Dave Meltzer stuff

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

I thought the Cena/AJ Summerslam match was absolutely dreadful, but I think AJ is a really overrated wrestler anyway.

[Dav'oh]

I've nearly finished reading this entire (fascinating) thread and I apologise in advance for dredging up what seemed a touchy subject.

Meltzer "broke the scale" and many wrestling fans' heads by going over 5 stars for Kenny and Okada's series. The outrage was real. The protestations were puzzling.

Ignoring what I'll call the "phantom" 6 star matches (Flair/Steamer and an AJPW match, from memory?) where was the indignation when he broke the scale at the other end? I don't see how minus 4 stars for Hogan/Andre is any less egregious on a 0-5 scale than a 9. (Actually, the earliest negative rating I can find is minus 3 for Dr. Shultz v The Rock's Dad at MSG in 1984.) Seems like apples to apples, to me. I kept waiting for someone to bring it up but alas.

That's really just my belated response to a discussion I wasn't around for: "the 0-5 star scale is broken!" bus left the depot 35 years before the debate started. No point trying to catch it now. (No point me bringing it up now, either, I know...)

[Loss]

My take on the star ratings debate is that it looks like the rating system as it was popularized was always full of shit, but at least some people (self included) have gotten and will continue to get something useful out of it.

[Al]

Star ratings (numerical ratings in general) really don't stand up to rigorous analyzation. I remember reading Roger Ebert saying he didn't like to do them, but Gene Siskel and the Tribune had them. Readers demand them, but the substance of the review counts more.

[joeg]

On 3/2/2021 at 8:23 PM, sek69 said:

A lot of people in the WWF were seriously believing the "WCW wants to run our little family company out of business" while for the most part guys in WCW were just looking to cash those Billionaire Ted checks and didn't really give two shits about the WWF. 

Like I legit believe Vince was under the impression Turner spent every waking hour trying to destroy him personally, when Ted just had a soft spot for rasslin' because it helped create his TV empire. 

I feel the same can be said the same right now with AEW. WWE is locking everybody into long term deals and refusing a release to anybody for fear they will just ships regardless of if they are being used or not. The vets in AEW just seem happy going through the motions and getting paid fat stacks while the younger guys in AEW who nave never really been anywhere other than indies all appear happy to just be working regularly. And Tony Khan is thrilled to be living out a childhood fantasy. 

[sek69]

I would largely agree.  I might argue that the vets are doing a little more than just going through the motions, but everyone seems happy to be in a place they can come up with ideas and be creative without having to frame it in a way to please a guy in his mid 70s who things poop jokes are the pinnacle of entertainment. 

[Grimmas]

On 3/16/2021 at 4:52 AM, Dav'oh said:

I've nearly finished reading this entire (fascinating) thread and I apologise in advance for dredging up what seemed a touchy subject.

Meltzer "broke the scale" and many wrestling fans' heads by going over 5 stars for Kenny and Okada's series. The outrage was real. The protestations were puzzling.

Ignoring what I'll call the "phantom" 6 star matches (Flair/Steamer and an AJPW match, from memory?) where was the indignation when he broke the scale at the other end? I don't see how minus 4 stars for Hogan/Andre is any less egregious on a 0-5 scale than a 9. (Actually, the earliest negative rating I can find is minus 3 for Dr. Shultz v The Rock's Dad at MSG in 1984.) Seems like apples to apples, to me. I kept waiting for someone to bring it up but alas.

That's really just my belated response to a discussion I wasn't around for: "the 0-5 star scale is broken!" bus left the depot 35 years before the debate started. No point trying to catch it now. (No point me bringing it up now, either, I know...)

To me a scale rating where the upper limit can change at any time makes the scale useless.

I use a 10 rating number system, but whatever. I will never say this match is 11 at some point.

[sek69]

Funny thing is people always want to bash Dave for "breaking his scale" when he didn't invent it, and the first match  that was rated above 5 stars was before Dave started using it.

A lot of the reasonable criticism that can be levied against the star scale gets diluted when so much of the people mad about it are either just doing it to have a go at Dave or mad because it involved someone they don't like *cough* Kenny *cough*

[Grimmas]

19 minutes ago, sek69 said:

Funny thing is people always want to bash Dave for "breaking his scale" when he didn't invent it, and the first match  that was rated above 5 stars was before Dave started using it.

A lot of the reasonable criticism that can be levied against the star scale gets diluted when so much of the people mad about it are either just doing it to have a go at Dave or mad because it involved someone they don't like *cough* Kenny *cough*

I just didn't like it because I am a logic and math nerd with a Masters in Mathematics and having a scale with a sliding upper limit offends me.

[Robert S]

58 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

I just didn't like it because I am a logic and math nerd with a Masters in Mathematics and having a scale with a sliding upper limit offends me.

A mathematician with some knowledge of logic should know NOT to believe/think in absolutes as Gödel taught us.

[Dav'oh]

6 hours ago, Grimmas said:

To me a scale rating where the upper limit can change at any time makes the scale useless.

I'm still wondering about the lower limit, the negative star matches, and why they don't seem to have made the scale useless, whereas an elastic upper limit has?

5 hours ago, Grimmas said:

I am a logic and math nerd with a Masters in Mathematics and having a scale with a sliding upper limit offends me

Perfect! You're the man to tell me why a sliding limit at one end of the scale is offensive, but at the other end it isn't...I hope 

[Grimmas]

3 minutes ago, Dav'oh said:

I'm still wondering about the lower limit, the negative star matches, and why they don't seem to have made the scale useless, whereas an elastic upper limit has?

