King of the Ring: The Harley Race Story
Author, Ghost Writer, Editor: Harley Race, Gerry Tritz
Publisher: Sports Publishing
Released: 11/04
The Good
The pro-wrestling book craze has led to many of the old-timers publishing their memoirs to make some money and each book has it's own account of a part of history. Harley Race's in-ring career spanned from the early 60s to the late 80s, a time period that saw power shifts in the NWA and ultimately their demise and the rise of the WWF. He was not only a top pro-wrestler during that time, he was a touring NWA World Champion, booker in numerous places, part owner of the Kansas City territory and one of many who joined Vince after a tough battle against him. He candidly covers all that and wraps up things by talking about managing, retirement, his school and his recent involvement with various people and companies. All of this is fine and well. He talks about his numerous accidents that has left his body shattered, the importance of his family and even his faith, which is really the material most original to this book. This is one of those brief autobiographies that you'll enjoy if you like the wrestler and maybe don't know their story very well and haven't heard their shoot interviews.
The Bad
Any book that mentions Lex Luger several times and paints him in a positive light can't be good, can it? Actually, the big fault of this book is it's length, less than 200 pages. The chronology is good, but Race's fast-life seems to have made for a fast-book. I read this in a 24 hour period, which I had never done with a pro-wrestling book and was never had that "I can't tear myself away" feeling. Tritz is not the best ghostwriter, since he lacks credibility in many ways and probably kept this from being the book it should have been. Race was just as important as someone like Ole Anderson, but he never explains running a territory, how to book or any of that. In fact, he seems like a mark for himself just like Ole said he was. There are plenty of bad wrestling books, this isn't one of them, but it's far from the best. Borrow it if you can, read it in a day or two and you should be mildly satisfied.
The Rating: **1/2
Showing posts with label kansas city. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kansas city. Show all posts
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Monday, January 31, 2011
Slick [RF Video Shoot Interview]
The Good
Some people are just fun-loving types and when they do a shoot interview, they can relax and entertain you with stories from the road. While I'll never consider those the best interviews, they are enjoyable. This was one of those. Slick, who fancies himself as the kind of guy who could be friends with everybody, comes across that way. This is a man who is straightforward about his issues with others and does not come across bitter. It seems like the way he conducts himself here is very telling of why he found both success and adversity in the pro-wrestling business. He entertains. He voices his opinions. He probably both amused and irritated Vince McMahon, which is why he got a chance, but never got pushed as strongly as he might've been.
The Bad
This interview had so much potential, specifically because of the Slickster's strong personality, but it was hampered greatly by RF Video stupidity. Sometimes these shoot interviews are done late at night and usually it does not adversely affect the interviewee or at least not in a painfully obvious way. This was the opposite. Slick was dozing off toward the end and having a hard time staying focused. Secondly, the main issue that RF wanted to tackle was racism in the business. That was pretty obvious. Now I'm not saying that it was wrong to have that goal because here was a black man who worked in a few territories that have been or one would suspect are racist hotbeds. Slick is outspoken on the matter and he really got into here. The drawback was the poor questioning. When the idea of pimps "symbolizing the culture" was thrown out there (mistake or not), it revealed how poorly planned these interviews are. Aside from that this was a relatively short (not the standard two hours), focused on a relatively short career (a little over a decade) and did not include much psychology. Slick was entertaining and honest, but he did not get himself over a great talent in my view.
The Rating: ***1/2
The Good
Some people are just fun-loving types and when they do a shoot interview, they can relax and entertain you with stories from the road. While I'll never consider those the best interviews, they are enjoyable. This was one of those. Slick, who fancies himself as the kind of guy who could be friends with everybody, comes across that way. This is a man who is straightforward about his issues with others and does not come across bitter. It seems like the way he conducts himself here is very telling of why he found both success and adversity in the pro-wrestling business. He entertains. He voices his opinions. He probably both amused and irritated Vince McMahon, which is why he got a chance, but never got pushed as strongly as he might've been.
The Bad
This interview had so much potential, specifically because of the Slickster's strong personality, but it was hampered greatly by RF Video stupidity. Sometimes these shoot interviews are done late at night and usually it does not adversely affect the interviewee or at least not in a painfully obvious way. This was the opposite. Slick was dozing off toward the end and having a hard time staying focused. Secondly, the main issue that RF wanted to tackle was racism in the business. That was pretty obvious. Now I'm not saying that it was wrong to have that goal because here was a black man who worked in a few territories that have been or one would suspect are racist hotbeds. Slick is outspoken on the matter and he really got into here. The drawback was the poor questioning. When the idea of pimps "symbolizing the culture" was thrown out there (mistake or not), it revealed how poorly planned these interviews are. Aside from that this was a relatively short (not the standard two hours), focused on a relatively short career (a little over a decade) and did not include much psychology. Slick was entertaining and honest, but he did not get himself over a great talent in my view.
