Johnny Sorrow Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 I've been watching a ton of those WWE Legends Of Wrestling shows on the youtube this past week, and I'm LOVING JJ Dillon on them. He's totally honest and has no agendas. And on a personal level, (as a kid who loved Bruno Sammartino because of the legend and hearing my Mom and Uncle always go on about him)... during the one about the Seventies where it seems like the panel is bashing Bruno..he comes right out and not only defends Bruno as a worker, he points out that the point of the business is drawing money at the box office and Bruno was of course the tops. He then talks about how Bruno taught him when JJ was a ref and breaking in, and how much of a gentleman he is and ends with "I won't sit here and have anything bad to say about Bruno Sammartino." edit: Although, at the end of the show when each guy..Patterson, Bockwinkel, Hayes, Dillon, and Okerlund is asked "Who was the Wrestler Of The Decade" they all say "Bruno" except for Hayes who says "Andre" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 I've been watching a ton of those WWE Legends Of Wrestling shows on the youtube this past week, and I'm LOVING JJ Dillon on them. He's totally honest and has no agendas. And on a personal level, (as a kid who loved Bruno Sammartino because of the legend and hearing my Mom and Uncle always go on about him)... during the one about the Seventies where it seems like the panel is bashing Bruno..he comes right out and not only defends Bruno as a worker, he points out that the point of the business is drawing money at the box office and Bruno was of course the tops. He then talks about how Bruno taught him when JJ was a ref and breaking in, and how much of a gentleman he is and ends with "I won't sit here and have anything bad to say about Bruno Sammartino." edit: Although, at the end of the show when each guy..Patterson, Bockwinkel, Hayes, Dillon, and Okerlund is asked "Who was the Wrestler Of The Decade" they all say "Bruno" except for Hayes who says "Andre" I've seen all of these shows to date, pretty much the only "current content" the WWE put out that I watch and Dillon is definitely one of the better contributors. On the Canada episode, Pat Patterson seems like he's in a really bad mood about something. I also found the 70s one slightly boring. Bockwinkel in particular came across like he was putting himself over heavily and Hayes was in full suck-up mode. Think Dillon definitely comes out of that one the best. Overall though, Mike Graham is easily my least favourite guy on there. Even Bischoff is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted March 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 I've been watching a ton of those WWE Legends Of Wrestling shows on the youtube this past week, and I'm LOVING JJ Dillon on them. He's totally honest and has no agendas. And on a personal level, (as a kid who loved Bruno Sammartino because of the legend and hearing my Mom and Uncle always go on about him)... during the one about the Seventies where it seems like the panel is bashing Bruno..he comes right out and not only defends Bruno as a worker, he points out that the point of the business is drawing money at the box office and Bruno was of course the tops. He then talks about how Bruno taught him when JJ was a ref and breaking in, and how much of a gentleman he is and ends with "I won't sit here and have anything bad to say about Bruno Sammartino." edit: Although, at the end of the show when each guy..Patterson, Bockwinkel, Hayes, Dillon, and Okerlund is asked "Who was the Wrestler Of The Decade" they all say "Bruno" except for Hayes who says "Andre" I've seen all of these shows to date, pretty much the only "current content" the WWE put out that I watch and Dillon is definitely one of the better contributors. On the Canada episode, Pat Patterson seems like he's in a really bad mood about something. I also found the 70s one slightly boring. Bockwinkel in particular came across like he was putting himself over heavily and Hayes was in full suck-up mode. Think Dillon definitely comes out of that one the best. Overall though, Mike Graham is easily my least favourite guy on there. Even Bischoff is better. I really liked the Seventies one myself. The thing that had Patterson flustered during the Canada one was Bret saying that The Stomper was the greatest Canadian wrestler ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 I really liked the Seventies one myself. May rewatch it because, to be fair, I watched it at 5 or even 6am after an allnighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 lol anyone seen the Celebrity Effect Legends of Wrestling yet? DDP won't let the Carl Malone thing go, fucking hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted March 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 lol anyone seen the Celebrity Effect Legends of Wrestling yet? DDP won't let the Carl Malone thing go, fucking hilarious. I only saw the clip where DDP is trying to compliment David Arquette regarding the fact that the guy really didn't want to become the champ, that he's a big fan who respects wrestling, and that he donated all the money he made in WCW to the families of dead wrestlers..but JR kept interrupting him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 