WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » WON Information Forum » So who should write the list on 100 Greatest Wrestlers of All Time? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: So who should write the list on 100 Greatest Wrestlers of All Time?
DUKE DIGGLER
Member
Member # 3338

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DUKE DIGGLER     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boston Idol:
: Why does it matter that Dave said he had
: the input of 12 people and Molinaro said
: it was basically the three?

And why does it matter what Al from Happy Days says anyway?

--------------------
Aren't you gonna take your skates off?

IP: Logged
Jeff Bowdren
Member
Member # 652

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jeff Bowdren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jdw:
Jeff Bowdren wrote:

2nd, tell me someone over the course of the last 30 years who's had the opportunity to view more and different wrestlers and styles than Meltzer.

Probably no one. That doesn't mean Dave is perfect, though. One can disagree with his judgement on things. I actually found some of the more interesting conversations between Dave and my sprang from us not initially agreeing on something. Trying to get the other one to see our point of view (if not agree with it) forced us to articulate and support that point, which is a good thing.

It's their opinion, that doesn't mean that its the 10 commandments.

Of course it isn't the ten commandments. But Jeff - you've known Dave for ages. You've talked to him, corresponded with him, and traveled with him. Haven't you ever disagreed with Dave's opinion? Haven't you ever really scratched you head at something he's written, said or done? And told him?

Actually yes....I remember before I married my 2nd wife he said...'ya know, I'm not sure your making a good choice here.' DAMN HIM...he was right! hehehe

I can't speak for anyone else who's been in the same boat as you and I have been with Dave, but I certainly have disagreed with him and let he know it. As much as guys like Lano enjoyed calling me Meltzer Jr. in the mid-90s, disagreeing with Dave's opinions was something that I regularly did, and let him know. Dittos with Keller when I dealt with him,

Aha....you had the pleasure of dealing with Wade also? Did he call you and complain about deadlines also? [Big Grin]

and Bruce and I still get into good heated debates on points over the phone.

Disagreeing with Dave doesn't mean you hate him, or have an axe to grind, or are jealous, or are out to get him. Sometime you just think he's wrong on something, or has made a mistake. It happens.

John



--------------------
"I don't believe the good times are over..

I don't believe, the thrill is all gone...

real love...is a man's salvation, the weak ones fall but the strong carry on.."

Tom Petty

IP: Logged
Jeff Bowdren
Member
Member # 652

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jeff Bowdren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jdw:
Jeff Bowdren wrote:

2nd, tell me someone over the course of the last 30 years who's had the opportunity to view more and different wrestlers and styles than Meltzer.

Probably no one. That doesn't mean Dave is perfect, though. One can disagree with his judgement on things. I actually found some of the more interesting conversations between Dave and my sprang from us not initially agreeing on something. Trying to get the other one to see our point of view (if not agree with it) forced us to articulate and support that point, which is a good thing.

It's their opinion, that doesn't mean that its the 10 commandments.

Of course it isn't the ten commandments. But Jeff - you've known Dave for ages. You've talked to him, corresponded with him, and traveled with him. Haven't you ever disagreed with Dave's opinion? Haven't you ever really scratched you head at something he's written, said or done? And told him?

Actually yes....I remember before I married my 2nd wife he said...'ya know, I'm not sure your making a good choice here.' DAMN HIM...he was right! hehehe

I can't speak for anyone else who's been in the same boat as you and I have been with Dave, but I certainly have disagreed with him and let he know it. As much as guys like Lano enjoyed calling me Meltzer Jr. in the mid-90s, disagreeing with Dave's opinions was something that I regularly did, and let him know. Dittos with Keller when I dealt with him,

Aha....you had the pleasure of dealing with Wade also? Did he call you and complain about deadlines also? [Big Grin]

and Bruce and I still get into good heated debates on points over the phone.

Disagreeing with Dave doesn't mean you hate him, or have an axe to grind, or are jealous, or are out to get him. Sometime you just think he's wrong on something, or has made a mistake. It happens.

I'm sorry, but your incorrect....Dave Meltzer does not make mistakes. WHOOPS! I'm sorry, there was that thing about not putting Dick Beyer in the top 5...that seems to have been the starting point of this whole discussion [Roll Eyes]
John



--------------------
"I don't believe the good times are over..

