For the 1st time since 1997 & the 1st time ever not involving Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels....... Dave Meltzer

dishes out a 5* rating to a WWE match......


3/20/94 Shawn Michaels vs. Razor Ramon (Ladder Match, WrestleMania X)
8/29/94 Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart (Cage Match, SummerSlam 1994)
3/23/97 Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin (I Quit Match, WrestleMania 13)
10/5/97 Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker (Hell in a Cell Match, In Your House: Badd Blood)

Now to add to that list is
7/17/11 CM Punk vs. John Cena (Money in the Bank 2011)


Quote

"C.M. Punk pinned John Cena to win the WWE title in 33:42. Punk was super over. Lawler said he’s never seen this much home town emotion in his career. Yes, Jerry Lawler, who got this kind of a reaction every time he challenged for the world title in Memphis over a dozen year or so period said this. Punk was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Best in the World,” which is kind of gimmick pilfering. The announcers were pushing this as one of the biggest matches in the history of the promotion, and at the end, you probably could make a great case for it. Fans started with a “You can’t wrestle” chant at Cena. Punk was great at working the crowd, making a facial like, “You’re chanting this at me,” sarcastically, and then pointing to Cena. Cena took Punk down and Punk put Cena in the guard. Cole then announced that Punk had Cena in the Anaconda vise. Yes, the freaking guard was called the Anaconda Vise. Made worse that at the finish, Punk actually used the Anaconda Vise and Cole had no clue what it was. Then Cole put over Chicago, saying it’s been one of the greatest WWE cities for the past 40 to 50 years. If that’s the case, where are Crusher and Bruiser’s Hall of Fame plaques. Punk used a hiptoss, dropkick and headlock takeover spot. The announcers then brought up the 1997 Survivor Series. They noted that happened because Bret Hart wanted to leave the company with the championship belt. You’d think when he came back and they settled everything, that they wouldn’t keep telling that story. Cena tried the Attitude Adjustment, Punk tried the GTS, and both escaped. Punk threw some kicks and Cena clotheslined the hell out of him. Dueling chants. Even here, the women were cheering for Cena, even though this was as loud as any pro-Cena reaction ever (RVD at the Manhattan Center in 2006 was as loud, but there’s a difference between 2,500 people and nearly 15,000 people). Right after that chant, Lawler said he didn’t think there was one Cena fan in the building. Thank God the crowd was so great because this announcing was pure Poopie. Punk put Cena in a triangle (three announcers, not one had a clue what he was doing) and Cena stood up. Punk started throwing elbows before Cena could drop him, and then tossed Cena out of the ring. Punk went outside, and gave a high-five to Colt Cabana. This led to a “Colt Cabana” chant, which wasn’t acknowledged. Punk used a kneedrop off the middle rope onto Cena’s back while Cena was on the apron. Punk landed some knees, whipped Cena into the buckles and Punk missed a tackle and flew into the post. More dueling chants. Cole quoted Gorilla Monsoon, saying, “If you’re not in this business to be champion, you’re in the wrong business.” He may have said that as a worked quote, but the Monsoon quote he always said, because he hated people who were in wrestling to gratify their egos and not get business, was “If you’re not in this business to make money, you’re in the wrong business.” Punk came off the top rope with a crossbody block, but landed low, and instead of landing on Cena’s chest, landed on his knee. Cena appeared to injure his right knee. Cena tried to walk it off. It was apparently legit and not serious, because it didn’t play into the rest of the match. Cena then suplexed Punk from inside the ring to the floor. Cena, when taking the fall, twisted completely to land on his left side and protect his right knee. Cena with a fisherman suplex. Booker T talked about how Cena is turning the crowd toward him. He said the same thing about Orton, and it wasn’t true in either match. Cena got a near fall with a powerslam. Punk started throwing punches with the crowd popping for each punch. Cena used a form of abdominal stretch, but Punk eye raked and hip tossed out. They knocked each other down with simultaneous clotheslines. Punk got a near fall with a schoolboy, but then missed a knee into the corner. Cena slammed him and the crowd was booing like crazy. Cena went into his usual comeback phase. Punk crossed him up with a kick to the head. Crowd went nuts. Punk landed a flying knee that knocked Cena out of the ring. Punk followed with a tope. Punk went for a springboard move but Cena moved and Punk fell into the ring. Cena did the five knuckle shuffle, and went for the AA, but Punk landed on his feet, kicked Cena in the face and swept his leg for a near fall. Punk went for the GTS, but Cena reversed into a gut wrench for a near fall. Punk with two flying knees, the second of which looked like it landed right on the chin like an MMA blow. He followed with a bulldog and a springboard clothesline for a near fall. Punk threw some kicks to the chest, but Cena countered with the STF. Punk made the rope. Punk came back with a kick to the head and Cena kicked out. Punk used a crossbody and Cena rolled through and picked Punk up and put him on his shoulders for the AA again. Punk escaped, went for the GTS, but Cena reversed back into the STF in an awesome spot. Punk went to the ropes, but Cena pulled him into the center of the ring. Punk put his hand up to tap, and then got a look on his face as if he mentally said to himself, “I’m not tapping.” He then reversed out of the STF into the Anaconda vise. Crowd was going crazy. Cena ended up breaking the hold, and landed the AA, but Punk kicked out. Place was electric at this point. Cena came off the top for his leg slice, but Punk side stepped and went for the pin, but Cena kicked out. Punk did the Frank Shamrock sleep deal (the one Mickey Rourke used in “The Wrestler”) and went for the GTS. Cena got out again, and snapped Punk’s neck on the top rope. Cena hit the leg slice for a near fall, hit the AA, and Cena kicked out a second time. Cena put Punk on his shoulders and climbed up to the middle rope for another AA, but Punk started throwing elbows to get out of it. Punk used a Frankensteiner off the top rope, then hit a flying knee and the GTS, but Cena flew out of the ring. Cena got back in the ring. Vince and Laurinatis came out. Cena got the STF on and Vince yelled to ring the bell and sent Laurinaitis to the ring to ring it. Cena broke the hold, cut off Laurinaitis and punched him. Punk used the GTS and got the pin. Vince started screaming to cut the music and that this isn’t going to end this way. He screamed for Del Rio to come out. Del Rio ran to the ring and got kicked in the head. Punk then ran into the crowd and the show went off the air. After the show ended and Laurinaitis got up, Vince decked Laurinatis again. This was more than just a great match, but a career making moment. *****"
From Meltzer

