jdw

You know, I've heard this off and on, it seems to stem from the WON back in the 80s when Dave was in an anti WWF mindset and seemed to hate everything they were doing. I don't recall him working his own storylines, unless you're talking about the running jokes he'd have with other announcers. The only times I've heard him ignore or crap on matches would be during those excruciating 30 minute jobber vs jobber matches where you can't really blame him for not wanting to discuss the finer points of a 15 minute Steve Lombardi headlock. Since I happened to write it, let me explain where it stems from: Listening to him calling a lot of WWF matches that I've watched over the past 2+ years. I suspect anyone who's read what I've had to say about those WWF matches can get the feeling that what Dave thought about the WWF in that era doesn't have a great deal of impact on what I talk about. Unless it's to poke him on things like Backlund. John

I don't think his "ownership" role meant a whole hell of a lot in putting the product together. I don't think he did much in terms of the booking/storylines of the company, at least of much note. I think he's a pretty mediocre announcer. Certainly nothing landmark. There are times when he was flat out horrible, working his own storylines that ignored what the wrestlers were doing, or worse crapping on it. John

The initial class and the second one weren't via "vote". He started the voting with the 3rd year (1998) if I recall correctly. Initial voting would have been hard if you limit it to 10 ballot. Just too many "no brainer" wrestlers eligible, even if you made the cut at being 50 years old. How long would it have taken Londos to get 60%? Or Bruno? I suspect Lou would have made it. But beyond that... it would be a shot in the dark when so many were on the ballot. There is a need to clear out a certain chunk that would obviously already have been in if there had been a HOF going back 20+ years. That process should have been thought out better. Lots of errors. #1 - Probably the biggest was the 35/15 rule: over 35 years old or having been a full-time pro wrestler for at least 15 years. That was largely aimed at Joshi, where with the old manditory age retirement, 35 years old was 10 years *past* retirement age. If you think of other sports, that's more than enough time to judge people after retirement. Balance it out with the fact in Pro Wrestling, so few retire at a clear point. It's one of those things that "makes sense at the moment", but pretty at a point is just a bad idea. If Joshi was had unique issues, it should have been carved out with it's own rule rather than bending everything to it. Even 40/20 it also too short. The first class was 1996, at at that point Flair was 47/24 and Hogan was 43/19. I think you very much wanted to have Flair and Hogan *not* in the initial class, and instead coming up in later classes. Does that make 50 reasonable? I think so. 50/30? Or just toss out the requirement for the number of years wrestled and just set it at 50 years old? Or perhaps 50 years old or "10 years of retirement from fulltime wrestling". A Fritz or Watts coming out of retirement once a year doesn't count as working fulltime, or the Destroyer working his one series a year doesn't count. But if you work 5 of the 8 All Japan series, you're pushing it. It you work 6 PPV's a year, you're not really "retired". Anyway, something like that would have been better for "eligibility". Having the age at 50 would have a hell of a lot of people still hitting the ballot *now*. If, after the initial mass of candidates was cleared away, and if it seemed like waiting to 50 was too long, then drop it to 45. But it's easyier to drop it to 50 when the candidates are getting thin than to raise it from 35 when you figure out that you've fucked up. Dave also would be getting an interesting batch of bios as he went along. #2 - Yes/No for the First Class That's largely what it was. There really wasn't the concept that you go with a high end class the first time out. A high end class is positive and negative. The positives outweight the negatives. The Yes/No process should have just been done to cut it down to the people looked at as the first pass of "finalist". Those guys should then have been group. Okay, you've got the Londos, Gotch, Lewis group. Waldek and Stan Z are behind them. Stecher is between them. Same when you get to later eras - Verne, Buddy and Lou are at one level. Where to the others fit in. Put in the top group in each era. Ponder whether the group right below it should go in now, or wait a year. Etc. I'm less interested in the notion of a Fixed Number: "We need the Top 5 from 00-40, we need the Top 8 of the 60s", etc. It's more along the lines of figure out who are the Hogans and Londos of each era, and coming up with that top group. It's okay if it's just 2 people in one era and 5 in another. What you want to make sure is that you've identified them... of course it's a judgement call. #3 - Not enough thought give to Regions and Era Balloting Pretty much a clusterfuck. You really have to tell people what they're allowed to vote in. Dave's the gate keeper, not simply someone handing out ballots. #4 - Balance It's hard at this point to figure out what the balance in the votership is, but one gets the feeling that it is dominated by people who are in the business or were in the business. I'm not sure that's a good thing, anymore than 100% Fan Voting is a good thing. Probably would have been better off going with either a balance in the numbers, or Precinct Voting (each group of voters being given an equal weight regardless of number of voters in the group), or the equiv of "Ratification" (passing 3 of the 4 voting groups). I'm don't suggest this to prop up the weight of Historians. They're as full of shit as the rest. There's more... but that's a few to start with. John

