate ones.
>
> I never said that my preferences are right. There are a world
of
> things that one could love about pro-wrestling. Fans that
choose
> to love Sandman, however, are ghouls.
Let me paraphrase that into: "I respect what others like, but if
you like something else you are an idiot." Ghoul in this case is
obviously a puroresu variation of the words "Lemming" and "Mark".
Please tell me what makes me a ghoul.
>
> You should join up with the "censorship" posters that complain
about
> moderation. Respecting someone else's right to like what they
wish
> has nothing to do with respecting the actual choice or
respecting
> them.
What is the difference please?
>
>>I don't analyze wrestling, I enjoy it.
>
> What do you enjoy about the Sandman?
I repeat "I do not analyze".
>
>>I am not a big
>>fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like
both
>>men are beating the shit out of each other.
>
> Ah, so you are a ghoul.
And what is a ghoul?
>
>>OK, so one brawl per show is OK. What about two brawls? Would
>>three brawls be OK? BTW, I recently saw a match where for no
>>apparent reason your favorite female Japanese troll is lying on a
>>table in a pool of blood.
>
> Yes, the advent of tables in pro-wrestling has been a definite
> negative. I won't argue. Now, where did tables get their
> biggest push....
The tape is from like 1992, I believe.
>
>>> and realize
>>> that the Sandman is no different than Dusty Rhodes in the
1980s
>>He is much cooler. I never cheered for Dusty.
>
> Why not? What makes the Sandman cooler? That he uses his blade
> in clear sight of the audience?
Sorry, don't see him doing so. And I repeat for the tenth time, "I
do not analyze why something is cool".
>
>>> that his gimmick is no less juvenile and insulting than the
>>> Undertaker's.
>>It's a great mockery of The Undertaker/Hulk Hogan/Kenta Kobashi
>>(yes, you read right).
>
> Boy, you ECW fans are so smart! Sandman is an artiste!
Never said that.
>
>>> I can watch tapes of shows where fans have been expertly
conditioned
>>> by Paul Heyman
>>And what the fuck do you mean by that? That we like those guys
>>because of Heyman's storyline? Yes, yes, a million times yes.
And
>>what's the problem with that?
>
> I praise Heyman's ability to get you to cheer the Sandman
> because he's a mockery of Hogan et. al. In the end, he's
getting
> ECW fans to spend money on the same talentless crap that they
love
> to criticize the WWF and WCW for putting out. It's a master
stroke.
Whether something is talentless or not I don't care. I do care
whether something is enjoyable or not however. ECW to me usually
is. WWF and WCW usually aren't. And as for spending money.....how
much did you waste last year on Akira tapes alone?
>
>>> to support no-talent guys like Sandman, 9-1-1, or the
>>> Dudleys;
>>Nah!!!! You mean I don't love those guys because of their great
>>natural ability???
>
> No, I'm sure you love these guys because of the cerebral parody
> of their gimmicks, certainly not because Heyman is playing you
> for a fool.
I like those guys because I like them. Analyzing why would be like
trying to find out why ice cream tastes so good. It doesn't matter
to me.
Yuriy
"Did you even think that I cared about winning a match?
I measure wins and losses by pints of blood, by broken bones,
by ice packs that you need just to get to sleep at night."
-The Sandman, ECW TV, March 95.
Yeah, well, your mother is my secret lover.
-Puck, Real World Reunion.
You know, Doc, I used to think that the brain
was the most fascinating part of human anatomy
and then I realized.......look what's telling me that.
-a patient on Dr. Katz.
Herb Kunze
In article <31F1F5...@worldnet.att.net>,
>
>> In article <4smh3v$1...@news-e2d.gnn.com>,
>> Yuriy Kleyner <Tro...@gnn.com> wrote:
>
>> >fan of blood but I am fan of pro wrestling where it looks like both
>> >men are beating the shit out of each other.
>have difficulty with your comments here.
You missed my point, by omitting the rest of the post that referred
to Sandman. In Sandman's case, all he does is hit people with foreign
objects and bleed. That doesn't compare to the matches you talked
about.
Herb...
Jeff Amdur
In article <4t1gkm$9...@nntp.interaccess.com>, dav...@interaccess.com
(David Stenshein) wrote:
>> Larry Sternshein
> Proud American, Down with Canada
Let's not get carried away, now. I used to see some great wrestling
during my vacations in Montreal until the CFDS (ColossusFromDownSouth aka
WWF) killed the viable independent promotion that I enjoyed so much at the
Paul Sauvé Arena and occasionally at that hockey rink in Verdun.
Jeff, who will be driving to Montreal after the ECW con to continue my vacation
David Stenshein
> You missed my point, by omitting the rest of the post that referred
> to Sandman. In Sandman's case, all he does is hit people with foreign
> objects and bleed. That doesn't compare to the matches you talked
> about.
I'm now convinced you have never seen a Sandman match.
Larry Sternshein
The Maritimer
Brian A. LaRoche wrote:
> >Larry Sternshein
> >Proud American, Down with Canada
>
> I am American all the way, but alot of my family is from Ontario, so I
> love Canada too. It's a beautiful country, with nice people, and the
> cities are fun. There is alot less violence in Canada. You probaly
> have never been to Canada.
>
> Proud American, but down with Americans who only care about America
Wow, just when I was ready to do an anti-Yankee flame, this guy shows
up. Maybe there ARE some kind-hearted Americans around. Gee, who knew?
BTW, you like Ontario? Surely you're not including Toronto, are you?
:)
The Maritimer
Mike Palij
Larry Sternshein, RSPW's Franchise wrote:
>Herb Kunze wrote:
>> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
>> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
>
> I can understand you disliking ECW. I can sit here and let you
>badmouth ECW fans. I can also read you act like a childish baby. However, I
>can't sit here and bad mouth America.
Larry, the problem is you haven't been around rspw long enough.
Old timers can tell you about the infamous "Canada is a Third
World Nation" thread which incensed a lot of Canadian readers.
This is just Herb's way of getting back at jingoistic U.S. rspw'ers.
Like you say in the next graf, turnabout is fair play. So, just
like pro-w fans who complain about Ted Turner/Eric Bischoff's
unfair raiding practices on the WWF with no knowledge of Vince
McMahon comparable actions in the 1980s, just chill. One
international incident this week is enough. ;-)
>Herb, I hope I never have the displeasure of seeing your
>ugly mug around me.
I can see it now. Larry enters the classroom for his
remedial college math course for first time and finds
a seat. The professor walks in, puts his books on the
desk, and writes in big letters on the blackboard:
Prof. Herb Kunze
Larry dumps a load in his seat.
>How dare you dis America like that!
I don't understand, Larry. How would you like Herb to dis
America? ;-) (BTW, remember that America != U.S. to people
outside of the U.S. since there is no country called America).
>In my book, turnabout is fair play and I just have to say
>FUCK YOU CANADIAN MOTHERFUCKER.
Really, Larry, calm down.
>You are just the dumbest fucking asshole I've ever had
>the displeasure of reading.
Then you haven't been reading the rest of thread. :-)
>Take your damn Tidbits and get the fuck out of RSPW asshole.
>FUCK YOU.
>
>Larry Sternshein
>Proud American, Down with Canada
Looks like there's a new marshall in town: Larry Sternshein. :-)
However, Larry, to keep the original thread going, let me just
try to explain what I think Herb was trying to say by his somewhat
inappropriate comment. In the past, Herb has commented on the
lack of standards that appear (at least to him) to be operating
in the U.S., especially in regard to the educational system which
seems to value things like self-esteem more than critical thinking.
Another manifestation of this lack of standards is the attitude
that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
valid as that of a cardiologist's). In this thread, its my
belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
need justification.
And you know Larry, both are right. I think that most reasonable
people will agree that an informed opinion (one that is based on
knowledge and experience with a particular thing) is more valid
than one that is uninformed (one that might be based simply on
personal prejudices and wrong information). Similarly, if you
prefer drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer while I prefer to drink
Remy Martin cognac, well, who is to say that our preferences are
wrong? Remy Martin may have a lot more class, status, and
prestige as a drink but if it reminds you of cat's piss when you
drink it, well, then you're drinking it for the wrong reasons.
I think a similar thing is going on in this thread. By no
stretch of the imagination can the Sandman be considered a good
wrestler (even Al Snow, a really talented wrestler and teacher,
has said something to the effect that the Sandman was a talentless
drunk who couldn't work a match). It doesn't take much skill to
beat people with a cane, to bleed, or to take a beating. The
Sandman is never going to be invited to wrestle in New Japan or
Old Japan (heck, he'd have a tough time in WCW or the WFF if he
wasn't given a gimmick to cover up his lack of ability). But
some people like his current gimmick. I think that Herb is arguing
that because the gimmick is based on mindless brutality, the
need for juicing/bleeding by the Sandman and his opponents, and
lack of any wrestling ability/skill, this really isn't wrestling,
as wrestling has been and is still defined (i.e., primarily as
an athletic competition in shoot contexts and as an exhibition
in worked contexts). Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
is saying.
BTW, Larry, don't forget to kick You-Know-Who's Ass for me
at the Con like you promised. ;-)
--
:-) (-: :-) (-: :-) Just this person's view of netlife. (-: :-) (-: :-) (-:
"Leave the light on. I'm coming home." - Mankind
Mike Palij...@cleveland.freenet.edu
:-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) ||| (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-:
Mark Bureau
myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) wrote:
>Maybe it's the name calling that makes it difficult to see his point.
>That said, I've seen more people than just myself concede that he makes
>valid points. It's too bad he has to resort to insults to make them.
In the words of an infamous loser:
"Read him, laugh at him, ignore him", then talk about him,
and call him names on another newsgroup.
>>BTW, Larry, don't forget to kick You-Know-Who's Ass for me
>>at the Con like you promised. ;-)
Me too Larroid ;-)
>Larry's quite the tough-guy these days.
See ya!
Mark R. Bureau
***************************************************************
>"Of course not. I'd bet that Mark watches porno tapes."
I have learned in life that those who protest the loudest
have the most to hide."
>>"Hmm...not necessarily. Depends on the person and the
circumstance."
> "In general a lot of the time. In Smarky Mark's
case, all of the time. Mark would say he doesn't
when he does because that's the kind of person
he is." - TMIWRTAMS ;{
****************************************************
"I compared you to {BLANK} because just like {BLANK}
you are obsessed with getting me to like you. But
just like on the school yard, you will never be
cool enough to hang with me." - TMIWRTAMS :)
****************************************************
"Tell me Candide, why don't you use your real name
when you post. At least when I confront someone,
I have the guts to use my real name."
- TMIWRTAMS to Candide :)
****************************************************
Leiber2000, JimSoks, PeteMarks, DanMo ... sigh
****************************************************
Travis Cook
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Herb Kunze wrote:
>
> Don't romanticize the Dusty of the 1980s! He was an absolutely terrible
> wrestler/worker that kept himself in the limelight at every opportunity,
> even when it was clear that he was not a strong draw with the NWA fanbase
> or the casual (mark) fans.
Not that I'm worshiping at the alter of the man with the huge
belly-welly, if you will, but at least through the mid-80's, I think
Rhodes made quite a good face. He may not have been the best worker in
the world, but I'm not sure that is necessarily the most important thing
(Again, I realize I might be in the minority on this) He was the perfect
face to oppose the Four Horsemen, because the Dusty character represented
Joe Blue-Collar, while The Horsemen represented corparate greed.
Definitely a storyline that sold at the time.
>
> To quote a recent post, the ECW fans have an "advanced mindset." Was
> a sizeable percentage of ECW fans also Dusty Rhodes fans in the 1980s?
> Hard to believe. How can such "advanced" fans support the Sandman?
> Because they like his character and don't care about his, ahem,
> wrestling? That sure sounds far "advanced" from the Undertaker,
> Ultimate Warrior, and Hulk Hogan fans.
What do you mean by "advanced mindset". If that is advanced in the
context of knowing that wrestling is a work, and recognizing it as a form
of entertainment rather than a bona fide atheletic contest, then I would
agree. If it means that they are somehow intellectually superior to
other sets of fans, I would disagree. I don't think any group of fans
can claim that. As for why they support The Sandman, we support him for
*both* his character and his wrestling. His wrestling is very good
considering what he is physically capable of. As for our liking of his
character being like Warrior or Hogan fans, fine, I see nothing wrong
with that. I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly go to the matches
to enjoy myself, and to get caught up in the storyline, much like a play
or a film. After I get home, sure I'll recognize that so-snd-so wreslted
a damn good match, or that some other guy put on a shitty show, but while
I'm there, I'm watching wrestling, not analyzing it.
>
> Since ECW is praised for having the "smartest" fans in the world,
> we are not talking about Apter-mag-buying people here. The guys
> that ECW fans choose to support are the guys that the "smartest"
> fans in the world choose to support. The actions of the ECW
> ringsiders, the chants of the ECW Arena crowd, the posts to the
> newsgroup: these are all the actions of the "smartest" fans in
> the world. Maybe this is why I don't like using "smart" as a
> description of wrestling fans.
Maybe "smart" isn't such a great description of non-mark fans, I'll
gladly go along with that point. but again, I don't think it is fair or
right to put the fans of ECW or anybody else on any sort of pedestal.
ECW fans are no more superior than WWF fans, WCW fans, or AJW fans.
> The Rottens also get sweaty and tired when they do their shtick.
> Ditto the Harris twins. Does that mean that I should respect
> them for it? I'd rather respect guys that bust their asses *and*
> actually show some ability that the average drunk in the street
> couldn't just as easily posess.
If you don't want to see the Rotten's or The Harris', I have no problem
with that. If you wish to spend your hard-earned money on another style,
then you are making you voice heard, and you are doing your job as a
consumer. However, If I want to spend my money watching ECW (or USWA,
WWF, or whatever else), I fail to see where you have the right to insult
those who do so. You've made a stand and let your pocketbook do the
talking, now kindly allow us to do the same.
> > >Atheletic Japanese wrestling has it's place right alongside ECW
> >bloodbaths and SMW's more conventional style. Wrestling is a business,
> >let us not forget, and different products certainly draw in different
> >places.
>
> But which style would the "smartest" fans in the world support?
> Maybe a mix? I'd agree with that: a mix that incorporates the
> best of each style over a card. Does the typical ECW show provide
> that? Somewhat, but with a *heavy* slant on the violent, bloody
> brawls.
I am not going to argue that we are the smartest fans in the world, as I
said earlier, I don't believe anybody has claim to that moniker. As for
ECW shows and the amount of "mix" they have on the card, it boils down to
what I said above, if the fans want more of a certain thing, ECW will
give it to them, or those fans will spend their money elsewhere. If a heavy
slant on bloody brawls is what sells, I see nothing wrong with that, so
long as it is done within the constraints of the law. As for a federation
with a true "mix", nobody has tried it since the UWF of the late 80's,
but I think it could work (i.e. draw fans and money) I'd certainly be
eager to see someone try it once again.
>
> "nonsensically" means that they just whack each other and drag each
> other to interesting locations of the Arena to whack each other some
> more. There's no time for selling. There's no time for psychology.
> There's no grace. There's just nonsensical violent and blood.
>
> For example, the one table shot that Bret Hart took in his match against
> Diesel had far more impact than any of the table shots I've seen Public
> Enemy do. Why? Because Diesel didn't take 5 minutes to set up the
> spot, Bret Hart didn't have to lie on the table and wait for Diesel
> to get in position. That bump (remember: Bret getting knocked off
> the apron through the commentator's table) was real. PE's table
> bumps are nonsensical.
What makes sense to one set of fans may/may not make sense to another
set. Honestly, how many of us could make sense of Lucha Libre the
first time we saw it? I admit, I was confused beyond belief. But to
Mexican fans, the rules and the style make perfect sense. I'll admit
that ECW did take some getting used to for me when I first saw it
(because of the psychology) but it appealed to me enough that I got used
to it.
>
> "show your tits," "where's our blowjob," and the like really do have
> no place in pro-wrestling, do they? Unless you think their place is
> with Cro-Magnon fans.
If it is part of the product, the consuming public have no problem with
it, and it is within the constraints of the law, then it *does* have a
place. Supply and Demand...It makes the world go 'round.
>
> So, you like some characters and dislike others, regardless of their
> actual wrestling ability?
Characters, yes. The wrestler's themselves, not necessarily. For
example, I am not a fan of Terry Bollea due to his refusal to job, his
disrespect to fans, etc, etc. However, I cheer like mad for "Hollywood"
Hulk Hogan because of the heel turn. To me, one has nothing to do with
the other (once again, I'm sure this is not true of everyone))>
> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
Thanks for the compliment! :)
bite me
The Maritimer <je...@gov.nb.ca> wrote:
>Brian A. LaRoche wrote:
>> >Larry Sternshein
>> >Proud American, Down with Canada
>>
>> I am American all the way, but alot of my family is from Ontario, so I
>> love Canada too. It's a beautiful country, with nice people, and the
>> cities are fun. There is alot less violence in Canada. You probaly
>> have never been to Canada.
>>
>> Proud American, but down with Americans who only care about America
>Wow, just when I was ready to do an anti-Yankee flame, this guy shows
>up. Maybe there ARE some kind-hearted Americans around. Gee, who knew?
>BTW, you like Ontario? Surely you're not including Toronto, are you?
>:)
>The Maritimer
I can understand why Americans hate Canada,because we have less
polution,cleaner air,less violence and we don't have to work a hundred
hourd to pay for a broken arm,and we are never at war with anybody.
Michael Rogers
In <Duy8A...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Herb Kunze) writes:
>
>In article <4su98k$q...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
alone
>>probably causes many an academian to cringe from publicly enjoying Sandman)
>>brawler who makes a point of letting everyone know he enjoys kicking a little
>>ass. He does all the stuff a champion or "real" athelete doesn't do or does
in
>>moderation.
>
Yes, I like his character. I like his cockiness. I like the way he brawls. I
like the new moves he's been incorporating into his matches and I enjoy his
interview segments. I also admit to having liked Bruiser Brody, Dick the
Bruiser, The Crusher and many other wrestlers who even in their heydays would
not have been on the top of *your* list of great workers. Am I a ghoul for
liking those guys? They all were involved in the same type of matches. Who
the hell cares? You can call me every name you feel like calling me and I'll
still mark out to that Extreme type of wrestling.
>>> You should join up with the "censorship" posters that complain about
>>> moderation. Respecting someone else's right to like what they wish
>>> has nothing to do with respecting the actual choice or respecting
>>> them.
>>Very true. It takes a much higher level of maturity to respect someone for
>>making choices that disagree with yours.
>
> Yes, it's far more respectful to disagree with somebody and be silent
> about it. Do you know what "respect" means? Observing and questioning
> things is just so damn disrespectful!
No, and calling people names and constantly expressing public disdain for fans
of what one dislikes is a far cry from what you are now, in this last sentence,
implying you were doing. Do I know what "respect" means? Yes. Example: I
show you the respect of not resorting to calling you names based on what type
of wrestling you enjoy. We have something in common, you and I. We have a
love for Pro-Wrestling. There's not a lot of us out there, and many of us are
scorned or made fun of for enjoying it. It's too bad that even within the
ranks of graps fans we have people who look down on and criticise others for
not liking exactly the same thing they do.
>>> Why not? What makes the Sandman cooler? That he uses his blade
>>> in clear sight of the audience?
>>And how do you explain March, April, May, June? No blade. Oh, sorry, I
>>forgot that doesn't agree with your point, so best to ignore it.
>
> What about the cries for blood both at the Arena and here in r.s.p-w?
Did you miss my post where I point out the cries for blood are not only not new
but hardly unique to ECW? I'm assuming that's the case since you would *never*
intentionally ignore something that disagrees with your point. Pro-Wrestling
is *about* violence. Your complaint seems to be when it becomes *too* violent.
That's fine and that's not what I have a problem with. I have a problem with
you attacking me as a blind bloodthirsty follower of Paul E.'s whims. People
enjoy ECW for a multitude of reasons. It's very easy for a resonable,
intelligent person to understand, therefore I am assuming that you are just
intentionally stoking the fires for your own personal enjoyment.
> What about the return to the blade? During the absence of blood,
> Paul Heyman continued to make Sandman (and ECW) "cool" by increasing
> the sexual content in the product.
And? Let me guess...you don't like it. Well, I could have guessed that based
on your preference for Japanese wrestling where storylines are kept simple.
Fine. Again, why the name calling and superiority dance? One is only better
to the person who thinks so and those who agree with him. The other is better
to the person who thinks so and those who agree with him. Have you ever read
The Sneetches by Dr. Suess? How about we pretend that we're all out of money
and Professer McBean has left?
> Now Sandman gets caned by his
> 9-year-old son while his wife, commonly known as a slut in ECW
> storylines, stands by; that's so "cool."
Don't like it? Don't watch it? Want to complain about the storyline?
Fine. Want to analyze it to death? Fine. Want to insult those who
enjoy it? Fine, but it's childish. And that, sir, is the crux of the
problem you create for yourself and is the reason you end up defending
statements you make that are insulting to your fellow wrestling fans.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Herb Kunze
In article <4t1gkm$9...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
David Stenshein <dav...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
>> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
>badmouth ECW fans. I can also read you act like a childish baby.
What would you consider acting like a baby? I suggest you read
the remainder of your post again (below).
For the record, I think Sandman sucks. This thread began because
somebody posted suggesting that Sandman vs. 1-2-3 Kid & Bob Holly
would be great, with Sandman caning the stuffing out of those guys.
That's extremely insulting towards the far more talented Kid & Holly
and I took issue with it, pointing out that Sandman basically stinks
as a wrestler and that it's sad, IMO, that the "smartest" fans
("best" fans, fans with an "advanced mindset," whatever label
you pick from newsgroup posts) in the world would support him
the same way that other non-working cool characters get supported
in other bad-mouthed promotions.
Now, just in case it still isn't clear, the above is my opinion.
My opinion of Sandman is based on the 20-25 matches I've seen
with him. My opinion of the fans is based on the 20-25 commercial
or TV shows I've seen from ECW. Nobody has strongly argued my
comparison of Sandman to the Dusty Rhodes of the 1980s NWA; the
best retort has been that Sandman is "cooler."
Posts of the sort "Well, I like Sandman and my opinion is as valid
as yours" miss the whole point and do nothing to enrich the
discussion. Clear though beyond "he's cool" and "I like him"
would be nice.
