The interesting Dave Meltzer posts thread

[jdw]

The MMA vs. Pro Wrestling stuff remains a hoot several years after Pride died. "Talking out of your ass" is great as well, and I suspect it wasn't too long after the Jumbo Stealing The Belt From Flair thread.

 

I love how the Flair-Sid vs. Hogan-Piper story changes from one thread to the next.

 

Yeah, the links help since there are times where people go back and forth with Dave. At times he comes off well in goofy threads. Other times, not so well.

 

 

John

[Bix]

The MMA vs. Pro Wrestling stuff remains a hoot several years after Pride died.

I will say that I agree w/ Death From Above that it is a much more persuasive version than what he's written elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but it's a much, much better explanation than what he's written in the newsletter (moreso once it gets up to Pancrase & Pride. It's scattershot beforehand.)

[Death From Above]

Let me make it clear I don't agree with it either, but at least that came off as a coherent reason that made sense, or at least probably makes good sense from Meltzer's point of view.

[khawk20]

It was obvious when the place went nuts for Hogan when he debuted in the AWA as a heel managed by Johnny Valiant, that he was a babyface, and he never actually even turned, he just was.

This is partially true. They did work an angle in Winnipeg and possibly other stops in the circuit where Hogan ran in and saved Brad Rheingans from Jerry Blackwell, which set up Blackwell vs. Hogan around the horn. Johnny V leading chants for Hogan through the mic is quite the site to see (they tried to turn Johnny too and keep him with Hogan).

 

My belief on that, however, is that Verne could not reconcile the idea that he could be a face without a proper, old-school turn. It was obvious he was the fan's choice long before the Rheingans thing.

 

I think they did the official turn more to reconcile it with themselves and possibly some of the fans that wanted specific reasons and incidents to point at as markers for turns and whatnot.

 

Dave was never a big fan of the AWA. Of course, the AWA had begun a downward turn shortly after he began his newsletter, so he may have felt differently if he had to comment on it before that time. Some of his 84 writings on the AWA absolutely destroy the area.

 

I mention this because the absence of Verne and Wally Karbo as great bookers from the piece on that is really, really noticable to me (and honestly I am assuming they booked the AWA at least up until 1984, I could be wrong).

 

The AWA was very good at closing the circle on a story or feud, and remembering little things that long-time fans would recognize as a big deal. that had to be Verne's doing. The AWA being so bad in the later 80's unfortunately overshadows a lot of the early stuff and the lack of video pre-1981 makes it tough to point to examples for the average old-school viewer.

 

It's also why showing AWA TV on WWE 24/7 without specific interview spots is useless.

 

I'm happy that Dave recognizes how much of a star Verne was, though. Small victory, but it's something.

[kjh]

That reminds me, whatever happened to Dave's AWA history article that he was going to write after WWE's AWA DVD came out? I suppose we'll have to wait for Verne Gagne to pass away to get that piece now, which is a shame.

[khawk20]

That reminds me, whatever happened to Dave's AWA history article that he was going to write after WWE's AWA DVD came out? I suppose we'll have to wait for Verne Gagne to pass away to get that piece now, which is a shame.

That'll be an interesting read. I think Dave will try to recognize some of the better things they did before the Expansion years, but if he doesn't have the material to work with on that, I suspect it will end up heavier on the downfall years. understandable as there is plenty of opinion, video and his own writings to look at during that time frame.

[khawk20]

Hogan claims he tore his lat slamming Andre at WM3:

 

I don't know when Hogan tore his lat, but he did tear it.

 

He first showed the tear when doing an AWA angle in the early 80s with Patera & Ventura. Angle was they tore his lat and he had the damage, either from an earlier or perhaps more recent tear.

They did this angle on the 8/8/82 card in St. Paul. Hogan didn't wrestle again until the 10/17/82 St. paul Battleroyal card. So, anyone know if he took time off to let the lat tear heal (if it wasn't a work), or if this was a Japan tour?

 

Also, the whole angle is very strange because Jesse and Ken work on the arm for some time after Hogan wins an arm wrestling match with Patera and Jesse attacks Hogan. then, Patera and Jesse just basically leave the ring when they are done. No hot comeback/anger from Hogan, no other faces running in for the save, and the ref for it, Ray Stevens, never recovers to help Hogan either. hogan is leftin the ring stumbling around holding his arm. Very, very odd.

