On 9/25 Charlie Reneke broke out one of his patented, Scott Keith style Way too Long reviews, this one for Summerslam 2009. While I’m usually a big fan of these (and far more kindly disposed to many of Charlie’s opinions than many of his other readers seem to be), I felt that he was way off with some of his arguments and assumptions in this review. If you know me, you know I love nothing more than a good debate about wrestling, so here we go. Charlie’s points will be in italics and I’ll reply right after. I’m going to pick at the Star Ratings a bit too, though that’s more because of the assumptions within the commentary than the ratings themselves.
On a letter about instant replay:
Send it to Jim Ross too. Flood his blog with it. Not that I expect him to do anything about it. He’ll just respond with his usual snotty sarcasm and then go back to hocking his barbeque sauce. But if anyone is ripe for a good old fashioned e-mail flooding, it’s him. The big fat jerk. I don’t know why he doesn’t just retire already. He sounds bored out there every night and shows thinly-concealed contempt for many of his fans on his blog. He doesn’t strike me as a happy guy. Maybe he should look into Zoloft or something.
You’re not Grut. His column is built on this stuff. Yours is a review. Just stop. Ross has been working really hard to get the atrocious Todd Grisham up to snuff and Todd continually drags his work, which he, by all accounts takes amazing pride in. He’s one of the top guys to take the time to answer fans questions on a regular basis and many of them are repetitive and ignorant. You and I are sarcastic to our comparatively minor audiences and pet peeves with what we see as ignorance on message boards. Ross has a far bigger audience, knows far more than us, and sees far more issues. Sarcasm doesn’t mean he’s unhappy or has contempt for his audience; it’s just the natural reaction to silly, ignorant, or repetitive questions.
On Ziggler vs. Rey:
****1/4 Dolph Ziggler has arrived. Right off the bat these guys top anything that Night of Champions had to offer. I actually immediately re-watched this match to make sure that I wasn’t off my rocker with this score. After getting thrown into a rage by the overuse of instant replays only minutes into the match, I figured I made a mistake. I didn’t. These guys cut a really good pace and set themselves out to make a contender out of Ziggler. Mission accomplished.
Just because a match accomplished its mission doesn’t mean it’s automatically excellent. This was, in fact, a very good match, but the story was light and everything in the match wasn’t in service of it. Ziggler got a bit lost twice (if memory serves, I don’t want to say several and make it seem worse than it was), but was covered for by Ray, who was astoundingly good at structuring and pacing the match. You’re not totally off your rocker with the score; I have it at *** ½ and about a half star either way is fine. Since I don’t do quarter stars, that means we’re within hailing distance, but I wanted to explain a bit where the discrepancy between you and other raters is. Ziggler is in the process of arriving, but I’m very curious to see what he and Morrison, both relatively inexperienced, can do without a more weathered hand leading them.
On MVP vs. Jack Swagger:
* It seems like this was a case of two guys panicking when the fans didn’t react to them, so they rushed into the opening of the match with high spots. That rarely works. I feel bad for both guys that they were put on this card because neither was over enough to justify a match on the show in front of the notoriously fickle LA crowd. It was a lost cause right out of the starting gate. And I’m seeing Jack Swagger’s future looking less bright every time he wrestles. Of course, at this point in his career he should be getting matched up with guys who can help him improve in the ring, and MVP is not that guy.
Judging Swagger against MVP is a ridiculous waste of time. MVP drags everyone down to his level and that is bland, indy-style wrestling without any logic behind the moves. With one guy doing whatever, whenever he wants, the other guy can never have a really good match or stand out. MVP began elevating things so Swagger had no choice but to follow suit or the match would have been a squash (there are other ways around this, notably one big move then a heat segment, but the timing in that has to be great to wake a crowd that’s already lost). MVP needed to do things to get over the lifestyle difference that was the focus of the match, so he should have been brawling while Swagger was attempting to mat wrestle. Swagger did his part; MVP did not. Swagger, meanwhile, has looked great against Evan Bourne, meaning if he has a guy willing to sell for him to make him look good, then he will. No heel is going to look good if a face won’t feed their heat segments with good selling and well-timed comebacks.
On JeriShow vs. Cryme Tyme:
**1/4 Not totally bad, but not good either. They couldn’t get a good beat going, likely due in part to the horrible LA crowd.
Think about the card and the placement. This was straight, acceptable tag formula so as to not take away from the “star-building” moment for Ted Dibiase and Cody Rhodes.
On Khali:
And the WWE has finally wised up and started using him as a babyface who doesn’t have to carry his end of things. He’s the closest thing they’ve had to Andre the Giant since… well since Andre the Giant. But they need to use him like it. Have him just be the guy who shows up to tag with the plucky babyface. Don’t treat him like a serious threat to anyone. Make him a special attraction. And for god’s sake, someone teach him how to throw a punch.
Hell yes, couldn’t agree more. Just wanted to highlight this one.
