Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Least deserving Meltzer 5-star match


efrim

Recommended Posts

Except...

 

I like Hogan vs Bossman. Hogan vs Orndorff. Bret vs Yoko. Backlund vs Slaughter.

 

I don't really have a problem with Big Blue, which the more famous versions of the first two had, and was used in the live Bret-Yoko that I saw. I don't have a problem with Escape Rules, which was used in all of them.

 

No blood was something that was annoying, but Bret-Yoko had none of it in the live match that I saw... the juice in Hogan-Orndorff on NBC was pretty minimal... even Hogan-Bossman was pretty minimal compared to some of the bloody Expansion Era matches, including a number of Hogan matches (he loved to juice). So... while I would have liked juice, it didn't bother me too much.

 

I think a lot of us didn't like it because we didn't like it. Loss hit on it: repetitive and long, which made it kind of drag.

 

Backlund vs Slaughter was 16 minutes. There were a lot of escape attempts. There was variety in them, ones that were fun, ones that we're "he's almost out!", and the one revolving around the door with Slaughter almost getting out is about as good of a cage sequence as I've ever seen.

 

If it had been a ***3/4 or **** rating, it would have just been one of those that people thought, "Dave liked it better than us." The only people who would have remembered it would be those who thought it was a complete bore and * material. :) It's the going to ***** that led people to wonder.

 

I think also looking at the thread, it didn't appear like many had it at *****, and if asked to put a rating on it wouldn't have gone that high. Perhaps one would have, the person who had it among the very cream of matches in WWF History. But the rest were more along the lines of "I really liked it" rather than "This is my new MOTY" that we tend to see in the threads.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When this match came up, and it often did back then in all sorts of settings including people in the business, Dave never was very good at explaining why he thought it was *****. It was of the two matches that I recall getting the fall back, "Well... I liked it" defense when he ran dry on explanation. :)

 

john

Which was the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticisms of the Bret/Owen cage match and just like the old criticisms of the Steamboat/Savage Wrestlemania match.

Could you elaborate? My criticism of Bret/Owen is that it's overlong and boring as fuck with lots of laying around and falling off cages. I can understand criticisms of WM3, but "overlong" and "boring" are not ones that come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people needed a missing piece to realise that Steamboat as always going to work a clean title match on the biggest show of the year to try to take an important part of what made the Macho Man tick away from him. And I don't think you need a missing piece to realise that Owen would have climbed over the cage and won the match in 30 seconds if he could have since all he wanted to do was win the belt and prove he was better than Bret. And Bret was never going to beat the shit out of his younger brother in front of his entire family, so of course it's a match was about escape attempts. Owen vs. Bret was never a blood feud. It was two overgrown kids who became adult jocks having a childish and petty feud with each other. Owen whoo'ing and fist pumping is not something you're supposed to take overly seriously.

 

Now if you find the constant escape attempts boring and overly repetitive or you don't like the way they worked them, I'm not gonna argue with that. I think too many people like the match for it to be considered the least deserving 5-star match, but it's always been a divisive match. Even my friend's kid brother once told us that the only reason we liked it is that it was Owen and Bret, so even some pretty casual fans find the escape attempts boring. I do think there's an element of that (people wanting to like it because of the workers), but the whole five stars thing is annoying. It's like people not being able to see the forest for the trees with Tanahashi because Dave keeps dropping five stars on him. But, you can't make it go away and it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people needed a missing piece to realise that Steamboat as always going to work a clean title match on the biggest show of the year to try to take an important part of what made the Macho Man tick away from him.

I did. I watched that match thinking Steamboat didn't really care about the larynx injury angle all that much.

 

Now if you find the constant escape attempts boring and overly repetitive or you don't like the way they worked them, I'm not gonna argue with that.

That's my issue more than the lack of hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meltzer is human and prone to giving 5* ratings based on short-term emotional sentiments. He has never claimed to be the best reviewer or have the best opinion. For obvious reasons his opinion gets a lot of weight (deservedly so), but it's not like 25 years ago where only a tiny number of people were watching everything from around the world. We no longer need Dave Meltzer to tell us what's good.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all know Meltzer's flaws, they've been known for a while, and at this point it's a dead horse. The 'Meltzer 5 star rating' only matters to the extent that we make it matter; I guarantee he's never lost sleep upon realizing in hindsight that he overrated something.

Tremendous post.

 

By now we all realize what his tastes are, and also things he tends to overrate, so you should know where your taste falls in or out of line with his.

