Jump to content


Photo

Bruce Prichard's credibility


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#1 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 44074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:10 PM

I think this needs its own thread since I see him cited all over the place more than I used to.

 

Dave insists that he's a con man working a gimmick, which sounds like Gene Okerlund and the WCW Hotline to me. Are there people who think he's credible? Why? 

 

This is also a good time to vent about the toxic, anti-truth movement his podcast (and Vince Russo's, for that matter) have created on Twitter, with their followers trolling Dave constantly.



#2 Zoo Enthusiast

Zoo Enthusiast
  • Members
  • 1872 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere I darn well please.

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:17 PM

I dont know if that many people think he is credible, per se, but see some value in the fact that he does offer something of a first-hand glimpse into how Vince operated. I think its a mix of both. Hes a con man working a gimmick with the goal (since achieved) of getting back in the good graces of the WWE, while also making a sometimes entertaining podcast. I cant comment on the Twitter stuff.

Also, take the t out of his name and put one on your back, pal.

#3 Mad Dog

Mad Dog
  • Members
  • 5773 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:17 PM

I find him to be mostly obnoxious. I would rather listen to Cornette or even Kevin Nash when it comes to history than Bruce Pritchard. I do find it's pretty easy to tell when he's lying or telling the truth. My issues with him are similar to my issues with Al Snow.



#4 Dooley

Dooley
  • Members
  • 722 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:36 PM

I think he's fairly credible, and has provided a lot of insight into WWF office decisions. That said, he is a bit of a bullshitter, and as stated it's pretty easy to tell when he's doing it.

I think that what Meltzer thinks is a separate issue. I tend to think that it's easier for Dave to say that Bruce, Bischoff or whoever are running a gimmick rather than admit he's wrong a fairly decent percentage of the time.

#5 C.S.

C.S.
  • Members
  • 2530 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:43 PM

So, what is Bruce's "tell"? How do you know when he's bullshitting?

 

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

There are undoubtedly thousands of times Meltzer has gotten it wrong or been duped by a bad source.

 

But there are also times Bruce might be BSing or at least withholding information.

 

I've enjoyed his Network show so far (I haven't listened to the podcasts yet) because he always offers a unique perspective on famous backstage stories.



#6 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 11243 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:55 PM

He's called out numerous times on his own show every episode for being a company man and a shill. He goes too far into extremes to be considered credible, I think. It's up to the viewer to decide when to believe him and when not to. It's another piece of evidence to weigh against the rest though. We're better off for having it more times than not.



#7 cad

cad
  • Members
  • 137 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:56 PM

What are some of his more egregious lies?



#8 SomethingSavage

SomethingSavage
  • Members
  • 1208 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:56 PM

Bruce is entertaining, and he provides a unique perspective - it's pretty much the closest you'll get to having a sneak peek into Vince's mind & how it works. Yes, he puts the WWE spin on most things. But that's the point. People want to hear the Vince answer. They want the explanation as to why these decisions were made.

If Bruce just shrugged and said, "Yeah. You're right. Everything we did sucked. I'm not sure why we did that." about everything, then that's dry and boring as fuck. Nobody wants to listen to that.

But when he starts defending Vince's philosophies and making excuses for that mentality, then things get interesting. That's discussion-worthy stuff.

Is he working alot of the time? Sure. But isn't everyone? Meltzer does whatever he thinks is going to generate interest in what he's selling, too. That's just the nature of the beast.

Bruce isn't 100% correct on all things. But, ya know, Dave isn't either.

Cornette explained it best whenever a fan submitted a question to him about Bruce's bullshitting. Keep in mind, Corny is a good friend of Bruce, but even he stated that Prichard is the sports entertainment of podcasts. He will tell the truth if he can, but he'll also defend the legacy he built there and basically shit on anyone who challenges or threatens that.

I like listening to him enough to keep doing it. I don't need him to be 100% factual or 100% upfront about every little thing. That's not why I listen. I listen for the entertaining stories, and I listen for the Vince perspective.