On Legacy vs. DX:
***1/4 This was the match that everyone was hyping endlessly? For real? Don’t get me wrong, good match and everything. But all the problems Rhodes & DiBiase had before were still here. These guys have no creativity as a team and don’t wrestle like heels. And they STILL rely too heavily on punching and kicking. If not for all that, this could have been a really good match. The structure of having the young guys countering every attempt at a finish by DX was the perfect hook for the story. Sadly, Rhodes and especially DiBiase failed to use that structure in an exciting way.
I’ll break the Legacy stuff into two sections since it’s where my main issues lie. You’re letting your expectations take you out of the match. I only have it at *** ½, but regardless, it’s better than you’re making it sound. They didn’t wrestle like heels for two reasons. First, they won’t be heels long, so the idea is to get them over as heels for who they wrestle more than what they do. It doesn’t work great, but it’s the bookers’ fault, not theirs. Next, Triple H doesn’t know how to make heels stars. In the ring, all he ever does is eat up heels. When he’s wrestling faces, however, he lets them get more in and look good. It’s annoying, but from Jeff Hardy to Mick Foley to Steve Austin to Shawn Michaels, he only has good to great matches with faces. Against heels, even extremely talented one like Chris Jericho, his matches are a huge step down, which is explains why when Jericho is face, his H matches are so good and when he’s a heel, they’re so bad. Triple H and Shawn Michaels very rarely give anyone the rub of nearly beating them. They’re two of the guys in history least prone to jobbing. All of that buzz you heard about this match was because of that- no one believed D-X would lose going in and they effectively sold it as a possibility. The finish worked entirely because everyone expected D-X to go over strong and instead they barely got away based on a lucky Superkick. Does that make the match necessarily better? No, but it surely makes the Legacy look better.
Next is a problem I have with a ton of Keith’s stuff that seems to have fallen into your writing. The complaint is about too much punching and kicking in wrestling making for lesser workers and it’s flat out absurd. Some of the best wrestlers ever relied primarily on punching and kicking. What fancy moves was Ted Dibiase (hell, most of the revered Mid-South workers) using? How about Terry Funk in his epic 1989 series with Ric Flair? Steve Austin during his great 2000-2001 run? The Undertaker in his Edge feud? All of these phenomenal, all time great workers, relied primarily on punching and kicking with a few signature spots built around it. It’s the storytelling and psychology around the punching that makes the match. For a whole ton on building a match, try this. Cody Rhodes has learned to tell a story around his punches; Dibiase is still working on it. We’ll get to why in a moment.
“It’s been over a year since Legacy was teamed together and I actually stunned that the WWE doesn’t recognize that as a team, they don’t work. They have no chemistry together and have failed every time they have a chance to look good when the spotlight is on them. What’s really incredible is that the rumors surrounding the plans for Ted DiBiase have so much steam behind them. He’s expected to receive a pretty decent sized push in the near future as a singles threat. I’m hoping that the dirt sheets are dead wrong on this one, and I have (possibly misguided) faith that the WWE is smart enough to know that DiBiase is nowhere near ready for the kind of push he’s rumored to get. People believe that because he’s in the upcoming made-for-DVD Marine 2 movie that the WWE will want him in the lime-light. Give them more credit then that. Cody Rhodes actually seems like he’s shaken most of the green off. DiBiase still looks confused and out of place in the ring night in and night out. He’s young and has a lot of potential, but so far his run in the WWE has been a disaster. He’s got no move-set and stumbles through matches. It’s clear that he’s not in a position to carry a match by himself. Just look at his singles matches on Raw. They’re tough to watch. He’s bad at promos, worse in the ring, not creative, not flashy, and really not ready to even be in the big leagues yet. I’m not saying he should be released, only that they should consider sending him back to Florida for a while, maybe a year, and get someone to work with him on having a bit of style in the ring. Right now, he’s perhaps the most generic wrestler on the roster, and being generic in wrestling is a death sentence for your career.”
Okay, Dibiase will likely be better off as a face than a heel. First, he’d likely be feuding with Randy Orton. Orton has shown he’s terrible with established faces, but makes the underdog look good (an almost Jeff Jarrett like quality), even with underdogs as weak as Primo Colon. Let Dibiase be a face, work on his timing for the comeback and a few spots to pop the crowd. So long as he isn’t given the title, there’s nothing wrong with that. A lot of Dibiase looking lost now is that he’s being asked to be a heel without being heelish in preparation for his face run. That’s a recipe for failure, absolutely, and explains why he looks so lost. Of course, and I know this is an outlier, not the expected outcome, for a guy with this level of raw talent, being bland now isn’t a death sentence- just look at the Rock.
On Christian vs. Regal:
On a more happy note, the fans are clearly buying Christian less and less. Thank god. The crowd tonight is dogshit, but I’ve been watching ECW and have noticed that Christian is progressively less over. I’m sure his marks will blame the booking, but the fact is he’s a terrible professional wrestler and most people are catching on to it. He’s a one-trick pony.