I don't believe, the thrill is all gone...

real love...is a man's salvation, the weak ones fall but the strong carry on.."

Tom Petty

IP: Logged
jdw
Member
Member # 622

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jdw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jeff Bowdren wrote:
Actually yes....I remember before I married my 2nd wife he said...'ya know, I'm not sure your making a good choice here.' DAMN HIM...he was right! hehehe

[Smile]

Aha....you had the pleasure of dealing with Wade also? Did he call you and complain about deadlines also? [Big Grin]

I have had the pleasure of dealing with Wade. I don't think he ever called me to complain about deadlines... at least not to strongly. [Smile] Lord knows I missed many of them (or skipped them), and he had every reason to be pissed. But Wade treated me well. I can never say a bad word on how Wade treated me while I wrote for him, and he's treated me well since then.

I'm sorry, but your incorrect.... Dave Meltzer does not make mistakes. WHOOPS! I'm sorry, there was that thing about not putting Dick Beyer in the top 5... that seems to have been the starting point of this whole discussion [Roll Eyes]

I think you're confusing threads. There was one long thread about "Ric Flair: The Greatest Worker of All-Time". In that one, a number of people offered up Beyer as a better *worker* than Flair.

In the Top 100 thread, I don't recall anyone putting forward Beyer as a Top 5 candidate. In fact his biggest backer over the years both in the WON and online and directly to Dave over Japanese in Little Tokyo here in LA, indicated Beyer was in roughly the right place. If Steve Yohe doesn't think Beyer is Top 5 in such a Greatest *Wrestlers* of All-Time list, it's hard to see anyone being able to seriously make such an arguement.

In the Top 100 it was other wrestlers who people were talking about.

John

IP: Logged
Franchize
Member
Member # 176

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Franchize     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can't see why everyone is jumping on Meltzer's case....Although my opinion does not matter, the list's main objective was basically to get a good variety of discussion going on. Looks like it worked?? Good stuff though. I am sure out of all of us on the message board, not one of our lists would be the same. It doesn't matter if we were all historians....thats what opinion's are and forever will be

--------------------
"Say all you want about me... just talk about me"

IP: Logged
Boston Idol
Member
Member # 628

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Boston Idol   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
: No offense, but your obsession with "exposing"
: Meltzer is reaching Ryderesque levels.

I'm tempted to say that some of Dave Meltzer's
defenders have reached Schererian levels, but
I don't think name calling is helpful.

When Meltzer makes a point about some goofily
contradictory statements from the WWE, I assume
he is simply commenting on them as opposed to
having an "obsession" with exposing the McMahons.

Likewise I'm commenting on some contradictory
statements from Meltzer and Molinaro. I'm not
obsessed, other than referring back to those
statements when Dave's fans try to ignore them.

In the book Meltzer pimps the selection and
ranking process as very extensive, but in his
interview the author makes it sound much less
involved. Knowing how Meltzer selected the
original batch of WON HOF inductees, "much
less involved" appears to be more likely true.

But always believe what you want to believe.
I've brought over the quotes and John Williams
has broken kayfabe on the lack of research and
effort that went into the initial WON HOF list,
but if you find those facts threatening then by
all means ignore them. I won't remind you again.

Frank

(Didn't realize some people were so sentimental.)

IP: Logged
Jeff Bowdren
Member
Member # 652

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jeff Bowdren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jdw:

I'm sorry, but your incorrect.... Dave Meltzer does not make mistakes. WHOOPS! I'm sorry, there was that thing about not putting Dick Beyer in the top 5... that seems to have been the starting point of this whole discussion [Roll Eyes]

I think you're confusing threads. There was one long thread about "Ric Flair: The Greatest Worker of All-Time". In that one, a number of people offered up Beyer as a better *worker* than Flair.

In the Top 100 thread, I don't recall anyone putting forward Beyer as a Top 5 candidate. In fact his biggest backer over the years both in the WON and online and directly to Dave over Japanese in Little Tokyo here in LA, indicated Beyer was in roughly the right place. If Steve Yohe doesn't think Beyer is Top 5 in such a Greatest *Wrestlers* of All-Time list, it's hard to see anyone being able to seriously make such an arguement.

In the Top 100 it was other wrestlers who people were talking about.

John[/QB]

Sarcasm my good man....sarcasm. [Cool]

--------------------
"I don't believe the good times are over..

