|
Post by Djm Doesn't Find You Funny on Jan 14, 2012 9:23:56 GMT -5
I do agree, though. Wrestling nostalgia will creep in.
20 years from now, there will be people heralding Michael Cole as "the greatest that ever did it", just like the modern era and Jim Ross, and Gordon Solie & Gorilla before him.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 14, 2012 9:42:44 GMT -5
I grew up in the 80's and had the privilege of hearing some of the all time greats and the very worst announcing. There were plenty on the national scene who were worst. But since Gorilla was an easy target, he took the salvo. That's why I don't care for awards because just someone thought _______ was the best or worst doesn't mean I have to agree.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,103
Member is Online
|
Post by CMWaters on Jan 14, 2012 11:16:01 GMT -5
The F4W Board has taken notice of this thread, and Dave has responded... No one is going to say Mason Ryan is a great worker. Ever. That's like saying Ted Arcidi was a great worker. I'd laugh if a decade from now people say Mason is "Batista with more talent".
|
|
|
Post by Jacob Lee on Jan 14, 2012 13:01:32 GMT -5
The F4W Board has taken notice of this thread, and Dave has responded... *LANGUAGE WARNING*
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 14, 2012 13:24:39 GMT -5
The F4W Board has taken notice of this thread, and Dave has responded... But Dave is wrong. I'm trying to look at it as unbiased as possible. I understand nostalgia, I understand looking back and thinking something is good because it was part of your childhood. But there is still no good reason for Monsoon being the worst. Every reason given is seemingly ones that others feel made him great.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 14, 2012 14:47:48 GMT -5
The F4W Board has taken notice of this thread, and Dave has responded... But Dave is wrong. I'm trying to look at it as unbiased as possible. I understand nostalgia, I understand looking back and thinking something is good because it was part of your childhood. But there is still no good reason for Monsoon being the worst. Every reason given is seemingly ones that others feel made him great. No he's not wrong and neither are the people that voted Monsoon as worst. It's all opinion. Your opinion is Monsoon was good and for the reasons others thought he sucked. Hell, we see the exact same thing we JR today and we'll see it again with someone else in the future.
|
|
|
Post by preferable on Jan 14, 2012 14:59:22 GMT -5
It IS wrong because it isn't a valid or credible opinion.
It's like Keith Olbermann's 'worst person in the world'. That is all tongue in cheek but if anyone ever thought that a radio talk show host or a hollywood celebritiy was the 'worst person in the world' that week you cannot in all good concious say "Well, they're entitled to their opinion"
We must stop this whole 'every opinion is equally valid" nonsense. It isn't. If you're being ridiculous, expect to see people call you out on being ridiculous.
If Dave's biggest problem with Monsoon was that he'd occasionally give the latin names of body parts, then is that REALLY good enough?
Of course not.
You can have the opinion that Babe Ruth was a donkey, that Magic Johnson was over rated, that Elvis wasn't that big, that the Beatles couldn't write music, that Hulk Hogan couldn't draw or McDonald's doesn't make you fat.
But it doesn't mean I have to respect that as honest opinion.
