Dave Meltzer stuff

[Bix]

The opposite, he positions Robinson as a brilliant pro wrestler.

[kjh]

The main criticism was that Robinson could be a bully and uncooperative in the ring, especially against wrestlers who weren't legitimate shooters.

[jdw]

Well... there's a lot of "technical" tossed around. Flair and Larry take backhanded compliments (credit to Stevens & Bock and Harley). There's no discussion of his bumping, which was exceptional for the era. Nothing on his ability to sell, facials, his ability to work as a heel in a slow burner. Frankly, one wishes Dave actually watched that first Baba-Robinson match to see Billy as a total pack of a worker. It's not like it's an overly long match, and broken across three falls they keep it moving along... besides it being an exceptional match.

 

That's not even getting into wishing he'd pop in the Funks vs Billy & Horst from the 1977 tag league. Granted, at 45:00 that's maybe eating too much into his time. But it would give him a sense of Billy actually being closer to Terry as a total package than Dory.

 

Anyway... yeah... the Japan stuff is kind of there.

[Bix]

He doesn't need to dissect every component of Robinson's working style for it to be a good bio. Probably would've dragged it down, to be honest.

[jdw]

My thought would be to count up the number of times "technical" were mentioned. Given that, it's not at all hard to say "excellent bumper", and "underrated seller when he needed to", etc.

 

It's akin to a Buddy bio where all Dave talks about is Buddy's bumping, stooging and selling while not talking about his ability to work a crowd.

 

Seriously, he could have gotten it across in a single sentence if he were lazy about it. With three sentences, one could have gotten across that Billy was at his best a total package. I'm sure a number of us could write three sentences to do that.

 

On the dragging part... I thought the piece dragged. It ended up being the typical Match List Drop Of Doom, without a lot of insight to them after a point.

[Dylan Waco]

My advice is if you want something like that represented in a massive bio, you should email him ahead of time and suggest it. Before you say that's impractical, I would note that Dave has used a bunch of items I've seen him in the last year, including a big chunk on Mad Dog Vachon that I sent him for inclusion/emphasis in the Mad Dog bio.

[Childs]

With the Warrior news on top of a historic Mania and the Network subscriber announcement, it seems the universe might be trying to kill Dave.

[shakla]

I hope he saves the bio for a future issue instead of rushing to get it done tonight. Of course, he should report his death and his WM activities, but there is so much to cover with him. I think he did a decent bio around the time of the '05 DVD. Like Dylan just said, I may send a few bullet points to help jog Dave's memory. Wish I had done that for the Albano obit where he pretty much glossed over his mid 90s WWF return and some of his more notable "talking head" news appearances.

[Loss]

I was wondering if a long Warrior bio is even needed since the details of his career have been covered so many times in the WON. I suppose he should do one since there will be a demand for it, but I'm not sure if there's really a fresh perspective on everything at this point.

[NintendoLogic]

Maybe not, but it'd still be nice to have everything important gathered together in a single piece.

[shakla]

Haven't had a membership to the site in around 3 years (when Savage died), but I'm tempted to re-sub soon, esp. if there's good Warrior pieces plus the back issues and such. That site can be a time suck tho. Too much of a good thing is still too much.

 

Is the Dave's Leather Jacket thread still active?

[Moonsault Marvin]

What was the deal with Meltzer posting the Mister Saint Laurent interview with Warrior today that was from a couple of years ago and claiming it was a lost podcast that Warrior threatened to sue to stop? Meltzer has edited it out of his Wednesday update, so I assume he figured out that it had been on the internet for a long time and it wasn't a contentious interview by any measure.

[kjh]

He mentioned on his podcast that Warrior could be strange like that. Do a non-contentious interview for someone and then threaten to sue them if they posted it.

[kjh]

Meltzer on Nancy Grace:

 

 

--Some thoughts on the Nancy Gracie segment yesterday with DDP. It was that sensationalistic fake outrage stuff from reporters that are a total turnoff. However, people spreading the word that Nancy Gracie said Owen Hart died of steroids are just as bad (let me clarify this by saying I am going off a YouTube clip that was edited, so I may not have seen the entire segment). There was a list of wrestlers dying young on the screen. She never said one name on that list that I heard, except talked about Warrior. She just said a lot of wrestlers died young because of steroids and drugs, which is true. There was enough of an implication that the people on the list died that way that it was an unfair portrayal, but she never said that. And anyone talking about the nature of Warrior's death for more than 90 seconds in a journalistic capacity who doesn't bring up his admitted use of steroids is a hack. If you really respect the guy, respect the fact that he himself didn't run from the subject, unlike so many.

I have no idea if he was or wasn't using during any of the last decade or longer since he left wrestling. But he also was not shy to say that he did for years, and his failed tests and firings are all public record. He had a heart attack at 54 when he's supposed to be a health nut. I'm not saying that's what he died from. There could be plenty of other reasons. But if you don't even ask that question or bring up the possibility, you're trying to run from something.