#9 Cox

Cox
  • Members
  • 1795 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:59 PM

I've always felt that the value of listening to the podcast is it gives you an insight into the mind and the thinking of Vince McMahon, and is in many ways a biography of Vince. Bruce is definitely an unreliable narrator and an inconsistent impressionist, but even when he's lying, he's lying in a way that illustrates the Vince McMahon/WWE way of thinking. An example is the two podcasts they did on Montreal. I think Bret Hart is obviously in the right for most of what happened that night...but I can at least understand and appreciate, from the WWF/Vince McMahon viewpoint, how Bret may have been viewed as difficult to work with during that time period and how that could lead to a sequence of events that led to Vince deciding "fuck it, let's screw him and take the belt."

 

That doesn't mean I've started believing wholesale in everything he says, and I think he probably lies more than people think. They once had a mailbag session on his show, and I have a friend who is a mutual friend of Reckless Youth. My friend has had some email exchanges with Reckless where he once asked him why he was fired from WWE, and he said it was because Bruce didn't like him, so just out of curiosity, I decided to ask Bruce why Reckless Youth never made it in WWE. He said something about "Vince didn't like his look," which is such obvious bullshit. Vince McMahon was not watching MCW tapes! I doubt Vince McMahon saw one minute of Reckless Youth footage the entire time he was there. So that strikes me as being such obvious bullshit but my guess is something like that might have slipped past most people who didn't know better.

 

So I think there is value to this show, but you do have to wade through a lot of Bruce's bullshit to get there. But even that bullshit is illuminating in some ways. I think a lot of the listeners are just making the wrong takeaways from the show, though. That said, I recently had to stop listening because my podcast listening time has been cut back, and 3 hours of Bruce every week was an easy cut for me.



#10 shodate

shodate

    Anarchist of PWO

  • Banned
  • 544 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2018 - 07:55 PM

he  about  as credible as fox news  is 



#11 CarpetCrawler

CarpetCrawler
  • Members
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:09 PM

Bruce when he's justifying things by letting you look into the mind of Vince McMahon is fascinating. There's a clip out there of him explaining the rationale of Vince calling Terry Taylor "The Red Rooster" and his insistence that it wasn't a rib. I don't fully believe that, but him describing how Vince justified it to guys like Pat ("he thinks he's the cock of the walk, he's the rooster that fucks all the chickens") was FASCINATING. I also really enjoy whenever Bruce talks about his early time in the WWF when he was more on the production and performer side than the creative side. I feel like he tends to be more truthful there because he doesn't feel the need to justify anything he wasn't really a part of. For example, episodes of his show with Conrad about Prime Time Wrestling/Bobby Heenan/early RAW were extremely fascinating. There's a great bit where he talked about the origins of working with Piper in preparation for Wrestlemania V in one episode that was also incredibly interesting. Loved him talking about how they picked out The Manhattan Center as the venue for RAW. Those are the stories I am interested in hearing about. His stories and recounting of how much of an important friend Roddy Piper was to him was very touching and endearing.

 

I recognize that the Meltzer bashing is what his listeners are there for though and that he capitalized on the anti-Meltz crowd, but man, it's so tiresome when Conrad does his "Meltzer said..." and then you hear Bruce sigh and then the show grinds to a halt so Conrad can repeat a Meltzer opinion or rumor for Bruce to waste time complaining about. The only full shows of Bruce's that I've listened to are the ones that tend to be from the late 80s/early 90s when he was more performing and producing. Otherwise I'm perfectly content to just listen to the clips that get put up on the YouTube channel. I get the tidbits of Vince McMahon's mindset and perspective when he created this character/show/angle that I find ultra fascinating without all the BS. I do tend to think he's stretching the truth more often than not (even Cornette admits Bruce is claiming Jerry Jarrett wasn't taking over from Vince if he went to jail solely because he (and Pat Patterson) dislikes Jerry) and watching him get heralded as an honest podcast by his fanbase who feel the need to @ Meltzer and respond to every single one of his tweets by attacking his credibility is a little ridiculous. I have seen a lot of "Bruce said..." stuff that obviously isn't true that is being passed around as fact now.

 

Bruce talking about his early run in the WWF (1987-93 or so) is a lot of fun in small doses but otherwise I don't really pay too much attention to him. I've tried but I'm good with sticking to only a certain type of episode. As for his credibility, I don't think he's any more credible than other backstage people in shoots and podcasts. You get a sprinkle of truth in between doses of BS. People just think he's more truthful because his show is more entertaining.

