Dave Meltzer stuff

[NintendoLogic]

In fairness, that's not quite what Dave was talking about. He was talking about when guys eat a finisher, kick out at one, and then immediately eat a second finisher which puts them down for good. Like I said, I'm not in love with it, but it's fine when done properly.

[pol]

That kind of thing (as well as popping up after suplexes that had been sold normally prior) kills suspension of disbelief for me because it's a disruption of the established logic of the match. My reaction is "oh, they weren't really kicking out at 2.9 because they'd taken so much punishment", "oh, they aren't really so exhausted they can't get up after taking a suplex", etc.

I think the discrepancy comes from the fact that Dave likes his wrestling to seem real. To me, that's an outdated notion of the kayfabe era. I look at wrestling the same way I look at any other work of fiction - I don't need it to be realistic, but it has to respect its own internal logic.

 

I've thought for a while now that this difference in outlook is why WWE's creative is so nonsensical and inconsistent - they believe they have to seem real, but they know everyone knows it's fake, so they've just given up on the logic and consistency necessary to maintain the pretense of being a legitimate athletic contest (as Dave often characterizes WWE as saying: "it's wrestling, everyone knows it's fake, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense"). What they should be doing is accepting that everyone knows it's fake but working to produce a coherent and logical fictional reality, but I guess to the people in charge this is a totally foreign way of looking at wrestling after all the kayfabe years. This might warrant a thread of its own...

[MJH]

The problem with "2.9!" to me is that in almost all cases nowadays they work it as its own segment, and it's "your-turn-my-turn". Shawn/Taker at Mania is most obvious because they use the dives as reset spots (I remember Atlantis/Villano being similar in that regard), but what happens is the drama is purely in the kickouts, nothing else, whatever "story" the match had is often forgotten at that point.

[ohtani's jacket]

Japanese fans pop for kickouts because nearfalls and counting along are part of the show for them. In the match Dave gave five stars to, they pop when the workers beat the count out, not because they believed they wouldn't make it back into the ring but because it's a spot they're supposed to pop for. They're a well conditioned audience, but they enjoy it very much.

[Fantastic]

On a side note, I love those moves that nobody kicks out of in Japanese wrestling. Whenever Kobashi teased the Burning Hammer or attempted it, the crowd popped huge, knowing that if he landed it, the match was definitely over.

[funkdoc]

On a side note, I love those moves that nobody kicks out of in Japanese wrestling. Whenever Kobashi teased the Burning Hammer or attempted it, the crowd popped huge, knowing that if he landed it, the match was definitely over.

 

i've always viewed the burning hammer as wrestling's version of the classic Forbidden Technique trope in martial arts movies

[...TG]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but there was a pretty interesting blind item in last week's (9/22/2014) Observer. In the middle of the WWE notes section, he broke down the Bret Hart episode of the Monday Night Wars series. Talking about Shawn Michaels' in summer/fall 1997...

 

"You want to know how much heat Michaels had. [sic] In that period, there were two wrestlers I had to talk out of fighting with Michaels (neither of which were Hart, because he and I weren't on speaking terms at that time), because I told them it wasn't worth losing your job over, and both were guys who would have been fired in an instant for it. This was well before Hart was leaving."

 

The blind item comes right after a discussion of Michaels refusing to job to Davey Boy Smith in a European title match, which was at One Night Only on 9/20/1997. So that and the last sentence I quoted above place it in Summer 1997. Who are the two wrestlers? My guess:

• Brian Pillman - Pillman was very close with Dave, and storyline close with Bret (although who knows in real life). Brian died on 10/5/1997, so the time frame is plausible. OTOH, would Brian have listened to reason?

That's all I have can think of as relatively certain. Here are the criteria as I see it:

• Lower-level enough to be "fired in an instant" - rules out Austin, Undertaker, Davey Boy, Vader, HHH (?), LOD (?), Owen Hart (?), Foley (?), Shamrock (?)
• Volatile enough to be willing to fight Michaels over something he's not directly involved in - rules out Foley, Owen, Goldust (don't know his personality, but it doesn't seem like it)
• On Bret's "side" in the Bret v Shawn feud - rules out HHH
• Close enough with Dave to speak with him regularly, and listen to his advice - Need some help here.

Anyone have any guesses?

 

Tom

[PeteF3]

Windham? Just throwing it out there, but he did walk out over Montreal. Once you eliminate all the top guys, there's not much separating the rest of the chaff. It could have been a Godwinn or a Boricua. The highest-"ranking" candidate besides Pillman I can think of would be maybe one of LOD.

[Sidebottom]

NJPW isn't the only offender. Almost every big WWE match, especially those at WrestleMania, have that bullshit with wrestlers kTheicking out of finishers. It's one of the trends I can't stand, because it's no longer exciting and it feels like an overdone, worn out cliche at this point.

 

These are my sentiments. The drama should be building up to executing the finisher, knowing that if somebody hits it it's over. Is there any finisher going today where somebody hasn't kicked out of it / tapped out? I can't think of a single one.

[Bix]

 

 

NJPW isn't the only offender. Almost every big WWE match, especially those at WrestleMania, have that bullshit with wrestlers kTheicking out of finishers. It's one of the trends I can't stand, because it's no longer exciting and it feels like an overdone, worn out cliche at this point.

These are my sentiments. The drama should be building up to executing the finisher, knowing that if somebody hits it it's over. Is there any finisher going today where somebody hasn't kicked out of it / tapped out? I can't think of a single one.

Daniel Bryan's flying knee has been incredibly protected. I think the only false finish off it was in the WrestleMania main event and IIRC there were some shenanigans there.

[pantherwagner]

Atlantis' Atlantida has been countered only vs Villano III and vs Ultimo Guerrero and once it's locked in it's not even a struggle - the match is over.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Windham? Just throwing it out there, but he did walk out over Montreal. Once you eliminate all the top guys, there's not much separating the rest of the chaff. It could have been a Godwinn or a Boricua. The highest-"ranking" candidate besides Pillman I can think of would be maybe one of LOD.

I'd bet the farm one was Bob Holly.

[goc]

Doubt it was Bob. Just read Bob's book a week ago and he said that he had a confrontation with Michaels on an overseas tour where he threatened to kick Shawn's ass but it ended after that because Shawn didn't fuck with him again (The story includes Randy Savage as a guy who was in the locker room at the time so definitely doesn't fit the time period either). Also never got a sense from the book that he'd ever talked to Dave Meltzer or would have wanted to. Pretty good book btw.

[The Chief]

Harris Boys or Scorpio is my guess, although the Harris boys backed up Shawn as Montreal was happening.

[ButchReedMark]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but there was a pretty interesting blind item in last week's (9/22/2014) Observer. In the middle of the WWE notes section, he broke down the Bret Hart episode of the Monday Night Wars series. Talking about Shawn Michaels' in summer/fall 1997...

 

"You want to know how much heat Michaels had. [sic] In that period, there were two wrestlers I had to talk out of fighting with Michaels (neither of which were Hart, because he and I weren't on speaking terms at that time), because I told them it wasn't worth losing your job over, and both were guys who would have been fired in an instant for it. This was well before Hart was leaving."

 

The blind item comes right after a discussion of Michaels refusing to job to Davey Boy Smith in a European title match, which was at One Night Only on 9/20/1997. So that and the last sentence I quoted above place it in Summer 1997. Who are the two wrestlers? My guess:

• Brian Pillman - Pillman was very close with Dave, and storyline close with Bret (although who knows in real life). Brian died on 10/5/1997, so the time frame is plausible. OTOH, would Brian have listened to reason?

That's all I have can think of as relatively certain. Here are the criteria as I see it:

• Lower-level enough to be "fired in an instant" - rules out Austin, Undertaker, Davey Boy, Vader, HHH (?), LOD (?), Owen Hart (?), Foley (?), Shamrock (?)
• Volatile enough to be willing to fight Michaels over something he's not directly involved in - rules out Foley, Owen, Goldust (don't know his personality, but it doesn't seem like it)
• On Bret's "side" in the Bret v Shawn feud - rules out HHH
• Close enough with Dave to speak with him regularly, and listen to his advice - Need some help here.

