Dave Meltzer stuff

[fxnj]

I agree that Dave's hot takes seem to be his main method of keeping himself relevant, but I see things a bit differently in getting there. If anything, WWE's pivot towards appealing to hardcore fans has created a larger market than ever for dirtsheet writers and the situation with social media has made it so that, reliability notwithstanding, virtually anyone with an internet connection can make a name for themselves reporting and speculating on rumors. I recall the news of John Cena and Bryan getting pulled from Crown Jewel being broken by a virtual no-name, for example. This has created a situation where Meltzer is slowly getting crowded out of the game, so playing up his status as a historian and inciting controversy is the best he can do to keep his name out there. I personally haven't been subscribed to the Observer for close to a decade, as it's made pointless by the sheer number of dirtsheets out there posting and analyzing anything Dave writes within hours of it going up.

[...TG]

Presented without comment:
 

[returner82]

Stick that face is some dough and make some gorilla cookies!

[...TG]

I was so shook by Dave's sweater I didn't even notice the jacket he's holding. Jim Valley has a better photo of it:

 

[El-P]

Holy shit, between Meltz basically calling Prichard outdated (well, he said that his knowledge is about the past, which is part of why it didn't work out in MLW with the younger talent) and a yesman and Jarrett saying during the (excellent) interview that he was basically a gofer for Patterson and a non-factor in his life, Brucie's got piled on quite on bit on this episode ! 

To his credit, Meltz said maybe it was gonna help the product in some respect. But the most interesting point to me is that he mentioned Bruce had been a soldier for Vince in both wars against Crockett and WCW, and he's basically the last of this kind. Hiring a guy like this kinda speaks volume of the mindset of Vince these days.

 

[KawadaSmile]

Some of the shit he is saying regarding Roman's leukemia is downright insane.

"He says he took a chemo pill buy I don't think it was" is gross 

[SirEdger]

Someone should've clued Uncle Dave that patients are indeed given pills for chemo at a certain stage in their treatment.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Ok, this "Uncle Dave" shit needs to stop post haste. It's not ok. It's weird, and I don't care for it.

[hammerva]

As creepy as calling Dave "uncle", still isn't as creepy as him and other "reporters" trying to get this holy grail that Reign's leukemia is fake   But I guess that is what our society is based on now.    

[Migs]

I read the Observer this week and he doesn't suggest anywhere that the leukemia is fake, at all. 

[El-P]

Yeah, let's not be completely ridiculous, this place isn't Twitter (yet). He never ever even implied something like that.

On the other hand, he saying the Ronda stuff is "completely different" from Russo's shooty-shooty stuff is ridiculous.

[hammerva]

Then why does he have to constantly poke holes at things.  When it was announced he had leukemia to mentioned how this timeline doesn't work and that timeline doesn't work.  Now he is telling people that you don't take pills when we know they can.  Like what is the damn benefit in this.  Is he that neurotic?

Dave doesn't believe it is fake but he sure as hell loves to gives the morons who think it is ammunition.  

[sek69]

He was correcting himself that Roman's first bout with it ended his football career when he played for one more year after. That's all. He wasn't trying to poke holes or "truther" anything. 

Dave doesn't give the morons ammunition, cut and paste sites and shitty podcasts that deliberately misrepresent him do. 

His insane need to correct any error he comes across is 99% of his problem on Twitter too.

[C.S.]

It doesn't help when you have bottom feeders like Dave Scherer and Ryan Satin (a friggin' TMZ guy somehow being a respected professional wrestling journalist tells you how low the bar is) piling on Meltzer for something they probably didn't hear him say firsthand. I'm no Meltzer apologist, but this rush to judgment by other "reporters" on Twitter strikes me as gross and jealous.

[SomethingSavage]

25 minutes ago, C.S. said:

Twitter strikes me as gross and jealous.

Fixed for ya.

[Jmare007]

I hope more people got upset at Satin tbh because the clip he used to accuse Dave doesn't help Ryan's case at all.

 

You know what though? Dave has been doing audio shows for 20+ years and he STILL can't get a single fucking point across without sounding convoluted. Any delicate topic he touches has to be analyzed in detail because "Meltzer speak" isn't for everybody. He kinda sucks at communicating and he's been doing this for too damn long, let the trolls have at it.