 

Hogan vs. Jesse in the return grudge match wasn't held until Christmas Day in St. Paul, either.

 

Anyways that is the date of the angle Dave is talking about here.

[Bix]

That reminds me, whatever happened to Dave's AWA history article that he was going to write after WWE's AWA DVD came out?

It's sitting next to the full Ernie Ladd bio.

[Bob Morris]

With regards to the whole "MMA is pro wrestling" debate, I think a couple of the examples Dave tosses out have more to do with what is featured on a pro wrestling _show_ and not what would be considered a pro wrestling _match_.

 

The bikini showdowns Dave brings up are not what anybody would consider pro wrestling matches, but they have been part of pro wrestling shows from time to time. Same thing with the "20-minute interview" segments and the backstage skits, although nobody would ever declare those to be pro wrestling matches.

 

Dave seems to be combining the "show" and "match" elements to define an entire "package" as what "pro wrestling" is. When the counterpoint should be to distinguish the "matches" from the rest of the "show" to better illustrate the point as to why MMA/Pride matches are not "pro wrestling matches" even though one might be part of a "pro wrestling show."

 

Of course, I haven't been to Wrestling Classics for a long time, so I have no recollection regarding how the rest of the discussion went.

[S.L.L.]

The bottom line, as I have mentioned before, is simply this: MMA is a combat sport, pro wrestling is a genre of fiction. Not only are they different things, they belong to two drastically different classifications of things. That fact that MMA, and PRIDE in particular, may have borrowed aspects from a genre of fiction doesn't change the fact that MMA is a legit combat sport, and pro wrestling is a genre of fiction, and the two can not possibly be considered the same.

[Resident Evil]

The bottom line, as I have mentioned before, is simply this: MMA is a combat sport, pro wrestling is a genre of fiction. Not only are they different things, they belong to two drastically different classifications of things. That fact that MMA, and PRIDE in particular, may have borrowed aspects from a genre of fiction doesn't change the fact that MMA is a legit combat sport, and pro wrestling is a genre of fiction, and the two can not possibly be considered the same.

But pro wrestling the way you're thinking about it is not a total genre of fiction. It has some elements of reality to it which are signifigantly responsible for bringing in the fanbase. It's only part fiction. Total genre of fiction would be an animated fight on a TV screen. There's a difference.

 

And who are we to not classify something as pro wrestling just because it's different than let's say the WWE? Who said that pro wrestling can only mean worked matches? I don't think it does. I don't think anyone can justifiably argue that Pancrase wasn't pro wrestling and what's the difference between Pancrase and MMA? It's all pro wrestling just in different shapes and forms and mutations.

[kjh]

Most genres of fiction draw from reality to tell a compelling story. It doesn't make them only part fiction. What makes professional wrestling any different?

[Resident Evil]

Most genres of fiction draw from reality to tell a compelling story. It doesn't make them only part fiction. What makes professional wrestling any different?

Pro Wrestling (not talking about shootish versions here though the logic of increased emotion applies there too) is closer to reality. They even used to and still do try to present themselves as reality to a degree. When somebody hits on a shoulderblock for example there's impact. Somebody put effort into hitting somebody, somebody got hurt falling down and than that somebody got up and kept on going. Its all done in one live take before our very eyes unlike a movie.

 

This is partly what hooks people. Reality is present to a degree. Bruce Hart said it pretty well one time. A fan might go that was fake and well that was half fake but man I don't know about that. That looked pretty real. Boom! You've hooked them. That element of reality sucks you in and because of the stronger reality you have than in total genres of fiction like movies or a comic book or a novel you will find the emotions become stronger as well. You feel more emotionally involved when someone gets hit and gets back up or when someone takes a risk to win a match or when someone is submission or bleeding but yet won't give up and so on.

For example, Bret vs Austin isn't one fifth of the matchup it is if it were to take place in a book or on a movie screen.

 

 

But even in total fiction movie land you will see what I will call here the "pro wrestling reality effect" at play. Jackie Chan is a great example of this. Jackie is famous for doing his own incredible stunts and has recieved numerous accolades/trememdous praise for it. His movies have more of a real feel to them than the "total" kayfabe stunts of other action movies. By reading comments or listening to people talk about him, you will easily see how this increases people's emotions whle watching his movies.

[Guest totalmma]

oh man.

