Dave Meltzer stuff

[Loss]

Side question that maybe I'll understand more when I watch the '94 yearbook: Why Kawada? Misawa held the TC most of the year and was the top guy. Why did Kawada have the stronger case of the two?

[Jason Mann]

Dave in a post on Sabu:

 

This benefit of hindsight showing he sucked is actually the lacking of understanding of hindsight. Everything in wrestling is about time and place. The single stupidest thing modern fans do is try and value and gauge a performance from another era based on a set of standards not applicable to the era. We all go through that phase. I did in the 80s when I'd get tape of guys from the 60s and think that everyone sucked because they weren't wrestling like they did in the 80s. Later, when standards changed, I figured out, especially when older guys were hammering it in my head, how in 1965, how could they possibly work a match for a 1985 audience and to judge them on that is beyond stupid. If they were good for their team, then they were good. If they sucked for their time, but it was a style that actually translated better 20 years later, they still sucked.

I would love for someone to debate him about this back and forth. I'd love to even do it myself.

 

There's probably a middle ground worth carving here: Just because a lot of people thought Sabu was awesome in 1994 doesn't mean he was, but it's good to understand why people thought that and how his flaws were exposed once people saw his act a few times.

 

Understanding time and place is important, but we're all writing for a modern audience, and "Why was this important?", "Has this stood the test of time?" and "Is this worth watching now?" are questions that are relevant to answer as a reviewer.

 

It's definitely a good discussion topic.

[Loss]

Where I differ with Dave is that I don't think at the core, what makes a match fundamentally good or bad ever changes. Where I also differ from him is that watching old footage does not mean ignoring intent or context. I don't expect to see 60s matches worked 80s style. But I do think there is universal criteria that makes a match good that is broad enough to take the context into consideration. I can watch a 1985 match and a 2005 match side-by-side and easily say what I think is better, and I think I'm being fair to both in doing so.

 

Dave had Jeff Bowdren do a list of the top 100 matches of the 1980s. Should that list be criticized for judging early 80s matches on late 80s standards?

[Victator]

Just because a lot of people thought Sabu was awesome in 1994 doesn't mean he was,

Luckily he was and is awesome.

[jdw]

Side question that maybe I'll understand more when I watch the '94 yearbook: Why Kawada? Misawa held the TC most of the year and was the top guy. Why did Kawada have the stronger case of the two?

1994 Toshiaki Kawada

1995 Mitsuharu Misawa

1996 Kenta Kobashi

1997 Mitsuharu Misawa

 

Triple Crown holders at the end of the year when voting was going on. That seemed to be the streak at the time. Which was a snap back from 1993 when Kobashi was the top placing AJPW guy (which was batshit crazy even given the great working year).

 

We've talked about Kobashi being a horrible choice in 1996 relative to Misawa and Taue (within his own promotion), Hash, Hogan and Shawn.

 

In 1994... Misawa had the belt for more of the voting period (12/93 - 11/94), but the storyline of that period seemed to be more Kawada-driven climaxing with his first TC win in October. And despite holding the TC in 12/93 through 7/94 of that period, you'll find the number of defenses lacking and pretty center into Kawada/Williams stories rather than moving Misawa forward in terms of story.

 

John

[Matt D]

Where I differ with Dave is that I don't think at the core, what makes a match fundamentally good or bad ever changes. Where I also differ from him is that watching old footage does not mean ignoring intent or context. I don't expect to see 60s matches worked 80s style. But I do think there is universal criteria that makes a match good that is broad enough to take the context into consideration. I can watch a 1985 match and a 2005 match side-by-side and easily say what I think is better, and I think I'm being fair to both in doing so.

 

Dave had Jeff Bowdren do a list of the top 100 matches of the 1980s. Should that list be criticized for judging early 80s matches on late 80s standards?

I also think, and some of you guys know this better than I do, but on some level, for Dave Good = Effective.

 

Now whether effective means "Did it work for the crowd?" or it means "Did it work for Me (or my shareholders) at the time?" is a different question I guess.

[Jason Mann]

Just because a lot of people thought Sabu was awesome in 1994 doesn't mean he was,

Luckily he was and is awesome.

 

Just an example. I wasn't making a judgment either way. I'm not crazy about what I've seen from Sabu, but I haven't seen enough of him then to form an informed opinion.

[Jason Mann]

But I do think there is universal criteria that makes a match good that is broad enough to take the context into consideration. I can watch a 1985 match and a 2005 match side-by-side and easily say what I think is better, and I think I'm being fair to both in doing so.

This might be a broad question, but what is part of the universal criteria for you?

