Dave Meltzer stuff

[jackwebb]

That ties Cena with Kurt Angle with 12 matches at 4 and 1/2 stars or more.

[Grimmas]

shouldn't matter but Meltzer gave Cena v Rollins at SS the same rating as Bayley v Sasha at Takeover

*dismisses his opinion for life*

That nail has hammered a long time ago, but wtf?

[Jimmy Redman]

Wait he gave Cena vs Rollins ****1/2 ??

 

Jesus fucking Christ. Go to bed.

[Ready_Willing_Gable]

Even if that tit Jon Stewart conveniently evaporated into thin air before the match and they worked out some crazy All Japan-esque finish....not as fucking good as the match at Takeover, jeez.

I thought I was generous giving it 3 and a half

[sek69]

Say what you will about our pal Alvarez, but it seems he was able to successfully engineer a campaign on Twitter to get WWE to address the horrible buffering issues that were plaguing the archive stuff on the network.

[BillThompson]

shouldn't matter but Meltzer gave Cena v Rollins at SS the same rating as Bayley v Sasha at Takeover

*dismisses his opinion for life*

 

I disagree with Meltzer a lot, and it's okay to. I think the mistake most people make, and I made for a long time, is to hold his opinion as gospel. In the end his opinion is just an opinion. One that I think is crazy a lot of the time, but it's genuine and it has merit. We all have opinions that go against the grain or seem way out there. Let Meltzer have his, disagree with him plenty, but dismissing him entirely because he doesn't see eye to eye with you on a few matches is overkill.

[Ready_Willing_Gable]

 

shouldn't matter but Meltzer gave Cena v Rollins at SS the same rating as Bayley v Sasha at Takeover

*dismisses his opinion for life*

 

I disagree with Meltzer a lot, and it's okay to. I think the mistake most people make, and I made for a long time, is to hold his opinion as gospel. In the end his opinion is just an opinion. One that I think is crazy a lot of the time, but it's genuine and it has merit. We all have opinions that go against the grain or seem way out there. Let Meltzer have his, disagree with him plenty, but dismissing him entirely because he doesn't see eye to eye with you on a few matches is overkill.

 

OH, sure I always took the 'its one guys lone opinion' approach. but giving this a 4.5 just seems to take the meaning out of that spell, how god damn long was it, where Meltzer didn't give 5 stars to a single WWE match. Was the gap between Austin/Bret '97 all the way up to Punk/Cena 2011? This being so close to 5 saps a lot of meaning out of that for me.

[BillThompson]

 

 

shouldn't matter but Meltzer gave Cena v Rollins at SS the same rating as Bayley v Sasha at Takeover

*dismisses his opinion for life*

 

I disagree with Meltzer a lot, and it's okay to. I think the mistake most people make, and I made for a long time, is to hold his opinion as gospel. In the end his opinion is just an opinion. One that I think is crazy a lot of the time, but it's genuine and it has merit. We all have opinions that go against the grain or seem way out there. Let Meltzer have his, disagree with him plenty, but dismissing him entirely because he doesn't see eye to eye with you on a few matches is overkill.

 

OH, sure I always took the 'its one guys lone opinion' approach. but giving this a 4.5 just seems to take the meaning out of that spell, how god damn long was it, where Meltzer didn't give 5 stars to a single WWE match. Was the gap between Austin/Bret '97 all the way up to Punk/Cena 2011? This being so close to 5 saps a lot of meaning out of that for me.

 

 

Dave has his biases, same as everyone else. I think they are fairly clear in the way he talks about/rates modern NJPW, Jericho, Orton, and now Rollins. I don't really mind, because while I do think his opinions on all of the above often border on ludicrous as long as he's presenting his opinion in a solid manner that's good enough for me. I think it's okay for Dave's opinion to hold more weight because of who he is in the business, while at the same time recognizing that his opinion will not gel with your own a large portion of the time. I know there's at least one match this year that Dave gave ****+ to that I have at about *. That's a huge gulf and it doesn't invalidate either of our opinions, just shows how different people can come away from the same artistic endeavor with wildly different takes.

