BrianB

Funk Savage Flair Lawler (not quite as much for in-ring, that's why I'd put him in the 4th slot, but his effectiveness as a heel and a babyface and ability to thrive at different spots on the card and different environments was outstanding.)

Great pic. I wonder if Randy went off on Blassie for checking out Liz!

My issue with trigger warnings is it puts too much emphasis on individual psychology, as opposed to structural and systemic oppression, and allows for something being "uncomfortable" to be challenged or as an excuse to not have to engage with the materials. I do object a little bit to the idea that you can't draw lines, but I do wonder if you can't draw lines for students who were documented sexual abuse victims... Lolita is a great book and all, but is it really necessary to tackle rape or pedophilia if you're going to be a literature writer, critic, or academic? My issue with PC culture is that it's similarly infantile to most of the trigger warning stuff, i.e. moving the discussion away from justice and towards individual or just group offense, and, secondly, what it usually does is silence rather than further open discussion and debate. It makes people want to "stick to their own" or whatever, because they feel safer and less at risk. It also results in people effectively just being quiet and still having problematic views and probably behaving in objectionable ways, and if they bother to defend themselves at all it's usually with code word stuff and if they can't hide enough behind that then they'll get axed and stigmatized. In reality, imo, educating and informing these people about why they can't go around saying or doing bigoted things is a better solution than just getting them fired and punished through public shaming. To some degree, public shaming has to be involved, but it's obvious that a very big segment of people are quite upset about it, rallying into their media and social media echochambers, getting very resentful, and considering seriously voting for an unfit charlatan to be the President. Hillary definitely has her own issues, which plays into it, but we've still effectively evolved into a political climate where somebody like Trump probably cannot fall below 40% as the Republican standard bearer, both in terms of the primary but also the general election, which is quite a big shift from, say, even 20 years ago.

Good show. Hogan-Gonzales was a strong solution for saving the WM9 card. Good thinking there. I think your booking potentially sets up Diesel as the follow-up opponent for Bret after Owen, and that makes sense since in hindsight we know Nash and Bret put on very good matches together. I do think that's too many jobs for Savage if he's still going to have value. 2 losses to Bret, a countout or whatever to Razor, and then a loss to Taker at WM? That risks turning one of the biggest stars of the boom period into Ted DiBiase after WM4. I think it's fine for him to beat Razor and some other guys, just have it be like how Davey beat Bret or Bret beat Austin at SS96--a long match where the loser gets 60% of the offense and the finish is a pinning counter to a signature move. It makes more sense for Razor to beat Savage around late 1994 or 1995, if you're going to really get behind Scott Hall. Same logic applies to Shawn too imo. Personally, for WMX, if Piper is coming back like he did, I'd have him wrestle Savage. That match sells itself. You've probably got to do a non-finish or a bollocks finish, but that match might actually draw, while you can have the title program main event above it, and still put on Razor/Shawn. Then maybe you can transition Savage, if you want to turn him back face , into a program later that year vs. Lawler, and then into a match where he puts over a heel--Shawn Michaels would be my pick-at WMXI.

To the topic question, yes. We already had plenty of this stuff back before the internet with the different Ultimate Warriors theories and all the rest. And let's face facts, while I love a lot of the IWC, there are plenty of people who are fans and are either a) mouth-breathers or b. kind of wack jobs, who think anything might be a work or are just...different... But to the idea proposed about a company with storylines based on that? No. That's just bad worked shoots. We've seen tons of those already. This is arguably more creative, but work out some of these in practice I don't know how concept it seems anymore vs. just silly or obviously fake. Besides, the only wrestlers you could make stuff up where enough people would care...all of those people are old as hell now, and there's limited appeal to see them wrestle beyond maybe "one more match." Anytime you start putting a bunch of these stories on TV and stop alluding to stuff of TV, it's not likely to work, and if you put a bunch on TV and try to make it a worked shoot....well the Russo clock will start ticking. It's a catch 22 imo.

In the meantime, Survivor Series was awesome. Over the Edge 1998 coming up next. Lots of WWF and attitude era picks so far.

Dave definitely has a blindspot for the two. Moreso for the Miz imo. Miz has become very good. His character work is arguably the best in the company atm, and his in-ring has improved significantly from years ago, where you could deservedly criticize him. Plus, he's over and get's booed. Sheamus? Sheamus is a better worker than Dave gives him credit for. But Sheamus isn't that over. People barely care about him anymore. Everytime he's put into the main event it mostly doesn't work. The matches might be good, but it's hard for me to care or for most fans to care. I think fans are just done with Sheamus because he's also got the stink of being a HHH friend, a constant foil to Daniel Bryan, and his character has been very bad in the past especially as a babyface. His character is better now, but, imo, that's like saying Corporate Kane is a better character than Demon Kane, or vice-versa. I'm probably still more interested to see beat into the ground loser Dolph Ziggler than Sheamus.

