jdw

Yeah... that too. There are ones where I disagreed with him in the terms of relativity: look, this ***** that you gave to a match with these guys isn't really as good as this ***** match with these same/similar guys. We didn't see Doc vs Kobashi eye-to-eye at all, with me pointing to the over-the-top-goofy finish (which I'll admit is something that people disagree and agree with me on whether they like it) and to Stan vs Kobashi the month before. While we might have gone around on that match / those matches, in the end it's a bit of a difference on what we liked... and it's not like I thought Doc vs Kobashi was a shitty match, or would have rated it at **1/2 to *** in contrast to his *****. Bret-Owen was just odd. I can't think of a match that got a bigger WTF? back then. I'm sure there were people who liked it. But this was also a time when *****+ was still pretty rare, though starting to escalate at that point. I just don't recall a lot of people putting it on the level of Shawn vs Razor and Bret vs Owen at Mania... or say Flair-Steamboat. Even those cool Sting vs Vader matches in 1992-93 weren't getting *****. So it was... odd at time time.

That it's boring and repetitive. That they spend too much time climbing. I don't even think it's good. Yeah... generally that. I think Yohe, Hoback and I all thought this was like a *** match at best, and that we may be overrating it because we liked Bret. We thought the Yoko vs Bret that we'd seen at The Pond the year before was vastly better. Then we saw ***** in the WON and our heads exploded. When this match came up, and it often did back then in all sorts of settings including people in the business, Dave never was very good at explaining why he thought it was *****. It was of the two matches that I recall getting the fall back, "Well... I liked it" defense when he ran dry on explanation. john

Don't recall that being in the WON at the time.

Eddie Edwards is an offense to my sensibilities as a fan.

I don't know if he actually rated that at the time. He talked about it for years after as being a classic, but ratings weren't very consistently given out in the 1983-85 range.

He was at the Crockett Cup in 1986 if I recall correctly.

Ding ding ding.

Well... there is the whole Savage Fucked Steph thing. Though we all know that actually hit the DVDVR Thread long before Dave even hinted at it in the WON.

Yep - a good pick by Jerry. Just an incredibly bad match.

Baba vs Raja Lion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsZaJqiyE54

I think in an example like that, Dave wouldn't run with it unless (i) Bryan told him, or (ii) Bryan told someone who told Dave, or (iii) his source in the Front Office who tracks injuries directly told him. On the last, I'm thinking of something along the lines of JJ Dillion having first hand knowledge of the WWF's drug testing program when it was first rolled out in the early 90s. If JJ was the source for Dave about the Sid issue in 1992, then it was as legit as one was going to get. I don't recall instances in wrestling where Dave went down the rabbit hole at the level you tossed out.

Having seen clips of the spot done a few times, they do go through the skin. Seemed that Kimber was expecting some juice in the ring, even did the classic body positioning expecting it and seemed surprised when there wasn't. John

Yep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bOMXEfr5Rc Not Kasai, but I've seen this guy face Kasai over there... Yep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAipdnxbRQE About 18 in. Good lord, I can't even remember what I was clicking around on Youtube that had Kasai & Co popping up in the videos to the left... and why I bothered clicking on them and watching 4-5 of them through. John

I think I've seen that spot in one of the Japanese garbage promotions, like Jun Kasai matches or someone else, and it's just a totally throw away spot among their laundry list of garbage to get through.

