Dave Meltzer stuff

[Matt D]

The idea that the Bucks' match was 4.5 stars speaks to the inflation as much as anything else, maybe because we have so many other 4.5 star matches to compare it to.

It was a fun little thought experiment of a match: "What if you tack on hyper-focused limb selling to a standard sort of YB NJPW match?" but it wasn't any sort of organic selling that drove the spots; instead the spots drove the selling. The back selling was far more inconsistent and never, to me, felt earned. The timing on the mid-match hot tag was hardly maximized and the work that he had to do for it involved a lot of standing around a waiting for people to get into their places. Again, fun thought experiment and solid effort but 4.5 stars apparently don't buy you what they once did.

[World's Worst Man]

Dave's breaking of his scale is simply due to, in my opinion, him overrating matches in general. While I certainly think he throws around ****+ ratings way too much, there is also a problem on the low end as well and that I think is due to the paucity of truly bad matches in modern pro-wrestling. It just seems like there's less utter crap these days whereas in days past it was easy to find matches with utterly incompetent pro-wrestling basics. If anything, the standards for what constitutes an average or sub-par match need to change so that the scale doesn't essentially start at ***. This would leave more room in the ***-**** range so not everything that's halfway decent needs to be rated ****1/2.

 

What I've realized with Dave's pimping of these matches is that he values quantity over quality, from my point of view. A match with a lot of near-falls or a lot of "drama" will be rated highly regardless of whether the near-falls and drama were done in an interesting way. This is where the modern NJPW stuff falls a bit short of the 90's AJPW that it's based off of. The AJPW guys were better at creating interesting sequences and drama, particularly in the early-mid portions of the match. I'm still a fan of modern NJPW but I do wish they would take it a bit easier at times and do less shit while trying to make what they do a bit more meaningful.

[William Bologna]

When you hear him talk about good matches - "Well, they'll have a good match" - it's almost a mechanical thing. Number of hot moves plus number of nearfalls equals good match.

 

Serious question: Has there ever been a PWG-style Meltzerbait match that he didn't fall for? Has he ever been bored by lots of moves and nearfalls?

[Fando]

Should really be asking if there has been a match like that with lots of moves and nearfalls that the live crowd loved but he didn't, because the in-building reaction influences how sees the performance a lot, too (Punk-Cena, HHH-Taker, far from PWG style). I don't think it's fair to just write them off as "Meltzerbait" when the crowds are loving them in the building. There's been a real change in the "agreement" fans have with workers and what they expect and tolerate in the ring and you can argue Meltzer has had some influence there but I think it's really bigger than him. Think about how different fight scenes are in the average action movie today compared to 30 years ago.

[Cap]

I knew it! I knew this was going 7. haha. Honestly, I kind of love it, but that is because I have accepted this persona of Dave's (for better or worse).

 

Dave's ratings are a fascinating case study in influence in the wrestling industry. Its been beaten to death, but Dave is almost overvalued and undervalued in terms of his influence and impact. Ultimately, I suspect all the star throwing he does is going to throw the balance off on the public perception of who and what he has been in wrestling over the years, at least for at time period before it is ultimately recovered that he was more than just the star-rating guy.

[NintendoLogic]

In his review of Final Battle 2012, he said the Steen/Generico ladder match wasn't his cup of tea because it was just an exhibition of crazy spots and didn't feel like a world title match, but he gave it four stars largely because the live crowd ate it up.

[Tim Cooke]

I found his discussion of how he views matches today fascinating. It's pretty clear that he operates in the wrestling bubble when it comes to match criticism and doesn't read a ton of critical analysis for books, TV shows, films, video games, etc. If he had been using a __/10 scale since the beginning and gave a match an 11, I don't think people would bat an eye. But because he used the five star scale for 36 years, which is about half of the time that pro wrestling has been accessible to a wide audience (I'm using 1950 as the year - I know we can go back to 1905 or some other date), he's essentially relied on the same system for the half life of pro wrestling in the US/Japan.

