Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46
  1. #1
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117

    Something To Wrestle With(out Bruce Prichard) Thread

    Hello ladies and mostly gentlemen my name for the time being is still Canadian Crippler and I'd like to begin a general discussion about the recently debuted Something Else to Wrestle podcast / program with Bruce Prichard and Conrad Thompson.

    As a fan of pro wrestling post millennium and not quite the insider that many marks pride themselves at claiming, I wasn't aware of Bruce Prichard aside from his cameo appearances in the original Monday Night War dvd, The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior and his most recent stint on Impact last year when TNA finally died; so with that being said I was surprised how fast I fell in love with his show after the inaugural episode.

    Since the initial installment I've found myself digging through Bruce's Youtube catalog and going through two episodes a day while my girlfriend is at work. I find that the WWE version is very abbreviated compared to the "free" versions on YouTube and I'm not totally sure how I feel about that yet...

    I've swayed from the 5 hour shows like Edge's episode for example more so do to the fact that I'll fall asleep in bed listening by the time the advertising ends where as the WWE version keeps me interested and invested however I'm afraid they might or already have begun to refrain from going in depth on certain area's.

    I am curious to know if anyone else enjoys watching or listening to Bruce and Conrad as well as wondering if there show has effected you when you watch WWE comparatively to say PWG or any independent wrestling company without agents or heavily scripted segments. I'm curious about why you guys would choose to use your time on this planet to learn more about the insides of our favorite industry.

  2. #2
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,582
    I've heard bits and pieces of the show, and I've got mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it's definitely interesting to get an inside view on so much history. I'm not the biggest Prichard fan but there's no doubt he's at least been present for a lot of wrestling history. I'm less interested by the fact that a lot of the time Bruce seems to be "working", either towing the company line or devolving into directionless Meltzer bashing.

    But yeah, the show can be really interesting when it's on point. Funny how Conrad has become the sort-of king of wrestling podcasts.

    I can't say it's affected how I watch wrestling, WWE or otherwise, but I can see how it might for others.

  3. #3
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117
    I respect the fact that he doesn't discuss pay outs and cash amounts however Clnrad cannot relent from pestering him over dollar signs and that's starting to annoy me as much as he says "rumors and innuendo."
    The Roddy Piper episode on the WWE Network appears to be completely original instead of being a rehash and I found it to pretty very entertaining, funny, well put together with behind the scenes footage and educational on the actual man Roddy was and how he felt about conducting business.

    Thus far with the Vince Russo episode as a prime example of how much better the show is when they include that behind the scenes/unreleased footage. It adds a layer of depth to the stories told. I thought it just hearsay and conjecture when he did the Russo episode on the podcast along with a lot of defensiveness but to basically abbreviate the shit talk and call out Russo's lies in his own book broadcast on WWE to finally bury that liar for good in the company that claims his little fame.

  4. #4
    Puerto Rican dude living in Japan Degenerate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Osaka, Japan
    Posts
    292
    I heard rave reviews about their podcast before they were on the WWE Network, but I never added them to my feed because their shows were usually super-long. With all the non-wrestling podcasts I listen to I don't have much time to listen to a 3+ hour show on a regular basis, even at 2x speed.

    I watched their first show on the Network and was hooked. With the show being less than two hours long it's a lot more accessible for me than their audio versions. I really dig the deep dives they do into their topics. Having someone who was deep in the trenches for most of these topics with Bruce Prichard really helps. But I especially dig Conrad Thompson's interview style. He does really great research, asks great questions, guides the flow of the interview really well, and manages to get Bruce to answer in details without being pushy. In the times when Bruce kinda shrugs off a question or doesn't give a satisfactory response Conrad has an awesome ability at getting more information out of him. I really like that a lot. Now that they're under the WWE umbrella I'm sure they're given certain guidelines to follow so they probably won't be as transparent as they can, but I don't feel it detracts too much from their discussion.