[Matt D]

For me, I want the match to tell a story and I want that story to make sense.

 

Then I'd like that story to be good.

 

After that I'd like every move to matter as part of the story.

 

Now, again, some of that stuff completely goes against Meltzer ...doctrines?

[Dylan Waco]

Dave has a vested interest in hating "revisionist" projects, because it is his work that is being "revised." It's largely Dave's opinions and statements on wrestlers and matches that are being challenged. Things like the yearbooks and 80's Sets are specifically designed so that every match is a piece of the bigger puzzle. You are watching things in sequence from that exact year/era. You are not comparing Sayama to Rey - you are comparing Sayama to Kobayashi, Hamada, Fujinami, DK, Takano, et. Yet to Dave it is "stupid" and unfair and whether he knows it or not I think a large factor is that people are shooting holes in narrative(s) he created (yes I realize the Sabu example is an odd time to point this out, but I still believe it)

[Loss]

I will point you to this thread where this has been hashed out:

 

Are psychology, "logic" and storytelling within a match overrated?

 

Feel free to bump the thread to add your own thoughts if you like.

[rovert]

An ongoing front page poll:

 

Who was Japan's best ever wrestler?

Kenta Kobashi

46 29.7%

Mitsuharu Misawa

38 24.5%

Keiji Muto

21 13.5%

Jushin Liger

17 11%

Jumbo Tsuruta

12 7.7%

Original Tiger Mask

7 4.5%

Toshiaki Kawada

6 3.9%

Genichiro Tenryu

2 1.3%

Shinya Hashimoto

2 1.3%

Kota Ibushi

2 1.3%

Tatsuki Fujinami

1 0.6%

Nobuhiko Takada

1 0.6%

[jdw]

I also think, and some of you guys know this better than I do, but on some level, for Dave Good = Effective.

No. Not at all. He spent how many decades shitting on Hogan's work?

 

I largely coined the usage of "Effective" in terms of work to try to get across what Hogan did well, and how it was on that level good. What I was trying to get across was a 180 degree flip from how hardcores (including myself) viewed Hogan The Enemy in the 80s opposite of Our Hero Ric.

 

For Dave, Good = What Dave Thinks Is Good.

 

Which on some level is what it is for all of us. Right?

 

It's just that we don't always agree with what other people think is Good. Which is pretty basic for how people view everything.

 

John

[NintendoLogic]

Where I differ with Dave is that I don't think at the core, what makes a match fundamentally good or bad ever changes. Where I also differ from him is that watching old footage does not mean ignoring intent or context. I don't expect to see 60s matches worked 80s style. But I do think there is universal criteria that makes a match good that is broad enough to take the context into consideration. I can watch a 1985 match and a 2005 match side-by-side and easily say what I think is better, and I think I'm being fair to both in doing so.

 

Dave had Jeff Bowdren do a list of the top 100 matches of the 1980s. Should that list be criticized for judging early 80s matches on late 80s standards?

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but isn't Ric Flair the obvious counterexample to this argument? He's readily admitted that his matches don't really make sense when looked at in the aggregate. As such, they're not really timeless the way something like Baba/Destroyer is. But he's considered great because of the context in which he worked.

[Loss]

That's a hard argument to counter without pointing to a specific match. Wrestlers on their own don't really "make sense" like matches do. And I'm far more interested in ranking/discussing matches (the output) than wrestlers (the input), for the most part. And despite whatever details we pick up on, Flair matches by and large did make sense.

[jdw]

Dave has a vested interest in hating "revisionist" projects, because it is his work that is being "revised." It's largely Dave's opinions and statements on wrestlers and matches that are being challenged. Things like the yearbooks and 80's Sets are specifically designed so that every match is a piece of the bigger puzzle. You are watching things in sequence from that exact year/era. You are not comparing Sayama to Rey - you are comparing Sayama to Kobayashi, Hamada, Fujinami, DK, Takano, et. Yet to Dave it is "stupid" and unfair and whether he knows it or not I think a large factor is that people are shooting holes in narrative(s) he created (yes I realize the Sabu example is an odd time to point this out, but I still believe it)

Dave was, for his first decade of publishing the WON, all about being a Counter Thinker / Revisionist Thinker. There were the Great Known Theories of Pro Wrestling, and Dave was like Bill James in Baseball writing: taking a hammer to them. He was regularly exposing as bullshit things that people inside the business (promoters, bookers and wrestlers) were saying / claiming. Obviously not to the degree that Bill James was, but the wrestling equiv of that. Dave was very much the revolutionary thinker / contrarian.