I'm a journalist myself and what Dave does is incredibly poor 'journalism'. He's little more than an opinionated columnist.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jan 14, 2012 15:24:06 GMT -5
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Jan 14, 2012 18:11:36 GMT -5
It IS wrong because it isn't a valid or credible opinion. It's like Keith Olbermann's 'worst person in the world'. That is all tongue in cheek but if anyone ever thought that a radio talk show host or a hollywood celebritiy was the 'worst person in the world' that week you cannot in all good concious say "Well, they're entitled to their opinion" We must stop this whole 'every opinion is equally valid" nonsense. It isn't. If you're being ridiculous, expect to see people call you out on being ridiculous. If Dave's biggest problem with Monsoon was that he'd occasionally give the latin names of body parts, then is that REALLY good enough? Of course not. You can have the opinion that Babe Ruth was a donkey, that Magic Johnson was over rated, that Elvis wasn't that big, that the Beatles couldn't write music, that Hulk Hogan couldn't draw or McDonald's doesn't make you fat. But it doesn't mean I have to respect that as honest opinion. I'm a journalist myself and what Dave does is incredibly poor 'journalism'. He's little more than an opinionated columnist. Dave actually has valid reasoning behind his opinion though. He stated reasons why he doesn't like Monsoon's opinion. He stated exactly what about his commentary that he didn't enjoy and personally I find his reasoning to be perfectly understandable. And the body part thing, while admittedly a silly reason to dislike commentary, was far from his biggest complaint about the guy. You can't throw out somebody's opinions by simply focusing on one aspect about it when there are still plenty of valid points you don't address. Sure, maybe it makes his argument weaker, but it doesn't totally throw it out the window. Dave currently runs the most popular wrestling newsletter out there today and is cited by plenty of people in the business as one of the most credible guys out there. I'd say that gives him plenty of justification to give his opinion on things. It's basically what pays his bills, especially since the guy also has a job writing for Yahoo Sports. And unlike these hypotheticals you threw out it's not like his reasoning is something ludicrous like the examples you gave. And again I imagine that Meltzer is making more with his "opinion based columns" (Such as breaking down things such as business and breaking more news than any other wrestling news website out there as well as being one of the more reliable people for MMA based news to boot) than you are currently. I could be wrong on that, mind you, but something tells me that your work in journalism hasn't gotten you tons of praise from various famous wrestlers in the world.
|
|
|
Post by moneyman20 on Jan 14, 2012 18:16:28 GMT -5
That's silly. Meltzer has been advocating for years for wrestling to be treated as a legit sport. But when Gorilla calls a match like a legit sport from the perspective of a former wrestler it's a problem? I don't get it. I really don't get where he's coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 14, 2012 18:28:26 GMT -5
It IS wrong because it isn't a valid or credible opinion. It's like Keith Olbermann's 'worst person in the world'. That is all tongue in cheek but if anyone ever thought that a radio talk show host or a hollywood celebritiy was the 'worst person in the world' that week you cannot in all good concious say "Well, they're entitled to their opinion" We must stop this whole 'every opinion is equally valid" nonsense. It isn't. If you're being ridiculous, expect to see people call you out on being ridiculous. If Dave's biggest problem with Monsoon was that he'd occasionally give the latin names of body parts, then is that REALLY good enough? Of course not. You can have the opinion that Babe Ruth was a donkey, that Magic Johnson was over rated, that Elvis wasn't that big, that the Beatles couldn't write music, that Hulk Hogan couldn't draw or McDonald's doesn't make you fat. But it doesn't mean I have to respect that as honest opinion. I'm a journalist myself and what Dave does is incredibly poor 'journalism'. He's little more than an opinionated columnist. Dave actually has valid reasoning behind his opinion though. He stated reasons why he doesn't like Monsoon's opinion. He stated exactly what about his commentary that he didn't enjoy and personally I find his reasoning to be perfectly understandable. And the body part thing, while admittedly a silly reason to dislike commentary, was far from his biggest complaint about the guy. You can't throw out somebody's opinions by simply focusing on key aspect about it when there are still plenty of valid points you don't address. Sure, maybe it makes his argument weaker, but it doesn't totally throw it out the window. Dave currently runs the most popular wrestling newsletter out there today and is cited by plenty of people in the business as one of the most credible guys out there. I'd say that gives him plenty of justification to give his opinion on things. It's basically what pays his bills, especially since the guy also has a job writing for Yahoo Sports. And unlike these hypotheticals you threw out it's not like his reasoning is something ludicrous like the examples you gave. And again I imagine that Meltzer is making more with his "opinion based columns" (Such as breaking down things such as business and breaking more news than any other wrestling news website out there as well as being one of the more reliable people for MMA based news to boot) than you are currently. I could be wrong on that, mind you, but something tells me that your work in journalism hasn't gotten you tons of praise from various famous wrestlers in the world. But what are those opinions? Saying it's nostalgia isn't a good reason for someone being bad, it's just for people viewing it in a more positive light. Another reason brought up was almost burying guys who wouldn't hook a leg, or bringing up baby faces not submitting from certain things, or whatever. But maybe there are other reasons, and I'm interested in knowing them, because the reasons given so far seem kinda dumb, or at the very least, nitpicky. I can see different reasons, but like, if he was the worst from that time period, then it could be argued that there were no bad commentators, and Gorilla's little nuisances added up.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Jan 14, 2012 19:03:49 GMT -5
Monsoon was a great commentator. Meltzer was way off base with his criticism of him. Didn't Mr Fuji get voted worst manager about 5 times in a row, too? Which is why his awards means nothing. Meltzer is a normal guy like all of us. He is not God's gift to wrestling.