    In short, I'm a huge fan of this show and look forward to seeing more of their shows. I'm queuing up the latest Vince Russo episode as we speak to watch over lunch.

  5. #5
    Senior Member LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    387
    I have yet to watch any of their Network stuff, but will be doing so soon. I listen to their podcast on my drive to work. I drive 1.5 hours each day, so I usually listen to their show throughout the week. I'm interested to see how the show goes. I love the podcast when Bruce starts to toe the company line, or you can tell he's bullshitting, and Conrad pushes him to give honest answers. Still Bruce will try to keep in company line. On the actual podcast, when Conrad was trying to get Bruce to admit the HHH/Booker angle was racist, and Bruce was trying to justify it by saying it wasn't about race, it was about Booker being a WCW wrestler, then Conrad called out the racist language HHH used and Bruce was like, "I hate it." That's about as close to admitting WWE fucked up as Bruce was ever going to get.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    153
    I watched the episode about HBK's run in 1995 and didn't really feel like there was some fresh and unique perspective to what was going on. I enjoyed it cause it was about my favorite wrestler of all time, but nothing stood out to me as some kind of hot take or anything.

  7. #7
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117
    @ Type - Man: The HBK episode was on of his revised pldcasts for the network where they basically rehashed a lot of what was already said and just re addressed the same old shit. The Piper episode was significantly more entertaining but as far as the actual podcast itself goes I'd recommend the Jim Cornette episode.

  8. #8
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,582
    I do find it a little weird Conrad has brought up Russo on more than one of his recent podcasts. Makes me wonder if he's trying to stir up some kind of weird angle after Russo got shut out of Starrcast (what a beautiful moment that was), or if he's just trying to bank on the latest flurry of non-relevance from that dark corner of the wrestling world.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    153
    Pritchard and the other dude (dont know his name, don't particularly care) seem to have this fake tension for TV and it does not work. The other guy tries to offend Pritchard and cut him down, but Bruce never seems that upset.

  10. #10
    Senior Member LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    387
    They do it on the podcast too. I think at first it actually did get to Bruce, but over time it's kind of been their "stick."

  11. #11
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,582
    Yeah, they do a lot of shtick on the show in both formats.

  12. #12
    Senior Member LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    387
    Like the first time Conrad accused Bruce of being soft on Triple H burying Booker, which Bruce seemed to be thrown off at, but after that it's just part of the show and every show at least once Bruce will say he's kissing Hunter's ass. I mean, I don't mind it, but for new viewers/listeners, I can imagine it would be annoying.

  13. #13
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117
    I appreciate the fact that Bruce tries to defend the business at the cost of his credibility and principles but the fact that he produced the Katie Vick segment with Triple H. Wasn't against his will either, it was a compromise but even then you'll hear him try to justify it. It's funny how even though he was 9 year's departed from WWE, he remained one of the very few to not slander tbe company or do one of those RF video/YouShoot tell all stories. I think he always wanted to work in WWE in some capacity so he never tries to tell complete truths or bash unapologetically.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by LWO4Life View Post
    Like the first time Conrad accused Bruce of being soft on Triple H burying Booker, which Bruce seemed to be thrown off at, but after that it's just part of the show and every show at least once Bruce will say he's kissing Hunter's ass. I mean, I don't mind it, but for new viewers/listeners, I can imagine it would be annoying.
    Yeah, I could definitely see new listeners not getting all the inside jokes.
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianCrippler View Post
    I appreciate the fact that Bruce tries to defend the business at the cost of his credibility and principles but the fact that he produced the Katie Vick segment with Triple H. Wasn't against his will either, it was a compromise but even then you'll hear him try to justify it. It's funny how even though he was 9 year's departed from WWE, he remained one of the very few to not slander tbe company or do one of those RF video/YouShoot tell all stories. I think he always wanted to work in WWE in some capacity so he never tries to tell complete truths or bash unapologetically.
    I haven't listened to that episode since it aired, but he definitely didn't defend the segment, if I recall. I seem to remember that he said Vince double crossed them and he had to air what he shot, which he wasn't particularly happy with.

