Ric Flair (sigh)

[Dylan Waco]

These guys always lie about "going sixty." That's probably the most common wrestling lie aside from "we were selling out everywhere!"

[JerryvonKramer]

A thread on "most common lies in shoots" would be quite entertaining. Hope someone will make it.

[El-P]

These guys always lie about "going sixty." That's probably the most common wrestling lie aside from "we were selling out everywhere!"

Often it's even better, it's "Were were going sixty every night, and twice on Sunday."

 

A thread on "most common lies in shoots" would be quite entertaining. Hope someone will make it.

Indeed.

[TravJ1979]

Normally I'd agree, but:

 

- Flair is a guy who adored Brody and has a greater sense of dudebro wrestler comradery than, say, Hogan would, to start making shit up about that.

- It's kind of a sacred cow among wrestlers. I'm racking my brain to remember if anyone else has tried to use "oh yeah, I was there that night" as a shoot interview tall tale and can't really think of anyone. Maybe Manny Fernandez?

 

If you told me Hogan said it, or Black Bart, or anyone else who hasn't put themselves on the friend of Brody mantle, I'd agree that it seems more likely this is just carny bullshit. But aside from Brody's closest friends like Stan Hansen or Gary Hart, Flair is one of the last guys I'd have expected to do it.

Just to add when Austin first brings it up, Flair says "Oh yeah, 1986, I was there." Not sure it has anything to do other than an honest mistake, but this is Flair so he may actually think it was '86.

[JerryvonKramer]

Did Colon and Flair go an hour in 86?

[El Boricua]

Did Colon and Flair go an hour in 86?

Not that I'm aware of. I think Flair's only appearance in PR that year was at Aniversario in September. That was also the year of the Carlos ammonia angle and Universal title tournament, so Carlos was otherwise occupied to be able to wrestle Flair for most of 1986 . They did go to an hour draw sometime in 82-83 (likely 83).

[evilclown]

Is Steve Austin really clueless?

Nah, what Austin does generally in those situations is just move on rather than be a dick and argue. It's part of why he's such a great host.

 

That's why he's a great host? Because of letting inaccuracies slide? I've heard his podcast. There's nothing there that would make me suspect he would have any idea whether Flair was in Puerto Rico that night. That's true of 99% of the people who will ever interview Flair.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Is Steve Austin really clueless?

Nah, what Austin does generally in those situations is just move on rather than be a dick and argue. It's part of why he's such a great host.

 

That's why he's a great host? Because of letting inaccuracies slide? I've heard his podcast. There's nothing there that would make me suspect he would have any idea whether Flair was in Puerto Rico that night. That's true of 99% of the people who will ever interview Flair.

 

What makes him a great host is him not arguing and moving on so the show has a flow and stays fun. When Flair was saying hardcore wrestling started when Funk pile driver him on the table, and that no one had ever done that before, Austin just moved on. That's a great host. I don't want Austin playing Mike Wallace, I want the fun enjoyable show he does.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

It would be nice to hear a little bit of pushback on occasion. It does irk me sometimes that Austin's show is all duckies and bunnies.

 

Maybe pushback is the wrong word. But a simple follow-up to Flair's inventing hardcore claim might be, "What are your thoughts on the Tully/Magnum 'I Quit' match from Starrcade '85? Do you think that match played some role in laying the groundwork for hardcore wrestling?

[Matt D]

Is Steve Austin really clueless?

Nah, what Austin does generally in those situations is just move on rather than be a dick and argue. It's part of why he's such a great host.

 

That's why he's a great host? Because of letting inaccuracies slide? I've heard his podcast. There's nothing there that would make me suspect he would have any idea whether Flair was in Puerto Rico that night. That's true of 99% of the people who will ever interview Flair.

 

What makes him a great host is him not arguing and moving on so the show has a flow and stays fun. When Flair was saying hardcore wrestling started when Funk pile driver him on the table, and that no one had ever done that before, Austin just moved on. That's a great host. I don't want Austin playing Mike Wallace, I want the fun enjoyable show he does.

 

Remember folks, some people like to think, analyze and discuss.

 

[Johnny Sorrow]

Is Steve Austin really clueless?

Nah, what Austin does generally in those situations is just move on rather than be a dick and argue. It's part of why he's such a great host.

