Meltzer - Thumbs up or Thumbs down?

[Guest The Great Ahmar]

Dave Meltzer is regarded as the man in the know as far as spoilers and rumours go. He also helped make the Snowflake system popular amongst the internet. The question here though is do you respect Meltzer's opinions and his news more than anyone else's anywhere on the internet? After all its only one man's opinion!

[Dead Crow 370]

Opinions, not particularly. I don't share his views on RoH nor do I agree with the majority of his star ratings.

 

When it comes to facts though, I respect his knowledge more than anyone in the business. I've seen people try to school him on another forum and enjoyed watching him destroy them to a pulp. You just don't argue facts with him because you'll lose.

[Guest Jack]

His opinion is well off mine a lot of the time. His match ratings are sometimes poor and he rates wrestlers I can't stand. As far as rumous go though, he is brilliant. Without any doubt at all. Whatever he says is right the vast majority of the time.

 

Obviously what he thinks is of some note. If he rates a match between two wrestlers I've never seen, 5*, I'll track it down. He's not that far off, but I find myself disagreeing with him a lot of the time.

[Guest FreeSpirit]

I honestly prefer MG for factual information when it comes to WWE over Meltzer. :xyx

[Dead Crow 370]

I like MG, but I don't buy into his "insider > Meltzer" deal. His "fascinating insider info" often seems to border on the lines of being the equivilent of 'there will be weather tomorrow.. see?'

[Guest Craig]

I pretty much agree with DraVen. I respect Meltzer's knowledge for the facts obviously. But as far as his star ratings and views on what makes a match good or whatever, I usually tend to disagree with him.

[Guest SuperKick Kid]

I'm selective on which opinions and news from him that I give my approval of.

 

If I like the opinion or news then :xyx

 

If not, then Thumbs Down.

[Guest Slim Jim]

Two thumbs up for news, one thumb up for opinions. The guy knows his stuff, can't be denied.

[Guest Dave7g]

I say Bollocks! And I mean this without a doubt. If it wasn't for Dave we wouldn't be even thinking about this debate.

 

Think about it.

[Guest DOB]

I like Meltzer,i respect what he does and respect his opinions of 2 things i love in life-MMA and wrestling.

 

I'm kind of 50/50 on his views on what makes a good match,of course everyone will have different opinions based on what they like in wrestling and his opinion is his opinion,i just don't agree with it half the time.

 

One thing i don't like is-guys on the net that believe everything he types and hang on his every word,sure the guy is good and knows his stuff but me personally,i don't believe everything he says and don't like it when in the middle of a conversation some guy will say "but DA MELTZ~ says it's true so we should believe it lol",it's ok IMO to have the odd reference to Dave every now and then but some other forums blow it out of proportion with their love for him.

[The Icon 152]

His opinions are often dodgy at best so I have zero respect for him there. His newsletters / facts / sites are top work though so I respect the fact he knows his stuff.

 

One thumb up.

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

I usually agree with him (I think we're the only two people who love Morii vKENTA), and for backstage info, he's almost always correct.

[Guest dpddave]

Regarding some of the rumours he puts out,like HHH said such and such and vince went crazy backstage etc. How do we no he does"nt just make half of that crap up? Its not like the WWE ever confirm it so theres no real proof of it....

 

.....Unless of course you believe dirtsheet writers never lie and report fact all of the time

[Guest MastersGonads]

I like MG, but I don't buy into his "insider > Meltzer" deal. His "fascinating insider info" often seems to border on the lines of being the equivilent of 'there will be weather tomorrow.. see?'

 

I have often been critical of Meltzer and WO due to the fact that as a full time pro wrestling journalist, alot of the stories reported are not so much 'insider' knowledge, and more using facts and journalistic skills to sensationalise a story when all they really are simply doing is putting 2 & 2 together, which in fairness they have time to do...but there are often stories that are very wide of the mark, or stories that arent reported, one recently comes to mind, where I would love to report, but with names and pictures of me posted on here, it would have been foolish to have written down. Meltzer has to appeal to an audience alos, so alot of Triple H bashing is there to target his prime audience.

 

In regards to my knowledge, in respect to Meltzer he outweighs me, no question, that I have never and would never doubt. Fact being he has been working very closely around the pro wrestling scene for over 10 years, which for me its less than 3 years. I am not saying that if I was around the business for another 7 years I would be on par, but it gives him a massive advantage.

Plus I am certain alot of the time, his sources within the WWE or TNA feed certain snippets to him that have been supplied ot vetted by management.

It make sense for the companies, as any press good or bad genertates interest in the product and makes people watch, its a clever tactic for the companies and for Meltzer as it upholds both parties positions.

In my own position, not being on the road 24/7, You pick up snippets that filter down, or you hear it straight from a source/friend you have who works on the road, Or you hear/see stuff when on the road which is pretty factual

 

Sometimes the information you recieve is bang on the money (like the JBL quits report) other times you have to take judgement on what you hear as a slice of it is true.

On this Meltzer is always pretty much accurate, while your version is slightly different.

For me the one place I know my informaton is 99% accurate is production issues, like my weekly debate on FTV or other such issues, which I like to report about, because to me its not so much insider knowledge but finding what works and doesnt work

Edited June 4, 2007 by MastersGonads

[Guest Jung]

Regarding some of the rumours he puts out,like HHH said such and such and vince went crazy backstage etc. How do we no he does"nt just make half of that crap up? Its not like the WWE ever confirm it so theres no real proof of it....

 

.....Unless of course you believe dirtsheet writers never lie and report fact all of the time

 

Thing is though he barely ever says that. People on other sites make up those rumours then credit it to Meltzer because, cleverly, people pay more attention to it cause it has his name next to it.

 

For wrestling news, he's the be all and end all basically, you won't find better.

