Dave Meltzer stuff

[Childs]

 

You cannot slander or libel the dead. There is absolutely no need for any "likely" or "allegedly" qualifier, at all.

 

That depends on the state/nation, as some states and countries do allow lawsuits on behalf of the estate of the deceased in cases of libel/slander.

 

 

There is no way anyone could successfully sue Dave for saying Chris Benoit killed his wife. That is the accepted truth and has been written thousands of times by myriad publications. It doesn't come close to a libel issue.

 

That said, I don't think this is a big deal. It's just another in the long line of odd things Dave has written over the years. He's not careful in his phrasing and never will be.

[jdw]

Someone probably should have asked Dave about the "likely". It's... odd for him to put it there. I tend to agree it might have been without thinking, but I'm pretty certain that Dave has been explicit over the years that Chris killed Nancy.

[Loss]

Dave explaining why Rusev's booking has been so effective and evoking Yokozuna/Duggan from '93 as a comparison is the type of thing that I think will kill some of the perception that he only cares about highspots that some people have. It's a great listen on the latest WOR.

[Matt D]

I haven't had a chance to listen yet but I don't think anyone thinks he doesn't care about booking or how wrestlers are presented. That has nothing to do with his tastes in what excites him in a wrestling match and what makes him dole out star ratings. I get what you're saying, I think, but usually that specific critique on Meltzer is primarily about tastes in wrestling matches.

 

For instance, and again, i'm asking this because I haven't had a chance to hear it, did he talk about how good the European Tour Yoko/Duggan matches were from 93, with Yoko's cutoff timing being so great and Duggan very solid working from underneath, especially in front of crowds where the jingoistic thing was naturally nullified? The knockdown challenge was also expertly worked and it's a bit more memorable, but it had great build and emotion and crescendoed to a really nasty beat heel beatdown to garner heat for Yoko. How deeply did he go into that?

 

EDIT: Looking through the 93 WONs, the only thing that interested him at the time was that the segment wasn't shown in parts of CA and Chicago due to protests from Asian Associations.

 

Also: "Yokozuna and Jim Duggan are having horrible matches in the negative star range, although with all the TV behind Duggan's comeback, he's getting as big crowd reactions as ever. Mr. Fuji throws salt leading to Duggan getting counted out. " He was getting between -** to **1/2 from correspondents.

 

EDIT 2: here's what he said when they came to the cow palace on 5/15:

"Yokozuna pinned Jim Duggan in 6:56. Of that, two minutes was cheerleading and three minutes was a bearhug, but with Duggan, you don't go in with high expectations. This was the only match on the show with any heat and there was a huge pop when Duggan knocked Yokozuna off his feet.

 

Even with a $3 kids discount, this was more of an old-time wrestling crowd that seemed to be there more out of habit than inspired by any of the angles as there was only one moment during Duggan-Yokozuna during the entire show with any real crowd intensity and the "Pavlovian" reactions to the babyface entrance music was way down."

 

Which is sort of fair. I wish there was an Owen Hart match on the show or something, but the only thing he liked was Luger vs Hart which he felt was heatless.

 

Here's what he said about the main:

 

"8. Steiners beat Money Inc. via DQ in 15:40. The place emptied out big-time right after the ring introductions which tells you how much interest the tag title has right now. The wrestlers sensed it as they worked a sound storyline but it was pretty much lacking in action. Before the match they ordered the briefcase to be sent back to the dressing room. Finish saw Scott hit DiBiase with the Frankensteiner when Brooklyn Brawler ran to ringside with the briefcase and handed it to IRS who hit Scott with it. They simply announced Steiners as the winners to tease that the title had changed, but people have seen this too many times and the "fake" title change got no pop. Finally they announced it was a DQ and the titles didn't change. Disappointing match. *1/2."

[Loss]

Dave wouldn't have watched the European tour matches. He talked about their televised match on Superstars and called it "phenomenal" and one of the best matches of Duggan's career. He also talked about the value of squash matches and mentioned how great of a job they did building up Yokozuna at the time because he didn't sell for anyone or leave his feet for months and that because of that, when Duggan took him off of his feet, it was a huge moment that got a great reaction. He said they are building up Rusev similarly and that all he has to do to have a good match at this point is sell just a little because people are used to seeing him not sell very much.

[Matt D]

He sure didn't care about the Duggan match at the time. The only mention of it in 93 was:

 

"Duggan juiced from the mouth in that match and it was heavily pushed as U.S. vs. Japan and they are pushing that theme for the Wrestlemania main event with Bret Hart, which is ironic because Yokozuna and Fuji are both more American than Bret Hart."

He was much more interested in the publicity of people protesting against it.

I guess it's good that he's been able to put it in context retroactively though. He's forgetting the fact that Macho had knocked him down just the week before on the Royal Rumble as the finish of the damn match, but that was more WWF's fault than his. That led to a hilarious moment where Macho tried to point it out on TV only to get hushed. Savage is sort of hilarious announcing in 94 when he was frustrated about not being used and used a lot of his time as a pulpit to talk himself up. He wasn't quite so bad in 93.

EDIT: Sorry about all the edits in the last post. I was researching as I went.

[JerryvonKramer]

My impression of Dave is that when rating matches he values "action", crowd reaction and the booking of the finish. These are the three things he almost always comments on. He will take whole stars off for bad finishes, or poor booking. He will penalise matches for having a dead crowd. And he will penalise what he perceives as a lack of action. I've seldom seen him really talk about psychology.

 

After reading many WONs now, I think it's also fair to say that Meltzer -- at least in the 80s and early 90s -- was a total mark for Japanese wrestling and preferred the NWA to WWF. His biases show through pretty intensely sometimes.

 

Even allowing for all those things, there are still lots of times when he gives something a rating (high or low) that has me scratching my head.

 

One thing I've noticed is that he kinda gets into a groove with a show, especially ones he attended live, so ratings can either be down across the board if he's in a funk, or up across the board if he was feeling it.

 

He'll let backstage goings on affect his ratings as well.

 

-------

 

I think Meltzer is at his best talking about bigger picture stuff: history, booking philosophy, production values, how TV is being presented, breaking down what is wrong and right about a given product. His news is also an invaluable resource. In general, I absolutely love him for all of that.

 

But I think rating and reviewing matches is not a strength of his.

[Matt D]

I agree with a chunk of that. The key point there is that it matters because he was such a trendsetter and in some ways even still is. That's why there's criticism.

 

On the other hand, now I'm thinking I oversold how big a heel act Dibiase was in 92-93 just by looking at cards. Sorry, Parv.

[JerryvonKramer]

DiBiase co-headlined Wrestlemania in 1993 and carried the tag division in 92-3.

 

They'd built him up pretty well in 1991, he wouldn't have look out of place challenging for the title before Flair came in. DiBiase vs. Virgil was number 2 or number 3 feud on the card all year, and one of the two people was Virgil.

 

Also, I think people underrate the extent to which IRS was over as a heel in 91 as well. Money Inc. were the equivalent of the a heel super-team, although IRS was more an IC-level guy than a world-title-level guy.

 

So you were right Matt. That was just a poor house show, and that feud is right right right at the end of Ted's run.

[Guest Eduardo James]

Dave explaining why Rusev's booking has been so effective and evoking Yokozuna/Duggan from '93 as a comparison is the type of thing that I think will kill some of the perception that he only cares about highspots that some people have. It's a great listen on the latest WOR.

 

Ironically, Bischoff used to do this him during the dying WCW days. Say all the right things, but never actually act on them. While I don't think Meltzer is some high spots junkie, he defintely has a bias towards them and it's been pointed out above the love is a bit retroactive. His explanation was pretty spot on though.

 

I felt like firing a gun at my speakers during that "working the leg vs getting crotched" exchange however.

[Loss]

Yeah, that's Wrestling Psychology 101 and Bryan didn't seem to get it.

 

I won't argue with you that Dave has a bias toward more athletic wrestling, but I don't think it's at the exclusion of everything else. It's just what he values most.

[Lee]

Anyone know what the McMahon/Sandow impersonator joke Bryan stopped Dave from telling was?

[cm funk]

Anyone know what the McMahon/Sandow impersonator joke Bryan stopped Dave from telling was?

 

Curious about that as well......he was like, "If he REALLY wanted to do an accurate Vince impression" and Bryan was like...."stop, stop, stop right there, don't say it"

 

Did Vince piss himself backstage or something?

[sek69]

Well there was the story of Vince shitting himself backstage and chasing the notoriously weak stomached Gerald Brisco around with his soiled pants on a stick.

 

I got the impression Dave's joke was going to be something involving Steph since the mention of her reaction prompted another "don't say it!" from Bryan.

[jdw]

After reading many WONs now, I think it's also fair to say that Meltzer -- at least in the 80s and early 90s -- was a total mark for Japanese wrestling and preferred the NWA to WWF. His biases show through pretty intensely sometimes.

 

Dave likes what he thinks is "good wrestling". For both him and the overwhelming majority of his readers in that era, Japan and the NWA were better wrestling.

 

"Mark" would be strong, since he bagged on wrestlers who lost it regardless of whether they were in Japan, the WWF or JCP/WCW. If you asked him now about Yatsu's career, there's a 95% chance that he'll talk about how great a worker he was early in his career, and then how he got fat and lazy in the 1987 range. It's little different from it sticking in his head that Macho took nights off on house shows. He's as likely to bag on Waijima as a worker as the Warlod if you bring up the names to him.

 

 

Even allowing for all those things, there are still lots of times when he gives something a rating (high or low) that has me scratching my head.

 

That's the case with everyone looking at other people's rating of matches. I like the 1981 Backlund vs Murcao match in MSG and their 60 minute match in Philly. Will doesn't agree with me on those, rather strongly. It doesn't mean that we don't both like the heck out of the Bob-Buddy matches.

 

Or we could bring up the Bret vs Owen cage match, where folks have disagreed and scratched their heads over people's ratings for two decades... and not just Dave's.

 

It's ratings... people disagree, and people have biases. Same goes for music, movies, etc.