I don't believe, the thrill is all gone...

real love...is a man's salvation, the weak ones fall but the strong carry on.."

Tom Petty

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can tell Dave didn't write this list....Keiji Muto isn't in the top 10.--Steve (I need one of those funny face Graemlins on this post) Yohe
IP: Logged
SMN from CA
Member
Member # 3253

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SMN from CA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boston Idol:
: No offense, but your obsession with "exposing"
: Meltzer is reaching Ryderesque levels.

I'm tempted to say that some of Dave Meltzer's
defenders have reached Schererian levels, but
I don't think name calling is helpful.

When Meltzer makes a point about some goofily
contradictory statements from the WWE, I assume
he is simply commenting on them as opposed to
having an "obsession" with exposing the McMahons.

Likewise I'm commenting on some contradictory
statements from Meltzer and Molinaro. I'm not
obsessed, other than referring back to those
statements when Dave's fans try to ignore them.

In the book Meltzer pimps the selection and
ranking process as very extensive, but in his
interview the author makes it sound much less
involved. Knowing how Meltzer selected the
original batch of WON HOF inductees, "much
less involved" appears to be more likely true.

But always believe what you want to believe.
I've brought over the quotes and John Williams
has broken kayfabe on the lack of research and
effort that went into the initial WON HOF list,
but if you find those facts threatening then by
all means ignore them. I won't remind you again.

Frank

(Didn't realize some people were so sentimental.)

The thing is though, when you are intent on catching someone in a "Gotcha!" moment, sometimes it can make an otherwise intelligent person miss the obvious.

Molinaro says they put together the list pretty much in one sitting. Meltzer says at least a dozen wrestling experts were consulted.

As I asked in my other post, how far from the realm of possibility is it that Meltzer may have consulted with and discussed the list with a good amount of people PRIOR to the final meeting with Molinaro and Marek to put the list together?

But, of course, if you are LOOKING to find someone in an embarassing situation, well, why not believe your worst gut instinct?

I have no idea how the list got put together. For all I know, Meltzer really did spend a good deal of time consulting with people whose opinion he respects to prepare for the meeting with Molinaro and Marek. It is also possible that the list was discussed over a pizza one night, and the order of the wrestlers chosen by throwing darts at the names.

All I'm saying is that the two comments you are sighting aren't the smoking guns you make them out to be. And one doesn't need to be some sort of blinded WON-Loyalist to see that.

[ 01-13-2003, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Sam Nord ]

IP: Logged
Crimson Mask I
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hittin' anybody but me how goofy this whole thing is? We got this list, which is a kinda fun but sorta goofy thing in the first place, and critiques of the list, and critiques of the critiques, and critiques of the critiques of the critiques, and... [Roll Eyes]
IP: Logged
Boston Idol
Member
Member # 628

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Boston Idol   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
: As I asked in my other post, how far from the
: realm of possibility is it that Meltzer may
: have consulted with and discussed the list
: with a good amount of people PRIOR to the
: final meeting with Molinaro and Marek to put
: the list together?

Pretty far out considering that several of the
people he might have contacted and discussed it
with post here at WrestlingClassics and none of
them has said they were contacted. Also I note
no names were offerred up when the claim was made.

Frank

"Who are these people?"
- Jerry Seinfeld

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Dave has very little control over what gets printed in these books. After TRIBUTES game out, I sent him a message saying I like the format of the book with photos etc and he returned with a message telling me everything wrong with the book. Complained about editing & how they screwed things up. Seemed like they took his words & he had to battle to keep them from changing things. I think the book made everyone money & they wanted to use Dave's name again to sell books. If Dave really wanted to write a real book, he would, but he is too busy with the stuff he's doing & is just leting people use matteral & his name to make a few extra bucks & get people interested in The Observer. Compare Tributes with the other books put out by people on wrestling & it goods great. If Dave had any control over these books, would the photos be suplyed by Mike Lano? A list of the 100 greatest wrestler is a idea thought up by ever kid with a computer, including me. I would bet Dave thought it was a weak concept for a book but tried to humor the people who have made him money in the past. Maybe the guy only picked people he had photos of.

Dave probably talked with Tenay and they remember what a bad job I did on the WCW 2000 magazine artical & decided to skip me. I don't think Dave thinks about Steve Yohe much. Were friends but IM no wair close to that circle of friends. IM more of Dave's fanboy and I don't like talking on the phone much anyway. I would really have to have something important to say before calling Dave. I wouldn't want to waste his time. I'll write a letter. None of this bothers me.