 

That isn't the case anymore. While he takes a hammer to WWE or TNA bullshit, or the latest crap Russo is tossing out, it's from his own Great Known Theories of Pro Wrestling collection that is his own consensus.

 

It always happens.

 

In some things even Bill James got set in his ways. On the other hand, I've seen him come up with newer ways of analyzing players, and go:

 

"Player X was better than I thought he was..."

 

"I overrated Player Y because of B. He really wasn't as good as I thought."

 

"I don't know how Player Z flew below even my radar. His C was some much better than people thought that it really caused everyone to undervalue him. It's one of the positives of us being able to better evaluate C now, and being so far removed from the hype of D."

 

Some of it's small stuff, and not really revolutionary. Some of it, such as how he and others have greatly advanced the analysis of defense over the past dozen years, is pretty revolutionary... to the point that it can lose an 80s-style saberhead like me.

 

Dave has changed, but it's generally been "conservative" change: more wedded to his convictions, only tempered by a stronger "insider" view rather than outsider. It's interesting to observe.

 

John

[KrisZ]

I think a lot of this has to do with Dave becoming more and more involved with MMA and it keeps him away from all the different styles of wrestling that he used to be able to watch regularly that he can't anymore. Dave used to watch lucha TV weekly and almost all of the Japan TV....not anymore.

[jdw]

I will point you to this thread where this has been hashed out:

 

Are psychology, "logic" and storytelling within a match overrated?

 

Feel free to bump the thread to add your own thoughts if you like.

That was an interesting thread to skim re-read.

 

John

[NintendoLogic]

That's a hard argument to counter without pointing to a specific match. Wrestlers on their own don't really "make sense" like matches do. And I'm far more interested in ranking/discussing matches (the output) than wrestlers (the input), for the most part. And despite whatever details we pick up on, Flair matches by and large did make sense.

That's the thing. If you look at Flair's individual matches in isolation, they're fine. It's when you look at a bunch of them together that they they start to have a samey feel and you start to notice his tendency to shoehorn in his signature spots. You know this. You discussed it in great detail in the Flair formula thread.

 

As for that poll, I'm pretty surprised that Dave didn't include Manami Toyota considering how much he's pimped her as a GOAT candidate.

[Loss]

I never said Flair matches had a "samey" feel. I argued the exact opposite point to that, actually. I did argue that he was formulaic, but I challenged the notion that if you've seen one Flair match, you've seen them all.

[NintendoLogic]

I'm not interested in getting into a semantic debate, so I'll just note that you defended the way Flair worked by noting that his schedule as NWA Champion didn't afford him the opportunity to scout his opponents and mix it up. I completely agree with that, but I would submit that that argument is closer to "matches of past eras can't be judged by standards that didn't apply in that era" than "the fundamental elements that make a match great don't change."

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not interested in getting into a semantic debate, so I'll just note that you defended the way Flair worked by noting that his schedule as NWA Champion didn't afford him the opportunity to scout his opponents and mix it up. I completely agree with that, but I would submit that that argument is closer to "matches of past eras can't be judged by standards that didn't apply in that era" than "the fundamental elements that make a match great don't change."

I don't see how this is true at all.

 

It is one thing to say the nature of wrestling encouraged less variation/experimentation in earlier eras. It is not the same as saying "well those matches may not be good now, but they seemed good to people at the time."

[KrisZ]

You really didn't hear much of the Flair formula talk until the Sting feud and then it became a talking point for basically the next 20 years.

[NintendoLogic]

I'm not interested in getting into a semantic debate, so I'll just note that you defended the way Flair worked by noting that his schedule as NWA Champion didn't afford him the opportunity to scout his opponents and mix it up. I completely agree with that, but I would submit that that argument is closer to "matches of past eras can't be judged by standards that didn't apply in that era" than "the fundamental elements that make a match great don't change."

I don't see how this is true at all.

 

It is one thing to say the nature of wrestling encouraged less variation/experimentation in earlier eras. It is not the same as saying "well those matches may not be good now, but they seemed good to people at the time."

 

At this point, even Flair's most ardent defenders acknowledge his weaknesses in psychology and storytelling, but they note that he had fundamentally different ideas of what he was trying to accomplish in a match than, say, Bret Hart. That's closer to wrestling relativism than wrestling universalism, for lack of better terms.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think Loss point is advocating "universalism" in the sense that you are implying there though I don't want to speak for him.

 

I absolutely think wrestling is relative, but I still think you can reach a basic consensus on most things. Even in the areas where consensus can't be reached, discussion of particulars and WHY you think things are good/suck/et can at least allow for an understanding of perspectives