Bruce Prichard's credibility

[The Thread Killer]

The situation with Meltzer in wrestling is that there's only one real source of consistent news, so the consumers have no choice but to accept whatever he says. If you want to learn about what went into some old angle, even now your best bet is to just look at old Observers or ask Meltzer. He tries his best, but he's still a human with his own biases and he's been wrong numerous times. We have a Meltzer thread here with 8000 posts that mostly consist of criticizing him.

 

It's a bit concerning, then, that when an actual insider like Pritchard, who tries to set up a legitimate alternative to Meltzer for historical information and begin the same sort of dialogue that actual news networks have with each other, he gets branded out of the gate as heading some "anti-truth movement." It understandable that Meltzer himself would call Pritchard a con-man as he essentially serves a competition in a space that Meltzer has dominated up to now, but it's not good for people here to just go along with that.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think Meltzer and Prichard have the same agenda, really.

 

Meltzer reports on what he thinks is wrestling news - that's how he makes his living. Prichard is now making a living off entertaining wrestling fans, not educating them. I don't know that we can really compare them, although when you think about it they are a lot more similar than you would think. I've lost count of the number of times Prichard has played the "Meltzer has never worked a match or promoted a show, so has no business even talking about it" card. In other words, he's accusing Meltzer of leeching off the Pro Wrestling business without being a part of it. Yet without Meltzer, Prichard loses most of his show. Conrad doesn't have sources for his show outlines, Prichard doesn't have anybody to rant about, and most of all...Prichard doesn't make money from his "Fuck Dave Meltzer" nWo parody shirt...

 

 

Prichard is pretty much leeching off Meltzer at this point, really.

 

Having said all that, once again I don't think it's Prichard who is the problem. It's these weird fans who treat everything he says as gospel and use it to troll Meltzer on Twitter, etc. Then again, Twitter Meltzer kind of deserves to be trolled, so I don't feel all that sorry for him. You reap what you sow.

[C.S.]

The WWF had no fewer than three gimmicks dedicated to ridiculing Dusty in the late 80s. In addition to the polka dots, there was Virgil and Akeem the African Dream.

True, but outside of the names and some of the 1980s WWF silliness that applied to many things there, Akeem and Virgil were still presented as legitimate competitors/presences for the most part. Even Polka Dot Dusty, while he was never going to be the world-beater he was in the NWA no matter what he wore, was still positioned as a strong upper-midcard babyface and given a WrestleMania match against Randy Savage. "Macho King" may not have been a main event gimmick, but Randy Savage was still a fairly big deal.

[BrianB]

I still to this day love listening to Cornette. I agree with most of his philosophies and ideals regarding wrestling and the "way things OUGHT to be."

But it's weird. Because there are a lot of cases where my idea of talent or skill and his (mostly regarding modern workers) couldn't be further apart.

But when it comes to sharing stories from the good old days or just general discussion about how wrestling should work, I could listen to Cornette all day over just about anyone.

But yeah. Everyone comes with their own prejudices, their own biases, their own slants, and on & on. Everyone is only ever going to give THEIR side of any given story. That's life. That's human nature. You're not going to find anyone that simply delivers 100% undeniable truth.

Might as well go with the guys that you enjoy listening to, in that case.

 

This is true, and unavoidable.

 

But there's a difference between people like Dave, who will go out of way to dispute and refute Bruno's alleged MSG sell-out record right after his death, and people that will put their own personal opinions on the same or a higher tier than the truth. I highly doubt that if somebody Bruce knew well and talked to frequently died, that Bruce would bother to correct people exaggerating facts about that person. If anything, he's the kind of guy that would enjoy embellishing.

[BrianB]

Whatever irritation twitter Dave feels over the Prichard trolls or die-hards ragging on him, he probably waves away when he looks at his subscriber numbers.

 

The overall wrestling audience might be more niche than ever, but Prichard and other Conrad shows are organizing and generating a whole audience of people that are interested in pro-wrestling history and finding out the behind the scenes stories...in other words, they're growing the hardcore, possibly a lapsed hardcore audience, that will subscribe to the wrestling observer to look thru the back issues.

[Bix]

Lots of different stuff to address so I'm not gonna bother quoting any specific posts:

 

Bruce is a charming guy when you talk to him, and in private he has zero problem admitting that the Dave stuff is 100% gimmick. Is calling him a con man fair? Well, the CV on his old website did say that he created the American Idol concept with Simon Cowell. It's usually pretty easy to tell when he's spinning a yarn, but where it gets weird is that it feels like some false stories are things he was told and took at face value. The XFL making a profit is one of them, because he's not so brazen as to tell everyone to look up the SEC filings even though they would prove him wrong. This USA Today/Meltzer thing feels like it could be another because it was so oddly specific that it didn't sound like something he pulled out of thin air.

