Dave Meltzer stuff

[mookeighana]

If you've ever seen Dave's collection, he has hundreds of unmarked tapes/dvds so it's probably a matter of it being a huge pain in the ass to even find anything let alone sell it/get it transferred to digital.

Perhaps he's just terrified we'll discover how many copies of Rhonda Shear Up All Night bumpers he saved...

[jdw]

It's interesting that it seems like these days, he gets most of his information directly from the office when in the past, most of the information came from wrestlers. It makes Dave come across as a guy who has morphed into a beltway reporter in some ways. It would also explain the shift in his coverage. The modern Dave would talk about how the WCW midcard guys don't understand wrestling because Hogan is the clear draw. The old Dave would have complained more about Rock being on steroids and not having great matches when he returned.

It always felt in the 80s and 90s (and even to points in the last decade) that he was getting a lot of info from people in the office, such as Zane (in both the WWF and then in WCW), Ross, Cornette, Heyman, etc. I can't recall if it was very clear on his relationship with JJ... there's one comment that sticks in my head after all these years, but it may something passed on by someone else in the office.

 

I always think that people have underestimated the breadth of people Dave has talked to over the decade, be it short term contacts/sources or long term ones.

 

"Hey... I've got a new best friend."

 

"Who?"

 

"Vince."

 

"You're shitting me."

 

"No... really. Just spent a long time on the phone with him. [Then proceeds to go into everything that would be in the coming WON from the call and more]"

 

Not saying Vince was a regular source. But when Vince calls you to spill his guts / spin a story, guys further down the food chain have been doing it for years.

 

There has been a changing of the guard over the past 5+ years in the company, and a lot of the old guard has moved out or on. But there always have been people in the offices that want to talk.

[KrisZ]

Plus let's not discount the fact that Dave devotes a lot of his time covering MMA now instead of being 100% into beating the bushes for wrestling scoops

[Loss]

John, I meant more that his editorial slant has changed. He used to side with labor on most issues. He seems to side with management now on most issues. And I would wager that's at least partially because of who he talks to the most.

[ajtroma]

If you've ever seen Dave's collection, he has hundreds of unmarked tapes/dvds so it's probably a matter of it being a huge pain in the ass to even find anything let alone sell it/get it transferred to digital.

Perhaps he's just terrified we'll discover how many copies of Rhonda Shear Up All Night bumpers he saved...

 

 

There's a pretty good demand for that stuff as well. Not just at my house, either.

[jdw]

John, I meant more that his editorial slant has changed. He used to side with labor on most issues. He seems to side with management now on most issues. And I would wager that's at least partially because of who he talks to the most.

I'd go even further: he use to side with the Hardcore Fan viewpoint, and has since the early 00s been more Wrestler/Office viewpoint.

 

That's more of the Beltway (or as Digby coined it last decade, The Village) type.

 

John

[Guest The Jiz]

John, I meant more that his editorial slant has changed. He used to side with labor on most issues. He seems to side with management now on most issues. And I would wager that's at least partially because of who he talks to the most.

In fairness, Vince thinks guys in WWE get a pretty good deal nowadays in that their contracts are better than ever. So I can see why he'd change his tune. I don't see him as an apologetic for management - not imply that that's your argument - since he clearly concedes time and again that management choices in who to push are often very petty and illogical.

[Matt D]

John, I meant more that his editorial slant has changed. He used to side with labor on most issues. He seems to side with management now on most issues. And I would wager that's at least partially because of who he talks to the most.

I'd go even further: he use to side with the Hardcore Fan viewpoint, and has since the early 00s been more Wrestler/Office viewpoint.

 

That's more of the Beltway (or as Digby coined it last decade, The Village) type.

 

John

 

Would it be fair to say that he's less involved with what's going on now, as in he has less of a personal stake, this between his friends in the industry dying and his interests shifting to MMA and some level of general maturity from aging. The Junkfood Dog and Anabolic Warrior stuff seemed personal to me, like on some level it was an affront that they were getting pushes over other people. I'm not sure how true that was in the late 90s though.

[kjh]

The modern Dave would talk about how the WCW midcard guys don't understand wrestling because Hogan is the clear draw. The old Dave would have complained more about Rock being on steroids and not having great matches when he returned.

The old Dave = the new Wade Keller (on one of the few occasions he breaks news today)?

 

I do think that part of the reason coverage has changed is that the reporters don't go to the matches as much anymore, so they aren't around the wrestlers as much as they used to be. Also, today's generation seem much more scared to speak out for fear it would jeopardize their jobs than the old generation were.

