The Thread Killer

THANK YOU! I don't know who is laying out these matches, but WTF? I've been amazed at the amount of rest holds I've been seeing in the CW matches. At first, I just blamed Tony Nese (which I still do, to a point) but he's not the only who has been doing it. These guys are slapping on rear-chinlocks like they're Randy Freaking Orton.

I used to think that, for sure. But if NXT is what Triple H's version of WWE would be like, then sign me up.

That impression seemed loud and clear with Shane's responses concerning Trips on that podcast he did with Foley after his return. That's what I thought at the time...Shane seemed visibly unimpressed with Triple H, but when I mentioned it here, people suggested the whole thing was a work. I didn't think it was, since they tend to be more shooty and less worky on those podcasts, but these are wrestlers, so who ever really knows?

Hmmm... this shit is awesome, what are you talking about? It ran its course a while ago. Styles seemed to make some silly comedy out of it last night, but beyond that there's nothing you can do with Ellsworth at this point. Well past the sell by date. Exactly. Even if you are easily entertained and found this angle amusing at it's onset, it has been ridden well past the point where it's still fresh or has anything to offer.

I wonder if being bogged down in this seemingly never-ending Dean Ambrose/James Ellsworth mess isn't hurting Styles, as well. I was hoping he would be on to a fresh new angle/opponent by now, instead of still piddling around with this mess.

You really need to learn to spell Snuka correctly.

Oh good gawd. I don't think I'm ready to hear Stephanie McMahon's version of history on anything. "The McMahon family founded the United States sometime before 1940. After that, nothing important happened in the world, until the United States government tried to unfairly imprison my father for no reason whatsoever. And then Ted Turner tried to put my family out of business for no reason whatsoever. Despite being cruelly persecuted, the McMahon's gave a lot of money to charity, because it's an excellent branding and marketing opportunity. Oh and also, it helps sick children, or something like that."

That was horrible to watch. I am assuming they meant to powerbomb one guy onto the other guy, and didn't mean for their heads to make contact, but when you plan out stupid unnecessarily risky spots, this is what happens. I really hope both those guys are okay.

That's the problem. I don't even know what "Strong Style" really is. If you say "ECW style" I expect broken tables and fire and crowd brawls. If you say "Lucha style" then I expect a lot of intricate, complex, multi-man spots and dives through the ropes. If you said "Worked shoot style" I expect a lot of grappling and submission attempts, and not so much (or any) high flying. If you say "King's Road" I (unfortunately) expect hard elbow strikes, hard chops, and people getting suplexed onto the top of their heads. Because I didn't watch a lot of NJPW Heavyweights (except for Hashimoto) I never really understood what Strong Style was supposed to mean anyhow, which is why I assumed it was a NJPW marketing thing.

I had never heard "Strong Style" used as a description of anything other than the wrestling style used by the heavyweights in New Japan Pro Wrestling, "invented" by Inoki. Just like people referred to the guys in All Japan wrestling "King's Road Style." I always assumed it was a marketing term exclusive to New Japan. I figured it was getting traction in North America now because of Nakamura calling himself the King of Strong Style.

Yeah but American Alpha have been kinda meh since they got called up, IMO. They always seem like they're trying too hard. Plus, they ain't hype.

Tony Nese gets in the opening match of the debut episode of 205 Live, and he does it again! Rear chinlock, laying down no less! SO BORING! I really dug the opening episode of 205 Live though, and I was glad to see the crowd was into it.

Thirded on Owens. He's one of the main reasons I don't enjoy Raw. I don't get his appeal, I really don't. Goofy look, middling promos at best, and boring as hell in the ring. If they ever do pull the trigger on an actual program between he and Jericho, I don't hold out much hope for the quality of the matches, I'll tell you that. Oh and one other thing... So Cedric Alexander gets the loudest reaction from the crowd to date for a Raw CW match. So of course, Cedric gets beat in his hometown, because WWE. But my other bitch is, this is a cruiserweight match on television, where they only have a few scant minutes. Tony "I have a head the size of Andre The Giant's head" Nese decides that an exciting move would be a rear chinlock. But not just any rear chinlock, no. He actually lays down behind Cedric to slap it on, to make sure it's EXTRA boring. WTF?!