What does bothers me is that a good frendship is gone because of some petty thing and our group is broken up because of it. IM a loner & I was having a great time hanging out with people I respected & enjoyed. I remember going to Guadalajara, Mexico and walking by a line of 20,000 people and have Antonio Pena sit us in the front row in front of the TV cameras and having all the wrestler taking there bumps around us to get attention. Now I go to independent cards in Orange County by myself and the promoter tells me to go to the back & no one has a chair I can sit in. Yeah I miss 1995 & thinking I had a group of friends to hang out with. The only fun Ive had in the the last few years is hanging around with Frank & the guys at The King of the Indy in SF. Dave, The Tenays, John, Jim were great to me and IM very upset that petty egos, or whatever happened, messed everything up. It kills me, right or wrong, to read these posts snipping at Dave over some minor point. Sorry but this kind of **** bothers me & I don't like it. Hope everyone doesn't mind if I continue considering them friends. You know I haven't heard a good Lano story in years. (I know..that's life & I will not bring it up again.)---Yohe

[ 01-15-2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Steve Yohe ]

IP: Logged
Gov't Mule
Member
Member # 2440

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gov't Mule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask I:
Hittin' anybody but me how goofy this whole thing is? We got this list, which is a kinda fun but sorta goofy thing in the first place, and critiques of the list, and critiques of the critiques, and critiques of the critiques of the critiques, and... [Roll Eyes]

My critique of this post forthcoming...

[Razz]

IP: Logged
tamalie from MN
Member
Member # 1138

Icon 1 posted      Profile for tamalie from MN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Government Mule:
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask I:
Hittin' anybody but me how goofy this whole thing is? We got this list, which is a kinda fun but sorta goofy thing in the first place, and critiques of the list, and critiques of the critiques, and critiques of the critiques of the critiques, and... [Roll Eyes]

My critique of this post forthcoming...

[Razz]

Poor sentence structure as usual! [Razz]
IP: Logged
tamalie from MN
Member
Member # 1138

Icon 1 posted      Profile for tamalie from MN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be serious, I think a lot of what Steve said in regards to how the list was compiled and how Dave and company dealt with the publishers makes a lot of sense. Plenty of book projects, not to mention music, movie, TV or other art projects tend to get skewed from their original intent when producers, publishers, and other benefactors get involved.

In any case, a list like this ought to foster spirited debate, but not be taken so seriously that it becomes a duel with the person who compiled it. After all any of us are free to compile a similar type of list if we so desire and any of those lists would likely cause debate as well. Just look at the WON HOF threads for evidence. Anyway, sorry to ramble. I just think we ought to have a little more fun with this list and the debates about who should rank where rather than take it so seriously that all the enjoyment is snuffed out.

IP: Logged
Gov't Mule
Member
Member # 2440

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gov't Mule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tamalie:
quote:
Originally posted by Government Mule:
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask I:
Hittin' anybody but me how goofy this whole thing is? We got this list, which is a kinda fun but sorta goofy thing in the first place, and critiques of the list, and critiques of the critiques, and critiques of the critiques of the critiques, and... [Roll Eyes]

My critique of this post forthcoming...

[Razz]

Poor sentence structure as usual! [Razz]
What I use perfect sentence structure I don't know what you're talking about
IP: Logged
tamalie from MN
Member
Member # 1138

Icon 1 posted      Profile for tamalie from MN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Government Mule:
quote:
Originally posted by tamalie:
quote:
Originally posted by Government Mule:
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask I:
Hittin' anybody but me how goofy this whole thing is? We got this list, which is a kinda fun but sorta goofy thing in the first place, and critiques of the list, and critiques of the critiques, and critiques of the critiques of the critiques, and... [Roll Eyes]

My critique of this post forthcoming...

[Razz]

Poor sentence structure as usual! [Razz]
What I use perfect sentence structure I don't know what you're talking about
Perfect!
IP: Logged
jdw
Member
Member # 622

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jdw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Steve Yohe wrote:
I know..that's life & I will not bring it up again.

