Dave Meltzer stuff

[shoe]

I thought the ultimate troll was when he said he had 37 matches in the G1 rated over 4*.which is lower than the consensus of 40.what consensus is he talking about.

[benj]

Friends that are accurate star raters

[Beast]

Like I said before in my opinion any star rating over 5 stars is just Dave trolling the internet.

 

Although I am sure if Ric Flair had friends who named wrestling moves after him there would be more 5 plus star ratings for him

 

Huh?

 

Like Dave didn't give Flair the highest star ratings during his prime in the '80s? The Flair-Steamboat series was the first thing he ever gave over 5 stars to anyway. It's not like the Young Bucks aren't highly regarded by a large number of fans.

[sek69]

Part of the reason Dave is acting so flippant to people spazzing out about his 6 star rating is that it's pretty much the same thing that happened when he first gave a match 5, except now thanks to Twitter we can see the reaction in real time.

[cm funk]

To be fair, I don't do * ratings, but I f'n LOVED the Naito-Omega G1 Finals match so much that I watched it like 5 times (and it's almost an hour long, and I don't usually like matches that long) in like 3 days. I always recommended it to a bunch of friends that aren't wrestling fans

 

I do like Naito better than Omega though

[El-P]

Are Kenny and Dave getting it on or something? He can't seriously believe Kenny Omega is better than every wrestler of the last 40 years.

 

Considering his history and taste over the years, it makes perfect sense. Flair > Michaels > Angle > Omega. You can see the morphing of old NWA style turing into a go-go-go style matches (Flair) to the same classic US stuff with way more athletic spots (Micheals) to an even more go-go-go style with lots of finisher kick-outs and reversals "like in Japan" (Angle) to the mutation of the style through the latest Japanese stuff influenced back by the US indies mentality (Omega).

 

(and that's not to say I mean Flair is like the other three, although my feelings about Flair as a worker are pretty clear by this point, great but overrated too; in that respect, I can see the "flow of taste" from Meltz making sense to me although I obviously strongly disagree. I'd rather watch Bockwinkle, Bret, Joe or Naito)

 

I haven't watched the 1 hour Okada match nor anything from G1. No time at the moment. Since I had loved Naito so much last year, I should probably watch those last three shows though. But I'd rather watch them without the hype in mind.

[hammerva]

 

Like I said before in my opinion any star rating over 5 stars is just Dave trolling the internet.

 

Although I am sure if Ric Flair had friends who named wrestling moves after him there would be more 5 plus star ratings for him

 

Huh?

 

Like Dave didn't give Flair the highest star ratings during his prime in the '80s? The Flair-Steamboat series was the first thing he ever gave over 5 stars to anyway. It's not like the Young Bucks aren't highly regarded by a large number of fans.

 

 

I don't have a spreadsheet of star ratings but at this rate it seems that Omega has higher rated matches in the last year than Flair in his entire career which is either really stupid or really suspicious.

 

And while maybe his friendship with the Young Bucks maybe isn't a factor, his New Japan delusional bias is showing more and more lately telling people that botches in matches are now planned spots and that concussions and injuries are nothing but "great selling".

 

Not saying that Omega isn't a great talent. Easily top 5 guy in the business now

 

Edit: I actually looked at the spreadsheet of star ratings. Assuming this isn't BS, Ric Flair has been in 6 with a 5+ star rating in his career. One in a war games match. Omega has been in 5 with a 5+ star rating mostly in the last year.

[El-P]

people that botches in matches are now planned spots and that concussions and injuries are nothing but "great selling".

 

Shibata is still selling that headbutt. Terrific.

[hammerva]

 

people that botches in matches are now planned spots and that concussions and injuries are nothing but "great selling".

 

Shibata is still selling that headbutt. Terrific.

 

 

To be far Dave has admitted that was legit. Although I believed early on he thought it was a work.

 

I was talking more about EVIL and Ishii getting knocked out in the G1.

[Matt D]

 

Are Kenny and Dave getting it on or something? He can't seriously believe Kenny Omega is better than every wrestler of the last 40 years.