[hammerva]

I will agree that I sure as fuck don't want Dave Scherer to tell about what is offensive or not.  He has been the lead asshole at PWInsider with this phony tough guy thing he is trying to portray for decades. 

 

[El-P]

I have not listened to Lance Storm in years, but I did listen to his rant on the shooty-shooty stuff promo by Ronda this week and it's kinda glorious. Him mentionning David Arquette reminded me why I usually liked Storm's rants in the past.

[C.S.]

Dave Scherer apparently posted this phony baloney on his website:

(I've never been there because it used to have a massive reputation for infecting its readers' PCs with spyware. Whether that's still the case, I don't know. But I will never support or respect a site that doesn't care enough about its own fanbase to give them a safe browsing experience at the very least.)
 

Quote

Q: One of your competitors (name deleted since I would rather deal with the actions than besmirch the individual) said on one of his audio shows, about Roman Reigns’ cancer treatment, “He said the pill was oral chemotherapy but I don’t think it was.”  This led to him being attacked on Twitter (rightfully so in my opinion) and Nia Jax saying that the reporter was a piece of s***.  She also said, “The fact that u make statements about people’s health, when u have zero knowledge about it is ridiculous. If u do have access 2 superstars PERSONAL medical info, that is a HUGE violation of HIPAA & I’m sure that’s not the case. So shut ur mouth”.  

The reporter then tweeted, “On the Reigns treatment, there are different options that include a pill that is oral chemo and that is what he said he was taking and there’s no reason not to believe that, so I stand corrected on that.”

I subscribe to both of your sites (for now) and have a few questions on this situation.

Does it surprise you that someone in his position would say something like this?  I understand speculating on storylines and character development but isn’t off limits to question a person’s integrity, especially when it’s in conjunction with him fighting a relapse of cancer?

DS: I will be completely honest with you, when I saw this question I thought it had to be someone trolling the site.  There is no way that I could see someone of the person you mentioned stature ever being a party to something like this, as frankly I find it pretty despicable.  Then I looked on Twitter (wow, that was a handful) and saw the fallout for all of this.  Ordinarily, I would not get involved in this since it’s about a competitor but I think there is a lot we all can learn here about this situation, especially him (and I hope he does).  Obviously, he was completely in the wrong here by speculating on what kind of treatment Reigns received.  That is not something anyone in our position should speculate on in my opinion.  If Reigns wants to tell the world the exact course of meds he took, that is for him to do.  Unless this person had facts to PROVE Reigns wasn’t telling the truth, he should have never speculated and made the callous statement that he did.  That’s insensitive, wrong and just indecent to do.

One of the things I saw him mention on Twitter was that he has researched Reigns’ kind of cancer and the treatment for it.  Well, perhaps no one close to him has had cancer but a number of people close to me have and I can tell you from first hand experience that in the case of many cancers, different oncologists prescribe different therapies to try and eradicate the insidious disease.  Many cancers are anything BUT uniform.  It’s not like when you break a bone and there is pretty much one treatment.  There can be many courses of action to treat a given cancer.  While one person may take IV chemo, another may take oral.  A lot of factors go into that.  The reporter saying that a hockey player had leukemia and didn’t miss a game doesn’t mean anything where Reigns is concerned and should never have been used a point of finite, direct comparison.  To answer your question, in a situation like this, I take the person at their word.  When you add in that Roman is a straight up guy with no history that would question one to doubt him, it makes the above statement even more disturbing.

Q: I have noticed that your site has chosen to not pry into Reigns’ treatment and recovery while his site has done the opposite.  What is your site’s position on situations like this?

DS: As I said above, I have dealt with too many people close to me being forced to fight the heinous disease.  I have seen the battle that they have fought.  It’s very, very personal and I respect that.  When Roman announced he was fighting cancer, that is all I felt we needed to cover.  I didn’t need or want to pry into the how of his fight.  That is his personal business, not that of the wrestling world.  If he chooses to share it, then it’s news.  Until then, it’s not.  And, it’s sure as hell not something I think any of us should speculate on.  I find doing that to be downright indecent.  I understand that some people will disagree with me on that, but I feel how I feel.  I think digging into someone’s personal life on that level is very tabloid trash and I want no part of that.