 

Love him or hate him, I don't think anyone will disagree with the take that his fanbase is atrocious.



#12 stunning_grover

stunning_grover
  • Members
  • 287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:pro wrestling

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:22 PM

Interesting thread. I don't see why Bruce Prichard should be considered a "con man" (like Dave Meltzer apparently said). Prichard is a great storyteller. He's the type of guy who can get an audience to listen his stories and he's telling stories most of the listeners are interested in (a lot of people grew up on watching WWF). He's been pretty clear that he's telling things from his point of view. He worked for the WWF/E and the WWE is putting his show on the Network. I don't see why we would question his credibility more than anyone else in the wrestling business.

 

Is Prichard always telling the truth? Probably not, but is anyone really? There will be stuff that he misremembered or stuff that he remembered his way or just stuff he wants to tell in a different way. You can't stop that. If we want to stop that, then we should delete every podcast or shoot interview ever right now.

 

If anything, Meltzer is the real con man. He's worked so many people believing that he is the begin all and end all of wrestling and that the Wrestling Observer is like the Bible of pro wrestling that we should all read and worship. Yet, in reality, he's match ratings are not much more reliable than our match ratings. Sure, he does have good connections and he was one of the first doing it. And yeah, his success can't be denied. I used to be subscribed to his newsletter too back in the 1990s. And he provided lots of useful news over the years (and also a lot of false rumors). But, him calling Prichard a "con man" is kinda silly and is probably just him reacting to Prichard shitting on Meltzer on the podcast.

 

About the whole Prichard vs. Meltzer thing... they are both giving each other more publicity and the both probably realize it. I think it's more just a running joke now, not really to be taken too seriously. If anything, Meltzer should thank Prichard for his name being mentioned on the WWE Network on a weekly basis now. Plus, Prichard is just talking shit about Meltzer because Conrad Thompson keeps referring to Meltzer's comments and ratings from the Observer. It's part of the show.

 

I think Meltzer is secretly enjoying the fact that New Japan World commentators have been mentioning his star ratings and that his name is getting mentioned all the time on a very successful podcast (Prichard's podcast) on a regular basis.

 

The way I see it, Prichard is a great storyteller and he's telling stories about an era in WWF that I grew up watching. I love listening to stories from that era (even if they may or may not be 100% accurate). Prichard telling stories about Vince McMahon and doing Vince McMahon impressions are fun and worth listening to. I have been watching all the episodes on the Network so far. I don't listen to every single episode of the regular podcast anymore, but I have good memories of the ones I have listened to.

 

Prichard's success is obvious. People are listening to his podcast, watching his show on the Network and going to his live shows.

 

I think like with a lot of things in the wrestling business, we'll never know what the truth really was. All we can do is listen to the stories and form our own opinion. It's like the WrestleMania III attendance debate... Meltzer will always claim his number was right... Prichard will always claim that Meltzer was wrong. There is a whole thread dedicated on the subject of the WrestleMania III attendance on this forum because it's something we will probably never find the truth about.

 

Just the fact that we are talking about Prichard right now shows that he has been successful in what he does, no matter what Meltzer thinks.

 

I think people who want Prichard's shows to be a 100% accurate news report are missing the point of the show.

 

With that being said, I will be watching Something Else to Wrestle With...................................................... Bruce Prichard next Wednesday on the WWE Network.



#13 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 11243 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:29 PM

Re: the Rooster thing. Sometimes he'll take a kernel of truth and make it into the whole truth, when it was only a small percentage of it or at the very least, certainly not the most important aspect. As people have said, it's useful as 1.) the company line/way Vince may have rationalized things and 2.) that kernel of truth that we very often didn't have before and adds to a whole picture. 



#14 C.S.

C.S.
  • Members
  • 2530 posts

Posted 04 May 2018 - 01:58 AM

I believe the Rooster story.

 

Prichard has a point: Why would Vince hire a wrestler and invest money, promotion, and TV time just for the sake of a rib? Okay, there was the Dusty polka dot look that was supposedly a rib, but I could just as easily see Vince thinking something that gaudy was actually fashionable - after all, look at the outfits Vince himself wore back then. Either way, Dusty earned Vince's respect by getting that over.