 

Bischoff is NOT a charming guy, and will threaten to shoot interviews down over the smallest perceived slight. I haven't listened to the new show yet, but I don't see it clicking for a number of reasons. The key with Bischoff is getting access that you are genuinely interested in his side, and the newsletter notes format could easily complicate that.

 

Cornette, for all of the faults he does have, really does not have a rep as a bullshitter, and rightfully so. Yeah, his collection of personal documentation helps, but it's not JUST that.

 

I do agree that Dave's writing and reporting style opened him up to much more criticism than he ever really needed. That "people familiar with the matter" or anything like it isn't really an Observer staple tells you all you need to know. It's also a huge complaint of Bischoff that Dave doesn't usually do any kind of attribution, even to "a WWE creative source" or whatever. When Dave acts like this is a ridiculous criticism on my part, I can't tell if he's doing his Twitter/board gimmick or genuinely doesn't get the distinction that Torch and Matwatch were eaten much more like mainstream news reporting. Nobody's asking for names unless they're particularly dense.

 

I definitely have concerns over Bruce going so hard in the "FAKE NEWS!" direction, too, but R*sso makes him look like Brian Stelter. Thankfully, he has a much smaller fanbase, albeit one that's all improbably large.

[El-P]

The Houston edition of Back to the Territories is interesting also when you get to the point Bruce is very bullshiting about WWF and Corny obviously knows is bullshiting. And then watch the interaction between the two.

 

Bruce is a profesionnal bullshiter and a great promo (listen to him improv in his show, he's a better promo than anyone on the WWE roster today). And that's part of why his show can be so fun too actually. Conrad and him have a puppet show where Conrad plays the Meltzer side (not only that, but also the "smart fan" in general) and Bruce cuts promos on Meltz. It's like Shane Douglas cutting promos on Flair in 1994. It gets attention and his audience loves it (at this point it really feels rehashed to hell though).

 

As far as the Twitter Stupid Army, it's a way broader issue, really.

[Matt D]

Lots of different stuff to address so I'm not gonna bother quoting any specific posts:

 

Bruce is a charming guy when you talk to him, and in private he has zero problem admitting that the Dave stuff is 100% gimmick. Is calling him a con man fair? Well, the CV on his old website did say that he created the American Idol concept with Simon Cowell. It's usually pretty easy to tell when he's spinning a yarn, but where it gets weird is that it feels like some false stories are things he was told and took at face value. The XFL making a profit is one of them, because he's not so brazen as to tell everyone to look up the SEC filings even though they would prove him wrong. This USA Today/Meltzer thing feels like it could be another because it was so oddly specific that it didn't sound like something he pulled out of thin air.

 

Bischoff is NOT a charming guy, and will threaten to shoot interviews down over the smallest perceived slight. I haven't listened to the new show yet, but I don't see it clicking for a number of reasons. The key with Bischoff is getting access that you are genuinely interested in his side, and the newsletter notes format could easily complicate that.

 

Cornette, for all of the faults he does have, really does not have a rep as a bullshitter, and rightfully so. Yeah, his collection of personal documentation helps, but it's not JUST that.

 

I do agree that Dave's writing and reporting style opened him up to much more criticism than he ever really needed. That "people familiar with the matter" or anything like it isn't really an Observer staple tells you all you need to know. It's also a huge complaint of Bischoff that Dave doesn't usually do any kind of attribution, even to "a WWE creative source" or whatever. When Dave acts like this is a ridiculous criticism on my part, I can't tell if he's doing his Twitter/board gimmick or genuinely doesn't get the distinction that Torch and Matwatch were eaten much more like mainstream news reporting. Nobody's asking for names unless they're particularly dense.

 

I definitely have concerns over Bruce going so hard in the "FAKE NEWS!" direction, too, but R*sso makes him look like Brian Stelter. Thankfully, he has a much smaller fanbase, albeit one that's all improbably large.

1. I'm a lot more in tune with the news in general these days so the attribution stuff bugs me much more than it used to, but at the same time, why would any of us expect Dave really care when it's worked for him for decades and decades? When he made an entire livelihood despite it?

2. You should listen to the first Bischoff podcast. It felt a little like a best possible scenario given the reasons you listed.