In a different thread a while back, I questioned somebody who said
that the WWF was trashing WCW on Monday night. The ratings numbers
are even, with WCW clearly taking the lead of late and having more
momentum at present. That's a fact. Yet, this fellow responded
with "hey, it's my opinion and it's just as valid as yours."
It's something in the American water, I guess. Watching the Olympics
last night on CBC, I decided to switch to NBC during a commercial.
On CBC, they continually cut to different male gymnasts, from most
every country imaginable, doing their routines, returning to show
the scores of the people they had highlighted. They criticized and
praised evenly, based on performance quality. On NBC, however, they
just followed the American squad, showing them waiting for their marks,
their parents cheering, the squad bonding. They cut to show the
dismount of a Ukrainian gymnast, where he took a baby step backward
and said he'd lose marks for that imperfection. When an American
stepped backward, they cheered the high quality program anyhow.
The commentary on NBC was worse than anything Vince or Tony has
ever done, but apparently they've decided that the American
audience would rather see American performances without witnessing
the competition. To know that there are better performers on other
teams (and don't get me wrong, I liked the lead performer on the
American team, John Roethlisberger (spelling?)) is apparently
un-American.
>Herb, I hope I never have the
>displeasure of seeing your ugly mug around me. How dare you dis America like
>that! In my book, turnabout is fair play and I just have to say FUCK YOU
>CANADIAN MOTHERFUCKER. You are just the dumbest fucking asshole I've ever had
>the displeasure of reading. Take your damn Tidbits and get the fuck out of
>RSPW asshole. FUCK YOU.
After this display, when I'm next in the US, I'll know to watch for
you in the crowds of little kids that I pass on the street.
Herb...
Herb Kunze
In article <4t1jru$g...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <Duy8A...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Herb Kunze) writes:
>> So you like his character?
>Yes, I like his character. I like his cockiness. I like the way he brawls. I
>like the new moves he's been incorporating into his matches and I enjoy his
>interview segments. I also admit to having liked Bruiser Brody, Dick the
>Bruiser, The Crusher and many other wrestlers who even in their heydays would
>not have been on the top of *your* list of great workers. Am I a ghoul for
>liking those guys? They all were involved in the same type of matches. Who
>the hell cares? You can call me every name you feel like calling me and I'll
>still mark out to that Extreme type of wrestling.
Bruiser Brody was hardly the Sandman on his (Brody's) worst day.
He wrestled and brawled in a sensible way.
>Did you miss my post where I point out the cries for blood are not only not new
>but hardly unique to ECW?
No, you've missed my point. The fact that fans chant "We Want Blood"
is no big deal, in general. It's to be expected from "marks" that so
many "hardcore" posters comment negatively about. My point all along
had been that the ECW Arena crowd is absolutely no different from the
average "mark" (gasp) crowd that people want to exclude themselves
from at all costs; if anything, the ECW crowd is worse because they
go to other shows to promote their own product and put down that
promotion (at Fanweek for me, at quite a few PPVs where ECWish
signs are shown or chants occur, in the newsgroup) when in the
end they are the exact same fans.
Why, then, do people call ECW fans the "best" or "smartest" in the
world? Why do they have an "advanced mindset?"
>> What about the return to the blade? During the absence of blood,
>> Paul Heyman continued to make Sandman (and ECW) "cool" by increasing
>> the sexual content in the product.
>And? Let me guess...you don't like it.
Whether I like it or not was not the point. The point was that the
Sandman stayed over. The same is true of Undertaker's levitation
angle way back when. I hated it, but he stayed over with the fans.
That I much prefer All Japan and All Japan Women to anything in
North America (except the AAA juniors perhaps) has never been the
point of this thread.
>> Now Sandman gets caned by his
>> 9-year-old son while his wife, commonly known as a slut in ECW
>> storylines, stands by; that's so "cool."
>Don't like it? Don't watch it? Want to complain about the storyline?
>Fine. Want to analyze it to death? Fine. Want to insult those who
>enjoy it?
The fact that ECW fans support this sort of angle does sadden me
and perhaps it will colour my wording occasionally. I apologize
for that. I still do not hold the ECW ringsiders I see on every
show in very high regard.
Herb...
Kyle Lee
What da hell is wrong with you???
If you have something intelligent to say, say it. You do not own this
newsgroup. You have no right to kick anyone off it.
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996,
David Stenshein wrote:
> > It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
> > of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
>
> I can understand you disliking ECW. I can sit here and let you
> badmouth ECW fans. I can also read you act like a childish baby. However, I
> can't sit here and bad mouth America. Herb, I hope I never have the
> displeasure of seeing your ugly mug around me. How dare you dis America like
> that! In my book, turnabout is fair play and I just have to say FUCK YOU
> CANADIAN MOTHERFUCKER. You are just the dumbest fucking asshole I've ever had
> the displeasure of reading. Take your damn Tidbits and get the fuck out of
> RSPW asshole. FUCK YOU.
>
> Larry Sternshein
> Proud American, Down with Canada
>
>
_ __ _ _
| |/ / _| | ___ | | ___ ___
| ' / | | | |/ _ \ | | / _ \/ _ \
| . \ |_| | | __/ | |__| __/ __/
|_|\_\__, |_|\___| |_____\___|\___|
|___/
kyle...@sfu.ca
Simon Fraser University
Faculty of Business Administration
4th year undergraduate Finance and HRM student
Burnaby, British Columbia,
Canada.
Michael Rogers
In <Duy9H...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight
regardless
> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
Put Herb on the ropes and he reaches deep into his bag of tricks and
comes up with..............name calling and insults.
Herb, you are becoming one of the biggest cranks on RSPW.
-Mike Rogers-
American Ghoul
David Stenshein
> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
I can understand you disliking ECW. I can sit here and let you
Michael Rogers
In <4t2o6n$9...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> bh...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike
Palij) writes:
>However, Larry, to keep the original thread going, let me just
>try to explain what I think Herb was trying to say by his somewhat
>inappropriate comment. In the past, Herb has commented on the
>lack of standards that appear (at least to him) to be operating
>in the U.S., especially in regard to the educational system which
>seems to value things like self-esteem more than critical thinking.
>Another manifestation of this lack of standards is the attitude
>that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
>inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
>the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
>valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
>heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
>valid as that of a cardiologist's).
Poor analogy when applied to the thread. By the same token most would
not want a cardiologist working on their car. It could be argued that
mechanics provide as great a service if not greater than the
cardiologist's since without vehicles moving on the roads the country
would be in a hell of a mess. It's all perspective. For the
cardiologist to look down his nose at the mechanic because he is
somehow "better" is a crock of shit. Way more people on any given day
are at the mercy of a mechanic than are at the mercy of a cardiologist.
To the heart patient, that cardiologist is important as hell, to
someone who's car has broken down, the cardiologist is the furthest
thing from their minds. The point is, can't I enjoy one form of
pro-wrestling while you enjoy another without either of us criticising
and insulting the other? And is it possible to agree with Herb without
reinforcing or implying that those who disagree are not as intelligent?
> In this thread, its my
>belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
>while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
>need justification.
They are explaining that their criteria is different. The question
remains "Why should Herb dictate what the criteria is?". As far as
*my* participation in this thread, I have given criteria. One of them
is the same criteria I apply to other television shows, movies, sports,
games etc., and that is that I enjoy it. It's really not such a
foreign concept and it's a little disturbing to see that there are
people who apparently don't grasp the concept that not everyone enjoys
the same thing.
>And you know Larry, both are right. I think that most reasonable
>people will agree that an informed opinion (one that is based on
>knowledge and experience with a particular thing) is more valid
>than one that is uninformed (one that might be based simply on
>personal prejudices and wrong information). Similarly, if you
>prefer drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer while I prefer to drink
>Remy Martin cognac, well, who is to say that our preferences are
>wrong? Remy Martin may have a lot more class, status, and
>prestige as a drink but if it reminds you of cat's piss when you
>drink it, well, then you're drinking it for the wrong reasons.
Even if it's the best thing you ever tasted, you're still one person.
The guy who drinks Pabst is one person. You both enjoy a nice drink.
Why can't it be left at that--mutual respect that people have different
tastes?
>I think a similar thing is going on in this thread. By no
>stretch of the imagination can the Sandman be considered a good
>wrestler (even Al Snow, a really talented wrestler and teacher,
>has said something to the effect that the Sandman was a talentless
>drunk who couldn't work a match). It doesn't take much skill to
>beat people with a cane, to bleed, or to take a beating. The
>Sandman is never going to be invited to wrestle in New Japan or
>Old Japan (heck, he'd have a tough time in WCW or the WFF if he
>wasn't given a gimmick to cover up his lack of ability). But
>some people like his current gimmick. I think that Herb is arguing
>that because the gimmick is based on mindless brutality, the
>need for juicing/bleeding by the Sandman and his opponents, and
>lack of any wrestling ability/skill, this really isn't wrestling,
>as wrestling has been and is still defined (i.e., primarily as
>an athletic competition in shoot contexts and as an exhibition
>in worked contexts).
I will again bring up Brody, Sheik, Crusher, Dick the Bruiser et al.
All deserving of Hall of Fame status. You are, like Herb, presenting
criteria that is subjective.
> Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
>Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
>off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
>appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
>them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
Riddick Bowe. Bringing up Senator John McCain who has his own agenda
really doesn't reinforce your point. McCain is no authority on
Professional Wrestling which is the topic. It's possible that McCain
sees *all* wrestling fans as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton
violence. It's more likely that he sees people like you and I who
debate whether or not The Sandman is a good worker, whether or not ECW
fans are a bunch of assholes or not and what the criteria for rating
wrestlers (if it's fair to do so) are a bunch of idiots with too much
time on their hands.
>I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
>people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
>is saying.
Maybe it's the name calling that makes it difficult to see his point.
That said, I've seen more people than just myself concede that he makes
valid points. It's too bad he has to resort to insults to make them.
>BTW, Larry, don't forget to kick You-Know-Who's Ass for me
>at the Con like you promised. ;-)
Larry's quite the tough-guy these days.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
David Stenshein
>>BTW, Larry, don't forget to kick You-Know-Who's Ass for me
>>at the Con like you promised. ;-)
>
>Larry's quite the tough-guy these days.
Always has, always will. So, I got a little carried away. On
#wrestling there is somebody there from Canada and we're always making fun of
each other's countries. It just spilled over here with Herb. However, I still
think he is an idiot.
Larry
Brian A. LaRoche
In <4t1gkm$9...@nntp.interaccess.com> dav...@interaccess.com (David
Stenshein) writes:
>
>> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight
regardless
>> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
>
>badmouth ECW fans. I can also read you act like a childish baby.
However, I
>can't sit here and bad mouth America. Herb, I hope I never have the
>displeasure of seeing your ugly mug around me. How dare you dis
America like
>that! In my book, turnabout is fair play and I just have to say FUCK
YOU
>CANADIAN MOTHERFUCKER. You are just the dumbest fucking asshole I've
ever had
>the displeasure of reading. Take your damn Tidbits and get the fuck
out of
>RSPW asshole. FUCK YOU.
>
>Larry Sternshein
>Proud American, Down with Canada
I am American all the way, but alot of my family is from Ontario, so I
love Canada too. It's a beautiful country, with nice people, and the
cities are fun. There is alot less violence in Canada. You probaly
have never been to Canada.
Proud American, but down with Americans who only care about America
Blaro
Michael Rogers
In <Duy8A...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Herb Kunze) writes:
>
>In article <4su98k$q...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Sandman is a tough, kick ass totally politically incorrect (YIPES!
This
alone
>>probably causes many an academian to cringe from publicly enjoying
Sandman)
>>brawler who makes a point of letting everyone know he enjoys kicking
a little
>>ass. He does all the stuff a champion or "real" athelete doesn't do
or does
in
>>moderation.
>
> So you like his character?
Yes, I like his character. I like his cockiness. I like the way he
brawls. I
like the new moves he's been incorporating into his matches and I enjoy
his
interview segments. I also admit to having liked Bruiser Brody, Dick
the
Bruiser, The Crusher and many other wrestlers who even in their heydays
would
not have been on the top of *your* list of great workers. Am I a ghoul
for
liking those guys? They all were involved in the same type of matches.
Who
the hell cares? You can call me every name you feel like calling me
and I'll
still mark out to that Extreme type of wrestling.
>>> You should join up with the "censorship" posters that complain
about
>>> moderation. Respecting someone else's right to like what they
wish
>>> has nothing to do with respecting the actual choice or respecting
>>> them.
>>Very true. It takes a much higher level of maturity to respect
someone for
>>making choices that disagree with yours.
>
> Yes, it's far more respectful to disagree with somebody and be
silent
> about it. Do you know what "respect" means? Observing and
questioning
> things is just so damn disrespectful!
No, and calling people names and constantly expressing public disdain
for fans
of what one dislikes is a far cry from what you are now, in this last
sentence,
implying you were doing. Do I know what "respect" means? Yes.
Example: I
show you the respect of not resorting to calling you names based on
what type
of wrestling you enjoy. We have something in common, you and I. We
have a
love for Pro-Wrestling. There's not a lot of us out there, and many of
us are
scorned or made fun of for enjoying it. It's too bad that even within
the
ranks of graps fans we have people who look down on and criticise
others for
not liking exactly the same thing they do.
>>> Why not? What makes the Sandman cooler? That he uses his blade
>>> in clear sight of the audience?
>>And how do you explain March, April, May, June? No blade. Oh,
sorry, I
>>forgot that doesn't agree with your point, so best to ignore it.
>
> What about the cries for blood both at the Arena and here in
r.s.p-w?
Did you miss my post where I point out the cries for blood are not only
not new
but hardly unique to ECW? I'm assuming that's the case since you would
*never*
intentionally ignore something that disagrees with your point.
Pro-Wrestling
is *about* violence. Your complaint seems to be when it becomes *too*
violent.
That's fine and that's not what I have a problem with. I have a
problem with
you attacking me as a blind bloodthirsty follower of Paul E.'s whims.
People
enjoy ECW for a multitude of reasons. It's very easy for a resonable,
intelligent person to understand, therefore I am assuming that you are
just
intentionally stoking the fires for your own personal enjoyment.
> What about the return to the blade? During the absence of blood,
> Paul Heyman continued to make Sandman (and ECW) "cool" by increasing
> the sexual content in the product.
And? Let me guess...you don't like it. Well, I could have guessed
that based
on your preference for Japanese wrestling where storylines are kept
simple.
Fine. Again, why the name calling and superiority dance? One is only
better
to the person who thinks so and those who agree with him. The other is
better
to the person who thinks so and those who agree with him. Have you
ever read
The Sneetches by Dr. Suess? How about we pretend that we're all out of
money
and Professer McBean has left?
> Now Sandman gets caned by his
> 9-year-old son while his wife, commonly known as a slut in ECW
> storylines, stands by; that's so "cool."
Don't like it? Don't watch it? Want to complain about the storyline?
Fine. Want to analyze it to death? Fine. Want to insult those who
Mike Palij
myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) wrote:
bh...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike Palij) wrote in response to
Larry Sternshein's earlier missive.
>>However, Larry, to keep the original thread going, let me just
>>try to explain what I think Herb was trying to say by his somewhat
>>inappropriate comment. In the past, Herb has commented on the
>>lack of standards that appear (at least to him) to be operating
>>in the U.S., especially in regard to the educational system which
>>seems to value things like self-esteem more than critical thinking.
>>Another manifestation of this lack of standards is the attitude
>>that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
>>inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
>>the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
>>valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
>>heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
>>valid as that of a cardiologist's).
>
>Poor analogy when applied to the thread.
Sorry, but I don't see it that way. If someone has a heart problem,
well, anyone can have an opinion about it, starting with people
who have no knowledge at all about biology and cardiac function
right up to people who have studied these things for decades.
People in the former camp, including auto mechanics with no
background in cardiology, can discourse all they want about heart
problems (especially when kicking back and having a couple of
brews) but no one should confuse such discussion with the advice
that one receives from a bona fide cardiologist.
>By the same token most would
>not want a cardiologist working on their car.
If the cardiologist is a car fanatic, enjoys spending time
under the hood, likes to tear apart and re-build engines, why
not? A lot of people work on their cars and often develop a
knowledge about their cars and similar cars that some auto
mechanics will never have. It all depends upon one's knowledge,
training, and experience.
>It could be argued that mechanics provide as great a service
>if not greater than the cardiologist's since without vehicles
>moving on the roads the country would be in a hell of a mess.
One could argue this but why would one want to if one is talking
about heart problems? It would look like an attempt to change
the course of the discussion to anyone watching the conversation.
BTW, just ask anyone with a heart problem or whose children or
loved ones have heart problems whether they think an auto mechanic
is more important. All a matter of perspective.
>It's all perspective. For the cardiologist to look down his nose
>at the mechanic because he is somehow "better" is a crock of shit.
This is a weird statement because we're talking about who is more
competent to be talking about heart problems. If an automechanic tries
to pass off his opinions about heart disease as being the same as
that as a cardiologist, well, that guy should be laughed at in his
face. As for who is "better," well, its not clear what that means.
If one were to ask who in society earns more money, receives greater
respect, and has greater status, the answer is obvious. If one
use these standards, then its clear who is better.
>Way more people on any given day are at the mercy of a mechanic
>than are at the mercy of a cardiologist. To the heart patient,
>that cardiologist is important as hell, to someone who's car has
>broken down, the cardiologist is the furthest thing from their minds.
Maybe. Unless of course the person has heart disease, has a relative
or loved one with heart disease, and/or is concerned with the fact
that heart disease is a major social health problem that needs to
be dealt with in order to save lives and keep medical costs down.
Things to think about while waiting for the pick-up truck to show up.
>The point is, can't I enjoy one form of pro-wrestling while you
>enjoy another without either of us criticising and insulting the other?
You know, I have to agree with you. But how about this for a new
perspective: view Herb's comments about ECW fans as being similar
to the kinds of comments made about Herb in the past, such as saying
that he couldn't enjoy a match without workrate (though he has admitted
in rspw that he can and does but that this is seperate from judging
the quality of a match) and that he could only watch a match while
holding a clipboard and stopwatch, rating all the moves and timing
them? One just has to stop and think about how often Herb was
ripped on during the first rspw/ecw con (some of which is on tape)
to see that Herb is just getting some of his own in. Some might
say "What's Fair Is Fair".
>And is it possible to agree with Herb without reinforcing or implying
>that those who disagree are not as intelligent?
You see, in this thread I see a real class division. It can be argued
that ECW caters to a "low" type of crowd, a crowd without much
sophistication, without much sense of history, with a primal need
for blood and violence, in essence, things that bring us much closer
to our animal ancestors than the things that civilized humans have
prized, such as knowledge and critical understanding, and a sense of
history. Herb has been arguing for a view of pro-wrestling that
brings it closer to a real sport rather than making it look like
a back alley brawl. The more important question, I think, is whether
pro-w is big enough to keep the two camps from each others throats.
Both have their supporters and their detractors.
>> In this thread, its my
>>belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
>>while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
>>need justification.
>
>They are explaining that their criteria is different.
An important question that people are overlooking is: Criteria
for *what*? Criteria for what is entertaining? People are
certaingly arguing that but that, I think, is an issue that
people are willing to let go by -- one person's entertainment
is another person's snoozefest -- and people can live with
that. However, if we're talking about what criteria constitutes
pro-wrestling, well, then we're talking about something different.
A brawl is not pro-wrestling -- just ask Lou Thesz and a lot
of other people, old and young, who have spent years learning
holds and moves. Wielding a cane just doesn't take that
much skill or training while executing the moves that Chris
Benoit, Dean Malenko, Eddie Guerrero, and others do take a
lot of talent and training.
>The question remains "Why should Herb dictate what the criteria is?".
I thought Herb was expressing his opinion. I didn't see him
stick a gun to anyone's head and say "You better get a clipboard
and a stopwatch out while watching this match or I'm going to
blow your f'en head off!"
>As far as *my* participation in this thread, I have given criteria.
I'm not sure but I think you provided criteria for what you
find entertaining, which I don't think is relevant to the
argument that Herb is, ahem, working.
>One of them is the same criteria I apply to other television shows,
>movies, sports, games etc., and that is that I enjoy it. It's really
>not such a foreign concept and it's a little disturbing to see that
>there are people who apparently don't grasp the concept that not
>everyone enjoys the same thing.
Mike, everybody on God's Green Earth knows this, it not what
is being argued. The question of whether the constant use of blading,
foreign objects, and mindless brutality, whether these things
constitute what grap fans view as wrestling, that is the question.
>>And you know Larry, both are right. I think that most reasonable
>>people will agree that an informed opinion (one that is based on
>>knowledge and experience with a particular thing) is more valid
>>than one that is uninformed (one that might be based simply on
>>personal prejudices and wrong information). Similarly, if you
>>prefer drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer while I prefer to drink
>>Remy Martin cognac, well, who is to say that our preferences are
>>wrong? Remy Martin may have a lot more class, status, and
>>prestige as a drink but if it reminds you of cat's piss when you
>>drink it, well, then you're drinking it for the wrong reasons.
>
>Even if it's the best thing you ever tasted, you're still one person.
>The guy who drinks Pabst is one person. You both enjoy a nice drink.
>Why can't it be left at that--mutual respect that people have different
>tastes?
Because, you know, its not that simple. If all we're discussing
is what one prefers to drink, well, that's all well and good.
If you tell me that you love drinking your own piss, well man, I'm
not going to argue it with you: you said you like it.
However, if you argue that that's the best drink in the world and
people who don't agree just have their heads too far up their ass,
well, I'd probably take exception. I'd probably have to ask
why you think that its so great because frankly I can't see why.
>>I think a similar thing is going on in this thread. By no
>>stretch of the imagination can the Sandman be considered a good
>>wrestler (even Al Snow, a really talented wrestler and teacher,
>>has said something to the effect that the Sandman was a talentless
>>drunk who couldn't work a match). It doesn't take much skill to
>>beat people with a cane, to bleed, or to take a beating. The
>>Sandman is never going to be invited to wrestle in New Japan or
>>Old Japan (heck, he'd have a tough time in WCW or the WFF if he
>>wasn't given a gimmick to cover up his lack of ability). But
>>some people like his current gimmick. I think that Herb is arguing
>>that because the gimmick is based on mindless brutality, the
>>need for juicing/bleeding by the Sandman and his opponents, and
>>lack of any wrestling ability/skill, this really isn't wrestling,
>>as wrestling has been and is still defined (i.e., primarily as
>>an athletic competition in shoot contexts and as an exhibition
>>in worked contexts).
