Dave Meltzer stuff

[PhilTLL]

Why do people enjoy Dave being worked? That's as strange a case of schadenfreude that I've seen.

For the same reason it's enjoyable when Professor Harold Hill gets one over on the mayor (though perhaps Meltzer is more like Marian). If you don't get a kick out of a guy feeding disinformation to three different people to improve his bargaining position and work the only journalist in wrestling along the way, well, I don't know what to say. That's old school.

 

I meant to say something like "Well-played," not "Fuck Dave." Though I reserve the right to enjoy when Dave gets worked in any manner just for chaotic chuckles. I certainly don't resent it.

[jdw]

 

 

If Meltzer thinks you're a bad worker, you'll likely never make the HOF. He's made JYD out to be one of the most glaring examples of "over act who couldn't work at all", while downplaying the length of his peak run and box office. I've never heard him bring up the positive racial impact of his run. From the way Dave talks about him both now and in old newsletters, you'd think he was among the worst in-ring ever. I would guess he hasn't watched a full JYD match in 25 years, so not sure what he'd say about them now. Also not sure if Dog is someone who Meltzer recognizes should be a contender, or if he's someone for whom people of that era/region lobby.

 

Dave put people in the HOF that he thought were bad workers. So if current voters don't vote for bad workers, it's their own fault, not Dave's.

 

 

I'm saying for the current nominees going forward. There have been slam dunk candidates who he doesn't like as workers - I would guess you're referring to guys like Hogan, Rock, maybe Mascaras (not sure of his opinion on him).

 

 

I was thinking more in terms of who Dave put in: largely the 1996 & 1997 class, along with non-elected Old Timers since then. Rock was voted in, so we'll deal with him in a different bucket.

 

Looking at the 1996 & 1997 classes, these would be guys that at the time Dave didn't think we good workers:

 

Abdullah the Butcher

Perro Aguayo

Andre the Giant

Shohei "Giant" Baba

Bobo Brazil

Billy Graham

Hulk Hogan

Mil Mascaras

Kintaro Oki

Dusty Rhodes

Rikidozan

The Road Warriors

Antonino Rocca

Bruno Sammartino

The Sheik

 

I'm not saying that he thought all of them were horrific workers. But he didn't think any were good, and most of them bad.

 

He wasn't high on The Crusher or Dick the Bruiser. I don't recall him being super high on Maurice Vachon as a worker, but guys like Kevin (khawk) and the late Jim Zordani (Clawmaster) would agree that Dave didn't think much of many of the top AWA guys, including Verne while also underrating all-time greats like Robinson.

 

I don't think he saw Fritz Von Erich as a good worker in 1996, but as a big star and a successful promoter.

 

His old timer sources like Thesz crapped on Gorgeous George and Bronko Nagurski. Thesz likely crapped on Édouard Carpentier as well, and Dave had no reference point on him, hence him not getting in until 1997 when seeing the error of our ways.

 

I'm not entirely sold that he thought Dump Matsumoto was a good worker, but instead a great heel character who was booked terrifically against an Ultimate Babyface like Chigusa.

 

The key for all these guys is that they were Major Stars, with most of them among the very biggest of stars in their era or area.

 

Not being a good work wasn't a dead end for Dave when it came to putting in people.

 

Out of the 200 people in the HOF, those are the only 3 that look like people he might not like in-ring, and I suspect that he would recognize that they were all good at certain things and more importantly are undeniable as candidates.

 

 

Someone else can count up how many that is. It's more than Hogan, or Hogan & Mil.

 

Maybe Dave's lobbying for/against certain people doesn't affect the voting as much as I'd guess, esp. for non-English speakers who wouldn't be listening to his podcasts or reading the Observer,

 

 

In 2004, Undertaker and Backlund went in. Dave didn't really think either was a good worker. We've dug up some quotes here and there where he's said some positive things about Backlund, but far more often he's been crapped on. The incomplete History of the WWWF/WWF/WWE Title series covered Backlund in full, and by full I mean full of all the old myths were recycled.

