Dave Meltzer stuff

[Coffey]

 

If Dave says a match is like 4+ stars, its like if a movie is 80%+. You're really over thinking this. Shame, cause that was a good ass quote too. Bleh.

 

Except in both cases, it actually doesn't mean anything, really. I've seen plenty of movies with critical/public consensus which I thought were not good at all, so it's never an argument to me. (it works better the other way around usually, when there's a consensus on something being really horrible, it usually is, although there are exceptions)

 

 

It doesn't ultimately, naw. My favorite comedy ever is UHF and it has like a 60% on Rotten Tomatoes. My favorite Survivor Series match is the Doink Vs. Lawler match featuring all of the minis.

[FMKK]

The issue is some people getting pissy because Evil Meltz is supposedly influencing the entire pro-wrestling business with his allmighty star ratings and is solely responsible for a style they don't care about becoming the norm of success currently. More or less.

 

Nice that you can take time out of your busy schedule of not caring about anything to mock the argument instead of engaging

[El-P]

 

 

If Dave says a match is like 4+ stars, its like if a movie is 80%+. You're really over thinking this. Shame, cause that was a good ass quote too. Bleh.

 

Except in both cases, it actually doesn't mean anything, really. I've seen plenty of movies with critical/public consensus which I thought were not good at all, so it's never an argument to me. (it works better the other way around usually, when there's a consensus on something being really horrible, it usually is, although there are exceptions)

 

 

It doesn't ultimately, naw. My favorite comedy ever is UHF and it has like a 60% on Rotten Tomatoes. My favorite Survivor Series match is the Doink Vs. Lawler match featuring all of the minis.

 

That's the spirit !

[SAMS]

When recapping RAW with Alvarez, Dave at some point justifies the lack of creative direction in the company to a lack of financial incentive: they don't rely on live attendance; they have a set rate for TV and ratings aren't the be all and end all as they used to be; and network subscriptions are apparently seasonal so they also don't count - so, why bother producing anything good? They'll keep afloat regardless. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a ludicrous way to run a business.

[Jimmy James]

It's how you run a monopoly, as anyone who lives in a city with a single internet/cable provider can tell you. It's shit.

[SAMS]

You're completely right. But now more than ever, you're not just competing against other companies, you're competing against other forms of entertainment. I know this has always been the case, but kids nowadays have more access to more niche products than ever before. If you live in an area with only one shit internet supplier that sucks, but you need access to the internet so you'll begrudgingly hand over the money - kids don't feel like they need to watch wrestling, they'll just watch/stream/snapchat/tweet/whatever something else. Long term I don't see how this attitude is sustainable.

[NintendoLogic]

I think that WWE is more responsible than Meltzer for the current workrate fetish among hardcore fans. It's often said that the style of wrestling you're first exposed to is fixed in your mind as what wrestling "should" look like and other styles will always seem off. Well, if you started watching in the late 90s or early 2000s, you probably got your ideas of what good matches should look like from guys like Angle, Benoit, and Michaels. Modern WWE/NJPW/PWG is basically that style turned up to 11. At the same time, wrestling's decline in mainstream popularity meant there were fewer Lex Luger types getting into the business to make a quick buck. And the ones who did lacked the ability or charisma to present a compelling alternative to the workrate style.

[Strummer]

I think that's a point that's not really touched on much and is quite important. There are less big guys/bodybuilders getting into wrestling so this generation doesn't automatically see them as stars or something special and it's caused a gap/disconnect between promoters (mainly Vince) and a portion of the fanbase. Remember it's been a decade since the Lashley, Mason Ryan types were the norm and that's a long time in the wrestling business to change perspectives

 

I think this is probably a big reason Roman is struggling to get over as a babyface to a portion of the audience

 

but then you have Braun... but he has been booked so strongly

[SAMS]

Who's not seeing them as stars though? Is it just the hardcores, who often seem to only latch onto guys who have indie credibility? Or is the audience as a whole not responding to these bigger guys in the same way as years past?