Discuss.................

Yes the commentary was bad but then it's what I've come to expect from the WWE and I refuse to let anyone put this match down just because of poor commentary! The match was an instant classic, it will go down in WWE legend and will be talked about for years to come! Punk had one of the best reactions ever, the atmosphere alone will make this match memorable. The match itself was as close as you're going to get to Cena having a 5* match, he proved that with the right opponent and the right motivation he does deserve the top spot he's enjoyed solitarily over the past few years in the company. Punk himself proved in his own right that he belongs in the main event and that the WWE title sits very comfortably around his waist. Punk has been a long time favourite of the IWC but at MITB the WWE finally gave the IWC what it wanted; it finally gave the green light to Punk to fulfill his potential and I sincerely hope Punk will join the upper echelons of the WWE elite because of this performance. It was sensational. For me this was the greatest wrestling match probably of the last 10 years - the event itself felt special and not just because the WWE machine was in full force, no this PPV and this match had a grass roots feel to it. The fans were unbelievably partisan and as Mick Foley commented afterwards he'd never been jealous of another wrestler's gimmick until that match. This was more than just mere hype. Everyone in the arena knew it and felt it. This had an air of ECW or ROH about it - this was the WWE 'universe' taking back their identity and telling the world and Vince who they were and what they were about: namely great wrestling and great wrestlers.

