The Thread Killer

Did Mauro Ranallo really just say "Velveteen Dream dropping elbows like DJ's drop the needle?"

This show is off to a horrible start, I just spilled poutine gravy on my monitor. That band was too loud. The rock musicians are too loud nowadays. *shakes fist*

Between the Hillbilly Jim speech and now Ivory, I don't think I'm going to survive this HOF show. Started off great with the Dudleys, but now...ugh. I don't really want to hear a story about Ivory's sister's husband. MAKE THIS STUPID WEDDING ANALOGY STOP.

I'm not a populist. I'm part of an anarchosyndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more... Hey...how come your posts in this thread are (moderately) coherent and grammatically correct, but everywhere else they look like you type exclusively with your thumbs? Anyhow, I already slandered you once. Stop provoking me or I will slanderize you a second time.

I agree with C.S. and Magnum. If you're going to post a bunch of nonsense, at least do it in a decipherable manner. It always takes me more than one try to even figure out what he's saying. Then I invariably wish I hadn't. Consider him slandered.

Ding ding ding! Mystery solved. From a DigitalSpy.com interview with Paul Heyman himself (via Larry Csonka)...

I had the same question. Questions like this are why I love Jim Cornette's "other" podcast, Jim Cornette's Drive-Thru. Unlike "The Jim Cornette Experience" it's the one where he (generally) talks only about wrestling and wrestling history, not ranting about Trump, gun control, Republicans, Vince Russo, and everything else under the sun that makes him go psychotic. Whether you like Cornette or you don't, even his detractors have to admit the man knows a ton about the history of Pro Wrestling. In this case, he actually knew Moolah, and in this clip he talks about the controversy and Moolah's history in the business. Agree with it or not, it's an interesting listen...

Reading this thread, I am forced to admit how few "big moments" I have witnessed live. This, despite my 35 years as a wrestling fan, attending quite a few live events in the Toronto area over the years. I have had the chance to attend several major shows and PPV's in the Toronto area, many of which I elected not to, because I hate crowds. For example, I was offered the chance to attend Wrestlemania 18 and see Rock vs. Hogan live, which I did not accept. In retrospect I wish I would have accepted that. (I actually turned down the chance to go to Wrestlemania 6 at the same venue many years before, which I don't regret.) I have to admit I am slightly jealous of Ricky Jackson, who experienced Canadian Stampede live. Having said that, a few moments do stick out in my mind. I saw Hulk Hogan wrestle live a bunch of times at Maple Leaf Gardens during the height of Hulkamania, and that was always a guaranteed crowd mover. I'd have to say one of the most impressive reactions I remember was the response Hogan got at "The Big Event" at the Canadian National Exhibition in August 1986, when he fought Paul Orndorff, after Mr. Wonderful's legendary turn on him. That one set an attendance record for a while, 68,000 + fans. On a much smaller scale, the response Kevin Steen got when he fought Nigel McGuinness at ROH Northern Navigation in July 2008 was pretty damn loud, one of the loudest I ever experienced. I know this is strange, but one that really sticks out to me is the crowd reaction New Jack (of all people) got when his music hit at November to Remember 1999 in Buffalo. I went to a handful of ECW shows in Buffalo over the years, at all of them as soon as New Jack's music hit, the crowd would lose their shit. That guy was crazy over with the ECW fans at the time. If I remember correctly, that was the show where New Jack hit one of "Da Baldies" over the head with a computer keyboard, which smashed into a million pieces. The keys went flying into the air, and one of them beaned my friend in the head. He kept it as a souvenir. Then there was the very last live show I ever attending, ROH Global Wars 2014. The fans were so annoying with their obnoxiousness, chanting, and overall dickish behavior that I swore off attending live wrestling ever again. That was also the night I found out who the Young Bucks were, and decided I didn't like them one little bit.

I don't mind Conrad Thompson, but he is definitely an acquired taste. He took quite a while to grow on me, at first I didn't really care for him or Bruce Prichard at all, but in time I became a fan. I'm actually looking forward to this new show. I saw the WWE Documentary they did on Bischoff, I saw his (surprisingly good) interview with JBL on Legends, and most importantly I heard the interview he did with Steve Austin on Austin's podcast. He's arrogant and smug, no doubt - but a lot of that is an act, I believe. And I actually find him to be an interesting interview, intelligent and fairly insightful on certain topics. My only major concern is his memory, he tends to "not remember" a lot of things, whether that be by design or not, I don't know.