There's probably some exceptions. But generally, I'd say it's pretty hard to have a 4.5-5* classic match in under 10 minutes.

Survivor Series 2002 has dropped. Even with a long commute today, lots of divided attention, but so far it's been a very strong ep. A promising followup to the outstanding 1992 SummerSlam episode.

I wouldn't do Razor that hard. But I did think about if a Razor/Perfect feud in 1993 was a missed opportunity, especially since it might have solidified Razor as a main eventer. I wonder if they could've done a double turn too? On the other hand, I think how they did eventually turn Razor face was tremendously effective.

I'm assuming I can't rebook the insanity that was the end of 1992, so with that in mind... First, I'd have Savage win the Rumble in 1993, Bret-Savage for the title at WM9 where Bret retains. I'd have kept the title on Bret for most of the year, maybe the entire year. Taker and Savage were probably the two most mismanaged 1993 figures. Taker just being stuck in awful stuff, but still staying over. And Savage where subtracting him from commentary would've been a positive, and he still could have had some interesting programs on TV with Bret, Shawn, Razor, Luger, down the line. The Taker and Gonzales program went on way too long and was awful. WM9 would've been a necessary and painful blowoff but you've got to do it. Then I'd quickly transition to Yokozuna vs. Taker for the late summer through the end of the year since they had a great dynamic together. Bam Bam and Taker could've been interesting too later in the year. Hogan...I mean, I'm not sure there's much you can do. I'd let Hogan do whatever he wanted for WM9 outside of any involvement in the main event, since that would help business. Then at KOTR I'd have him job to Bret or Savage. If he couldn't be talked into that (I'm assuming he wouldn't because he never jobbed to either guy), then Yokozuna would fine--or possibly Undertaker, if he could be persuaded to do that again. After that, I assume he's leaving or not going to be until later in the year. I'd agree that Mr. Perfect is a big X factor. But I'm not sure he could have stuck in the main event picture, even after that big Flair win, because he wasn't a very good face, but they maybe could have tried to give that some legs. If it was working, maybe he's the logical King of The Ring winner then, and you can have him face Bret at Summerslam. If not, you've probably got to use him to elevate a heel--maybe Shawn like they did, or start to work a double turn with Razor? Tatanka was pretty worthless. I'd have him turn heel sooner, after WM9, so then you can use him to turn Lex face and have that be a program.

It is often. But it's not always. That line of thinking means we should still use the n word or using gay as an insult. If you can't make a distinction been words actually tied and interviewed with ideologies of oppression, histories of opposion, and the language of hierarchy...and stuff that is just more colorful and on the edge while still within bounds.

I dunno, but overt racism, homophobia and sexism seem to me to be more important issues to tackle than Christmas, calling matches "abortions" or using gender neutral terms in innocuous places. It seems to me important not to piss off large swathes of normal people when the first set of issues are still far far from being sorted. The second set of issues encourages general eye-rolling, and makes it easier to reduce the first set to that same level. Worse it pushes simmering resentment under the carpet, and I'm convinced that that is part of some of the far-right political movements we are seeing in UK and USA right now. Campaigns being run on basically racism. I don't disagree with the basic premise of what has fueled the rise of far right candidates, but I also don't think that such movements are empowered by this stuff. They are empowered by economic realities and changing cultural norms. Arguments about word policing are just superfluous appetizers used to enhance the message. Except that the only thing you'll ever get from a Trump supporter that comes out as pro-him for something is often how much they despise political correctness and want it go away. (Which incidently only seems to re-enforce Parv's point about picking poorly choosing the hills they want to die on.) Social media, the rise of outrage, and the ease of recording has, imo, actually fueled the backlash. People have seen, read about, or heard enough stories of people getting into deep crap, losing jobs, getting humiliated, etc. because of things that they have said, which most people would've thought of as more private before. Yes, lots of that stuff is because people were actually behaving racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., but since it's almost impossible to get people to unanimously to agree on anything these days and there have been so many, it seems to me that quite a large number of people very much resent that that's just the new reality.

Really what a stupid, ignorant thing to say. Calling a bad match an abortion is just plain stupid and I would be really pissed if I was reading that bullshit, especially if I was involved in an abortion or anything. Regardless of that, there is no need to use such stupid terminology. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I've used the term myself. Be pissed if you want, but having had one, use of the term in reference to a failed creative endeavor is pretty small stuff to me. That, however, does bother me. It ain't murder. don't work yourself into a shoot. it isn't to me either.

Not surprised. The WCW 1997 timeline was a bridge to far for me. It was entertaining, but anybody who closely follows that time period would find the overlooks, letting Nash work him, and not asking more probing questions just too tough. I got the impression from that vid that Nash knew he had good rapport with SO and that he had gotten over with the core buying audience, and now he was shifting more to just doing what he wanted to do.

