jdw Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I don't really take that as a wrestler comment. It reads more aimed at people who are watching older matches, or rethinking matches (such as the one Bix tossed out). I don't think wrestler care too much about that, especially since most of the feedback they likely are to get on older matches is fawning. Does that sound like something that Cornette would say? Because I suspect most of what Jimbo gets on his older matches is people thinking they're The Shit. One doubts that Flair gets any of the critical comments tossed around about his work, and if he did, he wouldn't give a shit. He cares more about what Bret Hart and Terry Funk say about his work than what the DVDVR Folks do. The comment sounds more of a defense from: People Are Questioning This Old Match Rating and: People Are Rethinking Wrestler X Bix could give a better context to it. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I don't even remember how it got brought up, though it segued into Bryan rewatching Hogan-Warrior II and noting that he didn't think it was close to -5* anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 They weren't saying you can only rate matches when you see them live. They were saying watching a match when it first airs and then watching it 20 years later; you'll probably have a different perspective on it. However, that doesn't change the fact that at the time it happened it might have been a 4-5 star match, regardless of how the business has evolved. Dave was saying that he doesn't rerank matches or change his star ratings because of that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I don't really take that as a wrestler comment. I haven't heard the latest installment of "rethinking matches and wrestlers is so totally unfair", but I've heard a previous installment and IIRC Dave backed up his opinion by pointing to what the boys have told him. Basically that they work matches for the fans watching live not for a handful of geeks who watch the matches years later after the fact. I'm sure part of the comment stems from Dave and Bryan being defensive about their past analysis being questioned, but part of it seems to stem from the insecurities of the workers themselves who've had an online backlash over the years (for example, sometimes Bryan seems like a mouthpiece for Shawn Michaels, such as putting over how well worked and booked DX's recent Hell In The Cell main event with Legacy was, despite the crowd reacting disappointingly to it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 They weren't saying you can only rate matches when you see them live. They were saying watching a match when it first airs and then watching it 20 years later; you'll probably have a different perspective on it. However, that doesn't change the fact that at the time it happened it might have been a 4-5 star match, regardless of how the business has evolved. Dave was saying that he doesn't rerank matches or change his star ratings because of that reason.Oh, and your post reminded me that it was based on an email asking if Dave would ever re-evaluate and re-rate matches that don't seem to hold up anymore. They did also mention wrestlers saying "we didn't work X match in 1994 for someone on tape in 2009" and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Someone should pull the Foley quote from the first book about how he always upped the ante for commercial video because he knew that was how his career would be most remembered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 This is all kind of odd. So Dave and Bryan ignore the matches when they get those wrestler DVDs, like the WWE's Flair or Michaels DVDs? John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm not sure if this is the one you're thinking of, Loss, but this was the only one coming to mind. "I tried to take care of the poor guy, but I'd be lying if I said I cared more about his physical well-being than the well-being of the videotape. His pain would go away, eventually, the video wouldn't." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 So Dave and Bryan ignore the matches when they get those wrestler DVDs, like the WWE's Flair or Michaels DVDs? Dave certainly does. Have you ever read a Meltzer WWE DVD review that mentioned anything about the matches on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm not sure if this is the one you're thinking of, Loss, but this was the only one coming to mind. "I tried to take care of the poor guy, but I'd be lying if I said I cared more about his physical well-being than the well-being of the videotape. His pain would go away, eventually, the video wouldn't." Close. He said the words "commercial video" specifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I got it. Give me a minute or two to type it out. This match was being filmed for commercial videotape release in Japan, and that fact made a great deal of difference. It was not as if I hadn't been wrestling hard of the frozen, miniscule crowds, but video always upped the ante, even if I knew I'd never see a cent of the profits. There is something about commercial video that represents immortality, because I know that when I'm done, commercial videotape will be the greatest representation of what my career stood for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Thanks, that's the one! "There is something about commercial video that represents immortality" is the key part there. This implies he put thought into how his matches would look years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 This is all kind of odd. So Dave and Bryan ignore the matches when they get those wrestler DVDs, like the WWE's Flair or Michaels DVDs? John A few months ago, Alvarez was talking about how he's been watching some 1989 WCW matches and while he enjoyed some of them (he said some of the basics from some workers were better than some today), he said he couldn't get into the finishes since he claimed they ruined the match for him: "The one thing that I will always notice is that I would watch these matches, and I'll be 'God these guys are great, this is a really good match, it's holding up', and then the thing that kills it is always the finish. The finishes, and it's because, I guess part of the reason is because as wrestling has evolved, things that used to be finishes, aren't necessarily finishes anymore. Or guys use new things, or what used to be a finish before become a nearfall. I mean, you watch a match out of 89, and guys will be a great match or anything like that. And then somebody will hit a double arm suplex and pin the guy. And that would never happen in 2009! And you watch it and you kinda think 'What the hell was that finish?!?'