As a wrestling fan myself I felt proud of what the WWE did at MITB. They showed boldness in following through with going down a route never before tread. They pushed the boundaries of the 4th wall and proved that wrestling can still be relevant and engaging. This wasn't just WWE keeping to their comfort zone and pandering to little kids. This was the WWE proving they can still produce ground breaking and controversial entertainment (there I said it). Punk was/is the vehicle to do it, he is the conduit through which fans can channel their passion and support and the WWE can voyage into uncharted territory with confidence that it will ultimately be a success.

CM Punk v John Cena at MITB 2011 had a wrestle mania feel to it, it was that large and I will never be persuaded that this is just a hype job blown out of proportion. This was real and genuine. For me the match epitomised and defined what wrestling should be and what wrestling can be. We all joke about the hysterical fan who blubbered "It's still real to me dammit", it's become a sort of ironic injoke but that phrase could be said with conviction on July 17 2011 - it was real to CM Punk, it was real to the fans in attendance and I felt something real had happened - the fans connected with the product and believed in it again for the first time in a long, long time.

Im sure the commentators know all these moves but Vince wont let them say it on air??

Wow I thought the match was good but I didn't even think Metzler was ever gonna touch a WWE match ever again.

ANd I totally agree with his comment towards the end. We all became the Miz girl, we all became that guy crying in the gym hall.
That night it was still real to me.

They noted that happened because Bret Hart wanted to leave the company with the championship belt. You’d think when he came back and they settled everything, that they wouldn’t keep telling that story.

I actually liked that part of the commentary. It really sold the idea that Vince McMahon was going to do everything he could to keep the title with the WWE.

I think parts of this he was being unnecessarily pedantic, particuarly his views on the commentary, where I actually thought they did a pretty good job in this match and really sold its importance.

Obviously the match was very good and he realised this, and I'm glad he didn't do what I was expecting at some points in criticizing Cena who although people will obviously claim it was CM Punk carrying him through it, I think Cena played a huge part in how well the match went, and I think he is capable of putting on a good match, but I get the feeling because he has been on top for so long and because he knows he is going to main event every PPV he would have to keep on raising expecations every month if he was putting on a match of that calibre every month.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:

They noted that happened because Bret Hart wanted to leave the company with the championship belt. You’d think when he came back and they settled everything, that they wouldn’t keep telling that story.

I actually liked that part of the commentary. It really sold the idea that Vince McMahon was going to do everything he could to keep the title with the WWE.

I think parts of this he was being unnecessarily pedantic, particuarly his views on the commentary, where I actually thought they did a pretty good job in this match and really sold its importance.

Obviously the match was very good and he realised this, and I'm glad he didn't do what I was expecting at some points in criticizing Cena who although people will obviously claim it was CM Punk carrying him through it, I think Cena played a huge part in how well the match went, and I think he is capable of putting on a good match, but I get the feeling because he has been on top for so long and because he knows he is going to main event every PPV he would have to keep on raising expecations every month if he was putting on a match of that calibre every month.

Yes I agree.... For once it was a worthy reference although I hated Cena referencing not wanting to be like Shawn Michaels having to carry the can for a screwjob the next night on Raw..... He should of just played the ultimate babyface character that he is - Saying I want to win fair & square

Voted for Punk vs Cena, while it may not have been as technically proficient as the others- and the fact that Meltzer awarded it 5* is actually a discussion point in itself as the WON typically only hands out 5*'s to the most flawlessly excuted of matches hence the weight of ring proud Japanese and ROH matches as opposed to the talking over working style of the US leagues- but none of the other matches (perhaps due to the fact I watched this match as it transpired rather than years after the event) had me marking harder and as gripped as this one did

I've heard Dave Meltzer's name, and this five star system mentioned a lot, but never actually read one of his reviews.