    I give Bruce a lot of credit. He puts a lot of heat on himself, and eats shit for things that he did wrong. He'll try and defend it and why he did it in most cases, as would anyone (and sometimes I think that's part of the joke), but he doesn't shy away from it. He takes the fact that Katie Vick is his fault at the end of the day on the chin.

    I actually don't think he ever had hopes that this podcast would get him back in the company. They openly state that they started it to sell mortgages, and here we are today. He's not going to dump all over people that he likes and respects just for the sake of it, but he takes Vince to task on things. I think his burial of Meltzer is shtick at this point, but it comes from a good point. The "it would have been five stars if it had happened in the Tokyo Dome" comments aren't completely off base.

  15. #15
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117
    You made a great point about Vince double crossing him on the katie Vick segment. I actually forgot that so i appreciate the reiteration. What I meant was that he was against it from the very beginning approach, but still compromised on doing it knowing it wouldn't be positive, then to ultimately shoot what was aired and not stand up to Vince on that with his job, just shows that the guy doesn't honor himself and is very much a company man.

    I didn't see it live but I did see it just before the 2006 DX reunion I recall and I believe I stopped watching HHH until the week after the DX reunion because I just felt embarrassed in some sort of way to watch him... Obviously this didn't effect his career or Bruce's whatsoever but you know you ironically suffered the most from this segment? Kane.

    I'm just saying, if I was in Bruce's position on thaf particular day to shoot that segment, I would just say straight up that this is a horrible concept and you'll have my resignation sooner than that bullshit on film.
    If something feels genuinely bad, embarrassing, wrong, stupid, then at least state your case clearly enough that someone else fucking produces it.
    Last edited by CanadianCrippler; 05-30-2018 at 01:44 PM.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    Bruce is most definitely a shill and a propagandist. A very entertaining one, and often he can have insights, but still a brazen liar at points. He claimed with a straight face, and maintained afterwards in the face of laughter and disbelief from others (including Meltzer), that the XFL didn't lose any money. He claims it actually turned a profit, whereas various other people have said that it lost about 70 million. One of those parties is lying through their teeth.

    He also claimed that Bret's contract didn't have creative control. When Meltzer responded that he had actually seen the physical contract, Bruce refused to budge and retreated to the 'I was there, you weren't!'

    He has also revised parts of Jerry Jarrett's history and relationship with Vince, all because he personally doesn't like Jarrett (despite liking his son).

    I think his burial of Meltzer is shtick at this point, but it comes from a good point. The "it would have been five stars if it had happened in the Tokyo Dome" comments aren't completely off base.
    I don't know, often he grades WWE on a curve, and is very generous with 4+ star matches to the WWE. (See Roman Reigns matches in particular).

    Bruce's hostility seems to be more of the old carny hostility than match-rating hostility. The one where all the old timers are still bitter and aggrieved that he 'exposed' the business and use all the old assorted cheapshots 'he never wrestled a match, so he can't comment on the industry', or 'he wasn't there, so how could he know what happened, second-hand sourcing totally isn't a thing in journalism at all!' It's all pretty cringeworthy.
    Last edited by Alan; 05-30-2018 at 05:39 PM.

  17. #17
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,582
    I wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't spawn an army of twitter trolls who feel compelled to try to "take down" Meltzer constantly. Of course nobody is making Meltzer engage those trolls but he always does. Oh well.

    I also do really dislike when Bruce goes to the "well you never booked a promotion" well, for Meltzer or anyone. It is possible to criticize something intelligently without having run your own wrestling promotion.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    That has to the most absurd comeback that wrestling carnies use, 'you never wrestled yourself..' Someone let them know that Rogert Ebert never acted or directed movies himself either.

  19. #19
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    149
    I don't think that it's absurd at all.