I will admit to having no sense of what mainstream consensus is on a myriad of topics, including this. So I have no clue.

[Mad Dog]

Who's not seeing them as stars though? Is it just the hardcores, who often seem to only latch onto guys who have indie credibility? Or is the audience as a whole not responding to these bigger guys in the same way as years past?

I will admit to having no sense of what mainstream consensus is on a myriad of topics, including this. So I have no clue.

 

I would say the audience as a whole isn't liking what they're getting. The ratings have been a disaster since they started using Roman and Rollins on top. The live attendance numbers have been going down as well. The only guy that can move the needle for them is Cena.

[SAMS]

This reminds me of something Loss said. That he wished the way the company presented talent was more in line with the audience response. They see the vitriolic reaction to Roman and they think "hey, a negative reaction is better than no reaction." To what extent is this the reason the casual audience is being turned off?

I'm still not fully understanding the backlash against Reigns. He had the look and he puts on good matches. Granted he's not too hot on the mic, but I think a lot of his issues can be laid at the feet of creative in that department. Rollins in the other hand has been pretty terrible in every regard since the Shield breakup. Plus the way they booked him during his title run was worse than anything Roman has had to endure.

[Loss]

I think that WWE is more responsible than Meltzer for the current workrate fetish among hardcore fans. It's often said that the style of wrestling you're first exposed to is fixed in your mind as what wrestling "should" look like and other styles will always seem off. Well, if you started watching in the late 90s or early 2000s, you probably got your ideas of what good matches should look like from guys like Angle, Benoit, and Michaels. Modern WWE/NJPW/PWG is basically that style turned up to 11. At the same time, wrestling's decline in mainstream popularity meant there were fewer Lex Luger types getting into the business to make a quick buck. And the ones who did lacked the ability or charisma to present a compelling alternative to the workrate style.

 

I always thought that was true too, and maybe it is to an extent. But there was no surge of great promo guys that followed Austin, Rock, Foley, Jericho, and the great veteran talkers that still worked on top in WCW.

[El-P]

Because the era of scripted promos began with Stephy's reign of creative terror. And from then, it doesn't matter how good/bad you are. The words are not yours. It's all about delivery. And you can have a good delivery (cf Bray Wyatt), it doesn't make you a great promo. And you can be the ace and probably be a great promo and still get feed shitfest material (cf Cena and his smiling-poop-jokes-whocareifIjustlostthechampionship stuff). And also pretty much suck at it (cf Reigns who hasn't showed shit).

 

The whole "he's a great promo" is a thing of the past, there's no "promos" anymore, there are "produced dialogues". Which is why Dario Cueto in LU looks like the greatest "promo" ever, because he's an actual actor.

[Mad Dog]

This reminds me of something Loss said. That he wished the way the company presented talent was more in line with the audience response. They see the vitriolic reaction to Roman and they think "hey, a negative reaction is better than no reaction." To what extent is this the reason the casual audience is being turned off?

I'm still not fully understanding the backlash against Reigns. He had the look and he puts on good matches. Granted he's not too hot on the mic, but I think a lot of his issues can be laid at the feet of creative in that department. Rollins in the other hand has been pretty terrible in every regard since the Shield breakup. Plus the way they booked him during his title run was worse than anything Roman has had to endure.

 

I think largely because he wasn't good at first. He isn't super likeable or really memorable. We're talking about his 4th WrestleMania in a row. That's Hulk Hogan territory for a guy that a lot of fans kind of just wish would go away. It's also the continued force of Roman Reigns. He's kind of that piece of broccoli that your parents forced you to eat as a kid that makes you forever hate broccoli and never give it a chance.

 

He's not solely to blame though. Seth Rollins doesn't get near enough flak for the embarrassing failure he's been on top.

[El-P]

Seth Rollins doesn't get near enough flak for the embarrassing failure he's been on top.

 

Because Seth is not pushed as the Ace. Reigns is supposed to be Cena/Rock/Austin/Hogan. And he's simply NOT. The forcefeeding is ridiculous. WWE can be happy about the obnoxious TV rights fees bubble, really...

[Mad Dog]

The funny thing about that TV rights bubble is that it's probably going to burst when everyone's deals come up next time. I think even the NFL is going to see less money. The WWE are absolutely fucked if their TV deal gets worse.

[sek69]

They're still the highest rated show on USA so worst case they'd probably get the same money they do now. What would really fuck them is if another show hits big on USA and Raw isn't the top draw anymore.

[Sean Liska]

The funny thing about that TV rights bubble is that it's probably going to burst when everyone's deals come up next time. I think even the NFL is going to see less money. The WWE are absolutely fucked if their TV deal gets worse.

"Absolutely fucked" is a bit strong but they would have to make a lot of changes to their business. But if they become a $600 million company instead of an $800 million company, it's not like they're going to be taking the water coolers out of HQ like in 95. Vince is a fighter, he'll figure it out.

 

 

I always thought that was true too, and maybe it is to an extent. But there was no surge of great promo guys that followed Austin, Rock, Foley, Jericho, and the great veteran talkers that still worked on top in WCW.

At least we had guys like Punk/Owens/Ambrose/Joe etc emerge from the indy boom of the early to mid 2000's. I don't know who on the indies now is known for having a great character and storylines and promos anywhere near the degree that Punk was. I'm a little worried about what American wrestling will look like in 10 years for that reason.

[Robert S]

Just a general comment about WON online: when I initially subscribed a couple of years ago (I don't remember exactly when, might have been 2010 +/- a year) they regularly had interviews with big names in the industry (Austin, Foley, JR, Bruno are the first names coming to mind), when I stopped subscribing some years later those interviews became far less, at least you still had indy guys doing appearences hyping shows (e.g. for ROH or Chikara PPVs). Whenever I go to f4wonline.com nowadays to check some news I don't see any interviews at all. I understand that the main draw for subscriptions is the WON itself, but for me the interviews were a close second, so having none of those anymore is a clear loss of value.

[Richeyedwards]

Just a general comment about WON online: when I initially subscribed a couple of years ago (I don't remember exactly when, might have been 2010 +/- a year) they regularly had interviews with big names in the industry (Austin, Foley, JR, Bruno are the first names coming to mind), when I stopped subscribing some years later those interviews became far less, at least you still had indy guys doing appearences hyping shows (e.g. for ROH or Chikara PPVs). Whenever I go to f4wonline.com nowadays to check some news I don't see any interviews at all. I understand that the main draw for subscriptions is the WON itself, but for me the interviews were a close second, so having none of those anymore is a clear loss of value.

 

They do get interviews but they are all njpw guys when in the USA, the regulars, predictably are the young bucks and omega

[Loss]

All of the companies were pretty open about giving Dave access to their talent for interviews when he first started on Eyada. I don't remember any particularly controversial interviews, but for whatever reason, that changed drastically after a few months. But still, yeah, there are people he should be able to have on semi-regularly now since they're retired or semi-retired.

[El-P]

Dave was saying the other day that WWE is the only company in the world he can't have access too anymore as far as interviews go, which is kinda crazy when you think about it.

[Matt D]

Especially as it has a monopoly?

[cm funk]

They've recently had JR, Jericho, Ed Nordholm (Anthem) and Patric Leprade (Montreal historian). WOL regularly has indy wrestlers on as guests.

 

When Bryan was doing Figure Four Daily on a somewhat daily basis he had lots of interviews with indy guys and retired guys, but that was a long time ago. Now he's focused on the Dave shows, WOL, B&V and Filthy Four.......which admittedly is a heavy workload for a married man with a young daughter

 

I agree that I'd like to see more interviews though

[Wahoos Leg]

He's just trolling people at this point

 

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/922960642197241856