>
>I will again bring up Brody, Sheik, Crusher, Dick the Bruiser et al.
>All deserving of Hall of Fame status. You are, like Herb, presenting
>criteria that is subjective.
Again, I'm not sure which criteria you're using. Consider the
following statements:
(A) I think Doink is the greatest because I think that he is very
entertaining.
(B) I think Doink is the greatest because I think that he is the
best wrestler ever.
I think you're arguing about (A) and Herb is arguing about (B).
A lot of criteria can be established to identify and establish
what "good" wrestling is. Hell, if such criteria couldn't be
established for sporting events there wouldn't be much point in
holding the Olympics.
>> Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
>>Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
>>off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
>>appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
>>them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
>
>Riddick Bowe. Bringing up Senator John McCain who has his own agenda
>really doesn't reinforce your point. McCain is no authority on
>Professional Wrestling which is the topic. It's possible that McCain
>sees *all* wrestling fans as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton
>violence. It's more likely that he sees people like you and I who
>debate whether or not The Sandman is a good worker, whether or not ECW
>fans are a bunch of assholes or not and what the criteria for rating
>wrestlers (if it's fair to do so) are a bunch of idiots with too much
>time on their hands.
You're probably right. But McCain represents a very important part
of the American public, that is, people who find violence detestable
especially when it is presented as something else, like an athletic
competition. Since "everybody" knows that wrestling is "fixed" there
is no justification for its existence in these people's eyes --
violence for violence's sake is stupid and abhorrent to these people.
There is just no justification for it. I think that Herb's arguments,
in part, comes from such a framework but I wouldn't say that he is
part of the constituency that McCain is playing to (after all, Herb
is Canadian ;-). Rather, I believe that there are a number of people
both in and outside of the business that want to make pro-w "look and
feel" more like a real sport but more interesting than amateur graps
and more sophisticated than just brawling.
>>I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
>>people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
>>is saying.
>
>Maybe it's the name calling that makes it difficult to see his point.
Remember, Herb's had to endure a lot of abuse over the years as
well. This argument wasn't started yesterday.
>That said, I've seen more people than just myself concede that he makes
>valid points. It's too bad he has to resort to insults to make them.
Its always unfortunate when people start resorting to insults,
here in rspw, in other newsgroups, and in email. It generates
more heat than light but I can see why people might do it:
it feels real good when done successfully and its a whole easier
to do then a well thought-out, reasoned argument.
>>BTW, Larry, don't forget to kick You-Know-Who's Ass for me
>>at the Con like you promised. ;-)
>
>Larry's quite the tough-guy these days.
LARRY STERNSHEIN IS *THE MAN!* LARRY KICKS ASS! LARRY IS THE RSPW FRANSHISE!
>-Mike Rogers-
> Jihad
Michael Rogers
In <Dv08I...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>
>In article <4t1gkm$9...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
>David Stenshein <dav...@interaccess.com> wrote:
regardless
>>> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
you
>>badmouth ECW fans. I can also read you act like a childish baby.
>
> the remainder of your post again (below).
>
> For the record, I think Sandman sucks. This thread began because
> somebody posted suggesting that Sandman vs. 1-2-3 Kid & Bob Holly
> would be great, with Sandman caning the stuffing out of those guys.
> That's extremely insulting towards the far more talented Kid & Holly
> and I took issue with it, pointing out that Sandman basically stinks
> as a wrestler and that it's sad, IMO, that the "smartest" fans
> ("best" fans, fans with an "advanced mindset," whatever label
> you pick from newsgroup posts) in the world would support him
> the same way that other non-working cool characters get supported
> in other bad-mouthed promotions.
>
> Now, just in case it still isn't clear, the above is my opinion.
> My opinion of Sandman is based on the 20-25 matches I've seen
> with him. My opinion of the fans is based on the 20-25 commercial
> or TV shows I've seen from ECW. Nobody has strongly argued my
> comparison of Sandman to the Dusty Rhodes of the 1980s NWA; the
> best retort has been that Sandman is "cooler."
The best retort you can quote and at the same time further your agenda
is that Sandman is "cooler". A statement you have been quoting
frequently. Travis Cook made some valid points that seem to have
slipped your mind.
> Posts of the sort "Well, I like Sandman and my opinion is as valid
> as yours" miss the whole point and do nothing to enrich the
> discussion. Clear though beyond "he's cool" and "I like him"
> would be nice.
They're nice, but you ignore them. Beyond that "Posts of the sort
'Well, I like Sandman and my opinion is as valid as yours' miss the
whole point" is the most telling thing of all. That's right, they miss
the point that you, Herb, feel that your opinion is superior. Any
argument to the contrary misses that important (to you) point.
> In a different thread a while back, I questioned somebody who said
> that the WWF was trashing WCW on Monday night. The ratings numbers
> are even, with WCW clearly taking the lead of late and having more
> momentum at present. That's a fact. Yet, this fellow responded
> with "hey, it's my opinion and it's just as valid as yours."
And? What does that have to do with this thread? Why throw it in
other than to again generalize?
> It's something in the American water, I guess. Watching the
Olympics
> last night on CBC, I decided to switch to NBC during a commercial.
> On CBC, they continually cut to different male gymnasts, from most
> every country imaginable, doing their routines, returning to show
> the scores of the people they had highlighted. They criticized and
> praised evenly, based on performance quality. On NBC, however, they
> just followed the American squad, showing them waiting for their
marks,
> their parents cheering, the squad bonding. They cut to show the
> dismount of a Ukrainian gymnast, where he took a baby step backward
> and said he'd lose marks for that imperfection. When an American
> stepped backward, they cheered the high quality program anyhow.
> The commentary on NBC was worse than anything Vince or Tony has
> ever done, but apparently they've decided that the American
> audience would rather see American performances without witnessing
> the competition. To know that there are better performers on other
> teams (and don't get me wrong, I liked the lead performer on the
> American team, John Roethlisberger (spelling?)) is apparently
> un-American.
Now here we are in total agreement. I hate the Olympic coverage this
year. The problem stems from one channel trying to cover everything.
I didn't get the PPV 3 extra channels last time out, but I sure would
have this time. I was fortunate enough to watch the '88 Olympics in
England where the interest was greater and the coverage better. I
don't just want to watch the Americans, nor do I just want to watch the
events hand picked for me.
>>Herb, I hope I never have the
>>displeasure of seeing your ugly mug around me. How dare you dis
America like
>>that! In my book, turnabout is fair play and I just have to say FUCK
YOU
>>CANADIAN MOTHERFUCKER. You are just the dumbest fucking asshole I've
ever had
>>the displeasure of reading. Take your damn Tidbits and get the fuck
out of
>>RSPW asshole. FUCK YOU.
>
> After this display, when I'm next in the US, I'll know to watch for
> you in the crowds of little kids that I pass on the street.
>
How can you even see kids with your nose so high in the air?
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Michael Rogers
In <Dv0A5...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>
>In article <4t1jru$g...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <Duy8A...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>(Herb Kunze) writes:
>>> So you like his character?
>>Yes, I like his character. I like his cockiness. I like the way he
brawls. I
>>like the new moves he's been incorporating into his matches and I
enjoy his
>>interview segments. I also admit to having liked Bruiser Brody, Dick
the
>>Bruiser, The Crusher and many other wrestlers who even in their
heydays would
>>not have been on the top of *your* list of great workers. Am I a
ghoul for
>>liking those guys? They all were involved in the same type of
matches. Who
>>the hell cares? You can call me every name you feel like calling me
and I'll
>>still mark out to that Extreme type of wrestling.
>
> He wrestled and brawled in a sensible way.
I have plenty of Brody matches where he stomped out, pounded somebody,
wandered around the arena then left. I love watching him, but he was
definitely from the same school. Plenty of brawling in and out of the
ring, weapons used and blading.
>>Did you miss my post where I point out the cries for blood are not
only not new
>>but hardly unique to ECW?
>
> No, you've missed my point. The fact that fans chant "We Want
Blood" is no big deal, in general. It's to be expected from "marks"
that so many "hardcore" posters comment negatively about. My point all
along had been that the ECW Arena crowd is absolutely no different
from the
> average "mark" (gasp) crowd that people want to exclude themselves
> from at all costs; if anything, the ECW crowd is worse because they
> go to other shows to promote their own product and put down that
> promotion
I've seen WWF shirts and signs at WCW shows, although not as many any
more since the Nazis have gotten tougher, WCW shirts and signs at WWF
and so on. So what? Pro-Wrestling fans speaking their minds. It's
encouraged here in this strange land.
(at Fanweek for me,
Give that a rest, Herb. What was that, two years ago? A small handful
of people? Jeez. Would you have harped this long is the guys were WCW
fans? What about New Japan fans? Boy, that must have been one of the
most traumatic experiences you've had for it to continue to be so fresh
to you.
>at quite a few PPVs where ECWish
> signs are shown or chants occur, in the newsgroup) when in the
> end they are the exact same fans.
Those jerks! They should all be sitting quietly with clipboards and
stopwatches taking notes.
> Why, then, do people call ECW fans the "best" or "smartest" in the
> world? Why do they have an "advanced mindset?"
I have no idea why anyone would say things like that. I've been to the
arena and I can honestly say that there are as many marks there as at
any other shows I've attended. I'm sure it depends where you sit and
who you sit with. There was a jerk behind me at the last Con who was
constantly telling his ugly girlfriend and his other friends as well as
anyone he could get to listen that the wrestling was "fake" and he
would constantly point out when spots were missed. Was he a smart?
Not in my book. Was he the epitomy of all ECW fans? Hell no. There's
all different flavors of fans and it's idiotic to paint them all with a
wide brush.
>>> What about the return to the blade? During the absence of blood,
>>> Paul Heyman continued to make Sandman (and ECW) "cool" by
increasing
>>> the sexual content in the product.
>>And? Let me guess...you don't like it.
>
> Whether I like it or not was not the point. The point was that the
> Sandman stayed over. The same is true of Undertaker's levitation
> angle way back when. I hated it, but he stayed over with the fans.
But it is the point. Your participation in this thread has been
nothing but you implying that your likes are right and anyone who
disagrees with them are wrong and that no matter what their reason is
it's up to you to decide whether or not they are valid.
> That I much prefer All Japan and All Japan Women to anything in
> North America (except the AAA juniors perhaps) has never been the
> point of this thread.
Ha! Nice shovel, Herb. Is that the same one Abdullah hit Cactus with?
>>> Now Sandman gets caned by his
>>> 9-year-old son while his wife, commonly known as a slut in ECW
>>> storylines, stands by; that's so "cool."
>>Don't like it? Don't watch it? Want to complain about the
storyline?
>>Fine. Want to analyze it to death? Fine. Want to insult those who
>>enjoy it?
>
> The fact that ECW fans support this sort of angle does sadden me
> and perhaps it will colour my wording occasionally. I apologize
> for that. I still do not hold the ECW ringsiders I see on every
> show in very high regard.
I find some of them very distracting. I don't know how many times I've
reversed the tape so I could watch what was going on in the ring
because I had been watching the characters in the front row. They
don't represent me and they don't represent the average ECW fan. I'm
watching ECW as I write this and as I look at the crowd around the ring
I see a lot of different people, a lot of them young, most of them male
and except for the front row facing the camera I see noone wearing
goofy clothes, hats etc. Watch a tape and watch the entire crowd.
Better yet, go to an event. There's plenty of great people at the
show. I've also been fortunate at the last two ECW Fan Cons to meet
numerous people who I've maintained on-going friendships with. I'm a
resonable, college educated individual who does not associate with the
kind of people you incorrectly describe as the average ECW fan. You
left out the rest of my post. From experience I understand that those
are the points well made and ignoring them is your way of acknowledging
that fact. The points were well made and read by all.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Michael Rogers
For those of you Herb considers ghouls, I have a tape you might enjoy.
It's $12.00 and that includes Priority Mail postage. None of these
matches meet Herb's criteria for a great match and by ordering this you
are saluting and acknowledging Pro-Wrestling's bloody heritage not to
mention thumbing your nose at Herb.
Order early and often.
---S153 Juice-O-Rama---A Salute To Bloodbaths--- 4 Hours Very Good
to Excellent Picture Quality
-Terry Gordy VS Killer Kahn---Texas Death Match--Kerry Von Erich is
guest referee in this ghoulish match that displays no talent.
-Dr. Death Steve Williams VS Black Bart This match is another example
of what bloodthirsty fans enjoy.
-Great Muta VS Hiroshi Hase----Hase uses a spike on Muta, who juices
like a geyser! I'm sure Herb is insulted by the whole idea.
-Atsushi Onita VS Mr. Pogo---Explosive Barbed Wire Match There's no
way Mark Bureau would let his kids watch this one!
-Kevin Sullivan VS Brian Lee---Lee spouts a gusher after Sullivan uses
the"Golden Spike" on him. Mike Palij could definitely misuse his
Cardiologist/Mechanic analogy on this one.
-Kevin Sullivan VS Yukihiro Kanemura--One of the sickest ever!
Kanemuraended up in a hospital in Sevierville, TN with 57 stiches up
the arm after one of wrestling's all-time great "bladings". It's
truly sick what some promoters will train their fans to enjoy!
-Kevin Sullivan slashes Blackjack Mulligan with a broken beer bottle
Herb looks down his nose at anyone enjoying this massacre!
-Kevin Sullivan and Maya Singh VS Rocky and Ricky Johnson How can
you people be so ignorant?
-The Rockers (Marty Janetty and Shawn Michaels) VS Buddy Rose and Doug
Somers--Famous AWA bloodbath that has no redeeming value and is only
here for your sick, purient enjoyment.
-Bam Bam Bigelow VS Scott Norton in the sort of match that proves that
Americans are inferior to Canadians when it comes to tast in
Pro-Wrestling.
-Sgt. Slaughter VS Pat Patterson---Boot Camp match from Madison Square
Garden. Pat Patterson's an AMERICAN isn't he? Picture quality on
Slaughter VS Patterson good.
-Jushin Liger VS Naoki Sano Hey, how'd this get in here? These
guys don't juice do they?
-Buddy Rogers convinces Jimmy Snuka to turn babyface on Capt. Lou
Albano, so Albano and Ray Stevens juice snuka with a beer bottle and
beat him to a bloody pulp! Buddy Rogers? Ray Stevens? They weren't
involved in anything connected with blood were they?
-The Headhunters VS Miguel Perez Jr. and Crash The
Terminator--Hand-held footage. One of the Headhunters gets thrown
through a wall! Now what in the hell does a wall have to do with
excellent wrestling?
-Carlos Colon and Abdullah The Butcher VS Stan Hansen and Bruiser
Brody--Bloddy brawl from Puerto Rico which ends up in the showers at
JuanLobriel Stadium! Pretty funny as Abdullah auctions his services
Godfather-style to Colon prior to the match. Herb gives this a
definite thumbs down.
-The Sheik throws a fireball at Sailor Art Thomas' face. Sailor Art
Thomas?
-Bobo Brazil and Dick The Bruiser VS The Sheik and Bobby Heenan. Circa
1970. Trash, pure trash, and if you enjoy it then I pity you!
-The Crusher and Dick The Bruiser VS Blackjack Mulligan and Blackjack
Lanza--Cage Match from Chicago (1972)--Manager Bobby Heenan is inside
the cage and he gets pulverised! This is *not* wrestling!
-Jumbo Tsuruta VS Harley Race A negative five star match on the
Herb-O-Meter.
-Mitsuhiro Matsunaga VS Mr. Pogo---Fire Death Match (Ring is
surrounded by burning cauldrons and showered with red-hot embers)
And you'll be seeing a lot more of those embers after you die if you
enjoy these types of matches!
-Mitsuhiro Matsunaga Vs Mr. Pogo--Barbedwire Baseball Bat Match--Pogo
douses Matsunaga with lighter fluid and throws fire on him. This type
of match sets the wrong example for children.
-Mr. Pogo and Super Invader Vs Yukihiro Kanemura and Mitsuteru
Tokuda---Barbedwire Match Barbed wire is for cattle, not people!
-Mr. Pogo VS Jason The Terrible (Roberto Rodriquez)----Coffin Match
Coffins belong in the ground, not in wrestling matches!
To see more tapes check out http://www.pro-wrestling.com
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Yuriy Kleyner
You know I think I finally figured out why Herb hates bloody
matches so much. It's because we are Carnivores and he is a
Herbievore. "OK, I know that joke REALLY sucked. But it's better
than any wisecrack you will hear from those lame announcers in
Atlanta."-Joey Styles, February 1996.
Michael Rogers
In <4t43fm$u...@nw101.infi.net> jes...@infi.net (Warrior JS) writes:
>
>We interrupt our regularly scheduled mayhem to bring you the
following:
>
>This post is totally the opinion of Jeremy Soria's and no one else's.
>I am not taking sides in this flamewar between the self-proclaimed
>ghoul and the self-proclaimed non-ghoul. That said,
myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers )
>wrote:
>
>>For those of you Herb considers ghouls, I have a tape you might
enjoy.
>>It's $12.00 and that includes Priority Mail postage. None of these
>>matches meet Herb's criteria for a great match and by ordering this
you
>>are saluting and acknowledging Pro-Wrestling's bloody heritage not to
>>mention thumbing your nose at Herb.
>>Order early and often.
>
>>---S153 Juice-O-Rama---A Salute To Bloodbaths--- 4 Hours Very Good
>>to Excellent Picture Quality
>
>
>IMO, if the flamewar between Herb and Michael Rogers wasn't enough,
>Michael has the cojones to post an ad for something with IMO is a bit
>of a disgrace to pro wrestling in general. There is a fine line
>between "violence for violence's sake" and "violence for
>entertainment's sake." The tape Michael is hawking is most definitely
>the former. Instead of blood being incidental to the action, as some
>matches throughout the years demonstrate, the blood is
>*integral* to the matches, and it seems that these two participants
>want to give each other scars for the rest of their lives because the
>"fans" want to see blood.
>
>I don't mind the occasional blading or juicing either hardway or
>deliberately, but I have a newsflash for you: There IS such a thing as
>overkill. Even in wrestling.
>
>Michael, if you want to rub Herb's face in the blood of other
>wrestlers to get your point across, go ahead; just please, PLEASE, for
>the sake of the newsgroup, don't post it here. Regardless of what you
>think, WE DON'T NEED TO SEE IT.
Don't get your panties in a bunch, Jeremy. I'm sure the rest of RSPW
is appreciative that you are so protective of them, but I think they
can speak for themselves.
And Jeremy, since you scolded me I am *not* going to market on RSPW my
next compilation which was to be Buns,Buns,Buns: A Salute to Cheescake
in Pro-Wrestling, starring Warrior, Marcus Bagwell, Sting and many
others too numerous to mention. You're on your own, Jeremy, thanks to
your attitude. You have no one to blame but yourself.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Warrior JS
We interrupt our regularly scheduled mayhem to bring you the following:
This post is totally the opinion of Jeremy Soria's and no one else's. I am not
taking sides in this flamewar between the self-proclaimed ghoul and the
self-proclaimed non-ghoul. That said, myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers )
wrote:
>For those of you Herb considers ghouls, I have a tape you might enjoy.
>It's $12.00 and that includes Priority Mail postage. None of these
>matches meet Herb's criteria for a great match and by ordering this you
>are saluting and acknowledging Pro-Wrestling's bloody heritage not to
>mention thumbing your nose at Herb.
>Order early and often.
>---S153 Juice-O-Rama---A Salute To Bloodbaths--- 4 Hours Very Good
>to Excellent Picture Quality
*snip*
IMO, if the flamewar between Herb and Michael Rogers wasn't enough, Michael
has the cojones to post an ad for something with IMO is a bit of a disgrace to
pro wrestling in general. There is a fine line between "violence for
violence's sake" and "violence for entertainment's sake." The tape Michael is
hawking is most definitely the former. Instead of blood being incidental to
the action, as some matches throughout the years demonstrate, the blood is
*integral* to the matches, and it seems that these two participants want to
give each other scars for the rest of their lives because the "fans" want to
see blood.
I don't mind the occasional blading or juicing either hardway or deliberately,
but I have a newsflash for you: There IS such a thing as overkill. Even in
wrestling.
Michael, if you want to rub Herb's face in the blood of other wrestlers to get
your point across, go ahead; just please, PLEASE, for the sake of the
newsgroup, don't post it here. Regardless of what you think, WE DON'T NEED TO
SEE IT.
(The preceding post was totally the opinion of Jeremy Soria's and no one
else's. We now return you to your regularly scheduled mayhem.)
- Jeremy People who misuse the word "it's" for "its"
are idiots & do not deserve internet access at all.
Rosie O'Donnell airs in Prime Time at 9pm on WB43 WVBT during the Olympics...
--
jes...@infi.net | Pro Wrestling. TPiR. Pinball. | Only the One & Only
and a webpage too. | And Rosie. Can it get any better? | 95-96 Chicago Bulls
E-mail me for URL. |-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------- IF YOU HAVE THE 4 HUNKS VID FROM NITRO 7/22/96, E-MAIL ME.
Bruiser, Adrian, Eddie, Buddy Rogers, Joe Marella, Dick Murdoch ... Sigh ...
The Dark Cheetah
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mike Palij, RSPW's Iron Man wrote:
>Larry Sternshein, RSPW's Franchise wrote:
>> Herb Kunze wrote:
>>> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
>>> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
>>
>> I can understand you disliking ECW. I can sit here and let you
>>badmouth ECW fans. I can also read you act like a childish baby. However, I
>>can't sit here and bad mouth America.
Why do I suddenly see a lot of fraternity boys filing out of a courtroom
humming a distinctly pro-American song? After that speech, I move that
we change Larry's nickname to... the Hacksaw Jim Duggan of RSPW. *grin*
Larry, the problem is you haven't been around rspw long enough.
Old timers can tell you about the infamous "Canada is a Third
World Nation" thread which incensed a lot of Canadian readers.
This is just Herb's way of getting back at jingoistic U.S. rspw'ers.
Like you say in the next graf, turnabout is fair play. So, just
like pro-w fans who complain about Ted Turner/Eric Bischoff's
unfair raiding practices on the WWF with no knowledge of Vince
McMahon comparable actions in the 1980s, just chill. One
international incident this week is enough. ;-)
I suppose it's time for my yearly, "Herb, _please_ don't generalize
about all ECW fans based on the actions of a few, or all Americans
based on the actions of a few million" speech... but frankly, my
heart just isn't in it this year. *shrug* Sorry, folks. I guess
I let you down. Maybe next year.