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Jan 14, 2012 19:26:54 GMT -5
Dave actually has valid reasoning behind his opinion though. He stated reasons why he doesn't like Monsoon's opinion. He stated exactly what about his commentary that he didn't enjoy and personally I find his reasoning to be perfectly understandable. And the body part thing, while admittedly a silly reason to dislike commentary, was far from his biggest complaint about the guy. You can't throw out somebody's opinions by simply focusing on key aspect about it when there are still plenty of valid points you don't address. Sure, maybe it makes his argument weaker, but it doesn't totally throw it out the window. Dave currently runs the most popular wrestling newsletter out there today and is cited by plenty of people in the business as one of the most credible guys out there. I'd say that gives him plenty of justification to give his opinion on things. It's basically what pays his bills, especially since the guy also has a job writing for Yahoo Sports. And unlike these hypotheticals you threw out it's not like his reasoning is something ludicrous like the examples you gave. And again I imagine that Meltzer is making more with his "opinion based columns" (Such as breaking down things such as business and breaking more news than any other wrestling news website out there as well as being one of the more reliable people for MMA based news to boot) than you are currently. I could be wrong on that, mind you, but something tells me that your work in journalism hasn't gotten you tons of praise from various famous wrestlers in the world. But what are those opinions? Saying it's nostalgia isn't a good reason for someone being bad, it's just for people viewing it in a more positive light. Another reason brought up was almost burying guys who wouldn't hook a leg, or bringing up baby faces not submitting from certain things, or whatever. But maybe there are other reasons, and I'm interested in knowing them, because the reasons given so far seem kinda dumb, or at the very least, nitpicky. I can see different reasons, but like, if he was the worst from that time period, then it could be argued that there were no bad commentators, and Gorilla's little nuisances added up. That's reasonable enough. Admittedly I don't agree with everything Meltzer mentioned. The body part thing for one being the most nitpicky for everything. But to just use just one nitpicky sounding reason to throw out someone's entire arguement is absurd if you ask me. I agree that Gorilla is far from the worst commentator out there. The guy was for one pretty entertaining at times, especially with Heenan as mentioned. But I can also see why somebody would think he's the worst. And as someone mentioned you're more likely to notice someone's shortcomings in a mainstream promotion like the WWF then you are someone in a smaller regional promotion or rinky dink indy fed, mainly because you expect better from the former than you would the latter. And a decent commentator with some irritating habits in the WWF is far more likely to be reviled than an utterly incompetent independent commentator who has no idea what he's doing simply because of the difference of exposure. After all the most popular things are often the most reviled.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Jan 14, 2012 22:14:23 GMT -5
Look at today's culture. If you asked people to name the worst teen singer Beiber may top that list. However there are thousands of shitty untrained kids like Jenna Rose but they have no exposure. Gorilla was probably the most viewed guy and for some reason a lot of Meltzer's viewers didn't care for his style. The fact Gorilla gets that many votes though is a testament to how many people DID see him.
I personally loved Gorilla, but I was pretty young and still living in kayfabe. However, I can see one point that kinda got me that I didn't realize at the time. The hooking the leg part that Gorilla would harp on, well it was so accentuated that it was the times he didn't mention it that seemed to stick out. Someone would hit a move and go for the cover and not hook the leg and even though Gorilla tore into the last guy who didn't he would seemingly not notice it the next time and that guy would invariably win.
