Yeah. I did an interview with him at least ten years ago (for a piece that never ran) and asked “what style of wrestling/promotion would you show to someone who has never seen it to get them to like it?” and without hesitation, he said “early 90s joshi,” so he definitely has a “type”.
I don’t think he was being performative, either, I just think he’s really locked in on a specific idea of what’s good and what’s not that is very prescriptive, which is not great for the one critic pay attention to to have as a mindset.
I do rate things on Cagematch and it's hard to maintain a consistent methodology. Like you'll give something a 7 and then notice that you only gave a 6 to something you absolutely think was better
I keep wondering and think is it better to see him as more of a historian nowadays rather than a proper journalist? Might just be me, his hit and miss record as of late kinda makes me look at him that way instead.
Oh, totally! He got his start/credibility “with the boys” by calling the venues to confirm the actual gate/audience numbers. He’s not some kind of Great Man without whom the business would still be in the dark ages. He’s just a guy who did basic journalism when no one else did.
Comments