|
MassRafTer posted:Yes, it's libel. hulk hogan said that brother, i'm terry bollea dude
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Just want a podcast that is hogan relating the entire history of professional wrestling based on his recollection of events
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
the sex ghost posted:Just want a podcast that is hogan relating the entire history of professional wrestling based on his recollection of events Each subsequent episode should be a host just reading back what Hogan said on the previous one, Hogan denies ever saying any of it and gives a new explanation. Repeat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
"Okay Hulk, so last week we covered the origins of professional wrestling as 'catch' wrestling in the early 19th century. You said that your great-great-great-grandfather was one of the biggest draws of the 1800s..." "Yeah." "...And that he went undefeated for over 14 years." "That's right. Longer than Bruno's runs combined, dude." "You went on to say that he bested future president Abraham Lincoln on at least 8 separate occasions, despite Lincoln's attempts to cheat..." "Mm-hmm." "...And that he was named after you." "That's right, brother. I know it sounds crazy, uh, can sound confusing to hear it, out loud, but it's there, dude. It's there in the family Bible. Passed down, you know, generation to generation, names recorded and all that. Zephiniah Bollea, way back in 1810, he chose to name his son, pro wrestling's original champion, Terry Bollea. Because the lineage had been predetermined, y'know."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
The Flagship is generally a pretty useful listen, but the latest episode goes for 40 goddamn minutes before they start talking about wrestling. I know it goes out as a livestream first, where maybe it makes more sense to shoot the poo poo for a while, but 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:The Flagship is generally a pretty useful listen, but the latest episode goes for 40 goddamn minutes before they start talking about wrestling. Is it about baseball?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
Of course, but also literally every other sport this time too
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
El Generico posted:Or maybe I'm not, dude
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:The Flagship is generally a pretty useful listen, but the latest episode goes for 40 goddamn minutes before they start talking about wrestling. Wait if you weren't listening to the live stream and don't like the banter isn't there no issue? Can't it be skipped pretty easily on YouTube or whatever podcast app?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
Why would you skip the banter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Sticky Nate posted:Why would you skip the banter? No idea! But if you needed to it would be easy to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 21:25
|
|
|
Banter is the best part. That's like skipping to the news section on castle superbeast
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
duckdealer posted:Wait if you weren't listening to the live stream and don't like the banter isn't there no issue? Can't it be skipped pretty easily on YouTube or whatever podcast app? If I'm listening to a podcast in the car it's kind of hard to skip banter. I can do it on the touch screen but it's hard to know when banter ends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
every podcast has its ufc segment
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
Shard posted:Banter is the best part. That's like skipping to the news section on castle superbeast The only reason I subscribe to the flagship is to hear Lanza talk about good cuck chairs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:If I'm listening to a podcast in the car it's kind of hard to skip banter. I can do it on the touch screen but it's hard to know when banter ends. Well yeah, but if you say that it's a legitimate point that goes against what I said!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:The Flagship is generally a pretty useful listen, but the latest episode goes for 40 goddamn minutes before they start talking about wrestling. They never got around to defining what counts as a blowout in golf and I was a little disappointed
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 09:43
|
|
|
Kennel posted:Reminder that it got 4.75 stars, was Dave's highest rated match of the year and he didn't give a single 5 star rating between mid-2006 and mid-2011. I’d still argue the WM 25 match not getting 5 is egregious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Truther Vandross posted:I’d still argue the WM 25 match not getting 5 is egregious. You are free to argue silly, nonsensical things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
I don't know how Dave determines when sometimes goes beyond 5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Shard posted:I don't know how Dave determines when sometimes goes beyond 5. Counting the bribe
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Shard posted:I don't know how Dave determines when sometimes goes beyond 5. for me, personally, it's if i holler
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
graph posted:for me, personally, it's if i holler this is why number ratings are terrible to me. It's too subjective to be so quantifiable. I always rate things with that sucked, that was ok, and that was great. It works perfectly every single time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