    People don't generally criticize Dave reviewing wrestling, other than the fact that he's got an obvious Japan bias. He's well within his rights to rate matches, I don't think that anyone would disagree with that. I think it's more a case of oldtimers like Prichard not giving his ratings much merit because of his biases and generally not taking him seriously.

    The frustration of a lot of guys comes from Meltzer editorializing his reporting so much. He reports on the news, and then takes to his radio show to talk about how "stupid" something is and how this idea would be so much better. He tears apart booking ideas, lauds his ideas as so incredible, but has never once tried to prove it. So many fans look at him as this guy with this incredible mind for the business, but why? Because he knows his audience and rails for the internet favourites?

    He's become synonymous with smart booking in so many circles, without ever proving that he could be successful with his ideas and that annoys people who have done the booking that he shits on. When people on LOP do it, it doesn't register to these folks. When a guy with a huge following who're recognized as a smart booker that has never booked anything does it, and consistently, it gets frustrating.

  20. #20
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117
    They just released the Hardcore Bob Holly episode on YouTube. I've been looking forward to this one personally, also heard Bob's career retrospective on Colt's Art of Wrestling podcast so it's gonna be interesting to find out if he really was the asshole to 'rookies' like his legend foretold. Episode starts @ 13 minutes and by 5 minutes in discusses his humble beginnins as a fucking bear wrestling.

    Also I agree with Mizfan's point how Bruce uses experience as an excuse to justify his counterpoints against Meltzer comments. As i explore further through the archives I've noticed how redundant he can be when he retorts to WON criticisms, where as he isn't so hard pressed to be defensive when Conrad uses PWTorch (?) Instead. It's becoming very apparent to me that Bruce is better when asked questions directly about himself instead of answering questions from someone elses perspective, and stirring the shit pot with snarky remarks.

    If Art of Wrestling still showcased anyone but Colt, I wouldn't be here.
    That being said, Art of Wrestling podcast episode 8 features The Young Bucks immediate reactions to 'All In' selling out and banning Russo from the show.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    I don't think that it's absurd at all.

    People don't generally criticize Dave reviewing wrestling,
    I disagree with this. Virtually every wrestler from the 80's and 90's, including Undertaker of all people, have directly or indirectly questioned the very notion of wrestling journalism and reviewing. and contemptuously spoken of 'Dirtsheet Dave'. Because they're still stuck in the past when the industry was completely under wraps and protected, and don't seem to realize that it's a step of progress that wrestling is now being treated like everything else in the entertainment industry which has it's own commentariat, reviewers, and 'journalists'. WWE is the only entertainment industry that I know of that actively disdains the notion that their fans like their product enough to take to Internet and discuss it, and that there are people who follow it professionally.

    other than the fact that he's got an obvious Japan bias. He's well within his rights to rate matches, I don't think that anyone would disagree with that.
    I agree that he overrates some of the NJPW matches, but his general point/criticism of WWE and NJPW is basically correct. NJPW does consistently put on far superior main events, once a month, while putting on worse undercards (according to him), than the WWE, and during the 80's and 90's, WWE wrestling was indeed just abjectly atrocious as compared to various other promotions, and behind the times, and it was never really the in-ring promotion until just a few years ago.

    For instance, he gave Jericho/Omega 5 stars, whereas I thought it was maybe 4.5 stars, but I'm not going to quibble, art is subjective at the end of the day.


