What does Meltzer have against Backlund?

[MikeCampbell]

Someone recently uploaded a boatload of old WOL episodes to DVDVR, and during one show the subject of Backlund came up. I'd known before that Dave wasn't a fan of Bob, but he really let it out, saying that Backlund's popularity was all Vince, and that he was carried to all of his good matches.

 

Watching Will's best of Backlund set, I'm wondering what Dave was on, or how many Backlund matches he's seen. I'm at a loss for any other Ivan Koloff singles match as good as Bob's match with him from the first disc, and other than the Boot Camp match with Slaughter, has Iron Sheik had any other really good singles matches?

 

Granted, Bob's methodical style of working isn't for everyone. If you're accustomed to Memphis, Mid South, Continental, etc. then you'll probably find Bob's matches boring. And yes, Bob certainly wasn't the guy Vince Jr. needed as the face of the WWF when he went national. But to just totally dismiss him like that is way off the mark.

[S.L.L.]

I don't know what the specific cause is in Bob's case, but Meltzer in general is a guy who has a hard time reconsidering his opinions. He'll change his reasoning for said opinions as new facts become available/undeniable, but the change in reasoning won't actually change his conclusion (see Tsuruta, Jumbo).

[Bix]

I like when Dave's criticisms get into almost "Bob was retarded" territory.

 

Also, Iron Sheik vs Butch Reed was a lot of fun.

[The Thread Killer]

I know for a fact that Superstar Billy Graham and Dave Meltzer remain in personal contact, and may even consider each other friends. Graham hates Backlund. Plus there is the fact that a lot of people think that Backlund is boring as a dog's ass.

[jdw]

The best thing about Dave is when he forgets what he once thought:

 

"I had the opportunity to

view a number of old Bob

Backlund matches from

78-80, and I must admit

Bob really was an excellent

wrestler. He was weak as

a brawler even then, but

his technique was damn

impressive. The difference

in his speed and work rate

comparing then and now

is simply incredible."

-Dave Meltzer, November 1983 Wrestling Observer Newsletter

 

Same shit with Aja Kong where he totally forgot what he wrote about here in the early 90s.

 

John

[tomk]

Ron Garvin v Iron Sheik from WWC is pretty good and well there is alot of good Ivan Kolloff out there.

 

Has Meltzer really been harsher on Backlund than he is on Tommy Rich.

Unless you work a big bumping style, not a guy who seems to recognize what it is that white meat babyfaces effectively contribute to matches.

[Loss]

I don't know what the specific cause is in Bob's case, but Meltzer in general is a guy who has a hard time reconsidering his opinions. He'll change his reasoning for said opinions as new facts become available/undeniable, but the change in reasoning won't actually change his conclusion (see Tsuruta, Jumbo).

Regarding this, I agree that Dave has tended to retroactively bring down matches he liked (Jumbo/Cactus where he only criticized Cactus' lack of offense at the time) or said nothing about at the time (like the ** house show match where Jumbo supposedly didn't want to work because it was cold). I agree that basing his entire opinion around the thoughts of Mick Foley (who worked with him once in a six minute match), Tom Zenk (who is a sensationalist who says things to get attention), and Terry Funk (who has had great matches with him and has been known to lie himself) is silly. I agree that it's weird that he's adopted a certain point of view on Jumbo after the fact, when he loved him in his heyday.

 

However, the stuff about him not working at that level night after night I don't think has ever really been addressed all that much. Dave's argument has always been that Flair matches that weren't televised were just as good as those that were, and he worked just as hard, while Jumbo wasn't having matches like the classic with Tenryu on 6/5/89 on small house shows. I'm curious -- is there a disagreement with that? I'm not sure I understand the counter-argument to that point, even if I agree with the rest of the argument.

[jdw]

My recollection is that the people who've seen house show footage of non-televised cards have said that Jumbo was very good in them. Dave himself went to non-TV matches, and only one didn't rate well and he *never* indicated in any of those non-TV matches that Jumbo wasn't working hard.

 

The "Only Worked Hard When The Cameras Were On" was about the 5th excuse Dave came up with after the prior ones were shot out of the water. At what point does the burden move from those who keep proving things to be false to the person who keep talking out of his ass?

 

It's like the Friedman Unit: Things are going to turn around in the next six months in Iraq. Tom Friedman started saying this back on November 30, 2003 at the latest. He was still saying that in 2006, with many "six months" comments in between. At some point, you just realize Friedman is full of shit and it's his job to prove he's right.

 

Dave's been wrong on Jumbo seven ways to Sunday. He needs to be right on some of the negative comments / criticism before he rebuilds his credibility on Jumbo.