[tomk]

Robinson Crusoe is the foundation of the English novel.

It was published and initially recieved as a straightforward traveler's tale.

All of English novelistic literature is thus founded in an immitation of reality.

Still fiction.

[ohtani's jacket]

I can kinda see where Dave is coming from in that it was covered by the Japanese press like it was pro-wrestling & run by the same people, so it makes sense to report it from a business standpoint, but the fact Dave really likes MMA doesn't hurt. Whether that's enough to classify it as some kind of subgenre of pro-wrestling, I'm not sure, but there was a hell of a lot of crossover. It would've been strange for Dave not to report on PANCRASE or PRIDE.

[S.L.L.]

I've sworn off responding directly to Resident Evil, as my opinion of him has shifted from that of incredibly stupid but harmless guy to frightening lunatic who may have bodies under his floorboards, and at that point I no longer feel comfortable mocking him directly. That said....

 

For example, Bret vs Austin isn't one fifth of the matchup it is if it were to take place in a book or on a movie screen.

I don't know if it's actually relevant at all to the thread, but it is worth noting that the pro wrestling genre is one that has been limited to the stage. Yes, they show it on TV, too, but it's just a broadcast of a live stage production. It's theatrical genre, and it's never been seriously attempted in any other medium. I've spoken before of the potential benefits of approaching a wrestling show as "a show about wrestling", rather than a simple simulated broadcast of a wrestling event, but that's still presenting wrestling as theater first and foremost.

 

Can the wrestling genre be translated to a different medium successfully? The main aesthetic appeal of theater as a medium is its immediacy, the closeness between the audience and the performers, and unsurprisingly, that's a large part of wrestling's appeal. You take wrestling off of the stage, you take that away, but can it theoretically take advantage of the positives presented by other mediums?

[Guest Portalesman]

Meltzer posts on WC because its probably the most important wrestling message board on the entire intraweb.

[ohtani's jacket]

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but Dave considers MMA an offshoot of pro-wrestling, therefore he lumps it under the pro-wrestling banner. It depends how much you read into the name "pro-wrestling", as Dave seems to look at it as a type of promoting and not a term for worked matches. Whenever I've read the WON or listened to WO Live, he's always talking about the way MMA is presented and booked, crowd reaction, that type of thing. Either that or he just really wants to write about UFC. One point I disagree about is the perception of MMA in Japan. It's lumped together with pro-wrestling as "fighting" or "combative sports", but people don't call MMA puroresu. And many of the fans it attracted weren't wrestling fans, particularly the large female fanbase.

 

Does anybody know if Dave covered K-1 in '96/97?

[Jingus]

I have never, ever comprehended the "MMA = prowres" argument. Professional wrestling is, by definition, not a competitive sport. MMA, by defition, is. That's it. Period. If PRIDE or Pancrase worked some fights, that doesn't make them into puro companies, it just means that they fixed stuff; they still pretended that it was all real. Having the occasional work doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the fights are shoots, and that the whole program is presented as a legitimate contest. By that logic, Don King is the greatest wrestling promoter in the world. Not just a snarky comment, seriously, a lot of fixing goes on in boxing, why shouldn't it be counted in under the same rules? More ridiculously, should we also count baseball as pro wrestling because that one time the World Series was fixed, and they heavily promote their program based on personal rivalries between the teams?

 

Wrestling is fake, and no matter how physical and dangerous it gets, it's not a sport. I don't count Jackass or kung-fu movies as sports either, and they involve about the same amount of full contact and serious injury. And regardless of how many times some guy laid down for Takada in PRIDE, that's still an anomaly in a company which is fundamentally designed to promote legitimate competitive athletic contests.

[Dan]

Meltzer thinking Pride and stuff is pro wres is kind of silly but I can live with it. I'm more concerned with his covering of boxing last year as if it was wrestling, complete with analysis about it's supposed angles and gimmicks and faces and heels.

 

And this "when AAA came to this country and did business, you know that so many people wanted to ignore it on the guise it was not pro wrestling." He really needs better sources if they can't even understand what pro wrestling is.