Wow does that ever need more explanation. He’s an excellent professional wrestler, but he isn’t a draw as the top guy. He’s the guy who works with the guy who makes money. Now he’s being asked to be the money man and it isn’t working out, as expected. What he does do better than pretty much anyone, is make his opponents look like solid gold. Zach Ryder looked amazing in a match Christian put together. He got Dreamer’s best work in over a decade, maybe ever, and the very best out of Henry. If he’s going to be a top guy, at least he’s making the rest of the roster look better by the way he’s working with them. So, how is he terrible?
On Cena vs. Orton:
DUD Summerslam has had some epic stinkers over the years. Giant Gonzalez vs. Undertaker in 1993. Undertaker vs. Underfaker in 1994. Mable vs. Diesel in 1995. Those matches are now all safely off the hook, because we have a new worst Summerslam match ever. In fact, this match is now the clear front-runner for worst match of the year in 2009. I’m sure the ignorant ’smart fans’ will vote for Cedric the Entertainer vs. Chavo Guerrero from Raw because that’s the type of thing they do. But this match was actually meant to be a big deal and it was one of the very worst matches ever put on by the WWE on a pay per view. Atrocious and slow, with Cena overselling Orton’s punches and kicks, and Orton wrestling like he was wadding in a pool of molasses. Even before the horrible ending, this was the worst match of the year. The finish only served to launch this into worst match ever territory. Both wrestlers totally phoned in the wrestling side of things and whoever came up with the finish should have been fired on the spot and blacklisted from the industry. Don’t be a idiot and vote for a celebrity match… in 2009 it has not gotten any lower then this.
You have to understand something about this here (and it will come up again later) this was the WWE going, “we can still be wild and unpredictable” to try and keep the audience from leaving with Jeff Hardy. Cena needed something compelling and while this wasn’t the way to go, it at least got the kids talking. You knew they wouldn’t stop watching the WWE while Cena had this going on, then putting the belt on him soon after kept the kids here. The booking wasn’t for us and, as far as it goes, it made sense. After a solid, totally unspectacular, but not horrible, build. Orton was supposed to be getting his comeuppance for all the cheating and shortcuts he had taken to keep the title, only to find one last shortcut to get away with the belt. It wasn’t any good, but the story made sense and was, if poorly executed (mostly by Lillian Garcia), reasonably clever, thus keeping this from being the worst match ever.
On Punk vs. Jeff Hardy- TLC:
** I’m sure that score will open up a can of worms. Big let-down, as they didn’t really do very much out there aside from two or three high spots. And am I the only one who noticed they didn’t really do any drama spots with the ladder? There was no sense that any moment could be the finish, and the actual finish was pretty weak. Sure, the match delivered on it’s promise of Jeff crashing and burning through a table, plus he took some other pretty sick moves as well, but as a match it felt more like they were just checking stuff off a list. It clearly didn’t feel like a spontaneous match. And truth be told, I think CM Punk was fairly weak out there on this night, like he wasn’t holding up his end of the deal. I’m a very big fan of his, but something was not right about his performance tonight.
Please re-watch this with the following in mind. First, this was more of a Shawn vs. Razor Ladder Match than a Hardyz nuts ladder match. The ladder was used to amp up the psychology, not as a stunt machine. The story was absolutely amazing. Jeff and Punk are both similar wrestlers who will take risks to get ahead and win the match. Jeff, the daredevil face, will always go an extra step and one up Punk- he’s an adrenaline junky and, in match storyline terms, the better athlete. Since Jeff is so wild, he never wrestles with a plan. He wins due to his ability to withstand more pain than his opponent, even when his ways of hurting his opponent hurt him nearly as badly. Punk countered this with a plan. He would weaken Jeff’s head with every assault throughout the match, so that when Jeff hit his big, insane spot, as we all knew he would, (remember, he’s an “adrenaline junky”), Punk would be the fresher of the two due to Jeff’s previously injured head evening the score. That allowed Punk’s final kick to be enough and him to get the win in what was around a **** ½ match. JR messed up the story a bit by saying Punk was working Jeff’s ribs, but watching the match simply doesn’t bear that out.
Meanwhile, Jeff Hardy is dead and CM Punk stands prone over him. The lights flicker a bit and Punk is momentarily spooked, but he still stands proud. Then the gong hits and when it’s back on Jeff Hardy is now replaced with the Undertaker, who chokeslams Punk. Weird choice to finish as these guys had NO history against each-other and this type of stuff should be reserved for people who are already feuding. That said, watching this I got a whacky idea for the Undertaker.
Good idea. The point of the finish in story is this- ‘Taker has been watching at home, hates the self-righteous Punk, so appoints himself to teach Punk a lesson. Outside of the ring, the logic is that Jeff’s young fans are rabid and absolutely despise Punk. Some even stopped watching Smackdown because Punk was on top- the reactions he drew were that strong. Taker showing up was a promise to fans that Punk would get his if they just kept watching.