 

Anyway, it's easy to look at the Rooster now, laugh at it, and mock it for being such a terrible idea. But tons of WWE gimmicks are atrocious on paper - Undertaker and Kane, anyone? - and they got over like gangbusters because of the talent involved. I believe someone like a, say, Michael Hayes could have gotten the Red Rooster gimmick over with his cocky moonwalk strut, charisma, etc. Taylor never embraced the character and probably didn't have the personality to put it over the top. Ironically, I thought he displayed both charisma and personality with the WWE-like "Taylor Made Man" in WCW a few years later. Maybe he learned his lessons from the failed Rooster stint? I don't know.

 

I wonder if the real rib on Taylor was when he returned to the WWF in '93 or '94 as "Terrific" Terry Taylor - a bland gimmick for what Vince probably saw as a bland performer who didn't know how to sports-entertain.



#15 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 11243 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2018 - 05:46 AM

Prichard has a point: Why would Vince hire a wrestler and invest money, promotion, and TV time just for the sake of a rib? Okay, there was the Dusty polka dot look that was supposedly a rib, but I could just as easily see Vince thinking something that gaudy was actually fashionable - after all, look at the outfits Vince himself wore back then. Either way, Dusty earned Vince's respect by getting that over.

 

 

Because he was a petty madman who got absurd amusement in putting grown men in killer bee costumes? In Vince's mind, what's the point of making all this money if you can't lord over people and lean towards your joys?



#16 Victator

Victator
  • Members
  • 1672 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2018 - 06:02 AM

He was not going to waste Network television (Rooster angle started on NBC) on a prank on a wrestler. They built this up for months and even did an angle with Gorilla getting attacked to put it over. Rooster/Heenan was one of the more promoted mid card matches at Mania. Of non title matches, I think only Jake/Andre got more TV time dedicated to it. 
 

But tons of WWE gimmicks are atrocious on paper - Undertaker and Kane, anyone?

 

Those are great gimmicks. Undead monster and fire demon. 



#17 Sean Liska

Sean Liska
  • Members
  • 1419 posts

Posted 04 May 2018 - 06:03 AM

I agree with everyone who says Prichard is worth listening to just because it's the closest we'll ever get to a detailed Vince McMahon autobiography. And I find Vince McMahon fascinating, so hearing what's basically his rationale for all of his decisions over the years is very useful to me.



#18 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 11243 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2018 - 06:03 AM

He'll have his cake and eat it too. 



#19 Victator

Victator
  • Members
  • 1672 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2018 - 06:29 AM

I also don't think the rooster is necessarily a bad gimmick. It always seemed like Taylor was playing it as a literal chicken. 



#20 The Thread Killer

The Thread Killer

    The Canadian Wildman

  • Members
  • 1330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 04 May 2018 - 08:27 AM

he  about  as credible as fox news  is

 

Great post, shodate.

 

Let's check The shodate Manifesto and see how you scored...

 

The shodate Manifesto

1) Post a comment which is clearly intended to bring attention to yourself. CHECK!

2) Try and bring politics into your post - even if the topic being discussed has nothing to do with politics. CHECK!
 

3) Make sure your comment is irrelevant and does not contribute to the discussion. CHECK!

4) Make your comments brief, cryptic and pointless. CHECK!

5) Do not use proper grammar/sentence structure (despite the fact that you have proven that you're capable of it.) CHECK!

6) When people react (the way you clearly want them to) act indignant and morally wounded, as if you can't imagine why somebody could possibly be so cruel to you. Remember, you are the wronged party and are clearly the victim of unjust persecution. People are being mean to you for having opinions, not for being a semi-literate blatant troll.

7) Repeat this process in every possible thread.

8) There will be no repercussions for your behavior, because a vocal minority of other members at PWO enjoy your gimmick. They are your core audience so continue to play to them as much as possible, because Lord knows your act isn't getting old at all.

 

Now please respond the way I know you're going to, so I can check off #6 as well.

 

And for the record...yes I know what I just posted is "deformation."






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)