I don't read that as encouraging people *not* to vote for what they aren't familar with. Seriously, this is Dave so he doesn't always write stuff clear. People with a ballot will think they're familar enough with a Japanese wrestler because Dave said last year that he voted for the wrestler. "And Dave knows his shit" Or something like that. If you don't want people who lack knowledge of some areas to vote for those areas, one needs to be explicit. John

It doesn't. Just that he's fucking goofy about his name. Don't claim to be wearing a white wedding dress here, Bix. It's not like you haven't pointed out the goofiness of folks for stuff that's pretty trivial. We all do it, and had it aimed at us. John

On the stuff above, I don't read Dave's section on Pillman as being problematic for what it says. Pretty consistent either with things he wrote at the time, or talked about with folks but didn't print while Brian was among the living. He doesn't make Brian come across "great" in the writing, right down to the comment that a MR# story had the wrong demon (pretty clearly hitting on Brian's drug problems). It really isn't defensive, just point out where he sees MR# wrong about Pillman. Some of them are things that long time fans would have known. The "kicked the shit out of Sid" aspect to the squeege story is one that I would have laughed at. The stuff that the Harts didn't like or respect him when he went through training would have gotten a laugh. So that section doesn't strike is as a problem for what's written. My problem is that in this "revisit" to the book, it looks like 80% of it is spent on Pillman... which Dave indicates is One Freaking Chapter. Perhaps Dave planned on doing a walk through on *every* chapter like that. I think that's not likely. He knows he's not going to keep coming back to this book for pieces in 5-6 issues of the WON. This is the second, and might be the last. So... 80% on Pillman tends to be overkill. What about the rest of the book? If Dave had some reviewing skills, he would have indicated that the Pillman chapter is filled with errors, and give 3 quick examples. One that was a 180 (Pillman thought poorly of by the Harts in training), one where MR# just had a bad source (the one where MR# wrote someone beat up Pillman, but that person told the story to Dave copping Pillman beat him up), and one legendary story from the era that MR# couldn't get fully right (squeege story). Get in, get out, move onto other parts of the book. Then if MR# (or someone on his behalf) says: "Dave said that chapter was full of errors. He only gave 3 examples, and it's a 15 (or whatever) page chapter. That means the rest must have been true." Dave can hit other examples, indicated in writing a review of the whole book he didn't have space to hit everything. That's my primary problem with the Pillman stuff above - it chewed up too much space. As far as what was in the first part of the piece, it's kind of a typical Dave writing around in circles... though I won't go to the "circle the wagon" extreme that some see in it. He's been pretty consistent from almost Day 1 on his "We'll Never Know" belief. I think people sometimes miss the boat on it. It's not that he's shooting down people favorite #1 Reason Benoit Snapped as not having an impact or role. It's more that I see him writing that *all* of it had a role, other than the things that have been proven not to be there (such as Daniel's health). If you did a checklist of all the things that may have played a role, and Dave had these three options to select from: A. The Sole Cause B. Played A Role C. Played No Role I think he would check off B to just about everyone one of them. Some people want to find a Single Magic Bullet, either because like Vince & McDevitt they'd like to blame something out of their control or influence, or because they just "need to have an answer" as Dave puts it. Dave's belief is that there isn't a Single Magic Bullet, but instead a shitload of bullets that added up. Of course there's some that want to say "Pro Wrestling is the Magic Bullet that caused this". I suspect he'd acknowledge that a lot of the causes are things that people see a lot of in Pro Wrestling: drugs, roids, head injuries, other injuries, marital issues, etc. Probably even acknowledge that they they appear in Pro Wrestling at vastly higher rates then the Normal for the population. But to go from there to "Pro Wrestling Caused It"... I suspect he sees it as a leap. He probably would be fine adding Pro Wrestling to the list of contributors that got a B above. But wouldn't see it as an A, anymore than he would join Vince & McDevit in thinking it was a C. I'm not terribly far from that same position. John

I was asking for someone to toss up the *earlier* stuff. On the 4-5 thing, it's a bit odd that the earlier generations lost track of whether Jr. was Jr.-II or Sr., whether III was III or Jr.-II, etc. You tend to know when your dad has the same name as you do. John

