WowBB Forums Home 

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi  
AuthorPost
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 4535
Status: 
Online
Anyone listening to this? 

I’m really enjoying this podcast; right or wrong I find Eric very believable and likeable. 

Blazer



Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 6706
Status: 
Offline
Not listening currently, but have listened to him on a couple of other podcasts over the years (once with JR, once with Flair). But, yeah, he seems very personable and likable. You wouldn't expect that, and maybe that's part of the bs charm that he used to get to where he was back then. I think I can usually see through that though (like, Prichard seems like a lying dirtbag for the most part). Bischoff seems genuine.

DJP

 

Joined: Wed Jul 1st, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 1005
Status: 
Offline
I listen every week. He may or may not be full of shit depending on the topic. But I agree he is a charming dude and seems cool as fuck.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6959
Status: 
Offline
Love the show. I think he's more open and truthful than Prichard and he'll actually admit sometimes when he actually screwed stuff up, that's refreshing. As far as Conrad's shows go now I much prefer Tony's and Eric's shows to Bruce's now..

DJP

 

Joined: Wed Jul 1st, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 1005
Status: 
Offline
I make it a point to listen to Tony's podcast every week too. They really found his niche with the watch alongs. I listen to Prichard's only if I'm interested in the subject matter. Of the three Tony comes across as the most genuine and truthful because he clearly gives zero fucks about anything. Bischoff would be cool to have a beer with and shoot the shit. Bruce I wouldn't even buy a car from.

tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4836
Status: 
Offline
Eric Bischoff has a lot of justifications for what he did specifically and what WCW did in general. He also seems to often see things only through his own eyes at the expense of any other possible viewpoint or path. However, I believe that he's honest to the extent that he believes his own version of the truth.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52725
Status: 
Offline
Married Jo wrote: Love the show. I think he's more open and truthful than Prichard and he'll actually admit sometimes when he actually screwed stuff up, that's refreshing. As far as Conrad's shows go now I much prefer Tony's and Eric's shows to Bruce's now..
Bruce is a natural heel, and by that I probably mean he's a dick.  The stuff he defends on his show is mind-boggling, to the point that I can't tell if it's schtick or if he's delusuonal.  I think it's schtick...I hope.  But having a heel host on a show like that doesn't do much for me.  There's only so many times you can hear him mock Internet fans on a fucking podcast whose viewership is made up 100% of Internet fans. 

martini
Sunny's White Knight


Joined: Fri Aug 13th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 4005
Status: 
Offline
I enjoy all three shows but the Meltzer ripping is so annoying week and week.

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6995
Status: 
Offline
Didn't know about this.  Just subscribed.  Thanks.

Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 4535
Status: 
Online
martini wrote:I enjoy all three shows but the Meltzer ripping is so annoying week and week.
I don’t mind the Meltzer bashing on certain things with Tony and Eric because Dave wasn’t there and wouldn’t know things that were happening in the turner AP and AR departments but Bruce seems like an ass about everythingg all the time. I haven’t listened to Bruce in months because I usually tend to binge these and I’m not in a mood to hear about the WWF lately but when I last listened Bruce was pissing me off with his Hate of the Japanese style; Everything not WWF style isn’t automatically wrong. 

I’ve never subscribed or read much of Dave’s work but clearly he knows a lot about the business and has been respected by some of those in it for a long time. 

Is he a historian? I don’t know maybe Wong or Matt Farmer could answer that. 

Did Dave have sources aka stooges? Does / did Dave have favorites? Did / does he make educated guesses and possibly take a leap by connecting some dots? I think answer to all of those questions are yes and it does bother me when Eric tries to over explain things to dispute one of Dave’s point when he probably should just say “Dave nailed that one” like he does from time to time anyway. 




Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6959
Status: 
Offline
I will say this about Bruce, when he's talking NON WWF/E stuff he's way more genuine and enjoyable. I think he really doesn't want to burn any WWE bridges so he sucks their ass way too much but those Global and Houston podcasts he did with Conrad are solid gold..

Last edited on Fri Oct 19th, 2018 04:43 pm by Married Jo

broke



Joined: Tue Jan 22nd, 2008
Location: Bolton, ON
Posts: 3221
Status: 
Offline
Bruce might as well do his podcasts in the Vince McMahon voice for some of the stuff he defends.