If that's the standard of them then I have no idea why they're held in such high regard.

This was indeed a five star match. But that review is one star. "Then Punk did this, then Cena did this, then Punk did this, and the commentator didn't know what it was, but I do, then Cena did this, and punk did this...."

As Leaky says above, unneccesarily, and unbelievably pedantic. I had no issue with the commentary throughout the match.

And, as also mentioned above, maybe... just maybe... the Montreal Screwjob was mentioned because it was teased again at the end by Vince McMahon. Hell... it was directly referenced by Vince McMahon's actions at the end of the match. It wasn't a dig at Bret Hart.

Not everyone was watching wrestling in 1997 Dave.

This may have been the first, but I won't be reading any more of his petulant reviews. I read better reviews, and more worthwhile opinions on this forum every day from you guys.

The commentary was poor in places, but no worse than the usual WWE rubbish! The part where Lawler said there wasn't a Cena fan in the building after a Cena chant was terrible though.

I wondered whether this would get 5*'s as people have said before that they had to be flawless. The crossbody from Punk and where he tried to powerbomb Cena from the top rope weren't hit quite right. I thought it was 5*, but given what people have said on here I didn't think Meltzer would.

But Demon is right, the review is awful. In one place it says Cena hits the AA and Cena kicks out! You would think that if you are issuing a 5* rating you would at least proof read that review as it is going to generate interest.

I think you're harsh on Meltzer Demon. I don't have a problem with the match review. He has to say what happened in vaguely chronological order, and he does so with his own thoughts interjected.

I didn't think the commentary was terrible, but there were a couple of lines which just sounded so out of place, such as the one by Lawler about none of the fans being behind Cena, just after there was a "Let's Go Cena" chant!

Meltzer holds wrestling to a certain standard, and that includes commentary. I think we can all be pretty certain that the match would have been even more memorable if it had been enhanced by great commentary. If Jim Ross at his peak was calling the action, for example. The team of Cole, Booker and a disinterested Lawler is a poor commentary team.

I don't see how it makes Meltzer pedantic or anti-WWE when he is just doing his job and critiquing the product, and indeed praising it very highly with his star rating. The role of a wrestling journalist is to break down what they are watching and add their own observations. I think Meltzer's observations in this report are interesting ones; most of us, including myself, wouldn't have thought twice about the inaccurate Montreal Screwjob reference. Meltzer and Wade Keller both commented on it in their reports on the match. I think we let a lot of stuff pass us by and I personally find it really interesting when journalists analyse what was said, because nothing is said on WWE TV by accident.

It's also worth noting that match reports are not Meltzer's bread and butter. He has built his career on news gathering and analysis. I don't think match reports are a huge part of wrestling journalism in general.

I don't think Meltzer deserves this criticism. I think he's just doing his job.

Well you should do his job Crips, because you'd do it better.

I actually agree with Melzter on the Montreal issue. I understand why they mentioned it, but if you're going to talk about historic moments, don't re-write them. It wasn't a dig at Bret Hart, but it was still annoying.

Melzter has some really high standards when it comes to rating matches and I actually enjoy reading them. He looks at it from a different perspective than most other writers and I've probably learned more from him about wrestling than any other writer on the net.

most of us, including myself, wouldn't have thought twice about the inaccurate Montreal Screwjob reference.

Which part of the reference was inaccurate Crips? I thought Meltzer was just complaining about it being mentioned at all.

As Demon said, it set up nicely for the attempted screwjob at the end.

I think the innacurate part was the commentary team said Bret Hart wanted to leave with the title. Which reportedly he didn't. He wanted to drop it on Raw the next night rather than in his himetown on PPV, I believe.

Though that of course is Bret's word and can never be proven that events would have turned out like that.

Ah right. I can't remember the exact wording used, I thought they said that Vince was worried Hart would leave with the belt - which would be accurate.

