JerryvonKramer

I did mention Eric, but for me the thing that established that role as being viewed as "structurally necessary" to creatives was Austin vs. McMahon, not Bischoff trying to get himself over as part of the NWO angle ... which is to say that the on-air product actually NEEDED Vince in that role to work, whereas I'm not convinced that Bischoff was really needed in his role for the booking to work. Not in the same way. I mean in many ways, you can say all Eric did was steal DiBiase's spot.

This seems very unlikely. Savage, Warrior, Bret Hart, British Bulldog, The Undertaker, Tatanka even, Tito Santana even. Don't see where or when Crush is coming in as 3rd most over babyface. He wasn't even on the card for Survivor Series 92 just after Perfect's face turn.

One of the lasting legacies of the Attitude Era has been the near-constant presence of "the GM role" on almost all wrestling TV since. An on-air authority figure who makes matches, adds stipulations at whim, makes announcements, argues with faces and heels and so on. This role seems to be deeply ingrained in the thinking of the so-called creatives and writers now. I've seen entire TNA shows that seem to take place in "the commissioner's office". And everyone treats it like a big deal when they wheel out a "Legend" to be the "Special guest GM" on Raw. So prevalent is the use of this role, that one might be forgiven for assuming that it is structurally necessary in some way. However, this was not always the case. Allow me to introduce you, younger fans, to this man: This was WWF President, Jack Tunney, who for years would come out once in a blue moon to make official pronouncements and rulings on grave matters of the day. Over in the world of NWA and WCW, several men fulfilled a similar function, including Jim Crockett Jr. himself, Bill Watts and Nick Bockwinkel. These guys were only ever seen or heard from when key decisions were to be made, usually involving crucial title decisions. All this changed around 1997 with the emergence of Mr McMahon as an on-screen character who called all the shots, and to a lesser extent with the revelation that Eric Bischoff wasn't just a commentator either. It was clear to see during the epic Austin vs. McMahon feud why this authority figure needed to be seen week after week. The rise of the GM also seemed to coincide with the decline of the manager. Fast-forward to 2012, many years after that feud ended, the GM is as much a part of the wrestling landscape as the ring announcer or the referee. Someone raised on 00s WWE would surely be incapable of thinking of running a promotion without one. Here's my question: why? Is the GM really an important role? Could wrestling TV in 2012 do without it? How did we manage for so many years with just the likes of Tunney turning up once every 4 or 5 months to give DiBiase a slap on the wrist or tell us that Rick Rude has been suspended indefinitely? Would you, personally, miss the GM role if it was suddenly gone forever? Discuss

This is going to be massively controversial but how about Robert Gibson and Ricky Morton, two of the ugliest men anywhere in the USA in the 80s, being cast as pretty boy heart throbs. Obviously, somehow, they made it work, but I always thought that The Fantastics looked the part much much more than the R n R.

What are some examples of guys shunted into roles they clearly didn't suit? The two I will put forward are: Greg Valentine in Rhythmn and Blues -- never has a guy looked less comfortable and more awkward in a role than him with black hair trying to do an Elvis face. John Tolos as The Coach -- now I don't know this guy's older stuff. Remember reading that he was quite a star on the West Coast, but he properly sucked as Perfect's manager. Who else?

Now on iTunes http://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/where-t...lay/id543107888

Hi all, this will be on iTunes soon, see below for the first two shows. Had fun with soup23 doing this. I know what you're thinking, "just what the world needs, another wrestling podcast", but this one is a bit different. We're only covering NWA and WCW PPV shows and Clash of the Champions, with maybe some AWA and other stuff mixed in as we move forward -- I see this as being a niche in the market that nobody has bothered to fill, because so many podcasts focus on WWF/E. The plan is for most shows to feature a guest, hopefully drawn from the ranks of this place -- so if you'd be interested in getting involved shoot me a PM, knowledge of NWA stuff is not a pre-requisite. Obviously the next show will be Starrcade 84. Where the Big Boys Play Home Page Where the Big Boys Play is an old-school wrestling podcast focusing mainly on reviewing PPV shows put on by the NWA / Jim Crockett Promotions / WCW hosted by Chad (aka Soup23) and Parv (aka JerryvonKramer), starting with Starrcade 83. On occasion, we will also dip into supercards put on by the AWA and other territories as well as invite guests to take part in roundtable debates. We will not cover old WWF shows because they have already been covered so comprehensively by others. Where the Big Boys Play #1 – Starrcade 83: Part 1 After some brief self-introductions detailing their history as wrestling fans, Chad and Parv take a look at the first four matches of the so-called “Grandaddy of them all”, Starrcade 83. Highlights include: being a wrestling fan in the UK, discussion of late-70s dancing babyfaces, lame finishes, assessing Gordon Solie in general, the difference between Carolinas Flair and Minnesota Flair, and Dusty’s mic trouble. Where the Big Boys Play #2 – Starrcade 83: Part 2 Chad and Parv continue their analysis of Starrcade 83 by looking at the concluding four matches. Highlights include: extended evaluation of the Great Kabuki’s claw hold, Japanese wrestlers dogging it in the US, more assessment of Solie, picks for MVP, match of the night and worst performance, and we ask “does Harley Race really care?”

Think I read that in numerous Scott Keith reviews, so source would be RSPW or his ass.

Any truth to the old claims that Watts always told the Japanese workers to tone it down on US shows which why, for example, Rude vs Chono sucked? And Loss, point taken about Watts reeducating fans and giving heels clean wins, but Jesus Christ, Gordy and Williams probably got more clean wins than Luger did in his WWF monster push. Like they've already hammered the Steiners, already won the WCW titles, do they have to bulldozer the entire roster in a tournament for ANOTHER set of World titles as well? It's a bit extreme isn't it.

Just pulled this from my old and now off-line GAB 92 review:

I tend to attribute the awesomeness of the first half of 92 upto and including Beach Blast to Kip Allen Frey and the boring after that to Watts.

Here's a thought: if WCW didn't hire Heenan in 1994 and Jesse hadn't have left, would he have gone on to his political career?

The thing that's more confusing for me is that they brought in Heenan when they already had the GOAT colour man in Ventura who'd done the impossible and made a pairing with Schiavone work pretty well by that stage. Why bring in Heenan? Unless they KNEW that Ventura wouldn't stick around for a Hogan-dominated product, can't see any reason to change things at that stage. Heenan was always Ventura's number 2 in WWF, doesn't make sense to come bring him in while Jesse is still around. As for why they didn't change Heenan for so long, who else was there by 99 who had name value and could do an effective colour job? Jesse was Governor of Minnesota by then. Who were they going to bring in? I guess Dusty or Piper, but that doesn't seem very satisfactory to me.

Did Jake Roberts ever have a go at commentating anywhere?

All of the TV was taped in long ass TV tapings once a month and the commentary was pre-recorded weeks in advance. My guess is they probably taped a few Prime Times in a row, too. So while it might not have been ideal, it's not like they were required to go on the road doing TV tapings every week. They probably did a month's worth of commentary and Prime Time stuff in a span of a couple of days. Did they know what was going to happen going into those tapings? Because they always *sound* like they are there live. The only person who really comes across like he's recording it after the fact is Solie because he was open about it. I'm not a fan of those Solie retrospective-style commentating. Seen quite a few clips and matches from the late 70s where he talks about the match as if it happened months ago. Find it makes it impossible for me to be immersed in what is going on.