 

Here's an old thread on Classics after the series came out:

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000119;p=0

 

As for Taker, 2004 was before he got a much more respectful rep for his big matches. By that point, there were a ton of times that Taker's work had been knocked over the prior 15 years.

 

Yet they still got voted in.

 

Dave never thought Konnan was a good worker. He was a bit too nice to call him bad, since Carlos was a friend.

 

I don't think that Dave ever thought Curtis Iaukea was a good worker. Good gimmick, but not Dave's idea of a good worker.

 

Dave is fully Thesz title on Hans Schmidt not being a good worker. It doesn't matter how many time some of us called him a Stan Hansen type of worker for his era, Dave never bought it. We still voted him in.

 

For much of his career, Dave didn't think Kensuke Sasaki was a good worker. I zoned out of Dave's rating puroresu guys in the mid-00s, so it's likely that stuff like the Kobashi match started to get Sasaki respect from Dave. But flat out, Sasaki was thought of by him as one of the lesser heavyweights of his era. Non-HOFers like Koshinaka and Jun he thought were better, and he had Taue's peak well above Sasaki's peak. People still voted Sasaki in.

 

Hell, Sakagughi was a threat to get in, and Dave thought he was a choad as a worker.

 

So...

 

but how many such people even get a ballot?

 

 

Any number of bad workers get on the ballot. Take that question up in the WON Awards Thread, and I'm sure folks will go digging back through the ballots to see all the non-good / mediocre / bad workers that have made the ballot.

 

 

Point being that constantly harping on JYD becomes gospel to many fans, including many of those given ballots.

 

 

 

I have a ballot. I don't find JYD to be a "good" worker, even watching his Mid-South stuff. Effective? Yeah, I guess. He doesn't do much for me.

 

Do the non-work elements of his career warrant a place on the ballot? Sure, and he has been on the ballot a lot.

 

 

Ditto the idea that a Fujiwara shouldn't be on the ballot, even though people ask about it often. Dave doesn't view his matches as transcendent or influential the way many of us do, and brings up things like not being a perennial main eventer in New Japan (ignoring UWF and the UWF-NJ feud)

 

 

I don't see why Dave has to think Fujiwara's matches are transcendent or influential. Dave watched them when they happened, before any of the rest of us. He found Sayama transcendent and influential. If you asked people in Japan in the 80s which one was transcendent and influential, they would say Sayama. In the 90s? Sayama. In the 00s? Sayama. In the 10's? Sayama.

 

It's just some of our circle who think Fujiwara is transcendent. And the key there is "some". We're a niche within a niche of a niche, and the Fujiwara Marks who think he's transcendent are a just a niche within that niche within a niche of a niche. Hell, one can think Fujiwara was an excellent worker at his best without thinking he was transcendent. So we're probably better off not thinking Fujiwara is one of the ten names handed down on the tablets from the Gods of Wrestling when it might be just some of us who think it.

 

 

or someone like Minoru Suzuki not liking him as a boss in PWFG as reasons to dismiss him.

 

 

I haven't kept up on what Dave has to say about Suzuki. I like the guy's work from time to time, like fucking with NOAHism againt Kobashi... before jobbing to NOAHism in the very same match. There have been other times when I was bored shitless by his work. I think he's a goofy HOF candidate, just as Funaki and Sak are goofy HOF candidates.

 

 

That all said, I don't think he's wrong to say who he thinks should/shouldn't be in, and would only hope people take it with a grain of salt. And I am curious if there are other notable cases of people he doesn't like but still put on.

 

 

As far as guys he doesn't like, the best example off the list up above is Sheik. He hated Sheik's work, and has very little positive to say about him other than stuff like he drew a long time in Detroit which he would balance out with the fact that he eventually killed Detroit. Generally doesn't like him at all.

 

On the other hand, Sheik was a big national and international star for a long time. Dave gave no thought to Sheik's Hall of Fame worthiness, with a simple "Yes" before we moved onto the next guy in that 1000 magazine.

