I: Baseball
II: The News Media
III: A Poll or two
IV: 6.3.94
V: ECW

I: Baseball

Well, might as well get started. Baseball seems to be right off the bat (HEY! THAT'S FUNNY! No, Matt it isn't.......). I do not understand why everybody says that baseball is dying out or in dire straights. The players are just as great if not better than they ever were. Sure, there might never be a Babe Ruth again, but we have many players these days near his level, more so than during his time. It just seems to me that everybody gets mad at the fact there is so much offense these days. There is nothing intrinsically defensive about baseball. God did not look down upon the land and create baseball to be defense. I think it is just opinion. Who likes offense and who likes defense. During the 60s you had just as many pitchers doing as well as hitters today. I was not alive during that time period, so I cannot personally vouch for this, but it was my understanding that many people felt that baseball was slowly dying back then too. I heard Howard Cosell, who was supposedly a really good sports caster for ABC, talk about how football was going to supplant baseball as the American Pastime because baseball was "boring" and "out of touch with the fans." Man, people are never happy. If you like the meter to swing towards offense, you will enjoy baseball today. If you like the meter to swing towards defense, I suggest you subscribe to ESPN Classic (and if you live in Colorado, I suggest you move and fast). There is no reason that baseball MUST be defensive, except for personal taste. Judging by the attendance records and whatnot of baseball today, I get the feeling that people are very happy with the offensive game. Just not high and mighty sports casters and writers like Bob Costas.

They say that tradition is being destroyed. What is tradition? It is precedent. In and of itself, precedent is not a bad thing, but it can be. I remember a short story called "The Lottery" which to quote Kent Brocklestein is a "tale of tradition gone horribly wrong." I am not against tradition, per se. Nevertheless, I would rather have people try to apply tradition to today's world instead of blindly following it (Quick digression, I am an open interpretationist and a CourtActivismMark). Case in point, the wild card. People said "Hey we have been doing it like this for a good century or so. To change would ruin tradition." Without the wild card, the past two baseball seasons would be far less exciting. The Yankees, Indians, Rangers, Braves, Astros all won their respective divisions for both years. Only the Padres and the Diamondbacks switched it up in the NL West. Most of those teams I just named won their divisions pretty early in the season (or in the case of the 1998 Yankees, hella early). The wild card added another chance for 4 or so teams to fight it out. Remember the Giants v. Cubs one game sudden death series in 98? That was a taut game and, even though my beloved Giants (although not as beloved as the As) lost, the entire "wild card" race (not quite a pennant race) livened up the end of a season competing with football for viewership. Once again, I am not anti-tradition. What I am is anti-lemming. I want people to open their eyes and not just follow whatever happened in the past. Sure, the past was a defensive game, but it is obvious fans today enjoy an offensive game. As WCW has yet to learn, you have to listen to the fans to succeed and baseball has done that in spades. I think purists are fools. They entice people that there are intrinsic traits within certain items. Jazz purists said you cannot have dissonance (although that flew away pretty quickly didn't it). Baseball purists said you could not have the wild card and free agency if you wanted the game to survive. Wrestling purists said you could not have astonishing entrances or shorter matches. Every time the purist naysayers have predicted doom for their respective love and yet it never happens.

Here is another purist myth: pitching is diluted. Pitchers were better back then. I admit that pitching stats were better back then. I doubt that has anything to do with decreased skill in pitchers as compared to the changed offensive emphasis in baseball. They (obviously) juiced the ball. They lowered the mound. They made smaller stadiums with less foul space and closer fences. They (excluding Eric Gregg) shrunk the strike zone. If pitching is so bad, how come we have had 2 perfect game in 2 years, a feat never accomplished. I think the entire argument can be boiled down to one thing. The purists will say that with expansion (a terrible thing in their view) more baseball players have been added to the majors and, thusly, there are people in the majors that do not deserve to be there, but are merely there as a warm body. Here are some counter arguments.

Counter-Argument 1: The human population is growing. Let's say that at any given time 1% of human beings have what it takes to be a majour league pitcher (it's obviously far far far far less than that, but let's just use that as a number). Well in the 1950s we had X number of people, so the number of pitches would be .01X. In the 2000s, the population has at least doubled to around 7 million people. That means that the 1% is going to be far larger. Moreover, the number of pitchers needed has not grown in league with the number of human beings in that 1%. So, in theory, there would be more people to pitch than before.

