jdw Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 That sounds much more realistic. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSR Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 I think they should have gone the New Japan route and paid a bunch of shooter types to do jobs to him. People thought Goldberg was more "real" than everyone else, which is what got him over. So that would have just added to it. Goldberg vs Don Frye would have been awesome. Shamrock coming in and doing a job after leaving the WWF would have been a nice touch too. The whole concept of tough guys - and the innate desire of wrestling fans to see someone take an ass whuppin' - is one of the things most lost on the modern scene. There is a really good interview with Don Frye on one of the old Eyada Wrestling Observer Live shows, and he has a funny story about a meeting he had with Eric Bischoff in regards to him possibly coming to WCW. Basically they were having a meal somewhere discussing things and then got talking about UFC and fighting. Bischoff then starts building up his buddy, and saying he's a champion kickboxer, won numerous titles etc really bigging him up and then says to Frye 'He's outside, do you want to meet him?'. Frye says yeah, and then in comes Ernest Miller. Miller then starts saying how he could win the UFC title and how they've never had any real kickers in the promotion, at which point Frye brings up Maurice Smith. Miller then belittles Smith and says how he could beat him, and could beat anyone in the UFC, which leads to Frye getting in his face and saying how 'You couldn't beat me' and basically offers him out there and then. Anyway, that cost Frye a shot at getting into WCW, and he said how Bischoff/WCW didn't even pay for his meal and whatnot after the outburst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 But Cien Caras got virtually no support among ring rats in Mexico, with the feeling he was always on top with people like Mil Mascaras, Dos Caras, Canek and Konnan because he was a rare tall heavyweight with a good body. He was absolutely a star, but not that charismatic or much of a worker. Or: "Cien Caras got virtually no support among ring rats in Mexico, with the feeling he was always was a family man who didn't show interest in the rats." John Yes. All I did is change quote from "his peers" to "ring rats"...but it makes it easier to read between the lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Well if that's the case then Mascara Ano Dos Mil should've been a first ballot HOFer Mascara Ano Dos Mil isn't Shawty Lo, he may not take care of the mamas of his over twenty kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Very unfortunate and heartfelt mistake by Dave here: http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-sto...o-mike-goldberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 He made an honest mistake, and handled it as well as can be expected. I hope he'll learn something from this, like that he should have a second set of eyes act as a proofreader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 He made an honest mistake, and handled it as well as can be expected. I hope he'll learn something from this, like that he should have a second set of eyes act as a proofreader. Within the past year or so I believe he has. It is Vinny Verheri/"Bryan's Friend Vinny". Vinny at the very least formats it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 As someone who has made stupid mistakes in print and felt that sinking feeling, I can sympathize. But I agree with Loss; in an ideal world, this would spur Dave to address the systematic sloppiness of his product. He often fails to convey what he means because no one has edited his copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Agree with everyone on Dave's apology being as open and abject as you can make. Props for him making it. The editing issue is a problem if he gives one pass to a proofer shortly before publishing. The WON is a massive amount of writing to read, and it's easy for any of us to glaze over and miss stuff with going through it. You also get use to Dave's writing, and move along with it. What he really needs to do is shoot out sections as he finishes them. If he writes up a UFC PPV on a Sunday after the show, send it to the proofer when done. Dittos on a WWE PPV that's on Sunday - send it when the first pass through it is done. Get comments and corrects back, replace the original text / correct it, and then work on other parts. This is probably easier for others than Dave. I'm not sure if he's a big cut & paste guy. Don't know if he's a redline guy. Don't really think he's a "collaborative" guy when it comes to documents / work, like some of the rest of us are when passing around a draft for comments / corrections / additions. There also probably is a fair chunk of the big stuff in the WON that is polishing up on Monday / Tuesday that doesn't lend itself to shipping off to read until late. Just saying... it's not easy given how & when Dave writes, and 30 years of doing it his way (20 on the computer). Not easy for Dave, or anyone who were to be an editor every week. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 I've said it before, I'll say it again: In 2013, the newsletter should mostly consist of articles already published on the site during the week which hopefully would not be written and edited at 3-4 AM local time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 I wold also like to add that even if he had a proof writer, that is not a mistake that I think a proof writer would pick up on. I think a 2nd set of eyes would simply assume that it was confirmed that Goldberg had a pill problem and continue to read the rest of the Observer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 John, you might be able to answer this better than the rest of us: Is Dave self-aware about the sloppiness of the weekly product? It would just drive me crazy to put my name to copy that raw, even if the volume of information is astonishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Dave also needs to understand it's time to split his MMA Observer off of the Wrestling Observer. Splitting them off gives him a chance to not have to worry about getting it all done together and doing one at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 I don't necessarily agree, Will. I thought the passage on Goldberg read oddly and that the other facts presented didn't line up with the idea of him having a pill problem. At my newspaper, editors are taught to apply extra scrutiny to any information that could be libelous. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if a good editor was stopped short by that passage and double checked it with the writer. That said, mistakes slip through the cracks and sometimes, you just have to apologize and eat the discomfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 It did read a little weird, but by that point Oliver had posted in the relevant thread on their board that it was in fact a drug issue (after Dave swore that it wasn't), so with that in mind I didn't give it a ton of extra throught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 He made an honest mistake, and handled it as well as can be expected. I hope he'll learn something from this, like that he should have a second set of eyes act as a proofreader. Within the past year or so I believe he has. It is Vinny Verheri/"Bryan's Friend Vinny". Vinny at the very least formats it. Pretty he does for Figure Four, not the Observer. Wasn't Scott Williams the "deputy editor" or whatever the term was Dave gave to the guy who had to edit his stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 It did read a little weird, but by that point Oliver had posted in the relevant thread on their board that it was in fact a drug issue (after Dave swore that it wasn't), so with that in mind I didn't give it a ton of extra thought. On a similar note, was Oliver being serious when he said Roy Nelson only started going nuts about roids after the NSAC turned down his request for TRT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 John, you might be able to answer this better than the rest of us: Is Dave self-aware about the sloppiness of the weekly product? It would just drive me crazy to put my name to copy that raw, even if the volume of information is astonishing. I can answer that. He has been made aware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 John, you might be able to answer this better than the rest of us: Is Dave self-aware about the sloppiness of the weekly product? It would just drive me crazy to put my name to copy that raw, even if the volume of information is astonishing. Historically self aware about it? I don't think so. Tend to think he just ignored comments about it. Currently? Not sure. One of the early SBNation posts he made was a trainwreck in writing: http://www.mmafighting.com/2012/10/28/3563...d-for-the-sport It's possible that Yahoo cleaned stuff up in terms of proofing and editing, while SBN doesn't. In turn, it's probably that Dave just doesn't know what a mess something like this is. I think we generally are use to it after reading the WON for 20-30 years. We also are use to sloppy conversational writing on message boards. But as a published work by a writer/reporter, it's a problem. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Meltzer worked at a newspaper didn't he? His editors and copy desk were probably kept real busy editing his copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Dave worked at a newspaper nearly 30 years ago. He's been self employed for close to a quarter century. Dave probably wrote far differently for his newspaper stuff than he has over time since then. john Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 I'm sure he did write differently for the paper. But man, you'd think sentence structure and paragraph breaks would come naturally to a reporter. I don't read Meltzer for his prose, so I really don't care. It just makes me scratch my head sometimes when I'm paging through old WONs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 The one thing that really is maddening is his bios. He writes like Herodotus. He jumps around like mad with some crazy backwards logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 He is aware of the current criticism of the editing in the Observer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Late to the party but throwing my two cents regarding Meltz and Goldberg... I just don't buy his apology, or at least his explanation for how it came to end up read that way. I am a journalist myself, and it is constantly pounded over our heads to be extremely careful of what we say and how we say it. This is just simply an example of Meltzer's diminished focus on his product for whatever reasons (stretched himself out too thin or wanting to be home to see his family or whatever etc) coming back to bite him in the ass. Hopefully he will get that proofreader or at the very least UNDERSTAND what the hell he is trying to say. No more wink wink references or "read between the lines" crap. 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.