Wait, what? That's crazy. So it's not just me, then. Although fair warning: you disagreed with him, so apparently that means you're "attacking" him. Expect a hysterical plea to drop the whole discussion and move on, forthwith.

I don't know if you've read the book by Heath McCoy about Stampede Wrestling, called "Pain & Passion?" (If not, you should. It's really good.) McCoy works as a reporter for the Calgary Sun. He covers Pro Wrestling. In the book, McCoy writes that when Stampede was active, he would report on particular angles or matches if Bruce Hart asked him to. If I remember correctly, McCoy used to actually contact Hart and initiate these deals. One would assume the flip side was that Hart would grant him access at Stampede shows and give interviews when asked. I don't see a problem with any of that. It's symbiotic between the reporter and promoter. I am sure there is a line that needs to be drawn in there somewhere, and that the line might be hard to find sometimes, but I don't have a big issue with it. What I would have an issue with, would be people denying that Heath McCoy is actually a journalist at all, just because he had a relationship with a promoter. I would also question the intelligence of those who were unable to tell the difference between when McCoy was reporting on a story, or helping out a promotion by publicizing an angle by reporting on it. Finally, I would have an issue with anybody who was unable to discern the difference between a journalist who reports on something, and a promoter who usually has a different agenda.

I guess that was my complaint. I'm all for guys being green and inexperienced, but when they can't convincingly pull off something as fundamental as a whip into the corner? I don't think they're ready for TV time yet. Then again, I might just be acting unfair and bitchy. In the poor kid's defense, that match was taped before a major PPV in front of 12,000 + fans. That had to be pretty damn nerve wracking, one would assume. But my gut reaction to seeing him wrestle was "Damn, he's clumsy."

I don't even know what point you're trying to make now. I could care less if somebody calls me a "smart mark." Mark, smart, smart mark, smark...they're all just made up industry terms that don't actually mean anything. I'm a Pro Wrestling fan. If it makes you feel better to classify me as a smart mark, then okay...I'm a smart mark. That doesn't make any of the arguments you've tried to make during this discussion any more valid. You also really can't sit there and make inflammatory statements like "Meltzer is not a Journalist and your not going to convince me otherwise" but then expect people to "move on." As I have said repeatedly, I don't even really like Meltzer all that much. I find him preachy, I don't care for his writing style, and I don't like his MMA fetish. But facts are facts. He has a degree in journalism, and people have paid him money to report on things. Mainstream publications like the New York Times and Sports Illustrated have called him the leading journalist in the field of Pro Wrestling. So for you to now try and argue that he isn't even a journalist means you're either trolling or being unbelievably obtuse.

Meltzer has admitted in the past that he has had conversations with Vince McMahon. I don't think those conversations were quite of the nature that you seem to think they were. Because he is a reporter. He's a journalist. Vince McMahon is a promoter. I find it bizarre that you think that just because Meltzer reports on Pro Wrestling, that he is automatically in the bag for whatever promoter waves a handful of cash under his nose. Putting aside what that implies about his personal code of ethics or his own journalism standards, I'm confused as to how that would even serve any purpose for him. He makes a couple of bucks, but what else good does it do him? Once again, that it is a pretty big accusation to level at a guy who has spent the last 34 years making his living as a journalist. But thank you for explaining to me the relationship between the media and business, because I had no idea how that worked. I find your attitude during this discussion to be puzzling. You have made some fairly brash statements - that you trust the word of Bruce Prichard over that of Dave Meltzer, and that Dave Meltzer takes financial compensation from Pro Wrestling promoters in exchange for good reviews in the Observer. You have claimed that Meltzer is just a tool of the big business of Pro Wrestling. But when I try and disagree with you about that, you react defensively and don't want to talk about it anymore. I was under the assumption that one of the main functions of PWO was to further discussion of Pro Wrestling. Why would you make statements which you would have to know would garner a heated debate...and then withdraw when you get one?