[shoe]

Bill how can you forget his love for the Bucks too.

[DMJ]

What did he give Lesnar/Taker?

[BillThompson]

Bill how can you forget his love for the Bucks too.

 

I prefer to forget the Bucks altogether.

[fxnj]

Disregarding Dave's opinion because you disagree is dumb. A much reason to disregard Dave's opinion is in how he justifies it. I haven't been subscribed in half a decade, but when I was I was generally very disappointed with his show reviews. All he'd really do was run through some basic play-by-play, talk about what got a pop, and then slap on a rating, as if the only thing he cared about was big moves and crowd heat. Granted, it definitely wouldn't be fair to expect the same sort of in-depth reviews from him that people do here because of all the other stuff he's doing, but if you take away all that other stuff it's unlikely many people would care about his opinion more than that of any random smark with a blog.

[Ready_Willing_Gable]

What did he give Lesnar/Taker?

4 stars. I can't really fathom how Cena/Rollins can be considered better unless you for some reason fucking love Jon Stewart and always wanted to see him do something in WWE, which consists of apprximately zero people. It was complete crap for gawker shares and that's why I'm surprised and disappointed such a prominent critic (THE wrestling critic, he practically writes the history books folks) would rate it so highly.

Taker/Brock had a questionable ending too and there is the question of "should Brock lose to Taker in the first place?" but as a complete package, blew Cena-Rollins out of the fucking park. Even if the wrestling in Cena v Rollins was more crisp or whatever, one of my least favourite match endings ever and it stands out more than most things. Like if he rates the Bucks/IWGP Junior Tag matches 4 and a quarter or whatever, good for him! I would call it overrating, but I appreciate a good spot-fest when done right, and groan when people whinge over and over about them. But this? Near-perfect? Do me a favour..

[WingedEagle]

I don't think he or anyone is suggesting 4.5 is near perfect. You just need a way to mark something better than your standard very good 4 star affair from a 5, which is rightfully used so sparingly that it is well beyond comparison to a 4.5.

[Ready_Willing_Gable]

I don't think he or anyone is suggesting 4.5 is near perfect. You just need a way to mark something better than your standard very good 4 star affair from a 5, which is rightfully used so sparingly that it is well beyond comparison to a 4.5.

The very night before though, Bayley v Sasha WAS near-perfect though and gets given the same rating. There's only one increment between 4.5 and 5 so yes I think people equate that rating as being near perfect.

The wrestling before hand in Cena/Rollins was servicably fluent and crisp but it didn't tell much of a story like Brock v Taker or Bayley v Sasha. Jon Stewart, even if you like the idea of him being the deciding factor in a god damn title v title match (who's next? Ellen Degeneres gonna decide Wrestlemania's main event?), he nearly fucked the spot up (he ran up to Cena at first, then to Rollins, then back to Cena when surely he should be putting over the tease of that he was really gonna hit Rollins, THEN he nearly took the chair out of the ring with him before the decisive spot.) It was a complete shitwreck and a definite blotch on his credibility in my eyes, giving it anything more than 3 and a half is massively pushing it.

 

On the biases point, I have a bias, just for a pure example, for ROH's Kyle O'Reilly at the moment, but I didn't clock his promo from this episode of ROH TV where he called himself "the Michael Buble of puroresu" and think "that was great". Biases should be reasoned with/toned down or you're not a great critic.

[goc]

I'm far more interested in Dave's thoughts on business matters and what the mindset is backstage than his match reviews. His biases are well known at this point. He likes matches with a lot of action and moves, I would much rather see a match with more of a focus on selling and storytelling. I don't really pay attention to his match reviews because it's not going to influence me to watch/not watch either way.

 

The only thing I would give him shit about lately is that ridiculous notion that Ishii/Makabe from Dominion was somehow "next level selling" and not Makabe just being really shitty in that match.

[Ready_Willing_Gable]

I'm far more interested in Dave's thoughts on business matters and what the mindset is backstage than his match reviews.