Counter-Argument 2: With the increase of pitcher platooning and the building of a relief system, starters have to do less work. Fewer pitchers are over worked and end up with arm troubles. Sure, there are workhourses like Livan Hernandez and many pitchers still have terrible arm troubles. Still, fewer pitchers go complete games anymore, allowing for fresh mid relief-men and closers to finish the job, so their "arm" gets spread out better over their career. They get more rest and are able to pitch better than if they went on 2 days rest and pitched 130 pitches in the prior game. Satchel Paige continues to amaze me on every level. He was a true great as he pitched almost every day during the season for around 20 years or so (unfortunately my Negro League knowledge is lacking).

Counter-Argument 3: Baseball used to be a white sport. They would only use white pitchers/players. And even after 1947, it took a long while for the to integrate and for more minorities to flood in. Thanks to Kenisee Mountain Landis and the generally held views at the time, minourities and other non-white pitchers would never get chances. Nowadays, such is not the case. One of the best pitchers in the game is Pedro Martinez, of Hispanic origin. The MVP of the World Series in 1997 was Livan Hernandez, also of Hispanic origin. You always hear stories of Cuban castaways coming to play baseball for different teams (i.e. the Marlins and Hernandez, the Yankees and his brother, Orlando Hernandez, El Duque). In addition, players from the Japanese leagues (where I hear they really over pitch their workers) are starting to come over. We have players like Masato Yoshii, that Kim dude from the Diamondbacks, Hideo Nomo, and that one pitcher for the Yankees, whose name escapes me at this point. Baseball is truly becoming an international sport. Basically, the pool that we are taking pitchers from is growing, also at a far faster pace than the number of pitchers needed in the majours. Who knows how many great players who were not white never got their chance in the past 100 years or so? What names are there that could be next to Christy Matthewson, Sandy Koufax, Warren Spahn, but because of their skin colour will never be recognized?

Counter-Argument 4: This one is somewhat weaker than the rest. It basically says that if more pitchers were needed due to expansion, thusly more hitters would be needed. And far more hitters would be needed than pitchers, so hitting would be diluted. Well, looking at stats today, proclaim that hitting is diluted will get you nothing but laughter and scorn. Logically, it does not make sense that pitching is diluted.

Merely that the pendulum has swung in a different direction. Perhaps you like this more offensive game. Perhaps you hate it. There is nothing "correct" about a game ending 1-3 instead of 8-10. In fact, I would like the 8-9 better, because your team has proven it can score eight runs and that gives you hope that it could score the necessary two more to win the game.

II. News Media

Onto the next topic, which ties in with the theme of sports. I hate the news media with a passion. I hate their New York bias. I hate their short sighted and sensationalistic viewpoints. I was watching the Ken Burns Baseball Documentary and they did not mention Stan Musial until the 1960s tape. They had a short blurb about the man, who at his retirement, was perhaps the greatest live hitter. Why? Because he played in St. Louis. If he played in New York, he would been hailed as the greatest hitter ever, when he is just that. Another example is Bob Mazhoweveryouspellhislastname's home run to win the 7th game of the 1960 World Series. It is the only series that has been decided by a home run. And is not that the American Dream? How many times have you been playing baseball in your backyard or local park and said "Ok, bottom of the ninth, 2 outs, down by 3, bases loaded, need a home run to win it"? His home run was not a grand slam, nevertheless, it is perhaps the greatest impartial moment in baseball history (obviously I am partial to the 1989 World Series). However, I remember reading a TV Guide article about the top 20 Sports Moments and they named Yaz's home run in 76 as the best ever. I have nothing against his home run, as it obviously was a very climactic moment, but let's compare home runs.

Yaz- Bottom of Ninth to tie ballgame and send it to extra innings in game 6. Sox win that game but lose series in game 7

Maz- Bottom on ninth to WIN ballgame in game 7.

How could anybody (who is not a Red Sox fan) choose the former over the latter? The latter beats the former out in every perspective. Oh and by the way, the team that Maz's home run beat were the media beloved Yankees. The Yankees are the most hated team in sports, but judging from the media nobody would know it. Another example is The Real Drive. You know in the 1988 SuperBowl when Joe Montana took the 49ers 93 or so yards in 3:13 to win the SuperBowl. Now, I admit that I am partial to this play, growing up in the Bay Area, but still it is better than The Fake Drive. You know that time that Elway took the Broncos 99 yards in 5 minutes to tie the AFC Championship game. Let's compare Drives.

Real- 93 yards in 3:13 Fake- 99 yards in 5 or so minutes

So, it took Elway 2 more minutes to go 6 yards give or take.

Real- Won SuperBowl Fake- Tied Championship game, which they won in overtime, only to get absofrigginglutely smashed by the Redskins. They had SuperBowl offensive records set against them.

