The lets all point and laugh at Fin Martin thread

[Guest]

This months magazine is more of the same dross.

 

For someone who sounds a whole magazine slating cenas repitition of moves, I think he just cut and pastes his shit on cena month by month.

 

He slates wwe/tna for lack of long term planning, yet his articles on macho man and edge keep dropping in and out of the magazine. And instead of the final part of the macho man respective this month, we get a review of 1star DVDs and and interview with the young bucks. Because that's what your mature cent hating older fan readership you think you have would really want isn't it?

 

I dont wanna give it up as I have bought it for over 13 years now, it's getting very close to that decision

Edited September 17, 2011 by Louch

[Dashing]

Another moaning piece of glorified bog paper this month.

 

Although the Edge article was great, I have to admit.

[mdh85]

Although the Edge article was great, I have to admit.

 

It was a good read, yeah. When he's actually passionate about something, Fin is pretty much in a league of his own. And I still like his writing style and the format of the magazine. I wish he'd just put more effort into writing about whatever does inspire him in wrestling, rather than spending ten pages a month bashing Cena because he feels he has to cover the WWE main event scene in depth.

 

Its getting to the point where you can't go a page without reading some snide little aside about Cena being "ham-fisted" or whatever, and its usually only tenuously related to the thrust of the article. It must be pretty fucking boring even if you agree with him. I'm neither a Cena fan or a hater, but I think overall he's a good performer and a positive for the wrestling business, and I've been sick to death of hearing how much he sucks since about 2006.

 

What really irritates me is there's never any attempt to explain why WWE maintains the status quo, and makes all these creative decisions which frustrate him. He's supposed to be a professional journalist, not an internet smark. Maybe he should engage with things in more depth than "they'll job CM Punk out 'cos WWE is shit and CENA ALWAYS WINS lulz!"

[King Pitcos]

It was a good read, yeah. When he's actually passionate about something, Fin is pretty much in a league of his own. And I still like his writing style and the format of the magazine. I wish he'd just put more effort into writing about whatever does inspire him in wrestling, rather than spending ten pages a month bashing Cena because he feels he has to cover the WWE main event scene in depth.

See, as much as I hate his stereotype-smark shite, I still buy the magazine. Largely habit, I think. But if all of a sudden he knocked the coverage of WWE down and it was ten more pages of "here's some Japanese wrestling about six people are interested in" and "isn't ROH great?" I would stop buying it. At least his anti-WWE drivel is about something I've got an interest in. If it was all Prince Dervitt and Roderick Strong, no fucker would buy the magazine. I suspect the move to less issues per year is because less people are interested in his "doesn't Cena suck lol" nonsense now than ever before, but if he reduced his WWE coverage then sales would absolutely prolapse.

 

What really irritates me is there's never any attempt to explain why WWE maintains the status quo, and makes all these creative decisions which frustrate him. He's supposed to be a professional journalist, not an internet smark. Maybe he should engage with things in more depth than "they'll job CM Punk out 'cos WWE is shit and CENA ALWAYS WINS lulz!"

This is a valid point, but he's not really a professional journalist, is he? Certainly no more so than a tabloid hack, anyway. He's just got a (dwindling?) market for his editorials.

[mdh85]

But if all of a sudden he knocked the coverage of WWE down and it was ten more pages of "here's some Japanese wrestling about six people are interested in" and "isn't ROH great?" I would stop buying it. At least his anti-WWE drivel is about something I've got an interest in. If it was all Prince Dervitt and Roderick Strong, no fucker would buy the magazine. I suspect the move to less issues per year is because less people are interested in his "doesn't Cena suck lol" nonsense now than ever before, but if he reduced his WWE coverage then sales would absolutely prolapse.

 

I'm not saying turn the magazine over to RoH and Puro, that would obviously be commercial suicide. I wouldn't buy that either, though I would quite like maybe one article a month on overseas or independant wrestling. But if he's got nothing positive to say about this month's WWE PPV, why waste five pages dissecting it smugly? Cover it in two, then give the rest over to finishing the Savage retrospective, or giving some coverage to the stars in WWE who he does like. Obviously there are boundaries on what he can and can't do, but when you publish your own magazine about something you supposedly love, there's no excuse for every page wittering on about how much John Cena sucks. There are positive things happening in wrestling, and its his job to get people excited about them. In what other area of interest would the majority of a magazine focus on berating its subject for being boring and stupid?

 

This is a valid point, but he's not really a professional journalist, is he? Certainly no more so than a tabloid hack, anyway. He's just got a (dwindling?) market for his editorials.

 

He's supposed to be, and he should act like one. The rhetoric of the magazine frequently implies that he knows better than the McMahons - and basically everyone else in a position of power in wrestling. To me, if you want to be that fucking smug in a magazine stocked nationwide, you should back it up with some intelligent argument based on the realities of the wrestling business, not just on whether or not your favourites are getting the push they "deserve". Its pretty childish and pathetic really.

[theironshake]

As a reader of power slam since 1996 I stopped buying it last week and have moved to fsm!

It is so anti everything and they are not objective (and never have been).