Depends on the exact wording used, but I think it was right to be mentioned in some capacity.

That's what I'm saying - it was completely relevant, so it confuses me why a "world class" wreslting journalist would deem it irrelevant. Maybe at the time it was said, but not once you have the hindsight of the match's climax.

Electric Demon wrote:That's what I'm saying - it was completely relevant, so it confuses me why a "world class" wreslting journalist would deem it irrelevant. Maybe at the time it was said, but not once you have the hindsight of the match's climax.

Because Meltzer along with I'd say most of the wrestling world don't believe it to be true.

I think it's a good write up except for one glaring error...... No : hump : smiley.

I kind of feel inclined to agree with Demon i'm afraid. There is nothing special about Meltzer's report, and there are plenty of us on here who are capable of putting together a piece in the same vein.

With all due respect to the guy, what stature does he hold to feel that his opinion of awarding a match 5 stars should be held in such high regard?

As good as the match was, my personal opinion is that it was inferior to both HBK v Taker matches, both of which Meltzer doesnt feel worthy of awarding 5 stars.

I like reading different reviews and critiques, but for me i just take his opinion with a pinch of salt, its not the be all and end all.

liverbnz wrote:

Electric Demon wrote:That's what I'm saying - it was completely relevant, so it confuses me why a "world class" wreslting journalist would deem it irrelevant. Maybe at the time it was said, but not once you have the hindsight of the match's climax.

Because Meltzer along with I'd say most of the wrestling world don't believe it to be true.

Whether it's true or not, the commentators are there to sell the story.

The story was that Vince would try to recreate the Montreal Screwjob. The story behind that is that Bret wanted to leave with the title.

Whatever the reasons for the screwjob in real life, the kayfabe version is as the commentators sold it.

Also in kayfabe terms Bret wasn't going to drop it the next night on Raw, in kayfabe terms Bret was going to be walking out of the company to WCW, and (in kayfabe terms) Vince did the screwjob to stop him leaving the company with the title. So it made perfect sense for them to mention it.

Damn it Enforcer, got there ahead of me!

Mr H wrote:.

With all due respect to the guy, what stature does he hold to feel that his opinion of awarding a match 5 stars should be held in such high regard?

To begin with, he was the first one to really use the star ratings for wrestling matches.

Anyway, as crips said, he is just doing his job and nowhere does he say that his opinion should be held in high regard.

There are always glaring inaccuracies in the commentary! I guess guys like Keller & Meltzer analyse it where as us guys just think 'oh well I didn't remember it like that' but typical WWE trying to rewrite history....

I remember the a couple of months ago Josh Matthews said Del Rio was friends with Man Utd striker Javier 'Chicharito' Hernadez during a Smackdown taping in the UK! I mean even my girlfriend laughed & said what a load of rubbish at that one....

WWE is the king of hyperbole

liverbnz wrote:

Electric Demon wrote:That's what I'm saying - it was completely relevant, so it confuses me why a "world class" wreslting journalist would deem it irrelevant. Maybe at the time it was said, but not once you have the hindsight of the match's climax.

Because Meltzer along with I'd say most of the wrestling world don't believe it to be true.

I'm not going to get into debating the Montreal Screwjob. That's not the issue. (Though if you do want my opinion, Bret has a very easy moral highgorund gained from Vince calling chicken first. If Bret HAD turned up on WCW with the WWF belt, it would have been the biggest thing ever - there must have been some motivation there...)

The quote was relevant. To younger fans, they might not even know the story - so it contextualised Vince's appearance. i.e. he's done this before

The star ratings is hardly a mind-blowing concept is it though?

He's just taken something used for movies and music and pretty much everything ever and applied it to wrestling.

I'm not going to gve him any credit for that sorry liver

Enforcer wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

Electric Demon wrote:That's what I'm saying - it was completely relevant, so it confuses me why a "world class" wreslting journalist would deem it irrelevant. Maybe at the time it was said, but not once you have the hindsight of the match's climax.