I am not trying to take away from Elway's great career. Nor am I trying to take away from the obviously climactic game in the 1987 AFC Championship or the emotion that Broncos fans might get at that drive. I am just trying to tell the great number of respected sports magazines (That same TV Guide story had the Fake ahead of the Real) that put Elway's drive ahead of Montana's drive that, I, personally, cannot see how that could occur. Once again, the "lesser" sports moment beats out the "greater" sports moment in all aspects. But Montana was a continual winner, while Elway was an underdog, who always fell short. People want to read stories about underdogs. Not, you know, the greatest frigging quarterback in the history of football (disclaimer: Not unlike CRZ, I am biased in regards to this).

III. Polls

You might have seen this poll on several message boards I placed it onto. Basically, what I want to see is, out of the following 3 matches, which you, yes you!, feel is the best. I am being serious too. I want to know.

A: Triangle Ladder match from WM2K

B: Mick Foley v. HHH from Royal Rumble '00

C: Flair v. Steamboat from WrestleWar '89

-----For this poll, I want to know what era of wrestling you enjoyed more. Unlike the first question, this is a very general one, but bear with me. This is only for American wrestling.

A: Modern Era (WWF, WCW, ECW circa 2000)

B: "Old School" era (60s, 70s, 80s)

-----The next poll is more specific.

At the time, did you think HHH going over the Rock was:

A: Good

B: Bad

Moreover, in retrospect, do you still agree with your pick?

-----The last poll is not about wrestling, is unbelievably general, and is more of a question than a poll.

Could you name an era of world history that is better than today?

Could you name a decade that you would rather live through that today?

Now, about the first poll, I recently rewatched all three matches and here are my thoughts on them. I'll talk about them in order from least liked to most liked.

First, Foley v. HHH from Royal Rumble '00. I had heard a lot of good stuff about not only this match, but also this PPV. In fact, most WWF PPVs from this year (and all that I have seen excluding Backlash and KOTR) have rocked hardcore style. I found this match to not live up the hype. The opening part was pretty boring. They kinda brawled back and forth and back and forth. Foley really took it to HHH and Lawler griped about how a streetfight was not HHH's forte, although he did grow up on the mean streets of Grenwich. As the match progresses it got better and better. HHH's blade job was insane. I wished they had used the barbed wire base ball bat for more than just hitting each other with shots that missed by 30 feet, although we did a better than usual bulldog onto the bat and an elbow drop thingy with it. I really liked the psychology involved with HHH handcuffing Foley. And Foley fighting back, while handcuffed was spectacular. Rock wanders out to help Foley, but immediately leaves after hitting HHH only once with a chair. You would think the Rock might do more than just one chair shot. Either way, the match did not really pick up until the handcuffing. Then, it started to get going with a (close to) hot ending including some bumps onto the thumbtacks for a HHH win. While the ending merits some stars, most of the match was just kinda there. They just did moves as time progressed. It did not seem nowhere as cool as people said it was and I felt their match at NWO was far better. Combining the solid, but unspectacular body of the match with the picked up ending, I would probably rate this match 3-3 1/2*. Not only not the MOTY so far, but not even the MOTC. The Hardyz v. Dudleyz tag table match-up was far cooler and probably a star better.

Secondly, we have Flair v. Steamboat from WrestleWar '89. I went into this match with extremely low expectations. Everybody was raving about it and it was from the 80s, so I figured it would be Savage-Steamboat II. In other words, good, but not as close to as great as everybody said. From 2* to 3*. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. The work was a lot faster paced than their debacle of a 2/3 falls match (ok, debacle is a strong word, I just wanna see the reaction to that! :-)). There also was a lot of good psychology there. Steamboat worked over Flair's arm to try to get him to submit for the chicken wing, which Steamboat used to beat Flair with in their Clash match. There were two minour problems with that, though. One, Flair failed to effectively sell the injury. His selling included tapping his shoulder, while at the same time using the arm unhindered.

If I can go on a short digression here, one of the criticisms that I have seen of Mitsuharu Misawa v. Hiroshi Hase match from New Years Series '00 was that Misawa did not sell or poorly sold the arm work by Hase. Well, Misawa's selling, in my view, was very reminiscent of Flair's selling in this match, but better. While Flair just kinda tapped his shoulder and wiggled his arm to sell, Misawa grimaced and grasped his forearm to massage it. Plus, Misawa sold for other moves that involved his arm, like the Tiger Splash. One good trait that I saw both do was to sell the arm less and less as their opponent focused on that body part less and less.

