Dave Meltzer stuff

[kjh]

That doesn't mean that Jeffey isn't talking out of his ass. If every WWE viewer was dvr'ing TNA and then watching it in short order, it would be reflected in that new ratings category, and everyone down in TNA-land would be crowing about what a massive turnaround the company has had. Instead, there aren't that many people watching TNA.

Yeah, that's what Dave was talking about. I think DVR only increased their Monday Night ratings by a very small amount, around 5-8%.

[Bix]

Think about how many people couldn't figure out how to set the clock and program the timer on their VCR (which, after they started using on-screen displays, got MUCH easier). Does Dave really think that these people were messing with splitters and A/B switches so they could record one show while watching another (granted, Nitro had a replay...)? DVRs add a second tuner and simplify the process to a ridiculous degree.

[Wahoos Leg]

In college, when I had to work, I would always tape Raw live and then the replay of Nitro that started at midnight or whenever it was.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Dave on the latest Radio show "judging" the Ali vs. Inoki match by who ACTUALLY won more rounds is hilarious. "They called it a draw, but they didn't really know about leg strikes back then. I'd give Inoki at least 10 of the twelve rounds" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing, but that's funny.

[kjh]

It's not the first time Dave has said that, seems to be a reoccurring theme whenever Ali vs. Inoki comes up.

[FLIK]

Re Monday Night Wars - doesn't get mentioned as much as it should but since Nitro always aired live & RAW is taped, on the west coast there was never a need to choose to begin with for almost the entire run. Nitro would come on at 5 and then RAW at 8 or something like that so I always just watched both.

[Dooley]

It's not the first time Dave has said that, seems to be a reoccurring theme whenever Ali vs. Inoki comes up.

Yeah it's great that he judges the fight by rules that didn't exist yet.

 

Besides, if it were under MMA rules, it's not like the ref would have forced Inoki to stand up or anything.

[cm funk]

In college, when I had to work, I would always tape Raw live and then the replay of Nitro that started at midnight or whenever it was.

I was in high school 96-2000, but basically doing the same thing. I'd watch RAW (and often tape it while I was watching it in case something cool happened that I wanted to see again), then either stay up and watch the Nitro replay at 1am or tape it and watch it the next day after school. Or I'd watch Nitro live and tape RAW, then tape the Nitro replay. At some point in time I acquired a second VCR and dubbing cables and condensed many of these tapes down to comps of my favorite matches/interviews etc. I kind of wish I still had those. I had like 2 boxes full of wrestling VHS tapes in my mom's basement that got destroyed by a flood, along with many other irreplaceable things from my teenage years. Sigh.

 

Does anyone know what kind of ratings the Nitro replay did? I'd imagine for 1 to 3 or 4 am they must have been pretty strong.

[Sean Liska]

All right, this one is a little much for me. Here is Dave's take on what would happen if Alvarez and Vince McMahon debated each other on pro wrestling.

 

"The idea Vince would kill Bryan across the board, or even dominate makes me laugh. On intricate topics that only Vince would know, he'd do very well. On most everything else, I'd favor Bryan. Big picture pro wrestling, Bryan would do far better than you'd think, or Vince would do far worse, depending on your point of view.

 

Put it this way, if Vince and Bryan were to argue about the current landscape of pro wrestling and direction, I'd favor Bryan big-time, except that in the end Vince would probably agree with 80% of what he said."

 

The only area where Vince knows more than Alvarez is stuff that only Vince would have access to? The greatest promoter of all time, the guy that's been promoting for 27 years and has had maybe three or four bad ones financially, responsible for two of the biggest booms in wrestling history, creator of Wrestlemania, etc. And Alavarez would know more than him on almost every subject? I get that Bryan agrees with everything that Dave says and that probably biases Dave's thinking, but come on.

[tomk]

Meltzer is probably right here. We've seen Donahue, we've read the congressional testimony. From everything we've seen Vince is a horrible debater.

 

I wouldn’t want Alvarez on my debate team. He isn’t a guy who seems to be a particularly careful or insightful thinker, isn’t particularly good at forming arguments: there rarely is any connection between the logic of argument he makes and the conclusions he makes. He doesn’t see big picture patterns well. He isn’t particularly good at listening to anyone else’s debate points, isn’t interested in thinking through any arguments different than his own, he isn’t good at building on anyone else’s arguments.

 

None of that is meant in anyway as a shot at Alvarez. My sense is that none of these things are things that Alvarez cares about or puts any emphasis on. He'd probably readily admit to all of this. These debate skills aren't neccesary for the job he does. He wouldn’t be a good debater but he isn’t interested in being a debater.

 

Still I imagine he'd easily do better than Vince in a debate.

 

Hulk Hogan is the most important wrestler of the last 30 years (and in the minds of the world at large probably the greatest wrestler of all time), and responsible for two huge wrestling booms. But he is a horrible interview. He isn’t very self aware, isn't interested in deep self examination, has spent the last thirty years building his own self mythology and surrounded by yes men. Hogan in a debate format comes off like a guy who is completely full of shit. I imagine Alvarez would do well in a debate opposite Hogan.

