Dave Meltzer stuff

[WingedEagle]

Wow, thanks a lot.

 

I did do a bunch of early TNA stuff a few years ago basically to keep me occupied and to cope with a depressing situation (yeah, the title of the TNA 2003 thread was legit), but I wasn't ready to keep on going forever with that stuff (although tons of good TNA stuff would deserve a spotlight). I actually thought about doing a WCW invasion project several times over the past years, as it would be the logical follow-up of epic suckitude too and would not be as much of a time investment, but I backtracked every time. Fear of repeating myself, of being less fun to read than before, not to keen on tons of Benoit matches either honestly. Well, you never know. But yeah, would be fun to actually have a project that people would enjoy and have fun reading as opposed to be a regular dickhead like I can be at times...

 

Go with WCW up to where you started on the Death of thread. Its far enough back that it'll feel new while also easily accessible.

[fxnj]

At this point, I honestly feel like watching wrestling with the distinct purpose of "rating" it is detrimental to the overall viewing experience in the first place.

 

If you can't simply enjoy something without the obsessive need to validate it via some weird criteria or ranking, then perhaps you're taking things way too seriously. It's a hobby. You aren't obligated to see everything, rate it, and document it. Just enjoy it every now & then for fuck's sake.

 

Star ratings are the shits. I don't need to check in with someone - journalist or not - to know if I actually did or didn't enjoy something I just saw for myself.

Most people who do a lot of reviews pretty quickly find out that the ratings are the least important part of the review, hence why a lot of the most prolific reviewers here forego the ratings entirely.. Reviews give us a chance to analyse why guys would choose to work in a particular way and what makes a match great (or not so great), and they also serve as a memento of how a match made you feel on a particular viewing. Even the people who do rate everything generally do so just to help organize their thoughts rather than viewing it as some be-all-end-all. When I look at ratings it's generally to see what's worth viewing, and I generally don't care too much about how people rate stuff I've already seen recently. I don't think anyone here watches just to give ratings.

[Grimmas]

 

At this point, I honestly feel like watching wrestling with the distinct purpose of "rating" it is detrimental to the overall viewing experience in the first place.

 

If you can't simply enjoy something without the obsessive need to validate it via some weird criteria or ranking, then perhaps you're taking things way too seriously. It's a hobby. You aren't obligated to see everything, rate it, and document it. Just enjoy it every now & then for fuck's sake.

 

Star ratings are the shits. I don't need to check in with someone - journalist or not - to know if I actually did or didn't enjoy something I just saw for myself.

Most people who do a lot of reviews pretty quickly find out that the ratings are the least important part of the review, hence why a lot of the most prolific reviewers here forego the ratings entirely.. Reviews give us a chance to analyse why guys would choose to work in a particular way and what makes a match great (or not so great), and they also serve as a memento of how a match made you feel on a particular viewing. Even the people who do rate everything generally do so just to help organize their thoughts rather than viewing it as some be-all-end-all. When I look at ratings it's generally to see what's worth viewing, and I generally don't care too much about how people rate stuff I've already seen recently. I don't think anyone here watches just to give ratings.

 

Funny enough, most of the readers of said articles skip all the writing part and move right into the rating and get annoyed if there is no ratings.

[PhilTLL]

Reviews give us a chance to analyse why guys would choose to work in a particular way and what makes a match great (or not so great), and they also serve as a memento of how a match made you feel on a particular viewing.

Related to that, Dave has never been known for elucidating the context, subtext, through-line, or drama of a match, or even saying anything very interesting about one. He mostly just says whether (not how) it was good and whether the crowd popped, plus a bunch of PBP. Here's Dave in 1997:

 

 

 