 

 

One thing I've noticed is that he kinda gets into a groove with a show, especially ones he attended live, so ratings can either be down across the board if he's in a funk, or up across the board if he was feeling it.

 

 

I've seen quite the opposite when sitting next to him at a show. We could be at a card that's a total mess or a total disappointment, then two guys (or four guys in a tag) come out and rip the house down. And he digs it just as much as say Dragon vs Ohtani, which in contrast was in the middle of a card that he liked a good deal.

 

It's really hard to pigeon hole Dave on stuff like that. He's seen more than a hundred cards where only one match really tickled him, and he'll give it a really good rating.

 

 

He'll let backstage goings on affect his ratings as well.

 

 

Never saw it at any house shows I went with him to. I remember one card we were at where all of the wrestling press we were talking to was saying that a match that night was the best they'd seen all year in Tokyo. Dave thought something else was better, and didn't move off his ratings. I've seen wrestler trying to explain what they were doing in their match, kind of getting across the brilliance of their own work... and it having no impact on Dave. On the flip side, I've see a pair of high end workers shrugging off a match of their from earlier in the day, one saying he was half asleep in it until a certain point, and the other not thinking it was anything special. That didn't get even a 1/4* cut from what Dave had rated it in the building, and instead became something of a running joke between us that workers don't always know what's working well in a match.

 

But I think rating and reviewing matches is not a strength of his.

 

 

Dave doesn't break match down, then work through how it all adds up. He takes notes as he goes along, takes a pause at the end of the match to think about it, might a quick look back over his notes to see if anything key jumps out that wasn't at his mind at the end, and will jot down the snowflakes he thinks captures what he thinks about a match. On occasion when I watched stuff with him, he'd have a number in mind but perhaps think it was borderline and ask for your thoughts before before jotting down a number on his pad:

 

DM: "****1/2?"

 

jdw: "Maybe ****1/4. Hash-Choshu felt better..."

 

DM: "Yeah..."

 

But that was rare. Much more likely is he shared a star rating (without others asking first) was that he'd be happy with a match, give it a happy star rating, and that happily toss out the star rating to the people with him. I recall one where it was 4 vs 1 (Tenay & Yohe & Hoback & jdw vs DM) on thinking Dave was over-the-top on a star rating, and he stuck to his guns while the rest of us shook are heads and laughed.

 

But either way, he doesn't review/recap/write up matches like a lot of us do. His always going to have people who disagree with him on matches. It's the nature of the beast: folks disagreed with Roger Ebert on snowflakes for movies.

 

John

[jpchicago23]

Personally I think Meltzers ratings are good to use as a reference point if nothing else. There's plenty to agree/disagree about but that's natural with differing opinions. I don't think people should bash him for calling a match they don't like 4 stars or whatever. There's no universal equation that makes a match great or shitty. Myself for instance ten years ago would never think of guys like Lawler as a personal favorite of mine. I was into straight up technical style and spotty spectacle matches whereas now I love watching great brawls the most so Lawler is a top three guy for me easily now. My favorite match of all time is Bret/Austin from Mania 13 and if someone said that match sucked and had a reason why then I'd have no beef. Different strokes for different folks

[JerryvonKramer]

It's amazing how some people can write so much and yet say so little of substance.

[Matt D]

Question:

 

Do we consider Meltzer an influence on Scott Keith?

 

See, my problem with the Ebert comparison is that I think he shaped the entire IWC and what was considered accepted taste for years and years. Even Ebert had Siskel (not to mention others and also that there isn't a direct comparison to film geeks, I think).

[jpchicago23]

Was that a shot at me Parv?

[Matt D]

Was that a shot at me Parv?

 

This is the message board equivalent of this:

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Not at all bud.

 

Matt, we did discuss this before somewhere, but it was off topic. I did a comparison across IWC reviews and Meltzer. I think it might have been in one of the WTBBP discussion threads, but can't be sure which one. Was a while back, very likely in thread to a show where we discussed Ron Garvin matches.

 

EDIT: genuine lol at that post Matt.

[Matt D]

Give me quick takeaways?

[jpchicago23]

Haha I knew it wasn't I was just bs'ing. I never debate anyways I just chime in.

[Loss]

Question:

 

Do we consider Meltzer an influence on Scott Keith?

 

See, my problem with the Ebert comparison is that I think he shaped the entire IWC and what was considered accepted taste for years and years. Even Ebert had Siskel (not to mention others and also that there isn't a direct comparison to film geeks, I think).

 

The short answer is ... yes. And it's not just limited to Scott Keith. Even when we have wildly divergent opinions, Dave influenced how most of us at this board watch wrestling -- from an artistic/critic's point of view instead of cheering our favorites to beat our least favorites. The concept of viewing wrestling critically at all, at least for fans and in the way we do it, is something Dave deserves most of the credit for popularizing. He also influenced how wrestling is presented on a national stage in a huge way.

 

Not to plug, but the long answer is ... the focus of the prologue in the e-book I am working on. I tried to walk through the entire hardcore wrestling fan history as best I could.

[jpchicago23]

Thats a very good point. He even had the wrestlers themselves getting the "sheets" to see how good or bad they were rated. That had to have some play in how things turned out as well.