I will probably buy the ps 50 but no longer want to give my money to that long haired dribbling shit Fin Martin

when the best thing about the mag is the former stately Wayne manor you have problems

[King Pitcos]

I think two of the letters in the latest issue were written by Fin himself. Either that or James Mills and Jamie Rush full mongs.

[mdh85]

He slates senile old Jerry Lawler in this month's "Things Wot People Said On The Telly" roundup for thinking Del Rio's ring announcer was named "Ricky Ricardo".

 

Fin Martin - misser of points, jokes and pop culture references. 'Cos that's how he rules.

[EdgarTheSlouch]

He slates senile old Jerry Lawler in this month's "Things Wot People Said On The Telly" roundup for thinking Del Rio's ring announcer was named "Ricky Ricardo".

 

Fin Martin - misser of points, jokes and pop culture references. 'Cos that's how he rules.

 

Cause Lawler referencing a 1950s TV show when kids born in the late 90s/early 2000s is hip and happening!

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Martin doesnt seem to understand that things said in wrestling by heels are said to exaggerate how hypocritical and how big the heel's ego is. They arent the opinion of the person saying it. For example, Kurt Angle said of the young wrestlers (in the midst of a young vs old feud) "They're spoon-fed. They're spoilled and they get paid more than they deserve" and Fin Martin tried his hilarious bit of 'well actually ...' bullshit and piped in with "This comment, incidentally, must have offended some in TNA: most of the younger TNA talent are poorly paid, whereas the veteran main eventers are paid handsomely". Erm ... THATS THE FUCKING POINT OF THE STORYLINE!

 

Also I remember last year, that knob that wrote the Benoit book was saying how Vince McMahon was angry because he fucked up a kick to Bret Harts balls and instead kicked him in the gut. Even though Vince actually said about 5 minutes before he did it "nothing I would have liked better than to kick you in the guts". Most of what that bloke says is made up anyway if you read that Benoit book.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Ian_hitmanhart

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

He slates senile old Jerry Lawler in this month's "Things Wot People Said On The Telly" roundup for thinking Del Rio's ring announcer was named "Ricky Ricardo".

 

Fin Martin - misser of points, jokes and pop culture references. 'Cos that's how he rules.

 

Cause Lawler referencing a 1950s TV show when kids born in the late 90s/early 2000s is hip and happening!

 

I was looking up I Love Lucy a few weeks ago as I'm trying to get the DVD's anyway I read that since it first started it has aired at least once a week somewhere in America.

[EdgarTheSlouch]

He slates senile old Jerry Lawler in this month's "Things Wot People Said On The Telly" roundup for thinking Del Rio's ring announcer was named "Ricky Ricardo".

 

Fin Martin - misser of points, jokes and pop culture references. 'Cos that's how he rules.

 

Cause Lawler referencing a 1950s TV show when kids born in the late 90s/early 2000s is hip and happening!

 

I was looking up I Love Lucy a few weeks ago as I'm trying to get the DVD's anyway I read that since it first started it has aired at least once a week somewhere in America.

 

Dont get me wrong dude - I LOVE the Honeymooners- but these are kids used to Ben 10 and everything else

[SpursRiot2012]

Ring of Hell actually wasn't that bad but, as somebody pointed out to me, it's all single sourced. Not good.

[mdh85]

Cause Lawler referencing a 1950s TV show when kids born in the late 90s/early 2000s is hip and happening!

 

That's neither the point I'm making nor a coherent sentence

 

My point is, Fin immediately presumes everyone involved in wrestling is stupid and that he knows better. He then expresses this smugly, often while missing the point of what they are doing, and makes himself look a right tit.

 

Besides which, yes Lawler's references are outdated, but WWE has a very large viewership with older males. RAW is not specifically a 'childrens' show' even if they make it appropriate for kids to watch. A couple of jokes going over the heads of those kids isn't a problem. In fact Lawler would probably be a lot more likely to lose his job if he updated his repertoire to feature references to anything which took place after about 1985, since they'd then go straight over the head of Vince McMahon - who is the only person he really needs to impress.

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

He slates senile old Jerry Lawler in this month's "Things Wot People Said On The Telly" roundup for thinking Del Rio's ring announcer was named "Ricky Ricardo".

 

Fin Martin - misser of points, jokes and pop culture references. 'Cos that's how he rules.

 

Cause Lawler referencing a 1950s TV show when kids born in the late 90s/early 2000s is hip and happening!

 

I was looking up I Love Lucy a few weeks ago as I'm trying to get the DVD's anyway I read that since it first started it has aired at least once a week somewhere in America.

 

Dont get me wrong dude - I LOVE the Honeymooners- but these are kids used to Ben 10 and everything else

 

I agree I just think it's an odd little fact I thought it would get repeated here and there but a constant repeat running for the past 50+ years isn't bad I'm sure some kids have watched or heard of it but the majority won't have.

 

Saying that I'm clueless about new TV comedy give me a Dad's Army or any 50's to mid 80's sitcom reference and I'll get it give me one from say The Inbetweeners or anything else modern and it will go over my head.