Dylan Waco Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/mar/30...ture_35384/?wap That is the link to an article Michaels wrote under Mike Mooneyham's byline for my local paper (Charleston, SC). Mooneyham is one of Flair's best friends and in fact Flair flew Mike to the HoF ceremony and Mania on his own dime. Here is the closing paragraph of the article. "For me it is almost like a really old couple who have spent all their lives together. And when one of them passes, the other one sort of loses their will to live. And they go shortly afterwards. I have to be honest. For the first time, I am seriously considering that if Ric is gone, I shortly want to follow. It's the end of an era, and I'm part of that era. I just don't know that I even want to exist." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 That was a really good read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest STAN Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I just don't know that I even want to exist." Woah there Shawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 It's so easy to be cynical about pro wrestling, and usually for good reasons, but if the end of that match didn't draw you in then nothing will. HBK as the reluctant executioner of Flair's career might be one of the top performances by a wrestler ever. Flair getting to his knees before the final Superkick and being all "come on, motherfucker" was great too. The sight of the Greatest of All Time going out on his shield was the kind of stuff you usually only see in war movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I hit the eject on Ric Flair beating Harley Race for the NWA Title in 1981. Granted, Shawn has destroyed his mind through drugs over the years. But Mooneyham is one of Ric best friends, has known him and followed his career forever, and is the listed *author* of the article... you know, the guy responsible for it's accuracy. "Fact Check, Aisle Five!" In know... it's Pro Wrestling, Shawn is brain dead, and Mooneyham has been a mark for the boys for ages and wouldn't think of corrected His Heroes... so I shouldn't give a shit anymore. But for fuck's sake, you're a "journalist", Mooneyham... or at least pretends to be. Have some fucking pride. And before anyone tries to claim that "Ole didn't mention the title change on TBS", that would happen to be the Flair-Kerry title change. It would be just a *bit* hard for TBS not to mention Harley dropping the title in 1981 given the location of the *three* title changes he was involved in from April to June of that year. Fuckers... John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Unless he was 18 instead of 16 and was just talking about Starrcade '83. Which seems more likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I can remember, at the age of 16, sitting with my friend Kenny at Randolph Air Force Base and watching WTBS. And the thing I remember the most is Ric Flair talking about fighting Harley Race for the NWA world heavyweight championship. Every month there would be a different guy coming in and talking about that. We'd always wait until the next week to find out that that guy didn't win. I can remember Ric doing his promos and wondering if anybody would ever beat Harley Race. And if somebody did, I wished it would be this guy. Ric Flair was my favorite, and I just loved him. But by this time, I had seen many times that these guys never beat him. And then the big surprise ... Ric coming out the next week with the NWA championship after beating Harley Race. I was like, "Holy Cow, it happened!" Back then, when the world championship changed hands, it was huge. Unbeknownst to me at that time, Ric Flair had been kind of given the go-ahead to be the guy of the future. And at the time not knowing anything about the inside of the business, I was just able to enjoy everything he did and what he brought every week to my life from an inspirational standpoint. He's not. He's clearly talking about Ric's first reign. If he were talking about Ric winning at Starcade, "regain" would have been tossed in... along with the word "Starcade". No, Shawn was talking out of his ass and Fanboy Reporter couldn't be bothered to correct His Hero. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The 3H's Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 He made a mistake about a date, seems like a silly thing to make a fuss about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indikator Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Even if Michaels is brain dead he has probably only taken less than half of the nose candy Flair has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Reading that piece and getting hung up on a date of all things seems to be remarkably nit picky to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilJim2 Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 You really must not be familiar with the source that's whining here. This is something relevant in one seriously shallow and irrelevant life. If he spelled a name wrong I imagine the poor little guy's head would explode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I get complaining if it was a history piece, but is was a "from the heart" essay from his friend who he has his retirement match with. It's really not a big deal at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Given how wrestlers are very bad at remembering their own careers (it is a job), Flair would probably agree with Shawn's remembrance as if it was 100% accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I don't buy the "from the heart" aspect. Give Shawn a run opposite Orton for the WWE Title, with a little title turn mixed in, and he'll be a-o-kay. FWIW - I'm not nitpicking Shawn. He's fucking brain dead and probably does think Shawn won the title from Harley the first time and believes he saw Gordon Solie rambling about it. My point is Mooneyham throws journalism overboard on something that bears *his* name in the byline. He had the choice between (i) poking Shawn into remember that Dusty held the belt for nearly three months between Harley and Flair, or (ii) letting it slide because he didn't want to upset Shawn by questioning his memory, however gentle. He picked (ii), even on a item that he knew just wasn't true. Mooneyham isn't a fiction write in his columns. He's suppose to be a "reporter". We all know Shawn's full of shit just about every time he opens his mouth. He always has been. It's the Mooneyham part I was pointing to. Fuck... it wasn't a complicated post, people. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Given how wrestlers are very bad at remembering their own careers (it is a job), Flair would probably agree with Shawn's remembrance as if it was 100% accurate. There is that. Though considering how much he loves Harley, I suspect he remembers he won it first from Dusty and didn't beat Harley for the title until Starcade. But he is fucked up in the heads... so it's entirely possible. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilJim2 Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Did you write this in a hurry? The bold part below is either confusing or laughably hypocritical, depending on how one wants to look at it. It's a column about professional wrestling. Who really, truly, honestly gives this much of a shit about it? I don't buy the "from the heart" aspect. Give Shawn a run opposite Orton for the WWE Title, with a little title turn mixed in, and he'll be a-o-kay. FWIW - I'm not nitpicking Shawn. He's fucking brain dead and probably does think Shawn won the title from Harley the first time and believes he saw Gordon Solie rambling about it. My point is Mooneyham throws journalism overboard on something that bears *his* name in the byline. He had the choice between (i) poking Shawn into remember that Dusty held the belt for nearly three months between Harley and Flair, or (ii) letting it slide because he didn't want to upset Shawn by questioning his memory, however gentle. He picked (ii), even on a item that he knew just wasn't true. Mooneyham isn't a fiction write in his columns. He's suppose to be a "reporter". We all know Shawn's full of shit just about every time he opens his mouth. He always has been. It's the Mooneyham part I was pointing to. Fuck... it wasn't a complicated post, people. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The 3H's Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 JDW, I understand you're looking for a reason to be piss, but this really isn't that serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted April 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 I don't buy the "from the heart" aspect. Give Shawn a run opposite Orton for the WWE Title, with a little title turn mixed in, and he'll be a-o-kay. FWIW - I'm not nitpicking Shawn. He's fucking brain dead and probably does think Shawn won the title from Harley the first time and believes he saw Gordon Solie rambling about it. My point is Mooneyham throws journalism overboard on something that bears *his* name in the byline. He had the choice between (i) poking Shawn into remember that Dusty held the belt for nearly three months between Harley and Flair, or (ii) letting it slide because he didn't want to upset Shawn by questioning his memory, however gentle. He picked (ii), even on a item that he knew just wasn't true. Mooneyham isn't a fiction write in his columns. He's suppose to be a "reporter". We all know Shawn's full of shit just about every time he opens his mouth. He always has been. It's the Mooneyham part I was pointing to. Fuck... it wasn't a complicated post, people. John Not a complicated post, but a typical post and the reason a lot of people hit the "eject button" on tOA along time ago. There is a lot in that story that is strange and worth commenting on, but the historical accuracy of Shawn Michaels comments really isn't one of them. The constant harping on shit like that is really one of the primary reasons that the old axis of smarks from the early internet age don't have near the influence they used to. Not saying that you give a shit one way or the other, but I personally think it is unfortunate because I still enjoy reading a lot of what you and Frank write. Anyhow, I know Mooneyham, though not that well. He is a friend of a friend. I've told him face to face (as in real life face to face, not screen name to screen name), that I think he is too much of a sentimentalist at times in his columns and you are right that he is a mark for the "boys in the back"..he is also friends with a lot of them and has been for thirty-plus years in many cases. Mike was a fan and friend to guys like Sandy Scott and Henry Marcus before he became a full time journalist. I don't think you are ever going to see that sort of bias slip out of his writing. In a lot of ways he is wrestlings version of an inner-circle beltway journalist like say Walter Pincus from the Washington Post. He is never going to rock the boat so much that he looses his sources or (more importantly if you are a sane person) his friends, but he will report what is there and isn't afraid of stirring shit from time to time. While there are many errors in the book he co-authored with Sean Aussel (Sex, Lies and Headlocks), it is hardly an uncritical, fanboys look at the wrestling industry. In interviews following the Benoit murders, he was actually the hardest on the business of any of the guys I saw out there besides those that were using the event as a way of pushing their own agenda. But he is still friend, fan, journalist in that order and I don't think he would deny that. As for where the fault lies for the Michaels piece...Mike has been running a series of Flair's retirement for a month now. He wanted Michaels to have the last word for whatever reason and turned the column over to him. I can see an argument against doing that, but once a person has done that I really don't see any reason to go back and say "er your opening thoughts are historically inaccurate", when most of the fans don't give a shit because it isn't a piece that has anything to do with that sort of thing. Again the article was a personal reflection piece and the idea that Mooneyhams journalistic credibility is shot because he didn't fact check someone elses memories is kind of silly..especially when that sort of thing is remarkably common in actual history text, let alone memoirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Did you write this in a hurry? Yes. It's a column about professional wrestling. Who really, truly, honestly gives this much of a shit about it? Someone did enough to make a thread on it. Others did enough to think it was a good piece. It's pro wrestling. We really shouldn't give a shit about it because it's stupid. But there is a site called prowrestlingonly.com where fans are talking (and bitching) about pro wrestling. Hell, I've seen you talking and bitching about pro wrestling for more than a decade. "It's pro wrestling", yet you still are talking about it. "Does this make logic?" -Konnan John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Not saying that you give a shit one way or the other, I don't. Haven't for years. I think he is too much of a sentimentalist at times in his columns and you are right that he is a mark for the "boys in the back"..he is also friends with a lot of them and has been for thirty-plus years in many cases. Mike was a fan and friend to guys like Sandy Scott and Henry Marcus before he became a full time journalist. I don't think you are ever going to see that sort of bias slip out of his writing. We *don't* see any of that bias slip into his writing? You just copped to him being a mark of the boys in the back and not rocking the boat with sources and friends in the business. That isn't journalism. Your analogy to the beltway press is accurate since they suck cock at the moment. Again - I don't give a shit about Shawn's memory being off. It's to be expected. I do care to point out that a "journalist" blowing off the truth is a problem. Don't we have a whole thread on Keller and the WON Writers for their innacurate nonsense? Haven't we wondered for years why Keller has such a hardon to rip Jericho, or why Dave will never say a negative thing about Jim Ross even when Ross warrants it? So "friend of a friend" gets a pass when his journalistic intergrity and skills are shitty? Good to know that's what you think, Dylan. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted April 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 It's not a matter of giving anyone a pass John. It's a matter of not being surprised and thinking (like everyone else in this thread other than you) that focusing on the title change issue really misses the point of the entire piece. There are a lot of things to go after Mooneyham for. His totally uncritical hero worship of Flair would be at the top of the list (and I say that as a guy you have accused of being a Flair Fan numerous times over the years). His unwillingness to fact check a personal memoir piece written by Shawn Michaels really isn't at the top of that list. Again if you want to argue about Mooneyham giving him the byline in the first place fine, but I really don't see why you would go back and say "sorry Shawn you are wrong about this". The fact is that outside of John D. Williams the number of people who will give a shit is remarkably low, for the simple fact that even the people who catch it aren't going to harp on it..because it isn't a historical piece. Addendum: Also you may want to re-read that paragraph you quoted. I clearly said that the bias was never going to "slip out of his writing". In other words we agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilJim2 Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Did you write this in a hurry? Yes. It's a column about professional wrestling. Who really, truly, honestly gives this much of a shit about it? Someone did enough to make a thread on it. Others did enough to think it was a good piece. It's pro wrestling. We really shouldn't give a shit about it because it's stupid. But there is a site called prowrestlingonly.com where fans are talking (and bitching) about pro wrestling. Hell, I've seen you talking and bitching about pro wrestling for more than a decade. "It's pro wrestling", yet you still are talking about it. "Does this make logic?" -Konnan John I talk and get concerned when I read and hear shit about kids dying in training rings and carnys lying and treating people with contempt. And if you look around, I haven't done much of any posting in quite some time. You, however, have rambled on and on and on and on about a stupid, meaningless, no-one-else-on-the-planet-gives-a-shit error in a mark column about pro wrestling. Bit of a difference there. Here's a better idea- instead of getting into your booster seat to whine on a pro wrestling board in righteous indignation about this, why not e-mail or contact Mooneyham, since you're clearly really really upset about this outrage of a mistake? The guy that started this thread did so on a positive note and you had to weeble in and toss your poison and trolling in to get your sad little voice heard. Go bother the guy that apparently set you off so badly. Thanks for reading my posts and columns for the past ten years, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 No other element of the media can keep their shit straight. Is it really realistic (or even sane) to expect, of all things, wrestling writers to be the one and only group that breaks this pattern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 What I want to know is when Michaels and Flair became such good friends. Was this in Flair's first or second run with the company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 Second I think. The McMahon's and Trips apparently gave Ric loads of help getting his confidence back, he ended up becoming good friends with HHH, and thus I imagine spent a fair bit of time with Michaels. 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.