Dave Meltzer stuff

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Always been the case though.The fact is, wrestling fans have low / no standards. They will read the poorly written text, they will watch the poorly produced videos... the common thread is people hang around the wrestling business and pretend they do things people do for a living... and fans don't second guess it.There are people who probably think Dave is no different from the editor of TIME.

That's a horrible post-hoc argument. Dave Meltzer isn't prolific in the wrestling business because wrestling fans have low standards and will read anyone. He's prolific because of his incredible output and encyclopedic knowledge, so fans ignore his bad writing as a result. Without Meltzer, I wouldn't be reading much of anything past the odd editorial or book (which a lot of them draw from past Observers) because their knowledge doesn't compensate for their writing (whether good or bad). I think PWTorch is a great example of that - full of jaded columnists who don't consider the financial realities and framework that WWE and TNA work under. And they have their fans, because they're also jaded. In that sense, I've always found Meltzer to be very fair to boot.

[hammerva]

Based on that then shouldn't Bryan Alvarez be working for the Torch

 

Yeah I don't care about a person's writing style in wrestling I care more about his opinions and facts based on that in wrestling. Dave has never reached the level of his writing where you look at it and go "well clearly he is too dumb to be taken seriously"

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Based on that then shouldn't Bryan Alvarez be working for the Torch

 

Yeah I don't care about a person's writing style in wrestling I care more about his opinions and facts based on that in wrestling. Dave has never reached the level of his writing where you look at it and go "well clearly he is too dumb to be taken seriously"

Death of WCW was a good book, but I never found value in reading his F4W. Even so, he's far more pleasant to read than most Torch columnists. At least he has his funny moments and doesn't engage in "WWE gonna go out of business in two years" rhetoric.

[Guest Andrews]

What the fuck are you talking about? I criticize Dave's sloppiness as much as the next person but to say that he "pretends" to do what he does is just asinine. He has worked exceptionally hard to build a small business and become the leading reporter in his field, and regardless of the flaws, he's still working his ass off 30 years in. I'm a writer at a large metro newspaper, and I would never say that he's "pretending." Have some fucking respect.

Calm down. I'm not talking about what he knows, or his output: I'm talking about his technical ability in WRITING. The fact is, he has and is known for poor formatting, grammar and spelling mistakes. Cut and dry - so turn your blinkers off for your favourite writer.

 

What do you write at a large newspaper, the funnies? For you to claim to be within an industry and cannot appreciate that is asinine. Nothing to do with "respect" as you say. I don't know whether he has had any formal training, any academic qualifications - I'm ill informed on his history. I'd hope he does.

 

Effort does not translate to quality. I could be "working my ass off" as you put it in a blog that is read by thousands of sweaty fans who know no better and don't read anything from the real world where there are strict standards to compare to. It doesn't entitle me to anything, and if I were to cite my work in hopes of employment with a respected brand - all they will give a shit about is the quality of the writing - not whether Bret Hart placed a phone call to me after Montreal or not.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

What the fuck are you talking about? I criticize Dave's sloppiness as much as the next person but to say that he "pretends" to do what he does is just asinine. He has worked exceptionally hard to build a small business and become the leading reporter in his field, and regardless of the flaws, he's still working his ass off 30 years in. I'm a writer at a large metro newspaper, and I would never say that he's "pretending." Have some fucking respect.

Effort does not translate to quality. I could be "working my ass off" as you put it in a blog that is read by thousands of sweaty fans who know no better and don't read anything from the real world where there are strict standards to compare to. It doesn't entitle me to anything, and if I were to cite my work in hopes of employment with a respected brand - all they will give a shit about is the quality of the writing - not whether Bret Hart placed a phone call to me after Montreal or not.

 

I'll put facts ahead of good writing any day of the week. Even in PhD history circles, you'd be amazed at the amount of trash that gets produced when an easy glance at Wikipedia would correct half of their narratives.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I find there to be a certain charm in the conversational tone of Dave's writing. Sure it's annoying on the (rare) occasion that you'll be reading the Observer and see "Crockett's best-drawing show was in Gina Carano did an interview this past week shfiohjgrgesdvd" but overall I'll take his style over Wade Keller's straightforward news reporting.

[Guest Andrews]

I put facts ahead of good writing too - I think people got a little sensitive over an innocent comment, no disrespect at all was aimed at Dave, who I like.

[Death From Above]

People going along with some troll saying total insane bullshit because his grammar is solid is pretty standard internet fare, so I'm kind of leaning to "I'll take facts over grammar" offered a choice too.