I'm seriously considering quitting the modern product again. I hadn't regularly watched WWE for years, I quit after Triple H went over Booker T at Wrestlemania 19. It wasn't just that Trips went over, it was the racist crap in the lead up to that match, Booker never getting revenge and then the whole deal with how bad Trips made Book look with the delayed cover. Left a really bad taste in my mouth, so I stopped watching WWE. I started again around this past Wrestlemania, but...ugh. That show was gawd awful, and the brand split hasn't really done anything for me. I can't sit through three hours of Raw with Mick Foley and Stephanie, Owens as Champ, The New Day, and the way they've botched the Cruiserweight Division. I do like Jericho (up until the bell rings) but that's not enough to get me to watch that crap anymore. I don't mind SDL, it certainly goes by a lot quicker than Raw, but even still...the only big plus there for me is AJ Styles. And how many times do we have to watch him fight Dean Ambrose? This whole deal with James Ellesworth was mildly amusing for one segment of one show. Now? Ugh, change the channel. I loved the CWC and I think I'll stick with NXT, but the writing on the main roster is so damn bland and uninspiring. There are no good stories being told. I think I'll go back to reading the results online and checking out the PPV's only. It's a shame. I guess if Joe or Nakamura gets called up, I would check that out, but right now otherwise, the creative is just so damn boring. The sad thing is, ROH is just as boring and who the hell even knows what TNA is going to do. I will probably stick to my classics for a while, or find another indie to get into.

So I watched NXT this week. The opener was Rich Swann against Kona Reeves, but the match was cut short by a run-in and beat down from Sanity. All I can say is, they didn't get there soon enough. This Kona Reeves is pretty damn bad. He looked so damn uncoordinated, I could have sworn he almost tripped over his own feet while doing a whip into the corner, and fell flat on his face.

Hey mods...maybe it might be a good idea to move a bunch of these posts into the Dave Meltzer thread in the Megathread folder? I don't want to derail this topic, and a couple of people over there were already discussing the Meltzer/Prichard rivalry, so these points might fit better over there?

In the sense that both guys want to make money, yes...they are both carnies. From there, I don't see them as similar, nor do I see this as an issue which has "sides." You're comparing apples and oranges. Meltzer is a reporter. Prichard worked for the companies Meltzer reported on, until he got fired. I would suggest that if it came down to the question: "Who are you more likely to believe?" I would pick Dave Meltzer and it wouldn't even be close. As I said, we're talking about two people who had entirely different agendas for the majority of their respective careers. Prichard had a vested interest in keeping information secret and controlling what got out, whereas people paid Meltzer to expose and report on that information. They are not comparable entities, regardless of whether or not you think Meltzer is a "lier." Up until very recently, they weren't even trying to achieve the same thing from the business of Pro Wrestling, aside from making money, of course. That's a pretty big accusation. You're saying Dave Meltzer has been discredited as a reporter and been exposed as a liar. I would concede that he has been wrong on many occasions. I have no doubt that he has been "worked" by many of his sources in Pro Wrestling. I do not think he has been exposed as a liar. That's the distinction, though. You don't trust Meltzer's opinion. I don't even care what his opinion is. Believe you me, I lost any respect I ever had for his opinion back when he decided that MMA and Pro Wrestling were essentially the same sport and could be judged equally. That was when I decided once and for all that I didn't mind reading his site as a source for news, but as far as editorializing...not so much. Sure, Prichard can have a podcast and editorialize. So can PWO and PTBN, and about a zillion people on YouTube. I am drawing the distinction between reporting news and editorializing. I would prefer that Dave Meltzer didn't combine the two, but he does. But my point was that if it boils down to "who would you believe" between Prichard and Meltzer, it really isn't close. I'm not even remotely upset about this. I don't subscribe to the Observer because I don't like how Dave treats Pro Wrestling as MMA's ugly sister. I also don't like his editorializing. I also don't listen to Prichard's podcast, for the same reason I don't listen to Vince Russo's. I don't respect him or anything he did in his career. I think he's full of crap. That's really what my entire point to you was. You might think Dave Meltzer is full of crap. Maybe he is. But Bruce Prichard is even more full of crap.