 

Considering his history and taste over the years, it makes perfect sense. Flair > Michaels > Angle > Omega. You can see the morphing of old NWA style turing into a go-go-go style matches (Flair) to the same classic US stuff with way more athletic spots (Micheals) to an even more go-go-go style with lots of finisher kick-outs and reversals "like in Japan" (Angle) to the mutation of the style through the latest Japanese stuff influenced back by the US indies mentality (Omega).

 

(and that's not to say I mean Flair is like the other three, although my feelings about Flair as a worker are pretty clear by this point, great but overrated too; in that respect, I can see the "flow of taste" from Meltz making sense to me although I obviously strongly disagree. I'd rather watch Bockwinkle, Bret, Joe or Naito)

 

This is sort of it. It makes sense. It's an actualization of Meltzerism in wrestling to a big degree. It's fans of fans of wrestlers wrestling now. It's a processing of wrestling to maximize what he values and minimize what he doesn't. I won't fall into the argumentative trap that people in wrestling never wanted to have good matches, but I don't think we've ever been at a point where people want to have matches that would specifically earn them five stars from a single source. It makes sense that people seeking to do that would manage to do it more than anyone before them.

 

The issue is if a watcher happens to think that Dave's criteria are backwards and clownish.

[Grimmas]

 

 

Are Kenny and Dave getting it on or something? He can't seriously believe Kenny Omega is better than every wrestler of the last 40 years.

 

Considering his history and taste over the years, it makes perfect sense. Flair > Michaels > Angle > Omega. You can see the morphing of old NWA style turing into a go-go-go style matches (Flair) to the same classic US stuff with way more athletic spots (Micheals) to an even more go-go-go style with lots of finisher kick-outs and reversals "like in Japan" (Angle) to the mutation of the style through the latest Japanese stuff influenced back by the US indies mentality (Omega).

 

(and that's not to say I mean Flair is like the other three, although my feelings about Flair as a worker are pretty clear by this point, great but overrated too; in that respect, I can see the "flow of taste" from Meltz making sense to me although I obviously strongly disagree. I'd rather watch Bockwinkle, Bret, Joe or Naito)

 

This is sort of it. It makes sense. It's an actualization of Meltzerism in wrestling to a big degree. It's fans of fans of wrestlers wrestling now. It's a processing of wrestling to maximize what he values and minimize what he doesn't. I won't fall into the argumentative trap that people in wrestling never wanted to have good matches, but I don't think we've ever been at a point where people want to have matches that would specifically earn them five stars from a single source. It makes sense that people seeking to do that would manage to do it more than anyone before them.

 

The issue is if a watcher happens to think that Dave's criteria are backwards and clownish.

 

Johnny P, JR Goldberg, and myself discussed this very topic on the Royal Ramble podcast this week. We talk about this for about an hour, if anyone wants to hear our thoughts.

[Loss]

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. At first, I defended 6* and thought Dave was just speaking figuratively, not breaking his entire rating system to suddenly declare the best wrestling happening right now to be incomparable to any wrestling he has ever seen in the history of the world. I haven't seen it. I'm sure it's great. I hope it's great. I want it to be great. Really, really great. I'm someone who thinks this whole "Meltzer loves action and nothing else about wrestling, really" is tribalist, reductive, and silly (not to mention inaccurate) when I see it, but I can't ignore that he's making a mockery of himself with this stuff too. I'll never question his motives or his integrity, but I do think without maybe even trying, he has created this entire prophecy in wrestling that now fulfills itself. So in essence, his argument is now that matches are great if the people in the building go crazy for them. Period. The end. But he's gotten so far inside the heads of wrestlers that they have reshaped fan expectations to match his own personal tastes. I'd love to go into far more detail on it than I have time to do at the moment, but I think that's what has happened. He -- Dave Meltzer -- wrote/rewrote the rulebook for what is and isn't a great match. Wrestling itself followed suit, because the WON is such an institution that we now have a generation of wrestlers who grew up as fans reading it. And there you go.

