Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

DECEMBER 2017 WRESTLING DISCUSSION


Recommended Posts

Ending the year on a bang, I see. 

Can't we just agree to all channel our hostility at one another toward a more deserving target, like Vince McMahon and his shithead family or someone?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MORELOCK said:

I mean, you might not be, but there's a slavish devotion to Meltzer and his opinions on this board alone - I've been called a contrarian here and those kinds of sentiments are regularly repeated here. That's without getting into Twitter, which is pretty much always a shitshow.

Basically every time Cornette's name comes up, there's at least a page or so of people just repeating that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. That's true sometimes, but more often than not it just seems like defensiveness that he is criticizing their NJPW faves.

 

As far as I can tell the tendency on this board is to see Meltzer as a hilariously dorky goofball who is heroic for his stamina and dedication but who has had, for the last 30 years or so, exactly three things to say and he says them over and over and over and they are variously wrong (#1), useless (#2), and disputable (#3):

1) These things go in cycles
2) That was just Vince being Vince
3) If it $$$$$ it's successful

This dispute seems to center on the third thing, which is the definition of "good for business" as being either "that which follows the taste of the crowd as determined by ratings, tickets, and pops." or "that which leads the taste of the crowd as determined by people who understand the art form." Meltzer seems, at least lately, to hold to the idea that the crowd and their taste drives business and if business is good, the thing ("art" "product" whatever) is good. Cornette holds to the idea that there is a fixed definition of "good wrestling" and that if you stick to it the crowd will follow and business will be good.

As best I can tell, historical precedent in art, music, film, etc. indicates that Cornette is wrong but that the argument also never ends. It's been going on since Plato said innovation in art would lead to the downfall of society and the hellpit of unregulated democracy and (at least in art) the Plato side never wins.

 

Yes, I just called Jim Cornette a Platonic aesthetician. That does not mean he is not also a sad old weirdo who needs a spanking.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smelly McUgly said:

Ending the year on a bang, I see. 

Can't we just agree to all channel our hostility at one another toward a more deserving target, like Vince McMahon and his shithead family or someone?

I don't think anyone here is being hostile and I probably shouldn't assume BLR's comment came from social media, but holy shit, that looks like it came right from social media. I'm not sure why anyone would give a shit about what anyone else says about their fandom or if they're a true fan or whatever. You know better than anyone else just how much of a fan you are and that's all that should matter, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Beech27 said:

Appeals to authority are garbage arguments, agreed. But that's not really a problem on this board, is it? I haven't seen one instance where someone suggests a match in New Japan is good because Dave says so, or even using that as a supporting argument. That's a straw man that deserves a torch. 

I'm sure it's easy to see a straw man when you put words in my mouth - I was just trying to explain why the backlash to the Young Bucks and Omega is so fervent. If you want to pretend people don't cite Meltzer on the board, go right ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MORELOCK said:

I'm sure it's easy to see a straw man when you put words in my mouth - I was just trying to explain why the backlash to the Young Bucks and Omega is so fervent. If you want to pretend people don't cite Meltzer on the board, go right ahead.

I don't see much of people using his star ratings as a definitive argument ender here, but maybe I've just missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MORELOCK said:

I'm sure it's easy to see a straw man when you put words in my mouth - I was just trying to explain why the backlash to the Young Bucks and Omega is so fervent. If you want to pretend people don't cite Meltzer on the board, go right ahead.

Would you care to point out some examples? I could find a bunch about Meltzer being out of touch, on the spectrum, or in the bubble. Can't say I recall many examples of people pointing to because Meltzer said it, it's true. Doesn't mean they don't exist, I just don't recall a single example.

I mean, we're the board that voted Bayley as best wrestler of the year, this board still maintains an active TNA "community," and there's fans of all forms of wrestling here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brian Fowler said:

I don't see much of people using his star ratings as a definitive argument ender here, but maybe I've just missed it.

Not to mention that there was more discussion about why 6* was excessive and why 6 1/2* or whatever it was was even sillier. Plenty of folks said there's no reason to go up to 6*, but if the dude liked the match that much then fine. Others said they didn't know if it was 6*, but the match was fucking amazing. And then others said they liked Okada vs Ishii or, sadly, Okada vs Shibata was better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Craig H said:

Would you care to point out some examples? I could find a bunch about Meltzer being out of touch, on the spectrum, or in the bubble. Can't say I recall many examples of people pointing to because Meltzer said it, it's true. Doesn't mean they don't exist, I just don't recall a single example.