 

dave went through a period where every WWE PPV main event got a minimum of 4-stars. I knew I wasn't particularly into the WWE main event style during that time, so I understood the curve I was dealing with if he rated some forgettable Randy Orton vs Triple H b-show PPV match ****1/4. He digs that shit, I don't. It's no big deal.

 

I know you were just throwing shit out there to make a point, but in the interests of nitpicking, I absolutely love the ****1/4 Orton/Hunter match.

 

I actually get the same feeling though now about him reviewing New Japan. He's watching what he feels is a transcendentally great period of wrestling by that company and those guys, so every great match isn't just great, it's one of the greatest matches of all time. Same as during the time he'd rate every Kurt Angle TNA PPV match **** seemingly as a baseline. You just gotta roll with it. At the end of the day it's just a guy saying how much he liked a wrestling match.

 

On the "Dave losing sleep" point above, I've always wanted to know if anyone has asked him how he feels now about rating Hogan/Andre -****.

 

I think after getting harassed about it for so many years, he finally re-rated it at ** or something like that. Although I could be remembering the exact rating wrong, because I think he just tossed it out on an audio show or something from a mailbag question. The point is, he admitted the original was just silly, but he still doesn't love the match or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people needed a missing piece to realise that Steamboat as always going to work a clean title match on the biggest show of the year to try to take an important part of what made the Macho Man tick away from him.

I did. I watched that match thinking Steamboat didn't really care about the larynx injury angle all that much.

 

 

 

Loss- did you see any of the Steamboat-Savage stuff in context as it happened in 1987?

 

Steamboat had his revenge matches on the house show circuit. Mania was billed as his "last chance" at the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meltzer is human and prone to giving 5* ratings based on short-term emotional sentiments. He has never claimed to be the best reviewer or have the best opinion. For obvious reasons his opinion gets a lot of weight (deservedly so), but it's not like 25 years ago where only a tiny number of people were watching everything from around the world. We no longer need Dave Meltzer to tell us what's good.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all know Meltzer's flaws, they've been known for a while, and at this point it's a dead horse. The 'Meltzer 5 star rating' only matters to the extent that we make it matter; I guarantee he's never lost sleep upon realizing in hindsight that he overrated something.

Tremendous post.

 

By now we all realize what his tastes are, and also things he tends to overrate, so you should know where your taste falls in or out of line with his.

 

dave went through a period where every WWE PPV main event got a minimum of 4-stars. I knew I wasn't particularly into the WWE main event style during that time, so I understood the curve I was dealing with if he rated some forgettable Randy Orton vs Triple H b-show PPV match ****1/4. He digs that shit, I don't. It's no big deal.

 

I know you were just throwing shit out there to make a point, but in the interests of nitpicking, I absolutely love the ****1/4 Orton/Hunter match.

 

I actually get the same feeling though now about him reviewing New Japan. He's watching what he feels is a transcendentally great period of wrestling by that company and those guys, so every great match isn't just great, it's one of the greatest matches of all time. Same as during the time he'd rate every Kurt Angle TNA PPV match **** seemingly as a baseline. You just gotta roll with it. At the end of the day it's just a guy saying how much he liked a wrestling match.

 

On the "Dave losing sleep" point above, I've always wanted to know if anyone has asked him how he feels now about rating Hogan/Andre -****.

 

I think after getting harassed about it for so many years, he finally re-rated it at ** or something like that. Although I could be remembering the exact rating wrong, because I think he just tossed it out on an audio show or something from a mailbag question. The point is, he admitted the original was just silly, but he still doesn't love the match or anything.

 

It was actually a few weeks later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meltzer is human and prone to giving 5* ratings based on short-term emotional sentiments. He has never claimed to be the best reviewer or have the best opinion. For obvious reasons his opinion gets a lot of weight (deservedly so), but it's not like 25 years ago where only a tiny number of people were watching everything from around the world. We no longer need Dave Meltzer to tell us what's good.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all know Meltzer's flaws, they've been known for a while, and at this point it's a dead horse. The 'Meltzer 5 star rating' only matters to the extent that we make it matter; I guarantee he's never lost sleep upon realizing in hindsight that he overrated something.

Tremendous post.

 

By now we all realize what his tastes are, and also things he tends to overrate, so you should know where your taste falls in or out of line with his.