[evilclown]

The modern Dave would talk about how the WCW midcard guys don't understand wrestling because Hogan is the clear draw. The old Dave would have complained more about Rock being on steroids and not having great matches when he returned.

The old Dave = the new Wade Keller (on one of the few occasions he breaks news today)?

 

I do think that part of the reason coverage has changed is that the reporters don't go to the matches as much anymore, so they aren't around the wrestlers as much as they used to be. Also, today's generation seem much more scared to speak out for fear it would jeopardize their jobs than the old generation were.

 

People are savvier. Why would a wrestler or executive want to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy influencing the opinions of these ancient taste makers with their four-figure audiences? Some still do of course. But that's such a shrinking and miserable demographic, I wonder why they bother?

[jdw]

I think it's less being savy and more along the lines of what I mentioned: his old Front Office sources have over time moved on from the business, while less of the current Front Office is "wrestler" based and instead people coming in from outside.

 

If Johnny Ace had been someone that Dave developed as a source in All Japan in the 90s (in the sense of like how he was close to the Funks and Furnas), then when Johnny moved on to WCW and then the WWE, and eventually moved up the ladder in the WWE Front Office... then Dave has a long standing source/friend in the front office. Akin to Ross, Corny and Paul E.

 

Now?

 

How many of Trip's close circle are "wrestler" or old school wrestling background?

 

On the flip, Vince's "business" people have shifted over time from the old core to a lot of people who are truly business background.

 

People in Creative have come from outside wrestling background.

 

Basically most of the Business of the WWE had changed over the past 10 years, the old guard has moved out, and the new structure is quite different.

 

I don't think any of this is terribly surprising.

 

That said, people live Dave and MKJ and even Wade still come up with "news" on what's going on inside. I'm not entirely sold that the rest of the sum total of "wrestling reporting" or "wrestling writing" is breaking more titbits than those three combined. Jon and the Grantland Goof may interview Bryan, but is there really much news breaking from those parts of wrestling writing?

 

John

[evilclown]

That said, people live Dave and MKJ and even Wade still come up with "news" on what's going on inside. I'm not entirely sold that the rest of the sum total of "wrestling reporting" or "wrestling writing" is breaking more titbits than those three combined. Jon and the Grantland Goof may interview Bryan, but is there really much news breaking from those parts of wrestling writing?

 

John

I have no interest in being involved in that brand of "news."

 

With respect to the dirtsheet guys, how much of it is really "news" anyway? How much is, rather, an elaborate mythology that is validated by, you guessed it, further blind reporting by the same people who created the original rumor in the first place? It wouldn't pass the smell test in media coverage of any other business in the world.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

That said, people live Dave and MKJ and even Wade still come up with "news" on what's going on inside. I'm not entirely sold that the rest of the sum total of "wrestling reporting" or "wrestling writing" is breaking more titbits than those three combined. Jon and the Grantland Goof may interview Bryan, but is there really much news breaking from those parts of wrestling writing?

 

John

I have no interest in being involved in that brand of "news."

 

With respect to the dirtsheet guys, how much of it is really "news" anyway? How much is, rather, an elaborate mythology that is validated by, you guessed it, further blind reporting by the same people who created the original rumor in the first place? It wouldn't pass the smell test in media coverage of any other business in the world.

 

Yeah, that "everyone hates the Rock" stuff was some of the worst "news" I have ever seen. Run away from that.

[jdw]

That said, people live Dave and MKJ and even Wade still come up with "news" on what's going on inside. I'm not entirely sold that the rest of the sum total of "wrestling reporting" or "wrestling writing" is breaking more titbits than those three combined. Jon and the Grantland Goof may interview Bryan, but is there really much news breaking from those parts of wrestling writing?

 

John

I have no interest in being involved in that brand of "news."

 

With respect to the dirtsheet guys, how much of it is really "news" anyway? How much is, rather, an elaborate mythology that is validated by, you guessed it, further blind reporting by the same people who created the original rumor in the first place? It wouldn't pass the smell test in media coverage of any other business in the world.

 

Media coverage of almost every other business in the world blows. Take for example...

 

The WWE. It's been a "business" list on the exchange for more than a decade. How well does the business media cover it? It's been a national "entertainment business" since Expansion in 1984. How well has the entertainment media covered it in the past 30 years?

 

Basically for shit.

 

But it's the same way with any business, of genre. The sports media is a joke, and a large chunk of their "news" doesn't pass the smell test either. I'm spending this month laughing every day at ridiculous stories about transfers that will never happen in the EPL. Coverage of the PED story in baseball? Dogshit for decades, laughable behind Dave's coverage of it in the WON. Coverage of the PED story in pro football and college football? Wait... what story? They're just pretending it's not there. Concussions? Health issues down to the kid level? "La-la-la-la-la... we'll only cover it when we have to."

