Bix

It's not exactly a stretch to think she only told her daughter and not her son, though. And "she decided to frame the woman who was responsible for her mom not being home much as an abusive pimp and human trafficker" is a bit of a stretch. Meltzer also strongly implies that the Moolah told the women to sleep with promoters in the on the bio he did in 2007, too. Lady Maxine had been pretty steadfast about Moolah trying to book get for a call as a prostitute, and she's successful so far removed from wrestling that she has little reason to lie. Also, the child neglect case, as reported at the time, had vaguely pimp line overtones. And Moolah's daughter did a terrible job trying to debunk it. Is it a perfect case? Of course not. Is it possible that some bad reporting in the past month have made it look worse? Sure. But Nigel is doing a shitty job trying to pick it apart while accusing anyone who points out the deficiencies in his interviews of cyberbullying him with hate speech.

Lady Maxine is still alive and has continued to make her firsthand accusation.

"Cyber bullying" Nigel is literally the worst.

WWE/NXT/205 had shows on AXXESS using all sorts of indie talent like Keith Lee, WALTER, and other folks from WWN and Progress. Hero challenged Keith Lee for the WWN title on Thursday, and also had a banger with WALTER on Saturday. They did let Hero do an ICW show a few months ago. His run has been so different from anyone else in NXT. They let Danny Burch and Lorcan do some indie stuff as well. Lorcan has never wrestled a match for an indie promotion. He made an untaped appearance at a single Beyond event. Hero, Noam Dar, Jack Gallagher, Cedric Alexander and Apollo Crews have all worked at least once for indie promotions since being signed to full time WWE deals And Danny Burch/Martin Stone is under some variation of the initial Gargano/Ciampa deal (and the planned Samoa Joe deal) where NXT has priority on his dates but otherwise he can just work wherever if it's not for TV.

Regarding Buchanan, did you mean he took photos of the hallways and behind the scenes personnel to prove how much staff was there, but those were never published? Or you were just stating that Buchanan was there in attendance that night and had to go through the turnstyle, pointing out the fact that Titan employees were counted towards the official attendance, even though we may not have seen them on tv? That he took pictures of the standing room fans.

Both Tom Buchanan (Titan's photographer in 1987, who emailed me) and one of the Deadspin commenters pointed out something I had never heard before: There were a lot of people in hallways etc. who get let in solely to fill standing room. Buchanan took photos but it doesn't seem like WWE published them. Suffice to say that would mean that ~78k through the turnstiles makes even less sense unless the fixed seating capacity was worked even more than Dave thought.

Mazel tov on officially declaring yourself the most useless poster here.

Hopefully they've been over this but with how hostile the Bischoff and Meltzer dynamic has gotten I really hope Conrad just uses the Torch and/or non newsletter sources on this show. As grating as the Prichard/Meltzer stuff has gotten, this would be so much worse.

Do we know for sure that the Pope wouldnt work his numbers? I think Dave has said that he heard the PR people involved with the Pope's appearance worked his numbers solely so they could say they beat the Wrestlemania III number.In addition to what Pete said, I've never seen anything suggesting that the Vatican ever put out a number. Hell, there was never an official number until the Silverdome pulled one (seemingly) out of thin air 15 years later. It's entirely possible that that's were more people at the mass, but the photos make it look like that had a bigger stage. Regardless, it's very obvious, both from photos and the Secret Service scouting WM3 to prepare the Pope's security plan, that both events were set up for similar capacities. The claim in the past that 88k for the Pope was the "real" counterpart to 78k for WM3 doesn't appear to have any basis in reality. Just like the report that the Silverdome website had some variation of the "real" numbers for "years" when it was, at best, 4 weeks (but more likely never happened).

There are numerous Newspapers.com clippings linked in my article that you don't need a membership to read, FWIW.

On and off, I spent the last few months going over newspaper clippings, old newsletters, & archived web pages as well as sending emails, making calls, and filing public record requests to try to determine the actual attendance in the Pontiac Silverdome at WrestleMania III. My latest article at Deadspin is the result of that research: https://deadspin.com/how-many-people-were-actually-at-wrestlemania-iii-a-de-1824178481 Loss said I could use this as a conversation starter, so let's do that: In light of the newspaper reports, Steve Harms' comments, weird Observer discrepancies/coincidences, and everything else, what does everyone think the number was? 93,173? 78,500? 88,000? Nothing resembling any of the above? Tamalie from Wrestling Classics attempted a head count of the floor seats in the high resolution photo and came up with roughly 6,300, so almost 87,000 fans if the official Silverdome football capacity was a shoot or a football capacity in the ~72,000 range if it was a work. Thoughts?

Apparently, both Matt and Nigel had some limited interaction with Moolah on southern indie shows I'm their early days.

Wrote an article trying to cover the possibilities of what actually happened here: https://deadspin.com/why-is-charlie-ebersol-launching-a-direct-rival-to-his-1823959869 I'm really intrigued by how there's clearly a lot more to the story that we don't know yet. Who knew what when? Was there an alliance and a split? Will there be a lawsuit or has that already been handled? Is the XFL even happening? How does ESPN feel about being Charlie Ebersol's pawns? etc etc

That was bs Bruce Prichard came out with on his podcast. There's no way this was ever a serious idea.I actually buy that Russo pitched this because he made Daniels a Greater Power knockoff for one show in WCW.

it does not in factIf you're not a troll account, you live in a country that had female only subway cars to avoid groping. So yeah, rape culture exists.