Because Meltzer along with I'd say most of the wrestling world don't believe it to be true.

Whether it's true or not, the commentators are there to sell the story.

The story was that Vince would try to recreate the Montreal Screwjob. The story behind that is that Bret wanted to leave with the title.

Whatever the reasons for the screwjob in real life, the kayfabe version is as the commentators sold it.

But Melzter doesn't believe that to be the story - it was an excuse, made up by Vince after the event to explain his misdemeanor. It wasn't just kayfabe to Vince, it was his actual reason which is why I think Meltzer was irked by it being mentioned. Moreover, I think Meltzer, like everyone else, was sick and tired of all the constant references and copycats of Montreal since 1997, and when Bret returned he thought that would be the end of it.

liverbnz wrote:

Mr H wrote:.

With all due respect to the guy, what stature does he hold to feel that his opinion of awarding a match 5 stars should be held in such high regard?

To begin with, he was the first one to really use the star ratings for wrestling matches.

Anyway, as crips said, he is just doing his job and nowhere does he say that his opinion should be held in high regard.

Exactly, which is why i dont hold his opinion in high regard and dont think 'oh my god Meltzer gave it 5 stars so it must have been great'.

He's just a wrestling critique with an opinion like all of us. Anyone on this board could do what Meltzer does as a full time job.

That being said i do agree with most of what he says in this review, but im just saying it doesnt make me go 'wow, this guy is good'.

It doesn't matter if it's the actual reason or not, actual reasons don't matter in that circumstance, what matters is the kayfabe reason!

Yes the innacuracy was that they drew parallels with Bret and Punk, where there really weren't any.

Whatever your stance on who was right and wrong in 1997, it is not true that Bret was threatening to take the belt to WCW. That was WWF/WWE propaganda to defend Vince McMahon's decision to take the belt off Bret the way he did.

Now that Bret is back in the fold, it is surprising that they are still putting the same spin on it and painting him in that negative light.

Electric Demon wrote:The star ratings is hardly a mind-blowing concept is it though?

He's just taken something used for movies and music and pretty much everything ever and applied it to wrestling.

I'm not going to gve him any credit for that sorry liver

No need to, but he was the one that made it part of the wrestling writer's language is all I was saying really. That and he has pretty tough rating system backed up by his 30 years experience in writing. He also has a pretty big following and many wrestlers, including even Vince himself are said to read his stuff.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:It doesn't matter if it's the actual reason or not, actual reasons don't matter in that circumstance, what matters is the kayfabe reason!

Good point.

And the "Bret Hart screwed Bret Hart" interview was kayfabe, as in took place of WWE programming, even if it blurred the lines.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:Whatever your stance on who was right and wrong in 1997, it is not true that Bret was threatening to take the belt to WCW. That was WWF/WWE propaganda to defend Vince McMahon's decision to take the belt off Bret the way he did.

How do you know this to be true?

Whatever your stance on who was right and wrong in 1997, it is not true that Bret was threatening to take the belt to WCW. That was WWF/WWE propaganda to defend Vince McMahon's decision to take the belt off Bret the way he did.

Surely that is the same as kayfabe? Which is what the commentators are there to sell.

Enforcer wrote:

Whatever your stance on who was right and wrong in 1997, it is not true that Bret was threatening to take the belt to WCW. That was WWF/WWE propaganda to defend Vince McMahon's decision to take the belt off Bret the way he did.

Surely that is the same as kayfabe? Which is what the commentators are there to sell.

But as has been said, it was more than just kayfabe. It was the reason used by Vince to slander Bret Hart. And has been said, it is surprising that they are still using this when there is no evidence whatsoever to prove it being true. Edit and of course that Bret is back working with the WWE.

Whether it was based on reality or not, It was the storyline they used to explain Montreal!

