Dave Meltzer stuff

[Johnny Sorrow]

I've never understood why some people get so worked up about what Dave likes or doesn't like or what he does on Twitter to fuck with those same people. Stuttsy today has been engaging with him on Twitter, and that I get since Stuttsy is smart and knows it can get more eyes on his promotion. But besides that, why does anyone care? Like that guy here who posted that it matters to him because Dave is a tastemaker and if that makes people like wrestling he hates than its a problem. That's fucking insane. I read my first Observer in 1986, full of those Junkfood Dog comments. He's wanted to go back to trying, and failing , to be funny for awhile. And if trolling people on Twitter gives him his jollies than what's the problem? Who gives a fuck? If Dave saying some dopey shit about a match you loved or a match you hated upsets you, than the problem is you.

[Sean Liska]

I've never understood why some people get so worked up about what Dave likes or doesn't like or what he does on Twitter to fuck with those same people. Stuttsy today has been engaging with him on Twitter, and that I get since Stuttsy is smart and knows it can get more eyes on his promotion. But besides that, why does anyone care? Like that guy here who posted that it matters to him because Dave is a tastemaker and if that makes people like wrestling he hates than its a problem. That's fucking insane. I read my first Observer in 1986, full of those Junkfood Dog comments. He's wanted to go back to trying, and failing , to be funny for awhile. And if trolling people on Twitter gives him his jollies than what's the problem? Who gives a fuck? If Dave saying some dopey shit about a match you loved or a match you hated upsets you, than the problem is you.

It's just that every time I opened Twitter yesterday the newest Tweet on my timeline was Dave lecturing someone on how much better PWG is than WWE! He's lost his mind a bit!

[Victator]

 

I pointed that out to him and he did not reply. His work on Twitter has drastically changed my opinion of him.

 

Dave is terrible on Twitter, but...

 

1. Are you sure he even saw your post? He is pretty boneheaded when it comes to technology. Case-in-point: He doesn't even have the good sense to get the official blue checkmark next to his name. Even the fake Heenan's wife account went for that.

 

2. Writing has never been his strong suit. That flaw is only going to be amplified on a platform as limited as Twitter.

 

There is a chance he did not. But he seems to respond whenever he can do an easy trollish answer. If he can't, he gets quiet.

 

Does it matter how he acts on Twitter? In a cosmic sense? No not really. But it does hurt his credibility as a news source for me. There was a time I would take his word alone. Now I need a second or third source.

 

Which only matters to me, which is why I care.

[Dylan Waco]

I think aside from historical pieces, the primary reason to subscribe to the Observer at this point is to say you subscribe to the Observer. For some people it's still a social club, and signifies that you are one of the cool kids who is really in the know. In terms of breaking news, high level reporting, podcast/audio content, message board/other direct forms of interaction, social media, quality of writing/editing, method of content distribution, interesting/fresh analysis, covering new and different promotions/areas, et. the brand is so clearly lacking to me that I can't justify subscribing. It's just doesn't approach being a strong enough service for my wants as a consumer. I let me sub lapse around two years ago (probably close to the day actually) and I've never even thought about re-subbing.

 

All that said, Dave can do whatever he wants with his business and social media accounts and he's made a lot of money at something very few people have made any money at, so he really doesn't have to worry too much about what I think

[C.S.]

I subbed for a month recently, and other than the obits, I didn't see any reason to continue. For better or worse, there are so many other sources now, and I don't get the feeling anymore that Dave is at the forefront and breaking major news. Plus, the MMA content remains as boring and ill-advised as ever (I'm not an MMA fan). Name one serious MMA fan who actually subscribes to the Observer. I mean, they must exist - I guess - but would Dave have any real, quantifiable way of knowing?

