Childs

Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way? I ask this because the answer for me is clearly no. Sometimes, I watch in an analytical way, looking for smart work, nice execution, etc. In that mode, I'd probably appreciate the cleverness of the Liger spot Loss mentioned. But I don't know that it would excite me per se. This is probably my most common setting when reviewing footage for the '80s project. Other times, I watch with a greater hope of being sucked into the drama of a match. This might be because I'm watching a show live, unsure of where it's going to take me. It might be because I'm watching in a more communal setting, like the '80s lucha podcasts. It might simply be my mood on a given night. I'm just wondering if that dichotomy also exists for Matt, Parv, Loss, etc. or if the mode is more consistent for some of you.

If wrestling comes up, which it does semi-often among the 25-45-year-old sportswriters I work among, I talk about it with some authority. They also know I wrote pieces for the paper when Benoit and Eddy died. But I don't really get into the depth of my interest or the size of my DVD collection. Then again, I also don't talk to casual friends about my collection of old boxing or my devotion to the Drive-by Truckers or my shelves full of non-fiction anthologies. People who know me know that I go deep in all my interests, and that's sufficient for most. My wife, bless her, seems amused by my obsessive/collector tendencies and gives me wide latitude. She knew she married a geek 15 years ago and has never flinched.

Sandy Barr is the king in this category.

People on both sides of the argument seem to have forgotten that most of the stars in the post-Hogan era emerged gradually. They compact history so it sounds as if Austin was Austin the minute he cut the 3:16 promo on Jake. But if you watch the Raws from '96 and '97, it was much more gradual than that. Even after the Mania match with Bret, he had to wait another year to be the undisputed man. Dave talks bout Jeff Hardy popping numbers, but that was after almost a decade of being a very popular mid-carder They had to push Cena hard for two years before he owned his current spot. I don't say any of that to excuse the dumb shit the company has done to undercut Bryan. If I'm a WWE exec, I'm looking in the mirror now and saying, if this guy generates that kind of reaction and we can't make money off it, maybe we're the problem. But I do think both those who are angry at WWE and those who pick at Bryan for not drawing need to have a little perspective. These things have rarely happened quickly.

I've found him to be overrated on balance. No doubt he was a big bumper with charisma, and I like his Portland stuff and a few of his WWF matches. But his New Japan stuff, both singles and with Murdoch, really turned me off. I don't see how he has the body of work to be considered one of the best guys of the '80s.

BTW, I did buy a Roku based in part on recommendations in this thread, and it's great.

No. For those of us who have no idea what you're talking about, could you be less vague.

Interesting. That match only received a middling nomination in the Portland reviewing process. Dylan and I both found the third fall a bit tedious in the way it repeated the dynamic of the second.

Yeah, I had a conversation with a guy at work today who hasn't watched regularly in years but is intrigued by the network. That's obviously a tiny sample size. The reaction seems promising though.

Do folks here have experience with Roku? Is it a worthwhile device? Seems pretty affordable.

Kevin talked to me about taking over his blog when he left, but powers that be wanted me to focus on other stuff. I didn't make a big push for it, because honestly, I like keeping wrestling as a hobby. I've found that writing about other sports changes my relationship to them and not always in ways I like.

In Baltimore, we've had a dedicated wrestling blogger on our web site for years. The first guy, Kevin Eck, left to work for WWE. But we actually brought on replacements, because the blog gets a bunch of hits. That said, none of the bosses understand or care about wrestling. They just see it as a cheap, easy way to generate web traffic.

Race seemed to like winning the first fall in less-than-impressive fashion and then giving the second fall to the local babyface to build excitement going into the third. He followed that pattern with Billy Jack a few years later in Portland.

Daniel Bryan quite some time ago to a lot of success, my toes actually curl reading Internet fans still refer to him as Danielson. Then your toes are too sensitive.

I watched the Rumble match out of curiosity, because it had been a long time. And I was surprised how much I liked it. They did a really good job of establishing how evenly matched they were. Not every match has to have a protracted heat section, and in this case, they built excitement by working lots of quick, intense counter exchanges. I don't always like that style, but they won me over with how hard they went. I liked the teases of the sharpshooter and the diving headbutt. And even though they pushed the pace, I wouldn't say they ignored selling the accrued damage. I could see people finding the finishing stretch a bit much. But again, these guys were supposed to be the best athletes in the promotion, pushing each other to the limit. The Benoit headbutt was a great, holy shit spot, and his one roll-up nearfall looked great as well. The ankle lock shit seems worse in retrospect because Angle overused it to an absurd degree in later matches. I thought Benoit fought long enough to fit the storyline but not too long. I don't know; it's not my favorite type of wrestling. But I thought Benoit and Angle pretty much nailed what they were going for.

If you can't take seriously any vote that involves a few nutty ballots, then you can't take any vote on anything seriously.

A lot of newer TVs have built-in wireless and apps, so it's possible that you wouldn't need AppleTV, game console, etc.

If they go exclusively online, it's hard to see that as a paradigm-shifter for them in the short term. It's more of a half-step into a new world. Not saying that's a bad thing; it would just be less seismic than a lot of the network talk has suggested.

More important than any consensus on John Ford, this thread has produced a moment of harmony between jdw and jvk.

Did you end up interviewing him and/or reviewing the book?

I think you might be giving Shane too much credit. Do we really have any evidence that he's good at anything? Eomer could at least lead a decent cavalry charge.

That's a committed breakdown.