Also, unrelated subject: what the hell was the deal with the Hebners all getting fired from WWE, anyway? That always felt strange, because it seemed like details on the story were few and far between, and "selling merchandise without permission" just seems like a terribly odd way for a seeming-lifer like Earl to get canned.

 

Wasn't it more a case of how they got their hands on the merch?

It's not a defense. (I just said I find him average and forgettable.) I'm genuinely interested in the difference between how a media product's audience has a different perception of quality than many of those who work in said media. Not just in wrestling, in various other arts as well; but I always find it fascinating how the fans and the creators can feel so differently about the one thing which connects them. Back to the Kane example, for one: it would be pretty safe to say that most people on this board like watching Big Show more than Kane when it comes to picking a giant, right? Yet Big Show himself openly claims that Kane's a better wrestler than him. And the dichotomy between the two viewpoints (and some fans' unwillingness to give any weight to the performers' opinions) is something that I've found intriguing for a long time.

 

 

Wasn't it more a case of how they got their hands on the merch?

Was it? I wondered about that too, what exactly happened?

Well, I gave a laundry list of reasons why I hate Earl earlier in the thread, so I won't repeat them here. But in a nutshell I just find him to be visually terrible. His body movements and vocal work in the ring were the shits. I want a referee to look crisp and decisive in his hand motions and commands. He's supposed to be a figure of authority in the ring, but if he looks like an ineffectual putz most of the time, it helps no one, since a heel doesn't look like a badass/slimeball putting one over on a referee who has no power. Tommy Young was guilty of a lot of the same grand-standing that I killed Earl for, and as Parv has pointed out in the early days of Where The Big Boys Play, was a terrible referee in kayfabe terms since he was always getting knocked out at crucial moments of matches. BUT... his mannerisms and positioning in the ring were always really well exectued. When he and Flair did the push-and-shove routine, Young came across like a man in a position of authority who was reminding the heel that he wasn't to be messed with because he carried power. When Hebner did it with Triple H he came across like a bratty kid who didn't want to be pushed around. Young was firm, pointing at his NWA logo'd shirt, while Earl would lose his shit and act like he wanted to fight right then and there. The boys may love him and he may do all the things they need him to do as part of the behind-the-scenes art of delivering a match, but as a visual presentation of an in-ring official, I found him awful.

 

Sorry. Big nutshell.

Workers are concerned with methods, fans are concerned with results.

Have any referees even been on the WON HOF ballot before? I thought "Red Shoes" and one of the famous lucha referees had been, but I might be misremembering

It's not a defense. (I just said I find him average and forgettable.) I'm genuinely interested in the difference between how a media product's audience has a different perception of quality than many of those who work in said media. Not just in wrestling, in various other arts as well; but I always find it fascinating how the fans and the creators can feel so differently about the one thing which connects them. Back to the Kane example, for one: it would be pretty safe to say that most people on this board like watching Big Show more than Kane when it comes to picking a giant, right? Yet Big Show himself openly claims that Kane's a better wrestler than him. And the dichotomy between the two viewpoints (and some fans' unwillingness to give any weight to the performers' opinions) is something that I've found intriguing for a long time.

 

You get that in non-scripted sports all the time though. Teammates and opponents to a MAN will tell you Jerry Grote was a better defnsive catcher than Johnny Bench EVER was, and Bench IIRC held the record for most Gold Gloves behind the plate (since broken by Ivan Rodriguez), but because he is dwarfed offensively, doesn't get a sniff at the HOF, and Bench is considered one of the top 3-5 finest catchers in baseball history.

 

Teammates and opponents rave about how great Gil Hodges was, and that he should belong in the Hall, yet for whatever reason whomever is voting when his time comes around to be on the ballot sees his stats as just not measuring up to any kind of standard.

The Hebners had a stake in a t-shirt store in St. Louis and it was alleged they were skimming shirts from house shows to sell at their store. You'd think that's an accusation that would have led to a lawsuit if there wasn't something to it, so odds are they were up to something.

 

It's not a defense. (I just said I find him average and forgettable.) I'm genuinely interested in the difference between how a media product's audience has a different perception of quality than many of those who work in said media. Not just in wrestling, in various other arts as well; but I always find it fascinating how the fans and the creators can feel so differently about the one thing which connects them. Back to the Kane example, for one: it would be pretty safe to say that most people on this board like watching Big Show more than Kane when it comes to picking a giant, right? Yet Big Show himself openly claims that Kane's a better wrestler than him. And the dichotomy between the two viewpoints (and some fans' unwillingness to give any weight to the performers' opinions) is something that I've found intriguing for a long time.

 

You get that in non-scripted sports all the time though. Teammates and opponents to a MAN will tell you Jerry Grote was a better defnsive catcher than Johnny Bench EVER was, and Bench IIRC held the record for most Gold Gloves behind the plate (since broken by Ivan Rodriguez), but because he is dwarfed offensively, doesn't get a sniff at the HOF, and Bench is considered one of the top 3-5 finest catchers in baseball history.

 

Teammates and opponents rave about how great Gil Hodges was, and that he should belong in the Hall, yet for whatever reason whomever is voting when his time comes around to be on the ballot sees his stats as just not measuring up to any kind of standard.

 

 

I've never heard that about Grote, but that's interesting because no actual fielding data that is out there shows him being better than Bench at anything defensively. Every single defensive stat you can track, Bench crushes him. If a defense wiz like Bob Boone or Brad Ausmus don't get any hall attention, Grote had zero chance.