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: Married Jo wrote: Love the show. I think he's more open and truthful than Prichard and he'll actually admit sometimes when he actually screwed stuff up, that's refreshing. As far as Conrad's shows go now I much prefer Tony's and Eric's shows to Bruce's now..
Bruce is a natural heel, and by that I probably mean he's a dick.  The stuff he defends on his show is mind-boggling, to the point that I can't tell if it's schtick or if he's delusuonal.  I think it's schtick...I hope.  But having a heel host on a show like that doesn't do much for me.  There's only so many times you can hear him mock Internet fans on a fucking podcast whose viewership is made up 100% of Internet fans. 
Yeah, at times I am also convinced that if Bruce can't remember something, he just makes something up.  For example, when they covered the Main Event special from February of '88, Conrad points out to him that the Hogan workout vignette uses Jake Roberts' theme song.  Bruce tries to explain why they would use another guy's theme for this piece, when in reality, Jake had never used this theme (or any theme in WWE) prior to that episode.  I think if he doesn't know or can't remember, he just ad libs to make the show entertaining, even if it leads to factual inaccuracy. 

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: Eric Bischoff has a lot of justifications for what he did specifically and what WCW did in general. He also seems to often see things only through his own eyes at the expense of any other possible viewpoint or path. However, I believe that he's honest to the extent that he believes his own version of the truth.I think

I think I've heard all of Bischoff's "83 Weeks" podcasts so far.  If I had to sum up his tenure in charge of WCW, I'd say he was doing alright until he got to the point where Thunder was added, and at that point he became completely overwhelmed (at least that is what he thinks).  It sounds like at that point he began to "ok" all kinds of things simply because he was spent and didn't have the capacity to say no, even on things that weren't a good idea.
One thing Vince always has in his corner is full control.  Eric simply couldn't say no, and WCW over-saturated the market with their stuff.  Too much time to fill = lots of bad programming.



Last edited on Fri Oct 19th, 2018 09:53 pm by Boz1515

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52725
Status: 
Offline
Boz1515 wrote: tamalie wrote: Eric Bischoff has a lot of justifications for what he did specifically and what WCW did in general. He also seems to often see things only through his own eyes at the expense of any other possible viewpoint or path. However, I believe that he's honest to the extent that he believes his own version of the truth.I think

I think I've heard all of Bischoff's "83 Weeks" podcasts so far.  If I had to sum up his tenure in charge of WCW, I'd say he was doing alright until he got to the point where Thunder was added, and at that point he became completely overwhelmed (at least that is what he thinks).  It sounds like at that point he began to "ok" all kinds of things simply because he was spent and didn't have the capacity to say no, even on things that weren't a good idea.
One thing Vince always has in his corner is full control.  Eric simply couldn't say no, and WCW over-saturated the market with their stuff.  Too much time to fill = lots of bad programming.

Vince also had supreme authority. Bischoff not only had to report to a rotating cast of Turner exes but also had to deal with all the wrestlers who had creative control in their contracts. There’s no way anyone can succeed long-term in that environment. 

Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 4535
Status: 
Online
Eric’s insight and his admission of misunderstanding of the aol deal is interesting.

Prior to his statement I had a hard time understanding comments of his that I had read about WCW losing the war because they couldn’t be as edgy as the WWF. AOL adding the additional layers of authority would have created a bottle neck on all fronts.

Call me a mark if you will but I’m going to pick up a shirt this week so I can get a call from Eric.

Has anyone on this board picked up a shirt and spoken to Eric, Tony or Bruce?

Spatulapup

 

Joined: Mon Nov 22nd, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 2396
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: Boz1515 wrote: tamalie wrote: Eric Bischoff has a lot of justifications for what he did specifically and what WCW did in general. He also seems to often see things only through his own eyes at the expense of any other possible viewpoint or path. However, I believe that he's honest to the extent that he believes his own version of the truth.I think

I think I've heard all of Bischoff's "83 Weeks" podcasts so far.  If I had to sum up his tenure in charge of WCW, I'd say he was doing alright until he got to the point where Thunder was added, and at that point he became completely overwhelmed (at least that is what he thinks).  It sounds like at that point he began to "ok" all kinds of things simply because he was spent and didn't have the capacity to say no, even on things that weren't a good idea.
One thing Vince always has in his corner is full control.  Eric simply couldn't say no, and WCW over-saturated the market with their stuff.  Too much time to fill = lots of bad programming.