    The frustration of a lot of guys comes from Meltzer editorializing his reporting so much. He reports on the news, and then takes to his radio show to talk about how "stupid" something is and how this idea would be so much better. He tears apart booking ideas, lauds his ideas as so incredible, but has never once tried to prove it. So many fans look at him as this guy with this incredible mind for the business, but why? Because he knows his audience and rails for the internet favourites?
    How is that different from fans/reviewers/podcasts of other television shows reviewing, critiquing the writing or the plot of shows they watch? Even other wrestling podcasts, such as Austin's or Court Bauer or Wade Keller do this. I generally find Meltzer's critique to be well-informed by historical knowledge of past angles/booking, particularly from different eras, and I think he is usually fair-minded, and often says 'we'll have to wait and see, maybe Vince can make this work' (he was saying this as recently as this year about Roman Reigns, lol), and I have seen him admit mistakes. He has often also went against the grain of Internet favourites, such as Bryan and Punk, and said they were 'unproven commodities', whereas everyone else assumes they were megastars on the cusp of exploding, or his continued defense of Orton as a great, HOF-worthy wrestler.

    He's become synonymous with smart booking in so many circles, without ever proving that he could be successful with his ideas and that annoys people who have done the booking that he shits on. When people on LOP do it, it doesn't register to these folks. When a guy with a huge following who're recognized as a smart booker that has never booked anything does it, and consistently, it gets frustrating.
    I don't think it's any different from an economist or an academic advising a politician on what to do, or critiquing a government, despite never having been in office. It's regarded as legitimate, because academics are theoretically trained experts. Meltzer is the closest thing we have to a 'wrestling academic' or 'historian'. His depth and breadth of knowledge is immense, and he has spoken to at length with, learned from, some of the greatest minds in wrestling, from your Bill Watts, to Vince himself, your Paul Heymans, Cornettes, Jarretts, Crocketts, Babas, Paul Boesches, and so on. He is easily the most connected writer in wrestling, to say the least. I think people go to him, because in addition to being articulate, he has this compendium of great stories from all the wrestling world and across different eras, can recall 'lessons of the past', and his analysis is of a higher order than just the regular run of the mill fantasy podcasts where they tell you 'what I would have done' with no frame of reference.

    Meltzer benefits from the fact, that there's a very small number of people who have the depth of knowledge, and the lucky contacts that he had, in wrestling. In every other industry, there's plenty of people who are informed commentators, so you have a diversity of commentators, with varying views. But in wrestling, there's basically only Meltzer, so everyone flocks to him.

    I don't think Meltzer would necessarily make a good booker, but he's a great critic. It's like Roger Ebert again, he probably didn't have the skills to direct/act in movies himself, but he could look at a finished movie, and tell you what worked and didn't work.
    Last edited by Alan; 06-01-2018 at 08:23 PM.

  22. #22
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,582
    Definitely lean towards Alan's point on this one. Dave has his faults but to try to dismiss him out of hand for not having booked in "da business" goes in the face of the very idea of intelligent critique.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    That's the other thing about wrestling. It's regarded as so low-brow that serious people, journalists and academics think it's beneath them, so not that many devote themselves to covering it. In any other serious sports, there are several good-great commentators, probably even some academics who have written histories and books about the sports. Wrestling just doesn't have that. There are a couple of guys who know that sort of information, like Steve Yohe, but they don't have real followings, so their stuff probably goes downstream from them to Meltzer to the public.

    Meltzer just benefits from having a semi-monopoly on this stuff. It's not like he's even the greatest columnist or writer or anything. There are several people on this site alone who are far superior writers to Meltzer. But he's the only one with all that historical knowledge, contacts, sources, first-hand experience (in that he's been at a lot of shows all over the world, over the years), that a lot of the other people who may be better writers just don't have. Even when he doesn't know something, he usually knows whom to call to ask, which most others don't.

    People often praise Meltzer's obituaries of wrestlers as one of the best parts of the newsletter. He has received very high praise for those, from even people in the industry such as Jim Ross. It's not because they're the best written obituaries ever. It's simply that they're filled with stories and information that most other people who write about wrestling wouldn't have, that Meltzer got either first-hand by being there or second-hand by calling someone up.
    Last edited by Alan; 06-03-2018 at 10:26 PM.

  24. #24
    Respect on the Steve Yohe mention, Alan. He's another treasure when it comes to wrestling history.