[sek69]

 

I've never understood why some people get so worked up about what Dave likes or doesn't like or what he does on Twitter to fuck with those same people. Stuttsy today has been engaging with him on Twitter, and that I get since Stuttsy is smart and knows it can get more eyes on his promotion. But besides that, why does anyone care? Like that guy here who posted that it matters to him because Dave is a tastemaker and if that makes people like wrestling he hates than its a problem. That's fucking insane. I read my first Observer in 1986, full of those Junkfood Dog comments. He's wanted to go back to trying, and failing , to be funny for awhile. And if trolling people on Twitter gives him his jollies than what's the problem? Who gives a fuck? If Dave saying some dopey shit about a match you loved or a match you hated upsets you, than the problem is you.

It's just that every time I opened Twitter yesterday the newest Tweet on my timeline was Dave lecturing someone on how much better PWG is than WWE! He's lost his mind a bit!

 

 

I mean, for the most part isn't it? They've become a destination for wrestlers and fans, their shows always seem to get rave reviews form people who aren't Dave.

[Dooley]

I subbed for a month recently, and other than the obits, I didn't see any reason to continue. For better or worse, there are so many other sources now, and I don't get the feeling anymore that Dave is at the forefront and breaking major news. Plus, the MMA content remains as boring and ill-advised as ever (I'm not an MMA fan). Name one serious MMA fan who actually subscribes to the Observer. I mean, they must exist - I guess - but would Dave have any real, quantifiable way of knowing?

Not to mention that Dave's MMA opinions are generally terrible.

[Grimmas]

 

 

I've never understood why some people get so worked up about what Dave likes or doesn't like or what he does on Twitter to fuck with those same people. Stuttsy today has been engaging with him on Twitter, and that I get since Stuttsy is smart and knows it can get more eyes on his promotion. But besides that, why does anyone care? Like that guy here who posted that it matters to him because Dave is a tastemaker and if that makes people like wrestling he hates than its a problem. That's fucking insane. I read my first Observer in 1986, full of those Junkfood Dog comments. He's wanted to go back to trying, and failing , to be funny for awhile. And if trolling people on Twitter gives him his jollies than what's the problem? Who gives a fuck? If Dave saying some dopey shit about a match you loved or a match you hated upsets you, than the problem is you.

It's just that every time I opened Twitter yesterday the newest Tweet on my timeline was Dave lecturing someone on how much better PWG is than WWE! He's lost his mind a bit!

 

 

I mean, for the most part isn't it? They've become a destination for wrestlers and fans, their shows always seem to get rave reviews form people who aren't Dave.

 

Saying PWG is better than WWE is one thing. Saying Finn-AJ would only be the 10th best match on a PWG weekend is something else entirely.

[El-P]

Saying PWG is better than WWE is one thing. Saying Finn-AJ would only be the 10th best match on a PWG weekend is something else entirely.

 

Yeah, I don't care much about the usual Meltz kinda-obsessive bash-fest, but that kind of comment is so overtly ridiculous that it's hard to take anything seriously.

[paul sosnowski]

He didn't say it would be the 10th best on any PWG weekend. He said last weekend (10/20 and 10/21 All Star Weekend 13)

[Sean Liska]

I think aside from historical pieces, the primary reason to subscribe to the Observer at this point is to say you subscribe to the Observer. For some people it's still a social club, and signifies that you are one of the cool kids who is really in the know. In terms of breaking news, high level reporting, podcast/audio content, message board/other direct forms of interaction, social media, quality of writing/editing, method of content distribution, interesting/fresh analysis, covering new and different promotions/areas, et. the brand is so clearly lacking to me that I can't justify subscribing. It's just doesn't approach being a strong enough service for my wants as a consumer. I let me sub lapse around two years ago (probably close to the day actually) and I've never even thought about re-subbing.

 

All that said, Dave can do whatever he wants with his business and social media accounts and he's made a lot of money at something very few people have made any money at, so he really doesn't have to worry too much about what I think

You still get fun stuff from Dave on the Board that are worthwhile. The problem is you almost have to troll him sometimes to get info out of him. Today he revealed that Ric Flair lost his podcast because he said Balor was too small to main event and Vince loved Balor at the time. Maybe that info was well-known in some Twitter circles, in which case I need to get into those circles!