>Larry Sternshein
>Proud American, Down with Canada
Looks like there's a new marshall in town: Larry Sternshein. :-)
Hey, I'm just waiting for the "USA! USA!" chant to break out. :)
that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
valid as that of a cardiologist's). In this thread, its my
belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
need justification.
Perhaps it could also be put in terms of set theory, Mike: brawling
may be a subset of pro-wrestling but is not synonymous (ooh, dare I
say, conterminous? *wink*) with it. It's my perception here that
Herb does not find all brawls-- nor even all blood-- distasteful;
his distaste seems to be merely in context of ECW-- as Herb views
it, as embodied by the fans he has met, and the Sandman he has seen.
IMODO-- I think this point has been made several times recently by
various posters, but it bears repeating-- any pro-wrestling promotion
is a delicate blend of acrobatics, brawls, craziness, matwork, and
even *gasp* characters and angles. Also IMODO, when _any one_ of
those starts to predominate heavily, it is either happening a) as a
compensation for a lack of, or b) at the expense of, one or more of
the others. This begins a vicious circle where the diverse audience
eventually leaves in boredom or disgust, and only the (oops, almost
slipped and said "hardcore" there *grin*) diehard fans of the single
style are left... and the promotion really can't afford to lose them
too, so it goes ever farther in that one direction...
See, Herb complains in his post about one ECW match he really _wanted_
to see, about how it was apparently being edited for time-- time which
was then spent bringing more of the same (brawls) to ECW's core audience.
Now I don't necessarily agree with anything else Herb says-- hey, I sure
wouldn't want to watch an entire card full of AJW, any more than I would
an entire card full of brawls, or even an entire card of cruiserweights--
but given the show reports and TV rundowns for the last year or so, maybe
he does have a point about a slight lack of balance in ECW.
But of course, you know what they say: ECW-- it's not for everyone. ;)
And you know Larry, both are right. I think that most reasonable
people will agree that an informed opinion (one that is based on
knowledge and experience with a particular thing) is more valid
than one that is uninformed (one that might be based simply on
personal prejudices and wrong information). Similarly, if you
prefer drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer while I prefer to drink
Remy Martin cognac, well, who is to say that our preferences are
wrong? Remy Martin may have a lot more class, status, and
prestige as a drink but if it reminds you of cat's piss when you
drink it, well, then you're drinking it for the wrong reasons.
If _you're_ drinking either of those, Mike, you're drinking them
for the wrong reasons. What's the matter, the Colt 45 bringing
up too many bad memories? ;) And as for MODOpinion on others'
opinions, I'll fall back on what my father once said to my mother:
"You're entitled to your opinion. Even if it's wrong." *grin*
I think a similar thing is going on in this thread. By no
stretch of the imagination can the Sandman be considered a good
wrestler (even Al Snow, a really talented wrestler and teacher,
has said something to the effect that the Sandman was a talentless
drunk who couldn't work a match). It doesn't take much skill to
beat people with a cane, to bleed, or to take a beating.
It does to do it safely. *shrug* But, that's entertainment...
Sandman is never going to be invited to wrestle in New Japan or
Old Japan (heck, he'd have a tough time in WCW or the WFF if he
wasn't given a gimmick to cover up his lack of ability). But
some people like his current gimmick. I think that Herb is arguing
that because the gimmick is based on mindless brutality, the
need for juicing/bleeding by the Sandman and his opponents, and
lack of any wrestling ability/skill, this really isn't wrestling,
as wrestling has been and is still defined (i.e., primarily as
an athletic competition in shoot contexts and as an exhibition
in worked contexts). Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
Perhaps the next proposed division of this newsgroup should be...
rec.sport.pro-brawling? :P [BTW, Mike, I thought wonton violence
only happened in _Chinese_ wrestling? *grin*] McCain, much like
McKinnon, is opposed to the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
Censorship is not the answer here: never has been, never will be.
Ignorance-- whether induced from outside, or willfully assumed
from within-- is _not_ a useful tactic for survival. It does not
protect anyone from anything. But knowledge is only useful if the
person is willing/able to apply it. You can always show a sheep
the slaughterhouse, but unless it realizes that the knife is at its
own throat before it's too late... *shrug*
I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
is saying.
Don't blame the message, kill the messenger. *shrug* And speaking
of that, somehow nowadays ECW always makes me think of this quote:
"I'm not running from anything that happened there. I learned
something there about violence, that it doesn't have to be
literal for it to work.... When a man seeks out violence, be
it war, sports or adventure, he wants it to be symbolic, and
most of the time he believes that it really is. And then comes
that moment when somebody _literally_ puts a gun to your head.
And you _literally_ almost die. Then you realize that you've
been confusing the literal and the symbolic all along. Well,
[blank] is the place where I learned that. I'm not running from
it. It's merely the reason I'm here. I want violence just as I
always have. A sense of danger. I love it. I think I even want
to be annihilated by it all. But I don't really want to be hurt
and I certainly don't want to die."
FWIW.
Lee Morey, The Dark Cheetah
============================================================================
"You touch this Horseman-- and it'll be the last Horseman you ever touch."
--Chris Benoit, WCW SN 4/13/96
============================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMfZM7JDpGiQgi/+VAQE+7QP+M1Qp0kfqj8yTWOvHEb77a3gObLPPDpCf
Iqhjguk7w6HDMBashkhxFAKYwJY6To/vvtl8NHR/RfM6IpA8SsfjQKrJyzcGiIcC
REPhKJi/MImalXxC3JXuPb8fNbEAjhKzE2W8y312cBZUO1eQYuUfBuH8QInBZkxZ
XkpdPGLj8Yg=
=LTsb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Stenshein
> What would you consider acting like a baby? I suggest you read
> the remainder of your post again (below).
I want to take this first thing to apologize for my Canada comment.
Canada did give us John Candy. :>
> For the record, I think Sandman sucks. This thread began because
> somebody posted suggesting that Sandman vs. 1-2-3 Kid & Bob Holly
> would be great, with Sandman caning the stuffing out of those guys.
> That's extremely insulting towards the far more talented Kid & Holly
> and I took issue with it, pointing out that Sandman basically stinks
> as a wrestler and that it's sad, IMO, that the "smartest" fans
> ("best" fans, fans with an "advanced mindset," whatever label
> you pick from newsgroup posts) in the world would support him
> the same way that other non-working cool characters get supported
> in other bad-mouthed promotions.
I'll agree, The Sandman isn't the most gifted wrestler to ever step
inside the squared circle. However, there is more to wrestling than actually
doing the holds. I've seen Bob Holly wrestle and he isn't anything special
either. The reason why I would rate Sandman over Holly is Sandman has the
ability to work the crowd, Holly does not. If Holly was so awesome he would
be over with the fans and he ain't.
> Now, just in case it still isn't clear, the above is my opinion.
> My opinion of Sandman is based on the 20-25 matches I've seen
> with him. My opinion of the fans is based on the 20-25 commercial
> or TV shows I've seen from ECW. Nobody has strongly argued my
> comparison of Sandman to the Dusty Rhodes of the 1980s NWA; the
> best retort has been that Sandman is "cooler."
Well, Sandman is cooler :> Seriously, I understand the comparison. The
only differance is, it isn't the Sandman booking himself as a superman. Dusty
was. That is what continues to keep him over. If Sandman was doing his own
booking there would be a good chance he would still be ECW champ.
> Posts of the sort "Well, I like Sandman and my opinion is as valid
> as yours" miss the whole point and do nothing to enrich the
> discussion. Clear though beyond "he's cool" and "I like him"
> would be nice.
I like Sandman but realize he isn't a great wrestler. But like Hogan
is over with the marks without having any wrestling ability, Sandman is over
with the ECW fans.
> It's something in the American water, I guess. Watching the Olympics
> last night on CBC, I decided to switch to NBC during a commercial.
> On CBC, they continually cut to different male gymnasts, from most
> every country imaginable, doing their routines, returning to show
> the scores of the people they had highlighted. They criticized and
> praised evenly, based on performance quality. On NBC, however, they
> just followed the American squad, showing them waiting for their marks,
> their parents cheering, the squad bonding. They cut to show the
> dismount of a Ukrainian gymnast, where he took a baby step backward
> and said he'd lose marks for that imperfection. When an American
> stepped backward, they cheered the high quality program anyhow.
> The commentary on NBC was worse than anything Vince or Tony has
> ever done, but apparently they've decided that the American
> audience would rather see American performances without witnessing
> the competition. To know that there are better performers on other
> teams (and don't get me wrong, I liked the lead performer on the
> American team, John Roethlisberger (spelling?)) is apparently
> un-American.
The might be the stupidest and most totally off subject paragraph I've
ever seen. I will agree with you NBC is doing a horrible job.
> After this display, when I'm next in the US, I'll know to watch for
> you in the crowds of little kids that I pass on the street.
It was un-called for and I understand it. If I was a little kid I
wouldn't understaand that. I don't see why you would come to the US. There
isn't anything here you would like anyway.
Larry
David Stenshein
YEAH!! What she said. :>
Larry
Warrior JS
myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) wrote:
>Don't get your panties in a bunch, Jeremy. I'm sure the rest of RSPW
>is appreciative that you are so protective of them, but I think they
>can speak for themselves.
But someone had to speak out when you put that up. I felt it had to be me.
>And Jeremy, since you scolded me I am *not* going to market on RSPW my
>next compilation which was to be Buns,Buns,Buns: A Salute to Cheescake
>in Pro-Wrestling, starring Warrior, Marcus Bagwell, Sting and many
>others too numerous to mention. You're on your own, Jeremy, thanks to
>your attitude. You have no one to blame but yourself.
So what? I don't care. I have tapes of my own. I don't need no steenkin'
compilation tape! :)
Warrior JS
Pete Barlow
In article <4t44fs$r...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) writes:
> In <Dv0A5...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
> hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>>In article <4t1jru$g...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>In <Duy8A...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
> hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>>(Herb Kunze) writes:
>>>> So you like his character?
>>>Yes, I like his character. I like his cockiness. I like the way he brawls.
>>>I like the new moves he's been incorporating into his matches and I enjoy
>>>his interview segments. I also admit to having liked Bruiser Brody, Dick
>>>the Bruiser, The Crusher and many other wrestlers who even in their heydays
>>>would not have been on the top of *your* list of great workers. Am I a
>>>ghoul for liking those guys? They all were involved in the same type of
>>>matches. Who the hell cares? You can call me every name you feel like
>>>calling me and I'll still mark out to that Extreme type of wrestling.
>> Bruiser Brody was hardly the Sandman on his (Brody's) worst day.
>> He wrestled and brawled in a sensible way.
> I have plenty of Brody matches where he stomped out, pounded somebody,
> wandered around the arena then left. I love watching him, but he was
> definitely from the same school. Plenty of brawling in and out of the
> ring, weapons used and blading.
Yes, but was it sensible? This was the point Herb was trying to make, very
badly might I add, and the key word which it appears you looked right over.
The point can be made either of two ways:
1) Does it make sense? Take this in the context of the Sabu-VanDam match from
last month or the month before that Meltzer hated so much, because it had no
rhyme or reason to it, it told no story, etc. I will spot you the point that
most brawls have very little of a story to tell, but given that, compare and
contrast. Can you say that Sandman's brawls make any sense, or tell a story?
Can you say that about Brody's? Herb could be saying here that Brody's did,
but Sandman's don't.
2) Is it safe? I will again spot you the point that wrestling is _meant_ to
look stiff without actually being so. That said, whose brawls look safer to
both guys, Brody's or Sandman's? herb's answer to that is that same as the one
before.
>>>Did you miss my post where I point out the cries for blood are not only not
>>>new but hardly unique to ECW?
>> No, you've missed my point. The fact that fans chant "We Want
>> Blood" is no big deal, in general. It's to be expected from "marks"
>> that so many "hardcore" posters comment negatively about. My point all
>> along had been that the ECW Arena crowd is absolutely no different
>> from the
>> average "mark" (gasp) crowd that people want to exclude themselves
>> from at all costs; if anything, the ECW crowd is worse because they
>> go to other shows to promote their own product and put down that
>> promotion
> I've seen WWF shirts and signs at WCW shows, although not as many any
> more since the Nazis have gotten tougher, WCW shirts and signs at WWF
> and so on. So what? Pro-Wrestling fans speaking their minds. It's
> encouraged here in this strange land.
Point to Mike. Fans going to other promotions and touting the superiority of
another group is hardly what I'd call "isolated." "Time-honoured tradition"
would be closer to the truth.
> (at Fanweek for me,
> Give that a rest, Herb. What was that, two years ago? A small handful
> of people? Jeez. Would you have harped this long is the guys were WCW
> fans? What about New Japan fans? Boy, that must have been one of the
> most traumatic experiences you've had for it to continue to be so fresh
> to you.
Point of fact: unless I'm mistaken, it was the first set of live shows he had
been to in five years, and it was the last time he was actually at a house. In
that, Herb's lost touch with the fan base that he's a member of.
>> at quite a few PPVs where ECWish
>> signs are shown or chants occur, in the newsgroup) when in the
>> end they are the exact same fans.
> Those jerks! They should all be sitting quietly with clipboards and
> stopwatches taking notes.
*shrug* I just use a tape recorder to take my show notes. Thanks, Dave.
>> Why, then, do people call ECW fans the "best" or "smartest" in the
>> world? Why do they have an "advanced mindset?"
> I have no idea why anyone would say things like that. I've been to the
> arena and I can honestly say that there are as many marks there as at
> any other shows I've attended.
Never been to a show in the South, have you? Wrestling is still real down
there, ya know.
> I'm sure it depends where you sit and
> who you sit with. There was a jerk behind me at the last Con who was
> constantly telling his ugly girlfriend and his other friends as well as
> anyone he could get to listen that the wrestling was "fake" and he
> would constantly point out when spots were missed.
Nice to see he blew $12 on the company then.
> Was he a smart?
> Not in my book.
Actually, he was. He knows what the show is about. But he still paid, so you
would have to attach the word "mark" to that...
> Was he the epitomy of all ECW fans? Hell no. There's
> all different flavors of fans and it's idiotic to paint them all with a
> wide brush.
This is the flaw in Herb's argument. Herb has taken a two-year-old subset of
the casual ECW fan (who were also apparently not-so-casual) and used it to
define his thesis, without allowing for time effects and assuming that this
subset was an accurate representation of the ECW fan at the time... which would
also be today, as he hasn't allowed for time effects. See above. The point,
though, is this: Herb has forgotten that not all rectangles are squares, and
is trying to judge a set of fans that he not only has no direct contact with,
but has not had indirect contact with in two years.
>>>> What about the return to the blade? During the absence of blood,
>>>> Paul Heyman continued to make Sandman (and ECW) "cool" by increasing
>>>> the sexual content in the product.
>>>And? Let me guess...you don't like it.
>> Whether I like it or not was not the point. The point was that the
>> Sandman stayed over. The same is true of Undertaker's levitation
>> angle way back when. I hated it, but he stayed over with the fans.
> But it is the point. Your participation in this thread has been
> nothing but you implying that your likes are right and anyone who
> disagrees with them are wrong and that no matter what their reason is
> it's up to you to decide whether or not they are valid.
Hint to Mike and anyone else: It ain't _just_ this thread.
Pete.
George Flanagan
> somebody posted suggesting that Sandman vs. 1-2-3 Kid & Bob Holly
> would be great, with Sandman caning the stuffing out of those guys.
> That's extremely insulting towards the far more talented Kid & Holly
A good friend of mine, Steel City Wrestling's "Beef Stew" Lou Marconi
did jobber work with the WWF, and worked a match against Sparky, and he
told me that he is a very stiff worker, and that Lou called the whole
match. Look for more jobber work by him sometime after SummerSlam on
WWF television.
Pat Flanagan
Who really doesn't see what the U.S. coverage of the Olympic Games has
to do with anything....
tjo...@pelican.com
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
Damn right.
Do you actually think your opinion is worth more than anyone elses?
Here is a clue - it's not.
tjo...@pelican.com
myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) wrote:
<snip>
>Don't like it? Don't watch it? Want to complain about the storyline?
>Fine. Want to analyze it to death? Fine. Want to insult those who
>enjoy it? Fine, but it's childish. And that, sir, is the crux of the
>problem you create for yourself and is the reason you end up defending
>statements you make that are insulting to your fellow wrestling fans.
Way to go Mike. Seems like some of these fans that were raised on
McMahon's WWF don't realize wrestling wasn't the kiddie sport that
McMahon turned it into to load up his pockets with cash.
For the people who like kiddie wrestling, we have the WWF.
The WCW (which is my current favorite), is currently following that
trend. The ECW has it's core of fans, or else it would have folded
long ago.
The younger fans don't know that the WWF and WCW were renowned for
their buckets of blood prior to the 80's when McMahon decided to cash
in on the Home Alone themes and tone down the violence. It worked in a
way, because it brought pro wrestling to a level it had never been
before, but it also diluted it for the long time fans. This is the
reason for the surge of the ECW and other feds like it. It is a return
to the golden age of wrestling, away from the Home Alone age.
>
Mike Sammons
Trevor Barrie wrote:
>
> bh...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike Palij) wrote:
>
> >Remy Martin may have a lot more class, status, and
> >prestige as a drink but if it reminds you of cat's piss when you
> >drink it, well, then you're drinking it for the wrong reasons.
>
Here in Canada it's called WildCat beer.
Herb Kunze
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960723...@gold.missouri.edu>,
Travis Cook <c59...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Herb Kunze wrote:
>> To quote a recent post, the ECW fans have an "advanced mindset." Was
>> a sizeable percentage of ECW fans also Dusty Rhodes fans in the 1980s?
>> Hard to believe. How can such "advanced" fans support the Sandman?
>> Because they like his character and don't care about his, ahem,
>> wrestling? That sure sounds far "advanced" from the Undertaker,
>> Ultimate Warrior, and Hulk Hogan fans.
>What do you mean by "advanced mindset".
Ask Rick Scaia, who used the description in his recent post.
With others having called them the "best" and the "smartest,"
I assume it is meant to imply something similar.
>If it means that they are somehow intellectually superior to
>other sets of fans, I would disagree. I don't think any group of fans
>can claim that.
Not intellectually superior, just wrestling-fan superior. They
support the best promotion in the US, right? Members of the ECW
fanbase are the only fans I can think of that pay to attend a
show from one promotion only to chant or sign in support of a
different promotion. It's one thing to put down other promotions
at a show of your favourite promotion, but I can't see the point
of the first action. Why go to a SMW show and chant "Sabu!"?
Why go to a WWF show and hold up an "ECW" sign?
>As for why they support The Sandman, we support him for
>*both* his character and his wrestling. His wrestling is very good
>considering what he is physically capable of.
This last sentence is true of a lot of shitty guys: UW, Jim Duggan,
etc. I'm not sure if you meant it as a serious endorsement.
>After I get home, sure I'll recognize that so-snd-so wreslted
>a damn good match, or that some other guy put on a shitty show, but while
>I'm there, I'm watching wrestling, not analyzing it.
I sort of do both simultaneously. I can really enjoy stuff and
all the while think, "Man, this is crap!" Shockmaster falling
through the wall was damn entertaining and it was terrible all
at the same time.
>Maybe "smart" isn't such a great description of non-mark fans, I'll
>gladly go along with that point. but again, I don't think it is fair or
>right to put the fans of ECW or anybody else on any sort of pedestal.
>ECW fans are no more superior than WWF fans, WCW fans, or AJW fans.
I think you have a very uncommon opinion.
>I am not going to argue that we are the smartest fans in the world, as I
>said earlier, I don't believe anybody has claim to that moniker. As for
>ECW shows and the amount of "mix" they have on the card, it boils down to
>what I said above, if the fans want more of a certain thing, ECW will
>give it to them, or those fans will spend their money elsewhere. If a heavy
>slant on bloody brawls is what sells, I see nothing wrong with that, so
>long as it is done within the constraints of the law.
Don't you find it the least bit sad that a bloody, violent style
that does not focus on ability is the style that so many devout
"smarts" in r.s.p-w embrace as the best style? I'm not saying
that everybody should like what I like and never have said that;
I can understand getting into great brawls or great fast-paced
matches or great strong-style matches (and despite characterizations
of some that is what I do). But the ECW fanbase I've met, seen on
TV, and read in the newsgroup embrace violence for violence's sake,
ignoring that many of the ECW brawls I've seen are one-dimensionless
and unrealistic (the one-dimensional remark also applies to a fair
number of the non-brawl matches). If it isn't "hardcore" it sucks.
>> "nonsensically" means that they just whack each other and drag each
>> other to interesting locations of the Arena to whack each other some
>> more. There's no time for selling. There's no time for psychology.
>> There's no grace. There's just nonsensical violent and blood.
>>
>> For example, the one table shot that Bret Hart took in his match against
>> Diesel had far more impact than any of the table shots I've seen Public
>> Enemy do. Why? Because Diesel didn't take 5 minutes to set up the
>> spot, Bret Hart didn't have to lie on the table and wait for Diesel
>> to get in position. That bump (remember: Bret getting knocked off
>> the apron through the commentator's table) was real. PE's table
>> bumps are nonsensical.
>
>What makes sense to one set of fans may/may not make sense to another
>set. Honestly, how many of us could make sense of Lucha Libre the
>first time we saw it?
I'm not talking about ECW style elements like referees not calling
DQs when they traditionally would be called. I'm talking about
ECW style elements like not selling half of the shots that occur
during a brawl, like dragging an opponent through the crowd while
he seemingly can't do anything to stop you, like setting somebody
on a table and taking forever to set up the stunt. You can't
compare these elements to Lucha Libre style elements. The ECW
elements I'm calling nonsensical do not fit into a match in any
style. For the record, I groan when I see the AJW wrestlers
drag each other through the crowd, too. But in that promotion
it occurs in one match on an eight-match card. In ECW, it doesn't
occur in one match.
>> "show your tits," "where's our blowjob," and the like really do have
>> no place in pro-wrestling, do they? Unless you think their place is
>> with Cro-Magnon fans.
>If it is part of the product, the consuming public have no problem with
>it, and it is within the constraints of the law, then it *does* have a
>place. Supply and Demand...It makes the world go 'round.