I mean, we're the board that voted Bayley as best wrestler of the year, this board still maintains an active TNA "community," and there's fans of all forms of wrestling here. 

Hey, It's called Impact Wrestling now pal!

(And it's honestly not been bad the last several months. Not great, but not bad)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brian Fowler said:

I don't see much of people using his star ratings as a definitive argument ender here, but maybe I've just missed it.

I do think I remember seeing something suggesting, "What if Dave's ratings have been 'out of 10' all this time?" Was that piranesi? Sounds like a piranesi thing. Maybe Tomato-b-gon? I only pay attention to, like, 5 of you people anyway ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brian Fowler said:

Hey, It's called Impact Wrestling now pal!

(And it's honestly not been bad the last several months. Not great, but not bad)

I can only fit in so much wrestling. My hope is that when I'm done with my current indy wrestling phase that it will be as enjoyable as you guys find it to be now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nate said:

I do think I remember seeing something suggesting, "What if Dave's ratings have been 'out of 10' all this time?" Was that piranesi? Sounds like a piranesi thing. Maybe Tomato-b-gon? I only pay attention to, like, 5 of you people anyway ....

LOL That sounds like something piranesi would say.

Oh my christ, the reaction 5 years from now when Dave says on Twitter 2 or whatever that the star ratings have been out of 10 and assumes that everyone else knew this and is dumb for not knowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never actually said that people use his star ratings to end arguments about which matches are good, just that people are slavishly devoted to him and his opinions (which stretch far beyond star ratings.)

Here's a relatively fresh example of the love he gets:

Here's an example of the idea being presented that people that take issue with Meltzer are working a contrarian gimmick:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MORELOCK said:

I'm sure it's easy to see a straw man when you put words in my mouth - I was just trying to explain why the backlash to the Young Bucks and Omega is so fervent. If you want to pretend people don't cite Meltzer on the board, go right ahead.

The quote was an inverse of the one you used. That was the joke, that your argument relied on an imagined quote that poorly represents what anyone is actually suggesting.

Anyway, I get why there’s a backlash. I just said the tendency baffles me. Like what you like; hate what you hate. Hating things because others like them is a weird way for me to watch wrestling, or anything else.

Regarding Dave: I guess I’ll just keep pretending. I’ve not seen anyone use his tastes to justify their own, regarding New Japan or anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Beech27 said:

Hating things because others like them is a weird way for me to watch wrestling, or anything else.

If that's what you took from what I said then you don't "get" why there's a backlash - the hate for the Young Bucks is magnified by the overwhelming attention and love they get, not caused by it.

There's a difference between "people like this thing, so I hate it," and "a lot of people are heaping praise on this thing I don't like, and I don't get why."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MORELOCK said:

I never actually said that people use his star ratings to end arguments about which matches are good, just that people are slavishly devoted to him and his opinions (which stretch far beyond star ratings.)

Here's a relatively fresh example of the love he gets:

Here's an example of the idea being presented that people that take issue with Meltzer are working a contrarian gimmick:

 

Since you decided to bring me into this, I love Meltzer because there is literally nobody who I've learned more about Wrestling from than him. The Observer is amazing, if it wasn't it wouldn't still be around after 27 years. I make ZERO apologies for liking and respecting Dave Meltzer.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MORELOCK said:

There's a difference between "people like this thing, so I hate it," and "a lot of people are heaping praise on this thing I don't like, and I don't get why."

Of course there is. My argument was that fandom tendencies lean often towards the former, and discard the latter. Or they jump from “I don’t get why” to an intentionally disingenuous reason. (And I do think “because Dave says so” is an example of this.) I’m not suggesting everyone has to be a Young Bucks fan, or else they’re a “hater.” I get why someone might not like them, because I really don’t. But broadly speaking, fandom—and wrestling fandom is no exception—strikes me as incredibly reactionary, as if we’re Newton’s Cradle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

I'm not sure I've met a Young Bucks fan in real life.  Even a couple people I know who will go to indy events from time to time are like "yeah,  they're okay.."  

This reminds me of when Nixon beat McGovern and a New York supporter of McGovern was quoted as saying she didn't know how Nixon won because nobody she knew voted for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Announced for RAW

Seth Rollins vs. Samoa Joe

Sasha/Bayley/Mickie James vs. Absolution... again

This goes along with the previously announced Lesnar showing up to set up the 3 way with Braun and Kane

And Cedric Alexander vs. Drew Gulak in a #1 contenders match for the Cruiserweight Title

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...