 

Come on, Jon. You're in the media business covering MMA. You know what a total fucking joke the media is in covering MMA, and not just the mainstream media that dips its toes in from time to time or just does puff pieces. You've for years thought a good chunk of the MMA Media is a joke.

 

Are there good pieces that pop up on the businesses? Sure. That local media story on MMA that you shared was exceptional. But of 1000 MMA articles that were written papers or mags or aired on TV about MMA in 2013, what % were at that level? Less than 1%?

 

Dave's writing is often horrid. But his coverage of his industry is better than the LA Times did of covering the Movie industry the last time I read the paper every day (2011, and I doubt it's improved)... and Hollywood is in the backyard. Is it better than movie mags? When I was reading a ton of them in the 90s, they really all that great until you got down into the niche level fanzies covering genres and movies that no one else was. The major ones were doing the standard puff piece + reviews + rumors stuff that you'd get in the Times.

 

The media in this country largely blows. It has for ages. Signal to noise has always blown.

 

John

[evilclown]

I'm going to jdw a couple of things out of this. Consider it an homage.

 

The WWE. It's been a "business" list on the exchange for more than a decade. How well does the business media cover it? It's been a national "entertainment business" since Expansion in 1984. How well has the entertainment media covered it in the past 30 years?

Agree. It's abysmal. Of course, if you are a business reporter or cover the entertainment beat, WWE is small potatoes.

 

Almost no major media company has anyone covering wrestling. Part of that is because wrestling is the kind of niche topic that attracts its fans but actively repels everyone else. Part of it is intentional on WWE's part. They've made a calculated decision that they are willing to bear the cost of not having regular coverage in exchange for not having people digging in their business.

 

But it's the same way with any business, of genre. The sports media is a joke, and a large chunk of their "news" doesn't pass the smell test either. I'm spending this month laughing every day at ridiculous stories about transfers that will never happen in the EPL.

This is the 24-hour news cycle mentality coming back to bite us. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to create content, even when there is no organic "content creation" event. That leads to nonsense being written on the regular. It pays the bills.

 

Come on, Jon. You're in the media business covering MMA. You know what a total fucking joke the media is in covering MMA, and not just the mainstream media that dips its toes in from time to time or just does puff pieces. You've for years thought a good chunk of the MMA Media is a joke.

This is true, but in a different way than you see with WWE. I think news coverage of MMA is terrible, much of it aping political coverage that allows blatant lies and misdirection so long as those lies come in the form of a direct quote from Dana White.

 

Feature coverage of the UFC, however, is very strong. Fans know the fighters better and understand what goes into putting an event together and the sacrifices fighters make preparing for bouts in a way we don't really understand the wrestler's lot. That's a result of access and some robust reporting in these areas.

 

Dave's writing is often horrid. But his coverage of his industry is better than the LA Times did of covering the Movie industry the last time I read the paper every day

But is it? There's no real way of knowing because every item is a blind item and the only substantiation comes from Dave himself or other wrestling writers who don't show their cards. We have only their word that they are getting the key items correct.

 

Don't get me wrong. I've read Meltzer long enough to know that he's on point quite often. But I've also read his MMA coverage and am close enough to some stories to know his sources on some things. If his wrestling reporting involves the same kind of exchanges, there's some bullshit that slips through.

 

When I say that I wouldn't want to be in the business of breaking wrestling news or reporting in the dirtsheet style, it's not just preference either. I would literally not be allowed to run a series of unsubstantiated claims. A Turner company can't really risk being totally wrong on a story the way Keller or Meltzer can. Obviously the consequences legally would be very different.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

When I read through the 1984-86 Observers a couple of years ago, I remember thinking to myself often, "Oh my God! There is no way this would fly even by today's 24-hour-throw-rumors-against-the-wall style of 'reporting.'"

[goodhelmet]

Feature coverage of the UFC, however, is very strong. Fans know the fighters better and understand what goes into putting an event together and the sacrifices fighters make preparing for bouts in a way we don't really understand the wrestler's lot. That's a result of access and some robust reporting in these areas.

This quote interests me. Can you give me some examples of this being the case? I am not doubting you but where has MMA reporting helped a fight compared to a UFC hype special or video package?

[jdw]

I'm going to jdw a couple of things out of this. Consider it an homage.

 

The WWE. It's been a "business" list on the exchange for more than a decade. How well does the business media cover it? It's been a national "entertainment business" since Expansion in 1984. How well has the entertainment media covered it in the past 30 years?