1. Rey Misterio Jr. (Oscar Gutierrez) pinned Ultimo Dragon (Yoshihiro Asai) in 14:55. An excellent match, better than their Hogg Wild PPV match but not as good as their World War III match. Sonny Onno wasn't at ringside for this match. They toned down the high-flying greatly but showed that they're good enough with the matwork now that they can do that and still have a great match. Dragon pretty much carried the early portion with his kicks and unique maneuvers, including a sequence of a power bomb, immediate lift into what appeared to be a second power bomb but instead dropped Misterio Jr. backwards on the ropes like a hot shot. Dragon had Misterio Jr. beat after a running Liger bomb and a tombstone piledriver, but lifted him up before the count. Dragon continued with a face first suplex, a deathlock chinlock combination, La Tapatia (Romero special upside down surfboard) and more kicks. Misterio Jr.'s first big move was a Silver King tope con hilo, followed with a springboard somersault block and a springboard legdrop. As Misterio Jr. was on the top rope, Dragon dropkicked him, and as Misterio Jr. took the bump over, he hit his head on the post. Dragon used a Pescado dive. Misterio Jr. went for a quebrada in the ring but Dragon hit him with a dropkick. Dragon used a seven rep Giant swing and then the two traded great near falls quickly. Dragon used his rana into a huracanrana off the top rope finisher, but Misterio Jr. got his foot on the ropes. As Dragon tried both a Tiger suplex and a dragon suplex, Misterio Jr. put on the breaks, and after a series of reversals, Misterio Jr. got the pin with a new version of a springboard huracanrana. Several levels above anything else on the card. ****1/4

 

 

And here's Dave in 2016:

 

 

7. Samoa Joe beat Shinsuke Nakamura in 20:09 to win the NXT title. They brought in eight violinists for Nakamuras entrance. It seems so weird that you get better and more special feeling entrances on NXT than on the main PPV shows. They brawled in the aisle. Joe then started working on Nakamuras knee. Joe used a tope. Nakamura did the knees to the body on the ground. Joe did his power bomb into Boston crab into crossface spot (which drew the loudest chants for Chris Benoit, to the point some thought Joe let go of the move quickly to shut them down). Nakamura hit the Kinshasa off the middle rope for a near fall, then used a German suplex and Kinshasa but Joe kicked out of Nakamuras big move. Nakamura went for another Kinshasa but Joe got the choke. Joe was busted open over the left eye. The cut looked somewhat deep but there wasnt a ton of blood so we didnt have a situation where they tried to stall the match to wipe the blood off. Joe then used a German suplex, a dragon suplex and a cross-arm German suplex for near falls. Nakamura hit a Kinshasa to the back of the head but Joe rolled out of the ring. Nakamura went for another on the floor but Joe met him with a kick, gave him a uranage on the ring steps hard, and then in the ring picked him up and pinned him after a muscle buster. Both guys came across as main event superstars fighting over a world title that meant something, and Joe in particular had a super performance. ****1/4

 

 

There are probably hundreds of superior reviewers on the internet nowadays. There have been dozens for decades. People used to understand that you don't read Dave for the reviews.

[Mad Dog]

I don't think I ever read his reviews when I had Observer subscriptions.

[Beast]

The star ratings deal is not a huge issue or anything, but it's led me to realize I have no real reason to subscribe to the Observer site anymore. Observer since 2005, F4W Online since 2007, but I don't enjoy the current WWE product at all and have finally stopped watching or following online completely. And Dave's opinion seems less and less consistent and relevant.

 

Excited for this full site to open in July and I am listening to the PTBN and PWO podcasts much more than the Observer ones now.

[Cap]

 

At this point, I honestly feel like watching wrestling with the distinct purpose of "rating" it is detrimental to the overall viewing experience in the first place.

 

If you can't simply enjoy something without the obsessive need to validate it via some weird criteria or ranking, then perhaps you're taking things way too seriously. It's a hobby. You aren't obligated to see everything, rate it, and document it. Just enjoy it every now & then for fuck's sake.

 

Star ratings are the shits. I don't need to check in with someone - journalist or not - to know if I actually did or didn't enjoy something I just saw for myself.

Most people who do a lot of reviews pretty quickly find out that the ratings are the least important part of the review, hence why a lot of the most prolific reviewers here forego the ratings entirely.. Reviews give us a chance to analyse why guys would choose to work in a particular way and what makes a match great (or not so great), and they also serve as a memento of how a match made you feel on a particular viewing. Even the people who do rate everything generally do so just to help organize their thoughts rather than viewing it as some be-all-end-all. When I look at ratings it's generally to see what's worth viewing, and I generally don't care too much about how people rate stuff I've already seen recently. I don't think anyone here watches just to give ratings.

