JaymeFuture

Thanks very much dude. It was actually the most fun trial to do so far as well I think. It's weird, being on the prosecution, I thought we crushed them when we recorded it, but listening to it back it's pretty even...

Hogan and Slaughter were on my list of ten that we've cut to eight in the interest of time to do a fair service to the guys listed, but we will likely be revisiting this with another eight guys in the not-too-distant future. Shawn and Foley are less slam-dunks to me in that I think Foley's bumping/character work/promo are almost across the board more suited to a heel role, and Shawn was an absolutely fantastic babyface in the Rockers, and was way more effective in the second half of his character as a babyface than he was in 96. Similarly, Bret to me is an all-time great babyface, but there are those who feel strongly that his heel run was so fantastic it makes it a debate. Should be interesting to track people's opinions on this. Absolutely love your take on Flair, btw.

For this week's podcast, we're taking a look at eight wrestlers and discussing whether or not they were better in their role as a babyface or a heel over the course of their career, considering their work in the ring as well as analysing their characters/personalities/runs, and would love to get your thoughts and feedback on the following individuals and whether you prefer them as faces or heels, and most important, why: 1. Randy Savage 2. Ric Flair 3. The Rock 4. Kurt Angle 5. Mick Foley 6. Shawn Michaels 7. Bret Hart 8. Daniel Bryan As always the best contributions will be read on the podcast and you'll be credited accordingly. So what do you think? EDIT - The show discussing your comments on who was a better heel or face is now online and available to listen to at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/s3cvqh/SCGRadio55-BetterAsFaceOrHeel.mp3

Thanks very much - greatly appreciated. I will say that the TNA point as a standalone argument for irreparable damage isn't strong, ditto Arsenio, but I thought they could have contributed enough and cast enough doubt, to make up for some of the ambiguity of Hogan's role in pretty much running WCW and overextended his personal "creative control" clause. Judge Karl did text me the next day, questioning his own verdict, so I'm going to call him on that ¬_¬

This week Hulk Hogan faces the charge of causing irreparable harm to the wrestling business, as the prosecution and defence go to war, talking Hogan's negative impact on the WWF with his Arsenio Hall appearance, his role in bringing down WCW from its apex, and impact on the course of TNA's life. The panel debates steroids, sex, politics, burials, money and incompetence, and take your witness statements to determine whether or not Hogan is guilty. The fifth of the SCG Trials and a really fun show, check it out and let us know what you think of the verdict! http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/u2z4xr/SCGRadio54-TheTrialOfHulkHogan.mp3

I want to thank everybody for the contributions, the Trial of Hulk Hogan is now online to listen to at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/u2z4xr/SCGRadio54-TheTrialOfHulkHogan.mp3 With Hulk Hogan facing the charge of causing irreparable harm to the wrestling business, the prosecution and defence go to war talking Hogan's negative impact on the WWF with his Arsenio Hall appearance, his role in bringing down WCW from its apex, and impact on the course of TNA's life. We talk steroids, sex, politics, burials, money and incompetence, and take your witness statements to determine whether or not Hogan is guilty. The fifth of the SCG Trials and a really fun show, check it out and let us know what you think of the verdict!

Yeah, if I recall, on the podcast we did for this topic, Fall Brawl 98 did come up, and I used the Raven/Saturn match as a counter. Also, since it set up DDP/Goldberg, it at least served a purpose in existing, even if it was ugly and horrible getting there.

The Redneck Triathalon may be the low point of Steve Austin's WWE career, and I'm including the time Debra laid him out with a cookie sheet when I say that.

Yeah, we tried to not focus on the Pillman case as much since we've talked it before, and Beefcake and HHH were funny asides as much as anything. I agree with you on the Nash case - Kieran said it best on the show I think, that being a chancer and a hustler is part of Nash's skill set. I do think he and Hall had fantastic luck with their WWF contracts ending when they did - six months into a television war that was impossible to envision one year prior, and immediately made them more valuable commodities than they might have been had the war never happened. Wonder what kind of offer they would have got to jump prior to the head to head conflict turning up the heat. Bret's case is undeniably horrible. I'm currently prepping a future Monday Night War timeline show for Q3 of 1997, and it's astounding how that quarter starts with the Canadian Stampede, the absolute peak of that feud, and ends with Vince basically telling him to go to WCW. Thing that makes me feel he was unluckier than most is that he had bad luck in completely unconnected areas (career tailspin and devalued, family tragedy, injury), it wasn't even as if one thing caused a domino effect like you see in a case like Ahmed, where his sloppyness in taking care of himself and others forced a steep decline.

