Dave Meltzer stuff

[jdw]

The guy, after 40 years of following and writing about the ins and outs of pro wrestling, is still an unapologetic and enthusiastic fan. Good on him.

 

I agree with that.

 

Irony?

 

People in the 90s were bitching about Dave "hating everything" and tended to ignore how much stuff during a given year he was insanely enthusiastic about.

 

There's always been stuff in wrestling that drive him nuts and grinds him down. It's right there in the old large format WONS in 1983-85. In turn, there's always been stuff that he loses his shit over.

[jdw]

After saying you can't re-watch a match and re-analyse/judge it (does/doesn't hold up), Dave tweets out that Sting vs. HHH doesn't hold up on tape with commentary.

 

I don't understand why he thinks that but at least when he was just on that side of the fence, I could live with it.

 

Now he is going against his own philosophies. Don't get it.

 

This is consistent with Dave's prior inconsistencies. Keith could probably pull up the quote of Dave tossing the old "being tolerant of others opinions" quote at someone in a heated discussion, only to later then call his own sites poll voters the equiv of an Idiot Vote.

[jdw]

 

 

 

This notion that the match stinks, seems to be the same notion that wrestling has changed and without speed and huge athletic spots it sucks.

 

No, people thought the match stunk at the time. That isn't a new notion. If there has been a change is that at least in some circles, there's a greater appreciation for match layout, psychology, selling and storytelling than there used to be, so even matches that lack speed and a diversity of offense get praised for what they do well, which I personally think is a good thing.

 

Maybe some circles at the time thought it stunk, but it wasn't the generally consensus among fans.

 

There isn't a change towards math layout, psychology and selling, those have ALWAYS been what makes a great wrestler. Even if a lot of people are sidetracked from that way of thinking, doesn't make it true.

 

 

The consensus among PWO-style wrrestling fans at the time was that it stunk donkey balls. It's not just Dave. Look at 1987 here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wrestling_Observer_Newsletter_awards#Worst_Worked_Match_of_the_Year

 

Hardcore fans, which is exactly what everyone here is, thought it sucked at the time.

 

It's cool that people here now think it's great, or it rules, or it's well laid out. Whenever I happen to watch it again, I probably will like it a hell of a lot more now than at the time since (i) I tend to like most Hogan matches better now than in the 80s, and (ii) I was an NWA fan who thought 90% of WWF wrestling was boring as all fuck.

 

It's 35 years ago. Hardcore fandom tastes and opinions change. In 35 years from now, people will be sifting through the equiv of the Wayback Machine looking at post on here and wondering how much meth we were smoking to love Lawler, Fujiwara and Tsuruta so much.

[jdw]

Andre/Hogan is much like Rock/Hogan and Sting/HHH...a blast to watch for those who were "there" but probably doesn't hold up in subsequent years.

 

Hogan-Rock holds up.

[C.S.]

 

Andre/Hogan is much like Rock/Hogan and Sting/HHH...a blast to watch for those who were "there" but probably doesn't hold up in subsequent years.

 

Hogan-Rock holds up.

 

 

In case you missed the follow-up:

 

I've rewatched Andre/Hogan and Rock/Hogan many times and they totally hold up for me. The atmosphere, the crowd, the "larger than life" characters, the energy........both those matches are really fun on replay

 

too soon to rate Sting/HHH.....but I really liked it on first watch and suspect I will like it on replay

 

I should probably clarify what I meant... I was mainly referring to people who "weren't there at the time" and are only watching these matches years after the fact. (Obviously, that doesn't really apply to Sting/HHH...yet.) Yeah, my post wasn't clear at all.

 

I'm not big on rewatching matches, but I suspect I'd have the same reaction you did. If I liked something at the time, even if it was from when I was a kid, I tend to still like it now because the nostalgia factor fills me with good memories and makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

[rzombie1988]

 

Do you think 35 year old Dave (he's 55 now) would of rated the Diva's tag as ***, especially after all the years of AJW he's seen over the years?

 

35 year old Dave and I were sitting in Yokohama Arena watching this card 20 years to the week before this year's Mania:

 

http://prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/japan/women/ajw/queen.html#iii

 

Setting aside the "shootboxing" match in the prelims, I'd be surprised if he would rate the Divas match *close* to any of the other matches, let alone above any of them.

 

The WON with the star ratings for that show appears to be online:

 

April 10, 1995 Observer Newsletter: WrestleMania XI in-depth report, Weekly Pro Wrestling show at the Tokyo Dome, major World Championship Wrestling shake-ups, tons more

 

Someone may want to go pull them over for comp.

 

Jdw, can you believe that for a short period after Wrestlemania, Dave thought WM 31 was superior to this AJW show and all of the other AJW cards like Dreamslam, DreamRush and Big Egg?

[kjh]

 

Do you think 35 year old Dave (he's 55 now) would of rated the Diva's tag as ***, especially after all the years of AJW he's seen over the years?

 

35 year old Dave and I were sitting in Yokohama Arena watching this card 20 years to the week before this year's Mania:

 

http://prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/japan/women/ajw/queen.html#iii

 

Setting aside the "shootboxing" match in the prelims, I'd be surprised if he would rate the Divas match *close* to any of the other matches, let alone above any of them.

 

The WON with the star ratings for that show appears to be online:

 

April 10, 1995 Observer Newsletter: WrestleMania XI in-depth report, Weekly Pro Wrestling show at the Tokyo Dome, major World Championship Wrestling shake-ups, tons more

 

Someone may want to go pull them over for comp.

 

 

Star ratings were in order: **1/4, ***, NA, **3/4, ****1/4, ***1/2, ****1/2, ****3/4, ****1/2 and ****1/2.

[Parties]

Jdw, can you believe that for a short period after Wrestlemania, Dave thought WM 31 was superior to this AJW show and all of the other AJW cards like Dreamslam, DreamRush and Big Egg?

 

 

Did he actually write that somewhere in the Observer? I only heard him on the radio show saying that he initially thought it was one of the 2 or 3 best Manias, and that it was one of the best shows he's attended live. And even that was something he seemed to dial back once he realized that much of the show wasn't as exciting on tape.

[jdw]

Jdw, can you believe that for a short period after Wrestlemania, Dave thought WM 31 was superior to this AJW show and all of the other AJW cards like Dreamslam, DreamRush and Big Egg?

 

 

Did he really think it was the best card he'd ever seen? Or just the best card he'd ever been to live, which would eliminate (Dreamslam & DreamRush) but Big Egg and the 1986 Starcade and 1995 Weekly Pro Wrestling show, etc.

[jdw]

 

 

Do you think 35 year old Dave (he's 55 now) would of rated the Diva's tag as ***, especially after all the years of AJW he's seen over the years?

 

35 year old Dave and I were sitting in Yokohama Arena watching this card 20 years to the week before this year's Mania:

 

http://prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/japan/women/ajw/queen.html#iii

 

Setting aside the "shootboxing" match in the prelims, I'd be surprised if he would rate the Divas match *close* to any of the other matches, let alone above any of them.

 

The WON with the star ratings for that show appears to be online:

 

April 10, 1995 Observer Newsletter: WrestleMania XI in-depth report, Weekly Pro Wrestling show at the Tokyo Dome, major World Championship Wrestling shake-ups, tons more

 

Someone may want to go pull them over for comp.

 

 

Star ratings were in order: **1/4, ***, NA, **3/4, ****1/4, ***1/2, ****1/2, ****3/4, ****1/2 and ****1/2.

 

 

Let me see if I can line those up:

 

1. Rie Tamada pinned Kumiko Maekawa (10:37) **1/4

2. AJW Junior Title: Chaparita Asari pinned Candy Okutsu (15:33) Δ ***

3. Noriko Tsunada and Kaoru Ito battled to a draw (5 rounds) in a "shootboxing" match

4. Jaguar Yokota & Lady Apache beat Mariko Yoshida & Felina (17:58) **3/4

5. UWA Tag: Etsuko Mita & Mima Shimoda beat Tomoko Watanabe & Suzuka Minami (19:01) ****1/4

6. Sakie Hasegawa pinned Bison Kimura (10:05) ***1/2

7. All-Pacific Title: Toshiyo Yamada beat Takako Inoue and Reggie Bennett (20:43) Δ ****1/2

8. Yumiko Hotta KO Lioness Asuka (22:53) in an "ultimate fight" match. ****3/4

9. WWF Title: Bull Nakano pinned Kyoko Inoue (17:07) ****1/2

10 WWWA Title: Manami Toyota pinned Aja Kong (23:21) Δ ****1/2

 

Are you sure the All-Pacific went to ****1/2? I remember him liking the rest of the stuff to the degree that he did, but 4.5 seems above what he rated that.