[Grimmas]

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. At first, I defended 6* and thought Dave was just speaking figuratively, not breaking his entire rating system to suddenly declare the best wrestling happening right now to be incomparable to any wrestling he has ever seen in the history of the world. I haven't seen it. I'm sure it's great. I hope it's great. I want it to be great. Really, really great. I'm someone who thinks this whole "Meltzer loves action and nothing else about wrestling, really" is tribalist, reductive, and silly (not to mention inaccurate) when I see it, but I can't ignore that he's making a mockery of himself with this stuff too. I'll never question his motives or his integrity, but I do think without maybe even trying, he has created this entire prophecy in wrestling that now fulfills itself. So in essence, his argument is now that matches are great if the people in the building go crazy for them. Period. The end. But he's gotten so far inside the heads of wrestlers that they have reshaped fan expectations to match his own personal tastes. I'd love to go into far more detail on it than I have time to do at the moment, but I think that's what has happened. He -- Dave Meltzer -- wrote/rewrote the rulebook for what is and isn't a great match. Wrestling itself followed suit, because the WON is such an institution that we now have a generation of wrestlers who grew up as fans reading it. And there you go.

This sums up my thoughts perfectly. It's become a vicious cycle of fans following the WON getting into wrestling and learning what a great match is from reading the WON.

[Loss]

Lesson learned from this: if you want to change the wrestling style, start a newsletter! On it.

[Matt D]

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. At first, I defended 6* and thought Dave was just speaking figuratively, not breaking his entire rating system to suddenly declare the best wrestling happening right now to be incomparable to any wrestling he has ever seen in the history of the world. I haven't seen it. I'm sure it's great. I hope it's great. I want it to be great. Really, really great. I'm someone who thinks this whole "Meltzer loves action and nothing else about wrestling, really" is tribalist, reductive, and silly (not to mention inaccurate) when I see it, but I can't ignore that he's making a mockery of himself with this stuff too. I'll never question his motives or his integrity, but I do think without maybe even trying, he has created this entire prophecy in wrestling that now fulfills itself. So in essence, his argument is now that matches are great if the people in the building go crazy for them. Period. The end. But he's gotten so far inside the heads of wrestlers that they have reshaped fan expectations to match his own personal tastes. I'd love to go into far more detail on it than I have time to do at the moment, but I think that's what has happened. He -- Dave Meltzer -- wrote/rewrote the rulebook for what is and isn't a great match. Wrestling itself followed suit, because the WON is such an institution that we now have a generation of wrestlers who grew up as fans reading it. And there you go.

1. The perception of what makes a five star match to him is more important than the truth.

2. While the WON is an institution, the secondary conduits are almost more important. The identity of being a smark around the turn of the century, and the way dirtsheet readers gave way to the "IWC" which gave way to the current social media majority.

3. I always liked the religious idea that a deity is shaped by the beliefs of his worshippers even as much as he shapes those beliefs. I agree that there are plenty of unintended consequences in all of this, including, perhaps, a bottom-up reduction in Dave's tastes.

[FMKK]

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. At first, I defended 6* and thought Dave was just speaking figuratively, not breaking his entire rating system to suddenly declare the best wrestling happening right now to be incomparable to any wrestling he has ever seen in the history of the world. I haven't seen it. I'm sure it's great. I hope it's great. I want it to be great. Really, really great. I'm someone who thinks this whole "Meltzer loves action and nothing else about wrestling, really" is tribalist, reductive, and silly (not to mention inaccurate) when I see it, but I can't ignore that he's making a mockery of himself with this stuff too. I'll never question his motives or his integrity, but I do think without maybe even trying, he has created this entire prophecy in wrestling that now fulfills itself. So in essence, his argument is now that matches are great if the people in the building go crazy for them. Period. The end. But he's gotten so far inside the heads of wrestlers that they have reshaped fan expectations to match his own personal tastes. I'd love to go into far more detail on it than I have time to do at the moment, but I think that's what has happened. He -- Dave Meltzer -- wrote/rewrote the rulebook for what is and isn't a great match. Wrestling itself followed suit, because the WON is such an institution that we now have a generation of wrestlers who grew up as fans reading it. And there you go.

This was something I was trying to grasp at earlier in this thread. You've summed it up perfectly here and it would be interesting to have further exposition of the theme.

 

It just seems very sad that Twitter has broken him and he's willing to sacrifice his credibility working a troll gimmick.

 

P.S. It's not really, really great imo

[El-P]

Like I said, the roots comes down to those Ric Flair matches in the 80's getting the vaunted *****.