So just to be clear...you're suggesting that at points "throughout history" some wrestling companies have given Meltzer money to rate their matches five stars, so they could sell more DVD's?

He was some random dude who was writing about pro wrestling for a couple of thousand people and probably less than 1% of the audience at any given event knew who he was. I've never met anybody who claimed he was a good writer from a technical standpoint, because clearly he isn't. It has been amusing to me to see how little his writing has improved over the years, considering how much of it he does. Having said all that...he was a "renegade" if you want to consider the actual definition of the word: "a person who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles." He broke "kayfabe" in an era where you didn't do that. On top of all that, he wasn't even one of the "boys" and on top of all that, he had the audacity to make money from it. He was the first person to do that. I personally think that if there was no Dave Meltzer, the industry would look a lot different today, from the outside, at least.

If Bruce Prichard is "opening your eyes" about anything, you should probably be worried about your own judgment, not Dave Meltzer. I don't have a subscription to the Observer, and I never will. However, if you have to classify Dave Meltzer as anything, he has always been a reporter. A reporter with an opinion and bias, sure...but all reporters have that. He reports on the con that is Pro Wrestling, and for the longest time he was the only reliable person doing that. You might not agree with his opinion on the news, but if he was reporting it, there was a pretty damn good chance it was true. Bruce Prichard has made his living selling the con, not reporting on it. Go back and watch any WWE produced DVD since the Attitude Era up until he got fired. There's good old Bruce, front and center, towing the company line, parroting whatever the office endorsed version of the truth is. No matter what, how bad the story was or how wrong WWE was, you could always count on Bruce Prichard to be the ultimate McMahon sycophant. He was part of Vince's inner circle for years. Those guys hated Meltzer because they didn't own him and they couldn't control him. And if Prichard hadn't gotten fired (for whatever reason you choose to believe, be it stealing, repeated drug abuse, or the jealousy of Stephanie) I'm sure he'd still be in Connecticut saying "Yes sir, No sir" to Vince. The only reason Bruce Prichard is trying to sell himself as some sort of former insider with news and views that people should care about, is because he got tossed out of WWE, and then got tossed out of TNA. So what else is he going to do? This has been his whole life. It's sad, really. He can't exactly do anything else at this point in his life. So like Cornette, Russo, and others with a "name" from working behind the scenes in Pro Wrestling he is trying to keep himself relevant by doing shoot interviews and podcasts, where at least he can finally take shots and some of the people he hates. But it won't be much bad about the McMahon family, I bet. I am sure he lives in constant hope for the day he gets called back home to Titan Tower. Of course there is bad blood between Meltzer and Prichard. Prichard was partially responsible for helping produce a lot of the crap that the WWF crammed down everybody's throats. Meltzer reported and told the truth about a lot of what went on with the WWF back in those days, and I am sure he was none too popular for it. And I am sure he did more than his fair share of editorializing on it as well. There are those who complained that Meltzer was clearly biased towards JCP during their heyday. I don't know, I didn't read the Observer then - but if he had been, could anybody really blame him? Whatever bad things Meltzer has said about Prichard now, I can guarantee Prichard has said about Meltzer in reverse. We're not talking about two equals here. One is a reporter, the other is a carny. If you're looking for somebody to "drive you to new heights" I suggest you look elsewhere. The only place Bruce Prichard is going to drive you to is Bullshit City, USA. Population: Him.