Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Dave Meltzer stuff


Loss

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

Just playing devil's advocate, what's the relative benefit to seeing MMA live?

Wrestling is an art, where knowing the result doesn't ruin it, while MMA is a sport and if you know the result, then why watch?

 

 

Yeah but 6 million people watched Diaz-McGregor 1 on youtube over the past two weeks. Doesn't seem that the drama, art and technique involved is lost once the outcome is known.

 

I never heard that "needs live" coverage argument compared to pro wrestling but whenever Meltzer says he's gotta talk about MMA first on the show it's usually because it's the "bigger" story that day across all sports media or "people keep asking me" or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think watching 1-on-1 combat sports after the event is different to watching other sports. You can notice clever little tactical moments on rewatch or spot the turning point when the momentum starts to shift in a way you can't really do with team sports. I know from personal experience that I've watched my DVD of Calzaghe vs Lacy numerous times, whilst my copy of the 1987 FA Cup final has been watched once in the background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression combat sports are more interested in the actual action than just winning/losing. Team sports are popular because they're a competition of brands that people get attached to for stupid reasons like liking a colour or a name. And with that popularity comes a system aimed at producing as much content as possible and the average fan watches three minute highlights and talks shit about a game he didn't watch based on the result and statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is an issue worth criticizing Dave for at all, but by his own standards, I will say if he doesn't watch all wrestling as it happens, then he's looking at it through an out-of-context lens. Standards change constantly, even from day to day after all. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to bother looking at the responses to that because any time Dave brings up a Mexican wrestler or promotion the responses are staggeringly stupid. He's had TNAMecca type people in his mentions for the past few days arguing that TNA is a bigger promotion than CMLL "because they have more international TV deals!" despite the fact that CMLL probably makes more money in a month than TNA does in a whole year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would venture that CMLL , AAA , NJPW , Dragon Gate , NOAH and ROH all bank more cash than TNA. People seem to forget that ROH does not buy air time or share their ad revenue . All the revenue that ROH TV generates goes straight into SBGI pockets. TNA has a barter deal on POP TV , which some people think is better than actually owing the free broadcast stations that carries your wrestling program. .

 

ROH is the clear cut number two promotion in America. TNA cannot even run house shows or sell shows anymore. I find it comical that Billy Corgan tells anyone who will listen that TNA is the number two wrestling promotion in the world. Hell , TNA is not even number two in North America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so Dave on twitter said that Raw was close to being cancelled around the same time USA cancelled Tuesday Night Fights. A quick search says TNFs was cancelled in August 1998 right when Raw was going through a ratings resurgence. So this can't be the right time frame, can it? I would have to say sometime in 95/96. Never heard Raw was close to being axed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://articles.courant.com/1998-04-12/sports/9804120196_1_elijah-tillery-usa-tuesday-night-fights-troy-dorsey

 

This article dates the decision to cancel TNF as early as April. IIRC, the Raw ratings resurgence started in April with the Austin/McMahon non-match. There's also the always present issue of viewer demographics that figures into these decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he was definitely "decent enough" to outclass indy gods Kevin Owens and Seth Rollins in the four way. The idea that he's bad at selling is also really funny but I guess maybe in Dave's book that means he spends too much time doing it instead of doing a bunch of moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are we really going to keep acting like Roman is some kind of super worker now? I mean, yes he's improved from when he was just the big scary dude in the Shield, but I feel like a lot of this Reigns love is a kneejerk reaction to fans continuing to boo him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are we really going to keep acting like Roman is some kind of super worker now? I mean, yes he's improved from when he was just the big scary dude in the Shield, but I feel like a lot of this Reigns love is a kneejerk reaction to fans continuing to boo him.

 

I really don't think it's a stretch at all to say that he's better than Seth Rollins, who does a lot of cool moves but is terrible in his role as a top heel. And Rollins has been pushed just as hard by the company as a top star as Reigns has but doesn't get any shit whatsoever in spite of some glaring flaws in his game. If Reigns had have come through NXT two years later than he did he wouldn't be hated by people still pretending that he can't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...