An odd tension between JR and DDP all the way through the episode. JR and Hayes are obviously WWE through and through and DDP still bleeds WCW, with Piper just happy to stir things up. Made a nice change for someone to stick up to the received wisdom on that show that everything WWE is/was great and everything WCW is/was shit. However, there are several times when DDP is overly defensive. This was the ONLY one of these shows during which Okerlund seems like he might lose control of the group, he never quite does though. Piper's utter hatred of Mr. T is as amusing as ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 You guys have a youtube link for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I guess Ross is shirty with Page because DDP was Bischoff's biggest backer in WCW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chess Knight Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 The NWO one is really good and having Nash there as the real insider left little room for speculation. Seemed like by the end everyone at the table (I think it was Dillon/Hayes/Okerlund/Nash/Ross) was in agreement by the end that the NWO was a great thing that got worse and worse as time went on. Then there's the historical moments one from 2008 with Flair being a calm-mouthed jackass. He's seated next to Foley as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 God, Flair is a wanker in that Historical Moments episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted March 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 God, Flair is a wanker in that Historical Moments episode. I know. I'm one of the biggest Flair fans going but he was just awful on those shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I guess Ross is shirty with Page because DDP was Bischoff's biggest backer in WCW.What? DDP started it, interrupting JR's first comment. JR explained that Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier had played the role of guest referees in the past and that promoters were smart to use former heavyweight champions for publicity. "But in the Wrestlemania era, that all changed." Okerlund mentioned that Verne Gagne told him that Jack Dempsey's presence "absolutely made" Gagne's title match with Lou Thesz. JR: "The whole idea regarding celebrities in our business was to embrace mainstream media [but] there were a lot of celebrities that got involved in our business that were absolute jokes. They should not have been near- Okerlund: Do you wanna name any names? JR: Yeah, sure. David Arquette; one. Cyndi Lauper; another. David Arquette was- DDP, dismissively: We'll come back to that. I'm surprised you're throwing that in there first. We'll come back to that. JR: The fact [was] that David Arquette was the WCW champion. And so it continues, with DDP constantly interrupting for the duration, even though he later goes on to say that he thought at the time that it was a stupid decision and so did Arquette. So does everyone. Considering that the celebrity involvement in this case involved holding a strap rather than simply associating with the product then JR was perfectly reasonable in having him at the forefront of his mind as an example of an inappropriate use of a celebrity. DDP's constant interjecting and pettiness over it wasn't. But no, ignore all that. "DDP was supportive of Bischoff. I bet that's why JR was a dick to him (even though he wasn't)." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yeah DDP was clearly the aggressor throughout, but there was at least a little bit of passive-aggressiveness from JR in there too. He kept talking about "respecting the business" and THE IMPLICATION -- at least at first -- was that Arquette, Jay Leno, Carl Malone, Rodmann and basically anyone WCW ever used didn't respect the business. That was the point DDP got stuck on. He didn't want to let JR or Hayes put down those guys in a snide way, while bigging up Tyson, Taylor, or any other WWF celebrity appearance. THAT SAID, after the initial rant, JR made a point of outlining three distinct categories of celebrity: "got it, and respected the business" (Ali, Kaufmann, Mayweather), "just there to make a quick buck" (Mr. T, Cyndi Lauper), "badly cast in their role" (Arquette). Now here's the thing. While I thought DDP went completely OTT during this episode, to the extent where the number of times he went back to Malone was funny and borderline absurd, I DO think that had he not been sitting there, and had it been, say, Patterson. JR and co. would have completely buried all of those guys. DDP was making it clear that he wasn't going to allow any sort of bury job, probably because he was directly involved in the angles. All of that said, JR was never a dick to him. He always stayed respectful, but noticeably wasn't laughing or getting involved in banter (although it is hard to tell if JR is laughing / smiling these days). Also, yeah, Flair is a real cock in that particular episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 As awful as the Arquette thing was (and as really fucking painful it was to see the graphic "former WCW champion" when he appeared on Raw awhile back), according to what I've read he donated all the money he made to Pillman's (and Spicolli's, maybe?) family. It's easy to