rovert Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Fighting Spirit Magazine has an interview with Jerry Lawler in the interview it states he is dating 21 year old FCW trainee Su Yung. Well, at least he's consistent. Apparently she worked for the last Lawler Memphis promotion also consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 That's quite old for him, though, isn't it? But, no, I mean, it reflects worse on her at this point. Am I the only one who had to check, given the ring name, that she's an actual person and not Lawler making a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Talk about growing old disgracefully. If that's disgraceful sign me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 That's quite old for him, though, isn't it? He's not 40 years old anymore. He grew more mature I guess... If that's disgraceful sign me up. Well, there's that too I guess. Only thing is that it's a lifelong trend with Lawler. How bizarre to think a man who grows as old as 61 and never was with a 30 or 40 year old woman. I mean, yes, there's something definitely disgraceful somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Hey, good for Jerry. She's legal and hot. I'm 22 and I don't think I'd have a shot at her, yet alone at 61. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, what exactly is "disgraceful" here? So Lawler can score young tail, good for him. She's legal. I'm 40 and my girlfriend is 21. I feel a lot of things about our relationship but "disgraceful" isn't one of them. I try to emulate The King in every way. I'm thinking about wearing a crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, what exactly is "disgraceful" here? So Lawler can score young tail, good for him. She's legal. I'm 40 and my girlfriend is 21. I feel a lot of things about our relationship but "disgraceful" isn't one of them. I try to emulate The King in every way. I'm thinking about wearing a crown. More of a play on the phrase "growing old gracefully" I wasn't making any real heavy judgement. But there is a societal expectation to embrace old age and everything that goes with it choosing partners accordingly too. If he is happy then I am happy. I just posting another example of Jerry being Jerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 But there is a societal expectation to embrace old age and everything that goes with it If that's how it is in Ireland, then that's awesome. I've worked with elders in Nursing Homes for the last 21 years and I'd love for the US society to embrace old age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm 40 and my girlfriend is 21. He's 61 and she's 21. Not exactly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm 40 and my girlfriend is 21. He's 61 and she's 21. Not exactly the same thing. Yeah, he's better. And to get it out of the way, I'd say that a 61 year old woman dating a 21 year old guy is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 But there is a societal expectation to embrace old age and everything that goes with it If that's how it is in Ireland, then that's awesome. I've worked with elders in Nursing Homes for the last 21 years and I'd love for the US society to embrace old age. But you know what I mean there is a sense betraying your age so to speak nothing to do with national differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Jerry seems to have a hard time accepting that time marches on, he didn't want to be put in the Hall of Fame because that's for old guys who are retired. Ironically his program with Miz might be proving him right to a degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 There was an inductee last night after all: http://vids.wwe.com/index.php/video/Hall-o...ng/806900667001 Apparently the video wasnt shoe due to the lack footage WWE has in their library of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Seriously? Each clip was from a different match and only a few seconds were from VHS-sourced Georgia footage. They even had that early B&W Florida clip that I'm sure nobody's seen since it happened decades ago. Before watching it, it sort of made sense since I didn't think about Florida (Though I figured that between JCP, SMW, and photos, it should be enough, albeit with him older), but they had a ton of different stuff from there, including a great early clip, and most of it was from Florida in his prime and JCP when he was aging but still an active wrestler in great shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Meltzer said on the website it was cut because other segments overran. Speaking of Meltzer, it sure was weird him joking on Observer radio that he had a joke about Jerry Lawler which he couldn't tell, because people get sued for millions for this sort of stuff and how the Internet kills it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blehschmidt Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe someone can explain this to me. Does Kevin Dunn wield more power than we know about? I remember Triple H being high on Sheamus, and Sheamus being pushed to the moon. Now I hear that Dunn is down on Sheamus, and the guy is getting buried week in and week out. I actually think he has grown as a worker and is far better now than he was during his run as champion, so I just don't understand this current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 There was an old running joke that everything bad in the WWF gets blamed on Kevin Dunn. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Maybe someone can explain this to me. Does Kevin Dunn wield more power than we know about? I remember Triple H being high on Sheamus, and Sheamus being pushed to the moon. Now I hear that Dunn is down on Sheamus, and the guy is getting buried week in and week out. I actually think he has grown as a worker and is far better now than he was during his run as champion, so I just don't understand this current situation. Likely the classic bury the wrestler to see how he copes. If Sheamus handles it well, they'll push him later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Watching the Ron Garvin/Ric Flair series I think Garvin was Flair's best rival. Its too bad he did not work out as interim champion. Flair was cutting great promos building up to Starrcade 87 but Garvin felt like a lame duck champion keeping Flair's belt warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Maybe someone can explain this to me. Does Kevin Dunn wield more power than we know about? I remember Triple H being high on Sheamus, and Sheamus being pushed to the moon. Now I hear that Dunn is down on Sheamus, and the guy is getting buried week in and week out. I actually think he has grown as a worker and is far better now than he was during his run as champion, so I just don't understand this current situation. It's supposedly a combo of the Brock Lesnar Memorial "Burying the Guy Who Got the Megapush" deal to see if he can handle it and that Kevin Dunn didn't like Sheamus's look and wanted to change it. How dressing like the world's palest Lord of the Rings cosplayer was an improvement is anyone's guess, but I never stop laughing at Dunn being down on someone's look after seeing a pic of his ugly mug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Watching the Ron Garvin/Ric Flair series I think Garvin was Flair's best rival. Its too bad he did not work out as interim champion. Flair was cutting great promos building up to Starrcade 87 but Garvin felt like a lame duck champion keeping Flair's belt warm. I like Garvin but there's no way he should have had that title run. 1987 was arguably the height of the wrestling boom and on the WWF's show you have larger-than-life superhero Hulk Hogan as champion. Turn the channel to the NWA and the champ is some short dude that looks like one of your dad's poker buddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The whole point of the Garvin title win wasn't to create a new star as much as it was build excitement for Starrcade, where they thought Flair challenging would have more appeal than Flair defending. With that said, I think Nikita Koloff would have been a much better choice as a short-term champion. He had slipped quite a bit by this time, but even at his peak, he was never a guy you could put the title on for any length of time. But Nikita wearing the belt for two months had some appeal. If they wanted someone who would have good matches on top at house shows, Barry Windham also would have been a better pick than Garvin. I'm not sure if Flair's neck injury was a factor in the title change or not, but he sure was hidden in a lot of tag matches around this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I really loved Flair/Garvin's Starrcade 87 match at least. Thought it was a real blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I will second the love of Flair's promos on Garvin. Soooo much better than "boy I sure respect you Dusty, yessir!". Garvin as the plain, straight-laced fighter was a wonderful contrast to Flair, and Flair screaming about how Garvin can't bang enough women to be The Champ is priceless. In fact, I think it might just be the ultimate expression of Flair's "to be the man" talking point, covering before Garvin won, before Starrcade, and after it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 A lot of my friends were raving about the Rock's return a couple weeks ago so I watched his promo online, liked it, and decided to DVR Raw for a couple weeks in an attempt to get back into wrestling. WARNING: This is another "Why I Don't Like Modern Wrestling Rant" so stop reading if you can't bear seeing another one of those. However, I need to get this off my chest, and this is the one place I could come to do it Anyway, I haven't watched Raw for probably 8 years at least. I caught snippets in the run-up to Flair's "retirement" and after Taker/Shawn from WM, but that's it. I DVRd the last two Raws after the Rock's comeback, and I think I'm already done with it. Is Vince purposely trying to prevent the product from getting as big as it did in the Attitude era? Here's what I can't figure out: *So the Rock comes back and people go absolutely insane. Apparently he's only going to "host" WM, whatever that means. Either way, why was he not on the show the week after his comeback, and why did he do a lame satellite interview from his house this week? *Apparently John Cena is the company's biggest star these days (right?). Why are you bringing back the Rock to bury him before he goes back to Hollywood? Or is the lame sattellite interview and Cena's decent response a sign that they're trying to turn the Rock heel? *Does anybody actually buy a ticket or PPV to watch the Miz? What am I missing with this guy? I'm not seeing it. *Ditto for Randy Orton. He might have the most annoying mannerisms of any wrestler I've ever watched. *The only thing that held my interest each show was the Jerry Lawler/Michael Cole bits. And I can't figure out if it was because they were actually good, or I just enjoy Lawler because of my love for 80s wrestling. *Why do people cheer for Triple H and boo the Undertaker? What am I missing there? *There is nothing "Raw" about the show. There is nothing about it that feels organic or "real." Everything is such a major production that I don't feel connected to any of it -- not the workers, not the angles, not the words being said, nothing. Wrestling used to be organized chaos. Now it's just...organized. Ok I'm done now. Sorry to rant about a topic that has likely been ranted about thousands of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts