Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Something to Wrestle with Bruce Prichard


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 782
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, the Sunny one is quite fascinating, but also kinda sad, really, especially the conclusion, which I won't spoil.

 

I began Taker 95/97, I admit liking the digressions, like the signing of Micheal Hayes. It makes for a more dynamic and varied episode, especially for a super long format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a massive amount of patience for the show, but I will admit to having really enjoyed and learned a lot from the Goldust, Jarrett, and Undertaker episodes. I'm curious what other single subject ones are as good as those two?

 

Houston Wrestling, Savage, Bret Hart 1996-1997, Rumble 1997, the XFL, WWF Prime Time Wrestling (be sure to listen to the first part of the next episode for some follow-ups).

 

It's not a single subject but the 1st Q&A #lovetoknow episode is very good. Definitely a top 5 episode imo. WWECW is very good. If you like Bruce's Jim Cornette impression and little personal anecdotes, e.g. George the Rat, then that's another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Houston episode is something I would suggest an avid lover of the territory avoid. It's almost entirely about Bruce's personal experience in the area with hardly any mention of workers, programs, or angles. He even goes to great lengths to shit-talk the NWA Classics website.

 

I'll check out 5 hours on Goldust, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Houston episode is something I would suggest an avid lover of the territory avoid. It's almost entirely about Bruce's personal experience in the area with hardly any mention of workers, programs, or angles. He even goes to great lengths to shit-talk the NWA Classics website.

 

I'll check out 5 hours on Goldust, though.

That was kind of what I thought it might be, which is why I avoided it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't have a huge issue with the ads on Prichard's podcast, honestly. The have the right to make money from this thing, and it's not like listening to the show is costing me money. It's free entertainment, and if I have to listen to a couple ads then so be it.

 

As a fan of the show, the past few weeks have been rough for me for different reasons.

 

I actually forced myself to listen to the entire Shawn Michaels in 1993 episode, and by the end I wished I hadn't. The first problem is mine, I suppose. I don't get Shawn Michaels. I am not for one minute saying he wasn't talented, you'd be a fool to say that. However, I do think he is vastly overrated. Yet for some reason, there are those people (and Bruce Prichard is one of them) that think this guy is actually the greatest Pro Wrestler of all time. As a result, we get almost 6 hours worth of Prichard's show based on only three damn years of Shawn Michaels' career - and you can make an argument that 93, 94 and 95 weren't even his best years. I think that much content would be overkill if he was talking about just about anybody, never mind somebody I don't like and don't want to hear about. I ended up tapping out, I couldn't listen to the second half of the show, the 94/95 episode, I just don't have the stomach for it. I can put up with a hell of a lot of Prichard's spin doctoring, but not that much and especially not for Shawn Freaking Michaels.

 

The SNME watch-along was just okay. There were some repeated technical issues which I found annoying, but it was inoffensive if not unremarkable. Even if you didn't like it, what it lost in quality it made up for with expediency. I don't think it was even 2 hours long, which for that show is a sprint.

 

However...

 

If you want a good laugh, you have to listen to this week's episode on Wrestlemania 19. During the show, Conrad Thompson questions Bruce Prichard on the now infamous build-up to the Triple H vs. Booker T match at Wrestlemania 19. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Booker T won a Battle Royal for the right to challenge Triple H for the World Championship at Wrestlemania. Triple H then cut a promo on Raw where he claimed that nappy headed people like Booker T were only good for dancing, and "people like him" (wink wink) were beneath being WWF Champion. A couple weeks later, Flair tells Booker T to put on a chauffeur cap and carry Triple H's bags, and Triple H throws a dollar at him.

 

This (justifiably) caused a huge backlash online, so much so that WWF.com had a columnist (under a pen name I assume) write a column defending the WWF for delicately tackling such a controversial subject as racism. The WWF.com article noted the long history of racist angles in wrestling history, and pointed out that Triple H was a "bad guy" and was going to do that kind of stuff...but it didn't matter because of course he would get his in the end.

 

Which, of course he didn't. Quite the opposite.

 

WWF.com later pulled down the column defending the angle. I had a copy saved on my Hard Drive for years, along with my response in what ended up being the very last wrestling column I ever wrote, back when I wrote at 411. I lost that too, when my portable Hard Drive died. But the WWF.com column existed, even though they erased it.

 

Point is, the angle happened and it was unquestionably racist. There really is no way any sane, sensible person could have seen the build for that match and think the story wasn't race related.

 

On this week's show, Conrad Thompson brings this angle up and even reads Triple H's infamous promo word-for-word. Guess how Bruce Prichard responds?

 

a ) Claims the quotes are "taken out of context" (even though Conrad read the promo in it's entirety)

b ) Claims people didn't understand the angle. See Triple H was talking about former WCW wrestlers, not black people. (All WCW wrestlers were "nappy headed?")

c ) Totally ignores the fact that the WWF admitted at the time that originally the angle was definitely written with racist overtones.

d ) Claims wrestlers like Booker T were perfectly fine with these kinds of angles, and may have even suggested them or contributed lines.

e ) Claims Booker T couldn't beat Triple H and get revenge for any of this - because Lesnar was going over on this show, and they're both faces.

f ) Dances around the issue like a motherfucker, refusing to admit it was awful.

g ) All of the above.

 

If you picked "G" you win.

 

I was mildly surprised to see Prichard go into full blown WWF apologist mode for this, simply because he has admitted on this show that he hated when Bischoff simply handed Triple H his own World Championship months before, and he was quite detailed in his description of how he didn't care for the Katie Vick storyline which had happened not that long before this either. I figured if he's willing to admit that Triple H shouldn't have been handed World Titles for no reason, and that the Vick angle was repulsive, maybe he'd admit how horrible this was...but nope!

 

You really have to hear Prichard try and argue with Conrad about this. I'm half convinced the whole thing was staged, because he can't possibly be that clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

e ) Claims Booker T couldn't beat Triple H and get revenge for any of this - because Lesnar was going over on this show, and they're both faces.

 

 

I've always thought this was the reason HHH won. The 1st WM with 2 champs, they didn't want two celebrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The angle was wretched and Bruce's justification of it is worse, but Booker T has always acted like it was no big deal - even in his book. Whether that's how he really feels, who knows, but he has never spoken out against it. You can say he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him because he has a WWE job, but there were plenty of years in TNA where he could have spoken out and/or cut one of those shoot interviews about WWE that made TNA look second-rate, didn't draw money, and no one cared about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "can't have both babyfaces winning" thing...I'm sorry, but did we "need" Savage to go over the Warrior at WM7 or one of the heels to win the double main event at 8? (You can argue that Flair should have won, but the WWF obviously didn't feel that way).

 

Even so, if you really don't want HHH losing to Booker, whether it's because of wanting one heel champion or "saving" him for Goldberg or whatever, don't fucking book a race-baiting angle, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with the "two faces at WM" argument is it doesn't explain why Booker couldn't have beaten HHH at a future PPV. Instead, HHH won the feud and didn't get any comeuppance for being racist.

 

And if the feud had to end at WM, don't book something where the heel gets everything over on the face leading up to the big match and then still goes over.

 

Also of note is that from 2004 to 2007, both title matches at Wrestlemania each year were won by faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equally sad is when Conrad brings up the fact that it took 25 seconds for Triple H to cover Booker T after the pedigree, and Bruce blows a gasket and actually pulls out and plays the "you've never worked in the business so you don't understand" card. In the realm of Pro Wrestling and Shoot Interviews, that is pretty much the equivalent of Godwin's Law as far as I'm concerned.

 

Also of note is that from 2004 to 2007, both title matches at Wrestlemania each year were won by faces.

 

Exactly. I wish Conrad would have brought up that the next year, two babyface champions won/retained and celebrated in the ring, together to close the damn show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a work. The entire concept of the show hinges heavily on Bruce's responses being the closest thing to a sneak peak at how Vince's mind actually works. That's the appeal. That's the gimmick. He can only veer so far away from that.

Plus, in all fairness, Bruce LITERALLY said that he found the nappy hair comment racist and distasteful. Twice. Beyond that, his defense and reasoning behind Hunter going over was pretty much what you'd expect to hear from Vinnie Mac himself.

Once Prichard agrees on Conrad's perspective and gives all the answers that fanboys are calling for, then that's it. Show's over. The dynamic dwindles and dies. There's no more conversation to be had. It'd basically be two guys agreeing with one another and rattling off results & historical happenings for several hours. And lord knows there are already plenty enough of those podcasts out there.

As far as Booker taking it in stride, I tend to agree. It's no secret that Bruce and Booker are fairly close friends, so it would have come up at some point if he were totally disgusted by it. Beyond that, Booker has spoken out against the company on other issues before - specifically back when he felt like he was misled about them using his school for a developmental league, only to get passed by for Keirn and FCW instead - and it still never came up as anything substantial.

This is Bruce's show functioning at its best though. He's a conduit to the crazy intricacies and hypocritical standards of a maniacal businessman. It's both fascinating and frustrating to hear his response to some of these matters. But that's the point. Anyone asking for Bruce to just throw up his hands and willingly admit fault or agree with widespread smart mark opinion is kind of missing the point, really.

He *has* admitted - at least to some degree - a bit of embarrassment and shame when it comes to the usual suspects (Katie Vick, HLA, even this thing here), but he's also smart enough to understand that ain't what drew the house, brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a work. The entire concept of the show hinges heavily on Bruce's responses being the closest thing to a sneak peak at how Vince's mind actually works. That's the appeal. That's the gimmick. He can only veer so far away from that.

 

Plus, in all fairness, Bruce LITERALLY said that he found the nappy hair comment racist and distasteful. Twice. Beyond that, his defense and reasoning behind Hunter going over was pretty much what you'd expect to hear from Vinnie Mac himself.

 

Once Prichard agrees on Conrad's perspective and gives all the answers that fanboys are calling for, then that's it. Show's over. The dynamic dwindles and dies. There's no more conversation to be had. It'd basically be two guys agreeing with one another and rattling off results & historical happenings for several hours. And lord knows there are already plenty enough of those podcasts out there.

I'm not stupid, I know half the shtick of this show is Conrad busting Bruce's balls and Bruce digging in and being stubborn. I get that. However, I don't think when you're discussing a blatantly (and admittedly) racist angle is a particularly good time to pull that stunt. It means one of two things, either Bruce is using what was a racist angle to sell his own "WWE right or wrong" act or he is actually so thick-skulled that he actually believes what he is saying. Either way, he comes off looking stupid at best and incredibly ignorant at worst. I'd have much rather he tried to justify Katie Vick or HLA, to be honest. I don't care when he pulls his pig-headed routine about Meltzer, or fans second guessing booking, or even pretty much anything else. Why he chose this as an issue to dig his heels in is beyond me. He had to know there would be a backlash, especially in today's social media environment.

 

You could say that he knew this episode would create a buzz and generate controversy (which it definitely has, if Twitter is any indicator) but once again, IF that is the case I find using an angle like this to help promote his show to be poorly thought out, and in poor taste. He should be better than that. He has been, since this show has grown. It annoys me to see him take a step back like this.

 

Yes, he said he didn't agree with the "nappy headed" comment and even implied that was ad-libbed and not written for Triple H. But put that in one hand, and then all the other things he said in the other, and see what general impression you come away with after listening to this episode. If you can honestly listen to this and not come away thinking he was trying to excuse the entire angle, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

The angle was wretched and Bruce's justification of it is worse, but Booker T has always acted like it was no big deal - even in his book. Whether that's how he really feels, who knows, but he has never spoken out against it.

As far as Booker taking it in stride, I tend to agree. It's no secret that Bruce and Booker are fairly close friends, so it would have come up at some point if he were totally disgusted by it.

I understand what both of you are saying, and I respect your argument. However, my counterpoint to that argument is that this issue is bigger than just what Booker T thought of the angle, if he did or didn't "give permission" for it, or have a problem with it, or even contribute ideas to it.

 

Look at it this way, over the years I have had friends who are black. (I am not going to say African-American, because I'm Canadian, and once in an effort to be sensitive and politically correct I used the phrase "African-Canadian" and my friend almost died laughing.) So anyhow...if one of my black friends told me he didn't care if I made what were clearly insulting and racially insensitive comments towards him in public, even in front of other people - would that make it okay? If somebody else heard me and got upset, would I be able to use the excuse: "He told me I could say that?" No, of course not. That to me is the definition of specious reasoning.

 

It's a question of intent, plain and simple. If you say something which is clearly intended to be racially insensitive, I really don't think you can get around it by getting "permission" - especially if the remarks are made on national television with the intention of being seen by other people. Quite simply, I don't think Booker T has the authority to excuse that type of thing on behalf of everybody. Just because it didn't bother him, it doesn't mean they all didn't know it wouldn't bother somebody.

 

That's not even getting into the hypothetical scenario of what would have happened if Booker T had said he wasn't comfortable with it. I think we can all speculate how that would have worked out for him. Hell, look how it worked out for him when he went along with it. He got a big payday, sure. But I don't think in the larger picture that angle did his career any good, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • GSR changed the title to Something to Wrestle with Bruce Prichard

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...