Paul Heyman sent home

[jdw]

 

 

 

Nah, Meltzer's probably just leaving all the juicy details for this week's Observer.

 

The reality is he's probably waiting to hear more before saying it's one thing or the other. Unlike Keller or Scherer, Meltzer tends to wait until he's heard more of the story before making any statements rather than rushing out rumor or hurriedly gathered word-of-mouth in an attempt to be the first to break the story.

I'm sure Meltzer didn't know for sure whether it was a work or a shoot when the story broke, but I'm sure he knows better by now and he still hasn't updated his original story, which does lead credence to my belief that he's holding stuff back for the newsletter.

 

Speaking of Keller and Scherer, the last time people were laughing about them reporting that a story was a shoot too quickly was over the backstage fight between Booker and Batista and that time they were right and Meltzer was wrong when he strongly suggested it was just an elaborate angle.

 

Let's wait for his next daily update to see what he says.

 

The difference between Keller and Scherer and Meltzer is that the first two will state something as a fact even if they're don't know or aren't sure it really is a fact. Meltzer rarely paints himself into such a corner and will make it clear he's speculating and doesn't know for sure either way.

 

Dave will also state things as fact when he doesn't really know. That's why he has "corrections".

 

Neither Wade nor Dave are flawless. They both have been dead wrong on things, even on major stories where they dug their feet in and stated that what you were reading elsewhere wasn't correct.

 

Scherer isn't worth mentioning in the same breath with the others. Even if one doesn't like Wade or Dave, Scherer is on another level far below.

 

 

John

[Guest HTQ]

 

 

 

 

Nah, Meltzer's probably just leaving all the juicy details for this week's Observer.

 

The reality is he's probably waiting to hear more before saying it's one thing or the other. Unlike Keller or Scherer, Meltzer tends to wait until he's heard more of the story before making any statements rather than rushing out rumor or hurriedly gathered word-of-mouth in an attempt to be the first to break the story.

I'm sure Meltzer didn't know for sure whether it was a work or a shoot when the story broke, but I'm sure he knows better by now and he still hasn't updated his original story, which does lead credence to my belief that he's holding stuff back for the newsletter.

 

Speaking of Keller and Scherer, the last time people were laughing about them reporting that a story was a shoot too quickly was over the backstage fight between Booker and Batista and that time they were right and Meltzer was wrong when he strongly suggested it was just an elaborate angle.

 

Let's wait for his next daily update to see what he says.

 

The difference between Keller and Scherer and Meltzer is that the first two will state something as a fact even if they're don't know or aren't sure it really is a fact. Meltzer rarely paints himself into such a corner and will make it clear he's speculating and doesn't know for sure either way.

 

Dave will also state things as fact when he doesn't really know. That's why he has "corrections".

 

Neither Wade nor Dave are flawless. They both have been dead wrong on things, even on major stories where they dug their feet in and stated that what you were reading elsewhere wasn't correct.

 

Scherer isn't worth mentioning in the same breath with the others. Even if one doesn't like Wade or Dave, Scherer is on another level far below.

 

 

Dave will also state things as fact when he doesn't really know. That's why he has "corrections".

 

That's true. It just seems like it doesn't happen often, especially in proportion to others.

 

They both have been dead wrong on things, even on major stories where they dug their feet in and stated that what you were reading elsewhere wasn't correct.

 

When was the last time Dave did that? Not saying you're wrong, because you wouldn't have said so if you were, but I don't remember the last time.

 

Scherer isn't worth mentioning in the same breath with the others. Even if one doesn't like Wade or Dave, Scherer is on another level far below.

 

Was it Scherer or Ryder who did that story claiming that Bret had signed to lead the Invasion and then quickly backtracked when it was obvious it wasn't true and then denied they ever made such a claim?

[Strummer]

That was Ryder.

 

 

I think Scherer is okay when it comes to small news items behind the scenes at the TV and PPVs but is pretty much lost when it comes to the long-arcing, business changing stories

[sek69]

Vince vs Heyman is always a fun dynamic. It's obvious they can't get along for any period of time, but Vince seems to be afraid to flat out fire him since he knows TNA would probably sign him in a heartbeat. Heyman knows that Vince will never fire him and takes the opportunity to be the only one in the company who dares to point out that WWE's creative staff sucks ass. It's like wrestling's version of that movie where the two guys escape from prison but are still handcuffed to each other.

 

What I don't get, is what was Vince trying to prove by bringing back ECW in the first place? I know the usual suspects, ego and whatnot, but a big part of what made the old ECW work was that it wasn't what WWF/WCW were offering. Bringing back ECW as WWE Lite and jobbing out the original ECW guys shows a shocking gap in understanding. WWE fans don't see ECW as anything but a jobber show and ECW fans see this new "brand" as an insult. It's like Vince has some sort of learning disability where he's physically incapable of understanding any wrestling show WWF/E didn't create.

[jdw]

Dave will also state things as fact when he doesn't really know. That's why he has "corrections".

 

That's true. It just seems like it doesn't happen often, especially in proportion to others.

I tend to think Dave does it as often, but that's possible because it's things that mean nothing to others but hit my radar. I don't even bother saying anything about most since I tend to get the "nitpicker" and "obsessively harping on Dave" spot tossed at me when I do.

