The interesting Dave Meltzer posts thread

[Ditch]

If Meltzer has control of the website, he has control over ads. If the RF ads are indirect (ie. through Google), most ad companies let you block certain sites out. I used that when the questionable "kids wrestling federation" or whatever kept popping up on my site. Ugh.

 

I doubt that the F4W guys would say no if Meltzer put his foot down about an advertiser.

[jdw]

Dave has never controlled his websites. He's provided content and been along for the ride.

 

 

John

[sek69]

Dave definitely has had RF ads after the incident took place, I remember in particular one of Dave's daily updates around Halloween 2007 featured him mentioning picking his kid up from school and seeing all the Rey Misterio masks. Due to unfortunate ad placement, there was one of those animated GIF ads for the latest RF shoot right next to it, which added a layer of unintentional creepy.

[Sean Liska]

As a reporter, though, would it be appropriate for Dave to demand all RF ads be blocked? He still has to theoretically cover the guy's promotions (I know he never does, but in theory he may). RF was never convicted of anything. Should Dave block all WWE ads because of the early 90's sex scandals? Should he make sure there aren't any Jimmy Snuka legends figures advertised since he may be a murderer? Should there be no advertisements for upcoming Jerry Lawler indy dates due to the rumors and allegations there?

 

I'm with jdw on this one since Dave doesn't seem to know how to set up an e-mail address. If the internet had been around in 88, he probably wouldn't have paid enough attention to block WWC advertising after Brody's death. But in theory, you could argue that he shouldn't refuse RF advertising.

[sek69]

Being technology-impaired is a poor excuse for running ads from a known pedo (I know almost everyone in the biz is scummy to some degree but he was on the news for it for chrissakes).

 

 

It does kind of make him look bad from a journalistic standpoint when he's spent so much time railing on the drugs/spousal abuse/steroid problems in the major feds but accepts advertisements from a company run by a guy caught in a pedophilia sting.

 

 

Things like the WWF scandals in the 90s and the Jerry Lawler rumors can always be defended as just that, rumor. Especially when it seems like almost everyone who went public against the WWF ended up being revealed as in it for the money. The RF stuff is pretty undeniable, the only reason he didn't end up in jail over it is because he was caught by a group that is known for being overzealous in their pursuits instead of the police.

 

 

I guess if the "he wasn't convicted" defense is all anyone can hang their hat on, maybe wrestling fans are more soulless than I gave them credit for. IMO it sounds too much like people who defend OJ or insist Benoit was framed.

[rovert]

If I am remembering this correctly didnt the top of the page RFVideo banner migrate from the old WO site to F4W Online when the merger took place?

[Sean Liska]

I guess if the "he wasn't convicted" defense is all anyone can hang their hat on, maybe wrestling fans are more soulless than I gave them credit for. IMO it sounds too much like people who defend OJ or insist Benoit was framed.

I'm not defending RF. I'm talking about why it may be a bad idea for Meltzer to take a stand against someone he has to cover - specifically in this industry. Look at his quote about the WWF in the early 90's turning their heads and allowing ring boys to be molested. That's right there with Feinstein. He would have to turn down advertising from them too.

[Bob Morris]

The issue of when does a media outlet turn down advertising from somebody is a sticky issue. Under normal circumstances, those who are doing the reporting have ZERO to do with advertising decisions. At my own paper, I won't even take a classified ad for a garage sale from somebody in the community for two reasons... I don't know how to do ads, and more importantly, it is a conflict of interest for somebody to be in engaging in both reporting and selling ads, because each duty implies you have a different type of business relationship.

 

Dave Meltzer is in a situation that isn't really comparable to typical media for two reasons:

 

1. His newsletter was a one-man operation for so long. I don't know if Dave is ever going to reach a point where he believes he needs to hire somebody else to do the ads for him. As it pertains to his website, as John mentioned, it's always been Dave putting somebody else in charge of the website (not the case with other media outlets, in which the outlet supervisor also supervises the person doing the website) and just sending stuff himself to it.

 

2. Wrestling is filled with scum... the scum may be of varying levels and degrees, but it's scum nonetheless. Any time you deal with somebody who wants to advertise with you, you've got potential scum on your hands.