Numbers or qualitative ratings are fine, people just don't know that the way you use ratings for art is to find someone whose tastes mostly align with yours and use their ratings as a rough metric of whether you should consume that piece of art. Conversely, I know my tastes are basically the opposite of Armond White so an Armond 1 is a ten for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Meltzer's star system evolved with the times. If you look at the darker periods in wrestling there are rarely 5 star matches and 4+ star matches were extremely notable. Now the level has increased in such a way that even 5 star matches are forgotten quickly. We are living in the golden age, truly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Numbers or qualitative ratings are fine, people just don't know that the way you use ratings for art is to find someone whose tastes mostly align with yours and use their ratings as a rough metric of whether you should consume that piece of art. Conversely, I know my tastes are basically the opposite of Armond White so an Armond 1 is a ten for me. Dave Meltzer doesn't get to unilaterally define the wrestling canon. People (maybe it's just the online wrestling communities?) get real weird about his ratings. Who cares if he gave the match 4 stars or 5 stars or 7 stars or even MINUS FIVE STARS? Like what you want, don't like what you want. It's entertainment and art. There's nothing measurable or objective about anyone's opinion of it. I do wonder why wrestling never developed an industry of critics like there are for all other forms of art and entertainment. Just curious that Meltzer is the only one that seems to write about wrestling beyond simple news reporting and backstage shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
I mean even Dave isn't really reviewing them in the newsletter it's usually a list of moves then "the best match that's ever been in the Huston Superdome *****"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
The Torch also rates matches and there’s people doing the recaps on plenty of sites with commentary and reviews. Wrestlers saying ratings don’t matter and then getting really mad about ratings is a tale as old as match ratings. Does anyone remember what review in particular made Chris Jericho “quit the internet” and post an angry rant on his website that one time? I think it was an RVD/Jericho match but I’m not sure what review set him off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
Dave’s ratings are objectively fact. Sorry but in this house we trust the science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
ToiletofSadness posted:Totally agreed. There are tons of people who write about wrestling like that and in the mid 2010s a small cottage industry of truly awful writers like Brandon Stroud started trying to write about wrestling beyond what people expect from a "dirt sheet" for major online outlets. It sucked, even before Stroud and some of the others were outed as predators. It led to really really lame poo poo like Wrestling Isn't Wrestling. There's people who write interesting stuff about wrestling, but people who try to elevate it beyond what it is generally suck at it. But for the most part wrestling is a very small niche thing. Real sports have tens of thousands of people attending games multiple times per week. Wrestling does it once or twice per week. If two million people see a big budget movie in its first week its a huge flop, but that's a huge audience for wrestling. It's something that is notable for its ability to get people to tune in on cable TV, but in the grand scheme of things for US culture it's very small compared to other forms of mass entertainment. It's audience is also poor, so while theater might have a smaller audience it is much more upscale and has a history of cultural importance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
ToiletofSadness posted:Totally agreed. This is due to how Meltzer approached the business compared to other guys like Apter. A lot of the other talent would report stuff based on having a rapport with the promoter or wrestler, and act as a form of advertising for them. Meltzer came in from sports writing and approached it seriously and developed a personal metric for what a reasonable person could say was a good and bad match; albeit not necessarily an entertaining one in the eyes of all fans. In addition, unlike many of his other contemporaries saw a lot of wrestling from Mexico and Japan in the 80s, along with the tape trading of the different promotions in the U.S., which gave him an appreciation for different styles. Of those he liked the Mexican style the most, but appreciated the technical work of the Japanese as well. WWF and other regional promotions in the U.S. obviously put out some great stuff from time to time, but particularly in the early 90s they were overly reliant on goofy gimmicks and carny in ring stories, rather than putting on matches that were well choreographed athletic performances. It was his critiques of the performance aspect that created situations where Mick Foley got noticed because of how Meltzer liked his work, or how he told Bischoff to hire Benoit/Jericho/Guerrero for WCW. The only reason he gets to define wrestling canon is because he's the biggest face doing it. Dave is the Roger Ebert of wrestling; and Cagematch is like the Meta Critic of wrestling. One guy has a preference for what he sees and he knows when something is well made or not, his opinion on it may vary from yours but you can't discount that the guy knows his poo poo and is an authority. Doesn't mean you'll like everything he recommends or hates, but at least you can understand why he has the rating based on how he rates and the things he looks for. Cagematch is something everyone can vote on but only the hardcores