Vince also had supreme authority. Bischoff not only had to report to a rotating cast of Turner exes but also had to deal with all the wrestlers who had creative control in their contracts. There’s no way anyone can succeed long-term in that environment. 


its true. Eric had people above him he had to answer to and once WCW became hot the suits were paying a lot more attention. and then when you have certain wrestlers with creative control, in particular Hogan, your hands are tied somewhat. Kevin Nash did a great impersonation of Hogan when something was brought to Hogan and Hogan didnt like it....."doesnt work for me brother". and then when you extend Nitro and add Thunder. thats a booking nightmare. people will be burned out before you know it.

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6995
Status: 
Offline
Listened to the Flair and NWO podcasts. Gotta say I really enjoyed it.

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
Spatulapup wrote: srossi wrote: Boz1515 wrote: tamalie wrote: Eric Bischoff has a lot of justifications for what he did specifically and what WCW did in general. He also seems to often see things only through his own eyes at the expense of any other possible viewpoint or path. However, I believe that he's honest to the extent that he believes his own version of the truth.I think

I think I've heard all of Bischoff's "83 Weeks" podcasts so far.  If I had to sum up his tenure in charge of WCW, I'd say he was doing alright until he got to the point where Thunder was added, and at that point he became completely overwhelmed (at least that is what he thinks).  It sounds like at that point he began to "ok" all kinds of things simply because he was spent and didn't have the capacity to say no, even on things that weren't a good idea.
One thing Vince always has in his corner is full control.  Eric simply couldn't say no, and WCW over-saturated the market with their stuff.  Too much time to fill = lots of bad programming.

Vince also had supreme authority. Bischoff not only had to report to a rotating cast of Turner exes but also had to deal with all the wrestlers who had creative control in their contracts. There’s no way anyone can succeed long-term in that environment. 


its true. Eric had people above him he had to answer to and once WCW became hot the suits were paying a lot more attention. and then when you have certain wrestlers with creative control, in particular Hogan, your hands are tied somewhat. Kevin Nash did a great impersonation of Hogan when something was brought to Hogan and Hogan didnt like it....."doesnt work for me brother". and then when you extend Nitro and add Thunder. thats a booking nightmare. people will be burned out before you know it.
LOL at your constant Hogan bashing.  Eric Bischoff has gone on record multiple times saying the creative control was really no big deal.  He said it on his own podcast, as well as Steve Austin's podcast.  He says a lot of that is just narrative and was blown out of proportion.

Spatulapup

 

Joined: Mon Nov 22nd, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 2396
Status: 
Offline
to this day Bischoff is buddies with Hogan so he is going to take it easy on him. ask Kevin Sullivan how it was dealing with Hogan and having to get him to agree to do things. Kevin even said that one of the reasons Bret sputtered there was due to Hogan. Kevin was on the booking team. Hogan was one of the main problems behind the scenes and well as a few other top guys during that time. 

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
Spatulapup wrote:  ask Kevin Sullivan how it was dealing with Hogan and having to get him to agree to do things. Hogan was one of the main problems behind the scenes and well as a few other top guys during that time. 
Yeah, he must have been so hard to deal with.  That's why he put over all of these guys:

Arn Anderson
Roddy Piper
Lex Luger
Sting
Giant/Big Show
DDP
Goldberg
Ric Flair
Kidman
Mike Awesome
Vampiro

Internet narrative.  What a joke.

People have to make interesting comments in shoot interviews or no one would listen to them.  It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be interesting.



Last edited on Sun Oct 21st, 2018 07:23 pm by Boz1515

tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4836
Status: 
Offline
Hogan made Kidman look like a total joke. I think Kidman got a pin in one of their matches, but had to have help to do so and otherwise got gobbled up by Hogan. That doesn't equate to putting someone over.