On this week's podcast we're returning to our trial format to debate whether or not Hulk Hogan's actions, throughout the course of his career, have caused irrepairable harm to the professional wrestling business, and we're looking for your thoughts on the subject, considering the following elements: *His appearance on Arsenio Hall and resulting scandals *His run in World Championship Wrestling and role in bringing the company down *His stint in TNA and role in possibly hamstringing another potential alternative To be clear, we are not debating the obvious positive impacts Hogan has had, just whether or not any of the above did irrepairable damage to the business as a whole. As always we'll read the best contributions on the air and credit you accordingly, so what do you think, and why? EDIT - The Hogan Trial, with many of the comments below discussed as "witness statements", is now online and available to listen to at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/u2z4xr/SCGRadio54-TheTrialOfHulkHogan.mp3

After taking feedback and nominations from multiple forums, our panel returns this week to talk the luckiest and unluckiest wrestlers in the history of the business, discussing the careers of the likes of Kevin Nash, Daniel Bryan, Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund, Ahmed Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Sid, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Lex Luger, Steve Austin, Brian Pillman, Ted DiBiase, Brutus Beefcake, Jake Roberts, and yes, Triple H, as well as many, many more. A really fun show this week as break down the chance elements that led many to their destinations, check it out and let us know what you think. http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/play/peru2y/SCGRadio53-TheLuckiestandUnluckiestWrestlersEver.mp3 And we have our next Trial episode coming next week...

To me, the only way he's getting to the top organically at this point is to get over with promos. The megapush got vitriol, the good matches make no difference, he's got to verbally connect with people, and I think that's why the inclination for a lot of people is to go heel, because it's easier to capture people's imaginations with promos as a heel than it is as a babyface, especially a WWE babyface. Can you imagine Austin or Rock getting over if Vince was personally scripting them the way he was with Roman?

So, for this week's podcast, we're looking to discuss various wrestlers that you think may have been the luckiest or unluckiest in wrestling history, and would like your nominations for these distinctions and why you feel they're good candidates. Obviously it's a career focused discussion (so not wanting to incorporate deaths into this), so whether it's people who you think got a bum deal by bad circumstances repeatedly, or somebody in the right place and time and had a far better career than their skills deserved, we'd like to hear your suggestions on both. As always, the best suggestions will be read on the show and you'll be credited accordingly, so what do you think?

The new Squared Circle Gazette Radio is up, as this week we talk all the major stories coming out of NXT, Summerslam and Raw, and discuss all the possibilities moving forward. With a focus on mixed feelings on Brock Vs. Taker, a passionate debate on the realities of women's wrestling in NXT and WWE, Seth Rollins' title run thus far and looking ahead, the fate of Kevin Owens and Cesaro, the absolute greatness of the New Day, great matches, interesting angles, WrestleMania 32 projections and much more, a rare "lay of the land" show, check it out and let us know what you think! http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/web/pdwvqh/SCGRadio52-NXTSummerslamRawandBeyond.mp3

A lot of the major issues have been addressed. The groups hurt it. All lip service. No great singles matches. Sasha as top heel champ I like, but there are holes in her game too. She's not the best promo, so bring in more of the UFC style video soundbites packages they used in NXT. Also, as minor and stupid as this is, she needs to portray that heel attitude more. She smiles a lot, and it's a nice smile, an endearing one. Stop that. They have a real luxury in that PPV crowds are predominantly hardcore fans nowadays, so it's actually easier than ever to deliver the big matches on the big stage and create the perception this thing is working. The issue is TV, and the comedy is that, if the Divas' revolution was supposed to get them the same treatment as the guys, their TV booking for the guys is completely ineffective at creating stars, casts everybody as a midcarder, and does a generally average to poor job of creating anything of real interest outside the top two matches for the next PPV. Obviously we are all hoping and striving for more out of what they do, but it's not just a female mould they have to break to get over in a major way, it's a WWE mould, and the girls complaining on Twitter makes me think they're completely oblivious to that.

It's an easy match to be polarising on, and I specifically mentioned that nip up spot as something I knew people would hold against It, but to me it's the perfect example of a match being done for the day it took place. 4 years of believing the back was so bad Shawn was a bump away from a wheelchair, them playing to it so much and getting great heat, the story of Shawn just barely hanging on and getting the lucky kick that busts HHH open and brings him down a bit to allow Shawn to grow into the match, and then with the nip up, it's the old Shawn Michaels, the guy who had the kayfabe character as "the most resilient guy in the WWF", proving he still was after all this time, and did his thing like he used to. It was the perfect story to tell that crowd, the response live is testament to it all the way through, and the great final up and down at the finish was excellent. If it lost you, then that's the way it goes. Overrated is in the eye of the beholder, and certainly the feedback we got to on the show perfectly illustrated that nobody's list is the same...but the debate is fun.

