BigBadMick

There's a bit of truth to this. Paul Bearer talked about it in one of his ROH shoot interviews. it was Jake's last night with the company and didn't want to get beat clean with the Tombstone in the middle of the ring. Therefore, he changed the finish to where Taker tombstoned him on the floor and then rolled him in the ring to get pinned. According to Paul Bearer, Vince was furious over this and blamed Taker since he couldn't do anything to Jake. I can't remember the exact details but that was pretty much it. Thanks. Between that, the 2 unapproved bladejobs by Flair and Bret, and Sid kicking out of Hogan's legdrop because Wippleman (or Papa Shango - can't remember) was late for the dq-causing run-in, this was one headache of a night for Vince.....

Listened to his interview with Bret Hart this morning. Any truth to Bret's claim that Jake ballsed up or sabotaged the end of his match with taker at mania 8 and was fired? Jake himself claimed he held up Vince for more money on the show. And I assumed he was fired for substance abuse around then anyway.....

We definitely have different definitions of the word "significant." I'm strongly, strongly opposed to the decimation of historical artifacts and records, but if there was one library on this Earth I wouldn't mind seeing burned, it'd be TNA's. Come on! All of it?!! They're plenty of really good stuff in 2005-06 just off the top of my head. The 'TNA Is worst promotion in history' thread had a 'in defense of TNA' bit a couple of months ago, I'll dig through that for more....

Really enjoyed this Parv. Any chance you could get the boys together again for 1982-85 or so?

Listened to the first half hour or so - wow! I'd like to congratulate the rest of the gang for their patience with Johnny 'Art Donovan' Sorrow. And Johnny too - rambling wildly but still making coherent points about Stampede wrestling's legacy - kudos!

Random thought that popped into my head. One of the funniest signs I ever saw was in ECW arena, autumn of 1995, concerning Sandman - A Beer is a Terrible Thing to Waste Are fans as smart ie literate, witty, connected to anything outside wrestling anymore?

Listening to Bryan and Dave discussing the Daniel Bryan burglary. Bryan starts asking how upset the dog was, and whether it was available for interview. He's a profoundly unfunny man.

Good listen, guys. I enjoyed the lengthy discussion about DiBiase's WWF work. Your consensus that he got into a bit of a rut and did what was needed seems fair. I agree that he was solid but never really stood out in the AJPW stuff I've seen.

Easy on the new kid, Parv. Takes a while to find your feet on here....

My first experience of Dave was with the Tributes book in 2001. I found his style a bit jarring but had enough background info on most of the wrestler bios to fill in the blanks myself. I agree that it's a challenging, almost interactive, way to get through his longer articles, but I enjoy it. My next encounter was his Wrestling Gold commentary with Cornette. This was staggeringly good. Took a few rewatches to absorb all the info therein.

There's a big disconnect between PWO and Meltzer when it comes to modern NJPW, huh? I really haven't watched as much as I'd like to so can't really comment further.

Have you stopped on these for a while Parv? I got through the first disc and a half of Mid-South quite quickly, but the constant lack of commentary was off-putting. I don't mind house show matches here and there, but I started missing the Irish McNeills Boys Club

Meltzer said the first night v Okada was Styles best match ever.

Last week's audio had a good discussion about Foley, his stand up show and some analysis of his career, ring style, life after wrestling etc. It's things like this that Mitchell handles very well, and it makes a nice change from dissecting (and - usually - criticising) every little aspect of Raw. I know, he needs to talk about something new every week, but the big picture stuff with added perspective is usually more satisfying.

Completely agree. I had to skip over most of that rubbish. He's better talking old school stuff.

Wasn't sure if I could lift this from the Bruce Mitchell thread on podcasts and publications, so I'll copy and paste. It's from Johnny P: I'm probably bias because I am friendly with Mitchell, and I've always stuck up for him when he's been smashed by other friends of mine, but he is a very talented, thoughtful man. He can be over the top, and he sticks to a premise of a sarcastic joke a little too long, but not having the greatest comedic timing isn't a prosecutable offense. Is he grating at times? Sure, he has those moments. He is certainly moralisitc to a fault, but I'd rather he be guilty of that than play to fast and loose. There are times the Torch goes after a story on a basis which I think is a bit to overly PC, sensative, or just reaching. But that does not invalidate them. My arguement has always been that if they did that 4 times I would still support them because that fifth time they'll be the voice making something clear when others might brush it under the rug. They ae a bit of a watchdog organization who believes is journalism and form. They are a necessary figure in pro wrestling journalism and columns. Mitchell has been at the front of that bus for over 20 yrs. And just for his history podcasts, fans like those here should at the very least appreciate the guy.

About what? Yeah, I think a copy and paste got lost somewhere here and I'm curious too

Get an Observer/F4W sub. Personal bias, but I can't listen to Keller, he annoys the hell out of me, and the audio quality of his podcasts are ridiculously poor for something he expects people to pay money for. Say what you will about Alvarez, but the quality of audio on his pods is good, and he strives to deliver a clear and listenable product. Keller's pods are worse than amatuer level. Also, Keller and Bruce Mitchell's opinions and whiny talk just really annoys me. I enjoy listening to Dave, I enjoy listening to Bryan despite how out there and whacky he is sometimes......I can not listen to Keller or Mitchell without wanting to cut my ears off Who's harder to listen to - Alvarez or Keller? Tough call. Funny thing is I enjoy Mitchell and feel Keller is good at directing conversation. Can't say the same about Alvarez trying to steer Dave.

Bruce Mitchell did a review of the entire show a few weeks ago. He said the plan was for the Kiniski involvement to allow Harley to claim interference to save face in his Kansas territory and transition into a feud with Kiniski. Harley was still a face in Kansas. For some reason the feud never occurred.

I agree that the Angle interview was good, and Ross seems to be laying off the 'back in my day' rants lately.

I was going to suggest go have a beer together, but.......

Is it also the case that it used to be wrestlers gaining, consolidating and jealously guarding their position, and now management has so much more power that wrestlers are only worried about impressing the bosses now? Management and labour, rather than the old way of watching your back against everyone?

I was thinking about this during the HHH debate podcast. You don't really hear of wrestlers throwing their weight around backstage in WWE anymore. Is it the system WWE has created, with no effective alternatives for disgruntled staff, and the brand taking prominance over any individual as a draw? If he could have, would Vince have created this system thirty years ago? Is this his greatest achievement? I'm spitballing here, but would like to hear if anyone thinks any wrestlers still have clout, play games to keep opponents down etc and all the dirty little games that HHH and many others are/were accused of in the past?

Good show lads. Any clues on matches for part 2? Oh, by the way Parv, Cornette's podcast last week was with Matysik. Right up your street, I'd imagine (You'd be a lot mor use than Alice anyway..).

Didn't he say on Total Divas that he plans on being with WWE full time for at least 10 more years?