I’m not touching the closing rant, so we’re done. Hope you all enjoyed the return of the full A Modest Response.
Loading ...
I’ve never read a single thing by Grut and my stuff is not modeled after Scott Keith. If anything, I’m a modern rip-off of CRZ, only a little more wiseassed. I like move-by-move match descriptions and thus that’s the style I use. That way if I need to reference something later I don’t have to re-watch the match. CRZ has been retired for years. I lifted the KICK WHAM stuff from Scott, but he’s stolen a few of my one-liners (knuckledragger and I think twatwaffle once or twice) so it’s acceptable.
If you ever took the time to read my stuff, you would know that my rating system is not the same that Keith or Meltzer use.
I am a believer that (1) Three stars is 60% of the possible score. If you were in school, that would mean you would get a D. A passing grade, but not anything to be proud of.
I also believe that there’s no such thing as a perfect match. Wrestling matches are subjective artistic expressions and there is no such thing as artistic perfection. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. So if I give something five stars, it doesn’t mean it’s a perfect match, just as entertaining as a wrestling match can be in my opinion.
I think you place too much faith in DiBiase. You work under the assumption that the WWE is somehow dictating how he wrestles in the ring. That’s a mistake a lot of smarks make. In reality, the WWE’s tight least is released once they get in the ring. It’s up to the wrestlers to carry their end, and he hasn’t. To say that the way he’s being booked is holding him back is absurd. You make it out like the Legacy/DX feud is being designed to get Legacy over in a backwards way and that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. Even if it was, why would that mean DiBiase and Rhodes are so limited in the ring? It’s not exclusive to their matches with DX. They’ve been consistantly bland in every match they’ve had for well over a year now. They just don’t cut it, and DiBiase especially. To give him a single’s push now, babyface or heel, would be a disaster and will kill his career. To make it work he has to have SOMETHING going for him in the ring, and he doesn’t. It would be like throwing someone into the deep end of the swimming pool after their first lesson and hoping for the best.
“A lot of Dibiase looking lost now is that he’s being asked to be a heel without being heelish in preparation for his face run.”
Oh that’s a load of bullshit. The WWE does a lot of stupid things, but they don’t tell someone to ‘not be heelish.’ They want their heels to wrestle like heels because then the fans cheer them that much more when they become good. I don’t know where you got that idea from, but it’s wrong. He doesn’t wrestle like a heel because he DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT HE’S DOING OUT THERE! He’s had roughly a year (factoring in his extended break) to show some kind of spark in the ring and has failed, failed, failed.
“He’s (Christian) an excellent professional wrestler”
What makes Christian a good wrestler? I hear he’s a good worker a lot but nobody can say why. His horrible moveset, TERRIBLE striking moves, his forced personality, his horrible ring presence… he has to be the most overrated wrestler of the 2000s so far. An internet darling with nothing to back it up.
“Cena needed something compelling and while this wasn’t the way to go, it at least got the kids talking.”
I don’t think it got the kids or anyone else talking, because I think even kids get bored with the same matches over and over again. Raw’s ratings are the lowest they’ve been in years, and while you can blame guest hosts, the truth is the top feud is Orton/Cena and it was stale before it was restarted.
“The booking wasn’t for us and, as far as it goes, it made sense.”
So the booking wasn’t for wrestling fans? Is that your point? Smart, dumb, marks, insiders, or children? Wrestling fans are wrestling fans and that was a horrible ending. Regardless of that, the wrestling done before that was enough to secure it’s vote for worst match of the year, though I’m sure most of the knuckle-draggers out there will award it to Cedric the Entertainer vs. Chavo Guerrero.
Finally, on the ladder match… I don’t care WHAT they were aiming for. They could have gone out there and tried to recreate the battle of little big horn for all I care. I just want a good match, and this was not a good match. Punk basically did nothing out there, and yeah, I think Hardy SHOULD be set to the standards that he set himself. Sue me.
I’m not touching ANY of this. I just felt I should let you both know that I read it.
Aaron–Aaron—
There is a reason why fellow writers here on the Pulse like Vinny and Brad call you Ace. You see stuff as a fan that I just don’t even think about seeing. Randy Orton as an almost anti-Jeff Hardy in the way that he feeds underdogs is something I never thought about. To me Orton is the ultimate heel in today’s WWE. He looks, walks, talks, and wrestles like someone fans would hate, in the good way. He looks like a Superstar.
Now onto the rebuttal of the rebuttal…
“I’ve never read a single thing by Grut and my stuff is not modeled after Scott Keith. If anything, I’m a modern rip-off of CRZ, only a little more wiseassed. I like move-by-move match descriptions and thus that’s the style I use. That way if I need to reference something later I don’t have to re-watch the match. CRZ has been retired for years. I lifted the KICK WHAM stuff from Scott, but he’s stolen a few of my one-liners (knuckledragger and I think twatwaffle once or twice) so it’s acceptable.”
