prboyle

In looking at the article, it seems that they changed their original plan for the 2/24 launch. Wasn't the actual channel supposed to start with the RAW post-show at 11:05pm (w/ the on demand content available during the day)? If I didn't read it wrong, the linear channel is now starting at 9:00am.

Yes, I am aware of this and I realize I should have picked better examples to nullify the "he had editors for that" response. It’s still unfair to judge Meltzer's ability to write based off a handful of grammatical or clarity mistakes that occur over 14 or so pages of 8-point font text that is produced weekly and only represents a portion of his commitments. Put any writer in that situation (save maybe Lester Bangs) and they are bound to do the same thing. It is apparent that Meltzer often does not look over what he has written. When he does, such as his Hall of Fame bios, it is noticeable and represents a good piece of writing. Can we rather critique Meltzer on more evenhanded territory, such as his response to the Volador/La Sombra mask match vis-à-vis his love for spotfesty, million near fall matches (random Dragons Gate crud, Michaels/Undertaker WM 25)?

I'm sure there's something interesting in here, but the god awful grammar makes it such a chore to read. How is it possible that Dave could write the Observer for all this time and yet be such an incredibly shitty writer? He doesn't have to improve - no one's on his ass to make him improve, he's his own boss. He could've probably learned something had he been paying attention during the time when he wrote for The National Sports Daily, 'cause they probably had some pretty good copy editors putting his stuff through a wringer. I've been working at the same newspaper for 13 years now, and we have one writer who was there when I got there who hasn't improved not one single, solitary whit since I got there 13 years ago. How do you do something for 13 years and not get better at it? She makes the same stupid mistakes now that she made way back when. All she has to do is keep a copy of her unedited stuff, then compare it to the edited version, then work on those weaknesses. But why should she? No one in management is making her, no one cares. It's more work for the editors, but screw us, who cares about us? That is insane and depressing. See, in my mind, being a professional writer means having the ability to write at something about an 8th grade level. Silly me. You'd be surprised at how many reporters/journalists by trade are actually poor writers. If most of them tried to publish the amount of content Dave does on a weekly basis, I imagine there would be lots of errors too. I'm not saying he's great but he's obviously prioritized the quality of his journalism over the quality of his grammar. From comments that he's made throughout the years, Meltzer's process seems to be compiling odds and ends throughout the week and doing the bulk of his newsletter writing during a single night. Thus, his writing, most likely, does not go through a second pass. When he spends time on a piece, it's obvious. Just look at his LA Times articles or a few of the obituaries published in those two collections (I recall that the Owen Hart and Giant Baba ones stood out). He is not a bad writer.

During its last year, ECW was set to run at the E-Center (now Susquehana Bank Center) in Camden, NJ. It is a concert venue that seats around 5-7k indoors and is minutes away from Philadelphia. A couple weeks after tickets went on sale, the event was cancelled (probably due to lack of sales).

I think it is the "fanboy" sensibility that irritates me the most. Heather Levi could probably show you an incredible mask collection in her apartment (or house), but you wont find any "OMG Atlantis rules" nerdom in her writing on Lucha Libre. There are other ways to show enthusiasm and passion towards a subject. I rather have someone take pop culture too seriously than to exhibit the "look how educated I am, but I keep it real through liking working-class entertainment" sentiments of Grantland.

I saw that too and rolled my eyes. The Masked Man comes off like a writer who has a casual knowledge of wrestling and somehow ended up writing about it. It was probably the only thing he ever wrote which elicited any kind of response so he stuck with it. He is constantly trying to overarticulate and overcompensate because of it. He'll put together three paragraphs of utter nonsense, throwing in some big words, and talking about themes which are 65% in his imagination. Then to show that he is knowledgeable about this stuff he'll start dropping Ox Baker and Bo Dallas references. It's a shame too because the Masked Man's spot on Grantland is probably the premier wrestling writing slot in terms of readership. Simmons could've put someone great there. In that same article, he describes Punk as exhibiting. This is a theme with internet sportswriters these days. A lot of them write in such a pretentious, arrogant, and pompous manner that it's awful reading. It's like because they write for a sports site or blog and not the New Yorker they have to overcompensate for it. Bill Simmons is turning into the worst thing to ever happen to sports writing because he seemingly spawned an entire generation of horrible, horrible, clones. If you guys think the wrestling discussion is overwrought and horrible you should check out some of the people from Basketball Twitter. When it comes to pseudo-academic musings on rasslin', I think a good percentage of the blame has to be attributed to Henry Jenkins. That said, The Masked Man doesn't have a fraction of Jenkins' writing chops or ability to make simple arguments seem complex through obfuscation. Instead, we get ingenious concepts like the postmodern chairshot.