I personally find it amusing and colorful since it seems so out of left-field, randomly uses a typical divisive third rail controversy, and at the same time it's so hard to remotely take seriously comparing or calling a really bad wrestling match with an aborted fetus/murdered baby (depending on how you look at it.) Good find though. Again, I'd stress how it seems Dave considers what he says or does outside of the newsletter as less formal, serious, and ultimately professional than what he does elsewhere. But it's still relevant for this conversation, and yes, Dave has posited some racially tinged opinions over the years that don't always square well with modern minds and eyes, and I'd argue are the more correct and informed minds and eyes.

It won't happen. But a real and candid book from The Rock would be very interesting..

I'm not sure that's accurate a). whatever impression Dave has historically has to be grounded in the impressions of black and other minorities who were called and derided with the n word by fans, promoters, or other wrestlers. Maybe some aspect of how he treats that shows privilege, but I'd need to see more proof on that. Some of the newsletter stuff from the past I think kind of supports that. But this recent controversy...it seems like a real stretch to me.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I agree with that. I get the impression that Dave wants the f4w q&as to cater to more what you want--though I do wish there was more in that regard myself--and the twitter stuff is mostly just him logging on and freestyling in his spare time or while he's between stories. It's mostly just an unfortunate fact of life that for most people and their psychology, unless they go in with set parameters or whatever, that trolling and hot takes will get a response, even if it's easy just because it gets such a visceral reaction. I also like to pretend I've got DSM-IV/V criteria and the creds to determine such a thing... I've also seen people point to some of those tendencies as a "Jewish thing". Anecdotally, the latter seems quite plausible to me and makes sense, but I don't know and will concede as much. Just like how there's a stereotype for journalists being quite particular about things as well. Personally, as somebody who tends to be more long-winded than concise naturally, I find twitter a difficult medium to communicate in your full thoughts, and unless I really zone in on concisely, but not completely expressing my POV, it's easy to leave something that can be misinterpreted or read another way. Which then makes it necessary for more tweets....honestly, outside of the people who use twitter for self-promotion and funneling interest or just for pithy takes and jokes...I don't know why anyone would use twitter. It just seems like it has all the pros and cons of every other social media platform, except it has them on steroids. Anyway, that was my long-winded of suggesting that Dave seems like somebody who pithy takes don't come easily too, and so he can either seem too-longed winded or appear glib because he doesn't fully explain to counter that tendency rather than strike the happy mean. I don't know that, that's just me spitballing on my observations. Twitter is a difficult medium where I think it shows up more for him. His audio shows are less so, but have some of the same things, as well as his writings in the newsletter, though to a lesser degree at least recently, since it seems to me he now considers that a more "serious" part of his job, as it's his real reporting and recorded takes.

That's fair. I hadn't completed read through all this thread either before posting. I think our musical tastes differ quite a bit from early listenings of your pod, parts 1 and 2 and then reading some of the rest. But that's no fault of your list or anything, Music, maybe more than any art form, is the most subjective because of how it's so dialed into emotions and how certain sounds resonate and register with each individual. FWIW, the choices you made seem well considered and though there are some patterns, it certainly doesn't seem like a by rote list--iow, your choices seem quite individual and particular although in line with some general preferences--I suspect that impression will be only more borne out if/when I listen to the final 2 parts.

Yeah, I definitely hate it when Between The Sheets runs close to 4 hours for a week of wrestling that I fondly remember or am jazzed up to hear more about. oh wait.... I actually do love BTS too and am a patreon donor there too.

I'll just bemoan the lack of Miles Davis, though I can understand if you don't like the genre of music not inluding him. Tremendous style diversity, stong peaks at multiple genres and styles, a massive influence that extended well-beyond his classified music genre. I can understand not placing him high if you don;t enjoy the music tremendously, but in terms of innovation, the length of a peak run, influence, consistency, he'd have to be on any list imo. I personally think Jazz rates very highly as an art for music because of how intricate and skilled some of it can be, as well as how key improvisation within certain accepted 'standards' is to doing it well. If you don't like that, I guess that's fine. It all boils down to taste. But Miles was great at doing either one. Either being tyranical to get his talented bandmates to conform to his vision, or getting them to come out and improvise within certain parameters and never reaching the complete disharmony and cacophony of stuff like Free Jazz.

Putting aside the issue of parsing the difference between a demand and a preference worth making a public callout about, which you did, I'd ask a preference with regard to what? Dave's writings specifically, here, or just in general about who he responds to and answers to on twitter? I think Dave did some things--not perfect certainly---to distance himself from some of those concerns, Coffey, when he went on to tweet: https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/779389880489037824 and https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/779399199083274240

Yeah, Dave didn't majorly acquit himself on that controversy. I think, if you read between the lines or maybe are generous, he's essentially said that he didn't respond to the question as fully and accurately as he maybe would be expected to do. I also like to make demands on people that purely cater to my tastes and expectations, particularly when it comes to their behavior on social media...

Could be, it was great. Over The Edge was a totally different vibe but right at the top too. 1997 definitely could be too...still, I'm looking forward to Survivor Series 2002, the next show, hopefully dropping early next week.