 

With the way things developed for Dave and others who put together wrestling newsletters, sometimes they are caught between a rock and a hard place. What I really look for them in their writings about subjects is to watch the bias and favoritism.

 

As far as the advertising goes, ideally, they'd get somebody else to do it... but then they'd also get somebody else to be the reporter and become a supervisor for both.

 

I doubt Dave will ever want to become just a supervisor so long as he wants to publish the Observer. When the day comes that Dave decides to get out of the reporting side of the things, I suspect that's also the day the Observer will cease publication.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I think this situation is begging for a Bix call to WOL.

[Bix]

nah

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Hey, if you use one of those Talkboy recorders like in Home Alone 2, Bryan will never recognize your voice.

[jdw]

Being technology-impaired is a poor excuse for running ads from a known pedo (I know almost everyone in the biz is scummy to some degree but he was on the news for it for chrissakes).

I don't know if anyone is offering it up as an "excuse". It's more an "explanation".

 

Dave doesn't run his sites. He doesn't "accept ads" for his sites. The people who give Dave money to put his content up on the web are the ones accepting the ads. Or perhaps more correctly cutting the deal with an ad provider that includes various advertising.

 

Maybe one can toss out that since Dave owns the sites it's his responsibility. Even that's hard, because none of is really know what Dave's website deals are and how "ownership" is dealt with. I don't think it's been as clear cut as Wade's site or even Bob.com when Ryder owned it and Joey was the hidden co-owner.

 

 

It does kind of make him look bad from a journalistic standpoint when he's spent so much time railing on the drugs/spousal abuse/steroid problems in the major feds but accepts advertisements from a company run by a guy caught in a pedophilia sting.

I think that's more the direction to go.

 

It's Dave's "name" and Brand that are out front. If something looks bad, it reflects on Dave and the WON, not the people who run/host/own the site for him.

 

Ignorance isn't an excuse. It is an explanation, but one that only goes so far if the stink gets attached to one's name and brand.

 

Dave doesn't have much control over what Yahoo surrounds his Content with. If Yahoo went off shore and turned into porn heaven, Dave doesn't have any control over that.

 

But if he sticks around, it gets attached to his name.

 

"Oh... he wrote for that porn site."

 

At some point, you have to protect your name and brand.

 

I think on this one, there weren't enough people to notice it and impact his name & Brand for him to do anything about telling the people running the site to take it down. I didn't notice it, probably because I zoned out of the ads and Daily Shill on the site.

 

John

[Loss]

Maybe I give him too much/too little credit, but I don't think Dave is the type to think about his brand or how to increase sales much at all. I think he just genuinely enjoys what he does and just lets the rest take care of itself. Wade Keller is the brand marketer, Dave is just a guy who wants to report the news and talk about wrestling/MMA.

[kjh]

Dave from F4W forums on whether fight of the night bonuses are dishonest to the spirit of competition:

 

Bonuses exist in many sports. Baseball banned them for years, but they are back allowable.

 

As long as the commissions say they are okay, and every commission that regulates has said they are okay, it's not an issue.

 

Besides, do you understand what you are watching?

 

MMA is a professional fighting business. Ergo, it has to be both entertainment and sport if it is to survive.

 

Boxing frequenly outright fixes fights and promotes far more mismatches. The Japanese version of MMA is just the latest step in the historical evolution of the pro wrestling business where wins and losses are secondary to entertainment.

 

The U.S. version is still trying to figure out exactly what it is.

[Bix]

Dave from F4W forums on whether fight of the night bonuses are dishonest to the spirit of competition:

 

Bonuses exist in many sports. Baseball banned them for years, but they are back allowable.

 

As long as the commissions say they are okay, and every commission that regulates has said they are okay, it's not an issue.

 

Besides, do you understand what you are watching?

 

MMA is a professional fighting business. Ergo, it has to be both entertainment and sport if it is to survive.

 

Boxing frequenly outright fixes fights and promotes far more mismatches. The Japanese version of MMA is just the latest step in the historical evolution of the pro wrestling business where wins and losses are secondary to entertainment.

 

The U.S. version is still trying to figure out exactly what it is.

http://www.facepalm.org/

[Loss]

What Dave doesn't seem to understand is that pro wrestling is calculated entertainment, and MMA is incidental entertainment.