 

Vince isn’t very different than Hogan. We’ve seen him in fewer interviews. And he rarely comes off as well as Hogan. But I don’t think saying that Vince or Hogan would loose in a debate is really much of a shot at them. Neither one would be a good debater but like Alvarez, I don’t think either one is interested in being a debater. Who would win in a debate means as little as who would win in a game of darts.

[sek69]

Vince would just throw Bryan's papers in his face and walk off in a huff after 5 minutes anyway, so it's a moot point who would fare better in a debate. We've seen enough of Vince in environments he doesn't have 100% control over to know he loses his shit the moment anyone even slightly goes after him.

[Loss]

Why did this even come up? Seems like such an odd topic.

[Bix]

All right, this one is a little much for me. Here is Dave's take on what would happen if Alvarez and Vince McMahon debated each other on pro wrestling.

 

"The idea Vince would kill Bryan across the board, or even dominate makes me laugh. On intricate topics that only Vince would know, he'd do very well. On most everything else, I'd favor Bryan. Big picture pro wrestling, Bryan would do far better than you'd think, or Vince would do far worse, depending on your point of view.

 

Put it this way, if Vince and Bryan were to argue about the current landscape of pro wrestling and direction, I'd favor Bryan big-time, except that in the end Vince would probably agree with 80% of what he said."

 

The only area where Vince knows more than Alvarez is stuff that only Vince would have access to? The greatest promoter of all time, the guy that's been promoting for 27 years and has had maybe three or four bad ones financially, responsible for two of the biggest booms in wrestling history, creator of Wrestlemania, etc. And Alavarez would know more than him on almost every subject? I get that Bryan agrees with everything that Dave says and that probably biases Dave's thinking, but come on.

It does mesh with Dave's "Vince was more lucky than a good promoter" post a few months back.

[jdw]

This is odd. Hasn't Dave put over Vince's greatness at other times, say relative to people like Eric or Russo who might rip Vince?

 

John

[Sean Liska]

Dave responded after I questioned him on it. To be fair, it sounds like he's saying that Vince is a bad debater more than he is saying Alvarez knows wrestling better. I can agree with that.

 

"Sam Muchnick was a great promoter. Doubt he'd have been much of a debater. Jim Barnett. Ditto.

 

Completely different brains.

 

You have seen Vince under pressure in the media with hosts who know absolutely nothing about the subject. Most often, he fares bad to poor. Murray Hodgson ate his lunch.

 

Vince is a better promoter than Bischoff, but in an argument or debate over business, Bischoff beats him every time. I've talked with both. Wouldn't even be close. Just different talents. Vince is a guy surrounded by yes-men for 25 years, when pressed, it's not his specialty.

 

I didn't say Bryan could beat him as a wrestling promoter. Although Vince would not do well trying to do a wrestling newsletter."

[KrisZ]

Listening to Dave talk about wrestling lately on the shows with Chico is a buzzkill for wrestling. He sounds so depressed to talk about it and I know some of the WWE booking isn't great but they really go out of their way to point out flaws. They also misunderstand quite a bit of the booking as well especially the Mason Ryan debut where they had no idea what the finish was supposed to be when it was obvious to just about everyone that Punk wanted to get Cena DQed plus put himself up for a sacrifice for his NEXUS.

[Loss]

Dave responded after I questioned him on it. To be fair, it sounds like he's saying that Vince is a bad debater more than he is saying Alvarez knows wrestling better. I can agree with that.

 

"Sam Muchnick was a great promoter. Doubt he'd have been much of a debater. Jim Barnett. Ditto.

 

Completely different brains.

 

You have seen Vince under pressure in the media with hosts who know absolutely nothing about the subject. Most often, he fares bad to poor. Murray Hodgson ate his lunch.

 

Vince is a better promoter than Bischoff, but in an argument or debate over business, Bischoff beats him every time. I've talked with both. Wouldn't even be close. Just different talents. Vince is a guy surrounded by yes-men for 25 years, when pressed, it's not his specialty.

 

I didn't say Bryan could beat him as a wrestling promoter. Although Vince would not do well trying to do a wrestling newsletter."

I don't understand why it matters who would win in a debate. Again, how did this come up, and what does it have to do with anything at all?

[Sean Liska]

Somehow it came out of a discussion about Bischoff bashing Keller, and how you would never see Vince get into an argument with a sheet writer. Then someone said that McMahon would kill Bryan in a discussion.

 

Dave's comment raised my eyebrow because I thought he was saying that Alvarez knows more about wrestling than Vince (it still reads that way to me). It's one thing for Dave to say that Vince just lucked into the Attitude era, but to also say that Alvarez knows more than Vince seemed to be really giving McMahon no credit.

[kjh]

Listening to Dave talk about wrestling lately on the shows with Chico is a buzzkill for wrestling. He sounds so depressed to talk about it and I know some of the WWE booking isn't great but they really go out of their way to point out flaws.

Yeah, I was mentioning the same thing to Bix. Maybe he's been bummed out by the fact that's it's 10 years since the death of WCW/ECW and it's hit him how badly the business has contracted since then especially in comparison with UFC? Listening to Dave you'd think WWE is beyond hope, yet alone TNA.