So, if they wanted to yell any racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks
that's okay? That these fans, who are so "inside" the promotion,
choose to express themselves this way doesn't bother you in the
least?
>> So, you like some characters and dislike others, regardless of their
>> actual wrestling ability?
>Characters, yes. The wrestler's themselves, not necessarily. For
>example, I am not a fan of Terry Bollea due to his refusal to job, his
>disrespect to fans, etc, etc. However, I cheer like mad for "Hollywood"
>Hulk Hogan because of the heel turn. To me, one has nothing to do with
>the other (once again, I'm sure this is not true of everyone))>
Oh boy, Rick Scaia will want to give you a piece of his mind!
Herb...
Herb Kunze
In article <4t2qsr$q...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4t2o6n$9...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> bh...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike
>Palij) writes:
>> Another manifestation of this lack of standards is the attitude
>> that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
>> inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
>> the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
>> valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
>> heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
>> valid as that of a cardiologist's).
> Poor analogy when applied to the thread.
Not at all. If we are talking about hearts, the cardiologist's
opinion is more important than the mechanic's. If we are talking
about cars, the mechanic's opinion is more important. This is
not a big statement.
>> In this thread, its my
>> belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
>> while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
>> need justification.
> They are explaining that their criteria is different. The question
> remains "Why should Herb dictate what the criteria is?".
I'm not dictating anything.
(1) Consider that learned fans who have seen strong performers work
many different styles might have pro-wrestling opinions that hold,
on average, more merit than fans who have only watched no pro-wrestling,
a little pro-wrestling, or even a fair bit of pro-wrestling of just
on style.
Do you disagree with the above assertation? I have no idea why Mike
has joined this thread (surely an unstrategic decision), but he was
right when he recalled that it troubles me that there is such a
movement to have all opinions be equal. I absolutely hate the
man-in-the-street segments on the news, where an "average joe/jane"
expresses an opinion on some serious issue. What kind of credentials
does that "average" person have? Who knows? The news media never
bothers to check because credentials are unimportant, don't you know!
Given that we can get past (1), we move to:
(2) Consider that, from so many reports, the ECW Arena crowd contains
a large percentage of fans in the know, fans that fit the profile of
(1), by many accounts.
Do you disagree with the above assertation?
The fans I met at Fanweek fit the bill. Many people in the newsgroup
that praise ECW fit the bill. When people say that ECW fans are the
"smartest" or have an "advanced mindset" I infer that they are hinting
at (2).
This brings us to the final point, the real way that you should be
interpreting my dig on Sandman, Harris Twins, Dudleys, etc. I'm not
saying that you shouldn't like ECW or that you should like what I
like. I'm saying:
(3) The standards by which wrestling is judged "good" should likely
be set or determined by considering fans who meet (1). (2) implies
that the ECW fanbase might be a good sample to use.
I'm not setting the criteria. I think that ECW fans should, by all
rights, be telling me what the criteria are, based on (1), (2), and (3)!
They do this with their own behaviour, by supporting certain elements
of the ECW product mix. Many accounts have praised the responsiveness of
Paul Heyman, et. al., suggesting that the product is largely influenced
by the likes and reactions of the ECW fanbase, particularly at
the Arena.
In the end, the ECW fans deify Sandman, they choose to support
guys like the Dudleys ("dance Buh Buh, dance!"). They support
one-dimensional brawls, with no selling, psychology, or grace.
They redefine "hardcore" to mean "bloody and violent" and use
the adjective as a badge of honour.
Maybe I think that the ECW fans, who I'd look to to get a measure
of what learned fans would support as "good" wrestling, have set
their standards too low. Maybe, in the end, I find only slight
differences between ECW fans and the much-loathed WWF and WCW
fans. Worse yet, maybe I find many of those differences to be
negatives (chanting profane things, supporting sexist angles,
chanting/signing for ECW at WWF/WCW shows).
>>Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
>>Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
>>off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
>>appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
>>them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
I think that the McCain reference is misplaced as well.
The UFC has some violent flash (the octagon, some of the
promos for earlier shows), but the product is focussed on
ability, sportsmanship, and athleticism. I can't say the
same thing about ECW. I do agree with Mike that McCain
would have a stroke if he saw an ECW show.
>> I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
>> people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
>> is saying.
> Maybe it's the name calling that makes it difficult to see his point.
> That said, I've seen more people than just myself concede that he makes
> valid points. It's too bad he has to resort to insults to make them.
Oh please. Calling the ECW ringsiders morons and blood-loving fans
ghouls or vampires hardly rivals the barbs that are typically directed
at me from the other members in your vanguard. How about all of your
clipboard and whistle jabs?
Herb...
Trevor Barrie
Mike Palij
The Dark Cheetah <dche...@cais.com> thus purrrrrrrred:
>Mike Palij, RSPW's Iron Man wrote:
>>Larry Sternshein, RSPW's Franchise wrote:
>>> Herb Kunze wrote:
>>>> It's so egalitarian of you to give all opinions equal weight regardless
>>>> of their intellectual merit. It's just so American.
>>>
>>> I can understand you disliking ECW. I can sit here and let you
>>>badmouth ECW fans. I can also read you act like a childish baby. However, I
>>>can't sit here and bad mouth America.
>
> Why do I suddenly see a lot of fraternity boys filing out of a courtroom
> humming a distinctly pro-American song? After that speech, I move that
> we change Larry's nickname to... the Hacksaw Jim Duggan of RSPW. *grin*
How about changing Larry's nickname to "RSPW'er Most Likely to Be
Confused with Jim Duggan"? Nyah, not snappy enough.
C'man, Larry! You up for a chant? Let's go:
U - S - A! U - S - A! U - S - A!
Now let's go out and kick some Canadian ass! Wooooooo! ;-)
>Larry, the problem is you haven't been around rspw long enough.
>Old timers can tell you about the infamous "Canada is a Third
>World Nation" thread which incensed a lot of Canadian readers.
>This is just Herb's way of getting back at jingoistic U.S. rspw'ers.
>Like you say in the next graf, turnabout is fair play. So, just
>like pro-w fans who complain about Ted Turner/Eric Bischoff's
>unfair raiding practices on the WWF with no knowledge of Vince
>McMahon comparable actions in the 1980s, just chill. One
>international incident this week is enough. ;-)
>
> I suppose it's time for my yearly, "Herb, _please_ don't generalize
> about all ECW fans based on the actions of a few, or all Americans
> based on the actions of a few million" speech... but frankly, my
> heart just isn't in it this year. *shrug* Sorry, folks. I guess
> I let you down. Maybe next year.
We'll still be here. We'll wait. :-)
>>Larry Sternshein
>>Proud American, Down with Canada
>
>Looks like there's a new marshall in town: Larry Sternshein. :-)
>
> Hey, I'm just waiting for the "USA! USA!" chant to break out. :)
Hey Larry! That's our cue again!
U - S - A! U - S - A! U - S - A!
>that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
>inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
>the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
>valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
>heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
>valid as that of a cardiologist's). In this thread, its my
>belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
>while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
>need justification.
>
> Perhaps it could also be put in terms of set theory, Mike: brawling
> may be a subset of pro-wrestling but is not synonymous (ooh, dare I
> say, conterminous? *wink*) with it.
*Stan Murch Mode On*
Conterminous? You doing something with Misnik on the con? And where
did you learn such a sissy ass word anyway? College? You another
one of them sissy ass college kids? Hell, *I* could have gone to
college if I wasn't drafted and had to go and do some ass whooping
in Nam. Okay, maybe I didn't burn down any villages or mine any
harbors because I was only a cook but I still got a medal after
catching some shrapnal in the hindquarters after the pressure cooker
blew up. Anyway, like I always say, better to be conterminous than
idempotent, if you know what I mean. And if you do, then you got
some personal issues to tend to.
*Stan Murch Mode Off*
> It's my perception here that
> Herb does not find all brawls-- nor even all blood-- distasteful;
> his distaste seems to be merely in context of ECW-- as Herb views
> it, as embodied by the fans he has met, and the Sandman he has seen.
Your analysis works for me.
> IMODO-- I think this point has been made several times recently by
> various posters, but it bears repeating-- any pro-wrestling promotion
> is a delicate blend of acrobatics, brawls, craziness, matwork, and
> even *gasp* characters and angles.
You forgot T&A. And black leather. And thigh high boots. And whips. And...
Waitaminnit! Wrong newsgroup! Sorry! :-)
> Also IMODO, when _any one_ of
> those starts to predominate heavily, it is either happening a) as a
> compensation for a lack of, or b) at the expense of, one or more of
> the others. This begins a vicious circle where the diverse audience
> eventually leaves in boredom or disgust, and only the (oops, almost
> slipped and said "hardcore" there *grin*) diehard fans of the single
> style are left... and the promotion really can't afford to lose them
> too, so it goes ever farther in that one direction...
Yeah! More black leather and thigh high boots! :-)
> See, Herb complains in his post about one ECW match he really _wanted_
> to see, about how it was apparently being edited for time-- time which
> was then spent bringing more of the same (brawls) to ECW's core audience.
> Now I don't necessarily agree with anything else Herb says--
I'm sure that even Herb doesn't agree with everything Herb says. ;-)
> hey, I sure
> wouldn't want to watch an entire card full of AJW, any more than I would
> an entire card full of brawls, or even an entire card of cruiserweights--
> but given the show reports and TV rundowns for the last year or so, maybe
> he does have a point about a slight lack of balance in ECW.
Yeah! More black leather and thigh high boots! Okay, that's getting boring.
NOT! :-)
> But of course, you know what they say: ECW-- it's not for everyone. ;)
Which, of course, begs the question of for *whom* it is.
>And you know Larry, both are right. I think that most reasonable
>people will agree that an informed opinion (one that is based on
>knowledge and experience with a particular thing) is more valid
>than one that is uninformed (one that might be based simply on
>personal prejudices and wrong information). Similarly, if you
>prefer drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer while I prefer to drink
>Remy Martin cognac, well, who is to say that our preferences are
>wrong? Remy Martin may have a lot more class, status, and
>prestige as a drink but if it reminds you of cat's piss when you
>drink it, well, then you're drinking it for the wrong reasons.
>
> If _you're_ drinking either of those, Mike, you're drinking them
> for the wrong reasons.
Hey, just trying to get a little variety in my life. :-)
> What's the matter, the Colt 45 bringing
> up too many bad memories? ;)
You know, its gotten to the point where I'd just go out, get a 40oz
bottle of Colt 45, plop down onto a pile of garbage on the street,
start drinking and reminiscing about being a Norseman. I keep
wondering about what happened to that old gang of mine. I know
that this sounds pretty pathetic so I decided to do something about it.
I'm drinking Remy Martin now while sitting in garbage on the sidewalk.
> And as for MODOpinion on others'
> opinions, I'll fall back on what my father once said to my mother:
>
> "You're entitled to your opinion. Even if it's wrong." *grin*
Well, DC, if that's the way you feel about, that's okay. You're
entitled to your opinion.... ;-)
>I think a similar thing is going on in this thread. By no
>stretch of the imagination can the Sandman be considered a good
>wrestler (even Al Snow, a really talented wrestler and teacher,
>has said something to the effect that the Sandman was a talentless
>drunk who couldn't work a match). It doesn't take much skill to
>beat people with a cane, to bleed, or to take a beating.
>
> It does to do it safely. *shrug* But, that's entertainment...
So where does the black leather and thigh high boots come in?
>Sandman is never going to be invited to wrestle in New Japan or
>Old Japan (heck, he'd have a tough time in WCW or the WFF if he
BTW, I mean *All* Japan here. Its just that I flashed on Baba
when I wrote this. :-)
>wasn't given a gimmick to cover up his lack of ability). But
>some people like his current gimmick. I think that Herb is arguing
>that because the gimmick is based on mindless brutality, the
>need for juicing/bleeding by the Sandman and his opponents, and
>lack of any wrestling ability/skill, this really isn't wrestling,
>as wrestling has been and is still defined (i.e., primarily as
>an athletic competition in shoot contexts and as an exhibition
>in worked contexts). Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
>Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
>off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
>appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
>them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
>
> Perhaps the next proposed division of this newsgroup should be...
> rec.sport.pro-brawling? :P
Not quite. I think some people might consider some of the following
more appropriate:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.blading
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.blood.blood.blood.
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.cane-your-dad
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.show-yer-tits
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.3tablesaults
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.sheer-brutality
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.400binarypostings
and, of course, my favorite:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.blackleather&boots
and don't forget Larry's favorite:
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.U-S-A!.U-S-A!.U-S-A!
> [BTW, Mike, I thought wonton violence
> only happened in _Chinese_ wrestling? *grin*]
DC, that was Lo (mein) blow! ;-)
> McCain, much like
> McKinnon, is opposed to the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
> Censorship is not the answer here: never has been, never will be.
For the record, I never said it was.
> Ignorance-- whether induced from outside, or willfully assumed
> from within-- is _not_ a useful tactic for survival. It does not
> protect anyone from anything. But knowledge is only useful if the
> person is willing/able to apply it. You can always show a sheep
> the slaughterhouse, but unless it realizes that the knife is at its
> own throat before it's too late... *shrug*
Hmmm, sounds like a good idea. Now how can Paul E. use this as
an angle?
>I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
>people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
>is saying.
>
> Don't blame the message, kill the messenger. *shrug*
But make him/her bleed first.
> And speaking
> of that, somehow nowadays ECW always makes me think of this quote:
>
> "I'm not running from anything that happened there. I learned
> something there about violence, that it doesn't have to be
> literal for it to work.... When a man seeks out violence, be
> it war, sports or adventure, he wants it to be symbolic, and
> most of the time he believes that it really is. And then comes
> that moment when somebody _literally_ puts a gun to your head.
> And you _literally_ almost die. Then you realize that you've
> been confusing the literal and the symbolic all along. Well,
> [blank] is the place where I learned that. I'm not running from
> it. It's merely the reason I'm here. I want violence just as I
> always have. A sense of danger. I love it. I think I even want
> to be annihilated by it all. But I don't really want to be hurt
> and I certainly don't want to die."
*Stan Murch Mode On*
More fancy pants, sissy ass college boy stuff! Nothing wrong with
anyone that a good ass whooping couldn't cure!
*Stan Murch Mode Off*
> FWIW.
I'm confused, DC. Does this mean you're not going to get Mike Rogers'
Bloodfest tape? ;-)
>Lee Morey, The Dark Cheetah
--
Warrior JS
Tro...@gnn.com (Yuriy Kleyner) wrote:
*lame joke deleted*
>"OK, I know that joke REALLY sucked. But it's better
>than any wisecrack you will hear from those lame announcers in
>Atlanta."-Joey Styles, February 1996.
But in this case, we can make an exception. That bad joke *IS* something you'd
probably hear from those lame announcers in Atlanta.
Michael Rogers
In <1996Jul2...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
If he is he's thinking back nostalgically and not in a reality based way. I'm
not trying to denegrate Brody as he's one of my all time favorites, but then
I'm not trying to denegrate Sandman by comparing him to Frank. Although there
were plenty of storylines surrounding Brody's appearances there were also many,
many times when he made appearances and had brawls that had not been set up.
In St. Louis he had a fued with Nikoli Volkoff but the only set up would be the
stereotypical run-ins. Then there would be a couple tag matches between Brody
and a partner and Volkoff and a partner to set up a main event at a show. I
see at least that much storyline with Sandman. Right now there's a pretty
major storyline going on with Sandman. Oh, and before someone jumps in to
condemn the storyline, that's not really the point in this instance. There
have been other storylines as well. My point in comparing the two is that
neither have/had real intricate storylines and that's not their gig.
>2) Is it safe? I will again spot you the point that wrestling is _meant_ to
>look stiff without actually being so. That said, whose brawls look safer to
>both guys, Brody's or Sandman's? herb's answer to that is that same as the
>one before.
Brody's definitely look "safer", but since when is *that* the point?
>>>>Did you miss my post where I point out the cries for blood are not only not
>>>>new but hardly unique to ECW?
>>> No, you've missed my point. The fact that fans chant "We Want
>>> Blood" is no big deal, in general. It's to be expected from "marks"
>>> that so many "hardcore" posters comment negatively about. My point all
>>> along had been that the ECW Arena crowd is absolutely no different
>>> from the
>>> average "mark" (gasp) crowd that people want to exclude themselves
>>> from at all costs; if anything, the ECW crowd is worse because they
>>> go to other shows to promote their own product and put down that
>>> promotion
>> I've seen WWF shirts and signs at WCW shows, although not as many any
>> more since the Nazis have gotten tougher, WCW shirts and signs at WWF
>> and so on. So what? Pro-Wrestling fans speaking their minds. It's
>> encouraged here in this strange land.
>
>Point to Mike. Fans going to other promotions and touting the superiority of
>another group is hardly what I'd call "isolated." "Time-honoured tradition"
>would be closer to the truth.
I won't claim to have thought of this first, third or one hundreth, but at
*any* sporting event people are going to be sporting shirts touting their team.
In Pro-Wrestling it could be said that different companies are like teams.
>> (at Fanweek for me,
>> Give that a rest, Herb. What was that, two years ago? A small handful
>> of people? Jeez. Would you have harped this long is the guys were WCW
>> fans? What about New Japan fans? Boy, that must have been one of the
>> most traumatic experiences you've had for it to continue to be so fresh
>> to you.
>
>Point of fact: unless I'm mistaken, it was the first set of live shows he had
>been to in five years, and it was the last time he was actually at a house.
>In that, Herb's lost touch with the fan base that he's a member of.
That's too bad because there's plenty of great people attending live shows.
They are a great place to meet people with similar interests.
>>> at quite a few PPVs where ECWish
>>> signs are shown or chants occur, in the newsgroup) when in the
>>> end they are the exact same fans.
>> Those jerks! They should all be sitting quietly with clipboards and
>> stopwatches taking notes.
>
>*shrug* I just use a tape recorder to take my show notes. Thanks, Dave.
I've done it, and it's a very good way to take accurate notes, but it gets in
the way of my "marking out" so I leave the reporting to others and scream
myself hoarse.
>>> Why, then, do people call ECW fans the "best" or "smartest" in the
>>> world? Why do they have an "advanced mindset?"
>> I have no idea why anyone would say things like that. I've been to the
>> arena and I can honestly say that there are as many marks there as at
>> any other shows I've attended.
>
>Never been to a show in the South, have you? Wrestling is still real down
>there, ya know.
Oh, man, it's that way here in Missouri as well. I went to a show in Hannible,
Missouri (Home of Samuel Clemmens/Mark Twain) and there were women *crying*
because one of the faces, who claimed to be Shawn Michaels' brother, by the
way, had taken a beating.
Point taken.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Missouri's Wrestling Heritage: http://www.pro-wrestling.com
Michael Rogers
In <Dv2HH...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Here's the problem, Herb, and I'm not convinced you're blind to these
types of statements. The fans don't go *only* to chant or wave signs
in support of a different promotion. They are wrestling fans and enjoy
the show. Beyond that, you're not looking at the crowd very carefully
if you don't see people with signs for promotions other than ECW.
That, or it doesn't make your point. It's really painfully obvious
which is the truth.
>It's one thing to put down other promotions
> at a show of your favourite promotion, but I can't see the point
> of the first action. Why go to a SMW show and chant "Sabu!"?
> Why go to a WWF show and hold up an "ECW" sign?
Um, because the person *wants to*. It's a three letter word, Herb.
It's spelled D-U-H, look into it. It's surprising to me that you, such
a deep thinker, can't grasp that someone might have a desire to support
their favorite promotion/wrestler while attending an event of a
different promotion. They are surrounded by wrestling fans, what
better time to do it. Although I personally go out in public wearing
Pro-Wrestling T-shirts quite frequently, many people are embarrased,
ashamed or quite frankly don't want the hassle associated with wearing
one. "Do you think that's real?" "You like *wrestling*? At a house
show this is not the case. I've been averaging two show a month and
always wear a wrestling shirt of some kind--sometimes ECW, sometimes
WWF, even a UFC shirt or two. The shows I go to are usually indies and
I'm expressing the fact that I enjoy wrestling. The shirts have been
the start of converations with people that I've made friends of. If it
were not for an ECW T-shirt I was wearing I most likely would not have
met Dave Chapman who is now a great friend of mine and someone I attend
shows with. For some reason you totally ignore the social aspect of
attending shows. This may stem more from your experiences of attending
shows than anything else. If you are not the social type, maybe you've
never noticed all the great people attending the shows. While in the
minority occasionally, they are not all hillbillies or whatever the
Canadian equivalent is.
>>As for why they support The Sandman, we support him for
>>*both* his character and his wrestling. His wrestling is very good
>>considering what he is physically capable of.
>
> This last sentence is true of a lot of shitty guys: UW, Jim Duggan,
> etc. I'm not sure if you meant it as a serious endorsement.
I'm so sick of this. Face it, Sandman does not *just* hit people with
a cane and can wrestle circles around Duggan and UW. You are watching
Sandman matches from last year. He *has* improved and *you* have not
bothered to stay current. It's your fault and it makes your diatribes
outdated and uninformed.
>>After I get home, sure I'll recognize that so-snd-so wreslted
>>a damn good match, or that some other guy put on a shitty show, but
while
>>I'm there, I'm watching wrestling, not analyzing it.
>
> I sort of do both simultaneously. I can really enjoy stuff and
> all the while think, "Man, this is crap!" Shockmaster falling
> through the wall was damn entertaining and it was terrible all
> at the same time.
So enjoy! That's his point. I've attended shows with Travis and he
gets *into* it. Try it. You denigrate those who say "I like it,
that's why", but there's a lot to that. If a person is not going to a
show with the intention of enjoying himself, why bother?
>>Maybe "smart" isn't such a great description of non-mark fans, I'll
>>gladly go along with that point. but again, I don't think it is fair
or
>>right to put the fans of ECW or anybody else on any sort of pedestal.
>>ECW fans are no more superior than WWF fans, WCW fans, or AJW fans.
>
> I think you have a very uncommon opinion.
You think wrong. You seem to take statements of a few to be the
opinions of many. While a larger number of ECW fans for the most part
are aware of certain truths about the sport, there's still plenty who
don't.
>>I am not going to argue that we are the smartest fans in the world,
as I
>>said earlier, I don't believe anybody has claim to that moniker. As
for
>>ECW shows and the amount of "mix" they have on the card, it boils
down to
>>what I said above, if the fans want more of a certain thing, ECW will
>>give it to them, or those fans will spend their money elsewhere. If
a heavy
>>slant on bloody brawls is what sells, I see nothing wrong with that,
so
>>long as it is done within the constraints of the law.
