so how come Dave Melzter is so praised in the wrestling world?

[The Naitch]

:?:

[Mr. Aristocrat]

I will say this for him, he does get his facts straight when it comes to rumors. That's all I can think of.

[McLegend]

Cause he was really the first wrestling reporter, and because he gets his facts staright a lot.

I love Dave Meltzer.

[mrslackalack]

He was wrestlings insider to fans before the days of the internet. If you wanted to hear news like the Hotel Brawl, Why some jumped ship etc. Melzters newsletter was the place to read it.

[Azriel]

How does he get all his info though?

[McLegend]

I'm guessing unnamed inside sources.

[Xero]

AKA "Wrestlers".

[Pinnacle Charisma]

From what I understand he has more contacts in the "know" than any other wrestling reporter today

[Dave Youell]

I think more people respect his opinions compared to other reporters, plus I can't honestly remember him being wrong with news, that and he gave 5 stars to Punk/Joe so he obviously knew what he was talking about

[hb2k]

Punk/Joe = not 5*

[Rob]

He can show a difference between facts and his opinion. And he admits when he is wrong.

Plus his newsletter is the fucking dogs bollocks.

[hb2k]

Yeh, the Observer rules. He's been the standard for news, info and stories for years (pretty much everything you see on the sites not named Wrestling Observer or PWInsider is ripped from the Newsletter)

[Kane Knight]

From what I understand he has more contacts in the "know" than any other wrestling reporter today. Well, except for the Ruse Report.

[hb2k]

:shifty:

[Innovator]

Yeh, the Observer rules. He's been the standard for news, info and stories for years (pretty much everything you see on the sites not named Wrestling Observer or PWInsider is ripped from the Newsletter)Those two and the Torch are the legit sites, and they seperate facts from rumors

[Rob]

Torch is all rumours. Aside from Bruce Mitchell, they aren't worth anybodies time.

[hb2k]

Yeh, don't trust the Torch.

[mrslackalack]

Mark Madden said in Flairs book that you know Steamboat/Flair series in 89 was a classic when Meltzer clapped and praised the matches as Madden said he was very hard to impress.

[Dave Youell]

Punk/Joe = not 5*
In Your Opinion

I think it was personally, but then there are quite a few matches that I consider 5 stars that Meltzer doesn't

[Rob]

Mark Madden said in Flairs book that you know Steamboat/Flair series in 89 was a classic when Meltzer clapped and praised the matches as Madden said he was very hard to impress.

He is also a self confessed mark for Flair. He still rants about how they bury him now. I wish they actually would bury so Meltzer could do the obit and be done.

[Innovator]

In Your Opinion

I think it was personally, but then there are quite a few matches that I consider 5 stars that Meltzer doesn'tNot to be a mark for Punk and Joe, I felt their 3rd match was ****1/2, possibly *****. The 2nd match was better technically, but the 3rd had the emotion and the story of Punk bleeding and not being able to go 60 minutes.

[hb2k]

Punk/Joe 2 was a great match but here's the truth - five stars indicates a perfect match, and the whole point of a match is to build to a crescendo. The finish that they spent 60 minutes building to, sucked. It came out of nowhere and was anticlimatic. No matter how enjoyable the work was (and it was), it's not a perfect match at all. If you heard Raven's analogy of a match being like jerking off, Punk/Joe 2 is like when it dribbles over the end.

[Innovator]

In their shoot, they say how no one told them the time until around 30 seconds left, then went into the finish. You can think of it dribbling over the middle, or you can think of them pulling it back twice, before Joe/Punk III, which finally blows the load.

[hb2k]

That doesn't stop the match itself from being hurt by it, because it did. I'm not saying it was their fault at all, because that doesn't matter, what matters is what we see in the match, and the finish hurt the match and stopped it from being "perfect".