Q: Maybe the most disgusting thing about this scenario is what this person didn’t do, and that’s apologize.  This is the second time he has done something like this (the last time was with Peyton Royce) and not issued a real apology?  In fact, an hour before he posted his “correction”, he wrote this: “It's amazing that people who don't read nor listen say I'm bashing Roman Reigns.  Like explaining an illness in detail with real sports examples and different strains and side effects is bashing.  Talk about reading is your friend.”  It’s like he didn’t even listen to what he said.  Does this guy really not know how he comes across?  Is he unable to say he is sorry for what he did?

DS: I was on the fence about even running this until I saw this question.  That changed my mind.  I don’t know whether he doesn’t know how he comes off or if he just can’t say he is sorry.  Frankly, neither would a good thing.  Either way, it shows an arrogance to me that I hope, if he were to read this, he would consider.  I have spoken to this person on a number of occasions in the past and can tell you that he speaks in a rambling kind of tone.  He tends to fit a lot of words into a single sentence and my hope here is that what he said and tweeted sounded different in his head than how it came across in the mediums.  Clearly, when you question whether someone is telling the truth about the kind of cancer medicine he took and you find out you were wrong, your mea culpa should, at very least, contain an “I’m very, very sorry for my mistake” in them.  His whatever it is, barely acknowledged how wrong he was, and contained no apology at all for saying something that was pretty despicable.  I think he owes Reigns a lot more than that.  I hope he sees the light and give Reigns the apology that he deserves.  It’s never fun to be wrong but when you are, you need to be a man and own it.

1. I do not believe for a second that a fan - much less multiple fans - actually wrote these letters and/or cares what Scherer, of all people, thinks about Meltzer (who has laughably been given the Voldemort treatment here).

2. Even if multiple fans who obviously have no life did indeed write these letters, Scherer's fake "white knight" act is so nauseating and disingenuous to me. 

[Strummer]

Just a thought/observation here.  Scott Keith is often criticized for being a relic.  His opinions and takes are stuck in 1998.  Times have pasted him by., etc

there seems to be a trend (at least to a degree) online and on twitter of "just sit back and enjoy the show. It's just wrestling" and "it's simple storytelling not meant to be analyzed" .  Yet Dave and Bryan are being critical of everything and anything like it's 2003 or something.  These newer, younger and more positive fans see them as behind the times and relics.  I mean I don't disagree with all their takes myself but man they seem to get slaughtered online daily.

just reminded me of SK.  Once seen as source material and now vilified (although varying)

[TonyPulis'Cap]

12 hours ago, Strummer said:

Just a thought/observation here.  Scott Keith is often criticized for being a relic.  His opinions and takes are stuck in 1998.  Times have pasted him by., etc

there seems to be a trend (at least to a degree) online and on twitter of "just sit back and enjoy the show. It's just wrestling" and "it's simple storytelling not meant to be analyzed" .  Yet Dave and Bryan are being critical of everything and anything like it's 2003 or something.  These newer, younger and more positive fans see them as behind the times and relics.  I mean I don't disagree with all their takes myself but man they seem to get slaughtered online daily.

just reminded me of SK.  Once seen as source material and now vilified (although varying)

This is a really interesting point, and one I've also been thinking about, particularly with the reviews of Fastlane last night. I know that online/Twitter, and indeed any discourse about anything these days is increasingly polarised - things are either amazing or terrible with nothing in between. But there definitely seems to be something of an increasing disconnect, particularly when it comes to modern day WWE, between a lot of fans online (admittedly this very anecdotal) and what we call wrestling journalists or media.

Looking at feedback on last night I was seeing from people on Twitter there seemed to be lots of positivity and that people thought the way the show was booked pushed forward storylines in an interesting way. Yet the reviews from some of the more 'established' names or writers for news sites are saying that the current booking to Wrestlemania is at WCW 2000 levels of storytelling, which I presume is not being highlighted as a positive.

[Migs]

1 hour ago, TonyPulis'Cap said:

This is a really interesting point, and one I've also been thinking about, particularly with the reviews of Fastlane last night. I know that online/Twitter, and indeed any discourse about anything these days is increasingly polarised - things are either amazing or terrible with nothing in between. But there definitely seems to be something of an increasing disconnect, particularly when it comes to modern day WWE, between a lot of fans online (admittedly this very anecdotal) and what we call wrestling journalists or media.

