Dave Meltzer. Discuss.

[dstephe4]

Dave Meltzer - he of wrestling review lore. He whose name is mentioned in hushed whispers by those 'in the know' within wrestling.

Some love him and swoon. Some hate him and scorn. There seems to be little or no middle ground from what I can see.

Just curious as to what people on this forum think of him, his writing, his impact on the sport, all that. Are we fans here? What's the feeling?

[Self]

I subscribed to his newsletter/podcast for a few years. Long time ago so my sense of him is likely out of date. Knowledgeable guy with specific tastes. That has value, but as soon as someone tries to elevate him to some kind of objective judge of wrestling it causes problems. He like movez. His reviews often listed the movez done in a match, and the more movez it has, the bigger the star rating. That's not necessarily dishonest, he likes what he likes, but it's just one slice of the wrestling pie, and rarely the most important. 

I totally understand why insiders wouldn't like him, because his whole career has been about exposing the inner workings of the business to outsiders. And his reporting is dependent on what he's told, which always comes with bias and spin, even if you have the best of intentions. 

[Jaysin]

People put too much stock in Meltzer, but that's not his fault. I avoid dirt sheets these days because they ruin the fun and surprises, but I still see Dave quotes and reports on Facebook. It's so frustrating to me as a fan that just wants to enjoy what's on TV/PPV. 

I wish Facebook had a feature to block certain topics.

[The Superman 3 of People]

For a couple of decades there, Meltzer was the only wrestling journalist who had any real credibility and it's only been in the last decade or so that I've seen any reporting that stands up to his work from the 90s and 2000s. Over time a ton of his sources retired, died, or moved on, and as a result he's lost access to a lot of the resources that put him so far above his competitors. Even today, most wrestling news sites are run by guys who are either transcribing Wrestling Observer stories or misinterpreting an excerpt of an Observer story they read on r/SquaredCircle.

People who accuse Meltzer of "bias" are almost always wrong and almost always looking at things backwards. Meltzer gives so many five-star ratings to the Bucks because he likes the way they wrestle; not because he's on the AEW payroll - nobody accused Roger Ebert of receiving a Steven Spielberg payout when he liked ET.

These days I'd say the Wrestlenomics guys and Bixenspan are my go-tos for the kind of information I'm interested in, but there's still reason to pay attention to the observer.

tl;dr DAVE GOOD

Edited June 6 by The Superman 3 of People

[The Superman 3 of People]

1 hour ago, Self said:

I totally understand why insiders wouldn't like him, because his whole career has been about exposing the inner workings of the business to outsiders. And his reporting is dependent on what he's told, which always comes with bias and spin, even if you have the best of intentions. 

A lot of insiders hate Dave Meltzer because when you're a wrestler in your fifties and you've got alimony to pay your choices are shows at VFW halls or badmouthing Meltzer on a Zoom call with Conrad Thompson.

[guyver3]

Guy was a good journalist and even today on historical stuff is top notch. The closer and closer you get to anything regarding modern day is when things start to come off the rails in my opinion. Dave is clearly a performance over popularity person but at least since he broke his own rating system his match ratings haven’t carried nearly as much weight especially when AEW is concerned. When he was giving the big all Japan matches 5 stars it made sense to me those matches in ring were so much better than 90% of what we had to watch in WWF and WCW today though that’s not the case. 

[Wrestling Machine]

Spicy topic, i like it! Like others said, great historian.

The thing he's probably best known for is his rating system tho which is something ridiculous and broken. Today's ratings are completely off the charts, and it looks like multiple wrestlers and bookers nowadays are more interested in receiving a 5-star rating or a top grade from Meltzer/on Cagematch rather than sell tickets and grow an audience. I don't think this is good for the business, and it shows, but it's not like it's Meltzer's fault.

He has his own vision of wrestling based entirely on the type of workrate he likes (because workrate is not objective either), has his fav product and does everything to push it through IWC, which is absolutely legitimate. Looking at his ratings, his relationships, his thoughts on the shows, he's so obviously an AEW sympathizer, which is also absolutely fine.

Edited June 6 by Wrestling Machine

[CQI13]

Great historian. Beyond that, don’t see the value his opinion brings to anything, any more than my opinion or anyone else here. Everyone has their likes and dislikes. Roger Ebert had this huge book “I hated, hated, hated this movie” - flipped through it and said “whatever, I actually enjoy some of these.” Guess the issue comes in when anyone is elevated beyond “some guy who watches wrestling” or in Ebert’s case, movies. It was great when WWE gave people in the company different stories and found who was leaking certain information. The whole trying to curry favor or a positive review is so juvenile, but again, mileage may vary.

[Riho]

My first Observer was in 1986.