 

For opinions I disagree, but well obviously you would? But I don't watch things cause he tells me or do whatever he says, I just go to WO for factual information. Opinions are pretty much impossible to go by, so for facts yeah he's the man.

[Guest tazz13]

well as far as just presenting facts he is pretty good minus the WM 3 attendance which he has completely wrong

 

his opinions are pretty crappy alot of the time and i find it hilarious that a "journalist" can't even type proper grammatical sentences

 

but whatever, i go there for the news and he usually has that spot on

[Joey Asbo 45]

I give Melzer a lot of respect, he knows every facet of the business, the facts, the storys, who did/said what. To have invested so much of his life doing what lots of us would kill to do, i have nothing but respect.

 

Its like the Vince McMahon rule, you dont always agree with him, but you gotta respect him.

[Guest Jung]

well as far as just presenting facts he is pretty good minus the WM 3 attendance which he has completely wrong

 

his opinions are pretty crappy alot of the time and i find it hilarious that a "journalist" can't even type proper grammatical sentences

 

but whatever, i go there for the news and he usually has that spot on

 

Don't tell me you still think there was 90,000 people at WM3?

 

And how can an opinion be pretty crappy? ITS AN OPINION!

[Guest DarkMatchJobber]

I can't stand all the praise Dave Meltzer gets,people think he's some sort of wrestling god and to be honest anyone who subscribes to his newsletter and shells out their hard earned cash should think twice because all the juiciest stories inevitably make it onto free news websites (and TWO).

 

I'm not saying he is not reliable because he is but for me Powerslam magazine and http://www.wrestleview.com are my favourite sources.

[Guest The Beltster]

Don't tell me you still think there was 90,000 people at WM3?

There were 93,173 actually. Sure, 78,000 might have paid, but there were 93,173 people in the building, anybody who understands the laws of physics can understand that.

 

As for Meltzer, he is alright. He knows his stuff 99% of the time and is nowhere even close to being as closeminded and bias as that ***** Wade Keller.

 

There have been a couple instances where Meltzer has been so far off that it wasnt even funny, yet he has stuck to his guns due to either ignorance or just simply not wanting to admit he was wrong, but then we all do this I'm sure.

[Guest Jung]

There were 93,173 actually. Sure, 78,000 might have paid, but there were 93,173 people in the building, anybody who understands the laws of physics can understand that.

 

As for Meltzer, he is alright. He knows his stuff 99% of the time and is nowhere even close to being as closeminded and bias as that ***** Wade Keller.

 

There have been a couple instances where Meltzer has been so far off that it wasnt even funny, yet he has stuck to his guns due to either ignorance or just simply not wanting to admit he was wrong, but then we all do this I'm sure.

 

So, out of curiosity, and I am actually just wondering, is this article not true?

 

EDIT: Btw I don't want to start this argument again. Plus I do think there is more than 78,000 thus Meltzer is wrong. But there's no way there was 93,000 in there unless some people had seats in the air.

 

http://www.wrestleview.com/news/1064694768.shtml

Edited June 6, 2007 by Jung

[Guest The Beltster]

The Silverdome max attendance for religious crusades is 90,000 as stated on the official arena website. Now, for a religious event, they fill all of the 80,000+ seats around the field for football and they fill the vast majority of the HUGE field barring a large stage. An American football field is easily big enough to hold 10,000 people. So, take away that stage and replace it with a tiny 20x20 ring and one half-field length entrance and you are still able to fit at least 10,000 people on that field. So, that makes up 90,000 before you take into consideration standing room at those old WWF shows and all the skyboxes and suits. Even in 93,000 isnt legit and they boosted it to get closer to the Pope, I'd say there were 85,000 - 90,000 people in there. 78,000 paid might very well be true, I've never argued that, but there were more than 78,000 people in there.

 

Here's the thing: if the building holds 80,000 in the stands alone, and the stands were full at WM3 ASWELL as the entire field, how can you possibly have 2000 less people than what they have at a football game? It makes zero sense.

Edited June 6, 2007 by The Beltster

[DC 536]

I think some people need to understand the difference between attendance and paid attendance.

[Guest Jung]

Thing is with Meltzer regarding WM3, he never said "there is exactly 80,000 whatever and not 90,000" did he? He said he didn't believe the 93,000 attendance, and was then told by a guy who promoted it that it was less than that and more likely between the 80-85k mark?

 

Thus its not like he's wrong is it? He asked someone what they reckon and they confirmed what he said, it wasn't 93,000. I mean if he said 78,000 paid then he may be right, but did he say 78k altogether? To my memory I don't think he did, he just argued that there wasn't 93,000 people there.

[Guest The Beltster]

I think some people need to understand the difference between attendance and paid attendance.

Indeed.

 

Thing is with Meltzer regarding WM3, he never said "there is exactly 80,000 whatever and not 90,000" did he? He said he didn't believe the 93,000 attendance, and was then told by a guy who promoted it that it was less than that and more likely between the 80-85k mark?

 

Thus its not like he's wrong is it? He asked someone what they reckon and they confirmed what he said, it wasn't 93,000. I mean if he said 78,000 paid then he may be right, but did he say 78k altogether? To my memory I don't think he did, he just argued that there wasn't 93,000 people there.

He was told there were 78,000 people and there is a group of people who believe, for no other reason than Meltzer brought the figure up and without using their own brain, that THAT is the legit number of people who were in the Silverdome.

 

And I'm not arguing what Meltzer is specifically saying, I dont know if he ever flat out said "There were 78,000 people in that building max!" or not. I'm arguing with people who say the attendance was 78,000 and thats that. Those people are, in my opinion, wrong and like I said before: if a building holds 80,000 for football, and the football stands AND the field is packed, then its impossible to have 78,000 people in there.