 

Dave's spelling could use proofing, granted. But it doesn't ruin him for me.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

From Feb. 19, 1996 Wrestling Observer:

 

As it compares to wrestling wars in previous history and foreign countries, WCW's tactics fall well shy of burning down arenas, paying off local officials to not allow competitors into the arena, kidnapping rival officials at gunpoint and threatening them, setting up rival top babyfaces with underage hookers to get them arrested and all the other wonderful deeds in the rich history of previous generation or international wrestling promotion wars.

What is he referring to exactly? Burning down arenas? Is he being literal? And the rest. . .

[Guest Nell Santucci]

In the WWF's period of expansion, it also bought out existing established television time slots from regional promoters. It also raided the best drawing talent of regional offices with the lure of them being able to earn a better income and went back into the region with those headliners. In the case of the AWA in particular, McMahon systematically picked off a large percentage of the key headline talent, both in the ring and behind the scenes, one by one.

From the same Observer, I know Meltzer has moderated over the years, but I find that to be an amazing complaint. I remember Terry Taylor, for example, claiming he'd make more money working one week as an opening act for WWF than he did in a year as a main event act for Mid South. I think that point too is overlooked, namely that national expansion led to a decrease in the supply of wrestling, implying that on paper, everyone would make more money by demand.

 

Now, some did lose out on this, but AWA guys in particular (Hogan, Mean Gene, Rockers, Bobby Heenan, Curt Hennig) all came out much richer than they ever could have been working for Gagne.

 

EDIT:

McMahon practically drove Jim Crockett out of business by putting the first Survivor Series on PPV on the date Crockett had already booked for his first Starrcade PPV show in 1987, and coming off McMahon's PPV success, virtually every cable company in the country went with McMahon and Crockett ran a PPV that he expected to be a major cash windfall that ended up costing him money. He followed it up by creating the Royal Rumble as a free television special on the USA Network in 1988 to counteract Crockett's second PPV show, the Bunkhouse Stampede. Crockett didn't follow suit until later in 1988, creating the first Clash of Champions as a head-to-head free special opposite that year's Wrestlemania, but by that time he was already financially strapped having two straight PPVs not pay off. Despite rumors of such, WCW has no plans at all now of running free television specials opposite McMahon's PPV events.

Now, that's a dirty move. I don't see McMahon's dealings with Gagne being dirty because the truth is that practically all the guys under Gagne did better under McMahon financially.

 

I don't see how Meltzer could know whether NWA had any plans to run opposition to WWF's PPVs in 1988. The next WWF PPV was SummerSlam, in August. It's doubtful Crockett would have needed to plan months in advance to counter WWF SummerSlam, given how rushed Clash of the Champions was in a two-month period.

 

Krisz's notes have been beneficial in constructing the intense competition between Crockett and McMahon during this period.

[jdw]

What the fuck are you talking about? I criticize Dave's sloppiness as much as the next person but to say that he "pretends" to do what he does is just asinine. He has worked exceptionally hard to build a small business and become the leading reporter in his field, and regardless of the flaws, he's still working his ass off 30 years in. I'm a writer at a large metro newspaper, and I would never say that he's "pretending." Have some fucking respect.

That.

[jdw]

What the fuck are you talking about? I criticize Dave's sloppiness as much as the next person but to say that he "pretends" to do what he does is just asinine. He has worked exceptionally hard to build a small business and become the leading reporter in his field, and regardless of the flaws, he's still working his ass off 30 years in. I'm a writer at a large metro newspaper, and I would never say that he's "pretending." Have some fucking respect.

Effort does not translate to quality. I could be "working my ass off" as you put it in a blog that is read by thousands of sweaty fans who know no better and don't read anything from the real world where there are strict standards to compare to. It doesn't entitle me to anything, and if I were to cite my work in hopes of employment with a respected brand - all they will give a shit about is the quality of the writing - not whether Bret Hart placed a phone call to me after Montreal or not.

 

I'll put facts ahead of good writing any day of the week. Even in PhD history circles, you'd be amazed at the amount of trash that gets produced when an easy glance at Wikipedia would correct half of their narratives.

 

And that.

[Slasher]

I have a lot of respect for Meltzer for producing quality content for what is it now, 30 years? There is no one in the world who does what he does on a consistent basis and does it as well as he does. That said, I don't know how a writer at a "metro" paper can defend the actual quality of his writing. I mean, take away what he is saying and focus on HOW he is saying it. It truly is garbage. Everyone in the journalism world, we're always told that to be a credible writer, we need to follow all these rules of writing. On that front, Meltzer does definitely fail, and often, but here's the rub. I suspect if he was forced into the traditional journalist role (ie. focusing on grammar, structure, etc) he probably would not have produced the content he has had, and probably would have burnt out badly by now. So with that in mind, it's a necessary evil to take what he is at face value. Content > actual journalistic quality.