Whether you would like to admit it or not your writing is a lot more Keith than CRZ. You do a great job of match descriptions but your mid-match and post-match rants are totally Keith-like. It’s not a bad thing in either way. Those two are two of the best from our Internet wrestling generation.
“I am a believer that (1) Three stars is 60% of the possible score. If you were in school, that would mean you would get a D. A passing grade, but not anything to be proud of.
I also believe that there’s no such thing as a perfect match. Wrestling matches are subjective artistic expressions and there is no such thing as artistic perfection. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. So if I give something five stars, it doesn’t mean it’s a perfect match, just as entertaining as a wrestling match can be in my opinion.”
Star ratings are all subjective. Most people use Meltzer and/or Keith as the standard bearers. I totally agree with you in that matches are only as entertaining as they can be in the eye of the beholder.
“I think you place too much faith in DiBiase. You work under the assumption that the WWE is somehow dictating how he wrestles in the ring. That’s a mistake a lot of smarks make. In reality, the WWE’s tight least is released once they get in the ring. It’s up to the wrestlers to carry their end, and he hasn’t. To say that the way he’s being booked is holding him back is absurd. You make it out like the Legacy/DX feud is being designed to get Legacy over in a backwards way and that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. Even if it was, why would that mean DiBiase and Rhodes are so limited in the ring? It’s not exclusive to their matches with DX. They’ve been consistantly bland in every match they’ve had for well over a year now. They just don’t cut it, and DiBiase especially. To give him a single’s push now, babyface or heel, would be a disaster and will kill his career. To make it work he has to have SOMETHING going for him in the ring, and he doesn’t. It would be like throwing someone into the deep end of the swimming pool after their first lesson and hoping for the best.
‘A lot of Dibiase looking lost now is that he’s being asked to be a heel without being heelish in preparation for his face run.’
Oh that’s a load of bullshit. The WWE does a lot of stupid things, but they don’t tell someone to ‘not be heelish.’ They want their heels to wrestle like heels because then the fans cheer them that much more when they become good. I don’t know where you got that idea from, but it’s wrong. He doesn’t wrestle like a heel because he DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT HE’S DOING OUT THERE! He’s had roughly a year (factoring in his extended break) to show some kind of spark in the ring and has failed, failed, failed.”
Of course they are dictating how he wrestles in the ring. Why is Cena only doing five moves that the crowd can’t count along with? Why doesn’t Punk use Welcome to Chicago or the Pepsi Plunge? Because WWE is dictating what they do. Legacy are bland because WWE is catering to a younger audience, which means simpler characters. I agree that Legacy could and should be doing more. To give him a singles push wouldn’t kill him at all. At this point, SOMEONE has to be elevated and he’s just as good as anyone. You don’t think DiBiase doesn’t have a clue what do to out there? His old man was one of the best villains in the industry ever. He’s got the best guy in the world in his corner when it comes to being a heel. He’s only had a roughly a year because of the elevated time WWE now demands. His old man worked for YEARS before he became the best in the business. Give him time.
“What makes Christian a good wrestler? I hear he’s a good worker a lot but nobody can say why. His horrible moveset, TERRIBLE striking moves, his forced personality, his horrible ring presence… he has to be the most overrated wrestler of the 2000s so far. An internet darling with nothing to back it up.”
The most overrated wrestler of the 2000s? I think of many, many more than Christian. Since his return to WWE he has been phenomenal with Swagger, Ryder, Dreamer and anyone he’s touched on ECW. His moveset his great, and I’ve never thought his ring presence was off. If he walked on SD tomorrow he’d be an instant contender to the Title and on RAW he’d be a better than decent mid-card guy. His promos still aren’t the best but he’s better than all these young kids you are hating on.
“Cena needed something compelling and while this wasn’t the way to go, it at least got the kids talking.”
‘I don’t think it got the kids or anyone else talking, because I think even kids get bored with the same matches over and over again. Raw’s ratings are the lowest they’ve been in years, and while you can blame guest hosts, the truth is the top feud is Orton/Cena and it was stale before it was restarted.’
RAW’s ratings have been consistent in the mid to low 3’s since they settled in on USA again 2005 after their initial return 4’s spike. The ratings haven’t really caused a stir since then. Wake me when we are in the 5’s again. We don’t know what kids like anymore cuz we aren’t kids anymore ourselves. We grew up on steady weekend squashes so this might be great for them. Hogan was stale for years, and I was tired of him as a kid. Maybe some are tired of Cena too, but I fail to see how Cena/Orton was stale before it was restarted?
“So the booking wasn’t for wrestling fans? Is that your point? Smart, dumb, marks, insiders, or children? Wrestling fans are wrestling fans and that was a horrible ending. Regardless of that, the wrestling done before that was enough to secure it’s vote for worst match of the year, though I’m sure most of the knuckle-draggers out there will award it to Cedric the Entertainer vs. Chavo Guerrero.”