are really going to go out and do it, and the knowledge they have may vary between having never seen anything other than the one promotion or having watched everything they possibly can. The stupid thing about this is that nowadays a single critic isn't going to influence anyone, and it's the sites like rotten tomatoes that does and the critic vs audience score is always out of wack. So find a guy you can at least understand, maybe someone like Solomonster if not Dave or Bryan, and figure out if their ratings match yours one evening and if they do then follow that guy for stuff that you were thinking about watching. It's really not hard to ignore the discourse, particularly since anyone who spends the effort complaining about someone's opinion is someone you can just block and move on with your life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
Meltzer is a guy who writes about children’s media for adults
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
Eat My Fuc posted:Meltzer is a guy who writes about children’s media for adults 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
All journalists who write on children's media are adults. That doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 22:07
|
|
|
Shard posted:I don't know how Dave determines when sometimes goes beyond 5. Vibes. Shard posted:this is why number ratings are terrible to me. It's too subjective to be so quantifiable. I always rate things with that sucked, that was ok, and that was great. It works perfectly every single time. I used to be like that. But when I started keeping a spreadsheet, mostly motivated by the fact that my memory is rear end & at the end of the year I'd always end up forgetting things that were rad & deserved end of year shoutouts, I find the granularity useful. And also I suck at writing about wrestling so it's much easier to put 4 on my spreadsheet than write a paragraph explaining what exactly I enjoyed about it. If I just wrote "GREAT" next to every match **** or higher then at the end of the year I'd look at my spreadsheet and I'd have 150 matches & only the faintest memories of what matches REALLY blew me away. Where as right now I look at it & see that I have 2 matches I gave ***** to 4 that got ****¾ & that's the stuff that really stands out and warrants repeat viewing & hard shilling to others who may not have seen it or whatever. I don't know if I'm too generous in what I give ***** to or what, but I'd like to think my ratings are at least vaguely internally consistent even if when I think about it it's more in a year-on-year context than a all-time one. I dunno if wrestling is really too subjective to be quantifiable, it's no more or less quantifiable than movies or games or other things people rate out of 5, 10, 40 or 100 depending on the source. It's just a short-hand really for "this is one of the best things I've seen all year" or "this is totally good wrestler" or "this was loving rear end & I want a refund"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
Dave also has talked about how his original purpose and model of the newsletter wasn't about ratings - it was a trade publication, not a fanzine. It was designed to be read by people in the business. The things the wrestlers cared about were gate sizes, so they could see if the promoters were screwing them on pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Seams posted:Dave’s ratings are objectively fact. Sorry but in this house we trust the science. Yep
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 22:26
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:There are tons of people who write about wrestling like that and in the mid 2010s a small cottage industry of truly awful writers like Brandon Stroud started trying to write about wrestling beyond what people expect from a "dirt sheet" for major online outlets. It sucked, even before Stroud and some of the others were outed as predators. It led to really really lame poo poo like Wrestling Isn't Wrestling. There's people who write interesting stuff about wrestling, but people who try to elevate it beyond what it is generally suck at it. But for the most part wrestling is a very small niche thing. Real sports have tens of thousands of people attending games multiple times per week. Wrestling does it once or twice per week. If two million people see a big budget movie in its first week its a huge flop, but that's a huge audience for wrestling. It's something that is notable for its ability to get people to tune in on cable TV, but in the grand scheme of things for US culture it's very small compared to other forms of mass entertainment. It's audience is also poor, so while theater might have a smaller audience it is much more upscale and has a history of cultural importance. I've been lurking online wrestling communities dating back to rec.sport.pro-wrestling in the late 90s and it isn't surprising why Dave's opinion is so respected. The man has doing it longer than everyone by far. The conversation and quibbling about 4.5 or 5 stars or whatever is just one of the more tedious debates in the community. I'd rather just talk about loving cool matches without having to hear about why one is "objectively better" than another because 1 guy says so. ToiletofSadness fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Apr 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 23:33
|
|
|
The Meltzer ratings are useful for deciding what to watch if you're stepping outside of your usual, or maybe for sparking conversation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
It’s a handy guide for delving into an area of wrestling you’re not familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 02:27
|
|