Anyone have any guesses?

 

Tom

 

Neidhart? Brian Adams? Rick Rude as an outside bet as he walked over Montreal.

[Loss]

Hell, it could even be someone like Cornette overestimating himself and thinking he could take him.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Hell, it could even be someone like Cornette overestimating himself and thinking he could take him.

Hahaha, well done, man.

[artDDP]

 

Not sure if this is the right thread, but there was a pretty interesting blind item in last week's (9/22/2014) Observer. In the middle of the WWE notes section, he broke down the Bret Hart episode of the Monday Night Wars series. Talking about Shawn Michaels' in summer/fall 1997...

 

"You want to know how much heat Michaels had. [sic] In that period, there were two wrestlers I had to talk out of fighting with Michaels (neither of which were Hart, because he and I weren't on speaking terms at that time), because I told them it wasn't worth losing your job over, and both were guys who would have been fired in an instant for it. This was well before Hart was leaving."

 

The blind item comes right after a discussion of Michaels refusing to job to Davey Boy Smith in a European title match, which was at One Night Only on 9/20/1997. So that and the last sentence I quoted above place it in Summer 1997. Who are the two wrestlers? My guess:

• Brian Pillman - Pillman was very close with Dave, and storyline close with Bret (although who knows in real life). Brian died on 10/5/1997, so the time frame is plausible. OTOH, would Brian have listened to reason?

That's all I have can think of as relatively certain. Here are the criteria as I see it:

• Lower-level enough to be "fired in an instant" - rules out Austin, Undertaker, Davey Boy, Vader, HHH (?), LOD (?), Owen Hart (?), Foley (?), Shamrock (?)
• Volatile enough to be willing to fight Michaels over something he's not directly involved in - rules out Foley, Owen, Goldust (don't know his personality, but it doesn't seem like it)
• On Bret's "side" in the Bret v Shawn feud - rules out HHH
• Close enough with Dave to speak with him regularly, and listen to his advice - Need some help here.

Anyone have any guesses?

 

Tom

 

Neidhart? Brian Adams? Rick Rude as an outside bet as he walked over Montreal.

 

Didn't Brian Adams also walk as a result of Montreal?

 

I could see him being "fired in an instant". He wasn't exactly that valuable to the WWF at the time.

[Al]

Mick Foley's book mentioned Kane being upset about Montreal, but being in a position where he couldn't make waves.

[flyonthewall2983]

Harris Boys or Scorpio is my guess, although the Harris boys backed up Shawn as Montreal was happening.

 

I can buy Scorpio being pissed off with Shawn, especially after how he treated Vader (who broke Scorpio in the business).

[hammerva]

Okay I am really confused by meltzer on the RAW report last night. It sounded like he said that the crowd chanting 'YES' after the Brie Bella match is bad for Daniel Bryan because it shows that he isn't over but the chant is over and he could be replaced with anyone. Never mind the fact that Brie and Daniel are married (legit married not a work)

 

I know that Dave has always pushed the "Daniel Bryan isn't a draw" theory for a good year but this logic makes no sense.

[WingedEagle]

I thought Brie went out of her way to start the chant and assumed those were marching orders for the post-match. Perhaps that's wildly optimistic but it looked like a designed spot to remind people about Bryan.

[cheapshot]

What he is basically saying is the WWE office could potentially think the chant is over and the person leading the chant is interchangeable and how that could hurt him.

 

Not the best point he's made, but I understood the potential connotations.

[Loss]

When Bryan returns, his popularity will be undeniable, so I'm not too worried about it. I don't think WWE will ever quite get behind him the way fans want them to do it, but I think he's pretty safely in a top spot now. Not the top spot, but a top spot. Cue the Arn Anderson jokes.

[Sean Liska]

They built an extremely important Mania completely around him and it did pretty well all things considered. Why are wondering if they think he's over?