She was obnoxious in her delivery, but she always is. Jim Cornette of all people should know that shows like that live for the reaction, and her show people are likely laughing at all the publicity wrestling fans are giving the show today. You want to get back at Nancy Grace? Don't watch the show. I don't. I watched last night for one minute and realized why I didn't need to, and it wasn't even a wrestling segment, then turned it off. Thinking getting the show trending on Twitter is a negative to her is to not understand how people laugh at people who overreact on shows like that. Worse, all the people who reacted to her saying Owen Hart died from steroids, there's nothing that makes people in that world not listen to people who complain to them, or laugh at those doing so, is claiming they said something they never said in the first place.

You want to complain about the segment, go ahead. Just make sure you don't say that Nancy Gracie said Owen Hart died of steroids, because then any letter just strengthens their ability to say all these crazy wrestling fans don't know what they are talking about.

To the people at the station she works at, a petition by wrestling fans to cancel Nancy Gracie is probably something they are all laughing at today, and reveling in the publicity. You want to do something constructive, or do a petition, or send letters to HLN, ask her to go on the air and give clarity to those list of wrestlers that say, yes, they died young, but Owen Hart, Mark Curtis (Brian Hildbrand), Brady Boone, etc. did not die from steroids or drugs, that you can reasonably get the idea from that piece that they did. And that is unfair to their memories and to their families.

She's not a real reporter--she's a sensationalist looking for ratings--and her ratings aren't even that good. But the inaccuracy of some who claimed Nancy Gracie said Owen Hart died of steroids was no better. I watched it and I didn't even get that there was an implication of that, but I could easily see where people could. It was confusing enough that it should have been clarified. I think she should go on today and clarify it for that reason. It probably won't happen, but that's a different thing that goes back to what they are doing isn't real reporting and they don't care about misinforming the public with their show. Unless they do clarify it tonight.

[El-P]

Well said.

[(BP)]

Nancy Gracie. Lol.

[tofu_chipmunk]

Nancy Gracie. Lol.

Well, her voice and personality make me tap out on the remote. She is a submissions master against logic and critical thinking.

[Sidebottom]

Totally agree with Dave's points about Nancy Grace. Jim Ross said the same thing in the form of 140 characters.

[shakla]

Dave was spot on about Nancy Grace. One of the few who reported it fairly, rather than make an assumption or take someone's assumption and run with it, like most seem to be doing.

[BruiserBrody]

Haven't had a membership to the site in around 3 years (when Savage died), but I'm tempted to re-sub soon, esp. if there's good Warrior pieces plus the back issues and such. That site can be a time suck tho. Too much of a good thing is still too much.

 

Is the Dave's Leather Jacket thread still active?

I wasn't impressed with the Warrior bio, not much new info on him or the weekend.

 

I resubscribed Friday and so far Dave's Leather Jacket hasn't popped up on the board.

[pantherwagner]

Nancy Gracie. Lol.

 

Hey don't laugh at Dave. There's a gentleman at work whose last name is Royce and I have to think before saying his name so I don't pronounce it like a Brazilian.

[Beast]

 

Haven't had a membership to the site in around 3 years (when Savage died), but I'm tempted to re-sub soon, esp. if there's good Warrior pieces plus the back issues and such. That site can be a time suck tho. Too much of a good thing is still too much.

 

Is the Dave's Leather Jacket thread still active?

I wasn't impressed with the Warrior bio, not much new info on him or the weekend.

 

I resubscribed Friday and so far Dave's Leather Jacket hasn't popped up on the board.

 

It's a stickied thread in the Pro Wrestling section.

[rovert]

edit

[Matt D]

Am I the only one who finds the Thumbs Up/Down/Middle for UFC events sort of weird? I get it for wrestling because almost every TV show has individual episodes rated by users on IMDB. That's pretty understandable, and it does lead off from the reader contribution history of the WON. MMA is a sporting event though. I couldn't see a sporting publication leading their coverage of NBA on whether or not people thought it was a good game or just an okay one.

[anarchistxx]

In boxing people will often discuss whether it was a 'good fight', and people feel actively ripped off if they have paid for a fight that doesn't deliver. Stylistically there is an onus on boxers to use an exciting, attacking style, especially if they want to move up the ranks, so it certainly isn't too out of the ordinary to be rating an event on the quality of the action.

 

Style tends to affect ratings in fighting sports in a way it doesn't for something like soccer. If Jose Mourinho sets his team out defensively and spoils the match people discuss it, but they will still tune in for the second leg. If David Haye fights a boring, rope-a-dope style it gets roundly derided, and his stock as a boxer goes down compared to someone like Carl Froch who drums up buyrates on the basis that he will have an all out war.