 

Quick note: I'm not going to vouch for the snowflakes being what I thought of the matches at the time, or what I'd think of them watching them now. I know some of those don't hold up well, and the Hotta-Asuka is a match that a lot of people hate these days. But I will say... in the building, this was a spectacle of a card. Aja had been the champ for years, and to see her drop it after kicking the crap out of Toyota was pretty amazing. I loved Bull-Kyoko. Hotta-Asuka in the building, in the years before MMA has taken over the world, in a bullshit-wrestling setting, was miles above the other work-shoot bullshit that we were getting at the time, or would be getting in the near term. That's excluding the UWF-style stuff, which was it's own beast. The All-Pacific Title match was entertaining. Mita & Shimoda live was like watching the Midnight Express live: their standard match against even uninteresting opponents had loads of cool bullshit heel spots, playing to the crowd, pissing off their opponents... it was just really solid stuff, even before you getting into the cool moves (which lord knows the Midnights had more cool shit that any tag team in the US in their era as well). This was a really entertaining card live. Snowflakes might be a bit high, but I'd be happy to go to that show again right now.

 

Anyway, if they were on the same card, he would not have rated the Divas match above the Jaguar match. He probably wouldn't have rated it above the Tamada-Maekawa, which was little more than a simple AJW prelim match. But I don't think the Diva workers were even at that level.

[jdw]

 

Jdw, can you believe that for a short period after Wrestlemania, Dave thought WM 31 was superior to this AJW show and all of the other AJW cards like Dreamslam, DreamRush and Big Egg?

 

 

Did he actually write that somewhere in the Observer? I only heard him on the radio show saying that he initially thought it was one of the 2 or 3 best Manias, and that it was one of the best shows he's attended live. And even that was something he seemed to dial back once he realized that much of the show wasn't as exciting on tape.

 

 

I enjoyed Mania.

 

I don't think it would rank in the Top 10 of shows that Dave and I watched together, let alone were in the same building for, let alone other shows he went to that he lost his shit for like Starcade 1986 or Big Egg or some of those 1989 cards.

 

Mania is Mania, and it's in a Stadium, and when the crowd is into it in a sustained fashion (as opposed to the match or two they came to see), it can be an amazing spectacle. I totally get that. But...

 

Dave often says a lot of things that he doesn't slow down to think about. Even if the card on TV held up to what it was live for him, I suspect that if you started tossing out 10-20 cards he'd been to that he lost his shit over, he'd quickly go, "Yeah.... Mania wasn't *that* good."

 

We all do that.

 

I recall people giving a pair of matches at the World Peace Festival ***** stars: the Liger-Sasuke and the Rey & Ultimo Dragon vs Psicosis & Metal match. These were folks who also tosssed out ***** for a number of ECW matches. We had no ability to talk them off that ledge, that's Liger-Sasuke wasn't close to Ohtani-Dragon later that year (which I didn't think was *****) or that we'd seen Rey and Psic in a dozen better matches live than that 12 minute thing at the WPF.

 

Watching things live is great... a lot of fun. Watching something really great live is great and a lot of fun. But it can really screw up your perspective.

[Matt D]

I haven't been to a lot of live wrestling in the last decade but I was at the Rumble this year, and there was no way I could rate the Three-way having seen it live. It's a wildly different experience to watch a match live than on tape. It's also a different experience watching a match the first time and the second time. It's a different experience watching a match as it happens and later on, especially if you know how long it'd be. I think we might understate this a bit in discussing matches.

 

In some ways, all of that makes a lot of what we do in looking at matches from the 70s/80s more uniform, I think, more valid, not less, because a lot of us come from the same point of reference in watching something like an 80s set in 2015.

[WingedEagle]

It's a wildly different experience to watch a match live than on tape. It's also a different experience watching a match the first time and the second time. It's a different experience watching a match as it happens and later on, especially if you know how long it'd be. I think we might understate this a bit in discussing matches.

 

This is all wildly understated. Not to say things don't hold up, but one's reactions, expectations and entire experience are definitely different going into something with a completely clean slate. I wouldn't argue for the pros/cons of a first versus subsequent viewings other than the spoiler free aspect, but the impact shouldn't be dismissed.