The Rating: ***1/2
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Bobby Jaggers [57Talk Interview]
The Good
A lot of the old-time territory guys have these labels attached to them - ribber, stooge, tough guy, etc. Bobby Jaggers has the label of "bull-shitter" attached to him. Now, I do not want to come out and say everything he says is bull and everything he did is bull. I will say he is a top-notch talker who needs few questions asked of him to deliver a great interview. I will say he had some extraordinary tales that I've never heard myself (and I've listened to hundends of hours of shoot interviews). I will also say that he does not entirely deny that label that he admits to having. Bobby Jaggers had a great career and he had many experiences that are surely worthwhile. If you go into this knowing that he might be a bit of an exaggerator, than you should enjoy this thoroughly. Gary Cubeta did three separate shows with him and it's hard to say which of them I prefer. He covered his career, he detailed the death of Bruiser Brody, he talked in depth about several territories (Amarillo, Kansas City, Florida, San Francisco) and he both put over and buried a lot of people. This was an all-out-there shoot interview and whether you love, hate or believe Bobby Jaggers, how can you not enjoy this?
The Bad
One of the common knocks on Gary Cubeta is that his personal knowledge is not great, so his interviews can be scattered, unorganized and some key issues can go uncovered. Isn't this the knock against most every shoot interviewing outfit? I'm simply not one for chronology unless it serves a real purpose. Why do I need Bobby Jaggers to share his Amarillo stories first and when he has a sidebar from a later period it gets the "we'll get into that later" treatment? I can understand how people feel that this is the logical setup and an overview is needed, but this linear focus is not a must. At least not for me. As for this specific interview, Jaggers strong opinions are contrary to many popular opinions (Pat O'Connor was a terrible worker, Roddy Piper was only pushed due to his politicking, Buck Robley's booking tenures were cut short because promoters feared him, etc.). Was he originally going to be the third Freebird? Was he really Dusty Rhodes biggest drawing opponent (up to that point)? If you can assume that Bobby Jaggers' reputation as an over-the-top storyteller is warranted, then you can enjoy these interviews.
The Rating: ****1/4
The Good
A lot of the old-time territory guys have these labels attached to them - ribber, stooge, tough guy, etc. Bobby Jaggers has the label of "bull-shitter" attached to him. Now, I do not want to come out and say everything he says is bull and everything he did is bull. I will say he is a top-notch talker who needs few questions asked of him to deliver a great interview. I will say he had some extraordinary tales that I've never heard myself (and I've listened to hundends of hours of shoot interviews). I will also say that he does not entirely deny that label that he admits to having. Bobby Jaggers had a great career and he had many experiences that are surely worthwhile. If you go into this knowing that he might be a bit of an exaggerator, than you should enjoy this thoroughly. Gary Cubeta did three separate shows with him and it's hard to say which of them I prefer. He covered his career, he detailed the death of Bruiser Brody, he talked in depth about several territories (Amarillo, Kansas City, Florida, San Francisco) and he both put over and buried a lot of people. This was an all-out-there shoot interview and whether you love, hate or believe Bobby Jaggers, how can you not enjoy this?
The Bad
One of the common knocks on Gary Cubeta is that his personal knowledge is not great, so his interviews can be scattered, unorganized and some key issues can go uncovered. Isn't this the knock against most every shoot interviewing outfit? I'm simply not one for chronology unless it serves a real purpose. Why do I need Bobby Jaggers to share his Amarillo stories first and when he has a sidebar from a later period it gets the "we'll get into that later" treatment? I can understand how people feel that this is the logical setup and an overview is needed, but this linear focus is not a must. At least not for me. As for this specific interview, Jaggers strong opinions are contrary to many popular opinions (Pat O'Connor was a terrible worker, Roddy Piper was only pushed due to his politicking, Buck Robley's booking tenures were cut short because promoters feared him, etc.). Was he originally going to be the third Freebird? Was he really Dusty Rhodes biggest drawing opponent (up to that point)? If you can assume that Bobby Jaggers' reputation as an over-the-top storyteller is warranted, then you can enjoy these interviews.
The Rating: ****1/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)