 

I'd also point to Dusty. We've had a decade or so of Dusty love, and respect for Dusty once his career ended, and once he stopped being an Evil Rival to Our Hero Ric. But Dave hated Dusty through most of the 80s, didn't care for him with the Book when he came back to WCW, and didn't have a lot of love for him in 1996 when the first class was drawn up. None of it matter: Dusty was a no brainer.

 

The Road Warriors were the same, with an element of personal heat between Hawk and Dave that I got to see first hand. Didn't matter: the Warriors were pretty much a no brainer for Dave.

 

* * * * *

 

It's actually the opposite:

 

Dave cuts a great deal of slack for people he thinks are great workers. He advocated Shawn at a time when Shawn's career drawing power was light, and his influence was overrated. Toyota? Work. Hokuto? Work. Steamboat? Work was the driving force, as he wasn't a big national star when it comes to drawing. Dynamite Kid? Work and what Dave saw as influence. Benoit? Work. Liger? Work. That are others...

[cheapshot]

Fun quick interview with Dave:

 

[soup23]

Dave is so captivating. He is someone that based on interviews is so consumed in the business. Him saying he has 20 years left in the business was pretty astounding.

[hammerva]

Dave rant on the Charlotte/Paige situation is some good stuff but he is really going over board on the criticism of ESPN in their handling of the Charlotte interview. He must not watch them as much as before because all of this talk about journalism and integrity was thrown out the window in that company years and years ago when they made Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith the benchmark for the network.

 

of course ESPN is going to give them puff pieces on the WWE that is their job to scratch each others back. The idea that ESPN will treat pro wrestling like a legit sport and covers stories like Billy Gunn's arrest and Nick Bockwinkel's death is just laughable to me and the angle is just laughable. Besides do you really want people to look at wrestling to same way they look at real sports like the NFL given how scummy it is at times.

[Childs]

He wasn't off base in criticizing ESPN, though I agree he was unrealistic in some of the details. They're using what's supposed to be a journalistic show--this is according to them--to essentially run promos for WWE. ESPN is such a big company that it has many missions, but one of them is still journalism. So it's not a good look for them to get in bed with WWE in a completely uncritical way. I mean, they're a huge business partner with the NFL, but they still routinely produce unflattering stories about Goodell in the magazine and on Outside the Lines.

 

I agree it's laughable to think they'd cover stories like Bockwinkel or Billy Gunn. But if John Cena dropped dead next week or if clear evidence emerged that Vince obstructed justice in the Snuka case, you'd hope they would actually bite into those stories.

[Parties]

I mean, they're a huge business partner with the NFL, but they still routinely produce unflattering stories about Goodell in the magazine and on Outside the Lines.

 

I agree it's laughable to think they'd cover stories like Bockwinkel or Billy Gunn. But if John Cena dropped dead next week or if clear evidence emerged that Vince obstructed justice in the Snuka case, you'd hope they would actually bite into those stories.

 

Would the parallel here by the upcoming Flair "30 for 30" that supposedly goes into Reid's death, or the E:60 about Scott Hall? (And yes, generally speaking, I agree that it's both weird of ESPN to run an infomercial dressed as a Sportscenter clip, and equally weird of Dave to say that "you're not really covering wrestling" if Billy Gunn taking HGH isn't Scott Van Pelt's top priority.)

[sek69]

It's almost charming how Dave expects outlets like ESPN to have any journalistic integrity in 2015, especially after they just cleaned house and shitcanned most of the people who would have done the kind of work he expects out of them.

[pol]

Didn't he use ESPN guys working for companies they cover as an argument for why it would have been okay for him to do announcing for NJPW?

[goc]

I never understood why people were mad about the idea of him announcing their PPV anyway. It's not like he could really be much more of a fanboy for New Japan even if he got a check from them for doing announcing.

[Eduardo]

A little off topic, I was trying to remember the details of that amusing theory Meltzer had about the effect of RAW right before the 2000 presidential election. What was the theory again that he pushed at the time?

[pol]

I never understood why people were mad about the idea of him announcing their PPV anyway. It's not like he could really be much more of a fanboy for New Japan even if he got a check from them for doing announcing.