>
> Don't you find it the least bit sad that a bloody, violent style
> that does not focus on ability is the style that so many devout
> "smarts" in r.s.p-w embrace as the best style? I'm not saying
> that everybody should like what I like and never have said that;
Although you insinuate and sometimes flat out *say* that they are
somehow inferior. How about this: Maybe they are more truthful with
themselve than *you are* with yourself. Now matter what spin you put
on it, it still boils down to violence. Maybe it's because we grew up
on more of it. For myself, most main events I attended were pretty
brutal affairs usually with color. The shock of that, much like a
carnival ride, is what attracted me to the sport. As I got older I
began to enjoy other forms and could appreciate a well executed match
devoid of as much brutality. I expanded what I like rather than close
the door on one form to focus on another. Many other people do that as
well, not only with wrestling but with music, movies and anything else
that they are interested in. I realize some people will focus on one
interest and then to support narcissistic tendencies will tell
themselves that they are superior to others and that their choices are
the *right* ones, but it only holds true to themselves and those they
seek out who agree with them. On the other side of the pole, the
person who is interested in something the first person doesn't like and
has decided is inferior could be formulating the same beleifs about
*his* favorite thing, or he could accept both as being fine for the
person choosing. You like certain forms of Japanese wrestling and find
it superior to American? Fine. I also enjoy Japanese wrestling, many
people do. I also enjoy a good brawl--which, by the way, is also
enjoyed in Japan. I rate the wrestlers on a different criteria than I
do the others. It's not wrong, it's just not in agreement with your
personal beleif system.
> I can understand getting into great brawls or great fast-paced
> matches or great strong-style matches (and despite characterizations
> of some that is what I do). But the ECW fanbase I've met,
Once, and consisted of what, a handful of people?
seen on
> TV,
Clean your glasses, you seem to focus on only the front row.
>and read in the newsgroup embrace violence for violence's sake,
Doesn't explain Mysterio Jr., Benoit, Psycosis, Malenko, Jericho, Van
Dam et. al.
> ignoring that many of the ECW brawls I've seen are one-dimensionless
> and unrealistic (the one-dimensional remark also applies to a fair
> number of the non-brawl matches). If it isn't "hardcore" it sucks.
And you don't like it so it's not only wrong, but inferior and just
plain "sucks", right? You insist on describing all ECW fans as being
of one mind. If I were to do that about anyone with the same interests
as you it would be very unfair and quite insulting to the others. I
won't do it because it's untrue and would show ignorance on my part.
While you have a point about the lack of selling of certain wrestlers,
you are simply stating an untruth when you claim that only one match is
a non-brawl. As for AJW, why even bring it up if you're then going to
show your bias and say that it's O.K. a just a little bit, but not a
lot. Those matches are enjoyable to a large number of people.
>>> "show your tits," "where's our blowjob," and the like really do
have
>>> no place in pro-wrestling, do they? Unless you think their place
is
>>> with Cro-Magnon fans.
>>If it is part of the product, the consuming public have no problem
with
>>it, and it is within the constraints of the law, then it *does* have
a
>>place. Supply and Demand...It makes the world go 'round.
>
> So, if they wanted to yell any racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks
> that's okay? That these fans, who are so "inside" the promotion,
> choose to express themselves this way doesn't bother you in the
> least?
While I don't personally choose to yell many of those types of chants,
I don't think it means the end of civilization if they do.
>>> So, you like some characters and dislike others, regardless of
their
>>> actual wrestling ability?
>>Characters, yes. The wrestler's themselves, not necessarily. For
>>example, I am not a fan of Terry Bollea due to his refusal to job,
his
>>disrespect to fans, etc, etc. However, I cheer like mad for
"Hollywood"
>>Hulk Hogan because of the heel turn. To me, one has nothing to do
with
>>the other (once again, I'm sure this is not true of everyone))>
>
> Oh boy, Rick Scaia will want to give you a piece of his mind!
Yeah, but I'll bet he doesn't insinuate that Travis is inferior.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Travis Cook
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Herb Kunze wrote:
>
> For the record, I think Sandman sucks. This thread began because
> somebody posted suggesting that Sandman vs. 1-2-3 Kid & Bob Holly
> would be great, with Sandman caning the stuffing out of those guys.
> That's extremely insulting towards the far more talented Kid & Holly
> and I took issue with it, pointing out that Sandman basically stinks
> as a wrestler and that it's sad, IMO, that the "smartest" fans
> ("best" fans, fans with an "advanced mindset," whatever label
> you pick from newsgroup posts) in the world would support him
> the same way that other non-working cool characters get supported
> in other bad-mouthed promotions.
I don't see what is insulting about the above scenario. Granted, I'd
rather have Sandman cane two jobbers, or cane them after the match is
over, but that is splitting hairs. The above thinking seems to be ,
"Waltman and Holly are good workers, and therefore we must keep the
brawlers as far away from them as possible. And God forbid we ever put
"talented workers" into an angle, they don't need one." I don't
understand this. I don't see why the three above men can't do what
they do best. To me, workrate is only one piece of what makes a good
*professional* wreslter. Things like interview ability, heat-drawing
ability, and stage prescence count just as much in my book. This is why
I have been pleasently surprised at Benoit and Malenko's recent
treatment in WCW (with regard to interviews and angles), as they seem
have been allowed to develop well in those areas, and, to me, are finally becoming
complete pro wrestlers.
>
> Posts of the sort "Well, I like Sandman and my opinion is as valid
> as yours" miss the whole point and do nothing to enrich the
> discussion. Clear though beyond "he's cool" and "I like him"
> would be nice.
Fair enough. Sandman gives his all in every match (to me, this means
good workrate by definition)regardless of injury, he is a magnificent interviewer,
can draw heat quite well, and has a good stage prescence considering his gimmick.
As for Rhodes, the last three points of the above are true, though certainly not the
first one (giving his all every time out)
>
> It's something in the American water, I guess. Watching the Olympics
> last night on CBC, I decided to switch to NBC during a commercial.
> On CBC, they continually cut to different male gymnasts, from most
> every country imaginable, doing their routines, returning to show
> the scores of the people they had highlighted. They criticized and
> praised evenly, based on performance quality. On NBC, however, they
> just followed the American squad, showing them waiting for their marks,
> their parents cheering, the squad bonding. They cut to show the
> dismount of a Ukrainian gymnast, where he took a baby step backward
> and said he'd lose marks for that imperfection. When an American
> stepped backward, they cheered the high quality program anyhow.
> The commentary on NBC was worse than anything Vince or Tony has
> ever done, but apparently they've decided that the American
> audience would rather see American performances without witnessing
> the competition. To know that there are better performers on other
> teams (and don't get me wrong, I liked the lead performer on the
> American team, John Roethlisberger (spelling?)) is apparently
> un-American.
As I suspect many American sports fans might say to you, please don't
think NBC's coverage of sports is indicitive of the way all American's
feel. Having watched sports on NBC for many years, it is clear that
usually they have their favorite athletes (read: whomever they have an
"up close" profile on). This is true not only of the Olympics, but
of football, baseball, and whatever else they might cover. I'm sure I
am not the only one who noticed their shameless rooting for The
Indianapolis Colts during last year's AFC Championship game. I think
your complaint should be with NBC Sports, and not with America. I tend to
think if ESPN or ABC were covering the Olympics, things may be different.
******************************************************************************
Travis Cook, c59...@showme.missouri.edu
Missouri Tiger Football '94 -- A New Breed Of Cat
Missouri Tiger Football '95 -- Earning Our Stripes
Missouri Tiger Football '96 -- Oh God...we're gonna die...
"I could come out here and wrestle a broom and these people would be
impressed"--Ric Flair during his first Memphis appearance, circa 1982
******************************************************************************
Travis Cook
On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Warrior JS wrote:
>
> IMO, if the flamewar between Herb and Michael Rogers wasn't enough, Michael
> has the cojones to post an ad for something with IMO is a bit of a disgrace to
> pro wrestling in general. There is a fine line between "violence for
> violence's sake" and "violence for entertainment's sake." The tape Michael is
> hawking is most definitely the former. Instead of blood being incidental to
> the action, as some matches throughout the years demonstrate, the blood is
> *integral* to the matches, and it seems that these two participants want to
> give each other scars for the rest of their lives because the "fans" want to
> see blood.
>
> I don't mind the occasional blading or juicing either hardway or deliberately,
> but I have a newsflash for you: There IS such a thing as overkill. Even in
> wrestling.
Some fans may call this type of action overkill, and that is fine. The
question I pose is, "Isn't there room for both types of wrestling?" I
believe there is, and to illustrate this, let me go back to a situation
about nine years ago when I was in Junior High school... *cue flashback
sequence ;)*
My school was a bit different from most in that most of the guys watched
pro wrestling, and it was not looked down upon. At the time in my
hometown, the only two choices for wrestling were what was broadcast on
local television (most of us lived "out in the sticks" and had no access
to cable...insert Jeff Foxworthy comment here ;)) which were the WWF and
Bill Watts' UWF. Some of the guys I knew preferred the WWF, while the
rest of us who liked blood, storylines, and a little brutality were fans
of the UWF. Point being that neither set of fans denounced the other for
what they preferred (we were in Junior High...we had plenty of other
ammunition to be cruel to each other with ;)), and we simply watched what
we wanted to watch. The result was that both feds had support in the
area for quite some time, and one did not have to "win out" over the other.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I still think there's room for all
styles out there. Is there room for The Warrior, The Undertaker, and The
American Males? Most certainly. Is there room for AJW, New Japan, and
AAA? Without a doubt there is. Is there room for men who brawl and
bleed than wrestle (though I think we could all agree that this is not
all ther is to ECW)? If someone out there is willing to pay for it and
support it (and I, along with many others, are living proof that there
is), then there is room for it, too. I am not saying this to get on
anybody's case, or to claim superiority for anyone, I am simply saying it
to point out that most fans enjoy a little mayhem...some of us enjoy lots
of mayhem.
The Maritimer
Mike Sammons wrote:
>
> Trevor Barrie wrote:
> >
> > bh...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike Palij) wrote:
> >
> > >prestige as a drink but if it reminds you of cat's piss when you
> > >drink it, well, then you're drinking it for the wrong reasons.
> >
>
Really? I thought it was Oland's.
The Maritimer
Michael Rogers
In <Dv2K3...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>
>In article <4t2qsr$q...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <4t2o6n$9...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> bh...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Mike
>>Palij) writes:
>>> Another manifestation of this lack of standards is the attitude
>>> that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
>>> inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
>>> the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
>>> valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
>>> heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
>>> valid as that of a cardiologist's).
>> Poor analogy when applied to the thread.
>
> Not at all. If we are talking about hearts, the cardiologist's
> opinion is more important than the mechanic's. If we are talking
> about cars, the mechanic's opinion is more important. This is
> not a big statement.
Yes it is, and I explained why. You chose to leave it out of your
response. Let's take your assertion here: Yes, Herb, if talking about
hearts then the surgeon's opinion is more important. Let's use
brawling in pro-wrestling as the heart, and brawl fans as the heart
surgeons. They then can rate the general good and bad points of any
particular patient and/or surgery. Then let's move on to, say, AJPW,
which is a car, and fans of that type of wrestling are mechanics. You
can take your toolbox to the hospital if you wish Herb, but no one is
going to take your input seriously.
>>> In this thread, its my
>>> belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
>>> while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
>>> need justification.
>> They are explaining that their criteria is different. The question
>> remains "Why should Herb dictate what the criteria is?".
>
> I'm not dictating anything.
You most certainly are. You say a particular wrestler can't wrestle.
Based on what? *Your* particular criteria.
>
> (1) Consider that learned fans who have seen strong performers work
> many different styles might have pro-wrestling opinions that hold,
> on average, more merit than fans who have only watched no
pro-wrestling,
> a little pro-wrestling, or even a fair bit of pro-wrestling of just
> on style.
>
> Do you disagree with the above assertation? I have no idea why Mike
> has joined this thread (surely an unstrategic decision), but he was
> right when he recalled that it troubles me that there is such a
> movement to have all opinions be equal. I absolutely hate the
> man-in-the-street segments on the news, where an "average joe/jane"
> expresses an opinion on some serious issue. What kind of
credentials
> does that "average" person have? Who knows? The news media never
> bothers to check because credentials are unimportant, don't you
know!
But *mine* are. As much as you would have us beleive that you are the
be all and end all, I'll venture to guess I'm as old or older than you
are and have been following Pro-Wrestling and attending live shows at
least as long as you. I'm not the man in the streat and neither are
plenty of wrestling fans who enjoy, among other promotions, ECW. We
are not "men in the street" and our opinions are just as valid as
yours.
> Given that we can get past (1), we move to:
>
> (2) Consider that, from so many reports, the ECW Arena crowd
contains
> a large percentage of fans in the know, fans that fit the profile of
> (1), by many accounts.
>
> Do you disagree with the above assertation?
"So many reports"? No idea. I disagree with your definition of "in
the know". I will give ECW fans the credit of being aware and probably
watching WCW and WWF on a fairly regular basis, but the majority of
them probably have limited if any exposure to any form of Japanes
wrestling or Luche for that matter.
> The fans I met at Fanweek fit the bill.
No, they don't, and that's where your ignorance and stubborness shines
brightly through. I've met plenty of ECW fans and they are not like
who you describe. I am the expert in this department when compared to
your extremely limited exposure to a handful of fans two years ago. Do
you formulate opinions about other types of people based on the same
limited exposure? *That* is disturbing.
> Many people in the newsgroup
> that praise ECW fit the bill. When people say that ECW fans are the
> "smartest" or have an "advanced mindset" I infer that they are
hinting
> at (2).
Totally flawed based on my far superior quantity of experiences with
the subjects of which you speak.
> This brings us to the final point, the real way that you should be
> interpreting my dig on Sandman, Harris Twins, Dudleys, etc. I'm not
> saying that you shouldn't like ECW or that you should like what I
> like. I'm saying:
Prediction: That somehow, by inference, I am inferior to you because I
enjoy ECW and think that Sandman is a good wrestler.
> (3) The standards by which wrestling is judged "good" should likely
> be set or determined by considering fans who meet (1). (2) implies
> that the ECW fanbase might be a good sample to use.
>
> I'm not setting the criteria. I think that ECW fans should, by all
> rights, be telling me what the criteria are, based on (1), (2), and
(3)!
You are setting the criteria by creating 1. and 2. as truths which is
debatable and you've used flawed reasoning based on lack of current and
credible information.
> They do this with their own behaviour, by supporting certain
elements
> of the ECW product mix. Many accounts have praised the
responsiveness of
> Paul Heyman, et. al., suggesting that the product is largely
influenced
> by the likes and reactions of the ECW fanbase, particularly at
> the Arena.
>
> In the end, the ECW fans deify Sandman, they choose to support
> guys like the Dudleys ("dance Buh Buh, dance!"). They support
> one-dimensional brawls, with no selling, psychology, or grace.
> They redefine "hardcore" to mean "bloody and violent" and use
> the adjective as a badge of honour.
Nice description. I take it you don't enjoy that type of
entertainment, therefore it's not as good as what you do enjoy, mainly
because that's what is good *to you*. Fine. Don't criticise *me* nor
other fans who agree with me by generalizing all fans of ECW are the
same. You did it when you made a comment about Americans and you do it
concerning ECW which has left a bad taste in your mouth because you
couldn't handle the behavior of a handful of kids two years ago. As
Andy Griffith would put it: Pitiful, just pitiful.
> Maybe I think that the ECW fans, who I'd look to to get a measure
> of what learned fans would support as "good" wrestling, have set
> their standards too low. Maybe, in the end, I find only slight
> differences between ECW fans and the much-loathed WWF and WCW
> fans. Worse yet, maybe I find many of those differences to be
> negatives (chanting profane things, supporting sexist angles,
> chanting/signing for ECW at WWF/WCW shows).
There's no maybe about it. You *do* find the differences to be
negatives. Fine. Don't insult me for liking something you don't. I
show you that respect, what is it about you that stand in the way of
you doing the same?
>>>Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
>>>Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
>>>off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
>>>appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
>>>them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
>
> I think that the McCain reference is misplaced as well.
> The UFC has some violent flash (the octagon, some of the
> promos for earlier shows), but the product is focussed on
> ability, sportsmanship, and athleticism. I can't say the
> same thing about ECW. I do agree with Mike that McCain
> would have a stroke if he saw an ECW show.
Again, I think he would laugh it off as "fake" and laugh at you and I
for watching it.
>>> I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
>>> people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
>>> is saying.
>> Maybe it's the name calling that makes it difficult to see his
point.
>> That said, I've seen more people than just myself concede that he
makes
>> valid points. It's too bad he has to resort to insults to make
them.
>
> Oh please. Calling the ECW ringsiders morons and blood-loving fans
> ghouls or vampires hardly rivals the barbs that are typically
directed
> at me from the other members in your vanguard. How about all of
your
> clipboard and whistle jabs?
If you equate describing *how* someone enjoys wrestling (and what
whistle, it's a stopwatch) with calling someone a ghoul or vampire,
then you are a very thin-skinned lad who misses a lot more than I
thought. I, for one, have refrained from the name calling. It's too
bad that even when others who basically support your opinion point out
the innapropriateness of your behavior concerning name calling you
still are unable to admit that it takes away from how much weight one
can give to your opinions.
The point that doesn't seem to sink in is A.) It's unfair to formulate
*any* opinion based on no longer current information and/or a very tiny
sampling and B.) People who are called names by you and basically told
they are inferior are going to disagree with you and C.) No amount of
responses leaving out valid points are going to erase the fact the
points were made.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Herb Kunze
In article <1996Jul2...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>,
Pete Barlow <pmba...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> wrote:
>1) Does it make sense? Take this in the context of the Sabu-VanDam match from
>last month or the month before that Meltzer hated so much, because it had no
>rhyme or reason to it, it told no story, etc. I will spot you the point that
>most brawls have very little of a story to tell, but given that, compare and
>contrast. Can you say that Sandman's brawls make any sense, or tell a story?
>Can you say that about Brody's? Herb could be saying here that Brody's did,
>but Sandman's don't.
This is what I'm saying.
>> I've seen WWF shirts and signs at WCW shows, although not as many any
>> more since the Nazis have gotten tougher, WCW shirts and signs at WWF
>> and so on. So what? Pro-Wrestling fans speaking their minds. It's
>> encouraged here in this strange land.
>Point to Mike. Fans going to other promotions and touting the superiority of
>another group is hardly what I'd call "isolated." "Time-honoured tradition"
>would be closer to the truth.
Time honoured? I find this a stretch.
>In that, Herb's lost touch with the fan base that he's a member of.
Herb doesn't want to (re-)establish touch with the fans he sees on
ECW TV.
>This is the flaw in Herb's argument. Herb has taken a two-year-old subset of
>the casual ECW fan (who were also apparently not-so-casual) and used it to
>define his thesis, without allowing for time effects and assuming that this
>subset was an accurate representation of the ECW fan at the time... which would
>also be today, as he hasn't allowed for time effects. See above. The point,
>though, is this: Herb has forgotten that not all rectangles are squares, and
>is trying to judge a set of fans that he not only has no direct contact with,
>but has not had indirect contact with in two years.
Observances from TV and readings in the newsgroup are not indirect
contact? What is? Posts from the most strident ECW supporters
certainly fit my "thesis." The flavour of the TV show does too.
Not going to house shows (a function of geography and complete lack
of desire to be in the Arena) doesn't mean too much when I watch so
many shows and read so many reports. All it means is I can't tell
you where the washrooms are in the building. I suppose at a live
show, unlike on tape, you don't actually see half the wrestlers
pull out their blade in clear sight of the fans.
Herb...
Sanjay Mohanta
> Don't you find it the least bit sad that a bloody, violent style
> that does not focus on ability is the style that so many devout
> "smarts" in r.s.p-w embrace as the best style? I'm not saying
> that everybody should like what I like and never have said that;
> I can understand getting into great brawls or great fast-paced
> matches or great strong-style matches (and despite characterizations
> of some that is what I do). But the ECW fanbase I've met, seen on
> TV, and read in the newsgroup embrace violence for violence's sake,
> ignoring that many of the ECW brawls I've seen are one-dimensionless
> and unrealistic (the one-dimensional remark also applies to a fair
> number of the non-brawl matches). If it isn't "hardcore" it sucks.
>
I have to disagree with you here Herb. Remember before we were
complimenting WCW for signing the crusiers they were in ECW. The fans
may have a preference for hardcore matches but remember - these were the
same fans who gave Rey Metysterio Jr and Psychosis a standing ovation
after their first match. They also begged both Eddie Guerrerro and Dean
Malenko to stay! They did not do this to Public Enemy orKevin Sullivan
when they left.
Outside of the cruiserwieghts in WCW ECW has the best wrestlers in the
world: Shane Douglas, Jericho, Sabu, Scorpio, Van Dam and yes Mikey.
Each of these aforementioned men have put on some great matches in ECW
arena.
Heyman is without question the only promoter who gives his fans exactly
what they want. He is a smart enough businessman that he essentially
created a promotion unparallelled in North America in the type of product
it puts out. I don't think that I ever saw a more "extreme" style match
in either of the big two promotions no matter how much money they pay
their athletes to take those bumps.
> So, if they wanted to yell any racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks
> that's okay? That these fans, who are so "inside" the promotion,
> choose to express themselves this way doesn't bother you in the
> least?
>
NO - it adds to the Hardcore attitude of the organization.
Like I stated earlier - many stated that Ric Flair's recent statements in
North Carolian showed his committment to the fans. Heyman should be
credited for allowing the fans to have so much say over the product. If
Vince or Eric did that would we have the Leprechaun, Farrook Asads,
plumbers, etc. that is currently polluting the Big Two? Until Heyman has
an e-mail address we should just learn to lean back and enjoy the chants!
Remember - Stevie Richards once wore a "RSPW sucks" t - shirt and drew
tremendous heat. Obviously the ECW fans are all the smart marks that one
can easily assume from watching their actions!