. Or some guy will do a vertical suplex for the pin, and those are the things that don't hold up in 2009. But if you took a lot of those matches and added a modern finish to them, they would hold up just fine and a lot of them would hold up fine, and a lot of them would look a lot better than the matches nowadays." - Bryan Alvarez I thought some of you would find this recent Meltzer/Alvarez claim very amusing and mind boggling: "The Shawn Michaels of 1992 would probably be the best worker in the business." - Dave Meltzer "He would undoubtedly be actually!" - Bryan Alvarez "Yeah." - Dave Meltzer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Who in 1989 WCW used a double arm suplex or a vertical suplex as a finisher? How is Shawn Michaels' superkick more impressive than Muta's moonsault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah, no one at the time in WCW was using those as finishers and they were usually mid-level offense in Flair matches. One of reasons I posted both quotes was that it was pretty funny considering that in 1992, HBK was using a really shitty suplex as his finisher that was totally inferior to a vertical suplex and a double arm suplex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Please, I'm begging you, just e-mail you're reactions and questions to Meltzer and Bryan so they can react on the shows instead of bitching about it behind closed doors like you all are doing. You're just taking quotes out of context and applying you're own biases towards them. Them talking about Michaels' work in 1992 had nothing to do with his finisher. Them talking about the WCW Great American Bash finishes had nothing to do with Muta. You're generalizing everything they say. Seriously, e-mail you're responses to them so they can respond on a Wrestling Observer Radio and if they still come off like goofs, then there you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Of all the people in 1992 to pick to make their point, they picked Shawn - who wasn't much of a worker and was struggling with his singles matches - and Bret Hart - who also was far from his peak as a worker and was not great yet. In 1992, there were literally a dozen better workers in WCW, and one could make the argument that there were a hundred others around the world that were better workers than Hart and Michaels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Please, I'm begging you, just e-mail you're reactions and questions to Meltzer and Bryan so they can react on the shows instead of bitching about it behind closed doors like you all are doing. You're just taking quotes out of context and applying you're own biases towards them. Them talking about Michaels' work in 1992 had nothing to do with his finisher. Them talking about the WCW Great American Bash finishes had nothing to do with Muta. You're generalizing everything they say. Seriously, e-mail you're responses to them so they can respond on a Wrestling Observer Radio and if they still come off like goofs, then there you go. They're making the comments on a members-only radio show, we're making the comments on an anyone-can-view-it message board that allows anyone to register, and we're the ones doing it behind closed doors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Pretty much considering their radio show is listened to by so many more people than read this board. Who cares if its members only? They comment on wrestling, then you all deride their views behind their backs. And it is behind their backs, because all you have to do message them. You have a fanatical jealousy against the two of them or something. Otherwise, I don't why some of you would pick apart every little comment they make. But yes, they're the ones doing radio shows for thousands, and you're the ones making snide remarks in a little corner, so yeah I'd say its "behind closed doors". If one of you called them directly on a mistake they made, it would look better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 There's no "behind their backs" about it. There is no intent to hide anything, nor is anything hidden. Plenty of people here have gone back and forth with one or both of them in the past on a number of subjects. After you do it a few times, you realize it accomplishes nothing. For me, there is no one on any message board more frustrating to argue with than Bryan Alvarez, so I'd rather not. And who's jealous? Dave Meltzer is great at what he does, and I enjoy reading what he writes. Far more often than not, I agree with what he says. To quote Bix, you can criticize something a lot and still like it. There is not a personal element here, it's a disagreement (several disagreements I guess) with specific points made. If you've seen a lot of the regulars at this board argue points, I would say most people probably attack each other with more venom when they disagree here than they ever attack Dave or Bryan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Oh I know. Honestly, I come here just to read the conversations you guys have since you put more thought and effort into what you write than anything over at the F4W board. But I was just saying it's annoying to listen to shows Dave and Bryan do and then come over here and see someone latch onto one innocent comment one of them made. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Dave is aware of the board and has read stuff here, nothing's behind his back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Beast, why do you come into this thread at all? The title alone should tell you it's not your thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Beast, why do you come into this thread at all? The title alone should tell you it's not your thing. WTF? The thread started as a showcase of the horrible columns that sometimes get posted on the observer site. Now it's degenerated into a bitchfest about remarks Dave has made. Now, I mainly read it just to see what people are making fun of. Why so sensitive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Not sensitive at all. I just have no clue why you feel the need to come into a thread and defend the honor of Dave and Bryan any time they are criticized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.