What do you think of Bruce Mitchell?

[BigBadMick]

I've been listening to his stuff for about a year now. I enjoy his knowledge, experience and insight, but harping on about the same 'issues' on modern wrestling weekly can get a bit repetative and grating.

[SomethingSavage]

I've only heard him in bits, pieces, and spots. What's his hang-up exactly? Similar to Ross?

[rovert]

He's really great at times however he does go over board on the whole The Big Con thing or thinking every promoter/person in power is this Machiavellian evil that only operates in their own self interest.

[Matt D]

I read this as Jim Mitchell at first which would be a lot more interesting a conversation.

[jdw]

Terrific writer.

[BigBadMick]

He's really great at times however he does go over board on the whole The Big Con thing or thinking every promoter/person in power is this Machiavellian evil that only operates in their own self interest.

The Orwellian overtones in WWE since last September is getting very old......

[BigBadMick]

Terrific writer.

Can you recommend anything in particular?

 

I have most Torches from 2002-12. I'm not asking for a specific date, just good writing around a particular incident or topic.

[Loss]

He wrote something in 1997 about World Class after Fritz Von Erich died that was pretty amazing.

[Johnny P]

He has a piece around Mania 19, so probably March or April 2003, entitled something along the lines of "The high tech lynching of Booker T" that I always thought was excellent.

 

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.

[Johnny P]

Oh, and his work involving ECW (and I'm a guy who spent a lot of his life waist deep in ECW research and opinion, remember), specifically columns from 1995 ("Everybody Sucks But Us"), '96 ("Some Revolution"), and '97 (blanking on this one), were excellent as well.

[BigBadMick]

He has a piece around Mania 19, so probably March or April 2003, entitled something along the lines of "The high tech lynching of Booker T" that I always thought was excellent.

 

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.

I think you just articulated all the dorment irritations I have with Wade and Bruce! But you're right, they're good guys to read/listen to once you get past that.

Thanks for the Booker T article recommendation.

[BigBadMick]

Have to mention this. Bruce and Wade were discussing wrestler payoffs in the new wwe network era, and how uncertain things appear financially as ppv bonuses will have to be restructured. They got going about the old days and wrestlers being more assertive, having the option of competition to get leverage in negotiating etc.

Then Bruce came up with a scenario in which, about 4 hours before Wrestlemania, a group of wrestlers come together and demand more money or refuse to perform.

He wasn't discussing it as a realistic proposal but - oh boy - imagine if that happened.

[Matt D]

Have to mention this. Bruce and Wade were discussing wrestler payoffs in the new wwe network era, and how uncertain things appear financially as ppv bonuses will have to be restructured. They got going about the old days and wrestlers being more assertive, having the option of competition to get leverage in negotiating etc.

Then Bruce came up with a scenario in which, about 4 hours before Wrestlemania, a group of wrestlers come together and demand more money or refuse to perform.

He wasn't discussing it as a realistic proposal but - oh boy - imagine if that happened.

I would enjoy Aiden English on the main roster if that happened.

[jdw]

 

Terrific writer.

Can you recommend anything in particular?

 

I have most Torches from 2002-12. I'm not asking for a specific date, just good writing around a particular incident or topic.

 

 

I was more interested in his stuff in the 90s. At some point after the website got up and started putting up a big archive of Bruce's columns, I C&P'd a pretty much everything available in that decade and up to his 2001 WWF vs WCW "template" piece into a nicely formatted collection that I called Honor Among Thieves after one of his columns. Looks like only two of his Quizzes were in it... possibly that Wade hadn't put the yearbooks up by that time. Sent to Bruce, and he enjoyed it. Have no idea where my printed out copy is laying around... perhaps on the bookshelves with my other wrestling stuff, or perhaps in a box.

 

Anyway... some of his best pieces?

 

Twenty-Five Million Dollars - on Joe P either being a liar or an idiot.

 

Onward Cornette’s Soldiers - on SMW's use of the Gangstas and famous for pissing off Corny to no end

 

Honor Among Thieves - Bruce goes to AAA

 

Everybody Sucks But Us / The Extreme Problem / Some Revolution - basically the ECW Trilogy in 1995-96

 

Adult Contemporary - a look at "edgy" wrestling in early 1998, with the classic closing section on Raven that freaked out a certain asshole writer

 

In an entirely different direction, Bruce would point to one that has a special place for him: the piece on Brian Hildebrand. It's very good, and from the heart.

[BigBadMick]

Thanks for all that jdw. Recently came across a good write up of his in August 2002 praising Hogan for his selfless work that year with Lesnar, Angle etc.

[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.

[BigBadMick]

This week's audio alluded to a Mitchell-Cornette feud going back 20 years to a piece Mitchell wrote about the Gangstas in SMW - 'Onward Christian Soldier'.

 

Anyone got some more details on that for me?

[kjh]

It was basically a column where Bruce detailed all the problems SMW faced in the summer of 1994, in particular:

 

(a) Ripping Jim Cornette for his plan to do a bait and switch finish in the upcoming Rock "n" Roll Express vs. Chris Candido & Brian Lee, Morton's hair vs. Tammy Fytch's hair stipulation match, where the RNRs would lose but Candido would get his head shaved instead.

( Claiming Corny was ripping of the fans by bringing in an impaired Terry Gordy and trying to pass him off as the great wrestler of the past.

© Making fun of Cornette's belief that "There's no such thing as too much heat." by taking The Gangstas gimmick to its extremes, suggesting if Cornette believed that then he should book superfan Heather Norton, her mother, and front office employee Pam Lawson as their hos and put Gordy in black face to play their befuddled maid, amongst other scenarios.

 

After the column was published, Cornette gave Wade Keller a threatening phone call.

[BigBadMick]

Sounds like Corny alright....

 

Thanks for that.

[WrestlingPower]

Oh yeah the heat was huge at the time. There was also a column by either Keller or Mitchell on the SMW "race riot" in Wise, VA that I guess was during the Gangstas era. Can't remember if that was before or after the column mentioned above but he was quite riled up around that time. I think there were several threatening phone calls to Keller. At the May 1995 SMW show in Charlotte, Cornette & Landel actually came out of the locker room while the show was going on and were headed into the stands to physically confront someone believed to be Mitchell until someone (Hildebrand?) intercepted them and said "I don't think that's him", realizing the situation could get bad. Mitchell most definitely was at the show and I think that was part of the column mentioned above as he wrote some line about Sandy Scott "trying to divide the loaves & fishes" when counting the gate at the show. I think Cornette's point was so much of it was mean spirited, nitpicky & personal attacks more than constructive criticism. Cornette was dating the aforementioned Heather at the time which is what really hit home.

[BigBadMick]

Aha, the plot thickens...

 

Siding with Cornette a bit more now. Of the two, I think Keller is usually more guilty of snide, unnecessary barbs on the show than Mitchell.

 

Maybe Mitchell's grown up a lot since then.

[BigBadMick]

Thought I'd bump this because I'm curious about how little coverage Keller and Mitchell get in PWO.

 

They will cover Punk's podcast in detail over the weekend. Keller has already provided a fairly detailed breakdown which I enjoyed greatly, going into issues about Punk and an employee and the WWE system as a place to work. I thought it was balanced, insightful and thought-provoking.

 

Anyway, does anyone else on PWO listen to Keller and Mitchell? And if not, is there a particular reason for strong aversion against them? Where is Keller on a totem pole of credibility as a wrestling writer? I'm really curious about all this, partly because he produces all this content but is largely ignored on PWO, and no-one's really explained why.

[Loss]

I have a Torch sub and seem to always forget about it. Wade has many positives Dave doesn't, and vice versa, but I think one of the main reasons I've gotten away from the Torch is because it's gone from being an "online journal of news and opinion" to just opinion. I can't remember the last time he broke a story. I think all of his sources have dried up. It's interesting how guys like Austin and Ross seem to see him and Dave in much the same way, and that's because at one time that wasn't too farfetched. But Wade has fallen off a lot because he doesn't seem to break any news anymore.

 

Mitchell is a talented writer, but as I get older, I find the polemic style annoying because it seems manipulative and insincere. He's always on some type of crusade to expose that the good workers are the good guys and the bad workers are the evil ones, or at least that's the impression I've always had. Sid Eudy.

[BigBadMick]

Thanks Loss, that puts a lot of things into perspective. Keller is nearly entirely analysis/opinion these days. It seems well thought out and prepared. Which makes for a nice contrast from Meltzer, who - judging by the comments on the megathread - sometimes doesn't seem to put a great deal of thought into statements he blurts out at times. And, as has come up on the thread, I don't think Alvarez is capable of debating Dave on anything. It's embarrassing at times how dismissive he is of Bryan, but at the same time Bryan doesn't seem to know enough to enter the debate.

 

By contrast, Keller and Mitchell seem to have conversational, back and forth discussions and seem capable of influencing each other. Keller's very good at directing the discussionand keeping Mitchell on point and ensuring he's clear in any argument he presents. I agree that Mitchell is polemic and that can be tiresome (his 'WWE is trying to create it's own indie league with NXT' tirades are fast forward material for me), but his wealth of knowledge and experience, especially with JCP, make up for that, for me.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

The problem I have with Wade is that he puts too much "thought" into his analysis. As in he comes up with some pretty wacky/neurotic ideas. Most notable being his classic "Cena and Rock are shooting on one another" theory a few years ago.

 

The fact that he is doing a podcast about a podcast is another pretty good example. I know there are people doing them about Serial now, but this is about a shoot interview. I'd expect it to be lots of "see, this is what we have always said!" type of analysis.

 

That all being said, I generally do sub when they run their Mania season special so I can catch up on the historical-themed Bruce shows that I've missed. Wade also does some great interviews on his Livecast.