Dave's first review of the article and the letter my MR-5 (or MR-4)? John

07/27/78 - Bob Backlund vs Antonio Inoki - Tokyo (60:00) John

I'd also say the "Melby Award" is off to a bad start: 2006 Melby 2007 Mike Chapman 2008 Greg Oliver Okay, it's cool that they gave it to Melby before he passed away. Then they gave it to the founder of the museum second, and frankly Chapman is a dogshit pro wrestling historian. Then to Greg Oliver third: http://slam.canoe.ca/SlamWrestlingBios/oliver.html Which is frankly kind of nutty. Perhaps this is like Lou Thesz "Leaving A List" of people who were going to be given awards in his name after he died... which I think was a CAC spot. Maybe Melby wrote up a list of who should be honored after he passed, and Oliver was #1 on the list. John

Yeah, Bret is still nuts. I wonder if it were Dave getting the award if Bret would have gone off. Unlikely. John

04/05/79 Tokyo (NJPW) Inoki vs Singh Fujinami vs Aguayo 04/17/79 Agriculture Hall (WWF) Inoki vs Volkoff Fujinami vs Rodriguez 04/22/79 Mexico City (UWA) Inoki vs Canek Fujinami vs Soloatario They actually defended their titles in all three promotions in a month - the NWF Title and WWF Jr. Title. Fujinami did it again in December, same promotions. He and Inoki did it again in April 1980, but subbed Florida for the WWF. One can debate whether FL was the top promotion. I don't think it was, but people pimp it up as a critical hotbed of the NWA. This was the one Inoki vs. Backlund match in the US... so you've got him challenging the champion of the "#1 Promotion" (since the NWA wasn't really a promotion by a confederation of promotions) in one of the other "Top Promotions" of the country. I think on that level this would qualify on some level. Onita worked the US and Mexico in late April through mid-May 1982. One would assume he worked in Japan later in May - he had a title defense on 6/1/82, and AJPW's series opened prior to that (Jumbo defense against Slater a couple of days earlier). Tiger Mask worked New Japan (second Kobayashi title match), WWF (Estrada and Gilbert) and UWA (Villano III) in November 1982. I think it's safe to say these are more significant than what Danielson did. I mean... a fucking Dark Match? Did he do anything remotely as significant as Inoki facing Canek, the #1 heavy in Mexico at the time? As significant as facing Backlund in a "neutral promotion" which happens to be a biggy (they didn't run it in Portland)? John

I don't know when Scherer started watching it - before it started getting run in the WON (about 1990), or after. Jesse was in Texas, and I don't recall if he got it off the dish or simply in an across the border due to a powerful transmitter. Also don't recall how much if any he taped, and kept. If he did keep it, I suspect it's long gone since he and his wife moved around the time he stopped writing much on RSP-W. John

In one of the Lariats or Chairshots (prior to the Lariat), Scherer made the comment that Lucha was "Dave's" (i.e. Meltzer's) while ECW was "ours". It was along the lines of Meltzer loved Japan and Lucha because he was in the cutting edge of hardcore fans of "discovering" and pushing them, while he knocked ECW because it wasn't something that he discovered - others did, like Scherer. Wish I could find it, since I don't do justice to the comment. Anyway... yeah, Scherer was one of the big early Lucha fans. The SoCal gang around Kurt Brown and Dan Farren (the two seemed to be way ahead of the curve compared to everyone), then Steve Sims in IL, Jesse Money in Texas and Scherer back in NJ when it started getting available on the tube. John

I don't recall much resistance from his readers to Lucha coverage in the early to mid 90s. Certainly nothing remotely close to his coverage of UFC when it started. Dave's readership was less polarized than say RSP-W in the 90s when you had WWF Fans, WCW Fans and ECW Fans rooting for their favorite promtion while crapping on the "enemies". While one might think that beause Scherer became the biggest ECW House Organ online that he was always and ECW Fan. He actually was one of the guys at the cutting edge of Lucha watching, getting it earlier than most and contributing his ratings to Sims' Lucha Libre Weekly. The readership had its "favorites", but you'd be surprised how open it was to what people were pimping as "good wrestling". They didn't always end up digging it, but they usually were willing to give it a look if it was easy enough to get a hold of (or attend), and rarely begrudged that it was covered. Frankly, they were glad there was a WON to cover wrestling period. The coverage of Lucha really didn't eat up that much space at all. Weekly Lucha TV didn't even rate the recaps that New Japan, All Japan and AJW got. He would cover the shows he went to, but really no different from covering the SMW and ECW shows he would go to. The Lucha/Mexico/AAA section(s) of the WON weren't any longer than the ones for ECW and SMW, nor Memphis when it had been more viable. The last time I subbed, TNA and ROH had vastly more space on a weekly basis than Mexico ever got. There were fans who didn't care for it, but the space it ate up really didn't matter. The "debate" in the WON over it had long since been lost when Dave covered Japan. And frankly even that debate never really was all that big since Japan was one of the various tape trading elements that the WON grew out of in being launched. The resistance was more from people in the business who didn't think Lucha was wrestling, and who didn't take kindly to how lucha was drawing in California. But even that was *nothing* compared to the resistance to UFC coverage. John