 

And now, we really now what's causing all this.

[Loss]

In this case, jumpin' on really is a lot easier than jumpin' off.

[Beast]

I'm a Dave sympathizer but I agree that it's a bit silly to throw out 5 star plus ratings like candy all of a sudden at specifically Omega.

 

I rationalize it like everything over 5 stars is just 5 stars, with an added note that Dave thinks the Omega-Okada series is the best series of matches in the past few years. I don't look at Omega-Okada receiving 6 stars in 2017 meaning that it's better than a 5 star match in 1989, only that it's equivalent.

 

Dave is never going to give well thought out answers to star ratings questions/complaints on Twitter and Bryan is not the guy to pick his brain about it. It would be outstanding if Charles, Stephen, Kris or whomever was able to get access to Dave for like a 15-20 minute podcast and really dive into his reasoning beyond "I've given out 6 star ratings since 1989 but no one noticed".

 

That said, it shouldn't impact how anyone other than Dave rates wrestling matches at this point.

[El-P]

I just thought about it, and joked about it before but… Mikes Oles was right : pro-wrestling as artistic skating. We're there, from the performers standpoint. Yikes.

[sek69]

I find it funny that people seem convinced that Dave is masterminding some plan to troll everyone when Occam's Razor suggests that maybe he just really likes the matches he's watching?

 

Like, what's the end game here?

 

 

1. Trolling internet folks that presumably make up the meat of his subscriber base.

 

2 ????

 

 

3. Profit

 

 

 

It doesn't make sense as as businessman for him to do that.

[Cap]

I have generally thought responses to Dave's ratings are overblown, a symptom of a reactionary wrestling culture as much as a response to a real and present issue. However, and this isn't as much a changing opinion as much as me believing the that landscape has transformed into something else, I do think there is something to the notion that this Meltzerian standard has started to animate certain pockets of wrestling. Certainly NJPW rides that wave with some success. Without the official media infrastructure in the U.S. of say something like the WWE they are - through their alignment with this standard - carving out a place for themselves in the American wrestling conciousness... one they couldn't otherwise carve out.

However, I am not sure it is so much a direct (though implicit) response to Meltzer himself as much as it is a response to a swealing of influence of particular types of orientations to wrestling, Meltzer and his stars being the most obvious and discernible manifestation. I almost feel like - from my limited perspective - that at least certain strands of wrestling cater to a particular style,that of the sort of in-a-vacuum, best-experienced-live" wrestling, a style that is often rewarded by Meltzer. I would agree that Meltzer is someone who is oversimplified, caricatured in a way with regard to his responses, but it is percisely the point that his more recent responses seem to have sort of embraced that caricature, one that prefers big action, offense, moves, and wrestling that animates the live crowd and creates an electric atmosphere. However, I am not sure I feel like there is a direct relationship with Meltzer as a singular or even primary catalyst for this as much as it sort of seems like large swaths of wrestling are driven by immediate reaction, hot-take, buzz-generating responses. If wrestling twitter is anything, it is a sea of just that.

 

Let me give an example. I have been watching a lot of Progress lately and I really really like Progress, but Progess is a live-oriented product. They are really good at coherence and booking (imo), but the matches themselves are built around creating an electric atmosphere in the moment, about a sort of cyclical energy between crowd and wrestlers. I was at the NY show; it was absolutely ape-shit insane to feel part of that live (in a good way - for me at least, not to get into that whole mess). I think of Progress as sort of like NJPW in that the matches are more satisfying and impressive in a vacuum. When I just pop on a NJPW match it sometimes can feel like the biggest thing on earth. When I just pop on a progress match it feels like I might be watching the best indy ever sometimes. But if I watch a bunch of NJPW or a bunch of Progress in a row, in context, I start to tire of certain tropes returning in every single match. The matches themselves don't feel as special, even if I still enjoy the wrestling on the whole. Now, that might just be "bad wrestling" to some people and fair. However, that sets a crowd on fire and that is fodder for the hot take culture that internet wrestling has become.

