Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mark_Doctor

Dave Meltzer - yay or nay?

Dave Meltzer  

73 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Loki said:

He's a historian not a journalist, then, basically.

He's both. He is creating the documentation that future histories will rely upon (ie. a journalist), whilst also leaning on existing sources to produce a narrative of wrestling history (a historian).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad for future historians if they have to listen to Dave’s chuckling audio recaps of Being The Elite. The most interminable listen there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, but one of Meltzer's failings is that he's all of these things, largely because wrestling had a dearth of any of them. Within a single newsletter or podcast, he'll be historian, journalist, critic and opinion columnist. And when people report on "Meltzer said..." they don't make that distinction, so something he says as an opinion, a prediction, or a "I would do this..." is covered as if it were him breaking a news story. 

The "historian" side of what he does is by far his strongest work, but the idea that we'll lose modern history when we lose him as a journalist is something I disagree with. He's lost most of his relevance as a journalist, and there are others doing more insightful work, and without the baggage of Meltzer's odd peccadilloes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I've said it before, but one of Meltzer's failings is that he's all of these things, largely because wrestling had a dearth of any of them. Within a single newsletter or podcast, he'll be historian, journalist, critic and opinion columnist. And when people report on "Meltzer said..." they don't make that distinction, so something he says as an opinion, a prediction, or a "I would do this..." is covered as if it were him breaking a news story. 

The "historian" side of what he does is by far his strongest work, but the idea that we'll lose modern history when we lose him as a journalist is something I disagree with. He's lost most of his relevance as a journalist, and there are others doing more insightful work, and without the baggage of Meltzer's odd peccadilloes.

I broadly agree with this (I don't think he's lost relevance as a journalist, but others are becoming more insightful). He's becomes, like the Times of London once was before it became Murdoched, the paper of record and ascends the throne because his consistency.

The worst thing about him is the weight of his opinion on matches, and in a way that's not really even his fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sevendaughters said:

The worst thing about him is the weight of his opinion on matches, and in a way that's not really even his fault.

His reviews of matches aren’t based on his opinion, they’re factual. If he was basing it on his opinion and preferences, the scores would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, King Pitcos said:

His reviews of matches aren’t based on his opinion, they’re factual. If he was basing it on his opinion and preferences, the scores would be different.

I mean more the weight they have within the wrestling culture and their ability to act as firestarter. That said, I don't think what you have proposed is actually possible. I was reading his write-up of Maeda-Dolman from 1989 where he gave it a DUD. I'd seen the event a year before and thought it was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, King Pitcos said:

His reviews of matches aren’t based on his opinion, they’re factual. If he was basing it on his opinion and preferences, the scores would be different.

I fucking guffawed when Meltz posted this on Twitter. People were defending it as well, vehemently. Meltz saying he hated the Moxley/Omega match but then awarding it ****+ anyway was hilarious. He's using any backdoor he can to make sure his pals and sources have a light shined on them, and it's incredible to see the lengths that he'll go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Meltzer is that people take his personal tastes as some kind of barometer for what the business should be.

Look back at Observers from the late 80's, he was hardly enthused by the WWF product despite its popularity.

Same during the Attitude era, on his eyada.com daily shows he only showed enthusiasm for the Japanese stuff and would rush through the WWF/WCW to move onto Saukeraba or the like, despite the WWF breaking box office records and Japanese stuff only being watched by the ultimate geeks.

What he likes is not exactly conducive to big business or the interests of the business, and I think that's often forgotten.

He's essentially a fan-cum-historian who enjoys the workrate style, but is often regarded as Caesar in terms of where the business should be heading. Not really his fault though.

 

Edited by garynysmon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an argument/chat/debate recently with someone about that Kenny/Mox match. I said it was horrible. They said it couldn’t be horrible because it’s was a 4+ star match. I said I would give it two stars. I asked why he thought it was 4+ and he said because that’s what Dave said. 
 

So many people don’t make their own opinions anymore and just call something a x star match because Dave says it was. It’s really bizarre. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like how Hogan was the good guy in the political battle between Hogan and Michaels, just because Hogan called Dave up and told him his version. The logic of "Hogan's full of shit unless he's talking to me" is so fucking naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, garynysmon said:

What he likes is not exactly conducive to big business or the interests of the business

My EWR saves from 2003 would beg to differ. Shelton Benjamin vs Paul London in an iron man match was a better, more profitable WrestleMania than anything Rock and Austin could have done.

Ah shit, that’s because the game was made by one of the people you’re on about who swallowed the gospel of Meltzer.

Edit to avoid the double-post:

Meltzer did a proper fucking REEEE in response to Baron Corbin’s tweet about flippy shit matches. It’s brilliant! I dunno how to link twitter stuff properly on here though.

Edited by King Pitcos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 9:39 AM, The Dart said:

Bryan: "Apparently he has been in the dressing room for 4 weeks"

Dave: "Nah, they're in a different city"

Meltzer really is a classic.

Just to quote myself from the AEW thread.  I don't read or listen to much of Meltzer, but this clip cracked me up.

The context was Bryan Alvarez saying we hadn't seen Nakazawa for 4 weeks since Pac beat him up in the locker room and clearly jokingly saying he must have been in the dressing room for 4 weeks and Meltzer with every strand of seriousness in his body replies saying that's not possible because they were in a different city 4 weeks ago.

Edited by The Dart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...