At this point the booking is made for Vince, and Vince alone. Why is Montreal constantly repeated? The booking ideally is made for children, so they will turn into longtime fans like we all did. We as wrestling fans have always endured horrible endings. And it sure as hell wasn’t the match of the year by any stretch.
As for Hardy-Punk. It was a fun, but different type of ladder match with everyone knowing full well Hardy was leaving.
“Punk basically did nothing out there, and yeah, I think Hardy SHOULD be set to the standards that he set himself. Sue me.”
Standards fall as a man ages. And as for Punk, men have done nothing for years and still been profitable and stars.
Just one note on this discussion, regarding Mr. DiBiase: Sammartino. Gagne. Flair. Do we REALLY need to keep going to show that just because the “old man” is amazing that the son doesn’t always follow? Not that I’m saying Teddy is going down that path, but don’t back up your expectations of him with the Million Dollar Man’s prowess.
I like Christian. So there. Can I get my internet smark card now, or do I have to go on a fifteen minute rant about how Davey Richards is the greatest wrestler in the world while concurrently programming a Johnny Saint fan page and burning all of my WWE DVDs?
Close Ivan, indy fans love their WWE DVDs! So, just the rest.
And Michael- I didn’t base my expectations on Ted (Mark did I think). I base them on his Japan stuff and that the comments coming out about him from the back are the brightest I’ve seen since Rocky came up.
I call Aaron “Ace” as a gag because I think that only Bob Orton and fighter pilots should rock that nickname, but I still think he’s pretty rad. Not the least because he never called Christian a one trick pony. Sorry Charlie, you’re dead to me on that one. I mean, if we’re choosing sides and everything. This is going to lead to IP Civil War, right?
I just resent being called a Scott Keith rip off, especially considering…
1. I like big, dumb muscleheads with little talent (Sid is my official guilty pleasure)
2. I absolutely HATE Bret Hart. As a wrestler, he’s great. But I don’t believe his word is the gospel. He’s one of the biggest liars in the industry.
3. I don’t assume the WWE/Triple H/Hulk Hogan/etc have some kind of conspiracy designed to hold down mid-carders. Any booking failures are the result of incompetence, not malice. Though if the WWE is holding MVP down out of malice, I’ll accept that. Hey, you take what you can get.
To sum it up, our styles might be similar but our tastes are totally different, so ultimately comparing our work and philosophies as similar is bullshit.
I didn’t call you a Scott Keith rip-off. You write the style of review he popularized, as do many of the wrestling reviewers on the net. It isn’t a bad thing in any way. And since you started at his blog, you’ll be compared to him from time to time. Really, there are worse things than to be compared to an all-time great, no?
Wow. I always thought this site was kind of goofy with people referring to each other as Ace and the fact that mostly only writers responded to each other’s articles, but this is really jumping the shark.
What was the point of this article? A critique of another writer’s opinions in a way that comes across as borderline accusatory that his style is unoriginal and that his opinions are wrong because you disagree with them. Couldn’t this have been accomplished much easier by, y’know, just responding in his actual review with something more than “this is the worst thing you’ve written.” I get that you needed space but this entire article reads exactly like a message board response.
How much literary criticism have you seen? Generally speaking, it’s done in a format similar to this. It’s also the set up to most rebuttals of debates.
Perhaps you’re new here, but this is hardly new. I had a regular column that was mostly stuff along these lines, Eric S. did it regularly, and quite a few other writers borrowed it, most recently Paul Marshall, to me, a couple of weeks back in TNA Weekly. Sometimes the debate goes back and forth for weeks of articles, sometimes its a one and done. What’s the real problem with debate?
I mean, I think Aaron’s crap he’s been pulling makes us look bush league, like a classroom full of bickering children, but I’m still the newcomer here and he has people calling him ‘Ace’ so that means he’s got rank.
Whatever. I could care less. People actually read my stuff. I don’t think Aaron can say the same thing. Thus he needs to leach off of my columns to get any attention for himself.
This isn’t literary criticism. Calling it that would be pretending this site contained literature as opposed to a bunch of guys talking about wrestling. Wrestling “journalism” has always been a flimsy field, with guys like Keith being the closest you’ll see to anything resembling a real writer and he’s really uneven at times.
I mean, what is the brunt of your criticism? You just deconstruct his review paragraph by paragraph with nothing connecting any of the topics to reach a greater point so we’re left with a long mess of ideas, not unlike his original review. I’ll reiterate: what’s your point? I get that you disagree with him, but there’s no focus to anything here.
You raise an interesting idea that his devotion to Scott Keith’s writing is holding back his own, but then seem to forget about it and only reference it once after the first paragraph at which point you go off in another direction. You have a lot of interesting ideas here but they all float by because the general criticism here is unstructured.