 

His coverage of their business has been perfectly fine except for the one time he clearly got a little overhyped about what their purported Tokyo Dome "sellout" constituted, and once the real details came out he acknowledged that.

 

It's worth noting that he's been predicting their current downturn for a good 2-3 years now.

[shakla]

On the site's article about TNA moving to Pop TV (http://www.f4wonline.com/tna-news/tna-moves-pop-tv-january-201986), Dave (I assume) used the logo of another Pop TV channel based in Slovenia (see here: http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/POP_TV) I knew something wasn't right about that dated looking logo.

[Childs]

 

I mean, they're a huge business partner with the NFL, but they still routinely produce unflattering stories about Goodell in the magazine and on Outside the Lines.

 

I agree it's laughable to think they'd cover stories like Bockwinkel or Billy Gunn. But if John Cena dropped dead next week or if clear evidence emerged that Vince obstructed justice in the Snuka case, you'd hope they would actually bite into those stories.

 

Would the parallel here by the upcoming Flair "30 for 30" that supposedly goes into Reid's death, or the E:60 about Scott Hall? (And yes, generally speaking, I agree that it's both weird of ESPN to run an infomercial dressed as a Sportscenter clip, and equally weird of Dave to say that "you're not really covering wrestling" if Billy Gunn taking HGH isn't Scott Van Pelt's top priority.)

 

 

Yeah, I'd count those things in their favor. I just think it will be interesting to see how/if ESPN reacts when there's a major news story related to WWE. We'll see.

[Childs]

It's almost charming how Dave expects outlets like ESPN to have any journalistic integrity in 2015, especially after they just cleaned house and shitcanned most of the people who would have done the kind of work he expects out of them.

 

This is nonsense. There's plenty to criticize about ESPN, but a bunch of great journalists still work there.

[Loss]

Even in the Scott Hall feature, they talked about how wrestlers don't really party anymore and just play video games in their hotel rooms after shows.

[elliott]

Dunno where else to put this but I had a good laugh when I saw this quote in the Tenryu bio from the most recent WON.

 

"Brody used to note that Tsuruta & Tenryu both improved greatly, which he attributed to he and Hansen, that they beat on them so hard that they had to become tough."

[KrisZ]

The latest Between the Sheets has LOTS of Dave snarkiness from 1985

[pol]

Some really disgusting comments from Dave today about the Tomoaki Honma domestic violence situation.

[WingedEagle]

What did he say?

[pol]

Context for those not familiar with the situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/3uvypm/kiyoko_ichiki_comes_forward_with_domestic/cxidm3u

 

Dave re: her being upset at Honma's talk show "angle" where he's in love with a pop star: "It's women, what can I say."

 

Which would be stupid enough itself, especially given how many men have worked themselves into a shoot over an on-screen attraction. But while he wasn't referring directly to the domestic violence accusations (and I'm sure that will be his defense when called out on this), in context it's hard not to take it as him acting like she's just a crazy woman who's probably making the whole thing up.

[hammerva]

I need to catch up on Observer shows but did he really call it "an angle". Fuck I know he loves to use wrestling terms in real life like calling real life assholes and jerks "turning heel" but nothing about the Honma story resembles something made up

[pol]

I don't remember if he used the word, but he was definitely talking about it in those terms. I don't see that part as that big a deal since he was referring to a TV bit that Honma does. I don't even see it as a stretch that it is a purely gimmick deal that Ichiki overreacted to. But when you use her being a woman as the reason she overreacted to it, in the context of a story about said woman making domestic violence accusations... that's really messed up.

[Loss]

I don't actually think Dave views domestic violence issues this way, but I do think when he starts viewing it in this way, it's a sign he needs to take at least an afternoon off and do something else. Not excusing it as much as I am (I think) explaining it, but I can see how being in the wrestling bubble as much as he is can crush the soul, without the crushed person even realizing it.

[pantherwagner]

Not to mention the lack of sensitivity when talking about somebody potentially going through something as complex as depression.

 

Also, not to excuse Dave, he's not a racist or a misogynist, but sometimes his word choices are dubious. He'd really benefit from that step back from the bubble that Loss suggests.