You said that the last three times you've brought it up. [Wink]

John

IP: Logged
jdw
Member
Member # 622

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jdw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
tamalie wrote:
In any case, a list like this ought to foster spirited debate, but not be taken so seriously that it becomes a duel with the person who compiled it. After all any of us are free to compile a similar type of list if we so desire and any of those lists would likely cause debate as well. Just look at the WON HOF threads for evidence.

I'm not sold it will lead to a lasting discussion. I'd point to the WON HOF Threads, and to the WON HOF Forum itself... which last I looked is the WON Awards forum. The discussion heats up a bit during the voting period, and again after the results are announced... and then dies off to next to nothing for most of the year. Rather than spur continuing discussion and research where cases can be put forward and analyzed, you have a spurt and a half, and then very little.

We have a spurt with this book. It will be gone in a while. It's all a bit like the DVDVR 500 - it's red hot in certain circles twice a year before and after the new list comes out. Then life goes on.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I just think we ought to have a little more fun with this list and the debates about who should rank where rather than take it so seriously that all the enjoyment is snuffed out.

I think you miss the fact that some people *are* having fun with the list. [Wink]

John

IP: Logged
tamalie from MN
Member
Member # 1138

Icon 1 posted      Profile for tamalie from MN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jdw:
tamalie wrote:
Anyway, sorry to ramble. I just think we ought to have a little more fun with this list and the debates about who should rank where rather than take it so seriously that all the enjoyment is snuffed out.

I think you miss the fact that some people *are* having fun with the list. [Wink]

John

Okay. You got me there. Fun is in the eye of the beholder. [Smile] [Cool]
IP: Logged
Crimson Mask I
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Copied over from the main forum.
IP: Logged
JNLister
Member
Member # 1384

Icon 1 posted      Profile for JNLister   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's my rough theory for HOF picks:

1) List the various criteria for a Hall of Fame candidate.

2) Check whether the proposed candidate has either:

a notably strong measure in every category;

or

at least a fair measure in every category and an outstanding measure in at least one category.

or

a measure in one category that is so overwhelming that it overrides performance in any other category (for example, Hogan as a draw)

If they don't meet one of those three standards, they're out.

3) Can you convincingly argue that they are at the standard of at least one person already in the HOF? If not, they're out.

4) Are their better candidates who have already been rejected? If so, the new candidate is out.

5) If the candidate still remains, does the argument for them stand up in the face of closer examination. If not, out they go.

6) Are you are still uncertain of a candidate. If so, apply the test of 'How would the wrestling business have been different with their absence.' If there isn't an obvious answer, out they go.

7) At this point, take one more examination with the onus on finding reasons to put them in, not to keep them out. It's about 'outstanding', not about 'competent'.

8) If in doubt, throw them out. Rejection now doesn't prevent a candidate getting another hearing. But once they are in, you can't take them out.

IP: Logged
JNLister
Member
Member # 1384

Icon 1 posted      Profile for JNLister   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another fault - is there an argument that nobody is elegible for entry in the year they die or retire, to avoid 'sympathy' votes swaying the balloting.
IP: Logged
jdw
Member
Member # 622

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jdw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JNLister wrote:
Here's my rough theory for HOF picks:

*snip*

You should probably split this off into it's own thread, JNL. It's not really about the book (the topic of this thread), but instead about the WON HOF process. You might get more discussion with it in its own thread rather than this one. [Smile]

John

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just reread the section on Jim Londos & I can't see anything really wrong with it. In fact I was kind of jealous when I first read it because he covered a couple of points I was going to use when I do Londos. He had sent me the Bio before publishing & I made points & added some info, but I had forgot all about that by the time I saw the book. It's a short Bio, but he has the outline & basics right & I think it's as good as anything Ive read on Londos. I would have change the wording in some places & had a different attitude, but I can't write as well as Molinaro. Wish I had looked at his Ed Lewis Bio...but then again...I would have cut any reference to the Gold Dust Trio, which I believe didn't exist....and that & other things may have been too radical for a book like that. Now that it's over, I wish I could have looked at Hack, Thesz, Gotch, Longson, and talked to him about getting Stecher, Sexton, Caddock etc on the list. I feel like the mess is part my fault. If it had been Dave I would took the time...then again I don't remember much about tne conversation.---Yohe

[ 03-15-2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Steve Yohe ]

IP: Logged
jdw
Member
Member # 622

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jdw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Steve Yohe wrote:
I just reread the section on Jim Londos & I can't see anything really wrong with it.