 

dave went through a period where every WWE PPV main event got a minimum of 4-stars. I knew I wasn't particularly into the WWE main event style during that time, so I understood the curve I was dealing with if he rated some forgettable Randy Orton vs Triple H b-show PPV match ****1/4. He digs that shit, I don't. It's no big deal.

 

I know you were just throwing shit out there to make a point, but in the interests of nitpicking, I absolutely love the ****1/4 Orton/Hunter match.

 

I actually get the same feeling though now about him reviewing New Japan. He's watching what he feels is a transcendentally great period of wrestling by that company and those guys, so every great match isn't just great, it's one of the greatest matches of all time. Same as during the time he'd rate every Kurt Angle TNA PPV match **** seemingly as a baseline. You just gotta roll with it. At the end of the day it's just a guy saying how much he liked a wrestling match.

 

On the "Dave losing sleep" point above, I've always wanted to know if anyone has asked him how he feels now about rating Hogan/Andre -****.

 

I think after getting harassed about it for so many years, he finally re-rated it at ** or something like that. Although I could be remembering the exact rating wrong, because I think he just tossed it out on an audio show or something from a mailbag question. The point is, he admitted the original was just silly, but he still doesn't love the match or anything.

 

It was actually a few weeks later.

 

Do you remember the rating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the Michael Elgin Vs. Davey Richards match when it happened. Admittedly, I got sucked up into the emotion & story of the match or at least the story that was in my head. I was BEGGING for Elgin to win because I hated Davey Richards SO much. Of course, I hated him because of insider bullshit I read online & was pretty much worked old school style. But yeah, I was buying into all the near falls & everything because I wanted Richards to just lose. It was almost like being a kid again...only not (if that makes sense).

 

The moves, of course, were all ridiculous, none of them really meant shit & they were all killed. There wasn't much psychology, very little selling & the crowd was super smarky. The finish was also pretty anti-climactic. Upon re-watching, I hate it but I was definitely wrapped up in the moment when I saw it the first time, not knowing the outcome or anything.

 

Maybe that was true with Dave too & he rated it as such? Sometimes it's fun to be able to just get wrapped up in wrestling like that still, despite all the stuff we've seen, read or whatever. Davey Richards' character? I can't tell you what it was. But to me, he was the heel because of stuff I read on various message forums & social media websites, about him blasting wrestling & saying he wanted to do "real fights" and all this other stuff. I can't remember if that was before or after all of the stuff with him screwing over promotions and stuff by taking the pay and leaving early. I just remember not liking Davey because I thought he was a business-exposing asshole that didn't "get" wrestling. If that was all planned, then bravo.

 

:P

 

I'm such a mark. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheGreatPuma

Richards did do working with "the blasting wrestling and wanting to do real fights".

 

And yes the Richards vs Elgin match was freaking incredible. So was the Tiger Mask vs Dynamite 2/3 Falls match. Owen vs Bret in the cage falls in the same category too. It's a match that people either get or don't get but I think even if it doesn't organically click with oneself, one has to admit there is a lot of exceptional stuff with the cage match and it does organically click with a lot of fans so Bret and Owen were doing a lot of stuff right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the exact opposite experience with Joe/Kobashi. I came in without any preconditioned love of Kobashi, puro, or even ROH or Joe for that matter, and I came away impressed that the match was able to live up to overwhelming hype. I totally bought the dream match feel they were going for, and I love the atmosphere. It's an example of a "good smark crowd" , to put it that way, one that adds to instead of distracts from a match,

Oh yeah it definitely FEELS epic as heck and the atmosphere is awesome, definitely adds a TON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We didn't see Doc vs Kobashi eye-to-eye at all, with me pointing to the over-the-top-goofy finish (which I'll admit is something that people disagree and agree with me on whether they like it)

Just wanted to chime in, 15 years after we first started arguing about this match, to say that it is still awesome and the goofy finish is the best part!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the other side of the coin? What matches has Meltzer panned or lukewarmly reviewed that people think he sold short?

I think 3 1/2 stars for Bret-Piper at WM 8 is a little low. I always thought it was the match of the night and liked it much more than Savage-Flair.

 

I agree with this, I love that Bret/Piper match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been awhile since I've seen either, but I always felt the best comparison for the Harts Cage Match is the Ladder Match from WM10, which also featured little violence and was essentially two people climbing and falling. Perhaps the Ladder Match isn't as excessive and therefore less offensive in this regard?

 

FWIW, the Harts Cage Match is so effective, even my sweet old Grandmother was on her feet cheering and yelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...