[dr. David Rubio]

I suspect if he was forced into the traditional journalist role (ie. focusing on grammar, structure, etc) he probably would not have produced the content he has had, and probably would have burnt out badly by now. So with that in mind, it's a necessary evil to take what he is at face value. Content > actual journalistic quality.

I never understood the fascination people seem to have with Dave's lack of technical writing ability. Considering almost everyone who frequents this board or DVDVR has to be fairly familiar with Dave's work, I would have thought that they would have learned to accept his faults and bad habits and moved on.

 

 

Actually, something I haven't heard discussed: Who from the big three news sites would be considered the best writer?

[Dooley]

Meltzer is the greatest pro wrestling journalist ever. But as good as he is at covering that niche, let's not lose sight of how little that actually means.

[Childs]

I have a lot of respect for Meltzer for producing quality content for what is it now, 30 years? There is no one in the world who does what he does on a consistent basis and does it as well as he does. That said, I don't know how a writer at a "metro" paper can defend the actual quality of his writing. I mean, take away what he is saying and focus on HOW he is saying it. It truly is garbage. Everyone in the journalism world, we're always told that to be a credible writer, we need to follow all these rules of writing. On that front, Meltzer does definitely fail, and often, but here's the rub. I suspect if he was forced into the traditional journalist role (ie. focusing on grammar, structure, etc) he probably would not have produced the content he has had, and probably would have burnt out badly by now. So with that in mind, it's a necessary evil to take what he is at face value. Content > actual journalistic quality.

I didn't defend the quality of his writing, and if you read through the thread, you'll notice numerous instances of me criticizing the sloppy presentation in the WON. I have no problem with anyone criticizing the specific stuff Dave produces. But Andrews took it several steps beyond that by suggesting that Dave is "pretending" to be a journalist. I think that's insulting and demonstrates a poor understanding of the field in which I happen to work. It's common for major publications to stomach sloppy writing from reporters who mitigate that flaw with deep knowledge of their beats or great ability to produce scoops. The difference between those publications and the WON is that they have editors who are charged with cleaning up the raw copy from said reporters. Is the lack of decent editing a flaw in the WON? Absolutely. Does it wipe out Dave's value as a reporter and reduce him to the level of an amateur blogger? You yourself have said that you value his content, so I guess not. Dave has worked for highly regarded publications over the years, from The National to Yahoo! Sports. So the suggestion that the "real world" would view him as a joke is, on its surface, incorrect.

[Guest Andrews]

I suspect if he was forced into the traditional journalist role (ie. focusing on grammar, structure, etc) he probably would not have produced the content he has had, and probably would have burnt out badly by now. So with that in mind, it's a necessary evil to take what he is at face value. Content > actual journalistic quality.

I never understood the fascination people seem to have with Dave's lack of technical writing ability.

 

Because he is a writer.

 

And I doubt anybody is fascinated by it. People are allowed to discuss things in discussion forums.

[Guest Andrews]

I have a lot of respect for Meltzer for producing quality content for what is it now, 30 years? There is no one in the world who does what he does on a consistent basis and does it as well as he does. That said, I don't know how a writer at a "metro" paper can defend the actual quality of his writing. I mean, take away what he is saying and focus on HOW he is saying it. It truly is garbage. Everyone in the journalism world, we're always told that to be a credible writer, we need to follow all these rules of writing. On that front, Meltzer does definitely fail, and often, but here's the rub. I suspect if he was forced into the traditional journalist role (ie. focusing on grammar, structure, etc) he probably would not have produced the content he has had, and probably would have burnt out badly by now. So with that in mind, it's a necessary evil to take what he is at face value. Content > actual journalistic quality.

I didn't defend the quality of his writing, and if you read through the thread, you'll notice numerous instances of me criticizing the sloppy presentation in the WON. I have no problem with anyone criticizing the specific stuff Dave produces. But Andrews took it several steps beyond that by suggesting that Dave is "pretending" to be a journalist. I think that's insulting and demonstrates a poor understanding of the field in which I happen to work. It's common for major publications to stomach sloppy writing from reporters who mitigate that flaw with deep knowledge of their beats or great ability to produce scoops. The difference between those publications and the WON is that they have editors who are charged with cleaning up the raw copy from said reporters. Is the lack of decent editing a flaw in the WON? Absolutely. Does it wipe out Dave's value as a reporter and reduce him to the level of an amateur blogger? You yourself have said that you value his content, so I guess not. Dave has worked for highly regarded publications over the years, from The National to Yahoo! Sports. So the suggestion that the "real world" would view him as a joke is, on its surface, incorrect.

 

Actually you've come to your own wrong conclusion there. If you re-read my post I was talking about people (and different fields, to boot) in general before I mentioned Dave not exactly being a candidate for TIME magazine work.