Not to speak badly of the dead, but if Tim is the model of modern journalism, it's one of the reasons why it's so fucked up. :/ John

"Never mind" John

Not a juicy story, or Dave being an ass or an idiot. Just that it's fitted the way he tends to things like this. "Herb" is Dave's father. It was his father's e-mail address that Dave used when he went online. Likely became 99% filled with Dave related stuff, so it simply because Dave's while his father went off and got another one. A decade later, Dave is still using it rather than getting a freebie like a GMail address (or several to split business from non-business). In the sense that if you've known him as a friend and how his mind works on stuff like this, it fits him to a T. Kind of absent minded professor, not really asking anyone in a serious way how to do something, and then finding something that "works for me" and sticking with it long past the freshness date. Like I said... not a juicy story. My comment about being too nice and respectful to use the name "Herb" for Dave like a lot of people do is because I knew it's his Dad. My dealings with Mr. and Mrs. Meltzer over the years found them both to be really, really, really nice people. Family means a lot to him, and with a pair of very good parents, I understand why. So it's not a nickname I can use for Dave. Just be wrong for me. "Schemer" was from Travis, supposedly an accident in an e-mail conversation. His crack when pasing it along was that the typo completely went over the heads of the Bob.com duo he was talking with, or that what they wanted out of him meant so much at the time that they pretended no to notice. We (the several people at tOA that Travis shared it with) thought it was funny enough to start using. In hindsight, I'm not sure why we didn't look down at the keyboard and notice where the "m" is in relation to the "r" and realize that Travis was pulling our legs on the "accidentally" part. Nothing juicy there, though something going over Scherer's head *or* him ignoring something because he's looking to get something out of you... that's Scherer to a T. John

That might be better asked of Bryan. Don't know if Dave gave that any thought. John

Standard Snowden. He writes something that doesn't make sense. It's pointed out. He tries to defend it. The defense is pointed out to be wrong. He tries to morph it: "What I really meant was..." The morph is wrong as well. Wash, rinse, repeat. What's funny about this one is that you're clinging to it being jdw vs. Snowden. The reality is a half dozen other posters have pointed out your nonsense as you keep trying to "explain" and morph. It's not like you can write those posters off as my proteges - I don't think most of them even like me. But keep spinning, Brody. John

Yeah, Al was a bit of a indy legend like Waltman, Lynn and Sabu. He was a darling before he even got to ECW. Paul sort of took him because he was a darling. I think you'll find a decent amount of him in the Here & There section of the WON in 1992-94 before he got there. As to what matches... someone out there must have put together a comp at some point. John

Smoke's "win" was a bit like the UK kicking Argentina's ass in a "war". John Smokes win was like rating a steak whilst watchin Jap rasslin with internet friends, to say the least. Who rated a steak while watching "Jap rasslin" with internet friends? John

Paul Heyman told him to do that. "Those pesky internet kids!" John, wondering what's wrong with the world when I defending Paul...

Exactly. Yohe on Classics through he was full of shit early on. Others on Classics, who also posted a good deal on KM, thought the stories had credibility. The whole thing was largely funny for two things: * the folks getting worked * Smoke thinking it was a bigger deal than it was, which is probably the case I think people who had been around longer than he had been knew that working Wrestling Fans on the Internet wasn't that big of a deal. They'd seen stuff like the Scott Steiner dying story, or Heyman working Scherer and Ryder in knots. Smoke's "win" was a bit like the UK kicking Argentina's ass in a "war". John

I think it's pretty exceptional to watch wrestling with others people. Someone tends to see something you didn't see, or brings a different perspective to it. I doubt I got more out of solo watching wrestling in this decade than I did out syncing stuff with Jewett. A good deal of what I bring to the table now is out of watching stuff with others, be it Frank or the ripping on matches that I might do with Yohe and Hoback in our get togethers. Plus it's shitloads of fun. Bordy vs. Bockwinkel is just a dogshit match. It's painful to watch alone. Sit through it with a couple of other people who think that Brody is the drizzling shits in it, and it's a hoot. I love watching movies and TV with others. Similar reasons as wrestling - loads of fun, and another eye (or several pairs) picking up on things you might miss. My Mom loves UFC, after catching TUF early on. I was prefertly bored with MMA at that point... long since bored by it. But watching it with her is a good deal of fun. So when I'm down at my folks, she and I typical watch a PPV or two catching up on the product. Fun stuff. John