A "great historian" actually does original research and can write in a scholarly way citing and analyzing primary and secondary sources. They also have proofreaders. Great wrestling historians are Steve Yohe, Scott Teal, J. Michael Kenyon, Jim Melby, Tim Hornbaker, etc. Every fact or opinion they have can be backed up by physical documentation. 

Even Greg Oliver has stated "[a] historian is someone who helps a hack writer like me sound like I know what I'm talking about!"

IMHO Dave's obituaries get overplayed as evidence that he a serious historian. Sometimes he focuses on the wrong thing and damages someone's legacy (nitpicking Bruno Sammartino's # of MSG sellouts) or lionizes them (omitting Rocky Johnson's scandals). When he was younger and feeling his oats he would just tear down to shreds Bob Backlund, Junkyard Dog, and Ultimate Warrior because he didn't like their styles.

There's also this myth that he's seen more matches than anyone on earth. This hasn't been true since torrents/Youtube/Dailymotion/paid streaming services have been around. Even if he has, why does it even matter if he no longer applies the lessons of old school psychology and angles to the modern product (see recent arguments with Bryan Alvarez on AEW's booking)?

His opinions ought not be seen more valuable compared to his former friend John Williams-who gets no credit for helping Dave create the first class of the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame and much of Dave's Japanese takes- or frankly any fan who has made a solid attempt to watch older stuff. (I suspect he hasn't even watched all the 1950s Chicago videos that have been around for over 10 years).

It's a shame people rag on Tony Khan reading Cagematch because I personally value the ratings of 150 fans over one.

The proof is in the pudding any time someone like Conrad Thompson or Sean Oliver recites Meltzer's word as gospel only to have their guests debunk Dave's hot takes or "facts".

I could safely say Dave Meltzer is a tabloid journalist and an independent sportswriter but he's more of an amateur historian like Jim Cornette, better at assisting the actual, real historians to reach scholarly conclusions. The worst thing you could do as a writer is let Dave's one-sided opinion be the theme of your book. 

[Dave Mac]

On 6/6/2024 at 6:21 PM, The Superman 3 of People said:

For a couple of decades there, Meltzer was the only wrestling journalist who had any real credibility and it's only been in the last decade or so that I've seen any reporting that stands up to his work from the 90s and 2000s. Over time a ton of his sources retired, died, or moved on, and as a result he's lost access to a lot of the resources that put him so far above his competitors. Even today, most wrestling news sites are run by guys who are either transcribing Wrestling Observer stories or misinterpreting an excerpt of an Observer story they read on r/SquaredCircle.

People who accuse Meltzer of "bias" are almost always wrong and almost always looking at things backwards. Meltzer gives so many five-star ratings to the Bucks because he likes the way they wrestle; not because he's on the AEW payroll - nobody accused Roger Ebert of receiving a Steven Spielberg payout when he liked ET.

These days I'd say the Wrestlenomics guys and Bixenspan are my go-tos for the kind of information I'm interested in, but there's still reason to pay attention to the observer.

tl;dr DAVE GOOD

 I almost agreed with this till you said accusing him of bias is wrong. He is obviously friendly with ALOT of AEW stars. I mean the Bucks have the Meltzer driver for heavens sake. So I think to be completely objective with the promotion is impossible. So I think he naturally is quite generous to them.  But I also think his star rating system is wo overly relied on.  Its ultimately one mans opinion.  Why we think his is almost the only one that matters is crazy. 

 

In the past when wrestling journalists were few and far between he was brilliant. I think modern day anyone can be a journalist you have more choice.  I also find now a days I get old man shouts at cloud vibes from him at times. Also how much he sits on the fence with things "well wrestler X will either leave the company or sign a new contract" it can be a bit vague at times.  But overall his sources still now tend to be more credible than most.  Even if i think his whole star rating system is poor. 

[andh83]

On 6/6/2024 at 7:21 PM, The Superman 3 of People said:

People who accuse Meltzer of "bias" are almost always wrong and almost always looking at things backwards.

I have to disagree with this. Meltzer, was always incredibly biased. The best example iss his infatuation with Japan. 94 5+ star matches for New Japan. 37 for All Japan. Meanwhile, WCW has just 7 and WWE only 19 and 90% of those was in recent years. The fact that he didn't rate matches like Bret vs. Owen (SS1994) or Kurt Angle vs. HKB (SS2002) or Eddie vs. Rey (HH1997) as 5 stars is ludicrous and a testament to his bias. As great as wrestlers like Misawa or Fujinami were, not every of their matches was a 4+ star match (and certainly not Misawa's matches in Noah when he was completely out of shape and broken down) - but Meltzer loves everything japan, that is clearly a massive bias. 
And of course he is a massive work rate mark, he is biased to the work rate, simply ignoring the fact that american pro wrestling is more showmanship and entertainment than in ring skill. Hence why he gave Hogan vs. Andre from Wrestlemania 3 -4 stars originally (he changed it later to * after massive backlash from his readers) but it shows his bias again. Because from a entertainment stand point Hogan vs. Andre was amazing, the storyline was great and it was pretty much booked to perfection, the match really didn't need much more than Andrea beating up Hogan, until he powers up and does the Bodyslam, hence why the crowd went completely nuts about it.

Meltzer is also consistenly wrong. Look no further than his PPV Buyrate claims, all of which have been debunked, all of which have been completely wrong, sometimes the difference between reality and his fiction is several hundred thousand buys even! Another example of his bias there was his hate for WCW. Why else did he calculate the buyrate for Survivor Series 1999 off of 34 million homes, but Mayhem 1999 only of 30 million homes? Despite both WWF and WCW at the time having the same exact reach and number of PPV homes? And he did that all throughout 1999 and 2000 as if he was dead set onf hurting WCW even more.

I also disagree about the Observer being the best newsletter. The Torch was better and Sherer's Lariat in the 90's was definitely better with a lot less bias. In general Meltzer makes me wish that Terry Justice wasn't killed in 1982, he was the king of newsletters in the 70's and early 80's, miles ahead of anything Dave ever produced.

[psx]

he's aight.

noting the conversation of him as a reviewer becuse i have no real interest in the news part of the wrestling industry, nobody can exist without bias in their viewpoint, it comes with their human existance.

the best you have to hope is either find someone who shares your bias or understand the context and caveats when it comes to their inclinations to figure out how to approach it from your own bias. as a follower of the latter, i'm not sure why people from either side of the alsie see his stars as some concrete thing, when it is as much obvious his tastes has evolved and ebbed over time due to various reasons. like how his 00s reviews does lack numbers, due to his pessimism for the industry and the way it is going after the death of wcw and the major glaciation it took. in that way, i usually approach any review from the 00s, even puro at the time -- a lot of japanese wrestling fans are happy to clown on his 00s ratings  -- with the idea that he is as much underestimating and/or over the board giving what would be bigger numbers if the match had happened in an earlier or later era. as in, a four star in the 00s might be on the par with a five star in the 10s, and even in the 90s.

in short uh, yeah. everyone is biased when it comes to art lol, even what you might see as lacking bias is inherently biased.

[alpha2117]

His biases are problematic.  There have been clear classics in Western wrestling that haven't got the ratings they should.

I dont hate him but I know that his biases colour his ratings sometimes extremely badly.

Journalism wise he's good.

 

[Wonk]

[Blackman]

You can't get rid of bias so I forgive him for that. Up to us as a consumer to filter that out.

Can't say anything about his work as I've never read it.

What makes him a moron, though, is him handing out 5.5 stars if the system maxes out at 5. You start doing that, you lose all credibility in my eyes... Sure, you can do it once, as he's done decades ago, to accentuate an outstanding match, but 2017 was the turning point, with the notorious WrestleKingdom11 match. It's 7 years later and he's churned out more 5* ratings in that timespan than for the almost 4 decades of wrestling. A vast number of them are over 5* too. I agree that it's a very difficult exercise to rate a product over such a large timespan, but if the quality supposedly evolves, your ratings should adjust. That's how it works in the education system. As it stands, a PPV event without a 5* match should be seen as a failure now, whereas I reckon it used to be a great achievement.

[CR2020]

Back in the stone ages before the internet started the real world, the star rating system was important as you would know what matches from other countries to watch. Now days you know instantly if a match was good or not and can access it easily.

I don't like the condescending character Meltzer has created (I think its on online persona but who knows)

Recently he's had some major gaffs (the Afa situation)

Does anyone remember when The Rock came back and Meltzer reported an angle between Triple H and Rock as if they were going to wrestle each other at Mania even though that segment had happened years before.

[DarK_RaideR]

I guess he was on top of the game at some point and still valueable as a historian, as long as you don't take him seriously past a certain point in time, much like Cornette. That aside, he's just a man, with his preferences (which he's made public) and flaws. Chiefly the start-stop way he speaks in circles, which makes it hard for me to follow. For whatever reason, he seems to be causing some extreme reactions on both ends, my guess is because he used to be a shining light of information in the darker pre-internet days, so now people either idolize him (if he confirms their opinions) or demonize him (if he doesn't), as is apparently the ettiquette of online interactions these days.

Pretty ok thread, 4/5 stars, 7 if it was posted in the TokyoDome.