 

Meltzer was, in some ways at least, a hot-take guy before twitter, facebook, and message boards gave everyone the ability to be a hot take person and before streaming shrunk the amount of time one had to provide their hot takes. Again, not to say that he can or should be reduced to hot takes, but the "persona" that has become Meltzer's position in wrestling is mostly defined by those kinds of things. I haven't watched any of the G1 yet and by the time I do no one will give a shit what I have to say about it (table for a second that they might not have anyway). Everything is bang bang bang and if you want to create and maintain the buzz around your company one of the best ways to do that is to get people buzzing on line. Further, one of the best ways to ensure that now is go big with matches and segments and spots that create a sort of visceral reaction. Matches that play into that hot-take, reactionary orientation are the currency of the realm right now. To me, much of the way some wrestlers, particularly those with a keen eye on the internet and how it may affect their career trajectories, are shaping their styles around that is a response to the how the current configuration of media is shaping wrestling far more than it is a response to Meltzer himself or how he has shaped opinions.

 

I kind of think Meltzer is as much a sort of niche figurehead for this trend as much as anything else. Whether he is consciously going with the flow... or wrestling culture as a whole sort of happens to be falling in line a little more with his particular orientations... or he has over the years shaped this to a great degree himself, I don't ultimately know. But, I tend to be skeptical of the latter. I don't mean to take away from his significance; Meltzer has clearly helped shape wrestling culture today and maybe his influence is hardwired into what is considered a great match, but I have some trouble buying that it is more influential than a number of other factors. Regardless, the 6 star stuff and the billion 5 star matches feels more to me like him (probably mostly unconsciously) riding a wave of something bigger. I would venture a guess that most of the kids buying bullet club merch at Hot Topic don't give a damn who Dave Meltzer is or how many snowflakes he's packing. I would even venture that most wrestling fans that are involved with some of the most buzz worthy indy stuff don't give much thought to Meltzer and his stars until well after they have hyped matches themselves on their own blogs and podcasts, if they do at all.

 

In all, the style shifts seem over-determined to me and Meltzer just feels like part of what is happening. If anything he is a face (seemingly a willing face) that swaths of fans can put on the issue.

[Loss]

I find it funny that people seem convinced that Dave is masterminding some plan to troll everyone when Occam's Razor suggests that maybe he just really likes the matches he's watching?

 

Like, what's the end game here?

 

 

1. Trolling internet folks that presumably make up the meat of his subscriber base.

 

2 ????

 

 

3. Profit

 

 

 

It doesn't make sense as as businessman for him to do that.

 

I don't think there's anything sinister here. I don't even think there's anything intentional. It's just that because Dave is the most on-the-record match critic in existence, his word carries a lot of weight, so whether anyone wants it to or not -- be it him or us -- it does matter how he watches because it influences how wrestlers wrestle and how fans fan.

[Loss]

I have generally thought responses to Dave's ratings are overblown, a symptom of a reactionary wrestling culture as much as a response to a real and present issue. However, and this isn't as much a changing opinion as much as me believing the that landscape has transformed into something else, I do think there is something to the notion that this Meltzerian standard has started to animate certain pockets of wrestling. Certainly NJPW rides that wave with some success. Without the official media infrastructure in the U.S. of say something like the WWE they are - through their alignment with this standard - carving out a place for themselves in the American wrestling conciousness... one they couldn't otherwise carve out.

 

However, I am not sure it is so much a direct (though implicit) response to Meltzer himself as much as it is a response to a swealing of influence of particular types of orientations to wrestling, Meltzer and his stars being the most obvious and discernible manifestation. I almost feel like - from my limited perspective - that at least certain strands of wrestling cater to a particular style,that of the sort of in-a-vacuum, best-experienced-live" wrestling, a style that is often rewarded by Meltzer. I would agree that Meltzer is someone who is oversimplified, caricatured in a way with regard to his responses, but it is percisely the point that his more recent responses seem to have sort of embraced that caricature, one that prefers big action, offense, moves, and wrestling that animates the live crowd and creates an electric atmosphere. However, I am not sure I feel like there is a direct relationship with Meltzer as a singular or even primary catalyst for this as much as it sort of seems like large swaths of wrestling are driven by immediate reaction, hot-take, buzz-generating responses. If wrestling twitter is anything, it is a sea of just that.