Either way, Steamboat sold Flair's later Figure Four about 3000 times better. At least in this match, Flair decided to sell Steamboat's moves. In their Clash match, Steamboat had Flair in the Figure Four (Oh, the irony!) and the Boston Crab for a combined 10 minutes or so (What an exciting 10 minutes!). Flair never showed any signs of his legs being wrenched back and forth for that period of time. In this match, he at least sold somewhat and did a lot of good selling in the later parts of the match. The other problem was that Steamboat never quite got Flair in the Chicken Wing. The only time that he tried for it, Flair escaped, in a cool AJesque spot, by getting his foot to the ropes. I loved the spot, but still they never got to take advantage of Steamboat working the arm for a good 10 minutes or so at the start. I really liked Steamboat doing the arm drags too as an offense. Usually those are token spots between Tajiri and Super Crazy and whatnot. In here, they gave the arm drags meaning by having them be extra vicious and in line with the working the arm storyline.

There was some very good chain wrestling, including the finishing maneuver. SPOILER, look away now. Steamboat went to pick up Flair for a scoop slam, but Flair rolled him up for a small cradle pin AND included some psychology by holding tightly onto Steamboat's injured leg (and Steamboat actually sold it too!). SPOILER OVER. In addition, there were some bigger spots in the WrestleWar match, like that cross body block over the ropes. This lead to insane heat, which really got me into the action. For their Clash match, I found myself bored early into the first fall. I stayed in it mostly, throughout the entire match for the WrestleWar match.

One small criticism that I found was the contrivity (contrivedness?????) of one of the spots. Steamboat was standing on the apron holding the ring ropes with Flair standing inside. Flair shook the ring ropes and (keep with me here) this somehow forced Steamboat to flip all the way up into the air and land on his back in the ring. Just a minour nitpickity note, but it seemed odd to me. I would personally give this match 4- 4 1/4* which is about 2 more stars than the Clash 6 match. I went in with low expectations and came out a satisfied man after this more than solid bout.

The last match on the list is the Triangle Ladder match from WrestleMania 2K. There is just too much good about this match to be put into words. It was so innovative as there were so many moves done that I had never seen before and the coup de grace, the swanton off the ladder. That is so unbelievably awesome I could barely walk afterwards. Seriously, I had trouble breathing; I was in such an euphoric state. I know what Buh Buh must feel like after putting his latest female conquest through a table. I realize a lot of people are going to write this off as just Spot Fu, but there is so much more. There is the story of the Dudleyz not caring about the titles, but wanting to put people through tables. The story of the young buck Hardyz trying to keep the title as the Best Ladder Match Wrestlerz around against two formidable teams by utilizing their flashy and innovative offense. And then the best, the story of Edge and Christian finally breaking through to win the whole damned thing, even though if you look at it they barely were in control of the match until the end. The match was the Hardyz and the Dudlez to lose and they did thanks to Edge and Christian slinking by. Damn, I'm marking out as I write this, merely thinking of the match.

One of the parts I really loved was when the Dudleys started pulling out all those tables. It really furthered their gimmick as it showed that they cared more about putting people through tables than winning the tag straps. There was only one real problem with this match. One of the spots seemed contrived to me. That one where Buh Buh did the Buh Buh Cutter to Christian off the ladder (just another example of E/C being the punching bags for the other 2 teams). I mean Christian is slowly climbing up the ladder and Buh Buh puts up another ladder to the left of him. Then, he punches Christian in the butt, which totally stops whatever movement Christian had. Then, Buh Buh puts up another ladder to the right of Christian and scampers up it about 40 times faster than Christian was moving. While Christian vainly paws at the titles, ironically so close yet so far from his grip (sarcasm anyone), Buh Buh grabs him for the Cutter. The only thing that made this spot better than the one in the Flair v. Steamboat match was how damn cool the Buh Buh Cutter off the ladder was. They did the same spot at the Credible v. Dreamer Stairway to Hell match last year and it was far cooler, so I know they can do this spot better. Nonetheless, still a great match and 5* all the way. And damn that Swanton!!!!!!!! Even better than the one in the Royal Rumble match, not to take away from that awe-inspiring swanton. In fact, I would place the Triangle Ladder Match in my top 3 greatest matches of all times. That list would look like this (no particular order):

Misawa v. Kobashi 10/31/98 Triangle Ladder Match from WM2K Misawa v. Kawada from 6.3.94.

Speaking of 6.3.94, I think I am going to save all that for later. Parts IV and V, I will do in a later column, because I have already ranted for so long, as this is 6 fricking pages on Word. Perhaps this will create some interest in reading another column of mine. No........it won't :-).

Anyway, if you have any comments, concerns, questions, or criticisms, or just wanna send me the answers to those damnable polls/questions, then please, by all means, email me at talboito@uclink4.berkeley.edu.