I think we all do, but just thinking about myself shortly after I got into wrestling and started following it online. The star ratings were a big guideline for me, and I can't recall a 4 and a half that stuck in the throat as much as this one did. That's all I'm saying. Meltzer's ratings will continue to be a valued reference point for years to come.

[pantherwagner]

Dave comes from a time when most of his non WWF-WCW reviews were for people that were going to see the tapes of the matches after reading his review. 15 years ago unless you were rich or had a very good trading network you had to rely a lot on reviews and star ratings to decide what tapes to buy next. It's a different world today but Dave hasn't changed his match reporting style.

[Loss]

It's wrong to say Dave favors a lot of action and moves, considering how often he dives into the details of psychology on WOR in a way that anyone should be able to appreciate. He likes hot crowds and people who he thinks are working a contemporary style. But he complains about guys not selling enough all the time and points out good things about matches involving Timothy Thatcher and Chris Hero that have nothing to do with the workrate. But he's said many times in the last few years that a match that works in the building it's in is great, period. The Dave of now wouldn't agree with the Dave of 10 or more years ago.

[Loss]

A few weeks back, he was vocal about Rollins popping up too easily for the finish in his TV match with Neville. He still gave the match **** because "that's the style". He's willing to overlook stuff like that if it was effective in popping the crowd.

[BigBadMick]

 

 

shouldn't matter but Meltzer gave Cena v Rollins at SS the same rating as Bayley v Sasha at Takeover

*dismisses his opinion for life*

 

I disagree with Meltzer a lot, and it's okay to. I think the mistake most people make, and I made for a long time, is to hold his opinion as gospel. In the end his opinion is just an opinion. One that I think is crazy a lot of the time, but it's genuine and it has merit. We all have opinions that go against the grain or seem way out there. Let Meltzer have his, disagree with him plenty, but dismissing him entirely because he doesn't see eye to eye with you on a few matches is overkill.

 

OH, sure I always took the 'its one guys lone opinion' approach. but giving this a 4.5 just seems to take the meaning out of that spell, how god damn long was it, where Meltzer didn't give 5 stars to a single WWE match. Was the gap between Austin/Bret '97 all the way up to Punk/Cena 2011? This being so close to 5 saps a lot of meaning out of that for me.

 

What WWE matches since Punk/Cena 2011 has he given 5 stars? Just curious now that it's been brought up.

[Slasher]

 

 

 

 

 

 

shouldn't matter but Meltzer gave Cena v Rollins at SS the same rating as Bayley v Sasha at Takeover

*dismisses his opinion for life*

I disagree with Meltzer a lot, and it's okay to. I think the mistake most people make, and I made for a long time, is to hold his opinion as gospel. In the end his opinion is just an opinion. One that I think is crazy a lot of the time, but it's genuine and it has merit. We all have opinions that go against the grain or seem way out there. Let Meltzer have his, disagree with him plenty, but dismissing him entirely because he doesn't see eye to eye with you on a few matches is overkill.

OH, sure I always took the 'its one guys lone opinion' approach. but giving this a 4.5 just seems to take the meaning out of that spell, how god damn long was it, where Meltzer didn't give 5 stars to a single WWE match. Was the gap between Austin/Bret '97 all the way up to Punk/Cena 2011? This being so close to 5 saps a lot of meaning out of that for me.

What WWE matches since Punk/Cena 2011 has he given 5 stars? Just curious now that it's been brought up.

None so far. Also Meltz has rated the HBK/Taker HIAC 5 stars as well and that occurred after the Austin/Hart match.

[goodhelmet]

On today's WOL, Dave is sticking with his assertion that people who used the N word in wrestling were not racist. It was just part of the vernacular. Fucking hell.

 

"You only used that word if you were racist or you were in wrestling. In wrestling it was a term that was used by people that were not necessarily racist, it was a wrestling term.... which doomed WCW in court."

 

He goes on a bit more but he clearly can't wrap his head around the fact that these people were indeed racist.

[Zero]

He compared it to wrestlers using the term kayfabe too. So strange.

[Loss]

He's also said that jocks making anti-gay jokes in a locker room setting doesn't make them homophobic. It's a mental block.