 

As far as Flair, years ago there was a discussion on Classics that the old "Flair have 4-5 **** matches a week" was largely bullshit.

 

John

[Loss]

Do you have a link to that? Sounds like an interesting read.

[jdw]

Beats me. WC is a pain in the ass to search for a word so common as Flair.

 

*pokes around*

 

Dave Meltzer

Member # 2122

posted 12-29-2002 03:01 AM

 

Not including big shows that I attended or matches in Chicago that I went to in conjunction with Bears games (where he loved to perform because his best friends growing up were there and I only remember him once not hitting **** in that city and it was with a way past his prime Dick Slater), I've got records of seeing Flair wrestle 27 times in the Bay Area, Las Vegas and Los Angeles during the decade of the 80s. Of those, 24 of the matches went more than 20:00 and of the other three, two were 18-20 and one was 14:36 in SF w/Windham against Bigelow & Gilbert. That was the night after a tag in Vegas and was the only match of the 27 that wasn't very good (the Vegas match the night before with the four was awesome and Gilbert after the match told me it was the best match thus far of his career). All the rest ranged between ***1/2 and ****1/2 so I'd say the idea that he did 300 matches a year averaging 25 minutes at near the **** level is surprisingly right on the money.

Ric Flair: Greatest worker, wrestler, or neither of all

 

I suspect it's that one. Goes long, with a jazz side drain at the end.

 

Might not agree with everything that Frank said in there, but the "300 ****" a year average is largely tied to the fact that Dave rates Flair matches really, really, really, really High. I saw those Los Angeles matches with a few exceptions, and the only one that got to **** was the Wargames in 1988. They were "Good" matches, and I enjoyed them. But "good" is ***. If you told me Flair wrestled 300 matches a year that combined to average over ***, I would be more willing to buy it.

 

I suspect I've watched more wrestling sitting next to Dave than everyone else on this board combined. He rates live matches Really High when he's enjoying them. We've been to cards where he had two ****3/4 matches on the show. I enjoyed them, but that's a bit extreme.

 

 

John

 

"I liked it."

-Dave when pushed explaining why the 1/95 Kawada & Taue vs. Misawa & Taue was *****

[jdw]

Oh... and I'm not sure how well the thread reads. A long time ago. I think other arguments over there were better, such as stuff relating to the WON 100 Wrestlers of All-Time book. Those were a few good threads.

 

 

John

[ohtani's jacket]

This is kinda unrelated, but I read a quote from Kawada on Taue where he joked that Taue was from the country and only worked hard when the cameras were rolling. Baba apparently loved Taue, but was frustrated that he didn't work a tenth as hard as Kobashi and would rather go fishing than train.

[Guest DietSoda]

Wow that Frank guy is such a nitpicky jackoff. I don't even like wrestling anymore after reading his posts.

[jdw]

Hell, that's mild.

 

My thought would be that if someone else's criticism of pro wrestling makes you not like wrestling anymore, than you're not a wrestling fan to begin with. We've been faced with criticism of this thing we enjoy from day one:

 

"You like that fake wrestling stuff?"

 

Dealing with criticism is part of being a wrestling fan. We should all be use to it by now.

 

John

[Jingus]

That's the one thing I never understand about the most common criticism from non-fans: YES WE KNOW IT'S FAKE. It's been publicly admitted for decades that it's fake. Watch five minutes of any wrestling show and it's pretty obvious that nobody's even attempting to make this look like a shootfight. Countless books and documentaries have been made about the reality of wrestling. Yet the average joe still legitimately believes that all wrestling fans are slack-jawed yokels who somehow can't see the wrestlers stomping when they punch. Where did the modern mainstream stereotype of "dumb rasslin fans think it's real" originate and how does it stay perpetuated, anyway?

 

I see where Meltzer's coming from on the Flair-house show topic, but it's still based on anecdotal evidence. In theory Ric might've deliberately worked harder if he knew Dave was in the audience. I only saw Flair at one house show, where he had the most godawful match against fucking Nash. Which was worth maybe half a star. If I'm being generous. But obviously I wouldn't assume that all of his untelevised matches were that horrible.

 

Baba apparently loved Taue, but was frustrated that he didn't work a tenth as hard as Kobashi and would rather go fishing than train.

I've got a great mental image of Taue on the shore of some creek, almost losing his grip and nearly falling over as he clumsily nodawas a catfish into a bucket.