You want continuity in wrestling, there's your continuity. The commentators explained the story that happened in 1997, as it was told then.

Mr H, I think you're really underestimating what Meltzer has achieved. The Observer has been going for 29 years and his opinion is respected throughout the industry.

I don't mean to come across strongly pro-Meltzer, but his match reports are really not a crucial part of his writing. The guy built a newsletter from scratch, built up contacts from scratch and has earned his reputation within the industry through working hard and producing consistent quality journalism.

The five star rating was conceived by Meltzer and Jim Cornette, I believe. It's not the most original of ideas, and Meltzer was terrible at executing it originally (see his early Wrestlemania ratings), but I think his ratings have become very reliable over time, much like Keller's. For someone to say "their star ratings mean just as much as mine" is like saying your political opinions are just as valid as those of a journalist whose entire career has been devoted to covering politics.

Personally I'm not sure I consider it a five-star match, but I think we are all in universal agreement that it was great. But let's get one thing straight: The people making a big deal out of Meltzer and Keller's five-star ratings are not Meltzer or Keller!

Fair point about it being kayfabe, I think that's a reasonable explanation although Montreal by its own design blurred the lines of kayfabe. Meltzer's point though was that he is surprised it's still the company line now that Bret is back in their good graces. It's a bit like how, in the Billionaire Ted skits, they talked about Hogan being old and bald and immobile, but when Hogan returned to the company six years later the company line changed. When he was world champion in 2002 they didn't talk about him being even older, balder, and more decrepid!

It does however fit Mr McMahon's character in that he's paranoid, so yeah the kayfabe explanation is a suitable one I think, just about!

As for how I know Bret wasn't threatening to leave for WCW with the belt, the Montreal Screwjob is possibly the most documented event in wrestling history with the possible exception of the Benoit murder-suicide. Nobody in wrestling except for Vince McMahon, Shawn Michaels or Triple H (all of whom had the greatest motive to portray him negatively post-Montreal) has ever insinuated that Bret Hart ever had any intention of showing up on Nitro with the WWF title or ever would have considered doing such a thing. Even Eric Bischoff, who took great pleasure from sticking it to Vince, has consistently maintained that it was never even discussed. I think there is plenty of evidence to back up my statement, though I can't say with 100% certainty.

Electric Demon wrote:Whether it was based on reality or not, It was the storyline they used to explain Montreal!

You want continuity in wrestling, there's your continuity. The commentators explained the story that happened in 1997, as it was told then.

But, Meltzer obviously thought to himself, why are the still peddliing this when the only ones to understand it, would know it not to be true? In essence, to those fans (myself included) there is no kayfabe to this story - it was for real.

Everyone else, which most likely would have been the majority, wouldn't even have understood the reference at all.

Crips i'm not underestimating Meltzer at all, i'm aware of the dedication and time he has committed to the business over the years but at the end of the day its only his personal opinion. If you want to use analogies, i watch the Sunday Supplement where all the football journalists talk about the present ongoings in the football world. Its their job and they are without doubt more qualified to talk about football than i am, but i still dont particularly value their opinion on certain matters. Same with Meltzer, i recognise he's been in the job for nearly 30yrs but just because he gives a match a 5 star rating doesnt mean he's right, and it definately doesnt excite me. His analysis is basically just a review of the match, it would be better if he put across exactly what makes a 5 star match for him, and what boxes he likes to be ticked to give it such a glowing reflection and then justify how the match itself fits into his own personal high standards.

I guess im just the type of person who likes to make my own mind up about things without being brainwashed into thinking something by a seasoned journalist.