[Bix]

Thanks to the SI online vault, here's Dave on the Zahorian trial:

 

While former NFL lineman Lyle Alzado was voicing his belief that steroid use helped cause his cancer (page 20), another athlete was telling a U.S. district court in Harris-burg, Pa., how steroids have ravaged his body. "Superstar' Billy Graham , 48, a pro wrestling champion in the 1970s, said that steroids had damaged his liver and caused his hips and ankles to degenerate, leaving him crippled. He made these statements while testifying last week at the trial of Dr. George Zahorian III, an osteopath and urological surgeon from suburban Harrisburg , who had been charged with distributing steroids and with distributing prescription painkillers for nontherapeutic purposes.

 

During the four-day trial Zahorian, who has worked as a ringside doctor at pro wrestling matches in Pennsylvania since the mid-'70s, testified that between November 1988 and March '90 he sold steroids to World Wrestling Federation ( WWF ) owner Vince McMahon and to many pro wrestlers, including two of the WWF 's top drawing cards, Hulk Hogan and "Rowdy" Roddy Piper . Last Thursday, Zahorian was convicted on 12 of 14 counts, and he now faces a sentence of up to 44 years in prison and $3 million in fines. Neither McMahon nor any of the wrestlers were charged, because until February, when a new federal law went into effect, it was legal to buy steroids.

 

During the trial, Zahorian told the court that he didn't know how many wrestlers had bought steroids from him, but he did say that he usually dispensed the drugs to 15 to 20 wrestlers at the events he worked. According to Graham and another former champion, Bruno Sammartino , 90% to 95% of the WWF 's wrestlers use steroids to build muscle mass.

 

In addition to Graham , four pro wrestlers, including Piper, told the court about their steroid use and their contacts with Zahorian. Despite their testimony, WWF vice-president Basil DeVito Jr., said, "I'm not acknowledging that anything about the trial has anything to do with us." And Jim Herd, executive vice-president of Ted Turner 's World Championship Wrestling (WCW), the other major promoter of pro wrestling, said after the trial, "I consider steroids to be like alcohol. I'm not condoning it. But these are grownup, intelligent adults."

 

One wrestler who did not appear at the trial was Hogan. Days before the trial began, Judge William Caldwell quashed the subpoena compelling Hogan to testify and dropped the charge against Zahorian that pertained to Hogan because of "private and personal matters that should be protected." It wasn't immediately clear why Hogan's privacy was protected when other wrestlers had to testify as government witnesses.

 

Hogan is an example of the new kind of champion that the WWF and WCW have pushed upon wrestling fans. The more muscular wrestlers, like Hogan, Lex Luger and The Ultimate Warrior, are promoted, while less muscular types, like Ric Flair and Bobby Eaton, are being phased out. The WWF and WCW haven't just turned a blind eye to the use of steroids. By making stars of certain wrestlers, the promoters have actually encouraged the use of steroids. " McMahon has made a lot of guys very rich," says Terry Funk, a former pro wrestling champion, "but he may also be taking years off their lives."

[tomk]

And this "when AAA came to this country and did business, you know that so many people wanted to ignore it on the guise it was not pro wrestling." He really needs better sources if they can't even understand what pro wrestling is.

I don't know how much of this was sources and how much was readership. I never got the sense that his sources were upset with hislucha coverage, and knowing the nature of the industry I imagine his sources are flattered by thinking that what they are doing is somehow linked to MMA. Objections came from readers. The response to his lucha coverage in the early 90s from his readership was negative. Maybe not largely negative maybe just the negative was more vocal. But you read those issue in like 93/94 and you really get a sense that he was forced to spend more time having to come up with new defensive explanations for lucha coverage than he spent actually getting lucha sources.

 

Just because the people who argued against you ten years ago were wrong and idiots, doesn't mean you are always right.

[Johnny Sorrow]

while less muscular types, like Ric Flair and Bobby Eaton, are being phased out.

Yeah, Ric Flair and Bobby Eaton were like twins. I can't tell you how many times I turned on TBS and mistook the two of them. That "less muscular" Ric Flair with the giant arms was just the picture twin of Eaton.

[sek69]

while less muscular types, like Ric Flair and Bobby Eaton, are being phased out.

Yeah, Ric Flair and Bobby Eaton were like twins. I can't tell you how many times I turned on TBS and mistook the two of them. That "less muscular" Ric Flair with the giant arms was just the picture twin of Eaton.

 

 

He wasn't suggesting they were twins, he was saying that they were being phased out for dudes who were more ripped. I didn't think there was any doubt about that very thing going on in wrestling at that time especially.