    Twitter: @libsuperstar

  25. #25
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117
    Supposedly they are set to release an AJ Styles episode next Wednesday highlighting Bruce and Styles' time in TNA from 2010-2013 using TNA footage. There's an article posted on LOP I'll post -- so I'm starting to assume that there is a positive working relationship between Impact! and WWE or would this be the precursor to acquiring some archives?
    http:// https://lordsofpain.net/news...r-footage.html

  26. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    24
    I think the whole Meltzer vs the Haters is typical of how the internet goes at times. Everyone thinks they're gonna be the one to single handedly bring him down with their poorly constructed tweet. And so much of the time he chooses to respond. From my vantage its simple. You can see how hard he works, you can see how much knowledge he has and you can see he loves wrestling (or he loves the wrestling he loves).

    When I read a Meltzer statement starting "The plan as of now is....", I know from experience that it may or may not come to fruition. Might be his source was wrong, might be that plans changed, or maybe, just put 2 and 2 together and got 5. It ain't gonna keep me up at night, I'm still always going to have an interest in what he says. And if he's wrong I won't be galloping to my keyboard full steam to try and take him down.

    Needless to say I don't always agree with him but again with all the years and work he's put into his game its hard not to be interested in his take on things.

  27. #27
    Senior Member 205 Clive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    195
    I can see it from Bruce's (and now Bischoff's) point of view.

    These guys poured their creative heart and soul into angles, and to have Conrad remind them that a journalist either reported on angles before they came to TV, or to rate those angles in a sometimes negative light, and have a massive audience hang on his every word/opinion, it's only natural that Bruce would defend himself.

    On the other side of the coin, I dont remember Meltzer selling t-shirts with "F**k Bruce Prichard" to try and make a buck.

    What I mean is, Bruce has every right to defend himself, but there are many more diplomatic ways to do so.
    Summerslam & Takeover Brooklyn IV Review Show

  28. #28
    Senior Member LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    387
    I do think my favorite line from Dave on this whole thing was about exposing con-men. This tweet stands out to me... "Name one who isn't a con man that has. When con men bury you and you're a reporter, it means you're good at your job."

    I laugh at this because the whole business is a work. Therefore it's a huge con. Wrestling is a very strange business and to have a Meltzer in it, you can either work with Dave or you can fight against Dave. But know it's an all heel program as Cornette would say. There are no good guys in this thing. You can either be with "con-men" who were trained to protect a business, the mentality is to keep secrets and keep the "magic" of pro-wrestling to the people doing the "magic." The other side is a "journalist" and I use that term loosely, who specialized in exposing a business that's a work and making money off breaking storylines before they happen on TV. This tradition actually goes back to newspapers in the 1930's, so it's not something new. I mean the whole thing is a time honored tradition on both sides.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    It has been said that back in the days when kayfabe was maintained, the wrestlers viewed the fans with contempt as rubes whom they were 'working', so it really was a gigantic con game with a con game mentality. In contrast, modern wrestlers seem to worship fans and be grateful to them, similar to other entertainment industries.

  30. #30
    Senior Member LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    387
    And Bruce is from that old school kayfab mentality. I think wrestling as entertainment has helped Meltzer, and even Bruce. And lets keep it real, even if wrestling tried to keep kayfab, it would have been blown up as the internet would have exposed wrestling a long time ago. The internet is undefeated. But I would go back to when wrestlers looked at fans with contempt. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's just the way it was. It's evolved from then, so who cares if a few old school people are stuck in the past. The game has changed and it's better to just enjoy the game. It's always been a con-game.

  31. #31
    Senior Member 205 Clive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    195
    In a way, what with wrestling fans' knowledge evolving to include all the backstage stuff, it's as engrossing for some as the on-screen product. However that knowledge of what they believe is going on backstage (card subject to change etc) can hinder people's enjoyment of the product.
    Summerslam & Takeover Brooklyn IV Review Show

  32. #32
    Senior Member LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by 205 Clive View Post
    In a way, what with wrestling fans' knowledge evolving to include all the backstage stuff, it's as engrossing for some as the on-screen product. However that knowledge of what they believe is going on backstage (card subject to change etc) can hinder people's enjoyment of the product.
    I can actually agree with this wholeheartedly!