He's Brick Tamlin from "Anchorman" as a wrestling announcer.

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over this, did the crowd cheer? did anyone including yourself get up and leave out of offence? Really people know the deal when it comes to pro wrestling and they know these people are working a performance so anyone in the ring or around it is obviously in and consenting on whatever is happening to them. If the same thing happened to a woman in line at the concessions then the same people cheering would probably react quite differently because what happens in reality is not played by the same rules as in the world of pro wrestling. Still I agree it's a spot that younger talent should probably not take up as the world is changing but an old timer now like Tatanka working with a consenting valet is not something I think is a big issue. If anyone over the age of 12 has their morals or actions swayed by doing something done in a wrestling show then they obviously have something seriously wrong with them and any parent that doesn't explain or communicate what the difference between the wrestlers performing things in a show and how they should act in reality is, then they probably shouldn't be taking their kids to wrestling shows either. What a ridiculous argument. Norms change from how things are portrayed in media. Fantasy and things like pro wrestling aren't the type of media that anyone gets their norms or ethics from watching. A spot on an indie show from 2 years ago is hardly something that's going to corrupt any rational person. That's not the point. Sexual assault committed by the good guy in a fictional work bring portrayed as a laudable activity is exactly the type of thing people are referring to when they talk about rape culture in media, at least. Will seeing this angle influence someone? Not necessarily. But seeing something like this over and over has real potential issues.

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over this, did the crowd cheer? did anyone including yourself get up and leave out of offence? Really people know the deal when it comes to pro wrestling and they know these people are working a performance so anyone in the ring or around it is obviously in and consenting on whatever is happening to them. If the same thing happened to a woman in line at the concessions then the same people cheering would probably react quite differently because what happens in reality is not played by the same rules as in the world of pro wrestling. Still I agree it's a spot that younger talent should probably not take up as the world is changing but an old timer now like Tatanka working with a consenting valet is not something I think is a big issue. If anyone over the age of 12 has their morals or actions swayed by doing something done in a wrestling show then they obviously have something seriously wrong with them and any parent that doesn't explain or communicate what the difference between the wrestlers performing things in a show and how they should act in reality is, then they probably shouldn't be taking their kids to wrestling shows either. What a ridiculous argument. Norms change from how things are portrayed in media.

I really just want to see this for Hogan and Savage's body language towards each other, as I think this was just around the time they were about to have a real-life falling out with each other over the impending divorce from Elizabeth. Not yet if Jake is in the match.

SLL and I went to this show and this match was a blast. Glad the stage stuff came off well on video, which I wasn't sure it would. My thoughts pretty much echo yours: The beatdown dragged on too long, but the actual ref bump was fantastic and I loved the whole thing. Amazura being packed with fans clearly there to see that match made for a great atmosphere, too. Would love for you to check out more House of Glory, feels like the type of thing you'd enjoy. Especially once the whole show goes up, this was one of the more fun top to bottom shows I've been to in NYC in a while.

Based on who's been announced, there's no way that Jim and Jarrett don't have the best speeches locked up. Jim is a ridiculously nice and likable guy with a great memory who loves wrestling. Jarrett should have the most emotional speech. Rest feels a bit light, but those should deliver.

This came up in a conversation with a wrestler friend earlier today and the thing that had us both stumped was what Callihan was even trying to do. If he was trying to just hit the chair, then his aim was so bad that it makes you wonder how it even happened. If he was trying to use the chair to "trap" Edwards (in Kayfabe) while actually having it there to have something to make a noise, then that had such a small margin of error that it read clearly a bad idea. As in: Was he trying to skip the bat off the chair en route to hitting the mat or pulling the shot or something? It looks more like that, but I can't possibly imagine how they thought they could pull it off if that's the case.

Why is everyone pretending that Les Thatcher still gets in the ring to train people? Hell, he hasn't even owned the HWA in a long time.

Mo or "Mo," like everyone else was. She outright said in the PWP interview what she preferred to be called.

I see the argument, but:1. It's not a regular occurrence, but you do see profiles of rape survivors that use a photo but not the real name from time to time. 2. Your argument is not Dave's Twitter argument, which was, approximately, that the lawsuit being a defamation case made it a separate issue. Or something like that. But that's not even in the same universe as the AP standard that everyone uses these days. Now, if someone is kidnapped and named in the media, only for it to come out via the criminal case after a rescue that he or she was also raped, that's considered a legitimate exception. The name goes public in the news in legitimate fashion and it becomes unavoidable to discuss plausibly. But if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault and another of covering it up, and the latter sues her for defamation, you still don't run her name without consent. This is well established journalistic ethics. Hell, in 2018 it's probably discussed more online than all but a few topics in that realm, with the mass accepted practice being well known. Meltzers argument may be the wrong one, but that doesnt change my point. And this isnt someone who happens to have a profile pic, but anonymous otherwise. This is a person who makes no attempt to be anonymous, save for the twitter handle, and openly discussed with people figuring out her real name and Facebook page (which I have not seen, but I assume discipusses these issues openly as well?), not having a problem with that at the time, AND being upset with Meltzer referring to her as the woman in previous reports. Im not saying Meltzer handled this correctly at all, but its not like he outed a totally anonymous victim here, regardless of the whether his stated reasons are the right ones or not. Her Facebook doesn't have her real name and it should be self evident why someone would take issue with almost exclusively being called "the woman."