 

Let me give an example. I have been watching a lot of Progress lately and I really really like Progress, but Progess is a live-oriented product. They are really good at coherence and booking (imo), but the matches themselves are built around creating an electric atmosphere in the moment, about a sort of cyclical energy between crowd and wrestlers. I was at the NY show; it was absolutely ape-shit insane to feel part of that live (in a good way - for me at least, not to get into that whole mess). I think of Progress as sort of like NJPW in that the matches are more satisfying and impressive in a vacuum. When I just pop on a NJPW match it sometimes can feel like the biggest thing on earth. When I just pop on a progress match it feels like I might be watching the best indy ever sometimes. But if I watch a bunch of NJPW or a bunch of Progress in a row, in context, I start to tire of certain tropes returning in every single match. The matches themselves don't feel as special, even if I still enjoy the wrestling on the whole. Now, that might just be "bad wrestling" to some people and fair. However, that sets a crowd on fire and that is fodder for the hot take culture that internet wrestling has become.

 

Meltzer was, in some ways at least, a hot-take guy before twitter, facebook, and message boards gave everyone the ability to be a hot take person and before streaming shrunk the amount of time one had to provide their hot takes. Again, not to say that he can or should be reduced to hot takes, but the "persona" that has become Meltzer's position in wrestling is mostly defined by those kinds of things. I haven't watched any of the G1 yet and by the time I do no one will give a shit what I have to say about it (table for a second that they might not have anyway). Everything is bang bang bang and if you want to create and maintain the buzz around your company one of the best ways to do that is to get people buzzing on line. Further, one of the best ways to ensure that now is go big with matches and segments and spots that create a sort of visceral reaction. Matches that play into that hot-take, reactionary orientation are the currency of the realm right now. To me, much of the way some wrestlers, particularly those with a keen eye on the internet and how it may affect their career trajectories, are shaping their styles around that is a response to the how the current configuration of media is shaping wrestling far more than it is a response to Meltzer himself or how he has shaped opinions.

 

I kind of think Meltzer is as much a sort of niche figurehead for this trend as much as anything else. Whether he is consciously going with the flow... or wrestling culture as a whole sort of happens to be falling in line a little more with his particular orientations... or he has over the years shaped this to a great degree himself, I don't ultimately know. But, I tend to be skeptical of the latter. I don't mean to take away from his significance; Meltzer has clearly helped shape wrestling culture today and maybe his influence is hardwired into what is considered a great match, but I have some trouble buying that it is more influential than a number of other factors. Regardless, the 6 star stuff and the billion 5 star matches feels more to me like him (probably mostly unconsciously) riding a wave of something bigger. I would venture a guess that most of the kids buying bullet club merch at Hot Topic don't give a damn who Dave Meltzer is or how many snowflakes he's packing. I would even venture that most wrestling fans that are involved with some of the most buzz worthy indy stuff don't give much thought to Meltzer and his stars until well after they have hyped matches themselves on their own blogs and podcasts, if they do at all.

 

In all, the style shifts seem over-determined to me and Meltzer just feels like part of what is happening. If anything he is a face (seemingly a willing face) that swaths of fans can put on the issue.

 

This is a great post! A single story that I think encapsulates the shift as well as any that Dave tells from time to time: he had dinner with Chris Benoit and Eddy Guerrero after a New Japan show once. This was in 1994, so they were respected as good workers, but it was before they really became hardcore darlings at the level they would become. Anyway, Dave thought they had a great match that night and told them they tore the house down. The reaction from both was, "You really think so?" and they both started ripping apart their own performances in the match. Dave's takeaway was that they were perfectionists who were hypercritical of their own work, but I think an alternative takeaway could be that workers who didn't receive much validation inside wrestling because of their size suddenly found someone who would provide them with plenty of validation, so they decided to work for him. That style found a bigger audience, even if it did run antithesis to a lot of things that were happening with top guys in the U.S. at the time. Those guys and others of their ilk like Jericho and Rey became stars and helped push a shift in the working style on top. None was ever truly the number one guy, but they did have a lasting impact on the main event style, which is why by 2003, guys like Kevin Nash couldn't get over at a main event level in WWE.

[Cap]

For sure, this has been a long and complex process and that story really does encapsulate much of that process, perhaps one of its its most important and formative phases.