I know Heyman inducting Goldberg sounds a bit odd at first, but I think it makes sense. They're friends, and I don't think Goldberg has many actual friends in Pro Wrestling...if any at all, really. I saw an interview (and I wish I could say where, but I can't find it now) that Goldberg gave shortly after his WWE run last year, where he credited Heyman with a lot of the success he had when he returned. As I recall, Goldberg claimed that Triple H was the one who reached out and helped mend the fences between Goldberg and WWE, but Heyman played a part, specifically in brokering the whole angle with Lesnar. I got the impression that Heyman may have been more hands on with the creative behind that angle than he has been with anything else since his return to WWE as an on-air character. On an entirely different level, I think Heyman and Goldberg's friendship may have something to do with their pride in their heritage. In the past, Heyman has given pointed interviews about antisemitism in Pro Wrestling, and I know Goldberg is sensitive to that issue as well. I remember seeing an interview with Goldberg years ago (during his WCW days) where he talked about wanting to have the Star of David on his tights or incorporate it into a T-shirt design, only to be told by somebody at Turner or WCW that they "didn't want to alienate anybody by using religious symbols." They are both vocally proud Jewish Pro Wrestling legends. I'm not saying that Heyman is inducting Goldberg simply because they are both Jewish by any means...but I know they are friends and that their cultural background is something they are both proud of, so the choice of Heyman to induct Goldberg may make more sense than is immediately obvious.

People on Twitter are saying it's a great listen. I'm really looking forward to it. I won't have time until next week, but I can't wait to hear it if it's anything like the Mind Games episode with Michaels and Foley.

Yeah, if you look up Billy Jack Haynes on YouTube, you get a nice glimpse into his particular brand of wackiness. You get to see him accusing Vince McMahon of impregnating Nancy Benoit (which drove Chris to the murders - but it might have been Vince's people who killed Nancy and Daniel), you get to see his truly awesome challenge to Steve Austin to fight in the UFC (because Vince McMahon is too chickenshit to book it) because Austin is a WOMAN BEATER, and the newest addition is him claiming he witnessed murders in Arkansas back in the eighties, while he was acting as muscle on a cocaine deal that went wrong. Which he implies was for Bill Clinton. You also get to see older clips of guys like Barry Windham and Jim Cornette, who claim that Billy Jack has always been...out there. Here is the challenge against Austin, which you have to see...

I think we should take the letter "e" out of this thread, and make it "Rap Culture in Pro Wrestling." Then we could use it as a forum to discuss the positive impact PN News had on all of our lives.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion, but I don't care...I hope he does go back. What he did was wrong and stupid and thoughtless and hurtful, but I don't think he deserves to be exiled for life. I don't want to see him wrestle, but rather as an ambassador and doing charity events and pubic relations stuff for them, plus as a talking head on documentaries and stuff like that. Hulk Hogan is way too big a part of what made WWE what it is today for him to spend the rest of his life as somebody they gloss over.

Depending on what they're going to pay, the new XFL and any other opposition to the NFL could potentially really hurt the CFL. The CFL already gets most of the guys who are either too small or not quite good enough to make the NFL. In some circles, they are viewed as a minor league for the NFL. If the new XFL and any other potential new leagues start up, it's conceivable that guys still hoping to make it to the NFL will head there instead.

I'm all about Bruce being combative and being a WWF apologist. It's his gimmick, it's what makes his show a "work" and as I said - if he wanted to try and defend pretty much any of the other stupid crap the WWF/WWE had done, as a fan I'd totally get that. But he has stated he disagreed with some stuff over the past year, and this one particular issue to me is indefensible. I am expressing my disappointment that he either didn't break character on this issue, or he legitimately is trying to excuse it.

I just can't understand why he wasting his time posting here. The man clearly has a gift which needs to be shared with the world. He is so incredibly eloquent, his posts are so poetic and prosaic, I am amazed he hasn't been contacted by a major publishing house and offered a book deal. I can see it now, his first book would be entitled: "oa n cao ak aprpr erorp gofir"

If his Shoot Interviews are any indicator, I can see why Ken Patera isn't in there. I have to give that guy credit, he manages to come across as perhaps the most obnoxious and unlikable Pro Wrestler I have ever seen, when out of character. And that covers a hell of a lot of territory. If he gets in, I want Billy Jack Haynes in too. I will be glued to my television screen with a big bowl of popcorn for THOSE acceptance speeches, let me tell you.