[Guest DietSoda]

He's just so goddamn picky about everything. I get that you can be picky about what you like while still enjoying it, but he takes it to a whole new level. He makes it way more complicated than it needs to be or should even thought to be. It's like his life doesn't exist outside of wrestling, to where he examines every fucking little detail instead of just enjoying it for what it is - lame fake shit that no one likes except us.

[tomk]

Amusing thread.

 

Like that Meltzer mentions the superior athleticism of the other guys in comparison. Was hoping for him to list how much Takada and Flair could deadlift vis a vis Doug Furnas too.

 

And reading through wonder how much non big match Jumbo, Jewett watched as I can't imagine him sitting through any of the six man's where he was paired against Hara and did nothing but missed clothesline exchange spots.

[Guest DietSoda]

Tomk where do you stand on the Flair debate?

[Bix]

DietSoda's usually a ridiculous troll but he's 100% right about how Frank comes off in that thread.

[tomk]

Tomk where do you stand on the Flair debate?

On what part of the debate?

 

I’m a guy who likes good formula.

 

 

Don’t care for Takada.

 

Liger I like a lot but is midcard New Japan attraction and an indy draw, for guy in that position don’t know if I feel comfortable ranking him above MX.

 

Jumbo in the 70s leaves me cold. My sense is always wow these two guys could have a great match in them, but this isn't it. Like him in the nineties but would rather watch Baba in the 70s and 80s.

 

Don't know if I've ever seen seventies Flair.

 

I’m not the biggest fan of Footloose Kawada.

 

Kobashi is interesting guy to talk about because this classics thread was written in 2002. I wish I had what I wrote about his GHC win in 2003. But from memory the point was that it had some nice opening stuff and then the post big spot to the floor stuff was well done but in the middle you got the sense that both Misawa and Kobashi needed to study Arn Anderson tapes and learn some formula and comedy spots. That they weren’t very smart about time filling in the middle of match and so just exchanged meaningless suplexes when they should be pointing to their head only to get hit with a left or some such.

 

Anyway Kobashi went on to become the one of the four pillars to successfully figure out how to work from the Top, as the “Man”. No more underdog crying “what will it take”…but actual MAN.

 

Watch the next four years of his career and he never did get the Arn Anderson tapes but instead seems to have gotten the Flair ones. As the way he works as the man is by having all of his opponents work as Ric Flair.

 

“Flair in his "prime" was very much the

"position A to position B" wrestler that

you describe.

...

 

Same spots over and over and over... and

not just against choads like Luger and

Nikita, but against good workers like

Martel and great workers like Gordy.

 

Every match, every opponent, same formula.

 

Frank”

Kobashi built his matches around having his opponent do Flair spots.

Big crowd pleasing Flair comedy spot where Flair tosses opponent into corner for chop only to be reversed in corner and have face win chop exchange.

Flair works the leg, wich leads to figure four, which strong face reverses.

Run the ropes get caught into power slam etc.

 

Didn’t matter who the Kobashi opponent was.

No one who challenged for the GHC belt was a “choad” like Luger and Nikita.

Every match, every opponent, same formula.

 

Against a guy like Yoshinari Ogawa, who always works a chickenshit heel Flair game plan I dug it a lot. Against other guys, it could feel frustrating as felt like he was limiting what it is they do. Still the point of it all is that big formula comedy spots were succesfull, got crowd pops, kept matches moving, and were smarter time filler than just exchanging suplexes (protected Kobashi's health for a couple extra years). Formula works.

 

I’m a guy who likes good formula.

 

That all said, if I was going to do a list of top fifty wrestlers, most likely it would be all luchadors.

[jdw]

He's just so goddamn picky about everything.

I always wonder why people bitch about this.

 

We as humans bitch about all sorts of shit in out lives where we are "too picky". Maybe it's how our boss treats us. Or it's about our wives putting on weight. Or about our favorite team making moves we don't like. Or a sports star sucking. Or that our favorite TV show has gone off the bend. Or that a certain resturant is suck compared to another one.

 

Or why Sid sucked as a worker, or the differences between the period where Lex was a decent worker and when he wasn't.

 

Everyone does that. People bitch about stuff every single day of their lives.

 

Yet when someone gets critical about wrestling, and is willing to explain *why* they're being critical, and then futher defend it... you'll get a host complaining that he's nitpicking, or "thinking too much", or draining the fun out of their wonderful enjoyment of glorious pro wrestling.

 

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the points Frank makes, or the opinions he holds. I certainly do disagree with plenty of them.

 

I don't have a problem with people thinking he's a prick. I certainly do, even when we were friends for a decade.

 

But people knocking him simply because he's critical, and willing to explain why he is...

 

To be blunt, they're being hypocritical fucks.

