Our pal David Shoemaker is back at Bill Simmons' new site The Ringer with "The Story of Vince McMahon", and it's actually pretty good. This is because Shoemaker didn't write any of it - it's an oral history of Vince made up of quotes made by Vince himself pulled from various interviews. The oral history thing is super-played out at this point, but for me Vince is such a fascinating person that it works for me.

Bummed that Simmons picked Shoemaker as the "wrestling guy" for his new site.

It was always going to happen. Simmons is a mark for Shoemaker.

uh should he really be leaning that heavily on the Playboy article for a piece with zero original writing or interviews?

 

Also: To do that while NOT including the most infamous part of the interview (crushed leaves) is quintessential Shoemaker.

Shoemaker is good for the "LOL wrestling" crowd being wooed by ESPN and pimped by people like Richard Deitsch on Twitter. Simple and harmless and a fun guy to stir up some of those old rasslin' memories from yesteryear.

 

But yeah, if you want quality reporting and actual insight, Shoemaker is the worst.

Bummed that Simmons picked Shoemaker as the "wrestling guy" for his new site.

 

Yeah, he's not very interesting. I imagine Simmons will eventually change his mind on him.

 

Bummed that Simmons picked Shoemaker as the "wrestling guy" for his new site.

 

Yeah, he's not very interesting. I imagine Simmons will eventually change his mind on him.

 

 

He was with Grantland from almost the start, and he has an "Art Director, The Ringer" byline, so I'm sure we'll continue to hear from him on a semi-regular basis.

uh should he really be leaning that heavily on the Playboy article for a piece with zero original writing or interviews?

 

I'm sure all of Vince's interviews contain insane amounts of exaggeration and outright lies, what is special about the Playboy interview?

 

 

uh should he really be leaning that heavily on the Playboy article for a piece with zero original writing or interviews?

I'm sure all of Vince's interviews contain insane amounts of exaggeration and outright lies, what is special about the Playboy interview?

My point was more "at what point does this cease being an original work?"

 

 

Bummed that Simmons picked Shoemaker as the "wrestling guy" for his new site.

 

Yeah, he's not very interesting. I imagine Simmons will eventually change his mind on him.

 

 

He was with Grantland from almost the start, and he has an "Art Director, The Ringer" byline, so I'm sure we'll continue to hear from him on a semi-regular basis.

 

 

You may be right. It'll be unforuntate if it holds true. I know Simmons' kids are really into the product, so assuming Simmons watches too...he seems fairly discerning so I assume he';d disagree with Shoemaker a lot. If not, I imagine the traffic will eventually get him to realize that Shoemaker ever should be discarded or should be completed by someone more critical and with a stronger viewpoint.

 

@Bix, I don't see an issue with the piece. Yes, it is completely deriative and compiliational, but if all credit is properly dished out, then it's no different than a student properly citing in a term paper. Plus, it's got the added benefit of how Shoemaker's own insight is usually not very noteworthy, so a quote compilation is more compelling.

Shoemaker is good for the "LOL wrestling" crowd being wooed by ESPN and pimped by people like Richard Deitsch on Twitter. Simple and harmless and a fun guy to stir up some of those old rasslin' memories from yesteryear.

 

But yeah, if you want quality reporting and actual insight, Shoemaker is the worst.

As I pointed out to Bix yesterday, and I think I may have made this point before, Shoemaker is that guy you're stuck next to in line while waiting to get into indie shows who tries impressing everybody else in line with his "insider knowledge," but most of it is stuff like "Did you know there were three Ultimate Warriors and four Undertakers?"

 

Shoemaker is good for the "LOL wrestling" crowd being wooed by ESPN and pimped by people like Richard Deitsch on Twitter. Simple and harmless and a fun guy to stir up some of those old rasslin' memories from yesteryear.

 

But yeah, if you want quality reporting and actual insight, Shoemaker is the worst.

As I pointed out to Bix yesterday, and I think I may have made this point before, Shoemaker is that guy you're stuck next to in line while waiting to get into indie shows who tries impressing everybody else in line with his "insider knowledge," but most of it is stuff like "Did you know there were three Ultimate Warriors and four Undertakers?"

 

I don't know about four but there was clearly a switch in Undertakers at one point, I mean the original one had red hair and you can tell his replacement by the fact that he has black hair.