Just curious, Steve... but is the city "Los Angeles" mentioned even *once* in the bio?

I think that's my major problem with the piece - it's New York centric. It does reference the big drawing match against Lewis in Chicago. And it does mention cities like Philly and Boston that he worked in, it doesn't get across his drawing power there. And the leaving out of Los Angeles, where he drew huge, is head scratching.

You get the feeling in the bio that he's closer to Bruno (regional draw based in NY) than Hogan (national draw packing them in nearly everywhere). Londos was Hogan, not Bruno. Or better said, Hogan was Londos, while Bruno wasn't in the league of either.

It's well and good to correct the earlier error of not remembering e-mail between you and Molinaro. But "can't see anything really wrong with it" is a cop out from some one who's exposed Toot's work through Fall Guys, and who's been willing to go toe-to-toe with Lou Thesz on public boards when Lou's memory and storytelling were factually wrong. *You* wouldn't write a Londos bio, even a short one, that didn't more forcefully get across his national drawing power.

John

[ 03-17-2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: jdw ]

IP: Logged
Todd
Member
Member # 18

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Todd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jdw:
Steve Yohe wrote:
WOW I edited William's post....weird.

I think being a moderator gives you the power to edit other's post in your forum

I could do that at A1, I've been tempted to abuse it by editing other's post to make them look idiotic but I have to figure out how to make it so that the "Edited by TY (moderator)" doesn't appear [Big Grin]

IP: Logged
jdw
Member
Member # 622

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jdw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
( I edited my post to remove Steve's edit job of it, and put it into it's own post. Confusing otherwise. -John )

"Cop out" ? I'm I supose to criticize regardless of what I truly think. This book has gotten dumped on & I'm saying the Londos Bio is better than any other new Londos material on the internet or in most books. It's not great, it's not good....it's OK. I can live with it & I didn't pull any of my hair out. He at least gave Londos respect & didn't follow "FALL GUYS" & "HOOKER" and call him a criminal or tell the story about The Wrestling Plasterer gimmick.

I think you have to write the Londos story thru NYC. If he didn't cover LA...OK, but Londos drew tons in every city. He didn't talk about Memphis either. He did say Londos was the "biggest drawing card of his era". You do make a good point & your right, but I didn't say the Bio couldn't be improved & I plan on blowing it away...when I collect the info I need.

He did get the fact over that Londos didn't become a star in 1929. He did get the 1-1-18 draw with Lewis in the story & no one else has that. I don't like him calling Londos a undercard performer or saying he was held down by Lewis or Stecher. He was a major contender to Lewis from 1920 to 1925 (had a super match each year with Lewis in St. Louis) and he was probably the second man in Stecher's promotion from 1926 to 1928 & was given draws vs the world champion.

The Londos Bio is OK in a book of this type. He generalizes some things but he knew little going in. What's better?

--Steve "the big cop out" Yohe

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never realized I was so powerful.--Yohe
IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Molinaro had written me or phoned me...and I read what he had done on Londos. It kind of read like Londos started in 1928 in NYC. He had started around 1915 & had been major almost from day one. I spent a day, maybe two, working on it. Ended up a out line on Londos covering the facts. I held back a lot of stuff because I had plans on doing a major Londos bio & project. So I didn't want help him to much.

Later Steve Johnson took on Londos (this was like before 2010) and after talking to him...I knew he had the right ideas & would do a better job on it. So I switched to Ed Lewis. I did do a Londos record book, that I thought was major. Most of my ideas on Jim ended up in the Lewis book.

But I have good feeling about Molinaro, and he was very respectful to me. But if your going to do a 100 list covering so much territory, your going to get shot on by people. Some people know a lot and are very smart....others are just shooting off their mouths. A lot of those smart people just want to pick on stuff & never do projects of their own.

I'm bumping some of these old posts to show the possibilities this site had when it started, How it just sits around. I wonder if I killed it. It was better if I didn't post.---Steve Yohe

IP: Logged
Stephen Gennarelli
Member
Member # 21747

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stephen Gennarelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Steve - You're top 100 list that's contained here at WC.com is a better assessment of the top 100 than what was in the book.
I still enjoyed the book though and it sits
proudly with on my wrestling book shelf.

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree. Dave was part of that too.---Yohe
IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3