Also what must be remembered is Gorilla was THE voice of Vince McMahon's national expansion. He was the announcer most tied to the rise of the over the top cartoonish Rock and wrestling era, a change in tone of pro-wrestling that rubbed a lot of traditionalist wrong. So anything associated with that probably got a lot of flack from purists. Look how much love the terms "sports entertainment" and "PG era" get today.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 14, 2012 22:30:42 GMT -5
It IS wrong because it isn't a valid or credible opinion. It's like Keith Olbermann's 'worst person in the world'. That is all tongue in cheek but if anyone ever thought that a radio talk show host or a hollywood celebritiy was the 'worst person in the world' that week you cannot in all good concious say "Well, they're entitled to their opinion" We must stop this whole 'every opinion is equally valid" nonsense. It isn't. If you're being ridiculous, expect to see people call you out on being ridiculous. If Dave's biggest problem with Monsoon was that he'd occasionally give the latin names of body parts, then is that REALLY good enough? Of course not. He and several others though Monsoon made the wrestlers look bad with his commentary and ruined the story matches told. That is a perfectly valid reason to vote him the worst. Yeah, actually you should in a couple of those since those can easily be valid opinions. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less valid, just a disagreement. Huh, what do you know, more opinion or using your rules, something flat wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Jan 14, 2012 22:34:37 GMT -5
If Michael Cole and Mason Ryan are fondly remembered 25 years from now by the sort of casual fans who make up the majority of WWE's audience, it'll mean they were doing their jobs successfully, even if many of us older, jaded fans never warmed up to them.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Jan 15, 2012 0:04:39 GMT -5
Meltzer: He's no Roger Ebert.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 15, 2012 0:09:04 GMT -5
But Dave is wrong. I'm trying to look at it as unbiased as possible. I understand nostalgia, I understand looking back and thinking something is good because it was part of your childhood. But there is still no good reason for Monsoon being the worst. Every reason given is seemingly ones that others feel made him great. No he's not wrong and neither are the people that voted Monsoon as worst. It's all opinion. Your opinion is Monsoon was good and for the reasons others thought he sucked. Hell, we see the exact same thing we JR today and we'll see it again with someone else in the future. But, in the statement that he made there, that was posted here and supposedly posted on the F4W online board, I and others are trying not to look at Gorilla through the nostalgia lens. That's where he is actually wrong. Yes, people do look at things like that, but I'm trying to find legit reasons. His statements are way too over generalized. Batista would be a better example, as would Coach, Todd Grisham and Josh Matthews.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 15, 2012 0:20:07 GMT -5
No he's not wrong and neither are the people that voted Monsoon as worst. It's all opinion. Your opinion is Monsoon was good and for the reasons others thought he sucked. Hell, we see the exact same thing we JR today and we'll see it again with someone else in the future. But, in the statement that he made there, that was posted here and supposedly posted on the F4W online board, I and others are trying not to look at Gorilla through the nostalgia lens. That's where he is actually wrong. Yes, people do look at things like that, but I'm trying to find legit reasons. Then look at everything else he has said that has been posted here, the stuff about how he felt Gorilla ruined the story that the matches were building and killing things off in his opinion. Those are perfectly legit and people seem to be ignoring them because they grew up on him and he is what they see as great (which again, there is nothing wrong with either). I don't see people trying to not use the "nostalgia lens", just ignoring an opinion that they don't share and s***ting on the people with it (not accusing you of that, just several others in here).
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 15, 2012 0:58:36 GMT -5
But, in the statement that he made there, that was posted here and supposedly posted on the F4W online board, I and others are trying not to look at Gorilla through the nostalgia lens. That's where he is actually wrong. Yes, people do look at things like that, but I'm trying to find legit reasons. Then look at everything else he has said that has been posted here, the stuff about how he felt Gorilla ruined the story that the matches were building and killing things off in his opinion. Those are perfectly legit and people seem to be ignoring them because they grew up on him and he is what they see as great (which again, there is nothing wrong with either). I don't see people trying to not use the "nostalgia lens", just ignoring an opinion that they don't share and s***ting on the people with it (not accusing you of that, just several others in here). I think people have addressed it as being nitpicky, and mostly because I, nor anybody else, thinks that the psychology of a match was killed off by Gorilla while watching. People have said that Gorilla made it sound more like a sport, so it is really addressing the issue. Now, this could in fact be looking at it through nostalgia, and I'd have to see specific examples. I think a lot of people are blowing it off as those guys being whiners and nit pickers, because I don't think anybody felt that the heels or the baby faces looked that bad when listening to Gorilla on commentary. Not to mention, for the most part, Gorilla was on the side of the baby faces in general. He wasn't as biased as say, Vince McMahon was, or even Jerry Lawler is now, but the same went with Jesse Ventura. They were generally in favour of heels or baby faces, but it never got too extreme as say, Lawler as a heel or a face.
|
|