3. The idea that anyone finds Bruce more credible than Dave is pretty outlandish to me because it comes down to intent. Bruce has more first-hand knowledge about these specific topics but Dave is the one who gains from finding the truth, to the best of his ability, and that has less (though not no) vested interest.

[JHawk]

Bruce Prichard bugs me more and more as time goes on because things that I even know are bullshit are treated as gospel. The last straw for me was when he tried to claim the plan for the live NBC special was always Savage by countout when even the people involved in the match said otherwise. (Not that Honky Tonk Man is credible either, but in this case I'd take his word over Prichard's).

 

With the Red Rooster thing, assuming Prichard's explanation of what the gimmick was supposed to be is accurate, why wouldn't somebody have told Terry Taylor to stop wearing a red mohawk and going "cock a doodle do" and start acting like an arrogant prick?

 

I love Bruce's podcast but the bullshit gets thicker and thicker as time goes on.

[SomethingSavage]

I'm blissfully ignorant to wrestling Twitter happenings, so I'm unaware of whatever Bruce's fanatics are doing to bother people. But let's not even pretend Dave's fanatics are any better.

 

There are pockets & sections of the internet where "critics" still take Meltzer's every word as gospel and will deliberately hang on his every written word and match analysis, to the point that their own reviews are basically just regurgitated, parroted copies of whatever Dave claims he saw.

 

Both have their loyal fan base. So Bruce's fans may actually believe that the Red Rooster wasn't a rib, and Dave's faithful may actually buy that Omega vs Okada is the greatest match that has ever happened anywhere. That could be equally annoying.

 

But some of us *can* cut through the bullshit and just enjoy the useful stuff we get from them anyhow. This is a day-to-day social skill most people should exhibit, to be perfectly honest.

[Victator]

In the case of Honky and the IC title, his story has never changed. With all the shoots he has done, that has stayed the same. So I believe him on that.

I think with Bruce it depends on how personal something is to him. If he has no personal stake, you will more or less get the truth. The closer you get, the more mercurial the truth gets with him.

Dave has lost a lot of ground with me in the last year due to his twitter act. The main thing being his cherry picking of what to respond to. If he can't do a smart ass reply his sycophant can fap to, he is not replying.

Let me give you an example. For some reason, Dave was shitting on Lex Luger, saying he was always bad and just carried. Which is conventional wisdom but also bullshit if you watch his work. You know who else thought it was bullshit? 1989 Dave Meltzer, who said Lex has had too many good matches for it all to be carry jobs. I sent this to him on Twitter and got no reply. Now you can say not everyone replies to every tweet. But I found Dave would reply to me a lot. But here he is silent.

I had to think Dave Meltzer will never utter the words "I was wrong and made a mistake." If he ever has, I will gladly admit I was wrong.

- Fake Undertaker is an example of the gimmick being bad in the wrong hands. Yes, OBVIOUSLY, it was always intended for "holes" to eventually appear. Not sure why that was even mentioned. But at first, everyone* thought it was the real Undertaker - and yet it somehow sucked.
*Everyone meaning "mark" child/teen fans, not Observer readers.

 

Well as a twelve/thirteen year old in 1994, i did not think it sucked. I was very invested in finding out how Ted Dibiase had turned the Undertaker.

[sek69]

The thing about Bruce is he seems to be saying things about Dave he knows aren't true to drum up his own business, and his fans are believing it and harassing him on Twitter because of it.

 

As far as I know, Dave hasn't knowingly pushed anything he knew was not true for his own benefit. So this both-sides-are-equally-bad take doesn't hold water.

[Loss]

Summerslam that year was really successful pushing the idea of two Undertakers. If Dave really thinks that didn't connect, he's pretty insulated.

[C.S.]

Summerslam that year was really successful pushing the idea of two Undertakers. If Dave really thinks that didn't connect, he's pretty insulated.

I have no idea what Dave (or Bruce) thought, but I hated it. I think people in this thread are responding to me, not Dave.

[Fando]

I was 12 and hated it and stopped watching for the next year. Undertaker wasn't interesting again until the Mankind feud when he started having must see brawls.