That’s why I had a problem with this. Most of this could have been accomplished in Charlie’s original rant/review. It seems more like this was an attention-grabbing idea than a structured criticism.
Also, referencing Eric S. creating this style: while I was a fan of his column, it came across as very unprofessional which is part of what was always the appeal. You’d find ad hominem attacks lodged casually next to genuine criticism, which made the column very funny but ultimately not something you would use as a standard-bearer for literary criticism.
I am not basing ANYTHING I write off of Scott Keith. At all. We have two totally different tastes, two very different styles of writing (I seriously doubt he would write a 35 page review of the Best of WCW), and I think I’m less bias then almost anyone else out there. I have people I don’t like but I do try to at least review stuff as evenly as possible. I’m actually a big fan of John Cena, and I don’t like to give his matches a DUD anymore then I liked giving Shawn Michaels and Triple H a DUD… twice… in one year.
I’m not saying you do. I was referencing an idea posited in his article.
Ah, my bad.
Well, I think it was very unprofessional of Aaron to do this.
“Charlie Reneke broke out one of his patented, Scott Keith style Way too Long reviews”
He’s trying to back-pedal now and say he wasn’t blatantly insulting both myself and Scott Keith when clearly he was. I wasn’t going to say anything but he’s being such a weasel about it that I think I would look like a pussy if I didn’t comment on it.
His reasons for this piece are so transparent it’s practically laughable. He calls something I write the “worst thing I ever wrote” but hey, it was a popular column and got a lot of attention. So suddenly he decides that it’s worth leaching onto so that he can get attention. Personally, if someone I read was the ‘worst thing written by someone’ I wouldn’t even bother writing anything about it in the comments section. It seems like it would be a waste of time.
Everything else he does is generic smart-mark stuff that doesn’t exactly stand out in a crowded field. Not very creative, not very progressive, not really insightful. I don’t blame him for leaching off my column. He has nothing else going for him. But I would appreciate it if he found some other way to get attention for himself. He’s got kooties.
“He’s trying to back-pedal now and say he wasn’t blatantly insulting both myself and Scott Keith when clearly he was.”
How was he insulting either one of you with that statement? While I wouldn’t call you a rip-off, to say the style is NOT Keith like is a bit laughable. I’d go as far to say that about the only difference is your lack of brevity. Note that I’m talking about the writing style, not the ideas or philosophies within.
For what it’s worth, I read some of your stuff; I’d read more, but I find my self saying “get to the damn point already” more often than not when I do.
I find the whole episode here kind of amusing, but whether you think it’s right or wrong, note that shortly after this article was posted, it found its way to the “features” section of the navigation block. Interesting, I thought…
Sigh. Since I’ve yet to insult you, I won’t start now. You write a style popularized by Keith. That’s all I said. Get over it. You have a style that takes off from his style. I like his stuff. I’ve talked to him a few times. I see no way this is an insult. It isn’t content related. Everyone apparently sees it but you.
I’ve never referred to or asked anyone to call me ace. It’s a personal joke between Vinny and I that Brad gets a kick out of, so, again, I don’t see what it has to do with you.
Again, you can think what you like about my insight. There are quite a few who disagree.
But then… Yes, yes no one reads me. I get that you really believe that and have no real need to disabuse you of the notion. I know my numbers at the very least at examiner, do you actually know yours? No, you don’t. Do you have any idea what gets hits from wrestling fans? You’d be surprised.
For the record, check through your other posts, I posted I liked just about everything else. The worst you ever wrote here is true and I stand by it. I don’t always agree with you, but you usually explain in greater detail, especially the Christian thing. I stated that that’s why this was my least favorite. Grow up and learn to pay attention to more than that which gets on your nerves. Try reading for comprehension.
Rob, due to length this went on its own. Also, again, this isn’t a new idea- I didn’t see Eric S, Marshall, Andy Mac, Wheeler, Curran et al complaining at the exact same thing. Hell, we debated from column to column, and I’m friends with all of them to this day. Disagreement and debate is not “oh I hate you.” Again, if you think so, grow up.
As for a bunch of guys debating about wrestling not being literary criticism. Let’s just leave it at is vehemently disagree and, for the record, am an English teacher. The difference in critiquing an essay and a wrestling review is one entirely of you, the reader’s perspective. I try and keep my format as close to the norm of journalism and literary critique as possible, generally speaking. I don’t like the “ashamed, hiding wrestling fan” because it’s lowbrow entertainment. Lowbrow entertainment can often merit some pretty in depth critique and history absolutely backs me on that. And if you consider wrestling at all an art form, then what exactly is the argument against this besides tradition (a logical fallacy)?
As for the lack of a singular focus, it was a review of a show that hit on many different topics. I could have forced a unifying theme atop it, but that’d be forcing a theme on Charlie’s hard work and not something I felt was respectful. As far as the rest, I disagree with several of Charlie’s points, but unlike him never included a single personal statement. This was, to me at least, a wrestling discussion.