[Childs]

I have a lot of respect for Meltzer for producing quality content for what is it now, 30 years? There is no one in the world who does what he does on a consistent basis and does it as well as he does. That said, I don't know how a writer at a "metro" paper can defend the actual quality of his writing. I mean, take away what he is saying and focus on HOW he is saying it. It truly is garbage. Everyone in the journalism world, we're always told that to be a credible writer, we need to follow all these rules of writing. On that front, Meltzer does definitely fail, and often, but here's the rub. I suspect if he was forced into the traditional journalist role (ie. focusing on grammar, structure, etc) he probably would not have produced the content he has had, and probably would have burnt out badly by now. So with that in mind, it's a necessary evil to take what he is at face value. Content > actual journalistic quality.

I didn't defend the quality of his writing, and if you read through the thread, you'll notice numerous instances of me criticizing the sloppy presentation in the WON. I have no problem with anyone criticizing the specific stuff Dave produces. But Andrews took it several steps beyond that by suggesting that Dave is "pretending" to be a journalist. I think that's insulting and demonstrates a poor understanding of the field in which I happen to work. It's common for major publications to stomach sloppy writing from reporters who mitigate that flaw with deep knowledge of their beats or great ability to produce scoops. The difference between those publications and the WON is that they have editors who are charged with cleaning up the raw copy from said reporters. Is the lack of decent editing a flaw in the WON? Absolutely. Does it wipe out Dave's value as a reporter and reduce him to the level of an amateur blogger? You yourself have said that you value his content, so I guess not. Dave has worked for highly regarded publications over the years, from The National to Yahoo! Sports. So the suggestion that the "real world" would view him as a joke is, on its surface, incorrect.

 

Actually you've come to your own wrong conclusion there. If you re-read my post I was talking about people (and different fields, to boot) in general before I mentioned Dave not exactly being a candidate for TIME magazine work.

 

 

Here is what you wrote: "the common thread is people hang around the wrestling business and pretend they do things people do for a living... and fans don't second guess it. There are people who probably think Dave is no different from the editor of TIME."

 

You jumped from a line about people around the wrestling business pretending they do real jobs to a line about fans misperceiving Dave as equivalent to the editor of Time. The reader's natural conclusion is to think you're lumping Dave in with the people who are pretending. If you can't see that, you're a moron.

[Guest Andrews]

Here's actually what I wrote in full:

 

Always been the case though.The fact is, wrestling fans have low / no standards. They will read the poorly written text, they will watch the poorly produced videos... the common thread is people hang around the wrestling business and pretend they do things people do for a living... and fans don't second guess it.There are people who probably think Dave is no different from the editor of TIME.

Don't be taking out sentences to suit your agenda.

[Childs]

Here's actually what I wrote in full:

 

Always been the case though.The fact is, wrestling fans have low / no standards. They will read the poorly written text, they will watch the poorly produced videos... the common thread is people hang around the wrestling business and pretend they do things people do for a living... and fans don't second guess it.There are people who probably think Dave is no different from the editor of TIME.

Don't be taking out sentences to suit your agenda.

 

That changes nothing.

[Guest Andrews]

It shows that you saying I said DAVE MELTZER is pretending to do something is not accurate, and that you have wrongly assumed something.

[Childs]

I drew a reasonable conclusion based on what you wrote. You talked about the general problem of people getting by with "pretend" work because wrestling fans have no standards. And then you used Dave as a specific example. How else would one take that?

 

You're either trolling (a strong possibility given the overall content of your posts) or you're too stupid/devoid of communication skills to have this conversation.

 

Regardless, I'm done. In the words of Lester Freamon, "You ain't even worth the skin off my knuckles, junior."

[Guest Andrews]

Or heaven forbid, you can take it how it was written.... that even "wrestling's" best cannot come anywhere close to the standards of journalists in the real world. In terms of training, method, delivery, psychology, you name it.

 

Next you'll be telling me Rob Feinstein is no different to Martin Scorcese. I have to respect him (which you seem to think means bum without the option for mild criticism) too right, under your theory of "regardless of the flaws, he's still working his ass off (for 20) years". Your (illogical) words.

 

I don't know why you are coming across as so thin skinned and bitter and spiteful, but you're really hurting my feelings and upsetting me.

[cm funk]

I like Dave's "voice" as a writer. Sure, he could use an editor to clean up typos and messy paragraphs from time to time, but the occasional sloppiness is part of his charm IMO.

 

It's not like he's incapable of writing a "professional" article or story, there's tons of great bios and history articles he's written that show that, but with the sheer amount of content he produces I don't think he really has the time to sit down and rewrite most of his work several times before he puts it out. If he was working for something like Sports Illustrated where he was only committed to one or two articles a month, or a brief page space every week, I'm sure he'd meet the established journalistic standards. I take his WON writing as stream of consciousness for the most part, and I enjoy reading it.