 

 

They both have been dead wrong on things, even on major stories where they dug their feet in and stated that what you were reading elsewhere wasn't correct.

 

When was the last time Dave did that? Not saying you're wrong, because you wouldn't have said so if you were, but I don't remember the last time.

Someone else can supply a "last time" because others probably care more about currrent wrestling than I do and would care about Dave digging his feet in.

 

The historical one I would point to would be the coverage of the WCW Sale, which Dave himself has several times called the biggest story in the history of the WON. He dug his feet in several times and rolled out the "contrary to what you're reading elsewhere" spot to smack Wade. Dave ended up being wrong a fair number of times in the coverage, and wasn't exactly graceful in admitting it.

 

That's the biggest story of his publication's history. It tends to go to his lack of perfection. Of course Dave doesn't exactly claim to be perfect. It's more than some of the rest of us over the years bestow the notion of perfection on him.

 

 

Scherer isn't worth mentioning in the same breath with the others. Even if one doesn't like Wade or Dave, Scherer is on another level far below.

 

Was it Scherer or Ryder who did that story claiming that Bret had signed to lead the Invasion and then quickly backtracked when it was obvious it wasn't true and then denied they ever made such a claim?

I haven't kept track of the number of times they had heads up their asses, either through intentionally lying, or being lied to and being too stupid to realize they were being worked. I would simply say that they rate below Wade (and Meltzer) because they're jokes as "reporters" and, as importably, they are pretty vile human beings.

 

 

John

[Marty]

They both have been dead wrong on things, even on major stories where they dug their feet in and stated that what you were reading elsewhere wasn't correct.

 

When was the last time Dave did that? Not saying you're wrong, because you wouldn't have said so if you were, but I don't remember the last time.

Someone else can supply a "last time" because others probably care more about currrent wrestling than I do and would care about Dave digging his feet in.

 

Does "Kurt Angle will NOT be going to TNA" count?

[JHawk]

In fairness to Meltzer, it was Angle's publicist who told him about Angle. But yeah, that would probably count.

[Marty]

In fairness to Meltzer, it was Angle's publicist who told him about Angle. But yeah, that would probably count.

 

Agreed. That whole thing doesn't change my stance with Meltzer, which is that I turn to him for news before anyone else. The tricky thing is that, since wrestling's a work and all, that sometimes you get other works outside of the ring, such as this one.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I've found that when people bitch about Meltzer they often cite some example of him saying that the three-way World Title match at Wrestlemania XX was going to be a ladder match, but I don't know exactly what he said.

[jdw]

Angle was a matter of Dave being lied to. It happens. I've been right next to him while people have tried to lie to his face, and have laughed with him about it afterwards. But there are times when he doesn't catch it.

 

I don't think Dave dug in on the Angle. He got lied to. Went with it. He found out he was wrong. He addressed what happened.

 

 

John

[Guest HTQ]

I've found that when people bitch about Meltzer they often cite some example of him saying that the three-way World Title match at Wrestlemania XX was going to be a ladder match, but I don't know exactly what he said.

 

All he said was that there was talk of making the WM XX main event a ladder match because it was the 10th anniversary of the Shawn and Razor Ladder match and they wanted to pay tribute to it.

[Loss]

Right. I don't think he ever actually said that would be the case. I think there was also talk of having Undertaker/Kane go last on that show, but he never said that absolutely would be happening either.

[sek69]

Dave's usually smart enough that when he's writing about things that are rumored to leave them open-ended so no one can nail him on getting something wrong, but I don't blame him for the Angle thing. He had every reason to believe that he was being told the truth, and considering how crazy Angle seems to be these days, it probably was the truth at the time.

[Marty]

Right. I don't think he ever actually said that would be the case. I think there was also talk of having Undertaker/Kane go last on that show, but he never said that absolutely would be happening either.

 

Exactly. That sort of thing falls under the same lines of Meltzer's recent report that Undertaker-Batista is in the plans for WrestleMania 23. It may be in the plans NOW (or may now even be a thing of the past) but who knows how things will be come March?

[jdw]

Exactly. That sort of thing falls under the same lines of Meltzer's recent report that Undertaker-Batista is in the plans for WrestleMania 23. It may be in the plans NOW (or may now even be a thing of the past) but who knows how things will be come March?

 

I walked through a bit of that in another thread on the issue of Hogan vs. Sting at Starcade 1994. Dave was reporting on the plans for Hogan that year week after week. They were changing week after week, and he'd mention the changes as he found out more. It wasn't not a matter of Dave being "wrong" when he first intimated that the plan was for Hogan vs. Sting, and then wrong when he wrote that it was changed to Vader vs. Hogan since it turned out to be Hogan-Beefcake in the end. His coverage of it actually was pretty damn good when reading in hindsight. It was an evolving behind-the-scenes storyline over the course of 5 or so months, and as it shifted around, Dave was there with the new dope on what he was hearing.

 

There are things he does end up being wrong on. He's usually pretty good a correcting them within the WON when people point them out.

 

There are times where you kind of wish he'd make better use of his historical resources before he wrote or said something. Not just in running things past people who might have some insight, but also in checking out what he wrote back at the time to confirm or refresh his memory.

 

 

John