 

Here's Dave on the show:

9/5/94

The contrast between Bret Hart and Owen Hart putting on the absolute best match humanly possible given the constrictions of WWF cage match rules (the escape rule means climbing and running psychologically takes the place of pinning maneuvers which limits the amount of wrestling that can be done; and the blood ban makes it difficult to do a believable match using more than a few head shots to the cage). This was followed by the Undertaker vs. Undertaker feud, a feud deemed such a flop that the decision was made weeks ago to pull the plug on it before its first match. After that match, it may have been better to cut the losses. What seemed like a cute idea materialized into watering down the drawing power of the company's top attraction. Another cute idea, using Leslie Neilsen of the "Naked Gun" movies, and at this show sidekick George Kennedy, in search of the Undertaker flopped just as bad, as the two were hampered by an incredibly vapid script. It's as if someone came up with the bones of an idea, but nobody had any idea of the meat, and they did the idea anyway. When it was over, the show, even though it had a few great angles and one excellent match, came off due to the last impression, as a lackluster major event. I'm of the opinion that had the Undertaker-Undertaker match been put in the third slot on the card, that it's impact at the end would have been minimal and fans leaving with the cage match would have left on a much brighter note and the thumbs up ratio would have been far better. My guess is the idea was that Undertaker-Undertaker wouldn't bomb like it did, obviously, and they like to end shows with a babyface conquering all and the cage match ended with the face getting destroyed at the end. But that mindset ended up leaving the show on a flat note rather than a high note. The natural comparisons to the Clash a few days earlier were that the Clash had more excitement and more meaning. Still, no matter how bad the main event was, I could never give a thumbs down to a show with a match as good as Bret and Owen in the cage.

 

7. Undertaker Mark Callaway pinned Undertaker Brian Lee in 9:10. They did a great 7:00 ring entrance with Paul Bearer coming out alone, then the coffin that Callaway was buried in at Royal Rumble was wheeled out by some hooded men that looked like they made a wrong turn from an El Satanico ring entrance on an AAA show. However, in the casket was a giant urn, and when Bearer opened the urn, we got a nice thunder and lightning show. Finally Callaway showed up. The special effects were good but it was done the minute the bell rang. One guy in ultra-slow motion has limitations. Two-guys doing it kills the match. It didn't help that Lee seemed lost in the ring and that the two didn't look enough alike and the size difference was noticeable. It was as if everyone knew the ending once Callaway showed up. No heat at all. Even McMahon had to acknowledge it trying to get over the crowd was stunned into silence, but there was no tension in the air so it was dull silence not stunned silence. Lee used a choke-slam and tombstone but Callaway sat up both times. Callaway reversed the second tombstone, then delivered two more, crossed Lee's arms and pinned him. He then rolled him into the casket, thereby killing the gimmick. Word we get is Lee will return with a new look as a biker character with no acknowledgement of his prior role. Leslie Neilsen & George Kennedy ended the show with a skit as weak as the match. -*

 

 

9/26/94

The one bit of good news coming from all this is that the SummerSlam PPV according to estimates from additional sources appears to have done between a 1.0 and 1.3 percent buy rate, which has to be considered a success given the market conditions. The estimates are the show did almost the same, or only slightly less buys than last year. The WWF did one of its greatest hype jobs ever last year with the Lex Luger bus tour leading to his match with Yokozuna. Staying even at a time when its overall interest was down is either saying that the double main event program was really underrated by us as to its drawing power, or that they pulled off a great marketing coup with the Dominoes pizza box advertising and tie-ins.

 

Almost an "I was wrong"

[Fando]

Is he working alot of the time? Sure. But isn't everyone? Meltzer does whatever he thinks is going to generate interest in what he's selling, too. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

Example please.

[SomethingSavage]

The thing about Bruce is he seems to be saying things about Dave he knows aren't true to drum up his own business, and his fans are believing it and harassing him on Twitter because of it.

 

As far as I know, Dave hasn't knowingly pushed anything he knew was not true for his own benefit. So this both-sides-are-equally-bad take doesn't hold water.

 

That's not even what I said though. I said both sides' loyal fanatics could be equally annoying.

 

I'm completely removed from the twitter nonsense. But, even just knowing what I know about Dave's attitude and approach to his own twitter account, I find it hilarious that he and his fans are now crying about harassment and being bullied.

 

Ultimately, I'm not really bothered by any of it. I don't listen to Bruce for factual accuracy or journalism. And if anyone is, then they're doing it wrong in the first place. Listen for the storytelling, the Vince perspective, and some laughs.

 

Conversely, I'm never going to seek out Meltzer for ANY of that. But, if some monumental news were to break, then yeah. I'd maybe turn to Dave for the latest developments or something.

 

See there? Both can serve a separate purpose. You should pretty much know what you're getting from either side by now.

[SomethingSavage]

 

Is he working alot of the time? Sure. But isn't everyone? Meltzer does whatever he thinks is going to generate interest in what he's selling, too. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

Example please.

Maybe pick up any issue of the Observer ever please.