 

All sports are entertaining to someone, that doesn't mean that they're purposely setting out to be entertaining.

[Bix]

For now, let's say that everything from here on is F4W unless otherwise noted...

 

Hypothetically, Had Inoki beaten Ali...

It would have made Inoki a worldwide star. It wouldn't have hurt boxing too much, but it would have had people opening up submission schools all over the U.S. 18 years before Royce Gracie changed the corner martial arts academies and people would have hesitated before calling the boxing champ the baddest man on the planet.

 

Think what Royce Gracie did, and multiply it by 20, since Inoki vs. Ali was 20 times bigger than the first few UFCs.

It would have changed martial arts in huge ways. You completely missed the point.

 

Nobody knew anything about subs or wrestling. Would Inoki have become as big as Ali. Of course not. Would Ali have not drawn as well as a boxer. Maybe not quite as well, but probably not a major difference. It was not that people who were Ali fans would have been Inoki fans.

 

Would schools open up everywhere teaching the secrets that made Ali quit? Geez, with 1/10 or less of the pub, they opened up everywhere teaching BJJ after 1993. What do you think?

 

Inoki would have become a far bigger name in sports than Royce Gracie became in the 90s. He wouldn't have been a pro wrestler drawing on top in MSG I don't think, just because he'd be bigger in Japan. But he did a terrible match and it was a draw, and Sr. stiill used him for the next ten years on MSG shows as an outside attraction. Had he won, he'd have been 100 times bigger as an outside attraction.

[kjh]

What bugged me wasn't so much Dave calling Japanese MMA pro wrestling, I'm used to that by now, but that his argument is so behind the curve. Japanese MMA is pretty much dead to the mainstream media and public nowadays. All the freakshow fights they booked didn't lead to anything more than a big short term fad. UFC would be wise to learn from some of their mistakes. Also, hasn't Dave pointed out numerous times that UFC's recent PPV success compared to the struggles of WWE and TNA is that wins and losses do matter and their title belts are protected.

[jdw]

The Inoki thing is intesting.

 

Would it have opened up schools?

 

Sure, if Inoki gave a shit about them. I don't think Inoki would have cared all that much. The difference is that the Gracies were running schools before UFC. It mattered to them. They wanted to push their "art". Inoki wanted to push himself more than his art, more than pro wrestling, more than New Japan.

 

Would he have been bigger in Japan? Sure. He also would have instantly worked to protect himself so that he didn't lose. True MMA that we saw in 90s wouldn't have sprung up in Japan *around* Inoki simply because of the way he protected his spot. It would have had to spring up from and away from him: he launches it, but very quickly the more talented fighters bail because Inoki won't let them fight him. In the meanwhile, New Japan would have been paying people to dive for Inoki. And if anyone more talented than him shot on him and jumped to the opposition, Inoki would be toast.

 

In terms of Charisma, Inoki was the right man for the moment in Japan.

 

In terms of MMA talent and the willingness to lose with the spotlight going to other people, Inoki would have been the wrong man for the moment as soon as the business blossomed beyond his ability to complete have it controlled. Anyone who thinks he'd play Sakuraba and get his ass kicked repeatedly is hitting the bong. That isn't in Inoki.

 

How long before we saw what happened in Japan in MMA: the natives getting their asses kicked, mob problems, other issues? Who knows.

 

As far as the US...

 

Ali was bigger than anything that was in the Martial Arts sporting world in the 90s or 00s. Bigger than Tyson, and Tyson was rather huge at his peak.

 

But I'm not sure that Inoki submitting Ali in that match the way it was built to and played in the US would have meant a great deal.

 

It wasn't built as MMA vs Boxing.

 

It was built as Pro Wrestling vs Boxing, and other than a very limited number of even Pro Wrestling Fans in the US, no one took the thing seriously. They didn't even take it seriously enough to pay attention to it. It became a joke because of Inoki's tactics. I'm not sold that a skilled Inoki "shooting" on Ali, taking him down and submitting him in two minutes would have gotten lasting run in the US. Ali and boxing people/fans would have dimissed it - they're boxers, not wrestlers... and there are no chokeholds in boxing.