Agree. It's abysmal. Of course, if you are a business reporter or cover the entertainment beat, WWE is small potatoes.

 

Almost no major media company has anyone covering wrestling. Part of that is because wrestling is the kind of niche topic that attracts its fans but actively repels everyone else. Part of it is intentional on WWE's part. They've made a calculated decision that they are willing to bear the cost of not having regular coverage in exchange for not having people digging in their business.

Totally agree on all of that. It's pretty mutual that the WWE wants minimal coverage (and puffy at that), and real media doesn't want much to do with them.

 

On the WWE being small potatoes... on the business side, it certainly is. On the entertainment side, kinda-sorta. It's revenue is small compared to the big entertainment companies. It's revenue this year will be less than what Catching Fire has pulled in. But it still is something that draw 3M to 4M viewers a week, 52 weeks a year, and remains up there in the cable viewership. Why ignored? Your repellent comment is a lot of it, and probably something to do with it's not "new". The thing has been on the cable ratings charts for 17 years and is old news. Mad Men, in contrast, was new! despite drawing less viewers, and across few episodes each year. Everything that anyone wanted to write about the WWE has been written before, other than by the people who actually care enough to cover the cesspool. :/

 

 

But it's the same way with any business, of genre. The sports media is a joke, and a large chunk of their "news" doesn't pass the smell test either. I'm spending this month laughing every day at ridiculous stories about transfers that will never happen in the EPL.

This is the 24-hour news cycle mentality coming back to bite us. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to create content, even when there is no organic "content creation" event. That leads to nonsense being written on the regular. It pays the bills.

Totally agree. Deadspin did a funny piece on how ESPN manufactured a story out of nothing, and ran with it for a day across it's platforms. And yeah... it pays the bills.

 

 

Come on, Jon. You're in the media business covering MMA. You know what a total fucking joke the media is in covering MMA, and not just the mainstream media that dips its toes in from time to time or just does puff pieces. You've for years thought a good chunk of the MMA Media is a joke.

This is true, but in a different way than you see with WWE. I think news coverage of MMA is terrible, much of it aping political coverage that allows blatant lies and misdirection so long as those lies come in the form of a direct quote from Dana White.

Yep.

 

Feature coverage of the UFC, however, is very strong. Fans know the fighters better and understand what goes into putting an event together and the sacrifices fighters make preparing for bouts in a way we don't really understand the wrestler's lot. That's a result of access and some robust reporting in these areas.

This probably depends on how we define "feature". I think that if we looked at a feature piece in the LA Times or NY Times about Rhonda, you'd find it fluffy or lightweight or not really in depth. Not really at the level of the piece that you linked to, which was exceptional in depth with the space that very few papers/mags/professional sites don't/can't dedicate to it.

 

That's why I tossed out that 1% out of 1000 MMA random/typical mainstream media pieces being worthwhile. That piece was rare, and we've all seen plenty of the type that aren't even skim worthy.

 

 

Dave's writing is often horrid. But his coverage of his industry is better than the LA Times did of covering the Movie industry the last time I read the paper every day

But is it? There's no real way of knowing because every item is a blind item and the only substantiation comes from Dave himself or other wrestling writers who don't show their cards. We have only their word that they are getting the key items correct.

Those are just blind items, like Creative not liking Wrestler X. I'm thinking more about Dave's total coverage of wrestling vs the LA Times total coverage of the Movie business. Dave puts more effort and data into the business side than the Times does. They do similar on the "review" side. Dave does a better job with what's in the pipeline. His feature writing, which is largely Obits, is above what the Times does on the movie business.

 

In terms of "covering" the wrestling business, Dave tops the Times "covering" the movie business. And that's with the Times having a more writers on staff to do it.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I've read Meltzer long enough to know that he's on point quite often. But I've also read his MMA coverage and am close enough to some stories to know his sources on some things. If his wrestling reporting involves the same kind of exchanges, there's some bullshit that slips through.

I think we've all copped to bullshit slipping through. That's the nature of the beast, and it comes in every industry.

 

Remember the old saw how George Lucas always planned out 9 Star Wars films, and that the first was always planned to be the "4th" in the timeline? It was total bullshit. It got told enough times that people believe the bullshit, and in the pre-internet days no one could (or frankly would) go back to read what George said at the time of the release, and in the weeks/months after the movie blew up. Now a days... people would google it, and it would be shown to be bullshit fast.

 

Except...

 

There's lots of Zombie Bullshit that lives on even after being shown to be bullshit.