 

I think this is an important distinction to make. I have talked a lot in this forum about rating and why I rate and it is basically this. Its a personality issue as much as anything. I need some organization and direction sometimes, particularly for my own memory and particularly when there is so much out there and so many other things vying for my time. I love wresting and want to spend time on it and explore new wrestling, but sometimes if I don't have something to structure what I have seen (or at least SOME of what I have seen) I can spin my wheels. Structure helps me track where I have been and what I may want to check out next or watch more of sometimes. For example, I was just updating my spreadsheet with some stuff I recently wrote up reviews for. I ran across two matches in my spread sheet I completely forgot about, but once I read a few lines of my write up it jogged my memory and I thought, "oh yea, that was cool" and "awesome, look how far (x-wrestler) has come since that match). Similarly, I was thinking maybe I was a little high on a match from before based on a recent match I rated (no one on earth other than me will probably ever see the rating or the review - it doesn't matter). I went back and read my review and remembered why I liked the match in question so much. Some people are great at remembering matches, dates, details, spots, etc etc... I'm not. I am better at remembering those things now that I have been keeping a spreadsheet of matches for a few years, but if nothing else its a reference point. Star ratings may not help everyone enjoy wrestling, but they help me. Maybe one day they wont, but right now they very much do. Much like some people don't need someone else's star ratings to validate their opinion, I don't need anyone else's opinion to validate that I do star ratings for matches.

 

Now, that is different than what we are talking about with Meltzer (who is - right or wrong - somewhat of a taste maker) and it is different than how some people see star ratings in general. For a variety of reasons that have been discussed in this thread a number of times over, Dave's impact has been somewhat reduced to stars and that really isn't far to him (though he probably did it to himself), ratings more broadly, or fans that follow him... however, here we are.

[Loss]

At this point, I honestly feel like watching wrestling with the distinct purpose of "rating" it is detrimental to the overall viewing experience in the first place.

 

If you can't simply enjoy something without the obsessive need to validate it via some weird criteria or ranking, then perhaps you're taking things way too seriously. It's a hobby. You aren't obligated to see everything, rate it, and document it. Just enjoy it every now & then for fuck's sake.

 

Star ratings are the shits. I don't need to check in with someone - journalist or not - to know if I actually did or didn't enjoy something I just saw for myself.

 

Some people enjoy trying to learn about wrestling and write about why in their mind, it worked or didn't work. It's a key part of the fandom for some people that has kept them liking it a lot longer than they would have without that component. Some people wouldn't find it enjoyable to just "enjoy it" the way you described, and there's nothing wrong with that. I find this post a bit judgmental. If the argument is to "just enjoy it", why not "just" let people watch wrestling however they want?

[SomethingSavage]

I don't have a problem with people rating & ranking wrestling matches. I get a lot of enjoyment out of podcasts and written reviews that do just that. Lists are a big part of niche fandom in general, I think.

 

But when you obsess about it to the point where you're watching EVERY match, every segment, every moment of the product for the purpose of ranking and rating it? Then yeah. I think that's a bit much. I do believe it leads to burnout, and it basically strikes me as a self-defeating task.

 

How does anything ever really resonate with you if you're only viewing it as part of some "to do" list? If it's approached like a chore, then how much of a fair shake is it really getting in the first place?

In the end, what is your relationship to the hobby if you're constantly approaching EVERY moment with that mentality? I won't say it *can't* be done, but I certainly don't think it's something that is achieved often.

 

Obviously there is no right or wrong way to watch wrestling. And, to be honest, I think there's a comfortable middle ground somewhere in between my approach of "just watch it & enjoy it" and the polar opposite of "rank and file and analyze everything in existence."

 

Perhaps my way is too relaxed and nonchalant for some fans. Maybe I'm not a "real" fan in some people's eyes, because I stopped caring about star ratings a long time ago. But it is what it is.

 

You're not going to convince me to start worshiping star ratings any sooner than I'm going to convince you that they're a silly and pointless exercise. We're just at opposite ends of the spectrum on the whole deal. And that's fine.