understand DDP defending it, since that's a big part of his legacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yeah DDP was clearly the aggressor throughout, but there was at least a little bit of passive-aggressiveness from JR in there too. He kept talking about "respecting the business" and THE IMPLICATION -- at least at first -- was that Arquette, Jay Leno, Carl Malone, Rodmann and basically anyone WCW ever used didn't respect the business.But DDP jumped all over JR before JR had even got around to saying anything about "respecting the business". And I don't agree at all that his approach would've been "WWE's celebs = good, WCW's = bad". He even indicated that the use of inappropriate celebrities began in "the Wrestlemania era". Not "in WCW", but linked to the WWF's national expansion. (And whilst he's saying this there are shots of Ozzy Osbourne, Nick Turturro etc.) Cyndi Lauper was the second person whose name shot off his lips when asked to give examples. And I'm sure that had Jay Leno made Austin whince in agony rather than Hogan he'd have mentioned that too, the motivation being that it is an embarassment to the business rather than an anti-WCW bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 As awful as the Arquette thing was (and as really fucking painful it was to see the graphic "former WCW champion" when he appeared on Raw awhile back), according to what I've read he donated all the money he made to Pillman's (and Spicolli's, maybe?) family. It's easy to understand DDP defending it, since that's a big part of his legacy.Yeah, Pillman's. DDP said that on the programme. He was clear that Arquette didn't want to do it (because he "respected the business") and JR was equally clear that he has no problem with Arquette as a person, but that he had no business being presented as the promotion's champ. I don't see why that makes JR any different to anybody else. I've never seen anybody argue that that decision was a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 The one panel I saw where everyone seemed to get along was JR, Foley, Patterson, Hayes and Taz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 The one with Watts, JR, Dusty and Hayes was good. Liked the fact that Hayes was kinda like a naughty schoolboy there, speaking with 3 guys who had legit fired him during the course of his career. Incidentally, I've warmed to Hayes over the years. The one where Joey Styles hosted was funny because he got ribbed so heavily, mainly by Hayes and Jimmy Garvin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 The NWO one is really good and having Nash there as the real insider left little room for speculation. Seemed like by the end everyone at the table (I think it was Dillon/Hayes/Okerlund/Nash/Ross) was in agreement by the end that the NWO was a great thing that got worse and worse as time went on. This was a good episode, but the panel really lets Nash off easy when he starts to bullshit and spew out revisionist history, especially when discussing his run as booker. For example, when the subject of his Starrcade match with Goldberg comes up he states "We had to end the streak", implying the streak was somehow bad for business and bad for Goldberg. I thought the panel would jump all over him after that comment, that at least someone would ask "Why, Kevin?" or "What the fuck are you smoking?", but nobody says a thing, and Nash never explains why he thinks the streak was bad for business. I've never heard this "We had to end the streak" argument before, does anybody know what the hell he was talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I've never heard this "We had to end the streak" argument before, does anybody know what the hell he was talking about? He probably doesn't know either. His former line of defense was "Oh, I wasn't even the booker when it happened." Which is of course, total bullshit too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yeah, thought the panel were overly deferential towards Nash on that occassion like they were all happy just to have him there as if he was a major deal. They did a similar thing with Bret. Hand-picked the topics to suit him and then gave him an easy ride on the panel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I love that the one about Southern Wrestling was started with Joey Styles saying "I really have no business talking about this." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I've never heard this "We had to end the streak" argument before, does anybody know what the hell he was talking about? He probably doesn't know either. His former line of defense was "Oh, I wasn't even the booker when it happened." Which is of course, total bullshit too. I swear I read him say, years ago, that he did it because it was the only way he was ever going to get the belt and it mattered so much to be both WWF and WCW champs. Which is somewhere between possibly true and hilariously not even vaguely possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Nash has said before that fans were turning on Goldberg and were sick of the streak, and the proof was that the WWF was beating them at the time. That's not completely untrue, but it was mostly teenage smark types who were turning on the streak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.