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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.