I'm not stupid, I know half the shtick of this show is Conrad busting Bruce's balls and Bruce digging in and being stubborn. I get that. However, I don't think when you're discussing a blatantly (and admittedly) racist angle is a particularly good time to pull that stunt. It means one of two things, either Bruce is using what was a racist angle to sell his own "WWE right or wrong" act or he is actually so thick-skulled that he actually believes what he is saying. Either way, he comes off looking stupid at best and incredibly ignorant at worst. I'd have much rather he tried to justify Katie Vick or HLA, to be honest. I don't care when he pulls his pig-headed routine about Meltzer, or fans second guessing booking, or even pretty much anything else. Why he chose this as an issue to dig his heels in is beyond me. He had to know there would be a backlash, especially in today's social media environment. You could say that he knew this episode would create a buzz and generate controversy (which it definitely has, if Twitter is any indicator) but once again, IF that is the case I find using an angle like this to help promote his show to be poorly thought out, and in poor taste. He should be better than that. He has been, since this show has grown. It annoys me to see him take a step back like this. Yes, he said he didn't agree with the "nappy headed" comment and even implied that was ad-libbed and not written for Triple H. But put that in one hand, and then all the other things he said in the other, and see what general impression you come away with after listening to this episode. If you can honestly listen to this and not come away thinking he was trying to excuse the entire angle, then I don't know what to tell you. I understand what both of you are saying, and I respect your argument. However, my counterpoint to that argument is that this issue is bigger than just what Booker T thought of the angle, if he did or didn't "give permission" for it, or have a problem with it, or even contribute ideas to it. Look at it this way, over the years I have had friends who are black. (I am not going to say African-American, because I'm Canadian, and once in an effort to be sensitive and politically correct I used the phrase "African-Canadian" and my friend almost died laughing.) So anyhow...if one of my black friends told me he didn't care if I made what were clearly insulting and racially insensitive comments towards him in public, even in front of other people - would that make it okay? If somebody else heard me and got upset, would I be able to use the excuse: "He told me I could say that?" No, of course not. That to me is the definition of specious reasoning. It's a question of intent, plain and simple. If you say something which is clearly intended to be racially insensitive, I really don't think you can get around it by getting "permission" - especially if the remarks are made on national television with the intention of being seen by other people. Quite simply, I don't think Booker T has the authority to excuse that type of thing on behalf of everybody. Just because it didn't bother him, it doesn't mean they all didn't know it wouldn't bother somebody. That's not even getting into the hypothetical scenario of what would have happened if Booker T had said he wasn't comfortable with it. I think we can all speculate how that would have worked out for him. Hell, look how it worked out for him when he went along with it. He got a big payday, sure. But I don't think in the larger picture that angle did his career any good, either.

When Anthem hired Scott D'Amore and Don Callis, I was cautiously optimistic that good things might happen for Impact after the new team was in place and got their feet under them. Then the infamous Callahan/Edwards bat incident happened, and I was discouraged. Now, I am wondering if these guys might actually be able to pull something off and make Impact compelling again. They definitely have the brains and experience to do it...I'm still not sure if they will. But stuff like this is a good sign and is the kind of stuff I was hoping to see once they got settled.

Equally sad is when Conrad brings up the fact that it took 25 seconds for Triple H to cover Booker T after the pedigree, and Bruce blows a gasket and actually pulls out and plays the "you've never worked in the business so you don't understand" card. In the realm of Pro Wrestling and Shoot Interviews, that is pretty much the equivalent of Godwin's Law as far as I'm concerned. Exactly. I wish Conrad would have brought up that the next year, two babyface champions won/retained and celebrated in the ring, together to close the damn show.

Those are my exact feelings as well. I can't stand the Young Bucks, I don't really get why other people like them, but you'd be a fool to deny that they are popular. To me, they're the Pro Wrestling equivalent of Nickelback. For the sake of Pro Wrestling as a whole, I think it is actually pretty important that this show succeeds, or at least isn't a total failure (which at this point I don't think it will be.) I doubt I'll ever live to see the day where there is actual viable competition against WWE, but it is extremely important that there are at least visible alternatives. One thing I don't understand, is the hatred of Cody Rhodes by some fans, which in many cases approaches inexplicably vitriolic levels. I've even seen some examples of it here at PWO. Why? Was he pretty bland and mediocre in WWE? Yes. Is his older brother more talented than he is? Probably. Are his in-ring skills average at best? You can make that argument. I can see saying he's passable but unexceptional. Okay. But this is a guy who wanted to be more than what he was, who wanted to honor his Dad (and imagine for a minute trying to fill those shoes) and to push himself and reach the top. Because of his Dad, he probably had a WWE midcard job for life, ala Dolph Ziggler. But he wanted more, so he walked away from guaranteed money to make a name for himself. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit that by all accounts he has succeeded, and that took serious balls. Not to mention, his bleach blond heel "American Nightmare" persona seems infinitely more interesting than anything he did in WWE. But I've seen so many fans crap all over him, because HOW DARE HE think he should be more than a WWE midcarder. I say, if he manages to overachieve, more power to him. I don't have to think he's the second coming of Ric Flair to admire him for trying, and I certainly don't want him to fail.

