10 Popular Wrestling Debates That Need To Die

This is a two-pronged entry.

Firstly, Dave Meltzer has never claimed that his word is the end-and-be-all law on pro wrestling matches. The Wrestling Observer chief simply rates bouts using criteria that seeks objectivity in terms of crowd response, execution, drama etc.

But, of course, there's no such thing as objectivity. Subjective arguments can be strengthened with insight, but still.

There's nothing bad about that at all, but...some of his fanbase need to realise that themselves.

Fire up any wrestling forum and you'll see arguments about star ratings. Personally, this writer isn't a fan of them; he actually views Dave's system as the worst metric one could use to rate a match, and prefers when peeps can point out how a match made them feel instead of bickering about quarter stars or the like.

Second, can't we all just get along? Being totally honest, even this doubter has used Meltzer's preferences as a guide when hunting out classic bouts from New Japan or the NWA to explore (those stars are an excellent guide for rank beginners).

Whether you're an avid Observer reader or not, the star ratings system has probably introduced you to some amazing wrestling at least once over the years.