[goc]

I can't think of a match that I LOVED on first watch that ever matched the initial viewing on a rewatch. You can't recapture the emotion of the first time you saw a match and that's what good matches are all about, making you feel something.

[jdw]

I can think of any number of matches that I've loved more on second or later viewings. Ohtani-Sammy was better for me on later viewings, and I loved it more off the first viewing than anyone of that era.

 

Wrestling is just another form of entertainment. How many movies or records do we like more on second viewing/listening? Happens all the time. I recently watched Notorious for the first time in decades. I've always loved the movie, but this time it was off the charts watching it for whatever reason.

[jdw]

I haven't been to a lot of live wrestling in the last decade but I was at the Rumble this year, and there was no way I could rate the Three-way having seen it live. It's a wildly different experience to watch a match live than on tape.

 

It is, but I don't think it's impossible to get your brain in the mindset to rate.

 

That Queendom that Dave and I were at was a blast live, with a surprise finish in the last match. It's easy to get wrapped up in it and go all *****+++. But by that point it was also easy enough for me to roll over in my head rather quickly:

 

"Was that better than Hokuto-Kandori?"

 

You have reference points that you can go to.

 

I recall a Rev vs Psic match we were at that Dave lost his shit over and went to ****3/4 when it was over. Not a single person in the group had it above ****1/4, including a certain noted award winning announcer. Why? Not because we didn't think it was a good match, or one where they executed their shit well compared to having a sloppy match. But because the rest of us seemed to have the equiv of a NASCAR restrictor plate in our brains that let is avoid adding on 1/2* to * extra simply for losing our shit live over a good match. We were able to both go "Damn that was a lot of fun" while also quickly being able to slip on the reference points and understand "That really isn't rubbing up against Sasuke-Pegasus range".

 

It's not hard.

 

I just don't think most people care to do it, or are able *at the moment* to do it.

 

Same goes for movies when you see people snap-judge snowflakes on them. Yohe does it, and I'll go, "Is that really as good as [Movie X that he gave the same rating to]?" Which both tends to annoy him, but also quickly get him to think, "No... it's really good but not that good" and knock the snowflake down a bit.

[Matt D]

I will say that if I was watching live wrestling very frequently then maybe I could.

[DR Ackermann]

There are quite a few matches that I wound up loving even more on rewatch. Having a greater understanding of what you are watching can allow you to appreciate the nuances of it that you might not have picked up on before while still having the emotional connection. I loved a bunch of the Hansen/Funk AJPW encounters the first time I saw them and they get better every time for me.

[jdw]

Before anyone tosses out, "Doesn't that ruin your enjoyment of stuff?"

 

The answer would be: No

 

When I think of what I thought (at the time) was the best match that I ever saw live, and the star rating I gave it at the time, walking through these stages:

 

1. "I think that's the best match I've ever seen live."

2. "Is it as good as DreamSlam or the 2-3 best AJPW matches I've seen on tape?"

3. "No."

4. "Alrighty... it's not going above ****3/4"

 

That took nothing away from the fact that I just watched an awesome match that I lost my mental shit over enjoying the hell out of it, and will always remember that match.

 

It's not hard to do.

 

* * * * *

 

On the other hand, I really can't be bothered to go snowflakey anymore, nor have I for over a decade. It's just not something I want to waste time with, though it's perfectly cool if others have fun with it.

 

The comparison part? Still enjoy that.

 

Ranking/slotting? Doesn't matter as much to me as it once did, though there are times I'll still do it in a more narrow sense, and I certainly enjoy reading stuff like Loss putting together his yearbook rankings.

 

But coming up with snowflakes? I'd rather say something was solid, excellent, good, etc. I'd rather articulate why someone might want to watch / track down a "solid" match then toss a *** on it that makes people feel it's not worth their time.

 

When doing those Carny 1994 recommendations, the notion of putting snowflakes on Doc vs Akiyama was a waste to me. What was important was to try to get across why it should be on the set, and/or why people should track it down. Either the words convince people that it's worth their time, or not. I don't mentally skip to the end to look at what snowflake I give it, and really don't want people to do that with what I'm writing over the past decade or so.

[goc]

I don't generally like TV shows or movies better on rewatch either though. Usually it has to be something I didn't like that much to begin for me to like it better on a second go around.

[cm funk]

I can't think of a match that I LOVED on first watch that ever matched the initial viewing on a rewatch. You can't recapture the emotion of the first time you saw a match and that's what good matches are all about, making you feel something.

 

Best example of this to me is HBK/HHH at SummerSlam 02. I was a huge HBK fan and was so psyched for his comeback match after 4+ years out of the ring and all the aborted comebacks, and I was marking out and on the edge of my seat for the whole thing.......but holy shit that match doesn't hold up at all. It's pretty awful. I've rewatched it a few times and I'm like "how did I ever think this was good?"

 

If you take it out of the moment and the time it sucks. HHH and Shawn had so many matches in that 02-03 period and there isn't a single one of them that I would ever want to see again. They range from ok to mediocre to downright boring

[Grimmas]

 

I can't think of a match that I LOVED on first watch that ever matched the initial viewing on a rewatch. You can't recapture the emotion of the first time you saw a match and that's what good matches are all about, making you feel something.

 

Best example of this to me is HBK/HHH at SummerSlam 02. I was a huge HBK fan and was so psyched for his comeback match after 4+ years out of the ring and all the aborted comebacks, and I was marking out and on the edge of my seat for the whole thing.......but holy shit that match doesn't hold up at all. It's pretty awful. I've rewatched it a few times and I'm like "how did I ever think this was good?"

 

If you take it out of the moment and the time it sucks. HHH and Shawn had so many matches in that 02-03 period and there isn't a single one of them that I would ever want to see again. They range from ok to mediocre to downright boring

 

I've always made the argument that if art doesn't hold up then it was never great to being with.

[Loss]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if a wrestling match works in the moment but doesn't really transcend time. I think it's more nuanced than that. Some matches are great in the context of their time and what surrounded them, but are not as enjoyable now. Some matches look better with hindsight than they did at the time. Some matches are timeless. All have positives in very different ways.

[jdw]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if a wrestling match works in the moment but doesn't really transcend time. I think it's more nuanced than that. Some matches are great in the context of their time and what surrounded them, but are not as enjoyable now. Some matches look better with hindsight than they did at the time. Some matches are timeless. All have positives in very different ways.

 

I agree with this.

 

I have no idea what I'll think of Hotta-Lioness or Kong-Toyota or Bull-Kyoko or the All Pacific three-way or the Mita & Shimoda or the Hasegawa-Kimura matches the next time I watched them.

 

Live, it was pretty fanfuckingtastic to watch those six straight matches on a card, after having watch two perfectly enjoyable matches of the four earlier on the card. I'll always remember that show, that arena, those performers, who I watched the card with, and that it all was a blast.

 

Would it suck if I watched Hotta-Lioness today and found it to be shitty, or not especially good? Not really. I don't have a problem reconsidering my initial views. I not only doesn't take away from that original fun I had watch the card, but presents interesting challenges for me to ponder:

 

* were we hitting the Live Ratings Bong?

* did we miss some obvious flaws we should have seen at the time?

* is it simply something that doesn't age well due to 20 years of MMA since then?

* is it not as good as we thought, but actually not that bad given the shape of fake-MMA in the era?

 

And probably a dozen other things to ponder, from individual performances to specific items within the performances.

 

There are other times when it doesn't really matter. I recall liking the hell out of a Can-Ams vs Kawada & Kikuchi match in 1992 that was a few months prior to the famed Cans-Ams vs Kobashi & Kikuchi. If I watched it now and found it flat or sloppy, there would be two outcomes:

 

If I'm doing a recap of the entire era, match by match, I'd spend some time copping to the change in views, and probably walking through why.

 

If I just popping in a random AJPW tape/disk, had the vibe, it would be an easy toss off: "Well, there's one that I was missing the boat on" and move on.

 

Neither would lessen the fact that I had a ton of fun watching AJPW in near-realtime in the 90s, and that was a match that contributed to my enjoyment.

 

Of course if I watched El Clasico or El Super Clasico and thought they sucked... that would be crushing to the soul.

 

[Sean Liska]

So what's all this fun at the Observer board about an older wrestling figure getting mad at Dave because of Todd's 80s Observer recap audio segments and Todd subsequently disappearing?