Agree. It's abysmal. Of course, if you are a business reporter or cover the entertainment beat, WWE is small potatoes. Almost no major media company has anyone covering wrestling. Part of that is because wrestling is the kind of niche topic that attracts its fans but actively repels everyone else. Part of it is intentional on WWE's part. They've made a calculated decision that they are willing to bear the cost of not having regular coverage in exchange for not having people digging in their business. Totally agree on all of that. It's pretty mutual that the WWE wants minimal coverage (and puffy at that), and real media doesn't want much to do with them. On the WWE being small potatoes... on the business side, it certainly is. On the entertainment side, kinda-sorta. It's revenue is small compared to the big entertainment companies. It's revenue this year will be less than what Catching Fire has pulled in. But it still is something that draw 3M to 4M viewers a week, 52 weeks a year, and remains up there in the cable viewership. Why ignored? Your repellent comment is a lot of it, and probably something to do with it's not "new". The thing has been on the cable ratings charts for 17 years and is old news. Mad Men, in contrast, was new! despite drawing less viewers, and across few episodes each year. Everything that anyone wanted to write about the WWE has been written before, other than by the people who actually care enough to cover the cesspool. :/ This is the 24-hour news cycle mentality coming back to bite us. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to create content, even when there is no organic "content creation" event. That leads to nonsense being written on the regular. It pays the bills. Totally agree. Deadspin did a funny piece on how ESPN manufactured a story out of nothing, and ran with it for a day across it's platforms. And yeah... it pays the bills. This is true, but in a different way than you see with WWE. I think news coverage of MMA is terrible, much of it aping political coverage that allows blatant lies and misdirection so long as those lies come in the form of a direct quote from Dana White. Yep. This probably depends on how we define "feature". I think that if we looked at a feature piece in the LA Times or NY Times about Rhonda, you'd find it fluffy or lightweight or not really in depth. Not really at the level of the piece that you linked to, which was exceptional in depth with the space that very few papers/mags/professional sites don't/can't dedicate to it. That's why I tossed out that 1% out of 1000 MMA random/typical mainstream media pieces being worthwhile. That piece was rare, and we've all seen plenty of the type that aren't even skim worthy. But is it? There's no real way of knowing because every item is a blind item and the only substantiation comes from Dave himself or other wrestling writers who don't show their cards. We have only their word that they are getting the key items correct. Those are just blind items, like Creative not liking Wrestler X. I'm thinking more about Dave's total coverage of wrestling vs the LA Times total coverage of the Movie business. Dave puts more effort and data into the business side than the Times does. They do similar on the "review" side. Dave does a better job with what's in the pipeline. His feature writing, which is largely Obits, is above what the Times does on the movie business. In terms of "covering" the wrestling business, Dave tops the Times "covering" the movie business. And that's with the Times having a more writers on staff to do it. I think we've all copped to bullshit slipping through. That's the nature of the beast, and it comes in every industry. Remember the old saw how George Lucas always planned out 9 Star Wars films, and that the first was always planned to be the "4th" in the timeline? It was total bullshit. It got told enough times that people believe the bullshit, and in the pre-internet days no one could (or frankly would) go back to read what George said at the time of the release, and in the weeks/months after the movie blew up. Now a days... people would google it, and it would be shown to be bullshit fast. Except... There's lots of Zombie Bullshit that lives on even after being shown to be bullshit. I actually think you could, with the old "sources tell me" saw... as long as sources did tell you. ESPN does it all the time. Do a search on the last time ESPN was sued by a team or a player over stuff like: "Sources tell me that the Lakers are looking to trade Pau Gasol..." "The Knicks are looking to move JR Smith..." "Dan Snyder is looking into whether the team can terminate Mike Shanahan's contract over the leaking of information earlier this week..." All sorts of shit with no one's name attacked to it as the *source*. Every single major media entity in the country does it. Hell, spend a weekend watching NBA TV and reading the NBA.com columnist, which is all run by Turner, and tell me how much unsubstantiated claims are made on there that end up not happening or being "wrong" in a way that no one ends up suing over. There wasn't a single legal consequence on any of the reporting of the Washington Football team this year, and even though a lot of shit is true, there also was a lot of stuff being tossed at reporters (who transcribed it) that was bullshit. Seriously... has Dave printed a single thing on MMA that even if wrong would raise to a "legal consequences"? Or that Dave wouldn't be able to point to: "Well... that's what MMA Fighter X and Trainer Z told me on Date Y, right here in my notes. If it's wrong, sue them." * * * * * Just to be clear, I don't think Dave is a GREAT~! reporter. When that article was pulled over here with the pics of the office and the standard old line from Deford about Dave and Pulitzers, I was the one who took the Pulitzer stuff to town by linking to the stuff that's won Pulitzer's. Dave's not at that level, and never has been. Even the best stuff he's done, such as covering the steroid story well for years, isn't close to that level. One can compliment Dave for covering wrestling over the decades without blowing smoke up our asses. For covering an industry, especially one a shitty and as big of a cesspool of bullshit and lies as pro wrestling, he's been "good" over the past 30 years. Perhaps it's waned in the past decade, but I'm not a great one to judge that: I've cared less about the business in the last 10 years than in the 20 year prior to that, which means that caring about the coverage has declined for me as well. But prior to that while I was more interested, he provided good services and coverage to this thing of ours. The writing itself... yeah... it's always been what it is. John