 

I don't mean at all to come across as judgmental. I really don't. I don't think I would've ever been drawn here (the only board I regularly frequent anymore, besides WC) if I didn't appreciate the time and energy that goes into analyzing and breaking down certain aspects of wrestling. I just tend to lean a lot more toward the storytelling, character-driven emotional string-pulling aspects of the game. The Meltzer baiting trend, combined with the time-killing method of wrestling to deliberately draw out the length of matches (because longer matches automatically = higher quality matches in some people's minds) has just left a really, really bad taste in my mouth when it comes to the whole process.

 

Combine the idea that those practices now seem to be steering this new star rating scale, and it should be easy to understand my frustration with everyone freaking out about it like it somehow means something much more than it actually does.

 

Sorry if this post is rambling & a bit all over the place, but I'm literally on my way out the door and just wanted to clarify a bit.

[World's Worst Man]

I think there is some truth in saying that over-analyzing matches and nitpicking obscure details does lead to some pretty severe burn-out. I'd also say over-analysis is a problem becaue I believe it leads to a lot of shall we say, creative interpretations of matches that don't necessarily conform to what is actually going on in the ring. I don't think any of this has anything to do with ranking and categorizing matches though. Someone could do that based completely off of their emotional response to a match as opposed to whether the match ticked all the boxes of their mental checklist. To me, keeping track of my ratings/thoughts is a pragmatic response to the sheer quantity of media that I consume, a lot of which doesn't stick with me unless it's odd or strikes a particular emotion. This is a problem because there are enjoyable matches that I tend to forget because they didn't meet the criteria I just mentioned. I actually tend to not remember details very well in general, instead remembering my emotions towards a certain thing or experience rather than the details of such. Recording the information helps me out quite a bit in this regard.

[Loss]

I appreciate the clarification, and I think we're on the same page more than I realized at first. Yes, I'll be doing this A LOT more starting in about 10 days, but I will still make time to just watch wrestling without worrying too much about quantifying it too. And yeah, I don't think there's a wrong way to watch wrestling unless it means doing something personally that reduces one's own enjoyment of it.

[SomethingSavage]

Just to further elaborate a bit now that I have another free moment - I go through hot & cold phases of my wrestling fandom. There have been plenty of periods where I will watch carefully with an analytical eye toward EVERYTHING.

 

And then there are times like now. I honestly couldn't tell you if its priorities or any one thing at any one point. It just kind of happens in all areas of my fandom - wrestling, music, TV shows, etc.

 

As far as reviewing/listing matches, well... I love lists. But I also feel like those things are inherently more driven by opinion. It's understood (and basically celebrated) that you can end up with lists that boast a bunch of variety. It sparks conversation & discussion and kicks open the door to learn & discover new things.

 

A major issue I have with star ratings is that (too often) I feel like they're treated as some sort of fact or truth. If you rate matches for the sake of using them as your own personal guide, then that's totally understandable. I get that. It lets people know what YOUR tastes are, but it's also understood to be based on your preference & opinion - like lists.

 

The thing I can't stand is when people use these ratings to assign a numerical value to a match - attaching numbers to matches like price tags. Even worse, these "grades" are somehow meant to stand forever and hold up against every match in existence before & after it.

 

Lists can change. Because opinions change.

 

Match reviews can change. Because our tastes and preferences can be shaped over time.

 

Fifteen years ago, I don't think Mark Henry matches were written about or rated the same way they are today. Maybe a lot of people hadn't yet discovered El Dandy. And on & on. So lists and preferences can (and will) constantly shift and change.

 

Why should star ratings be treated as historical facts or figures? They're not. They're opinions, given numerical form and used to represent how highly you thought about a match. It's not an attendance record and can't be treated as such.

 

I almost feel like it's a relief that Dave has gone and busted apart his own system. Because it shouldn't be taken all that seriously. It's one man's opinion. And it's finally being used accordingly - as a means for him to keep track of what he does and doesn't like.