 

If you can't find instances of Dave pushing his own ideas, agendas, etc. then you're not paying attention. That's not even an indictment of his character or anything. That's just business. He wouldn't be doing a decent job if he didn't try to keep people buying his shit, ya know.

[Fando]

 

 

Is he working alot of the time? Sure. But isn't everyone? Meltzer does whatever he thinks is going to generate interest in what he's selling, too. That's just the nature of the beast.

Example please.

Maybe pick up any issue of the Observer ever please.

 

If you can't find instances of Dave pushing his own ideas, agendas, etc. then you're not paying attention. That's not even an indictment of his character or anything. That's just business. He wouldn't be doing a decent job if he didn't try to keep people buying his shit, ya know.

 

 

≠ "working"

So none then. Thanks for clarifying.

[sek69]

Yeah, until I can find an example of Dave pushing something he knows is BS to drive his business I don't see the comparison either.

[...TG]

A thread on Bruce's credibility morphs into yet another debate on Dave's. Can't help but think this is why Bruce rips Dave so much.

[SomethingSavage]

Yeah, until I can find an example of Dave pushing something he knows is BS to drive his business I don't see the comparison either.

What's amusing about that is how you seem to be the only one saying anything about "pushing what he knows is bullshit." I know I never phrased it that way.

 

I said he pushed his own biases. And he does. Always has.

 

I also clarified that both guys could be looked to for different offerings. Why would I mention turning to Dave for news if he was a bullshit artist? Conversely, I gladly turn to Bruce for the bullshit and the entertaining stories.

 

Again, if other people can't spot the bullshit when they hear it, then that's on them. Lumping me into the same category or rephrasing what I said to fit your counterargument (with yourself, apparently) is a little weird & does nothing to address what I *actually* said in the first place.

[sek69]

You are trying to equivicate what Bruce does with what Dave does. What Bruce does is sell bullshit that he knows is bullshit to "con the marks" or whatever. Dave has his own biases for sure, but they are not on the same level as someone who is clearly making shit up (or is at Hogan levels of making shit up for so long he believes its real). That's all I'm trying to say.

 

 

 

A thread on Bruce's credibility morphs into yet another debate on Dave's. Can't help but think this is why Bruce rips Dave so much.

 

I'd wager he rips on Dave becaus it's the only way he's relevant in 2018. Would he be known as anything other than the guy who was Brother Love if he wasn't using Dave as a means to get himself over with the internet?

[C.S.]

I'd wager he rips on Dave becaus it's the only way he's relevant in 2018. Would he be known as anything other than the guy who was Brother Love if he wasn't using Dave as a means to get himself over with the internet?

I think he'd be just as successful, because the Dave stuff is already old to me, and I've only seen the three Network shows.

 

It's the other stuff - the great stories, the "insider look" into how the WWE was run and Vince's mindset, etc. - that, for me, make the show worthwhile to listen to.

 

I think all of the Dave bashing on the show is a side-effect of Conrad mentioning him every other sentence. "Dave thought this, reported that, gave this match x amount of stars."

[Victator]

You are trying to equivicate what Bruce does with what Dave does. What Bruce does is sell bullshit that he knows is bullshit to "con the marks" or whatever. Dave has his own biases for sure, but they are not on the same level as someone who is clearly making shit up (or is at Hogan levels of making shit up for so long he believes its real). That's all I'm trying to say.

 

 

 

A thread on Bruce's credibility morphs into yet another debate on Dave's. Can't help but think this is why Bruce rips Dave so much.

 

I'd wager he rips on Dave becaus it's the only way he's relevant in 2018. Would he be known as anything other than the guy who was Brother Love if he wasn't using Dave as a means to get himself over with the internet?

He was in Vince's inner circle and knows where the bodies are buried in the largest wrestling company on Earth. So yes I think he would be relevant without David Meltzer.

[Victator]

 

I'd wager he rips on Dave becaus it's the only way he's relevant in 2018. Would he be known as anything other than the guy who was Brother Love if he wasn't using Dave as a means to get himself over with the internet?

I think he'd be just as successful, because the Dave stuff is already old to me, and I've only seen the three Network shows.

 

It's the other stuff - the great stories, the "insider look" into how the WWE was run and Vince's mindset, etc. - that, for me, make the show worthwhile to listen to.

 

I think all of the Dave bashing on the show is a side-effect of Conrad mentioning him every other sentence. "Dave thought this, reported that, gave this match x amount of stars."

 

Which I think comes from Conrad having few original thoughts in his life.