The NFL might look at it to replace the Sunday Ticket down the road, but not their massive deals with ESPN, Fox, NBC and CBS. It would make the Sunday Ticket available beyond just DirecTV, and they would piggyback (as they already do) on the Production Costs of CBS/FOX who are already covering those games. B.uit so far, DirecTV has been willing to pay them $1B a year for the Sunday Ticket concept. That historically has been a premium above what the NFL could get by making the package available to all carriers (like the MLB equiv was and the NBA equiv is). And it's likely that the NFL has looked at making it more widely available, or available to the Telecoms (Verizon and AT&T) who are looking for their own wedge to try to draw subs away from Cable (and DirecTV). Whoever ponies up the cash will get it. Long run? I could see the package going that route, with the NFL Network being All Year content for a season that only has Sep-Dec value on the Sunday Ticket (playoff games are all available for free in every market sans blackouts). They also would likely force One Year subs (under the guise of Full Season subs) to avoid people subbing just from Sep-Dec. But there is the obvious ROI: The NFL makes $1B a year off the Sunday Ticket, with no production costs/overhead of note. DirecTV pays, and it's probably 99% pure gravy profit for the NFL. Taking that package "in house" is going to need to net them $1B a year. That's 5.6M subs a year at $14.95, give or take given costs (probably not small) and revenue (would they be able to sell ads to fit into the slots that CBS/Fox have breaks in?). 5.6M subs doesn't seem like a lot for the NFL, but... * every NBC game is already on for Free * every ESPN game is already on for Free * every Thursday game is already on for Free * every playoff game is already on for Free * the Super Bowl is Free * almost all of your Local Team games are on for Free (blackouts being the exception) So there's a lot of free stuff out there. And you're trying to get 5.6M subs for that content that isn't Free. Wait... The extension for Package is under negotiations with DirecTV right now, while all the other TV got done back in 2011 and run into the next decade. Given those other deals saw massive increases in rights fees, and now the NFL has options (AT&T and Verizon) and more options (Cable looking to hold off on bleeding subs)... that $1B is going to go up. $1.5B / $179 per year = 8,361,204 subs If you're the NFL, why at this time get nervous over shaking out 8.3M subs when someone like DirecTV is going to hand you $1.5B a year? Again... I think down the road the NFL might go in that direction. They're going to need some not-available-for-free content to hook subs (like Mania was for the WWE). But the $$$$ that the NFL is raking is just too much for them to chase it right now. John

They average about 40K per game, and 10K per *spring training* game. At an average ticket price that is higher than the WWE. Their popularity in the US alone outstrips the WWE world wide. John

I completely agree, but Dave was saying WORLDWIDE MLB is more popular than WWE, and I'm not having that. Does it really matter if the WWE is more popular in the rest of the world? The advantage in the US is so massively large that it renders it moot. 74,026,885 MLB Regular Season Attendance 1,854,100 WWE World Wide (US+Int'l) Attendance That's not even counting post season, Spring Training, post season, the All Star game. Okay... for giggles and shits, let see if we can find Spring Training numbers... http://www.ballparkdigest.com/201104013696...endance-numbers That's 2011. 3,513,720 MLB Spring Training Attendance 1,854,100 WWE World Wide Attendance 7,200 MLB Spring Training average 5,900 WWE world wide average It's unlikely that number for MLB ST has dropped a ton in the past two spring trainings. Given that MLB also owns the Minor Leagues... well... what the hell: http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=2...lb&sid=milb Okay, that's some HOLY SHIT numbers right there: 41,553,781 Minor League Attendance 1,854,100 WWE World Wide Attendance That doesn't include the post season and all star games, which looking at 2012: http://ballparkbiz.files.wordpress.com/201...ce-analysis.pdf "The 204 post-season NAPBL games drew 666,348, an average of 3,266 per game. Attendance data was available for 46 independent league post-season games, and they drew 110,241, an average of 2,397. 10 NAPBL All-Star games drew a combined 92,930. " Hell, that's 869,519 for just those. FWIW, there's a shitload of info available in that PDF, and a lot of it just mind boggling. Ponder this: COMBINED NAPBL AND INDEPENDENT LEAGUE ATTENDANCE SINCE 1993 1993 - 30,756,828 1994 - 35,286,552 1995 - 36,208,800 1996 - 36,747,940 1997 - 38,227,980 1998 - 39,294,427 1999 - 40,051,268 2000 - 43,229,652 2001 - 44,805,778 2002 - 45,049,213 2003 - 45,627,856 2004 - 46,445,630 2005 - 48,851,400 2006 - 49,268,793 2007 - 51,298,733 2008 - 51,576,409 2009 - 49,609,703 2010 - 49,537,502 2011 - 48,082,830 2012 - 48,408,316 This is like a hidden business within a business that none of us pay attention to. Not saying it's Big Business, but that's a lot of people seeing that shit. That's not even getting into obvious things like: $1.5B per year = New MLB National TV Contract Which the WWE isn't going to come close to. That's a number that doesn't include local money. I believe this is Wendy Thrum's most recent chart on their values: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-cou...h-local-tv-deal The Phils just signed an massive deal recently that looks to be in the range of the Halos deal. So... it really doesn't matter how popular the WWE is in the rest of the world. The gap between it and MLB in the US alone is so batshit huge on every level that the WWE can't make it up. John

I have no interest in being involved in that brand of "news." With respect to the dirtsheet guys, how much of it is really "news" anyway? How much is, rather, an elaborate mythology that is validated by, you guessed it, further blind reporting by the same people who created the original rumor in the first place? It wouldn't pass the smell test in media coverage of any other business in the world. Media coverage of almost every other business in the world blows. Take for example... The WWE. It's been a "business" list on the exchange for more than a decade. How well does the business media cover it? It's been a national "entertainment business" since Expansion in 1984. How well has the entertainment media covered it in the past 30 years? Basically for shit. But it's the same way with any business, of genre. The sports media is a joke, and a large chunk of their "news" doesn't pass the smell test either. I'm spending this month laughing every day at ridiculous stories about transfers that will never happen in the EPL. Coverage of the PED story in baseball? Dogshit for decades, laughable behind Dave's coverage of it in the WON. Coverage of the PED story in pro football and college football? Wait... what story? They're just pretending it's not there. Concussions? Health issues down to the kid level? "La-la-la-la-la... we'll only cover it when we have to." Come on, Jon. You're in the media business covering MMA. You know what a total fucking joke the media is in covering MMA, and not just the mainstream media that dips its toes in from time to time or just does puff pieces. You've for years thought a good chunk of the MMA Media is a joke. Are there good pieces that pop up on the businesses? Sure. That local media story on MMA that you shared was exceptional. But of 1000 MMA articles that were written papers or mags or aired on TV about MMA in 2013, what % were at that level? Less than 1%? Dave's writing is often horrid. But his coverage of his industry is better than the LA Times did of covering the Movie industry the last time I read the paper every day (2011, and I doubt it's improved)... and Hollywood is in the backyard. Is it better than movie mags? When I was reading a ton of them in the 90s, they really all that great until you got down into the niche level fanzies covering genres and movies that no one else was. The major ones were doing the standard puff piece + reviews + rumors stuff that you'd get in the Times. The media in this country largely blows. It has for ages. Signal to noise has always blown. John

Knowing Ric, he probably has creditors in GA and FL already who want money out of him. John

So he's willing to flee that state he's lived in for 40 years and risk getting arrested if he returns? Yep... that would explain why he's living with Joey Gomez rather than getting his own place as well. John

I think it's less being savy and more along the lines of what I mentioned: his old Front Office sources have over time moved on from the business, while less of the current Front Office is "wrestler" based and instead people coming in from outside. If Johnny Ace had been someone that Dave developed as a source in All Japan in the 90s (in the sense of like how he was close to the Funks and Furnas), then when Johnny moved on to WCW and then the WWE, and eventually moved up the ladder in the WWE Front Office... then Dave has a long standing source/friend in the front office. Akin to Ross, Corny and Paul E. Now? How many of Trip's close circle are "wrestler" or old school wrestling background? On the flip, Vince's "business" people have shifted over time from the old core to a lot of people who are truly business background. People in Creative have come from outside wrestling background. Basically most of the Business of the WWE had changed over the past 10 years, the old guard has moved out, and the new structure is quite different. I don't think any of this is terribly surprising. That said, people live Dave and MKJ and even Wade still come up with "news" on what's going on inside. I'm not entirely sold that the rest of the sum total of "wrestling reporting" or "wrestling writing" is breaking more titbits than those three combined. Jon and the Grantland Goof may interview Bryan, but is there really much news breaking from those parts of wrestling writing? John

Classic Ric. Of course he's totally loaded with all that retirement money he allegedly has, along the tons of lotto and soft drink pitching money he's made/making, so what's a little $33K to pay off? John