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: Hogan made Kidman look like a total joke. I think Kidman got a pin in one of their matches, but had to have help to do so and otherwise got gobbled up by Hogan. That doesn't equate to putting someone over.
A lower midcard cruiserweight getting any type of pinfall on the biggest star in the history of the business is a pretty decent rub.

tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4836
Status: 
Offline
Kidman got no rub. He was back to working undercard to midcard matches in no time. WCW made it very clear in the booking and presentation that the win meant nothing in the big picture.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52725
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: Kidman got no rub. He was back to working undercard to midcard matches in no time. WCW made it very clear in the booking and presentation that the win meant nothing in the big picture.
Kidman was portrayed on screen and in real life as a complainer who couldn’t draw, and set up to fail so that they could say, “See, we gave you a Hogan feud and you dropped the ball.”  It was pathetic and almost killed his career. 

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: Kidman got no rub. He was back to working undercard to midcard matches in no time. WCW made it very clear in the booking and presentation that the win meant nothing in the big picture.
No rub?  If I recall correctly, I think he got to work with Jeff Jarrett and Scott Steiner after that, both guys who were in the world title scene around that time.
Honestly, what more could he expect?

tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4836
Status: 
Offline
A month and a half after the Hogan feud ended Billy Kidman lost a Viagra on a Pole match to Shane Douglas on Nitro. Apart from Shane his main opponents for the rest of the summer were Lance Storm and Elix Skipper. He got nothing from his win from Hogan and Hogan won the blow off of the feud anyway.

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: A month and a half after the Hogan feud ended Billy Kidman lost a Viagra on a Pole match to Shane Douglas on Nitro. Apart from Shane his main opponents for the rest of the summer were Lance Storm and Elix Skipper. He got nothing from his win from Hogan and Hogan won the blow off of the feud anyway.

Kidman was working on tv with Steiner and Jarrett in October, not Juventud Guerrera.  I'm sure the Viagra on a Pole match is the direct result of working with Hogan previously lol.  Who are you kidding lol?  Does Kidman have anything on his resume bigger than having a pin fall victory over Hogan?  Where was he supposed to go from there, directly to the world title?  I'm sorry, but Billy Kidman doesn't look like a believable world heavyweight champion standing next to Goldberg, Steiner, Hogan, Booker T, etc.  He got to work a PPV with the biggest star in the history of the business.  That's not the worst thing ever.

Last edited on Sun Oct 21st, 2018 06:41 pm by Boz1515

tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4836
Status: 
Offline
I am not saying Kidman should have been put over, only that he wasn't. He had a match with Steiner in the fall, but because they wanted someone Scott could beat that wouldn't mean having a big star put him over. It wasn't an ongoing feud. The entire Kidman vs. Hogan feud was just Russo playing up to the smarks. My main contention was it did little for Kidman in the long run.

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: I am not saying Kidman should have been put over, only that he wasn't. He had a match with Steiner in the fall, but because they wanted someone Scott could beat that wouldn't mean having a big star put him over. It wasn't an ongoing feud. The entire Kidman vs. Hogan feud was just Russo playing up to the smarks. My main contention was it did little for Kidman in the long run.
I agree, it didn't do as much for Kidman as it could have, but we could say that for A LOT of guys when Russo was booking, couldn't we?  I just don't see how Russo's "all over the place" booking is Hogan's fault.

Last edited on Sun Oct 21st, 2018 06:41 pm by Boz1515

tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4836
Status: 
Offline
Hogan had creative control. If he'd wanted to put someone over, and I get his motivation for not wanting to, he would have. In this case, he very much did not.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52725
Status: 
Offline
Hogan also made sure that Mike Awesome was involved and cost him those matches. Awesome deserved a better fate than he got in WCW, but it’s not like Hogan really jobbed for Kidman. If he had to go down, he made sure a 6’6”, 280 pounder who was best friends with his nephew was in the middle of it. Ultimately, it did nothing for Awesome though either.

sportatorium roach



Joined: Tue Oct 16th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1072
Status: 
Offline
83 Weeks is my favorite podcast now.

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
tamalie wrote: Hogan had creative control. If he'd wanted to put someone over, and I get his motivation for not wanting to, he would have. In this case, he very much did not.
The narrative is that he would not do a job for anyone, except you know, he did a job for that list of like 10 or 11 guys.  Again, Eric Bischoff said the creative control wasn't a big deal.  Once a guy like Hogan does a job for a guy like Kidman, it's not up to Hogan how Russo or any other promoter uses that guy going forward.  If Russo books him foolishly, that's not Hogan or any other talent's fault.