 

Ultimately, I rate matches so I can compare, list, and sequence what I think is great, very good, average, etc. Dave's professional life is worked pro wrestling and UFC. You rarely see ratings thrown around for sporting events. I usually just list when I'm doing something with baseball like the top 10 Orioles live games of 2012.

 

But I also have star ratings for MMA fights because I see it as a compliment to pro wrestling in that I know what I like, I know what I don't like, and am willing to go back and review periodically to see where my current opinion lives with my past opinions. The ***** classics like Rumina Sato vs. Caol Uno or Fedor vs. Nog I still stand firm, just like Misawa/Kawada 6/3/94.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what Dave would say about Amazon reviews. It's a five star scale and if someone really, really likes a product, they give it five stars and back it up with a thorough review. If Amazon just started saying you can rate this out of an infinite scale, it would become useless. Dave's scale isn't useless for everyone but it's less and less of a resource as time goes by.

[stomperspc]

The high and low limits of a scale provide the rest of the points with their meaning. A point on a scale is only meaningful relative to the end points. If there is no upward (or downward for that matter) limit to a scale, then it is useless. A **** ¾ match on a 5-star scale derives its meaning from being so close to 5-stars. A **** ¾ match on an infinite scale doesn’t mean anything on its own. You’d have to dig into the person’s full history of ratings in order to see where on the scale a **** ¾ match falls to figure out how highly the rater feels about a match with that rating. Nobody has time to do that. That’s why we invent scales in the first place so we can easily know what the rater is saying with the rating. To Tim’s point about Amazon, if they had an infinite scale you would have to check every rating for a person to see what a ***** rating really means to them. At that point, the whole thing becomes useless.

 

Also I don’t buy the “Meltzer doesn’t take his ratings seriously so you shouldn’t either” line of reasoning. Why would he waste time on a regular basis with something that isn’t meant to have any value. If it doesn’t have any value, don’t post the ratings. If he continues using them it is perfectly reasonable to discuss them from both a critical stand point (do I agree with his opinion?) and a general standpoint (does it make sense to have an infinite scale?)

[SPS]

I think with the star system it has now broken apart to a point where you can't really utilize it anymore to compare a match rated before 2017 to matches now because the whole spectrum has changed.

 

Dave has moved the goal posts, where before no matter what ***** was the max save for a very limited group of matches getting *****+ which now is being construed as ****** like the previous Okada/Omega match which I thought was a bit much for Dave but since there were other matches previously that got *****+ I felt it wasn't anything too outrageous as it was a great match.

 

But now with more than ***** possible and it eclipsing even the most rare of the rare(Don't even get me started on the *****1/2 or 3/4 stuff we saw) it totally has skewed the rating of matches that before 2017 would've gotten in the ***+ range now getting up to ****+. I don't believe that anyone can believe that YB vs LIJ was on par with other ****1/2 matches from the past.

 

So now with ******* being possible and a couple ***** or ******+, then what does a ***** really mean anymore? is it still a top of the line match? or is it now what ****+ used to be and the real top of the line is ****** and ******* is the elite?

 

It's jumped the shark for me even just taking it for what it's worth as I always considered it more of a recommended match measurement from the tape trading days and a fun way to track the quality output over the years and decades.

 

But it's now pretty much separated to before Okada/Omega and after.

[Cap]

Only if you use Meltzer as the standard by which all star rating systems must be measured, which admittedly most people probably do. I am happy to go on rating matches for myself and using the 5 star system and not worrying too much about it.

 

However, Dave's influence and reach might be such that all public sharing of star systems will enter a context so convoluted that they are impossible to read except in terms of a B.O/O. (Before Omega/Okada) where we would have the 5 star system and A.D (Anno Dei - Year of The Gods) where we have 7? maybe just throw however many you want? I don't know.

[NintendoLogic]

Have you guys ever considered that maybe Dave genuinely believes that Omega/Okada and the like really are that much better than the great matches of the past?

 

Dave has said in the past that four stars is the equivalent of a black belt and anything beyond that is additional stripes. I guess that makes six stars and above the equivalent of a red belt. That doesn't mean a black belt is worthless.

[Fando]

One thing too is that people will go in on Dave for throwing stars at "tons of moves and nearfalls" whatever, but this match didn't really fit into that cliche. They did a lot for over an hour of course, but in the last fall Okada's entire offense was: 4 dropkicks, 4 clotheslines, 1 german suplex. Omega went for more flashy moves like a phoenix splash and styles clash but in between it was mostly palm strikes and knees. There are only three nearfalls in the last 3rd of the match.

[Jmare007]

It's his choice to do what he wants, of course. I was just reading his full explanation for it in the WON and while you could question a lot or even most of his logic, there is a consistency there. The challenge I think he'll face is that a better match can come along, particularly with so many people of the current generation producing matches at that level that are still so young. If there's a better match next year, then what? What if there's a better one after that? And then another? I think in his mind, great! He doesn't draw a line. So be it.

 

It's as much a commentary on star ratings in general as it is Dave's approach to them. I've used them for years myself, but the limitations have become more apparent to me, to where it's baffling as a long time fan hearing complaints that a match "only" got ****1/2 or ****3/4. If we start hearing that about ***** matches, wow. But when he intentionally has no historical compass in matches, the ratings become useless.

 

The reason people care so much is that the WON is the closest thing to a "paper of record" that pro wrestling has. It will live longer than Dave or any of us. It will eventually be not that someone had a match rated seven stars in the WON, but simply that they had a seven-star match. I noticed when he did the Misawa and Kobashi bios over the last decade that he (and more interestingly, Bryan Alvarez in deference) did not say that they'd had "22 matches rated ***** in the WON". They simply said, presented as fact, that they'd had "22 ***** matches".

 

When an opinion or viewpoint is prevalent and unchallenged enough, time turns it into a fact. See current debates about the very existence of climate change being a matter of opinion. It's either happening or it's not, regardless of what those opinions are, but we've socially constructed the idea that it's an opinion. It's not so much about what Dave likes and dislikes as it is that he's made it much harder for future fans to understand the era when compared to previous eras. Wrestling changes, life goes on, yes to all of that, but now it seems like the matches in the past didn't get a fair shake from Dave, the most high-profile match critic in wrestling. People rely on those to determine what they prioritize in their viewing and it has a huge impact on consensus. That's why people care, not so much because they disagree with Dave on how good a match is.

 

I think there's a point in wrestling fandom when you invariably go away from the "paper record" and start either doing a version of your own or just create your own path of sorts.

 

If 20 years from now, for some reason, Dave's ratings are still a starting point to other styles of wrestling besides mainstream WWE (I have a hard time believing that, but that's another topic) that new fan will probably buy into the idea that this current New Japan run as the greatest of all time by far and an evolution of wrestling, but if he's that much of a fan to go seek that info and matches, he'll more than likely end up looking for stuff himself and create his own opinion, at which point he'll evaluate if his initial opinion holds up or not.

 

To me, the people that actually care about this kind of stuff - "how will the be seen/received in the future", "how will they perceive different eras" - have already reached that point of creating their own path and worry way too much about fans that will never care as much as they do and never will.

 

Before this New Japan run, 90's All Japan was treated as the golden standard...by those who cared enough to seek it. A big number of them (the majority, maybe?) kept it as the golden standard after watching it, rewatching it and comparing it to other eras. Others challenged it. Same thing will happen years from now with New Japan. Whether they have 20 matches above 6 stars or they would've "broken the record" of 5 star matches (if the scale hadn't been broken) or they would've had the biggest number of high rated matches after 90's All Japan (if Dave wouldn't have loved it as much and throw so many snowflakes the last 7 years), I think it's irrelevant. The fans that care will eventually find context because they will do whatever they have to to find it, and those who don't will keep it moving and enjoy the wrestling the like without putting much thought to it, as they always have.

 

[Laz]

The 7* stuff is so Spinal Tap it hurts. Why not just make 5 the top and readjust accordingly? If Omega/Okada IV is 7*, is it really that much better than Misawa/Kawada 6/3/94? Is it substantially better, in both ring work and impact, than Hart/Austin WM13?

 

Why not just make 10 louder?

[Grimmas]

I just wanted to check a reference point.

 

7) Omega-Okada

5) Flair-Steamboat

3) Steiners-Road Warriors (Starrcade 89)

 

So is Omega-Okada better than Flair-Steamboat to the same level that Flair-Steamboat is better than Steiners-Road Warriors?

[Jmare007]

One thing too is that people will go in on Dave for throwing stars at "tons of moves and nearfalls" whatever, but this match didn't really fit into that cliche. They did a lot for over an hour of course, but in the last fall Okada's entire offense was: 4 dropkicks, 4 clotheslines, 1 german suplex. Omega went for more flashy moves like a phoenix splash and styles clash but in between it was mostly palm strikes and knees. There are only three nearfalls in the last 3rd of the match.

 

This is an interesting point. Because even though it's true the last fall was as minimalistic (sp?) as a New Japan main event has been in the last 7 years or so, the first two falls, and specially the first one, had a TON of excess of moves and kickouts. The match probably isn't seen as the best ever without that initial dose of "tons of moves and nearfalls" that lasted longer than the simple finishing stretch it had.

 

I guess it could be seen as the best of both worlds? I tuned out for most of the first two falls because it isn't what I like but I can totally understand were people are coming from with the praise the match got.

[Fando]

I just wanted to check a reference point.

 

7) Omega-Okada

5) Flair-Steamboat

3) Steiners-Road Warriors (Starrcade 89)

 

So is Omega-Okada better than Flair-Steamboat to the same level that Flair-Steamboat is better than Steiners-Road Warriors?

 

So if you read how Dave contextualizes this it's not just the match itself but the circumstances surrounding it - ending the longest title reign in the modern era, Omega's 2 year-long chase, the rivalry, the stipulation - all of that effected his rating. He doesn't compare it to any of those matches, he compares it emotionally to Misawa chasing Jumbo, Kerry vs Flair, and Dusty beating Race.

 

 

[Jmare007]

The 7* stuff is so Spinal Tap it hurts. Why not just make 5 the top and readjust accordingly? If Omega/Okada IV is 7*, is it really that much better than Misawa/Kawada 6/3/94? Is it substantially better, in both ring work and impact, than Hart/Austin WM13?

 

Why not just make 10 louder?

 

I just wanted to check a reference point.

 

7) Omega-Okada

5) Flair-Steamboat

3) Steiners-Road Warriors (Starrcade 89)

 

So is Omega-Okada better than Flair-Steamboat to the same level that Flair-Steamboat is better than Steiners-Road Warriors?

 

Who seeks or understands wrestling this way?

 

If someone is a fan of tag team wrestling and starts looking for Steiners or Road Warriors matches, will they NOT watch the Starrcade match "because it only got 3 stars from Meltzer" or they'll watch it anyway because they were curious enough to find the info they had a match against each other?

[Grimmas]

 

The 7* stuff is so Spinal Tap it hurts. Why not just make 5 the top and readjust accordingly? If Omega/Okada IV is 7*, is it really that much better than Misawa/Kawada 6/3/94? Is it substantially better, in both ring work and impact, than Hart/Austin WM13?

 

Why not just make 10 louder?

 

I just wanted to check a reference point.

 

7) Omega-Okada

5) Flair-Steamboat

3) Steiners-Road Warriors (Starrcade 89)

 

So is Omega-Okada better than Flair-Steamboat to the same level that Flair-Steamboat is better than Steiners-Road Warriors?

 

Who seeks or understands wrestling this way?

 

If someone is a fan of tag team wrestling and starts looking for Steiners or Road Warriors matches, will they NOT watch the Starrcade match "because it only got 3 stars from Meltzer" or they'll watch it anyway because they were curious enough to find the info they had a match against each other?

 

How is that question relevant? I really don't understand your point.

 

Each person puts their ratings on matches (if they do ratings). Those ratings are a way to compare all the matches they've seen against each other with a quantitative description.

[Loss]

Do you remember when ROH was selling DVDs based on star ratings? They'd make ad banners that said stuff like "*****" - Dave Meltzer, Wrestling Observer Newsletter. I remember WCW laughably selling Chi-Town Rumble that way, arguing in the actual ad that Steve Beverly called Luger-Windham "a surprisingly outstanding match".

 

If part of your enjoyment of wrestling is the social interaction with other fans through whatever medium, then this is important because more people have seen Misawa-Kawada than a match like, say, Yoshiko Tamura vs Toshie Uematsu from GAEA in 1997, which I gave 5* and I don't think Dave ever rated. Which match would it be easier to have a conversation with someone about?

 

The social interaction, of course, doesn't mean that you need all of your opinions validated by others agreeing with you. But it does mean there's a basic understanding of what the common reference points are to check out new matches and styles, and Dave isn't just an option in that point of reference, the way I am or soup is or jdw is or DVDVR is or Segunda Caida is or whoever else. He owns the entire frame of reference. You can argue that you want it to change, and I do at this point, but that's how it is.

 

As far as the "paper of record" point, whether or not people eventually move away from it is not the point. It's the easiest place to start. I remember not even having a concept of the idea of a "good match" vs a "bad match" when I watched pre-Internet. My favorite matches were when the wrestlers I liked won, and my least favorites were when the bad guys won. People aren't just learning about what matches are recommended, but they are learning that certain tropes constitute good wrestling and certain ones constitute bad wrestling. That includes young wrestlers, many of whom grew up reading the WON because Dave is such an institution now and has been for so long. So then they work a style that's based on what the WON "taught" them is good and correct. We've seen this play out so much in the last decade

 

So I would say, if you are someone who cares about good wrestling, and you are someone who wants other fans to have a useful point of entry (of course we want more fans, it's good for everyone!), then Dave's ratings matter. Not because he's a dude with an opinion, but because he's a high-profile journalist with a lot of influence over how people think about what's good and bad, to the point that it's become an upward stream into wrestling instead of wrestling streaming ideas down into the Observer.

[Loss]

Have you guys ever considered that maybe Dave genuinely believes that Omega/Okada and the like really are that much better than the great matches of the past?

 

Not only have we considered it, but he outright said it in the Wrestling Observer. It read like, "Yeah, Ric Flair and Shawn Michaels were pretty good" the way someone would talk about Brad Armstrong or something.

[Fando]

 

Have you guys ever considered that maybe Dave genuinely believes that Omega/Okada and the like really are that much better than the great matches of the past?

 

Not only have we considered it, but he outright said it in the Wrestling Observer. It read like, "Yeah, Ric Flair and Shawn Michaels were pretty good" the way someone would talk about Brad Armstrong or something.

 

 

Ha ha yep. "This was not some five-star match or six-star match." was also pretty jarring to read

[Loss]

To me, this was the more stunning thing about the WON this week, more than the 7* rating:

 

 

 

On January 4, 2017, Kazuchika Okada and Kenny Omega had a match that I thought was one of the three best matches I had ever seen, perhaps the best ever. Some people thought it was the best match they had ever seen. But when it was over, I did think that someday I would see another match that good. The top guys in the industry today keep progressing the drama, art form and athleticism. Don’t get me wrong, anything that is great in its actual place and time is great. But what is great today learns from not only what is great in the past, but what is great all over the world in its present. It’s a situation that until the last few decades, that really couldn’t happen, but it’s easier now than ever before because you just push a few buttons and you can learn far more things that can work and apply them.

[Mad Dog]

I haven't been able to watch this yet. I've wanted to have the time to sit down and really digest the match.

 

With that said, I think they've easily had the best rivalry of this decade. The matches have been at the worst really good. I was someone that was skeptical of Omega being their top gaijin but he proved me wrong in a big way.

 

I don't understand the obsession with snowflakes. It's a really subjective idea and I think people put far more thought into this than Dave does. Why does his rating bother you that much? I just like watching wrestling and honestly I could give a shit about snowflakes.

[Mad Dog]

Also in context their program has been better than Flair/Steamboat. Flair/Steamboat was boring as hell outside of the matches. I was dying to get to Flair/Funk on my last watch of 1989.