[KrisZ]

And the thing is, WWE is in really good shape financially and if you go back there were WAY worse periods than this one but you couldn't tell by listening to them. God forbid if UFC starts going downhill which I think will start this year.

[jdw]

I'm trying to recall prior posts/thread on this board: haven't some of the posters here "debated" Bryan in the past. Setting aside the home court advantage, how well has Bryan come across in them when marshalling facts?

 

John

[Loss]

I'm trying to recall prior posts/thread on this board: haven't some of the posters here "debated" Bryan in the past. Setting aside the home court advantage, how well has Bryan come across in them when marshalling facts?

 

John

Not well. Lots of ALL CAPS responses, misrepresenting your original point (even when quoting it directly), and lots of "If you don't , then I don't know what to tell you."

 

The best indication of what a Vince/Bryan debate would be like is probably in the F4W where he recapped Vince's appearance on Today being interviewed by Meredith Viera post-Benoit. Vince had the "Here is where you make your money" line (framing his face), saying it was an old adage in wrestling, and Bryan responded that it was so old that "I HAVE NEVER HEARD IT."

 

I remember thinking this was a misrepresenting of Vince's point. Even if you've never heard that exact phrase, you've never heard that facial expressions in wrestling are important in getting over? Come on.

[rovert]

Meltzer is probably right here. We've seen Donahue, we've read the congressional testimony. From everything we've seen Vince is a horrible debater.

 

I wouldn’t want Alvarez on my debate team. He isn’t a guy who seems to be a particularly careful or insightful thinker, isn’t particularly good at forming arguments: there rarely is any connection between the logic of argument he makes and the conclusions he makes. He doesn’t see big picture patterns well. He isn’t particularly good at listening to anyone else’s debate points, isn’t interested in thinking through any arguments different than his own, he isn’t good at building on anyone else’s arguments.

 

None of that is meant in anyway as a shot at Alvarez. My sense is that none of these things are things that Alvarez cares about or puts any emphasis on. He'd probably readily admit to all of this. These debate skills aren't necessary for the job he does. He wouldn’t be a good debater but he isn’t interested in being a debater.

Definitively see where you are coming from just listen to his shows with Todd Martin. But still like anyone he does have the capacity to come up with interesting concepts and tweaks from time to time.

 

In all my years posting on F4W the one thing that annoys me about debating with Bryan is that he ALWAYS attacks the weakest points of peoples arguments while ignoring the rest of the person's post. While Dave usually tackles things head on even if he is slight esoteric in his answers.

 

EDIT: Didnt see Loss's post yeah he is a fan of the ALL CAPS, double/triple/quadruple posts, locking or threatening to lock, likewise stickying threads. Not to mention the "Brybots" blindly sticking up or agreeing with him often egging him on and general not helping things. In fairness F4W is pretty trolltastic.

 

Listening to Dave talk about wrestling lately on the shows with Chico is a buzzkill for wrestling. He sounds so depressed to talk about it and I know some of the WWE booking isn't great but they really go out of their way to point out flaws. They also misunderstand quite a bit of the booking as well especially the Mason Ryan debut where they had no idea what the finish was supposed to be when it was obvious to just about everyone that Punk wanted to get Cena DQed plus put himself up for a sacrifice for his NEXUS.

There has been more than a few instances like that recently normally minor midcardy stuff. Here they were too caught up in the result not being announced rather than the actual storyline reason for Mason's big boot.

 

And the thing is, WWE is in really good shape financially and if you go back there were WAY worse periods than this one but you couldn't tell by listening to them.

That’s not true he always, always mentions the stock line mid 90s being worse whenever that topic comes. Anyway a lot of WWE's stability can’t really be credit to Vince, Shane set up a shit tonne of international deals and WWE's directors and department heads are some of the best people in their field.

[rovert]

One more thing Id love to here "off the record" how Dave would compare and contrast Bryan with Wade Keller just for my own interest.

[cm funk]

Listening to Dave talk about wrestling lately on the shows with Chico is a buzzkill for wrestling. He sounds so depressed to talk about it and I know some of the WWE booking isn't great but they really go out of their way to point out flaws. They also misunderstand quite a bit of the booking as well especially the Mason Ryan debut where they had no idea what the finish was supposed to be when it was obvious to just about everyone that Punk wanted to get Cena DQed plus put himself up for a sacrifice for his NEXUS.

I've been noticing this a lot lately too

 

On the sunday night show they were talking about how poorly the Rumble was built up last year, and how the same thing was happening this year because Del Rio was the only one cutting promos about it

 

Then on the RAW recap show they pretty much ignored that Cena & Sheamus cut promos about wanting to win the Rumble, that they teased a Cena & Orton conflict if they both win, that they set up Morrison and Bryan as guys who are a threat via the Sheamus promo, and that they put over Mark Henry as a guy with an advantage in the match. Most of the show was about getting the match and guys who will feature in it over.

 

They seem really fixated on tumbler balls for some reason