Mr H wrote:Crips i'm not underestimating Meltzer at all, i'm aware of the dedication and time he has committed to the business over the years but at the end of the day its only his personal opinion. If you want to use analogies, i watch the Sunday Supplement where all the football journalists talk about the present ongoings in the football world. Its their job and they are without doubt more qualified to talk about football than i am, but i still dont particularly value their opinion on certain matters. Same with Meltzer, i recognise he's been in the job for nearly 30yrs but just because he gives a match a 5 star rating doesnt mean he's right, and it definately doesnt excite me. His analysis is basically just a review of the match, it would be better if he put across exactly what makes a 5 star match for him, and what boxes he likes to be ticked to give it such a glowing reflection and then justify how the match itself fits into his own personal high standards.

I guess im just the type of person who likes to make my own mind up about things without being brainwashed into thinking something by a seasoned journalist.

There's a world of difference between football journos writing for newspapers who have a main aim of selling papers regardless if their story is true or not or whether their opinion valued. Those that appear on Sunday Supplement are usually part of the England old boys brigade who usually have some ulterior motive to what they are saying - generally which ever England's player's book they are ghost-writing. Henry Winter and Michael Owen is the prime example I can think of. If you read enough of a particular writer on football, then you'll quickly pick-up what hidden agenda they have - most I could actually list of the top of my own head.

Also, people tend to buy a certain newspaper out of habit, and maybe due to certain specific content they have that others don't - very few will be swayed by the actual journos. On the other hand, a lot of people follow the Observer because of Dave Meltzer - that is the sort of influence he has had. As said earlier, many wrestlers and Vince McMahon himself are said to read Meltzer's work, and if true that surely says a a lot. Just because people agree with him doesn't mean they haven't got a mind of their own either.

The role of Meltzer and Keller is to observe and critique. You aren't supposed to be brainwashed by it and there is no obligation to read it or agree.

You have a choice of whether you read it, and a right to disagree without being wrong.

They simply offer a viewpoint that wrestling fans can read if they wish.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Meltzer and Keller think they are wrestling oracles and everyone else should look up to them. They just have a platform which has proved to be popular.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Meltzer and Keller think they are wrestling oracles and everyone else should look up to them. They just have a platform which has proved to be popular.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have come across an air of arrogance in both Meltzer's and Keller's reviews in the past, and sometimes find them very pedantic. So i'd argue that at times they do think they are better than others.

Both Meltzer and Keller are clearly very good at what they do, but i cant help but take their comments with a pinch of salt, they dont influence me whatsoever.

To be honest i dont think i'm a big enough wrestling fan to be so over-ethusiastic about what a journalist has to say about a sport which has a pre-determined outcome, but perhaps thats just the cynic in me.

Meltzer is being hero worshipped in here, wow, many people inside the biz have mocked Meltzer for some of the garbage he has publised, in the 80s and early to mid 90s many considered him to be the best go to guy for information but since the expansion of the internet his 'contacts' and 'sources' have become hit and miss far more frequently and a lot of his BREAKING NEWS!!!! became far more outlandish and ridiculous to the point they retracted a lot of it.

Meltzer is the guy who in 1999 reported that Shawn Michaels wasn't injured in 98 but Vince allowed him to stay at home for as long as he wanted on full pay so he wouldn't go to WCW

Mr H wrote:I'm not sure where people get the idea that Meltzer and Keller think they are wrestling oracles and everyone else should look up to them. They just have a platform which has proved to be popular.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have come across an air of arrogance in both Meltzer's and Keller's reviews in the past, and sometimes find them very pedantic. So i'd argue that at times they do think they are better than others.

Both Meltzer and Keller are clearly very good at what they do, but i cant help but take their comments with a pinch of salt, they dont influence me whatsoever.

To be honest i dont think i'm a big enough wrestling fan to be so over-ethusiastic about what a journalist has to say about a sport which has a pre-determined outcome, but perhaps thats just the cynic in me.

Crips you are coming across as a bit of a Meltzer mark imo

And doesn't it say it all when Meltzer hasn't touched wwe in years then wwe become relevant and cool for the first time since.... oh yea last time Meltzer reviewed a match. An element of bandwagon jumping by the Meltzer mee thinks!!