Sanjay
--
=========================================================================
=
Sanjay Mohanta | e-mail:
s3mo...@mc1adm.UWaterloo.ca
Auditor | phone: (519) 888-4567 x2372
University of Waterloo | fax: (519) 746-3242
Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1 |
=========================================================================
=
Pete Barlow
In article <4t670a$5...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) writes:
> In <1996Jul2...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
> pmba...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete Barlow) writes:
>>In article <4t44fs$r...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
>>> In <Dv0A5...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
>>> hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>>>> Bruiser Brody was hardly the Sandman on his (Brody's) worst day.
>>>> He wrestled and brawled in a sensible way.
>>> I have plenty of Brody matches where he stomped out, pounded somebody,
>>> wandered around the arena then left. I love watching him, but he was
>>> definitely from the same school. Plenty of brawling in and out of the
>>> ring, weapons used and blading.
>>Yes, but was it sensible? This was the point Herb was trying to make, very
>>badly might I add, and the key word which it appears you looked right over.
>>The point can be made either of two ways:
>>1) Does it make sense? Take this in the context of the Sabu-VanDam match from
>>last month or the month before that Meltzer hated so much, because it had no
>>rhyme or reason to it, it told no story, etc. I will spot you the point that
>>most brawls have very little of a story to tell, but given that, compare and
>>contrast. Can you say that Sandman's brawls make any sense, or tell a story?
>>Can you say that about Brody's? Herb could be saying here that Brody's did,
>>but Sandman's don't.
> If he is he's thinking back nostalgically and not in a reality based way. I'm
> not trying to denegrate Brody as he's one of my all time favorites, but then
> I'm not trying to denegrate Sandman by comparing him to Frank.
This is ultimately the problem with becoming a legend: everybody tries to be
you. Are Brody and Sandman from the same school? Undoubtedly, although Brody
apparently also attended the technical class, whereas I've never actually seen
Sandman work a mat match. (Hold your flames; I don't get the TV, I don't trade
tapes, haven't seen him since Double Tables, so that's a _very_ unqualified
opinion.) Are Brody and Sandman in the same class? No... primarily due to
name value. Shit, it's BRODY, man.
> In St. Louis he had a fued with Nikoli Volkoff but the only set up would be the
> stereotypical run-ins. Then there would be a couple tag matches between Brody
> and a partner and Volkoff and a partner to set up a main event at a show. I
> see at least that much storyline with Sandman. Right now there's a pretty
> major storyline going on with Sandman.
That's all in the booking. If a promoter just brings you in for a one-off, no
set-up, maybe even no card before that one... what do you do? In the end, it
doesn't have anything to do with the wrestlers themselves.
>>2) Is it safe? I will again spot you the point that wrestling is _meant_ to
>>look stiff without actually being so. That said, whose brawls look safer to
>>both guys, Brody's or Sandman's? herb's answer to that is that same as the
>>one before.
> Brody's definitely look "safer", but since when is *that* the point?
To a wrestler, that's a _huge_ point. See also: WCW Nitro from this past week.
Sting absolutely did not want to take a suplex from McMichael; he didn't want
to play guinea pig, and I can't say I really blame him. This crazy fucker he
was with was more likely than not going to hurt him. Not safe. Completely
ignoring name value (Brody's in with Flair on the "I want to work with him"
list), the wrestlers would rather work with somebody that they know is the
safer guy. From Herb's argument and yours, that's Brody.
>>>> My point all
>>>> along had been that the ECW Arena crowd is absolutely no different
>>>> from the average "mark" (gasp) crowd that people want to exclude
>>>> themselves from at all costs; if anything, the ECW crowd is worse
>>>> because they go to other shows to promote their own product and put
>>>> down that promotion
>>Fans going to other promotions and touting the superiority of
>>another group is hardly what I'd call "isolated." "Time-honoured tradition"
>>would be closer to the truth.
> I won't claim to have thought of this first, third or one hundreth, but at
> *any* sporting event people are going to be sporting shirts touting their team.
> In Pro-Wrestling it could be said that different companies are like teams.
Exactly, and there's really no difference between that and, say, pro football.
Both are, by societal definition, MANLY sports. Ugh. *eats raw meat for
effect* Oh, hell, classic example. The Olympics. You can't tell me the
Chinese gymnasts didn't bring some fans over just to have some kind of base, or
the Russians, and the Cuban baseball team didn't have half of Miami make the
trip up to watch their games and to make fun of the Cuban pitcher who defected
two weeks ago.
>>> (at Fanweek for me,
>>> Give that a rest, Herb. What was that, two years ago? A small handful
>>> of people? Jeez. Would you have harped this long is the guys were WCW
>>> fans? What about New Japan fans? Boy, that must have been one of the
>>> most traumatic experiences you've had for it to continue to be so fresh
>>> to you.
>>Point of fact: unless I'm mistaken, it was the first set of live shows he had
>>been to in five years, and it was the last time he was actually at a house.
>>In that, Herb's lost touch with the fan base that he's a member of.
> That's too bad because there's plenty of great people attending live shows.
> They are a great place to meet people with similar interests.
It's a feel-good place, about as much as most "men" would accept. I run with
about four or five different circles of people. Pro wrestling is only really
accepted in just the one, that circle with the wrestlers themselves. You feel
like a dumb-ass bringing it up to other people--you tend to get that "wrestling
is fake" line or something--but hell, man, at the shows, you're you and nobody
gives a shit. (Except the drunk people who tell you to stop talking into the
damn tape machine and cheer for somebody, but that's another story.)
>>>> Why, then, do people call ECW fans the "best" or "smartest" in the
>>>> world? Why do they have an "advanced mindset?"
>>> I have no idea why anyone would say things like that. I've been to the
>>> arena and I can honestly say that there are as many marks there as at
>>> any other shows I've attended.
>>Never been to a show in the South, have you? Wrestling is still real down
>>there, ya know.
> Oh, man, it's that way here in Missouri as well. I went to a show in Hannible,
> Missouri (Home of Samuel Clemmens/Mark Twain) and there were women *crying*
> because one of the faces, who claimed to be Shawn Michaels' brother, by the
> way, had taken a beating.
We have one of those Shawn Michaels brothers here too. Nobody cries when he
loses, though. He's not over.
Pete.
Pete Barlow
In article <Dv2K3...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
> In article <4t2qsr$q...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <4t2o6n$9...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> bh...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike
>>Palij) writes:
>>> Another manifestation of this lack of standards is the attitude
>>> that all opinions, no matter how uninformed, capricious, or
>>> inconsistent, are equal in value (according to this perspective,
>>> the wrestling opinions of a WCW mark are just as informative and
>>> valid as that of puroresu devotee or, by analogy, if one has a
>>> heart defect/problem, then a auto mechanic's opinion is just as
>>> valid as that of a cardiologist's).
>> Poor analogy when applied to the thread.
> Not at all. If we are talking about hearts, the cardiologist's
> opinion is more important than the mechanic's. If we are talking
> about cars, the mechanic's opinion is more important. This is
> not a big statement.
No, no is isn't. Some animals are indeed more equal than others. But you're
debating about a fan base that you haven't had any physical contact with in two
years. Even my two ECW shows are more recent than that, and Mike didn't go to
ECW Arena until, what, Con 2? His statements about the fans, then, in working
theory, would be more accurate than mine, which would be more accurate than
yours... especially when you consider that you, Herb, have never actually been
to the Arena for a show.
I will at least admit when I'm giving an unqualified opinion.
>>> In this thread, its my
>>> belief that Herb is arguing for standards in evaluating pro-w
>>> while his "opponents" are arguing that their preferences don't
>>> need justification.
>> They are explaining that their criteria is different. The question
>> remains "Why should Herb dictate what the criteria is?".
> I'm not dictating anything.
One thing you are not is "introspective." If nothing else, the one thing I
have noticed in your threads is the underlying metaphorical insistence that you
are right.
In response to Mike, however, Herb only dictates your values to you if you let
him. That is a choice which you need to make. Remember, Herb can be (and is)
just as full of shit as you are, or Mike Palij is, or I am. Ain't none of us
ever worked for a show. Ain't none of us done any bookings, or taken a bump in
front of a crowd. I don't even think Meltzer's done that. We're fans.
And in that, Mr. Palij, yes, every person's opinion, no matter how uninformed
they might or might not be, is valid, because each and every one of us paid our
$X to get into the damn show.
> (1) Consider that learned fans who have seen strong performers work
> many different styles might have pro-wrestling opinions that hold,
> on average, more merit than fans who have only watched no pro-wrestling,
> a little pro-wrestling, or even a fair bit of pro-wrestling of just
> on style.
> Do you disagree with the above assertation?
Absolutely. See above statement. If you paid your money to get into the show,
you mean as to much to company and the workers themselves as the poor schmuck
sitting mext to you who cleans out sludge pits at a steel factory for a living,
and stinks to high hell and back. Just who do you think you are, telling him
that Zip isn't God's Gift To Wrestling? Scroll off every single damn Japanese
name you know, and this guy ain't gonna care. Now tell me... insofar as the
business goes, who has more merit? The company's gonna say just one thing:
Who cares? We have their money now.
Don't you dare forget exactly what you are: a fan. Some guy may or may not
take Meltzer to task because he thought Sabu-VanDam was pure shit, but just
because it's God Himself he's written the letter to, who MUST be right because
after all he IS Meltzer isn't he, doesn't mean he is without merit.
> I have no idea why Mike
> has joined this thread (surely an unstrategic decision),
See point above about dictation.
> but he was
> right when he recalled that it troubles me that there is such a
> movement to have all opinions be equal. I absolutely hate the
> man-in-the-street segments on the news, where an "average joe/jane"
> expresses an opinion on some serious issue. What kind of credentials
> does that "average" person have? Who knows? The news media never
> bothers to check because credentials are unimportant, don't you know!
Do you vote, Herb? Does it bother you that the vote of the same sludge pit
cleaning schmuck counts as much as yours does? Does it bother the politican
that his vote only counts as much as yours does?
> Given that we can get past (1), we move to:
> (2) Consider that, from so many reports, the ECW Arena crowd contains
> a large percentage of fans in the know, fans that fit the profile of
> (1), by many accounts.
> Do you disagree with the above assertation?
Yes, but only with the definition of "in the know." "Public relations" is just
another phrase for "controlled information." Let's not forget that ultimately,
Dave Meltzer only knows what the feds want him to know (and ditto that to
Keller, and Scherer, and every other sheet in existence), and then he decides
what to print, you only know what he wants you to know, which is probably only
a portion of what the feds wanted him to know. Get it? Information is not
water; it doesn't flow free.
That said, are ECW fans "in the know"? Only as much as Paul Heyman and/or Tod
Gordon want them to be. This was my basic issue with TC Kirkham last month.
The promotions only have to let you "inside" so far, as much or as little as
they want. It isn't necessarily about ass-kissing either. In the end, it's up
to the individual promoters themselves, and not (no matter what you say) in the
hands of the fan himself. What I want to know is not nearly as important as
what Les or Johnny or the other 3 guys who run the NWF wants me to know; that
I make no damn bones about at all.
> The fans I met at Fanweek fit the bill.
See point in other post, and point above. You're still pushng the O.J. trial
as big news. Do you have anything more recent for us?
> This brings us to the final point, the real way that you should be
> interpreting my dig on Sandman, Harris Twins, Dudleys, etc. I'm not
> saying that you shouldn't like ECW or that you should like what I
> like. I'm saying:
> (3) The standards by which wrestling is judged "good" should likely
> be set or determined by considering fans who meet (1). (2) implies
> that the ECW fanbase might be a good sample to use.
What is it about the ECW fanbase that implies that they are "in the know" of
anything besides their favoured company? *shrug* What is it about the Herb
Kunze fanbase that implies that he is "in the know" about anything besides his
favoured (North American) company... that being SMW, which is, might I add,
defunct for a reason.
The standards by which wrestling should be judged good is this:
(1) Go out to the paying guests of any wrestling show, and find out what they
like. Those they like are good. Those they don't are bad.
(2) Smart fans, smart marks, and insiders who believe otherwise, see (1).
What pays the bills? I sure don't. I get passed into every show I go to.
*shrug* I never bothered to hide that. But never once would I tell you that I
know more than the people who pay to get in do. They're more valuable to the
company than I am.
> Many accounts have praised the responsiveness of
> Paul Heyman, et. al., suggesting that the product is largely influenced
> by the likes and reactions of the ECW fanbase, particularly at
> the Arena.
And? Wrestling is about giving the people what they want, but not when they
want it. Or had you not worked that one out yet?
> In the end, the ECW fans deify Sandman, they choose to support
> guys like the Dudleys ("dance Buh Buh, dance!"). They support
> one-dimensional brawls, with no selling, psychology, or grace.
> They redefine "hardcore" to mean "bloody and violent" and use
> the adjective as a badge of honour.
If I was using Andrew Kessler as an example, I think maybe I'd see things that
way too. You'd have a helluva time convincing me that the 1,500 people in the
Arena are all carbons of him, though.
> Maybe I think that the ECW fans, who I'd look to to get a measure
> of what learned fans would support as "good" wrestling, have set
> their standards too low. Maybe, in the end, I find only slight
> differences between ECW fans and the much-loathed WWF and WCW
> fans.
When, in the end, the only thing that makes you better than them is that you
get AJ/AJW/NJ tapes... right? Loathe them all you want... without them,
there's no you.
>>>Herb clearly is not alone in his opinion.
>>>Senator John McCain, who has "worked" so hard to keep the UFC
>>>off television and in stopping the shows, would probably be
>>>appalled by the Sandman fans in this thread, probably viewing
>>>them as ghouls who get off on blood and wonton violence.
> I think that the McCain reference is misplaced as well.
> The UFC has some violent flash (the octagon, some of the
> promos for earlier shows), but the product is focussed on
> ability, sportsmanship, and athleticism. I can't say the
> same thing about ECW. I do agree with Mike that McCain
> would have a stroke if he saw an ECW show.
*shrug* Probably. But then I'm one of those people who was violently
anti-PMRC as well...
>>> I think that Herb does have some good points. Its a shame that
>>> people's dislike of him seem to be more important than what he
>>> is saying.
>> Maybe it's the name calling that makes it difficult to see his point.
>> That said, I've seen more people than just myself concede that he makes
>> valid points. It's too bad he has to resort to insults to make them.
> Oh please. Calling the ECW ringsiders morons and blood-loving fans
> ghouls or vampires hardly rivals the barbs that are typically directed
> at me from the other members in your vanguard. How about all of your
> clipboard and whistle jabs?
All's fair, honey. You just have to learn when not to give a shit. That
you've resorted to using any names at all says to me only one thing: You agree
with them; you're no better than they are. Stick that in your craw and smoke
it.
Kayfabe, Eddie.
Pete.
Michael Rogers
>This is ultimately the problem with becoming a legend: everybody tries to be
>you. Are Brody and Sandman from the same school? Undoubtedly, although Brody
>apparently also attended the technical class, whereas I've never actually seen
>Sandman work a mat match. (Hold your flames; I don't get the TV, I don't trade
>tapes, haven't seen him since Double Tables, so that's a _very_ unqualified
>opinion.) Are Brody and Sandman in the same class? No... primarily due to
>name value. Shit, it's BRODY, man.
I agree it's BRODY, and he had way more charisma than most wrestlers, but he was
still a brawler. If Bruiser Brody (or King Kong Brody if you come from my neck
of the woods) participated in a match that did *not* go all over the building
and include color I daresay a lot of the crowd, probably the majority of the
crowd would have been disapointed. Sandman has worked hard on getting his
weight down and incorporating some actual moves into his repertoire.
>
>> In St. Louis he had a fued with Nikoli Volkoff but the only set up would be
the
>> stereotypical run-ins. Then there would be a couple tag matches between
Brody
>> and a partner and Volkoff and a partner to set up a main event at a show. I
>> see at least that much storyline with Sandman. Right now there's a pretty
>> major storyline going on with Sandman.
>
>That's all in the booking. If a promoter just brings you in for a one-off, no
>set-up, maybe even no card before that one... what do you do? In the end, it
>doesn't have anything to do with the wrestlers themselves.
But the discussion is precisely *about* the wrestlers themselves. Oh, and the
fans who enjoy them.
>>>2) Is it safe? I will again spot you the point that wrestling is _meant_ to
>>>look stiff without actually being so. That said, whose brawls look safer to
>>>both guys, Brody's or Sandman's? herb's answer to that is that same as the
>>>one before.
>> Brody's definitely look "safer", but since when is *that* the point?
>
>To a wrestler, that's a _huge_ point. See also: WCW Nitro from this past week.
Wrestling is not presented for the enjoyment of the wrestler, but for the
enjoyment of the fan. If the point is to look as realistic as possible then the
one that looks "safer" is not as realistic. For the most part I don't see
Brody's matches as looking any "safer", unless you include the studio matches
that were set-ups for the arena shows.
>Sting absolutely did not want to take a suplex from McMichael; he didn't want
>to play guinea pig, and I can't say I really blame him. This crazy fucker he
>was with was more likely than not going to hurt him. Not safe. Completely
>ignoring name value (Brody's in with Flair on the "I want to work with him"
>list), the wrestlers would rather work with somebody that they know is the
>safer guy. From Herb's argument and yours, that's Brody.
I agree that by the time of Brody's untimely death he had built himself quite a
reputation and deservedly so. I doubt if he was as trusted his first two or
three years. As for Sandman, he's his own worst enemy. He pushes *himself*
further and further. In one interview, I believe in The Wrestling Lariat
(Lar...@ix.netcom.com for more info on sub rates), Sandman discussed how he
frequently has to goad his opponents into working stiffer. I know he had quite
a problem working with Marty Jannety because he perceived Jannety as working too
"soft". It's probably an unhealthy dedication to his craft, but no more so than
the kind of dedication his peers Mr. Pogo, Nakamaki, Cactus Jack, Terry Funk or
tons of others have.
Precisely. It's too bad some people have to denegrate their fellow fans in
order to feel good about themselves.
>>>>> Why, then, do people call ECW fans the "best" or "smartest" in the
>>>>> world? Why do they have an "advanced mindset?"
>>>> I have no idea why anyone would say things like that. I've been to the
>>>> arena and I can honestly say that there are as many marks there as at
>>>> any other shows I've attended.
>>>Never been to a show in the South, have you? Wrestling is still real down
>>>there, ya know.
>> Oh, man, it's that way here in Missouri as well. I went to a show in
Hannibal,
>> Missouri (Home of Samuel Clemmens/Mark Twain) and there were women
*crying*
>> because one of the faces, who claimed to be Shawn Michaels' brother,
by the
>> way, had taken a beating.
>
>We have one of those Shawn Michaels brothers here too. Nobody cries
when he
>loses, though. He's not over.
Michaels sure seems to have a lot of kinfolk.
-Mike Rogers-
Jihad
Yuriy Kleyner
In article <Dv3ov...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> Herb Kunze
wrote:
>Observances from TV and readings in the newsgroup are not indirect
> contact? What is? Posts from the most strident ECW supporters
> certainly fit my "thesis." The flavour of the TV show does too.
Actually no. You are only hearing from the vocal minority (or it
could be majority, doesn't matter in this case). I mean if a fan
is doing/saying nothing you don't hear from him.
Yuriy
"Tonight is the night we separate the men from the....not the boys,
tonight is the night we separate the men from the old bastards."
-Cactus Jack to Terry Funk, IWA King Of Death Tournament, August 1995
Yuriy Kleyner
In article <Dv4A6...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> Sanjay Mohanta wrote:
>Outside of the cruiserwieghts in WCW ECW has the best wrestlers in
the
>world: Shane Douglas, Jericho, Sabu, Scorpio, Van Dam and yes
Mikey.
I am guessing here that you have never seen AJ/AJW/NJ/AAA or at
least three of those four? If you HAVE and simply like these guys
better, I apologize.
Mark Bureau
hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
This is unrelated to this portion of the thread but I
wanted to point out that Herb is right. I watched the
gymnastics events on NBC, and I must admit that Bart Conner(?)
is the gymnast equivalent to Joe Morgan as a commentator.
All he did was focus on the mistakes of the competitors,
except for the US. Any US flaws were deemed not important.
Well, at least he didn't get into the "When I was playing..."
aspect that Joe Morgan does.
ObWrestling:
> And this is why it's even sadder that they choose to deify guys that
> have no skill. If they want bloody violence, they could always just
> pool their money and through a $100 bill into a crowd of street
> drunks; they'd see the same level of skill and ability in the
> ensuing brawl.
LOL
> Herb...
But would they bring their own weapons to use in the fight?
***************************************************************
Mark R. Bureau mr...@worldnet.att.net
Home Page:www.inter-link.net/~maribu/bureau.htm
Internet Prayer Network:www.inter-link.net/~maribu/bu-pray.htm
*** "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" **
**************************************************************
Sam Siegel
In article <Dv4oo...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, hek...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) wrote:
>In article <4t81e9$e...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Michael Rogers <myco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Beyond that, you're not looking at the crowd very carefully
>>if you don't see people with signs for promotions other than ECW.
>
> to some degree.
Sure.
>>> It's one thing to put down other promotions
>>> at a show of your favourite promotion, but I can't see the point
>>> of the first action. Why go to a SMW show and chant "Sabu!"?
>>> Why go to a WWF show and hold up an "ECW" sign?
>> Um, because the person *wants to*. It's a three letter word, Herb.
>> It's spelled D-U-H, look into it. It's surprising to me that you, such
>> a deep thinker, can't grasp that someone might have a desire to support
>> their favorite promotion/wrestler while attending an event of a
>> different promotion.
>
> So, the next time I attend a Maple Leafs game against, say, Montreal
> it will be perfectly sensible for me to start a "Go Red Wings!" chant
> for no apparent reason. Or maybe I'll bring a sign supporting a
> German soccer team.
As usual, your argument against ECW depends on the fact that many of the fans
are mouth breathing spit dribblers. Why is that a problem? Aren't all
wrestling fans idiots of one sort or another?
>>They are surrounded by wrestling fans, what better time to do it.
>
> Uh, when you attend a show from that promotion? Just maybe?
When did you attend an ECW show?
>>I've been averaging two show a month and
>>always wear a wrestling shirt of some kind--sometimes ECW, sometimes
>>WWF, even a UFC shirt or two.
>
> Wearing a T-shirt is hardly the same thing. It requires much more
> dedication to draw a sign than it does to just throw on a shirt.
> Wearing a shirt does not take anything away from the enjoyment of
> the people around you, while chanting and signing for some other
> promotion likely does.
