THE TWO SHEDS REVIEW by Julian Radbourne
E-mail: julian@twoshedsreview.com
Website: www.twoshedsreview.com
Following on from the release of James Guttman’s Shoot First…Ask Questions Later, his World Wrestling Insanity co-hort Mike Rickard has brought out a book of his own. Wrestling’s Greatest Moments does exactly what it says on the tin. It looks at professional wrestling’s greatest moments from the 1970’s onwards.
Containing sections looking at angles, matches, beat downs, and more, Rickard takes a look back at some of the most pivotal moments in wrestling history. There’s the infamous Midnight Rider, the confrontations between Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior, the formation of the Four Horsemen, the Monday Night Wars, and, of course, the formation of the New World Order.
Rickard clearly has a passion for the history of wrestling, although I get the feeling that, given the fact that he only really goes back to the 1970’s, he is, like me, a man in his mid-to-late thirties.
Although this is a good read, there are two main areas where this book lets itself down.
For instance, there are a few historical inaccuracies. Two that come to mind include Rickard’s article on 80’s heel referee Danny Davis, where he states that Davis and the Hart Foundation faced the British Bulldogs and Koko B. Ware at Wrestlemania III, when in fact it was Tito Santana who teamed with the Bulldogs in that match. Koko actually team with the Bulldogs the following year at Wrestlemania IV against the Islanders and Bobby Heenan.
Later, he writes about Terry Funk’s debut in the WWF in 1985, mentioning the incident that saw Funk attack ringside aide Mel Phillips. Rickard writes that Funk faced Aldo Montoya in that match. Montoya, also known as former ECW Champion Justin Credible, didn’t actually make his first WWF appearance under the mask until nine years later. Funk’s opponent for that match was actually jobber Aldo Marino.
There’s also something that’s quite unforgivable for a professionally published book – spelling errors. I lost count of the number of spelling errors I found during my journey through this book. If this book had been self-published then that would have been understandable. But given the fact that this book was released by a professional publishing company I’m surprised these errors weren’t picked up by the book’s editors and proof readers.
And it’s for those reasons I can’t really recommend this book as a good read. While Wrestlecrap made for good reading because it reminded us of the poor aspects of the wrestling business, this book could have had the same effect, but it was let down by simple spelling errors and poor research in some areas. So while this may have been called Wrestling’s Greatest Moments, it’s certainly not wrestling’s greatest book.
I absolutely hate when I find spelling errors in the books that I’m reading. There are times when I’m reading high-profile, NY Times bestsellers and wouldn’t you know it – the books are riddled with spelling errors.
Good review – thanks for the tip on not picking up this book.
Actually it’s a great book as are its sales. The typos mentioned in the review are nearly non-existent. The only real errors are a couple of typos and a mention of Aldo Montoya rather than Aldo Moreno. Check out some real reviews over at my home page.
Mike, I’m offended that you don’t consider this a “real review”, particularly as my syndicated column has appeared on nearly 50 websites in almost ten years. And if I’m not a “real reviewer”, then why did your publisher send me a review copy?
Let’s review your review. While you may have been writing reviews for ten years, this particular one shows several flaws which diminish its credibility. If you are going to write about something, you should make sure your writing is technically sound. In order to avoid future situations, I’m throwing out some suggestions. The first problem is the lack of proper structure. The first two paragraphs should be one paragraph. You begin with an opening paragraph explaining the book’s contents. The second paragraph contains the same basic information so you would be better off either deleting paragraph two or merging it with paragraph one. You run into this problem again when you discuss historical inaccuracies.
A second problem is criticizing the work of someone else when you make the same error you are criticizing in your review. You mention spelling errors while you yourself misspell a word in your second sentence (cohort is a word while co-hort is not). You also mention that there are a few historical inaccuracies but only mention two. Two is a couple. A few is usually a term used for three or more.
While grammar is generally relaxed in posts such as this (people do not expect spot-on grammar in short message board posts), they do expect them in articles. If you want to be taken as a serious writer, you should consider proof-reading your work.
While you mention spelling errors in my book, I have yet to read any other review (other than cut and pastes of yours) which mentions an abundance. Rare is the book that doesn’t have typos. Unfortunately they tend to creep through. The book is not full of typos as you insinuate.
As I’ve mentioned at other sites, I look forward to constructive criticism. However a poorly written review does not afford itself much credibility. Your review lacks substance (other than pointing out the two minor inaccuracies-one of which is a typo) and shows a serious lack of understanding of basic writing skills.
I usually begin my reviews with an appropriate quote. In your case I’ll end my review with one. “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eyebeam”
It says a lot about your ego that you had to post this here instead of replying to what was a private e-mail.
It’s pretty obvious that you can’t handle the fact that someone didn’t like your book. Get over it.