 

 

I get that you can be picky about what you like while still enjoying it, but he takes it to a whole new level.

The funny thing is that he probably enjoys the wrestling he likes more than just about anyone on this board.

 

I've watched wrestling sitting next to Meltzer, Tennay, Steve Sims, Keller, Mitchell, Phil Schneider, CRZ, Jesse Money (there's a lucha name going back a long time), and old time 60s fans like Bob Barnett and Steve Yohe. I've watched some damn good wrestling with all of them at one time or another.

 

I don't think any of them "enjoyed" what they thought was good werstling any more or any less than Frank did when I watched it with him.

 

People show it differently. My friend Hoback pops like mad when something happens that he digs, which oddly enough Meltzer does too (second fall of Santito & Octagon vs. Eddy & Art). In contrast, Yohe tends to be pretty low key, more flashing it in the sense of articulating in his gruff voice, "This is fucking great." It takes something like his favorite Santito beating Rey Jr. down in Tijuana on a night were we all thought Konnan would book Rey to go over to see Steve match Hoback and Meltzer in a pop.

 

People write about it differently. All of us who dealt with old ECW Boards/Forums/Groups got to see a lot of ECW Fans rambling about the Greatness of ECW and slagging anyone who profained about the works of Pope Paul. One probably can find the same shit on the current ROH Fan Sites. Elsewhere you probably would find more realistic writing about both promotions. Stuart over at New Japan Central cops to being little more than a Promotion Loving House Organ for New Japan. Elsewhere you'd find a bit more realistic talk.

 

Frank wasn't any different from that. Get a match or wrestler he liked, and he'll explain it in detail of someone wanted to talk about it. Get something that he didn't like, he's explain it. Get a wrestler that he thought people were missing the boat on (say Flair in one extreme or Tully being underrated), and he would ramble about it.

 

Folks tended to love it when Frank was agreeing with them because he could at times rip to shreds the folks that they were disagreeing. Folks didn't like it when they disagreed with Frank because it ended up being uncomfortable having that aimed at you. Lord knows I've been on both sides of that.

 

 

It's like his life doesn't exist outside of wrestling,

The old "get a life, get laid" refrain.

 

He does have a life outside of wrestling. Always has had it. It's a reason why he doesn't write about wrestling anymore, and hasn't to a large degree since 2006 or so.

 

I always find this funny coming from people who also watch a good deal of wrestling, spend a lot of time going to live shows, and happen to read and post on wrestling boards. "It's okay for me to do it, but not the people I don't like to do it."

 

In a word: bullshit.

 

 

to where he examines every fucking little detail instead of just enjoying it for what it is - lame fake shit that no one likes except us.

Except that he does enjoy pro wrestling. Just not all of it.

 

The reality is that none of us enjoy all of pro wrestling. I mean, how many of us thought Sid vs. the Nightstalker was a great match? There's stuff on every week that we think is shit. We get tapes or DVDs all the time that have crap on them.

 

We also all are willing to say so.

 

Frank was just more willing to explain why.

 

For some, "I liked it" and "I didn't like it" is enough commentary on why stuff is good or bad.

 

For others, it's not enough.

 

 

John

[jdw]

FWIW - yes, I know it's a troll, and feeding as such. I've simply always found it interesting that:

 

* Criticism In Wresting Is Bad when we are all critical in life in other things

 

* if you're critical about something in wrestling then you must not enjoy wrestling

 

* the old Get A Life saw from someone who is taking the time to read wrestling message boards

 

* the lay back and enjoy it approach

 

This is shit we've all run into over the past decade plus that we've been online.

 

Take the Angle vs. Race vs. Lawler discussion in another thread. Rather than what was an interesting discussion, we could have cut it off after 2-3 posts by dropping all of those on people who were pointing out things they thought were flawed about Harley. They are all as applicable to that thread as to criticism of Flair.

 

But instead, people actually talked about it back and forth.

 

That is why we're on Wrestling Message Boards/Forums/Groups:

 

To write what we think about wrestlers and wrestling

 

We could be Stuart and just write about the rosey happy stuff. Or we could limit critical thinking to stuff like the Benoit killings.

 

But that's pretty limited.

 

 

John

[Tim Evans]

No people should be critical of Meltzer because he has goofs like Todd Martin and Dan Whalers write for his site.

[S.L.L.]

No people should be critical of Meltzer because he has goofs like Todd Martin and Dan Whalers write for his site.

I don't know. That's like saying a 300 lbs. dude isn't fat when he's standing next to a 500 lbs. dude.

[khawk20]

Does Frank even write about wrestling anywhere these days?