>
>>For some reason you totally ignore the social aspect of
>>attending shows. This may stem more from your experiences of attending
>>shows than anything else. If you are not the social type, maybe you've
>>never noticed all the great people attending the shows.
>
> Despite scathing impressions that people have posted of me because
> I'm an analyst, I'm pretty darn social too. Between hard work and
> hard play, I don't have much time to watch all of the videos that
> keep piling up. It is extremely (;-)) safe to say that I would
> not at all enjoy attending an ECW Arena show. I've also quickly
> determined that I would never want to attend a UFC live; I judge
> the crowds at those shows just as harshly.
As opposed to the high class of folks you rub elbows with at wrestling shows
for the other promotions.
>>> This last sentence is true of a lot of shitty guys: UW, Jim Duggan,
>>> etc. I'm not sure if you meant it as a serious endorsement.
>>I'm so sick of this. Face it, Sandman does not *just* hit people with
>>a cane and can wrestle circles around Duggan and UW. You are watching
>>Sandman matches from last year. He *has* improved and *you* have not
>>bothered to stay current. It's your fault and it makes your diatribes
>>outdated and uninformed.
>
> I think I'm at March or April from this year. Did he skyrocket after
> that? Sure he can do more than UW (not sure about Duggan, though),
> but UW only stays in the ring for two or three minutes, so somehow
> that's more palateable to me.
>
>>> I sort of do both simultaneously. I can really enjoy stuff and
>>> all the while think, "Man, this is crap!" Shockmaster falling
>>> through the wall was damn entertaining and it was terrible all
>>> at the same time.
>> So enjoy! That's his point. I've attended shows with Travis and he
>> gets *into* it. Try it. You denigrate those who say "I like it,
>> that's why", but there's a lot to that. If a person is not going to a
>> show with the intention of enjoying himself, why bother?
>
> Sure, you can enjoy all you want. And I'll enjoy a lot of crappy
> stuff too (you've never seen my reaction to Mr. Bhuddaman). But
> I'll at least know that that while it entertained me, it was still
> damn bad. The same is true of stupid movies with Jim Carrey or
> Pauley Shore or Leslie Neilson.
>
> I can understand the statement that Sandman is a lousy wrestler
> who is entertaining to blood fans. You want to defend him as
> something more, with which I strongly disagree. Suddenly, it's
> not just about what people like any more, as any discussion of
> what is "good" and "bad" goes.
>
>>> Don't you find it the least bit sad that a bloody, violent style
>>> that does not focus on ability is the style that so many devout
>>> "smarts" in r.s.p-w embrace as the best style? I'm not saying
>>> that everybody should like what I like and never have said that;
>>
>>Although you insinuate and sometimes flat out *say* that they are
>>somehow inferior.
>
> No, I've said the ECW ringsiders are morons. I suppose that's
> close depending on what you mean by "somehow." I have not said
> that they are inferior wrestling fans, which you seem to infer.
Only because you implied it.
>>I also enjoy a good brawl--which, by the way, is also
>>enjoyed in Japan.
>
> Interestingly enough, the Japanese fans I've spoken with won't
> deny the support that FMW and the like get, but they also
> acknowledge it's garbage wrestling. There is no question
> that on a national scale New Japan and All Japan outshine
> the gore promotions. In Japan, where fans are treated
> intelligently by the promotions and the wrestling media,
> the fans chose to elevate styles based on skill to the
> top of the heap. Fans in this newsgroup, who are "smart"
> choose differently.
>
>>Once, and consisted of what, a handful of people?
>
> A dozen, actually.
>
>> seen on
>>> TV,
>>
>>Clean your glasses, you seem to focus on only the front row.
>
> I don't; the promotion does. That is who the promotion gears
> itself towards - the fans who bring objects and signs at
> ringside. Even Sanjay admits that he likes to watch ECW to
> see what the fans are going to bring or chant next. He laughs
> at "where's our blowjob" and "show us your tits" while I cringe.
> He's five years younger and unattached, so that may be it.
Maybe his asshole isn't as clenched either.
>>>and read in the newsgroup embrace violence for violence's sake,
>>Doesn't explain Mysterio Jr., Benoit, Psycosis, Malenko, Jericho, Van
>>Dam et. al.
>
> Were any of these guys deified?
Yes.
>>> ignoring that many of the ECW brawls I've seen are one-dimensionless
>>> and unrealistic (the one-dimensional remark also applies to a fair
>>> number of the non-brawl matches). If it isn't "hardcore" it sucks.
>>And you don't like it so it's not only wrong, but inferior and just
>>plain "sucks", right?
>
> No, but I am disappointed that fans that choose to cling to this
> "hardcore" nonsensical match style as the end-all and be-all
> ("it was hardcore!" "No, it was Hardcore!") are so often called
> the "best," "smartest," or, now, thanks to Rick, "advanced mindset"
> fans.
>
>>While you have a point about the lack of selling of certain wrestlers,
>>you are simply stating an untruth when you claim that only one match is
>>a non-brawl. As for AJW, why even bring it up if you're then going to
>>show your bias and say that it's O.K. a just a little bit, but not a
>>lot. Those matches are enjoyable to a large number of people.
>
> No bias. I've said that blood has a place. I've said that brawls
> have a place. I've said that the best product would be a mix of
> styles. The ECW mix is heavy, heavy on brawling and blood to the
> cost of all of the other things. AJW had some brawling and some
> blood, but to nowhere near the same extent.
>
>>> So, if they wanted to yell any racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks
>>> that's okay? That these fans, who are so "inside" the promotion,
>>> choose to express themselves this way doesn't bother you in the
>>> least?
>>While I don't personally choose to yell many of those types of chants,
>>I don't think it means the end of civilization if they do.
>
> No, it's not the end, just a sign of the decline.
Thank you Allan Bloom.
>>> Oh boy, Rick Scaia will want to give you a piece of his mind!
>>Yeah, but I'll bet he doesn't insinuate that Travis is inferior.
>
> Well, you probably didn't read his big post after BatB gave ride
> to so many "Hogan Rules" type posts.
>
> Herb...
Sam...
*** "I can do all things through Beer which strengthens me" **
David Stenshein
> At the same time, though, everybody was lamenting that they wouldn't
> be "hardcore" any more. When Chris Benoit started imitating Brian
> Pillman's Loose Cannon and pummelled Kevin Sullivan in the washroom,
> everybody went nuts. Why? I was nowhere near Benoit's best performance.
I don't remember hearing anybody lamenting about anything. Benoit is
one of the best wrestlers in the world. Why would you think changing
promotions would automaticly turn him into a shitty wrestler. The reason why
many were going nuts because that show had a little for everything. It had
wrestling, it had brawling, it had angles, and it had Bischoff attacked. We
were going nuts for the show, not Benoit per sey.
> The same fans that also chanted "boring" during an Eddy vs. Malenko
> match, right Sanjay? What other matches have pushed them to use the
> "boring" chant? None. Not even JT Smith vs. Buh Buh Ray Dudley;
> that generates a "dance, Buh Buh, dance" chant.
You haven't seen too much ECW tv recently have you? They don't just
chant "boring" during Eddy/Malenko matches. You also don't seem to pay
attention when your watching the WWF or WCW. The chant of boring during
awesome wrestling matches could be heard EVERYWHERE. It isn't just ECW's
problem. I was at a WCW show and they were having a very good Eddy/Malenko
match and gess what, WCW fans were chanting boring. Stop stereotyping ECW
fans already. You want me to stereotype Canadians again?
> The fans did beg Public Enemy to stay and then told them they sold out
> for leaving. *Everybody* wants to get rid of Kevin Sullivan. That's
> a requirement for being counted in the human gene pool. Had ECW fans
> begged Sullivan to stay, I might feel like insulting them.
Actually, the staying chants and selling out chants pretty much
occured at the same time.
> Huh? I'd rather have Shawn Michaels, Marc Mero, Steve Austin, Vader,
> Chris Candido, and Owen Hart. In the world? You have got to be
> kidding. Shane Douglas sucked in the WWF. Sabu was mediocre in WCW
> and in New Japan. Are you going to blame those promotions for
> misusing them (think of the opponents they were given to shine
> against)? Chris Jericho and Van Damme are the two on the list that
> I would support big time, and one of them may well not be there
> much longer if rumours are true.
Shane Douglas sucked in the WWF due to injury AND the fact that heels
just aren't allowed to work good matches. Sure, that isn't the case 100% of
the time. Steve Austin proved twice that he is a hell of a wrestler. I mean,
Shane Douglas didn't even GET a chance to wrestle Shawn Michaels. Now, Sabu
was mediocre in the WCW is Eric wanted him to do ECW style match but to put
him with somebody like Disco Inferno and Alex Wright, who have no fucking clue
how to do an ECW style match, just didn't work.
> It's great that Paul Heyman gets young, great talent in; you know
> that is the key reason I like watching ECW tapes. But I'd much
> rather see any of them in a New Japan, WCW, or AAA juniors match.
I suggest you just don't watch ECW ever. In fact, I don't know if you
have stated it, but can you just say that you don't like ECW. In fact, I want
you to say you hate ECW because it's obvious you do.
> And he's such a great promoter that he got the "smartest" fans in the
> world to think that guys that suck (9-1-1, Sandman, Dudleys, Dreamer)
> actually rule. Even you have praised Ron Simmons immensely after his
> ECW stint. Or Shane Douglas, who thinks that Ric Flair should have
> picked him to groom instead of the much greater skilled Brian Pillman.
911 was never a good wrestler. Everybody in the world knows that. 911
just went in to chokeslam jobbers and ring announcers. Sandman doesn't suck.
We all know the Dudleys are stupid. Tommy Dreamer WAS a great wrestler until
he had brain damage. Now, in Shane Douglas case you haven't been watching ECW
lately at all. We are booing Shane Douglas and they are throwing his comments
back into his face.
> And this is why it's even sadder that they choose to deify guys that
> have no skill. If they want bloody violence, they could always just
> pool their money and through a $100 bill into a crowd of street
> drunks; they'd see the same level of skill and ability in the
> ensuing brawl.
>
I think I got this paragraph all screwy but are you saying that Steve
Richards has no skills? Ugh, this is one Canadian everybody in the world
should hate for being such a moron. BTW, Canada isn't so bad. I shouldn't be
making fun of them for having one asshole.
Larry
Sanjay Mohanta
>
> At the same time, though, everybody was lamenting that they wouldn't
> be "hardcore" any more. When Chris Benoit started imitating Brian
> Pillman's Loose Cannon and pummelled Kevin Sullivan in the washroom,
> everybody went nuts. Why? I was nowhere near Benoit's best performance.
I agree that it wasn't Benoit's best performance but it does show that
even a fine wrestler like Benoit can ppick up a few things at ECW and
expand his skill by taking such bumps. While in ECW Benoit cemented his
reputation as a "silent but deadly" wrestler by wrestling guys like Al
Snow and Sabu.
> The same fans that also chanted "boring" during an Eddy vs. Malenko
> match, right Sanjay? What other matches have pushed them to use the
> "boring" chant? None. Not even JT Smith vs. Buh Buh Ray Dudley;
> that generates a "dance, Buh Buh, dance" chant.
Herb, you saw the Dudleys wrestle - they make better dancers!
Besides, maybe they chanted "boring" because they felt that the Malenko -
Eddie(Black Tiger) matches in the previous Super J cup was better and
they so they weren't getting their $12 worth. Guerrerro did win the TV
title in his first match at ECW and had twenty to thirty minutes to show
his stuff on the average ECW card. He has yet to do that in the ten
monthes he has been in WCW.
> Huh? I'd rather have Shawn Michaels, Marc Mero, Steve Austin, Vader,
> Chris Candido, and Owen Hart. In the world? You have got to be
> kidding. Shane Douglas sucked in the WWF. Sabu was mediocre in WCW
> and in New Japan. Are you going to blame those promotions for
> misusing them (think of the opponents they were given to shine
> against)? Chris Jericho and Van Damme are the two on the list that
> I would support big time, and one of them may well not be there
> much longer if rumours are true.
>
Sabu wrestled JL in a mid card in a WCW ppv which lasted less than five
minutes. He was underused in the WCW. He only stayed six monthes in NJ
- maybe their fans weren't "smart" enough to appreciate him!
You and I both want to see Owen Hart wrestle, but for whatever reason
Vince just doesn't give him the push he deserves. I would also love to
see Vader wrestle, but I don't how much offense he can show me in thirty
second matches against Jake Roberts or Five minute matches against
Michaels or Warrior.
> It's great that Paul Heyman gets young, great talent in; you know
> that is the key reason I like watching ECW tapes. But I'd much
> rather see any of them in a New Japan, WCW, or AAA juniors match.
>
But with the recent talent agreements ECW signed with
IWA(Hayabusha,Awesome) and (still?) AAA you can see it all in
Philadelphia - much closer to Toronto.
>
> And he's such a great promoter that he got the "smartest" fans in the
> world to think that guys that suck (9-1-1, Sandman, Dudleys, Dreamer)
> actually rule. Even you have praised Ron Simmons immensely after his
> ECW stint. Or Shane Douglas, who thinks that Ric Flair should have
> picked him to groom instead of the much greater skilled Brian Pillman.
>
THe "smartest" fans in the world also appreciate good wrestling if they
are willing to travel to California to watch the wrestling Peace Festival
- much like the Japanese fans who flew to California. They also must
have appreciated SMW so much they were willing to go to Fan Fest. Their
committment to the wrestling industry is amazing.
> And the fans should be chastised for choosing blood and violence
> over ability...why? because they are "smarter" than average.
ECW wrestlers don't get paid much. They know that the fans won't support
them if they don't improve themselves. Most of them do have day jobs.
With the time constraints that they each have "blood and violence" maybe
the easier way to show improvement. I much prefer more wrestling - but
it's hard to follow guys like Van Damm, Meysterio Jr., etc.
> And this is why it's even sadder that they choose to deify guys that
> have no skill. If they want bloody violence, they could always just
> pool their money and through a $100 bill into a crowd of street
> drunks; they'd see the same level of skill and ability in the
> ensuing brawl.
> Herb...
They do have the Sandman......
Herb Kunze
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960725122...@black.missouri.edu>,
Travis Cook <c59...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Herb Kunze wrote:
>> For the record, I think Sandman sucks. This thread began because
>> somebody posted suggesting that Sandman vs. 1-2-3 Kid & Bob Holly
>> would be great, with Sandman caning the stuffing out of those guys.
>> That's extremely insulting towards the far more talented Kid & Holly
>> and I took issue with it, pointing out that Sandman basically stinks
>> as a wrestler and that it's sad, IMO, that the "smartest" fans
>> ("best" fans, fans with an "advanced mindset," whatever label
>> you pick from newsgroup posts) in the world would support him
>> the same way that other non-working cool characters get supported
>> in other bad-mouthed promotions.
>I don't see what is insulting about the above scenario. Granted, I'd
>rather have Sandman cane two jobbers, or cane them after the match is
>over, but that is splitting hairs. The above thinking seems to be ,
>"Waltman and Holly are good workers, and therefore we must keep the
>brawlers as far away from them as possible.
No, the thinking is that Sandman couldn't shine their boots.
The thinking is that it's sad that Sandman gets deified by a
member of the "smartest" fanbase in the US.
>> Posts of the sort "Well, I like Sandman and my opinion is as valid
>> as yours" miss the whole point and do nothing to enrich the
>> discussion. Clear though beyond "he's cool" and "I like him"
>> would be nice.
>Sandman gives his all in every match (to me, this means
>good workrate by definition)regardless of injury, he is a magnificent interviewer,
>can draw heat quite well, and has a good stage prescence considering his gimmick.
>As for Rhodes, the last three points of the above are true, though certainly not the
>first one (giving his all every time out)
There is nothing that requires ability in what Sandman does. He could
well have been doing the exact same routine right from his first match.
Any bum off the street willing to cut himself could match Sandman's
in-ring performance. An this merits rewarding? I suppose the bum
in the street, due to circumstance, wouldn't have a son to exploit,
though.
On the other hand, we've seen guys like Sean Waltman blossom into
a damn good wrestler over many years.
>As I suspect many American sports fans might say to you, please don't
>think NBC's coverage of sports is indicitive of the way all American's
>feel.
No, not all Americans. But NBC likely didn't just decide that
jingoism was the way to go. They've likely done some market
research to figure out that this is what will sell.
Herb...
Pete Barlow
In article <4t91f3$k...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, myco...@ix.netcom.com(Michael Rogers ) writes:
> In <1996Jul2...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> pmba...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete
> Barlow) writes:
>>This is ultimately the problem with becoming a legend: everybody tries to be
>>you. Are Brody and Sandman from the same school? Undoubtedly, although Brody
>>apparently also attended the technical class, whereas I've never actually seen
>>Sandman work a mat match. (Hold your flames; I don't get the TV, I don't trade
>>tapes, haven't seen him since Double Tables, so that's a _very_ unqualified
>>opinion.) Are Brody and Sandman in the same class? No... primarily due to
>>name value. Shit, it's BRODY, man.
> I agree it's BRODY, and he had way more charisma than most wrestlers, but he was
> still a brawler.
No real debating that. Brody's brawls are what got him remembered... it
certainly wasn't his technical wrestling.
> If Bruiser Brody (or King Kong Brody if you come from my neck
> of the woods) participated in a match that did *not* go all over the building
> and include color I daresay a lot of the crowd, probably the majority of the
> crowd would have been disapointed.
Insert "He's Hardcore" chant here... *shrug* That's what I guess the Puerto
Ricans liked about him: his penchant for wild brawls.
>>> In St. Louis he had a fued with Nikoli Volkoff but the only set up would be
>>> the stereotypical run-ins. Then there would be a couple tag matches between
>>> Brody and a partner and Volkoff and a partner to set up a main event at a
>>> show. I see at least that much storyline with Sandman. Right now there's
>>> a pretty major storyline going on with Sandman.
>>That's all in the booking. If a promoter just brings you in for a one-off, no
>>set-up, maybe even no card before that one... what do you do? In the end, it
>>doesn't have anything to do with the wrestlers themselves.
> But the discussion is precisely *about* the wrestlers themselves. Oh, and the
> fans who enjoy them.
Right, but my point was this: context doesn't have as much to do with
performance as everybody would like to believe. Okay, yes, it's a lot easier
for somebody to go out and have a good match if the match before them has been
good, but the angle leading into the match doesn't necessarily guarantee a
match's quality. They may be wrestlers, but they're also human, which means
they too can suck on a given night. Context only makes a difference in a match
when the match before you has lit the place up. Figuratively; no towels
please.
>>>>2) Is it safe? I will again spot you the point that wrestling is _meant_ to
>>>>look stiff without actually being so. That said, whose brawls look safer to
>>>>both guys, Brody's or Sandman's? herb's answer to that is that same as the
>>>>one before.
>>> Brody's definitely look "safer", but since when is *that* the point?
>>To a wrestler, that's a _huge_ point. See also: WCW Nitro from this past week.
> Wrestling is not presented for the enjoyment of the wrestler, but for the
> enjoyment of the fan. If the point is to look as realistic as possible then the
> one that looks "safer" is not as realistic. For the most part I don't see
> Brody's matches as looking any "safer", unless you include the studio matches
> that were set-ups for the arena shows.
No, wrestling isn't for the enjoyment of the wrestler, or at least it's not
supposed to be, but is going out risking life and limb working a Texas Death
Match with Sandman worth whatever it is they would get paid for that?
>>Sting absolutely did not want to take a suplex from McMichael; he didn't want
>>to play guinea pig, and I can't say I really blame him. This crazy fucker he
>>was with was more likely than not going to hurt him. Not safe. Completely
>>ignoring name value (Brody's in with Flair on the "I want to work with him"
>>list), the wrestlers would rather work with somebody that they know is the
>>safer guy. From Herb's argument and yours, that's Brody.
> I agree that by the time of Brody's untimely death he had built himself quite a
> reputation and deservedly so. I doubt if he was as trusted his first two or
> three years.
That's true, and that's really a huge point. For better or worse, Sandman is
still green. 'Course, I won't tell him that to his face, but it's true to a
point.
> As for Sandman, he's his own worst enemy. He pushes *himself*
> further and further.
That's not a good thing.
> In one interview, I believe in The Wrestling Lariat
> (Lar...@ix.netcom.com for more info on sub rates),
Nice to see you got the push in.
> Sandman discussed how he
> frequently has to goad his opponents into working stiffer. I know he had quite
> a problem working with Marty Jannety because he perceived Jannety as working too
> "soft". It's probably an unhealthy dedication to his craft, but no more so than
> the kind of dedication his peers Mr. Pogo, Nakamaki, Cactus Jack, Terry Funk or
> tons of others have.
Nakamaki I can't debate; haven't seen him. Funk worked technical for a long
time before he worked brawls; his style evolved over time just like Flair's
didn't, but much like the Grateful Dead, he wanted One More Saturday Night.
Jack is a tough call. Pogo... if you want to call what Pogo does "wrestling",
go right ahead. To me, the entire FMW thing is just another form of "organized
mayhem". It's like hockey used to be before the players softened up. Then
again, the God of FMW Himself, Onita Atsushi, was a NJ dojo reject. You make
the call.
The problem will ultimately come with the word "soft". Wrestlers don't like
working with other stiff wrestlers. In this day and age of ego, that can't be
ignored. Davey Smith didn't like working with Vader primarily for that reason.
And so a form of the Peter Principle kicks in. Sandman has hit his peak, and
he really won't go any further in this business unless he lightens up. Then
again, does he even _want_ to go any further?
>>> That's too bad because there's plenty of great people attending live shows.
>>> They are a great place to meet people with similar interests.
>>It's a feel-good place, about as much as most "men" would accept. I run with
>>about four or five different circles of people. Pro wrestling is only really
>>accepted in just the one, that circle with the wrestlers themselves. You feel
>>like a dumb-ass bringing it up to other people--you tend to get that "wrestling
>>is fake" line or something--but hell, man, at the shows, you're you and nobody
>>gives a shit. (Except the drunk people who tell you to stop talking into the
>>damn tape machine and cheer for somebody, but that's another story.)
> Precisely. It's too bad some people have to denegrate their fellow fans in
> order to feel good about themselves.
I will at least defend Herb on this one... unless I'm mistaken, there just
ain't a whole lot of indie wrestling to be found in the Waterloo/Kitchener area
for him to go see live. So he does what he can. And God knows I was strictly
a TV fan for a long time, so...
Pete.