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    I disagree. Fans of virtually all forms of entertainment delve into backstage happenings, whether that be sitcoms, Game of Thrones, Stars Wars, K-Pop, the NFL, etc., and I have yet to see anyone claim that additional information that they have voluntarily sought ought has systematically limited their enjoyment. The only people who deploy this argument are wrestlers because even after all these years, they are unable to handle the fact that the cat of a rigidly closed and protected wrestling industry has been let out of the bag, and is never going to be put back in. They still think somehow that they can convince people, or browbeat them, into not being smart marks and not reading the dirtsheets. This is all terribly behind the times on their part. They just need to get over it and accept that wrestling is now like any other form of entertainment.

  34. #34
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,553
    You've really never seen people claim it? I've seen people say it of themselves and others quite often.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    I have definitely seen people claim it, routinely and excessively, but only ever in the context of wrestling. It's always only wrestling personalities and wrestling fans who have assimilated that argument that say it.

    I never hear that argument in any other sort of fandom for any other form of entertainment on the Internet. At least with nowhere near the frequency that I hear it in wrestling contexts.

  36. #36
    People either love me, hate me, or they don't care CanadianCrippler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Tavistock, Ontario
    Posts
    117
    The most recent podcast on YouTube featuring the Foley / 'Taker HIAC match was actually very interesting start to finish, especially that whole last hour. Bruce told a pretty good perspective story and even though I personally didn't appreciate the inclusion of the death of Pat Patterson's partner, it did add a sense of chilling gratitude for life while sickeningly watching a man nearly kill himself on a monitor in front of you for entertainment made him question his life's decisions on that occasion.

  37. #37
    Senior Member 205 Clive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    195
    Anybody listened to the Mohammed Hassan episode yet? Thought it was quite fascinating hearing Bruce's (on behalf of WWE's) reasoning for ploughing on with the Hassan storyline. Definitely one of the more interesting "what if" scenarios if certain real life events didn't take place.
    Summerslam & Takeover Brooklyn IV Review Show

  38. #38
    Senior Member LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    387
    I'm half way through Hassan. Even at the time, I really loved the original intent for the angle of him being an Arab American who was mad about getting discriminated against just for being his background. I have to finish it because I wonder what they say about the London Bombing. That was at the point that I already thought the angle jumped to shark to me.

  39. #39
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    149
    I did hear it. One of the better episodes in a bit, especially the talk that they were thinking maybe they could bring him back as a babyface or completely different character down the line.

    Hassan really is a great "what if". Bruce pointed out that the angle was really flying below the radar in the mainstream and they hadn't done anything that extreme, but the London Bombings killed the angle.

    Off topic a bit, I found the CM Punk episode a little disappointing. I knew that it wasn't going to be off the charts controversial, but they had talked it up so much that I was a little disappointed that they basically glossed over the lawsuit with "I can't speak to that, I wasn't there". The whole selling point was "I know you weren't there, but you know how Vince's mind and the system in WWE works."

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    117
    But it's not like even if he did talk about it, he was going to give you an honest or real behind the scenes picture of the situation. He probably would have brought up the Austin walking out in 2002 situation, and said it was unprofessional of Punk to walk out, and glossed over the rest, combined with some dig at CM Punk's failed UFC career. It's not like he would have been like 'Yeah, it was totally wrong of HHH to kill CM Punk's heat in 2011 for no reason, and yeah Vince probably made a lot of promises and 'I owe ya one, pal', but that's what all the carny promoters do, you can't take them at their word! And yeah I can understand that Punk is someone who takes pride in their work like Austin/HBK, and will stand up if they're asked to do stupid stuff...'

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •