83 Weeks with Eric Bischoff

[SomethingSavage]

I'm going to be on "wait & see" mode with this one for awhile - let the eps stack up and see how they're generally received first. I have a lot of time to kill with work, commutes, and the gym. So there's a chance I'll end up listening - but I'm really hoping it's not just a one trick pony.

 

In some sense, I'm glad they're addressing the nWo right away. I just hope it's not one of those deals where every topic & every conversation keeps coming back to that. I want a specific discussion about Glacier and Mortis. What about Sullivan/Pillman and later Sullivan/Benoit? The rise and transformation of DDP. The political landscape with Nash as booker. The negotiations with talent - everyone from Jericho and the Radicalz to Bill Goldberg. The future plans for the Fusient deal, etc.

 

It's too early to judge anything, to be fair. But I'm always hesitant with Bischoff.

[El-P]

Extremely poor audio quality on Bischoff's side.

 

So he wasn't influenced at all by the UWF-I invasion of NJ (mmkay...) but he wanted to present WCW as more reality based like it was in Japan. Which I guess is why Hogan pushed the Giant's off Cobo Arena's roof. And Blood Runs Cold. And the Dungeon of Doom.

 

After one hour, there's still no mention of Kevin Sullivan (no idea if he's gonna get any credit at all, he only was the guy who put the shows together after all). And really, Uncle Eric is quite the unengaging listen (say what you want about Bruce, but he's charismatic as hell and a great storyteller).

 

I've heard too much about those things already. It's too bad the Schiavone podcast has turned into a long big joke, because I'd rather listen to Tony talk about WCW.

 

Pass.

[Dooley]

I enjoyed it, I've always enjoyed Bischoff's perspective because he's not someone entrenched in the rasslin way of thinking. It was really interesting hearing how the Turner legal hierarchy worked around the time of the WWF-WCW suit. He's got a good head for business and a knack for production, I'm looking forward to hearing more.

[Matt D]

The next few will be the Fingerpoke of Doom, Bash at the Beach 2000, and I think something else I wasn't hugely interested in. I might skip them.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'd put it this way. There are things that I always sort of accepted (like the fact Mabel was at least considered for the role of the third man or that Savage vs Hogan was promised to Slim Jims at Halloween Havoc) that I'm now at least willing to doubt.

 

Looking back it makes a lot of sense that the third man had to already be someone who had been in the company for awhile, and not just another new guy they picked up from the WWF. Having Hall and Nash come in virtually at the same time is what really set the angle in motion, and outside of maybe Bret there was not another bigger name even coming close to them on the fence. And Bischoff said he didn't even talk to Bret until two months after the BATB show (which I believe is corroborated in Bret's book).

[flyonthewall2983]

The next few will be the Fingerpoke of Doom, Bash at the Beach 2000, and I think something else I wasn't hugely interested in. I might skip them.

 

Bret Hart is the subject of next week's show, which should be interesting given Bret's recent comments about Eric.

[Matt D]

I didn't skip. There were things I found interesting on the fingerpoke episode, though I think it was a mistake for Conrad to source most of his side from Alvarez' book. I thought some of the things he ultimately grilled Eric on were the wrong way to go (like complaining so much about Nash's selling of the fingerpoke instead of asking more about what a NWO Nitro vs WCW Thunder feud would have looked like in practice or about the idea of keeping the belt on Nash instead of putting it on Hogan even if they reuinted, stuff like that). I think he could have pressed harder on creative possibilities that didn't involve ending the streak too. As always you get Bischoff outright countering things (like Sullivan begging him not to end the streak or the fact the lockout had nothing to do with the February WCW on NBC special not happening, some of which was in his book but who read that, right?).

[Victator]

I never heard the Mabel rumor until very recently. I am the only person who would have preferred that

[The Thread Killer]

I don't know if anybody else caught this past week's episode on Bret Hart in WCW? It was pretty intense. We are in week three of this show now, and Eric is really starting to get into his gimmick and fight back against a lot of the popular online narratives about the "Death of WCW." I'm not saying I believe him (any more than I ever believed Bruce Prichard) but I find the show to be very interesting. If nothing else, he has provided some interesting details about the inner workings of the Turner organization and the way it changed once the Time Warner acquisition began.

 

This past week Conrad used Bret's book as his source and at points Eric became near apoplectic over some of the claims Bret made, especially about contract offers and negotiations. He is adamant that some parts of Bret's book are outright lies. Like I said, I don't necessarily believe it but it is very entertaining. At this point, I much prefer this show to Something to Wrestle. That may be due to the fact I have tired of the STW formula, but I am really enjoying this show so far.

[SomethingSavage]

I still prefer Prichard's show all in all, but a lot of that comes down to things like familiarity and my preference for Bruce as a storyteller. The impressions and sidebars can clearly feel overdone at times, but I still enjoy the shit out of them for the most part.

 

This show has been worthwhile so far though. It does get bonus points for feeling new and fresh. Conrad is way dialed back in comparison to his approaches on both the Prichard show & especially the Schiavone show - which has become downright awful in recent months.

 

I haven't had the chance to check out the Bret episode just yet, but I have listened to the first two eps. Eric is slowly showing some teeth in his responses - going particularly hard after Sullivan and Alvarez so far - which is only going to help strengthen the entertainment value and appeal to some of the usual Something To Wrestle listeners, I'm sure. Plus it makes for a better back & forth conversation anyhow.

 

It's been a fun listen so far though. I'm definitely on board for now. It's not an issue of buying into everything Eric is selling or anything. It's a matter (for me) of being an engaging listen that offers some added insight into a really fun time period in my fandom. Good stuff.

[El-P]

Meltz totally burying Bischoff on the Bret Hart deal was quite entertaining.

 

The fact Bischoff comes after Sullivan now apparently makes it even worse to me, as Sully as been credited by many as quite important to WCW's success during those days.

 

Yeah, no time to listen to another bullshit show. At least Prichard is entertaining.

[The Thread Killer]

The fact Bischoff comes after Sullivan now apparently makes it even worse to me, as Sully as been credited by many as quite important to WCW's success during those days.

 

Yeah, no time to listen to another bullshit show. At least Prichard is entertaining.

 

I've noticed that you seem to be a big fan of passing judgment on things you haven't actually heard. In the WHW thread, you had a strong opinion on Tony's joke about Nikita's wife, despite the fact you hadn't heard it. Now you have an opinion on this show, despite the fact you have "no time to listen to another bullshit show." Just a thought, but if you want to express an opinion and contribute to a discussion about something, you should actually make a determination based on what you see or hear yourself.

 

If you had actually listened to this show, you would know that Eric Bischoff hardly "comes after" Sullivan. As a joke in the "Fingerpoke of Doom" episode, Conrad brings up some absurd creative angle (I forget which, there were so many) and he asks Eric about it. There is a significant pause, and then Bischoff says: "Fucking Sullivan." Then he and Conrad both laugh their asses off, it is clearly not meant to be taken seriously. His blaming Sullivan (and other members of the booking committee) is done as a joke 99% of the time. I would not be one little bit surprised if there is a "F-ing Sullivan" T-shirt that debuts sooner rather than later. Conrad and Bischoff are doing exactly what Conrad did with Bruce and then Tony. Coming up with recurring shtick.

 

Bischoff has said several times so far that he was not the booker. He came up with ideas, he took them to the booking committee. When they had ideas, they brought them to him for approval. One thing he has said repeatedly, is that he has to bear ultimate responsibility for everything that made it on the air, because he was ultimately in charge. There has been multiple times where he has flat out said something sucked, or that it didn't work. One example off the top of my head is the angle where Goldberg got taken into custody for "stalking" Miss Elisabeth. He freely admits that was total crap.

 

Bischoff does take issue with a shoot interview that Conrad quotes, that Sullivan gave in the past couple of years. In the shoot interview, Sullivan claims that he went to Bischoff and begged him not to end Goldberg's streak and that they were "killing the golden goose" but Bischoff wouldn't listen to him. Bischoff claims that never happened. His big issue seems to be that in the years since WCW died, a bunch of the guys who were on the creative team have all done shoot interviews where they all tried to make themselves look good in retrospect - taking credit for the successes and absolving themselves of blame for the failures. He even says the same thing about Hulk Hogan, who is still a close personal friend of his. I like Kevin Sullivan and I respect his work, but if you've seen any of his shoot interviews over the past few years, you know that Eric Bischoff is right about one thing. He's a big fan of pointing fingers at other people and not taking any of the blame for some of the crap that got put on TV when he was on creative.

 

I like this show more than STW for three reasons. Conrad is much more restrained and focused on this show than he is on STW and WHW. He sticks to the format for the most part, and doesn't seem as obsessed with going off topic or making dirty jokes. Secondly, Eric Bischoff seems more interested in discussing the topic at hand than he is in doing impressions. Finally, so far 83 Weeks has covered topics that I actually find interesting. Next week they're doing Bash at the Beach 2000, and any time somebody wants to bury Vince Russo I will be there with a big bag of popcorn. It doesn't mean I'm going to buy everything Bischoff says. He has an agenda, clearly. He is trying to get his version of the truth about the Death of WCW out there, and he is using this show as his platform to do that.

 

I am not the "Defender of Bischoff." I find him interesting, I find his perspective on things interesting, because he provides insights on the business end of WCW that nobody else really has up to this point. I like this show a lot, for now. I can see myself getting tired of it, just like I got tired of STW and WHW. If you don't like it, I can totally understand that, and I have no investment in the show.

 

I just think it's odd to pass judgment on something you haven't even listened to at any length.

[El-P]

It's been mentioned in the previous post that :

 

Eric is slowly showing some teeth in his responses - going particularly hard after Sullivan and Alvarez so far -

 

and then my quote was :

 

The fact Bischoff comes after Sullivan now apparently makes it even worse to me

 

 

So there.

 

As far as the rest goes, Bischoff is notoriously full of shit. And judging from the first episode, which I have listened, and various other interviews over the years, both in podcast and in classic Shoot interview mode (with KC), he's also not very entertaining nor engaging to me. So...

 

And really, the idea of yet another Conrad show just doesn't appeal to me at this point and what I read in this thread, including from people who actually like the show, just confirm my idea that I'm not missing much at all, considering who's involved.

[Matt D]

I'm an hour in to the Bret one. Does he ever explain why Nitro vs Thunder never happened?

[SomethingSavage]

After hearing the Finger Poke of Doom episode, is it odd that I'm convinced I would've enjoyed the shit out of that February NBC special?

 

First of all, there's the name. "Love Hurts"..? It's so glorious in its cheese, yet it's totally fitting for WCW and its history with holiday themes. And just imagine the set! Decorated like the honeymoon suite or some shit with silk and heart-shaped shit everywhere.

 

Oh. And a wrestling DIVORCE instead of a wrestling wedding? Plus, it's Dennis Rodman and "Miss MTV Spring Break" Carmen Electra?! Sign me the fuck up to watch that, stat.

 

I mean, seriously. Is there anything on earth *MORE* Eric Bischoff than doing a traditional wrestling trope in reverse with celebrities? This thing was a fucking winner, friends. And it's a shame we never got to see it unfold.

 

Fuck Bill Goldberg's redemption streak coming undone. Because this. This is the true tragedy in the wake of the Finger Poke of Doom when it's all said & done.

[BigBadMick]

I listened to the Bret episode. I'll say this for Bischoff - he's put a lot of time and effort into prep for this episode. Not nearly as much 'i don't recall..' answers as I was expecting based on previous interviews.

[SomethingSavage]

He's been surprisingly insightful so far here. There's still plenty of sidestepping and some of his usual stock replies, but he's gone in-depth on several things already. A lot of them veer more into the business side of his dealings with Turner or talent, but it's what he knows & that's his experience. This may eventually get very old very quickly, but it's refreshing and insightful enough right now.

[The Thread Killer]

This week's show on Bash at the Beach 2000 was an interesting listen, for a variety of reasons.

 

It started off great. Conrad had his research, and Eric filled in a lot of the blanks and really expanded on the circumstances surrounding his return to WCW in 1999, the reasons for it, the nature of his relationship with Vince Russo, and how it started to fall apart. As has been documented extensively elsewhere at PWO, I loathe Vince Russo so I was entertained by Eric's stories about Russo's multiple creative and personal shortcomings.

 

The show started to go off the rails when Conrad seemed more interested in holding Eric Bischoff to task for the things that Russo booked. He recapped the show match by match, and that show is a perfect microcosm of everything Russo. No clean finishes on the entire show, not one. Ref bumps and outside interference galore. Poorly produced supernatural offsite segments, complete with Styrofoam tombstones. Scantily clad women dancing around in more than one segment or match. "Swerves" and fake shoots. The issue to me was that Conrad almost blamed Eric for it, or at least blamed Eric for letting Russo book it. It seemed misdirected to me, and Conrad was pretty relentless about it.

 

To be fair as well, Eric's Meltzer bashing was pretty out of control during this episode. I bitch about Bruce Pritchard doing it, so fair is fair. Eric was playing that card over and over again this week. I will say, that generally Eric is a lot more specific about the reasons Meltzer drives him nuts, he will highlight the actual news items where he says Meltzer was wrong as justification for his vitriol.

 

For example, Eric claimed that the reason Meltzer bothers him so much is because he knows Meltzer was being fed false or biased information by WCW talent while he was in charge. He even names a Turner executive who was supposed to be overseeing WCW who was getting all his information from the Observer, rather than asking Eric about the issues in person. Bischoff claims the reason he and Russo had to "work the boys" regarding the Hogan/Jarrett finish is because they knew if the planned finish got out, somebody who worked for WCW would leak it to Meltzer.

 

That is one of the things that has always annoyed me about Prichard. He complains about Meltzer ad nauseam. He bitches to the high heavens that Meltzer gets things wrong or makes them up, but conveniently leaves out the fact that "the boys" leak info to Meltzer all the damn time and are usually the source of the damn stories. The only time I ever remember Prichard admitting that is during the Paul Heyman episode. At least the way Eric Bischoff explained it, it made some sense. I'm not saying I agreed with it, and I'm not saying it was true, but as an argument at least it made some degree of sense.

 

Then he invoked the "Meltzer has never booked a wrestling organization in his life so who is he to report on or criticize wrestling" argument and I lost all sympathy for him. As I've said before, to me that statement is the podcast/shoot interview equivalent of Godwin's Law. When you go that direction, I stop taking you seriously If Meltzer has as little credibility as Prichard and Bischoff claim, then they should be able to refute him on facts, not by sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "how dare you criticize me."

 

Fair play to Eric again though, he did say outright that Hulk Hogan was wrong regarding the facts in his recounting of the BATB 2000 incident in his book. He never said Hogan was lying...he did a fun little dance about how people remember different things in different ways, and talked about how Hulk had personal problems, and how sometimes he tried to "work" interviewers to the point where he forgot the truth himself. But in the end, he flat out refuted Hogan's claims - while calling him his best friend at the same time. I would not have expected that, to be honest. I expected Bischoff to pretty much be ride-or-die with Hogan and his version of "the truth." Maybe Eric realized that trying to justify some of Hogan's outrageous claims over the years is a battle you just can't win, regardless of how devoted a friend you are.

 

However, much to my surprise the reason the show finally went off the rails altogether towards the end - and I was totally not expecting this - is because Eric was drinking during the show, and by the end he was clearly very, very drunk. Slurring his words, making jokes and going off topic. Not quite the "all business" Eric Bischoff who featured in the previous three episodes.

 

It was still a lot of fun, informative (in parts) and entertaining. If I had to choose between this show and Prichard's show as they both stand right now, I'd chose this one easily. (I can only handle so much Meltzer bashing in one week.) Having said that, I would recommend Eric stay away from the booze while recording next week. It might make the show funnier and even more entertaining, but it's hard to take him seriously when he is clearly plastered.

[SomethingSavage]

I really dug the Bret episode from last week. Regardless of where you draw the line for Eric's bullshit versus Bret's claims in his book, at least Bischoff took a stand and made a case for his own version of events.

 

I'm not the type to fact check every claim on every podcast. I'm the type to throw in my ear buds in my truck, at the gym, or at work and just listen to some fun stories being told. I'm always up for new sides of these stories or whatever possible insight can be offered from these new sources & voices.

 

Do I believe some of this stuff is absolute bullshit? Of course. Workers gonna work, and it's typically bullshit artists working in a bullshit business. I *expect* everyone to be out to offer THEIR side of the story. That's not strictly a pro wrestling thing. That's a human nature thing.

 

At the end of the day, I'm no more bothered or offended by Eric or Bruce's bullshit than I am by Dave's insistence that Okada and Omega have had the greatest match in the history of the business. It's all individuals pushing their view of things. It's what happens. People form perspectives, and then they share them.

 

Bringing it back to the Bret episode though - does anyone know if word of Eric's claims have reached Bret yet? Surely there would be a response.

 

I was also hoping to hear Conrad press for more information about the Thunder/Nitro roster split. It kept coming up, with Eric outright saying it was the only reason he'd brought in Bret in the first place. But it just lingered there with no follow-up, time after time.

 

At one point, it sounded like it was supposed to be WCW Thunder versus nWo Nitro. But how does that work exactly? Logistically, how do you run two weekly shows that are rivals for one another? What do they do every week? Obviously, there needs to be rivalries within those rosters - and Eric even talked about that a little, mentioning the Bret vs. Flair feud as something that would help to carry WCW Thunder in its early months.

 

And Conrad has needled Schiavone about the Thunder vs. Nitro rumors on numerous occasions over on earlier episodes of WHW, so it's not like he isn't aware. I don't know. Maybe he's deliberately holding off for a Thunder specific topic or something, but it was just weird that he never drilled down on it - despite it coming up over & over again that Bret was signed specifically to fill out the main event scene for the Thunder roster.

[BrianB]

I agree to a point, but then you went too far. You must not buy into the fact/opinion distinction. Because that's a clear and important difference between Okada/Omega is the best match of all time and "Bret never seriously negotiated with me in 1996." I haven't heard anything as far as Bret responding, but Meltzer definitely went hard at Bischoff's new angle.

 

Nitro/Thunder and the repeated return to the separate nWo brand well after it was clear that was a bad idea, I'm guessing will be a future focal point of this podcast.

 

edit: The continued returns to concerts and "events" will be another one when they hit 1999. Road/Hog Wild should be fun too. Eric's long-winded defense will be great once it's followed up with the obvious dagger question: "so what advertiser's did you score from doing these shows and how much did they pay you?"

[Victator]

Bischoff was careful to use seriously as a qualifier. Bischoff knows his bullshit.

[BrianB]

This week's show on Bash at the Beach 2000 was an interesting listen, for a variety of reasons.

 

It started off great. Conrad had his research, and Eric filled in a lot of the blanks and really expanded on the circumstances surrounding his return to WCW in 1999, the reasons for it, the nature of his relationship with Vince Russo, and how it started to fall apart. As has been documented extensively elsewhere at PWO, I loathe Vince Russo so I was entertained by Eric's stories about Russo's multiple creative and personal shortcomings.

 

The show started to go off the rails when Conrad seemed more interested in holding Eric Bischoff to task for the things that Russo booked. He recapped the show match by match, and that show is a perfect microcosm of everything Russo. No clean finishes on the entire show, not one. Ref bumps and outside interference galore. Poorly produced supernatural offsite segments, complete with Styrofoam tombstones. Scantily clad women dancing around in more than one segment or match. "Swerves" and fake shoots. The issue to me was that Conrad almost blamed Eric for it, or at least blamed Eric for letting Russo book it. It seemed misdirected to me, and Conrad was pretty relentless about it.

 

To be fair as well, Eric's Meltzer bashing was pretty out of control during this episode. I bitch about Bruce Pritchard doing it, so fair is fair. Eric was playing that card over and over again this week. I will say, that generally Eric is a lot more specific about the reasons Meltzer drives him nuts, he will highlight the actual news items where he says Meltzer was wrong as justification for his vitriol.

 

For example, Eric claimed that the reason Meltzer bothers him so much is because he knows Meltzer was being fed false or biased information by WCW talent while he was in charge. He even names a Turner executive who was supposed to be overseeing WCW who was getting all his information from the Observer, rather than asking Eric about the issues in person. Bischoff claims the reason he and Russo had to "work the boys" regarding the Hogan/Jarrett finish is because they knew if the planned finish got out, somebody who worked for WCW would leak it to Meltzer.

 

That is one of the things that has always annoyed me about Prichard. He complains about Meltzer ad nauseam. He bitches to the high heavens that Meltzer gets things wrong or makes them up, but conveniently leaves out the fact that "the boys" leak info to Meltzer all the damn time and are usually the source of the damn stories. The only time I ever remember Prichard admitting that is during the Paul Heyman episode. At least the way Eric Bischoff explained it, it made some sense. I'm not saying I agreed with it, and I'm not saying it was true, but as an argument at least it made some degree of sense.

 

Then he invoked the "Meltzer has never booked a wrestling organization in his life so who is he to report on or criticize wrestling" argument and I lost all sympathy for him. As I've said before, to me that statement is the podcast/shoot interview equivalent of Godwin's Law. When you go that direction, I stop taking you seriously If Meltzer has as little credibility as Prichard and Bischoff claim, then they should be able to refute him on facts, not by sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "how dare you criticize me."

 

Fair play to Eric again though, he did say outright that Hulk Hogan was wrong regarding the facts in his recounting of the BATB 2000 incident in his book. He never said Hogan was lying...he did a fun little dance about how people remember different things in different ways, and talked about how Hulk had personal problems, and how sometimes he tried to "work" interviewers to the point where he forgot the truth himself. But in the end, he flat out refuted Hogan's claims - while calling him his best friend at the same time. I would not have expected that, to be honest. I expected Bischoff to pretty much be ride-or-die with Hogan and his version of "the truth." Maybe Eric realized that trying to justify some of Hogan's outrageous claims over the years is a battle you just can't win, regardless of how devoted a friend you are.

 

However, much to my surprise the reason the show finally went off the rails altogether towards the end - and I was totally not expecting this - is because Eric was drinking during the show, and by the end he was clearly very, very drunk. Slurring his words, making jokes and going off topic. Not quite the "all business" Eric Bischoff who featured in the previous three episodes.

 

It was still a lot of fun, informative (in parts) and entertaining. If I had to choose between this show and Prichard's show as they both stand right now, I'd chose this one easily. (I can only handle so much Meltzer bashing in one week.) Having said that, I would recommend Eric stay away from the booze while recording next week. It might make the show funnier and even more entertaining, but it's hard to take him seriously when he is clearly plastered.

 

 

I'd agree with that core assessment, The Thread Killa. At the same time, what's wrong with holding Bischoff's feet to the fire on the creative, if he's saying he's effectively got an equal voice to Russo? If Vince McMahon ever did a podcast and Vince just tried to bury JJ Dillion for Papa Shango the Ultimate Warrior vomiting ooze angle without admitting he didn't veto it and let it go ahead, I think it'd be fair to push hard on that response. I get that's not 100% analogous but it's feels generally close enough, and the same is true for when Bischoff tries to push too much onto Kevin Sullivan. Besides that it's early in this show's run, so it's not quite like Bruce's show where the audience already knows the 2-3 go to pivot moves and knows beforehand how Conrad will react practically every time.

 

As for Meltzer, I think taking "shots" has just become part of the schtick for all of Conrad's podcasts, probably for some metric and social media reasons. It might frustrate people, including me when it's the same old shit again and again, but it seemingly works in terms of increasing subscriptions, shirts, downloads, etc. I agree with you that Bischoff definitely does seem like he's thought about more about his Meltzer criticisms than Tony or Bruce, and he's got more of an axe to grind on certain topics. FWIW, if they cover it, Bischoff will probably get some points in on some contract figure numbers between 1996 and 2000 since Keller and Meltzer didn't always get those right apparently from the WCW payroll numbers that came out in connection with the racial discrimination lawsuits. (Shouts to Bix and Chris Harrington for putting all that out there and organizing it, btw)

 

I'm guessing Eric got more sauced as BATB 2000 went along because he heard the "stiff" critiques of the first two shows, and it's a common "loosen up" move people go to. Plus, having brews feels like one of Eric's go to moves for trying to connect with people--it pops up almost every time he talks about meeting with somebody new to him in wrestling and wanting to connect. I haven't heard anything personally, but I'm guessing some people who have interviewed Bischoff for long periods of time probably have some amusing stories on that front.

[With Coil]

Kevin Nash has said Eric was a booze guy when they would all be fooling around at Nitro. Not surprising.

 

Eric's ama on reddit went well. He was on the road in one of the Dakota's or Wyoming or some shit and pulled over to answer about ten-fifteen questions for about a half hour. Best responses were about not watching NXT and how he'd never been around a more delusional wrestler than Bret Hart.

 

The NXT answer was amusing to me. That board loves that show so some folks probably were surprised by Eric's answer. It shouldn't be surprising though. Nobody outside of the hardcore watches that shit.

[SomethingSavage]

I agree to a point, but then you went too far. You must not buy into the fact/opinion distinction. Because that's a clear and important difference between Okada/Omega is the best match of all time and "Bret never seriously negotiated with me in 1996." I haven't heard anything as far as Bret responding, but Meltzer definitely went hard at Bischoff's new angle.

I recognize the difference between supposed facts and opinions. It just doesn't bother me much. I expect the Eric Bischoffs and Bruce Prichards to spin some yarns, to embellish, to exaggerate, and to sensationalize. Workers gonna work.

 

When you listen to these podcasts, you're listening to bullshit artists who found success in a bullshit business. You can't come in with unrealistic standards. It's not a deposition setting. Nobody has been sworn in. They're usually only going to give their side of the story. I'm not sure why anyone would expect anything else.

 

I just feel like some folks take this stuff way too seriously - using it as an excuse to pretend to be outraged over more "fake newz!" or whatever.

 

But what do I know? I'm more than comfortable being the outlier around here. I don't listen to these podcasts as part of some fact-finding crusade. I'm not listening to play private eye or prove I'm the smartest guy in the room about any given subject. I just listen for the stories. I can appreciate differing accounts of an event or opposing versions of a story without feeling the need to cast judgment one way or another.

 

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely appreciate this place for the discussion and all the knowledge passed around here. But I'm partial to the bullshitting and the storytelling offered in these things.

 

I'll take the "McMahon cigarette on a plane" story, the "partying with Chris Adams in a trailer park" story, or the "McMahon coaches Kelly Kelly on how to dance" deal over ANY attendance report or star rating I could ever get from Dave. That's just where I'm at as a fan at this point. Fifteen years or so ago? Maybe that's a different situation. But I've been that kind of fan. I'm just not there anymore. I couldn't possibly care any less about watching wrestling with a notepad or with a design to assign rankings to everything I'm watching. And it's a similar situation with podcasts now.

 

I do find it amusing that wrestling fans claim to love "great workers"... Up until they catch a hint of someone trying to work them. Then that person is just a liar and a conman.

 

No. They're workers. And the smart ones will figure out how to continue to work things in their favor, regardless of whether it's labeled a "shoot" or a podcast or whatever. Those things are all just new tools to do the same old job.

[Matt D]

Bischoff struggling to remember the name of "Game of Thrones" but then likening Meltzer to Varys by name and calling him the "Lord of Whispers" multiple times is peak 2018.