Ugh. Charlie, just stop.
“Rob, due to length this went on its own. Also, again, this isn’t a new idea- I didn’t see Eric S, Marshall, Andy Mac, Wheeler, Curran et al complaining at the exact same thing. Hell, we debated from column to column, and I’m friends with all of them to this day. Disagreement and debate is not “oh I hate you.” Again, if you think so, grow up.”
Your original synopsis of Charlie’s article was “This is the worst thing you’ve written.” That isn’t disagreement or debate. Yes, you followed it with an article that at least appears to be thoughtful in nature but still, you couldn’t avoid tossing in snide comments like the opening sentence, which is only meant to denigrate his work as being derivative and unoriginal. Maybe you don’t see it that way, but he recognized it as that. And I could even see that. I’m sure we weren’t the only ones.
Look, I don’t think Charlie’s a great writer. He goes off tangents, sometimes takes too long to make a point, and indulges his ego far too often. That said, he doesn’t really make excuses for any of these faults. I can at least understand that and understand why he maintains something resembling an audience.
“I don’t like the “ashamed, hiding wrestling fan” because it’s lowbrow entertainment. Lowbrow entertainment can often merit some pretty in depth critique and history absolutely backs me on that. And if you consider wrestling at all an art form, then what exactly is the argument against this besides tradition (a logical fallacy)?”
I’m a massive fan of horror movies. I understand it’s lowbrow entertainment to most, but I’ve seen many worthwhile pieces exploring the deeper meaning behind the works of a George Romero or John Carpenter. I understand lowbrow entertainment merits analysis, and I never said it didn’t. What I’m saying is…you aren’t the guys to do it. There are very people in the IWC capable of doing it, and they very rarely present themselves.
You probably are a great writer. Most English teachers are. But most of the columns I’ve seen here, and from most wrestling journalists in general, don’t even scratch the surface of analyzing wrestling as anything beyond entertainment. Or they get lost in the movements, without regard to the atmosphere or the context within where the match is taking place. Most people don’t explore greater issues like race or class distinction in wrestling, or if they do, they follow only the most reductive of arguments.
The other problem, especially here, is that many of the columns are too self-referential or have an interest more in the writer personally than what he or she is writing about. This definitely started with Eric S. and no one really had a problem with it because it was a new and different technique, but to see so many people more interested in their own words than the actual subject bothers me. I remember Matt Hardy referencing this site or another, and the general chest-beating that ensued from most of the writers here.
Then again, this is all just my opinion. I just occasionally skim the sight. I used to be a faithful follower since the site first opened but gradually lost interest because of a lot of the issues I outlined above. So take this however you want: me as a vindictive Charlie-nut (which I’m not) or just as a frustrated reader.
“Your original synopsis of Charlie’s article was “This is the worst thing you’ve written.” That isn’t disagreement or debate. Yes, you followed it with an article that at least appears to be thoughtful in nature but still, you couldn’t avoid tossing in snide comments like the opening sentence, which is only meant to denigrate his work as being derivative and unoriginal. Maybe you don’t see it that way, but he recognized it as that. And I could even see that. I’m sure we weren’t the only ones.”
There was more to that. I said he didn’t back up or follow up on arguments within. He said he didn’t see how, so I responded and explained. Apparently, according to you this has to be “snide” in comparing his format to Keith. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but the move-by-move breakdown with commentary is the Keith format. Ziegler uses it, my favorite non-Pulse writer, Dunn uses it… again, it isn’t an insult. Most columnists use variations on Eric S’s format. How is this snide? It seems you and Charlie were the only ones to who “recognized it” for what it was since no other commenter seems to think it’s an insult… because IT WASN’T.
“Look, I don’t think Charlie’s a great writer. He goes off tangents, sometimes takes too long to make a point, and indulges his ego far too often. That said, he doesn’t really make excuses for any of these faults. I can at least understand that and understand why he maintains something resembling an audience.”
Dude, I like Charlie’s stuff, even if he doesn’t like mine. Check his comments for other articles and find me complimenting him regularly. And, this isn’t a Charlie comment, but a general one (if you must know who I mean, contact me through e-mail or something), quality has nothing to do with audience.
“The other problem, especially here, is that many of the columns are too self-referential or have an interest more in the writer personally than what he or she is writing about. This definitely started with Eric S. and no one really had a problem with it because it was a new and different technique, but to see so many people more interested in their own words than the actual subject bothers me. I remember Matt Hardy referencing this site or another, and the general chest-beating that ensued from most of the writers here.”
Can’t speak for others, but I am almost never a character in my own work. I write exclusively about what I’m writing about which apparently makes me “generic smark writing” or some such.
As for the context and such, Kyle Sawyer Paul would love you. I’ll find a link to his site for you. I’m not as interested in the metatextual issues of wrestling (such as there are), but am more concerned with the art within the ring of why what is done is done and how it’s played off and presented to the audience.