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: Hogan also made sure that Mike Awesome was involved and cost him those matches. Awesome deserved a better fate than he got in WCW, but it’s not like Hogan really jobbed for Kidman. If he had to go down, he made sure a 6’6”, 280 pounder who was best friends with his nephew was in the middle of it. Ultimately, it did nothing for Awesome though either.
It's not at all realistic for a 5'10" 190 pound guy to cleanly beat a 6'7" 275 pound guy.  It would make sense that he would need help.  It's not realistic when Rey Mysterio beats Nash either.  To me, that is foolish booking.
Vampiro needed Kidman's help to pin Hogan.  That makes sense too.  Weight classes are real.  If it's supposed to look somewhat real, little guys shouldn't be pinning big guys cleanly.  I don't remember Bruno getting pinned cleanly by a bunch of crusierweights, but nobody talks about that.  Because it's Hogan, it's all his fault, at least in the majority of the IWC.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52725
Status: 
Offline
Boz1515 wrote: srossi wrote: Hogan also made sure that Mike Awesome was involved and cost him those matches. Awesome deserved a better fate than he got in WCW, but it’s not like Hogan really jobbed for Kidman. If he had to go down, he made sure a 6’6”, 280 pounder who was best friends with his nephew was in the middle of it. Ultimately, it did nothing for Awesome though either.
It's not at all realistic for a 5'10" 190 pound guy to cleanly beat a 6'7" 275 pound guy.  It would make sense that he would need help.  It's not realistic when Rey Mysterio beats Nash either.  To me, that is foolish booking.
Vampiro needed Kidman's help to pin Hogan.  That makes sense too.  Weight classes are real.  If it's supposed to look somewhat real, little guys shouldn't be pinning big guys cleanly.  I don't remember Bruno getting pinned cleanly by a bunch of crusierweights, but nobody talks about that.  Because it's Hogan, it's all his fault, at least in the majority of the IWC.

It was pretty realistic when Royce Gracie was beating everyone in real fights. It’s not like Hogan was ever a legit bad-ass who had a prayer against anyone with real fighting skill. But it’s wrestling so none of that matters anyway. If people wanted to watch real fights they wouldn’t be watching wrestling. 

Boz1515



Joined: Sat May 26th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 2006
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: Boz1515 wrote: srossi wrote: Hogan also made sure that Mike Awesome was involved and cost him those matches. Awesome deserved a better fate than he got in WCW, but it’s not like Hogan really jobbed for Kidman. If he had to go down, he made sure a 6’6”, 280 pounder who was best friends with his nephew was in the middle of it. Ultimately, it did nothing for Awesome though either.
It's not at all realistic for a 5'10" 190 pound guy to cleanly beat a 6'7" 275 pound guy.  It would make sense that he would need help.  It's not realistic when Rey Mysterio beats Nash either.  To me, that is foolish booking.
Vampiro needed Kidman's help to pin Hogan.  That makes sense too.  Weight classes are real.  If it's supposed to look somewhat real, little guys shouldn't be pinning big guys cleanly.  I don't remember Bruno getting pinned cleanly by a bunch of crusierweights, but nobody talks about that.  Because it's Hogan, it's all his fault, at least in the majority of the IWC.

It was pretty realistic when Royce Gracie was beating everyone in real fights. It’s not like Hogan was ever a legit bad-ass who had a prayer against anyone with real fighting skill. But it’s wrestling so none of that matters anyway. If people wanted to watch real fights they wouldn’t be watching wrestling. 


So what? Size and weight are historically a part of the story telling.  It's supposed to add realism to the product.

Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 4535
Status: 
Online
The Kidman thing was dumb and didn’t do much for Kidman’s career.

If WCW wanted to get a rub off of beating hogan they should have lined Booker T or Scott Steiner up to beat hogan and then have them stay hot long enough for it all to sink in.

Looking back I would have liked to have seen hogan lose to Flair and Vader early on but in the end it didn’t matter because business picked up regardless.



UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems