Matt D

Oh, my opinions now are pretty different from back then. Hogan vs Michaels is an interesting discussion for instance. I'm not sure where I'd fall on that. Wrestling has nothing to do with how many moves you do. I'm not 10 anymore.

Before I had any influence from the magazines, I liked the Rockers and Brian Pillman more and hated Hulk Hogan (because he always only ever did the same three moves) and Jim Duggan and the Bushwhackers, but I also liked Ultimate Warrior and the Young Pistols and Shane Douglas and Tom Zenk and any high-flying type babyface or someone who seemed really energetic. I liked Arn Anderson a lot too but that was sort of beside the point. I just liked the Spinebuster. I absolutely hated Hogan because he only did three moves though. it had nothing to do with him winning or losing.

I actually think that Dibiase has a few other slightly more minor but still pretty great angles. 1. Buying Hercules 2. Jake the Snake stealing the Million Dollar belt and Bossman turning face after getting it back. 3. Hart selling out the Disasters for Money Inc.

I don't disagree about Meltzer influencing Keith. I actually that's HOW Meltzer is most important, actually, by influencing the next generation of voices who became big with the birth of the internet, since it was those voices who really popularized things you credit Meltzer for.

I really feel like we're only starting to get past workrate dogmatism, maybe in the last few years, which I, again, think is a combination of Indy style burnout (we got too much of what we thought we wanted), Benoit/Misawa dying and how they died, and so much more older footage being so easily available.

I started to do so with Flair but I just don't have time right now. Looking at Piper quickly, though. 1. The angle where he goaded Chavo Sr. into striking him and losing a pure wrestling trophy because of that sounds pretty cool? 2. Buddy Rose burning the kilt 3. The angle where he turned babyface by saving Gordon Solie from Muraco 4. Coconut + Snuka 5. Attacking Lauper and co. 6. Getting attacked by Adonis 7. His Role in Virgil turning? 8. When he came out by surprise to confront Hogan in WCW

I'd be sort of amazed if the answer isn't Flair or Dusty.

Obviously, my family was cursed by Shasta the Voodoo Man so that I'd get the same ideas as Svengooli here twice a year.

I need to crash and I do think your response is interesting and probably true in other cases absolutely but my first thought was. "Wait, what about the story of Foley going to see Snuka jump off the cage?" Caveat number two is how it's interesting that they used to talk about how dangerous battle royals or cage matches were for the people's bodies all the time, but then it was about either money or hate, not about the fans. In the end, until we hear from some people who were watching at a fairly advanced age in the 70s, I'm a lot more comfortable with "played a part" than I am with even "popularized." I think it's the second generation of people after Meltzer that are more important in it spreading. And Meltzer's most important contribution in this specific thought (that matches can be good or bad due to quality) was in creating and maintaining a centralized place for it to exist during the years in the wilderness before the internet, if that makes sense, like monasteries in the dark ages or an incubator.

That shift happened after 1998 though. Does Meltzer have more direct influence before or after 1998? I'd also counter it with the NXT crowd's reaction after the first time Aiden English sang. I swear there was a This is Awesome chant there too. That wouldn't have happened if the gimmick happened in ECW in 1998. Would it have happened in 2008? That's the sort of thing I don't think Meltzer goes for at all, which is extraneous but I find it interesting.

And I think that it had to be out there in the people who would eventually become his readership and he brought them together and then, as the internet came together, they spread it out to the next generation, that he's more the unifying force in movement. That's when it comes to match quality and thinking about it. When it comes to exactly what a good match looked like, the workrate ideal, I'm okay with the idea that he really defined that. But the idea of "A match can be good or bad?" I'm less comfortable with that, even if he could be the leader of the cultural movement that put that forward. But I think it was probably an underlying thought he tapped into and that his initial reader base had before they ever picked up a WON. Frankly though I think we need some old people to chime in here.

I don't know a real answer to a lot of this. I'm 32. My experience was that I got into wrestling at 9. I got into it again at 16 or so and by that point the internet was out there and I was sort of reared and raised in pro wrestling culture by the disciples, by the people who had subscribed to the observer. And you get the ECW fans which is early internet stuff, and now everyone over the age of thirteen who gets into wrestling in any meaningful way is so socially active that they're tapped into this, and I'm glad that you're trying to draw a line through it in the book to come, because I'm not entirely sure how it works. I just think that the people who talked about quality and thought about it existed and he just unified them and it built momentum that way, especially in an age before the internet when the only real history and discussion between these forces spread around the country would be a newsletter. When you read old WONs, there's a very big collaborative element to it. Edit: I think quality mattered to certain people within the business too. You hear stories like the JJ Dillon one about wanting to impress the boys in the back with a great match when he was supposed to wrestle chickenshit or the way Savage would plan out his matches.

I don't want to break down your paragraph since I think you were trying to get across a general thought and not a specific one. I do think what you're suggesting is that he turned a specific percentage of the audience from "common wrestling fan" to "uncommon wrestling fan," or maybe that he united an even smaller percentage that he DID create with another percentage of already existing "uncommon wrestling fans" under one flag by giving them a central resource to tap into and then feed back into. The question I guess I'm curious about is when the common wrestling fan stopped thinking about wins and losses and about whether a match was good or not and how much of that had to do with Meltzer? I think most of the people who he initially had as subscribers already felt that way, but that's just a guess.

He "defined." So he codified what was already there? Something people were thinking but they didn't realize? I'm sorry for the semantics but I'm not 100% understanding.

Went back and read. 1. You always no-sell my best stuff. It was Foucault there. 2. It was pretty definitive the influence Keith had, but I didn't see the link to Meltzer necessarily. In fact, you suggest that Keith was actually more important than Meltzer. I'm still shaky on this. Was it that he invented the "not-common wrestling fan" or that he made the common wrestling fan think differently?

Thanks, I will read; now go and run with the Russian Revolution thing.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that. For one thing, Dave came out of a broader tradition of that sort of thing going back into the 70s, no? I mean, I know we have some older posters. I know there were fanzines and what not, things like Bockwinkel's Brigade. i'm okay with the idea that Dave helped defined certain views about, let's say, the importance of workrate, that we're only getting away from now. Maybe that he brought it to the masses on some level? But it's not the masses. It's more like the Russian Revolution and it's taken a while but it's finally come to a head with the fans taking over the booking from the WWE with Daniel Bryan 30 years later? I don't know who that makes Trotsky though.

Give me quick takeaways?

This is the message board equivalent of this:

Question: Do we consider Meltzer an influence on Scott Keith? See, my problem with the Ebert comparison is that I think he shaped the entire IWC and what was considered accepted taste for years and years. Even Ebert had Siskel (not to mention others and also that there isn't a direct comparison to film geeks, I think).

Tweens like awful acting.

Part of me really thinks that AJ/Paige/Emma/Bayley/Becky vs. the BFFs could have been marketed to tween girls and it might have caught on.

What about Bart Gunn?

That wasn't in Part One and I hadn't gotten to part two yet. It wasn't about that at all. It was about the booking and the fact that Axel was clearly there to build up Hunter's feud with Brock. He was a sacrificial lamb. Later on, he was there as a stooge for Heyman vs Punk, and not even the main one, which was Ryback. Axel was positioned to get beaten over and over again. That has nothing to do with being a good fit or not. From his first moment on TV, he was there to fail. Hunter emasculated him and instead of beating the crap out of him, he just took it and tried to look tough. It's one of the worst three debuts of the century.

He's the manifestation of a curse that Kevin Sullivan cast against the Mulligans in 1984.