[Matt D]

That initial Balor Universal Title push was very odd to me. Why the heck does Vince like Balor so much? Just the demon entrance? I'd think that planking pose thing would drive him nuts and 70% of the time he's not the demon anyway.

[Strummer]

probably sees the merch money with the gimmick appealing to kids. And probably his abs

[El-P]

[Grimmas]

He didn't say it would be the 10th best on any PWG weekend. He said last weekend (10/20 and 10/21 All Star Weekend 13)

That's what I meant, it was 10th best on a PWG weekend, that particular weekend you are talking about.

[NintendoLogic]

Dave's broader point is that most of the people who bash him for saying PWG is far above WWE ring-wise don't watch it. I think it is true that most people who watch PWG regularly consider it to be clearly superior to WWE. But it's not axiomatic, and a good amount of that is due to self-selection bias.

[sek69]

Also PWG by nature tends to arrange it's events as a showcase of the best indy talent it can get, so it's going to have higher quality than random B level WWE PPV #7978908 where all the matches have been done a million times. and/or get kneecapped by questionable booking choices.

[GOTNW]

That initial Balor Universal Title push was very odd to me. Why the heck does Vince like Balor so much? Just the demon entrance? I'd think that planking pose thing would drive him nuts and 70% of the time he's not the demon anyway.

He's irish.

[Victator]

She missed Tom Phillips by one day.

[Grimmas]

Dave's broader point is that most of the people who bash him for saying PWG is far above WWE ring-wise don't watch it. I think it is true that most people who watch PWG regularly consider it to be clearly superior to WWE. But it's not axiomatic, and a good amount of that is due to self-selection bias.

The reason that is, because people who don't watch PWG don't watch it because they don't think it's good.

[Bix]

 

 

Dave's broader point is that most of the people who bash him for saying PWG is far above WWE ring-wise don't watch it. I think it is true that most people who watch PWG regularly consider it to be clearly superior to WWE. But it's not axiomatic, and a good amount of that is due to self-selection bias.

The reason that is, because people who don't watch PWG don't watch it because they don't think it's good.

This is an interesting factor to consider. For a long time, though not recently, PWG was considered the super indie promotion where guys went to slum it. Maybe that stuck to some fans who felt burned by them?

[NintendoLogic]

 

Dave's broader point is that most of the people who bash him for saying PWG is far above WWE ring-wise don't watch it. I think it is true that most people who watch PWG regularly consider it to be clearly superior to WWE. But it's not axiomatic, and a good amount of that is due to self-selection bias.

The reason that is, because people who don't watch PWG don't watch it because they don't think it's good.

 

 

Partially, yes. But there are also plenty of people who've never seen it and base their opinions entirely on GIFs and match reports. Those people tend to have pictures of Kevin Nash or Roman Reigns as their avatars.

[Mad Dog]

I think I would enjoy PWG. But I do not have the time for it and I don't want to divert money from other hobbies for it either.

[tim]

I never enjoy PWG that much when I watch it, but I bet it's a lot of fun live.

[Matt D]

 

 

Dave's broader point is that most of the people who bash him for saying PWG is far above WWE ring-wise don't watch it. I think it is true that most people who watch PWG regularly consider it to be clearly superior to WWE. But it's not axiomatic, and a good amount of that is due to self-selection bias.

The reason that is, because people who don't watch PWG don't watch it because they don't think it's good.

This is an interesting factor to consider. For a long time, though not recently, PWG was considered the super indie promotion where guys went to slum it. Maybe that stuck to some fans who felt burned by them?

 

Obviously that's always been a Dave thing (Murdoch, Jumbo), so he'd get that if people raised it. What I doubt he'd get as easily would be people with open eyes and open minds simply not liking the super indy style in the first place.