Looking at feedback on last night I was seeing from people on Twitter there seemed to be lots of positivity and that people thought the way the show was booked pushed forward storylines in an interesting way. Yet the reviews from some of the more 'established' names or writers for news sites are saying that the current booking to Wrestlemania is at WCW 2000 levels of storytelling, which I presume is not being highlighted as a positive.

I wonder if a lot of this has to do with the way the product is consumed now. Dave still watches and reviews every episode of Raw and Smackdown. He looks at the linear storytelling (and I'd assume a lot of other writers, too). Whereas lots of people now don't do that. And so when the booking week to week is a mess (the women's main event storyline is completely convoluted at this point - they appear to be retconning out segments as they go based on what the story is that day), that's less of a problem for a modern fan - either because they're not noticing or they just shrug and accept it. The question is now "Did the match I want to see happen?" and "Did the person I like win?" So there's a real disconnect between the viewers and a large segment of the fan base.

[Superstar Sleeze]

I called Scott Keith out on a Twitter for clickbait headline that read "Meltzer is accusing Roman of faking cancer" and if you click the link, he says that is not true and Meltzer has been defending the legitimacy of Roman's illness. This pissed me off even more! Because so many people would just read the headline and think Meltzer actually believe it is a work. Keith himself says Meltzer is not doing that. I have felt indebted to Keith because he was the free PPV reviewer when I was a kid. If it was not for him, I would never have gotten into the rich history of pro wrestling, but after this incident fuck that guy. 

To me Meltzer on Twitter has been unequivocally clear that Roman's cancer was legitimate and he as been fighting trolls that think it is a work. I dont listen to his audio, but it seems like he does himself no favors, but to me it is very obvious he believes in Roman. 

As for the disconnect with current critics of pro wrestling, normally I take a "WWE is very mediocre" approach and that extremists on both sides blow it out of proportion. I thought last night was a good-to-great in-ring night, but from story perspective was a total bomb and can believe I saw so many positive tweets from a booking perspective. Shane/Miz has been booked really well and besides Miz's Dad being a total dud and severely undercutting the gravitas of the story with his no selling and they booked it to a logical next step. Besides Shane/Miz, there was nothing. The Handicap match was stupid and pointless. They cut off Owens' and Ali's balls. It was great to see The Big Dog back, but Ambrose should have turned heel. RAW women's main event has become an insane Heyman ECW 2000 angle. People bitch about Russo, but watch Heyman in 1999-2000 in ECW, it is just as bad. Tons of shitty worked shoot promos, Cyrus using insider language. This has Heyman's finger prints all over it. Point is Meltzer has every right to call this WCW 2000 trash because it is flirting with it. 

 

 

[El-P]

15 hours ago, Strummer said:

These newer, younger and more positive fans see them as behind the times and relics.

aka "non-thinking". That's a way to look at things. But the whole "everything is great", "everybody looks great", "negativity is so offensive" approach reeks of just not really thinking about anything and accepting whatever stuff you're being fed. 

Also, it's kinda odd to call Metlz as a relic when he's the one putting over the more advanced style both in term of psychology and/or action (you may disagree with him, but he's certainly not Cornette on those matters, he's interested in what's next, not what was before).

[sek69]

People dogpiling on Alvarez for saying Kofi was cooled off after the handicap match was ridiculous. It was a stupidly booked match that sucked the life out of what was a fairly hot crowd, and he was left kind of looking like a goober afterwards. Then everyone started pointing at his tweet like he was waving his junk in public, and it just came off like a lot of other people in the Wrestling Twitter community saw blood in the water after all the Dave fuss and just wanted to pounce on the next thing Bryan was going to comment on. 

IMO that's something that I don't see mentioned as much, a lot of this drama surrounding Dave ends up being churned up by sites/writers in competition to him. I don't think that's an accident as anyone in the same line of work would kill to have the name/prestige/legacy he's built. That's not to say he shouldn't be called out when he messes up, but a lot of the people doing the calling out do so under less than honest pretenses at times.