 

 

When I say that I wouldn't want to be in the business of breaking wrestling news or reporting in the dirtsheet style, it's not just preference either. I would literally not be allowed to run a series of unsubstantiated claims. A Turner company can't really risk being totally wrong on a story the way Keller or Meltzer can. Obviously the consequences legally would be very different.

I actually think you could, with the old "sources tell me" saw... as long as sources did tell you. ESPN does it all the time. Do a search on the last time ESPN was sued by a team or a player over stuff like:

 

"Sources tell me that the Lakers are looking to trade Pau Gasol..."

 

"The Knicks are looking to move JR Smith..."

 

"Dan Snyder is looking into whether the team can terminate Mike Shanahan's contract over the leaking of information earlier this week..."

 

All sorts of shit with no one's name attacked to it as the *source*.

 

Every single major media entity in the country does it. Hell, spend a weekend watching NBA TV and reading the NBA.com columnist, which is all run by Turner, and tell me how much unsubstantiated claims are made on there that end up not happening or being "wrong" in a way that no one ends up suing over.

 

There wasn't a single legal consequence on any of the reporting of the Washington Football team this year, and even though a lot of shit is true, there also was a lot of stuff being tossed at reporters (who transcribed it) that was bullshit.

 

Seriously... has Dave printed a single thing on MMA that even if wrong would raise to a "legal consequences"? Or that Dave wouldn't be able to point to:

 

"Well... that's what MMA Fighter X and Trainer Z told me on Date Y, right here in my notes. If it's wrong, sue them."

 

* * * * *

 

Just to be clear, I don't think Dave is a GREAT~! reporter. When that article was pulled over here with the pics of the office and the standard old line from Deford about Dave and Pulitzers, I was the one who took the Pulitzer stuff to town by linking to the stuff that's won Pulitzer's. Dave's not at that level, and never has been. Even the best stuff he's done, such as covering the steroid story well for years, isn't close to that level. One can compliment Dave for covering wrestling over the decades without blowing smoke up our asses.

 

For covering an industry, especially one a shitty and as big of a cesspool of bullshit and lies as pro wrestling, he's been "good" over the past 30 years. Perhaps it's waned in the past decade, but I'm not a great one to judge that: I've cared less about the business in the last 10 years than in the 20 year prior to that, which means that caring about the coverage has declined for me as well. But prior to that while I was more interested, he provided good services and coverage to this thing of ours.

 

The writing itself... yeah... it's always been what it is.

 

John

[evilclown]

Just to be clear, I don't think Dave is a GREAT~! reporter. When that article was pulled over here with the pics of the office and the standard old line from Deford about Dave and Pulitzers, I was the one who took the Pulitzer stuff to town by linking to the stuff that's won Pulitzer's. Dave's not at that level, and never has been. Even the best stuff he's done, such as covering the steroid story well for years, isn't close to that level. One can compliment Dave for covering wrestling over the decades without blowing smoke up our asses.

I love Dave and the Observer. I hope that is clear throughout. He does an amazing job.

 

And maybe you're right about blind sources. I just wouldn't personally want to be in the business of trying to parse the news that comes out of wrestling.

 

"I know Daniel Bryan had a concussion because Paul Heyman heard it from Michael Hayes who is pretty sure he heard Hunter talking about it with Vince on the phone right outside the WWE doctor's office."

[jdw]

I think in an example like that, Dave wouldn't run with it unless (i) Bryan told him, or (ii) Bryan told someone who told Dave, or (iii) his source in the Front Office who tracks injuries directly told him.

 

On the last, I'm thinking of something along the lines of JJ Dillion having first hand knowledge of the WWF's drug testing program when it was first rolled out in the early 90s. If JJ was the source for Dave about the Sid issue in 1992, then it was as legit as one was going to get.

 

I don't recall instances in wrestling where Dave went down the rabbit hole at the level you tossed out.

[kjh]

On something like an injury to a major star, I agree that Dave would usually get official confirmation from a source in the office, unless they want to keep it quiet. But a more gossipy tidbit, it may be from a single source who got it second hand.

[jdw]

Well... there is the whole Savage Fucked Steph thing.

 

Though we all know that actually hit the DVDVR Thread long before Dave even hinted at it in the WON.

[cheapshot]

Oliver knows.

[goc]

Did that story even come out BEFORE Steph became a TV character? I seem to remember it popping up around the time that there were rumors of Savage going to WWF and then that rumor coming out that he and HHH had heat because maybe Savage had Stephanie first.

[El-P]

Did that story even come out BEFORE Steph became a TV character?

Thats' a good point. I don't think so. All of a sudden, Steph is sluting it up a notch on TV, Savage seems to be backballed and the rumours that he fucked her just appear from nowhere. Fantaisies.