I don't have a huge issue with the ads on Prichard's podcast, honestly. The have the right to make money from this thing, and it's not like listening to the show is costing me money. It's free entertainment, and if I have to listen to a couple ads then so be it. As a fan of the show, the past few weeks have been rough for me for different reasons. I actually forced myself to listen to the entire Shawn Michaels in 1993 episode, and by the end I wished I hadn't. The first problem is mine, I suppose. I don't get Shawn Michaels. I am not for one minute saying he wasn't talented, you'd be a fool to say that. However, I do think he is vastly overrated. Yet for some reason, there are those people (and Bruce Prichard is one of them) that think this guy is actually the greatest Pro Wrestler of all time. As a result, we get almost 6 hours worth of Prichard's show based on only three damn years of Shawn Michaels' career - and you can make an argument that 93, 94 and 95 weren't even his best years. I think that much content would be overkill if he was talking about just about anybody, never mind somebody I don't like and don't want to hear about. I ended up tapping out, I couldn't listen to the second half of the show, the 94/95 episode, I just don't have the stomach for it. I can put up with a hell of a lot of Prichard's spin doctoring, but not that much and especially not for Shawn Freaking Michaels. The SNME watch-along was just okay. There were some repeated technical issues which I found annoying, but it was inoffensive if not unremarkable. Even if you didn't like it, what it lost in quality it made up for with expediency. I don't think it was even 2 hours long, which for that show is a sprint. However... If you want a good laugh, you have to listen to this week's episode on Wrestlemania 19. During the show, Conrad Thompson questions Bruce Prichard on the now infamous build-up to the Triple H vs. Booker T match at Wrestlemania 19. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Booker T won a Battle Royal for the right to challenge Triple H for the World Championship at Wrestlemania. Triple H then cut a promo on Raw where he claimed that nappy headed people like Booker T were only good for dancing, and "people like him" (wink wink) were beneath being WWF Champion. A couple weeks later, Flair tells Booker T to put on a chauffeur cap and carry Triple H's bags, and Triple H throws a dollar at him. This (justifiably) caused a huge backlash online, so much so that WWF.com had a columnist (under a pen name I assume) write a column defending the WWF for delicately tackling such a controversial subject as racism. The WWF.com article noted the long history of racist angles in wrestling history, and pointed out that Triple H was a "bad guy" and was going to do that kind of stuff...but it didn't matter because of course he would get his in the end. Which, of course he didn't. Quite the opposite. WWF.com later pulled down the column defending the angle. I had a copy saved on my Hard Drive for years, along with my response in what ended up being the very last wrestling column I ever wrote, back when I wrote at 411. I lost that too, when my portable Hard Drive died. But the WWF.com column existed, even though they erased it. Point is, the angle happened and it was unquestionably racist. There really is no way any sane, sensible person could have seen the build for that match and think the story wasn't race related. On this week's show, Conrad Thompson brings this angle up and even reads Triple H's infamous promo word-for-word. Guess how Bruce Prichard responds? a ) Claims the quotes are "taken out of context" (even though Conrad read the promo in it's entirety) b ) Claims people didn't understand the angle. See Triple H was talking about former WCW wrestlers, not black people. (All WCW wrestlers were "nappy headed?") c ) Totally ignores the fact that the WWF admitted at the time that originally the angle was definitely written with racist overtones. d ) Claims wrestlers like Booker T were perfectly fine with these kinds of angles, and may have even suggested them or contributed lines. e ) Claims Booker T couldn't beat Triple H and get revenge for any of this - because Lesnar was going over on this show, and they're both faces. f ) Dances around the issue like a motherfucker, refusing to admit it was awful. g ) All of the above. If you picked "G" you win. I was mildly surprised to see Prichard go into full blown WWF apologist mode for this, simply because he has admitted on this show that he hated when Bischoff simply handed Triple H his own World Championship months before, and he was quite detailed in his description of how he didn't care for the Katie Vick storyline which had happened not that long before this either. I figured if he's willing to admit that Triple H shouldn't have been handed World Titles for no reason, and that the Vick angle was repulsive, maybe he'd admit how horrible this was...but nope! You really have to hear Prichard try and argue with Conrad about this. I'm half convinced the whole thing was staged, because he can't possibly be that clueless.

There were theories about heat between Conrad and Flair?! Those guys love each other...and Conrad is marrying Flair's daughter for gawd's sake!