 

That's why he's a great host? Because of letting inaccuracies slide? I've heard his podcast. There's nothing there that would make me suspect he would have any idea whether Flair was in Puerto Rico that night. That's true of 99% of the people who will ever interview Flair.

 

What makes him a great host is him not arguing and moving on so the show has a flow and stays fun. When Flair was saying hardcore wrestling started when Funk pile driver him on the table, and that no one had ever done that before, Austin just moved on. That's a great host. I don't want Austin playing Mike Wallace, I want the fun enjoyable show he does.

 

Remember folks, some people like to think, analyze and discuss.

 

 

Blow me. Lol

 

Let someone else be the investigative podcast host. Austin does an amazing job giving us a great show in his style.

[WingedEagle]

Let someone else be the investigative podcast host. Austin does an amazing job giving us a great show in his style.

What he said. There's a place for a host that calls out every inaccuracy or lie they here, and there's also a place for one that provides a forum for a guest to speak freely at length about a variety of topics. These two don't always intersect, and that's okay.

[Johnny Sorrow]

And Matt, if your first and most important reason to watch wrestling isn't "I love this shit cause its fun", then I just don't get ya. Analyze a Hitchcock film all ya want, but at the end of the day they're fun.

[Matt D]

Analyzing wrestling is fun.

[JerryvonKramer]

Analyzing wrestling is fun.

I just did a facebook status update:

 

 

Now while I think my baseline love of wrestling is greater than my baseline love of football in terms of how much enjoyment it gives me to watch it, I do think to some extent the same sort of thing is true of my wrestling consumption.

 

If I did enough soul-searching I'd probably come to the conclusion that all of my various interests and obsessions, I've only actually got one: analysis.

[rovert]

Not excusing BIG things like Brody's murder. But let's temper some of clinical examination of what Ric says with the fact he has never shown an aptitude for numbers and in his book he does say he is undiagnosed ADD/ADHD.

[goodhelmet]

I want to add that Austin isn't a journalist. I don't agree with Matt's analysis is fun line or Johnny's "Austin not being a dick is awesome" line. I honestly think Austin doesn't care if it was true or not.

[JerryvonKramer]

Listening to part 2 and honestly don't care if they are true or not, the Jack Brisco and Harley Race stories are awesome, especially the confrontation between Harley and Jumbo.

 

It also takes Flair about 3 minutes to remember Dennis Condrey's name, despite Austin basically shouting it at him, so it's pretty clear his memory is not great in places.

[Matt D]

I want to add that Austin isn't a journalist. I don't agree with Matt's analysis is fun line or Johnny's "Austin not being a dick is awesome" line. I honestly think Austin doesn't care if it was true or not.

I wasn't necessarily saying analysis should be fun for Austin. Just for me in direct response to Johnny's line. I do think Austin does really love wrestling though and he really loves figuring out what works and what doesn't. He's well known (even past what he says) for being a guy who always watched all the matches on the card early in his career even when other guys would be doing anything else.

[jdw]

I don't agree with Matt's analysis is fun line

Analysis is fun.

 

Take the Spurs. You've probably spent some time over the past few years thinking about what they can do to win #5. You don't mindless turn on the TV and go, "I hope they win tonight and I have fun!" You actually give some thought to the team that you follow. Shit like can they keep Splitter, what's a good contract for him to keep space open for other guys, and what is his ceiling. Things like is Manu done, or does he have one more season in him. Wondering if Kawhi Leonard can take another big step forward, or if he was a flash. Etc.

 

We do this all the time with sports. It's part of what makes us a sports fan. In contrast to non-sports fans who watch sports: my mom went to games when my dad had season tickets, and just went to have a fun night out. She couldn't talk baseball with my dad because she didn't really follow it, or roll any of it over in her head.When my dad when with a baseball fan, they'd talk the game, talk the Dodgers, compare the team to Dodgers clubs of the past, etc. We all do that as sports fans, and we all know the folks who are just casual compared to us.

 

Hell... we do this all the time with Entertainment too. I've got the first three episode of Low Winter Sun on my DVR, and of course I'm going to analyze them when I watch them. I'm going to figure out whether it's worth keep watching them, using DVR space for them, or if it's a drama that turned out to be a waste of my time. It's not just whether it's "fun" or not... but whether it's any good. The first three or so episodes of The Wire weren't much fun, but you could get a sense of a story being laid down... a lot of shit being laid down. I also had a bit of faith in Simon from his prior works going back to his first book, so... worth giving it a look, thinking about it a bit, etc. Then 4-5 episodes in, it all started coming together and took off. The show was only intermittently "fun", and 50% of the second season drove me nuts with the Harbor storyline. But it was great TV in the end.

