Death of WCW

Hey Scott--

Something I've been turning around in my mind for awhile now: Months ago, the guys that run the Wrestlecrap site asked you for a plug that you graciously supplied (discerning soul that you are :)).

Then I noticed in the comments section an awful lot of venom unleashed at these guys accusing them of being hacks, particularly concerning the book The Death of WCW. Some of your readers threw around accusations of inaccuracies and falsehoods in the book, doing their best to damage it's credibility.

Here's the thing: None of the people who levied accusations of falsehoods in the book came up with a single example of said inaccuracies. They would just drop grand overarching statements about the book being garbage and leave it at that. Last I checked, Alvarez and Reynolds did a great deal of research, particularly culling most of their info from The Wrestling Observer. It isn't as if Dave Meltzer has credibility issues as a wrestling journalist. The readers of the Observer even dubbed The Death of WCW book of the year in 2004 (though I still contend it is criminal that your works have never been considered for nomination).

Do you have any concrete examples of how The Death of WCW is inaccurate? Do some of your other readers? If so, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Until then, however, I'm going to side with the guys that did research for a book, not blog posters who trade in vague accusations. Making broad proclamations without any facts to back it up doesn't make you a credible critic; it makes you a Fox News employee.

Don’t look at me, I never even read the book.  The accusations of inaccuracies were news to me, though.