 

An MMA "business" would have had to sprung up in that era to be any threat to boxing. Around Inoki? It wasn't going to happen.

 

The 70s were a different era. Three networks, and local channels. Someone would have had to create MMA and then push it. Not impossible, but hard to see. All the issues that popped up in the 90s would have popped up in the 70s, and the forces against MMA would probably have been even stronger at that time since Boxing was stronger.

 

Not impossible. But I think one needs to be careful projecting the mid-90s and the 00s back into the late 70s, and what UFC/Pride did into what would have happened back then if Inoki "beat" Ali.

 

John

[Death From Above]

I've never heard anyone outside of wresling message boards ever mention that the Inoki/Ali fight exists. I'm sure it's a "historical" deal in Japan that more causal followers would know, but on a worldwide level Inoki/Ali doesn't really mean anything, because no one outside of hardcore wrestling fans, or the Japanese, will acknowledge it even happened. And even if you get it acknowledged, the boxing world (who last time I checked have had plenty of pull in the media for a long time, and certianly had a massive amount in Ali's time) would never have acknowledged it as a shoot, "well yeah he fought a PRO WRESTLER and lost WINK WINK" would have been the path. Boxing is still trying to sell people on MMA being a low brow kind of "dirty fighting" vs. Boxing as the "sweet science", because it's a promotional tactic that appeals to a (dwindling) section of fans that believe in the sport as a whole. There's absolutely no way a pro wrestler beating Ali wouldn't have been buried in the media a thousand different ways no matter how legit it actually was.

 

Even if Inoki had won, I think you'd have a hard time convincing the general public that "some pro wrestler" beat Ali in a legit fight. Fans who didn't know any better would just blow it off as bullshit even if it wasn't because that's exactly what they would have been fed. Pro wrestling is bullshit, so a pro wrestler beating Ali must thus also be bullshit. It's flawed logic but it's a very easy path to get people to walk down.

 

It would have been a prime example of people teling a lie enough that it became accepted as fact by the general public.

 

EDIT: Should have read John's post first I guess, he basically says the same thing there. Well two points are better than one I suppose.

[kjh]

Dave on people complaining about his SuperBrawl II ratings today:

 

Steamboat-Rude dragged live in the building. I was there.

 

You rate matches on that day, not for 17 years later. Nobody had seen a match like Liger-Pillman in the U.S. up to that point in time. It was the kind of match people talked about for years and the other matches on that show were forgotten the next day. When the show was over, nobody was talking about anything but Liger & Pillman, and not just that day but in WCW for some time to come.

 

Michaels vs. Razor at WM X pales in comparison to later ladder matches, but on that day, it blew people away like very few matches in history had.

[jdw]

It's funny... but I still prefer the Mania Shawn-Razor of ladder matches than have come since. I don't think it's a gimmick that has gotten better over the years with more "creativity" and "crazier shit". Stuff like the TLC's where just bigger clusterfucks, whereas the clusterfuck elements of the Mania match worked for what it was and hold ups to me.

 

On Rude-Steamboat, I actually recall writing (faxing) into the PPV poll that I liked the match. I pretty sure that I was one of the people who voted Windham & Rhodes vs Austin & Zbysko as the best match on the show, but that SuperBrawl part wasn't the part of the fax that was published in the 3/9/92 issue.

 

90% of the readers felt Liger-Pillman was the best match on the card, so it's going to stick in the memory. It also got votes for MOTY, so again it's going to stand out.

 

 

John

[kjh]

Yeah, the ladder match comment was strange, as the WM X match is still very highly thought of and is still talked about as one of the greatest matches in company history. None of the later ladder matches are still held in such high regard, even if they blew people away on the day. Part of that is that ladder matches have become so common that they all blur together, but part of it is that the "crazier shit" with all the props takes time to set up and can telegraph the finish.

[Loss]

For whatever it's worth, I consider SuperBrawl II the best pay-per-view of all time.

[Bob Morris]

Well, there is sometimes the debate as to which of the Razor-Shawn PPV ladder matches is better, the one at WMX or the one at SummerSlam 95.

 

Otherwise, the only ladder match that really stands out for me was Rock/HHH at SummerSlam 98, although the fact HHH really was injured makes it hard to judge how good he really was at selling the effects of the match.