The New York Times ran a profile on ECW alum Balls Mahoney in the New York edition of the paper today, comparing him to Mickey Rourke’s character in The Wrestler. Unfortunately, the Times, desperately clinging to its dwindling status as a respectable “paper of record,” refused to publish the name “Balls Mahoney,” calling it “a name that cannot be printed in this newspaper.”

The New York Times happily published the term “man boobs” in an article about guys with, shall we say, voluptuous pectoral areas, but they won’t print the word Balls?

The Times didn’t shy away from reviewing the films Mod Fuck Explosion, If It Ain’t Stiff, It Ain’t Worth a Fuck, and of course, Shit and Chicks.  Really family-friendly titles, don’t ya think?

And yet, the Times won’t publish the name Balls?  I’m surprised they write about Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve.

The article by Bill Finley, “Faded Glory on the Wrestling Circuit,” offers this summary of Mahoney’s career:

He was with the World Wrestling Federation for two years, through 1996, and since then has bounced back and forth between the minor wrestling organizations that make up the independent circuit, with a few stops in between with better-known groups like Extreme Championship Wrestling. Lately, most of his work has been with National Wrestling Superstars. He would not say how much he is paid for an appearance, but he is considered among the bigger names on the independent circuit.

Oh, right, since 1996 he’s just been an indy wrestler.  It’s not like Balls Mahoney had a WWE contract or anything.

If this is what passes for sports writing at the New York Times, it’s no wonder the company’s stock dipped below the price of a Sunday paper in February.