 

Okay... I've used this one before:

 

We analyze everything, including our relationships. The people we dated, were "fun" and ran through in 6-12 months until it wasn't "fun" anymore... those we figured out and moved on from. Our long standing one... we've given a ton of thought about, worked hard on the relationship, take the non-fun with the fun, good with the tough, and turned it over in out minds that it's all worth it. And hope that are partner has done the same.

 

Life is about analysis. If it wasn't, we'd be dogs pissing taking a dump on the lawn, or smack heads just trying to numb are brains so we don't have to think. Analysis is tough, it's rewarding, it can be heart wrenching (wait until any of us to rolling over things about the loss of a loved one)... and it can be damn fun. I get a smile on my face when thinking about my girlfriend at Gettysburg breaking down different good and stupid things that the two sides did, with this fire and passion for what she's talking about, and spent decades reading and thinking about.

[WingedEagle]

Not to speak for anyone, but to use your analogy, I think Johnny was getting at the idea that Matt simply wants to analyze the Spurs and not bother watching the games. Which is a whole other thing. Of course, I could be dead wrong in which case let's pretend this never happened and I'll withdraw my application to be a UN translator.

[Bix]

I want to add that Austin isn't a journalist. I don't agree with Matt's analysis is fun line or Johnny's "Austin not being a dick is awesome" line. I honestly think Austin doesn't care if it was true or not.

I wasn't necessarily saying analysis should be fun for Austin. Just for me in direct response to Johnny's line. I do think Austin does really love wrestling though and he really loves figuring out what works and what doesn't. He's well known (even past what he says) for being a guy who always watched all the matches on the card early in his career even when other guys would be doing anything else.

 

I was especially amused by the discussion he had with Scott Hall about the best powerslams, clotheslines, etc, like I'm pretty sure I had the same powerslams discussion with Naylor waiting in line outside a ROH show.

[goodhelmet]

Let me phrase this better... I am not saying analyzing wrestling can't be fun. I am saying it isn't the only reason to watch wrestling which nerds like us tend to do... analyze something to death without sitting back and enjoying what is going on before our eyes. Also, I have done enough podcasts with Johnny to know that he is quite capable of analyzing wrestling and knows what the difference between good and bad wrestling is in his view and he is quite capable of articulating that. Just watching wrestling for fun without analysis doesn't really do a place like this good because what the hell would there be to talk about. On the other hand, if you are so caught up in your analysis that the fun is not in the product but in your essay, I can't agree with that either.

[cm funk]

The guys Austin has on the show are either friends of his or guys he's a fan of, and the conversations are always just two guys shooting the shit. I loved the shows with Jay Mohr and Adam Corolla for example, they were a lot of fun, and if Austin had gotten serious with the interviews they would have not been as good. Expecting deep analysis and probing confrontational questions from that format is all wrong. That may occur on occasion, but that isn't the point. I like how he keeps it fun and lighthearted, and I think it brings the best out of his guests. Who cares if his guests BS, IT'S PRO-WRESTLING!!!

[Matt D]

Let me phrase this better... I am not saying analyzing wrestling can't be fun. I am saying it isn't the only reason to watch wrestling which nerds like us tend to do... analyze something to death without sitting back and enjoying what is going on before our eyes. Also, I have done enough podcasts with Johnny to know that he is quite capable of analyzing wrestling and knows what the difference between good and bad wrestling is in his view and he is quite capable of articulating that. Just watching wrestling for fun without analysis doesn't really do a place like this good because what the hell would there be to talk about. On the other hand, if you are so caught up in your analysis that the fun is not in the product but in your essay, I can't agree with that either.

Not to bring it back to me, but I do thoroughly enjoy wrestling, certainly. I've dug the Buddy Rose matches I've been watching a ton, I think, and I would imagine that stuff would come through in what i write (since it's generally train of thought and for my own use later on), even if the ultimate essay I wrote was more analytic. THAT said, PWO is its own animal and I'm going to be more analytic here than even DVDVR because the level of people I'm talking when it comes to knowledge and breadth of watching and just experience in talking about pro wrestling is incredibly high.