Woods is phenomenal. The New Day in general are just the most absurdly enjoyable act in the WWE. Big E and Kofi dancing at Summerslam will be embedded in my mind forever, much like the first time I saw Jimmy Del Ray's grind. The Twitter complaining by the women irks me. There's a sense of entitlement that comes across that's completely unjustified - it's your job to do your best to get over, not the fans job to praise you regardless of merit. That promo segment was hideous, and the Raw matches haven't been anything special at all, regardless of the bad booking. I know it's easy to blame the Bellas (and there is something to that, obviously), but bottom line, the casual Raw audiences have been given nothing to turn heads.

I like to think he does have this displayed somewhere though, at the headquarters or at his house, occasionally looks at it, a tear gently forming in his eye, and says "I did it", kinda like Chevy Chase at the end of Christmas Vacation.

http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/play/234e8w/SCGRadio51-RankingTheBestSummerslamMatchesEver.mp3 Squared Circle Gazette Radio returns on Summerslam weekend to rank the greatest matches in the history of the show! Join the panel as we countdown the Top 20 matches in Summerslam history, as determined by a cumulative vote: 1. Shawn Michaels Vs. Triple H (2002) 2. Bret Hart Vs. Mr. Perfect (1991) 3. Bret Hart Vs. Davey Boy Smith (1992) 4. Bret Hart Vs. Owen Hart (1994) 5. Edge & Christian Vs. Hardy Boyz Vs. Dudley Boyz (2000) 6. The Rock Vs. Triple H (1998) 7. Shawn Michaels Vs. Razor Ramon (1995) 8. Kurt Angle Vs. Rey Mysterio (2002) 9. Steve Austin Vs. Kurt Angle (2001) 10. Brock Lesnar Vs. CM Punk (2013) 11a. Bret Hart Vs. Doink/Jerry Lawler (1993) 11b. Brock Lesnar Vs. John Cena (2014) 13. Hart Foundation Vs. Brain Busters (1989) 14. The Rock Vs. Brock Lesnar (2002) 15. Hart Foundation Vs. Demolition (1990) 16a. Daniel Bryan Vs. John Cena (2013) 16b. The Ultimate Warrior Vs. Rick Rude (1989) 18. Steiner Brothers Vs. Heavenly Bodies (1993) 19. Shane McMahon Vs. Test (1999) 20. Christian Vs. Randy Orton (2011) On the show, we debate which matches should be higher or lower, as well as get to your thoughts on the list and any matches you felt belong amongst the all time greats that didn't make the cut. A huge show this week, check it out and let us know what you think!

Just wanted to thank everybody for the posts, comments and nominations, we got to read many of them on the show, and the podcast debating the Top 20 Matches in Summerslam History is now available at the following link: http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/play/234e8w/SCGRadio51-RankingTheBestSummerslamMatchesEver.mp3 Join us as we talk about the rankings determined by a cumulative vote, and debate which matches should be higher or lower, as well as your thoughts on the list, the classic encounters, and any matches you felt belong amongst the all time greats. A huge show this week, longer than usual so posting it a day early, check it out and let us know what you think!

True, but I agree with Austin (who seems to have a more traditional approach in wins and losses for a top guy, having never been liberal with jobs in his peak) in the sense that - if Owens had beat Cena, and then was going on to Cesaro, then it's a wasted job for Cena since it didn't elevate Owens in the process, Cena is the guy moving up. Which you can do, but it's also not the best way to build Cena for this spot, and since they clearly got cold feet when his numbers went down a bit after the first Owens job, that probably weighed into their thinking.

Brock kills Taker again, Taker out the next night to feign a retirement speech saying he has doesn't see a way to save his legacy or some shit, Sting comes out. Place would go nuts and you tease for Mania. If Kane returns on this show and this leads to heel Taker/Kane like it's 1998 again at the expense of Brock, I'll literally cry my eyes out.

"Mean Gene of course talking about the videotape of WrestleMania going platinum. Treee-mendous". Hilarious balls to give himself this award then roll his eyes upon acceptance like he's too modest for it.

Especially since Stu is clearly trying to continue his answer in the background as Hayes wraps it up.

I expect Bryan/Cena to be the most debated match on the podcast in some respects. Again, it was an average ranking out of 4 different lists, and had the highest variance of almost any match. Without knowing, I'll guess there is an emotional detachment in the sense of foreboding of the Orton cash-in that lingered, and maybe the idea the match meant less ten minutes after it happened when it's appeal is as a classic main event match, when matches of that ilk you want the ability to revel in. The booking by design was to cockblock the feelgood, of course, but I'm curious if what people might be looking for from a match of that position wasn't achieved due to that factor (since it may have detracted from the ability to enjoy it as a whole, bask in it afterwards and let it feel complete and historically significant), whereas some matches designed to be more standalone (Angle/Rey, for example) are all-time gems in the position they are put in. Not exactly grading on a curve so much as the punch a match has given it's placing. Who knows. It's interesting anyway, part of why I wanted to do a voted list, see what the multiple votes pulled back.