 

People are putting too much stock into those star ratings. These new 6 and 7 star rated matches don't mean they're the greatest matches of all time. All these new 6 and 7 star rated matches mean is that Dave digs modern day New Japan more than any other matches he's ever seen before. That's it. It really is as simple as that. Good for him. If other fans disagree, then that's cool too. Just, ya know, rate your own matches differently.

 

It's all subjective. Every bit of it.

[El-P]

Pretty cool and surrealistic to hear Meltz explain who Takeshi Kitano is (or was at the time of the Vader debut anyway).

 

What was not cool was to hear him talk using past tense. Made me kinda sad for real, as I realized again how much I have been a huge Vader fan and how much he mattered to me as a wrestling fan in the 90's and going forward exploring WCW and Japan footage...

[jushin muta liger]

I didn't know him and Vader were friends to the point that he would invite him out to eat in Japan and gave him the tickets for Mania 12. I did a double take when I heard that in terms of favorable coverage but Vader didn't need it cause he was awesome in ring to begin with.

[NintendoLogic]

I'm puzzled by Dave always referring to Takeshi as the Johnny Carson of Japan. I've never heard anyone else make that analogy, and the two don't seem all that similar to me.

[El-P]

No one in the world, ever, is, was or will be similar to Takeshi Kitano.

[tim]

I only know of Kitano from his Yakuza films so it was a surprising comparison to me.

[PeteF3]

My culturally ignorant too-much-wrestling-watching ass can't think of any Western analogue to Kitano--it's like, I dunno, if Jordan Peele started a successful talk show and ran it for years between Key & Peele and becoming an award-nominated director and continues making more Get Outs.

[sek69]

As a video game geek, for the longest time my only knowlege of him came from the Takeshi's Challenge game that came out in Japan on the Famicom (NES).

[El-P]

Wow. It's interesting to see the different ways people came across Kitano. To me, he was first and foremost the awesome director of Hana-bi, Kids Return, A Scene at the Sea, Sonatine and forward. I remember when I went to Japan years ago, flipping through the TV channels and finally stumbling on Kitano hosting a show. I marked out. I actually took pictures of Kitano on TV ! (and those were real photos too, not digital) I actually went and search for his office and I remember when I got out of the subway at Akasaka, some girl was distributing flyers with commercials and Keiji Mutoh was on it. Fun memories.

[Lee]

In the UK, he's known as Count Takeshi from a re-dubbed version of the Takeshi's Castle game show that airs endless re-runs on TNA's former home of Challenge TV.

[Laz]

In the UK, he's known as Count Takeshi from a re-dubbed version of the Takeshi's Castle game show that airs endless re-runs on TNA's former home of Challenge TV.

MXC?

[SPS]

 

In the UK, he's known as Count Takeshi from a re-dubbed version of the Takeshi's Castle game show that airs endless re-runs on TNA's former home of Challenge TV.

MXC?

 

 

Right you are Vic

[SPS]

I was catching up on the WOR from over the weekend and hearing Dave talk about Nick Jackson's weight gain since moving up to the heavyweight tags. He talked about it as a possible future detriment since it could possibly make Nick look slower/not as graceful doing his signature spots and how when heavier guys do those kind of spots it makes you think how it's cool big guys can do the moves but they probably shouldn't .

I found this assessment pretty funny since Dave is the one who raved and went on and on about Keith Lee vs Dijak from PWG that he gave ***** where those two did tons of flying and highspots that looked sloppy as hell due to them being so big trying to do the things Jr. sized guys do so flawlessly.

Stuff like this is one thing I will say Dave is bad for as he was steadfast defending the Lee/Dijak stuff as it was so impressive and unbelievable what these 2 big guys were doing and then goes on to say how because Nick Jackson gained 20 lbs and may gain more he's hurting himself in the long run because if he's bigger then his moves won't be as fast and crisp(which we haven't even seen as the case yet).

[Fando]

Lee and Dijak are legit Monster big though, so that really was a spectacle of freaks. In Jackson's case, he wouldn't really have that kind of wow factor keeping his offense the same unless he was at least Scorpio or Kronus size, and they were still both sloppy. I guess best case Jackson could end up looking more like Rollins or RVD if he was really gassed, but open himself up to more injuries, too.