BigBadMick

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?

3 hour Raws will do that. Even if you knew how to make a point swiftly and succinctly, it's counter-productive to do so. It annoys me too.

These two posts make the point that it's difficult to find overrated and underrated wrestlers. I tend to agree - EVERYTHING is obsessively studied and pondered around here. I think, though, Bruiser Brody is overrated in most places and underrated in pwo.

Am I the only person still listening....? Part 1 with Angle was enjoyable. They're clearly still on good terms and had a good old catch up. Nothing earth shattering, and Angle's fondness for a bit of bullshit shines through (claiming that TNA went to 2 hours shortly after his debut - it was about a year later) but worth a listen, I think.

Listening to his July marathon - good when he gets going, but reading results from house shows gets very dry, very quickly.

Fuuuccccckkkkkkkkk...............

That's also where they went wrong. Trying to fill the Brock gap with Lashley was terrible on WWE's part, namely because Lashley as you say, was incapable of bringing Brock's characteristics to the table. Lesnar is an anomaly in so many ways. He's a once-in-a-lifetime athlete, with the credentials to back it up (Lashley's pre and post WWE accomplishments pale in comparison to Brock's) who can put on magnificent matches, move like a guy half his size, sell with the best of them, work with virtually anybody from Big Show to Zach Gowen, and still cut a good promo. He set the bar so high that nobody could really fill his shoes upon his departure from WWE. This point always confused me.... I agree that Lesnar was a fine promo, especially in the Guerrero build up. How did he become so terrible in 2012 and DESPERATELY need Heyman?

What's the consensus (if there is one) on when Henry started having good matches? Just asking...

Great, great show lads. Didn't like y'all ganging up on Parv at the end - taking piledrivers aplenty from that big, drunken, possibly high Gordy takes balls.

Ok, got my first issue of FSM. Haven't read it all yet, but on first impressions it's a bit lightweight. Not much analysis in the PPV reviews or tv roundup at all. This may sound extreme, but in film mag terms it's Empire to Power Slam's Sight & Sound. I hope my opinion of it improves - I've taken a 12 month subscription based on recommendations on this thread....

Thought the two parter with Heyman and Edge was very good (and it was a good idea to have Edge as co-host, meant he could add insight to Smackdown 6 discussion and a few other topics). Heyman could talk his way into anything, what a hustler!

Listened to Russo. The story about Austin refusing to work with someone and then throwing a fit when he felt he was being cornered into it - Was it Jarrett or Billy Gunn? Also, Austin argued he wasn't paranoid, but 'extremely cautious/selective' about who he worked with - it's a slippery slope I think. Then again, Vince seems to love playing mind games with people and I can understand lashing out when you've got the clout to do so....

Listened to the MVP podcast during the week. It was interesting, covering his early life, Benoit and a bit about TNA. One thing that bothers me is JR talking about MVP improving himself and getting out of crime. It sounds a bit patronising when he jumps on his soapbox and preaches that we can all learn from it etc. Suppose that's just him getting older.....

What is this called? Sounds interesting....