Perfect! You're the man to tell me why a sliding limit at one end of the scale is offensive, but at the other end it isn't...I hope 

Both ends is stupid, but I thought -5 was his lowest, so it was 5 on both sides.

Also negative stars is stupid regardless.

[Big Pete]

Meltzer's star rating system used to be a good guide and you knew if he rated a match *** or **** you knew what to expect. Now because he felt compelled to break the scale for Omega/Okada I (which I didn't think deserved it, especially since Kenny had better matches in the prior G1) suddenly these run of the mill undercard and even pre-show matches get bumped up a star or two and it all means nothing now.

When Weasel Dooley broke his star rating system week after week it was in jest. Funk-Lawler was the best match they'd seen, so him and Cornette gave it *****. Then the rematch was even better so they went ****** and then they had a great follow up in a multi-man match so they went ****** 1/2 just messing around. Lawler-Funk was the best match they had seen in their estimation, but they quickly went back to their **** scale system. Meltzer continuing the bit 5 years later just makes it all a bit worthless.

[NintendoLogic]

10 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

I'm still wondering about the lower limit, the negative star matches, and why they don't seem to have made the scale useless, whereas an elastic upper limit has?

Dave's scale bottoms out at -459.4 stars (i.e., absolute zero). He's only given out that rating once, for Bushwhackers vs. Sheik/Volkoff at Heroes of Wrestling.

9 hours ago, Big Pete said:

Meltzer's star rating system used to be a good guide and you knew if he rated a match *** or **** you knew what to expect. Now because he felt compelled to break the scale for Omega/Okada I (which I didn't think deserved it, especially since Kenny had better matches in the prior G1) suddenly these run of the mill undercard and even pre-show matches get bumped up a star or two and it all means nothing now.

When Weasel Dooley broke his star rating system week after week it was in jest. Funk-Lawler was the best match they'd seen, so him and Cornette gave it *****. Then the rematch was even better so they went ****** and then they had a great follow up in a multi-man match so they went ****** 1/2 just messing around. Lawler-Funk was the best match they had seen in their estimation, but they quickly went back to their **** scale system. Meltzer continuing the bit 5 years later just makes it all a bit worthless.

What if Lawler and Funk continued to have matches that were so far ahead of all other matches that it wouldn't be fair to only give them four stars? That's really where people's hang-up about Dave raising the ceiling on star ratings seems to come from. They're like "Is Dave really saying he thinks Kenny Omega's top matches are a full star or more better than Flair/Steamboat and Misawa/Kawada?" And the answer is "Yes, that's exactly what he's saying."

[Big Pete]

2 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

Dave's scale bottoms out at -459.4 stars (i.e., absolute zero). He's only given out that rating once, for Bushwhackers vs. Sheik/Volkoff at Heroes of Wrestling.

What if Lawler and Funk continued to have matches that were so far ahead of all other matches that it wouldn't be fair to only give them four stars? That's really where people's hang-up about Dave raising the ceiling on star ratings seems to come from. They're like "Is Dave really saying he thinks Kenny Omega's top matches are a full star or more better than Flair/Steamboat and Misawa/Kawada?" And the answer is "Yes, that's exactly what he's saying." 

The point with Lawler/Funk it was a joke between two young wrestling fans and they were taking the piss with the subsequent ratings. Meltzer actively defending this five years on just spoils the whole system. A four star match actually used to mean something, now it's just a throw-away mid-card match with no rhyme and very little reason.

Actually was Weasel around Jim's age or is that just a baseless assumption? Either way it just became a bit of a joke and they moved on from it.

[NintendoLogic]

If there are way more four-star matches taking place now (by his standards) than in the past, shouldn't he recognize that? Why should there be an arbitrary cap on the number of ****+ ratings awarded in a year?

[Big Pete]

2 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

If there are way more four-star matches taking place now (by his standards) than in the past, shouldn't he recognize that? Why should there be an arbitrary cap on the number of ****+ ratings awarded in a year? 

Because the matches have all been bumped up a star to fit his new scale. He's bending over backwards trying to make sense of this seven star ratings system that it's just silly now.

Which would be fine if his reviews and analysis was actually strong but it's all very shallow observations.

[sek69]

I guess what I don't understand is that the people who get the most bent out of shape over star ratings are largely two distinct groups: Purists who know what the deal is when it comes to what Dave rates highly and should know better by now, and the people who are largely Corny/Uncle Eric stans who have seemingly shaped their self worth on shitting on Dave.

[Big Pete]

I fall into the former category and outside of just thinking that the 'new' scale defeats the purpose and is pretty silly it's something you have to begrudgingly accept if you want to follow his coverage which after all these years is still the best in Pro Wrestling.

[Dav'oh]

I love it. He can give hippopotamuses if he wants.

Seems people (not here) struggle to recognise that it's not The Dave Meltzer Ratings (official, immutable, writ in stone), it's Dave Meltzer's ratings (just a guy having fun).

Edit: forgot to mention, I put a dollar on Five Star in the 5th at Sandown Park at 19/1 just last night. I give the race four stars, as the crowd were really into it and it made sense, but our boy was pretty much a passenger in coming fifth.

Another Edit! Took Gino Gambino at 51/1in the 12th at Geelong. No love. No surprise.

[sek69]

So while it's true Dave sometimes doesn't say what he means with the proper clarity at times, it's silly Charlotte and Andrade get so BIG MAD at him over saying that men can main event in their 40s and 50s but women can't and that it's an unfair double standard. It was in the context of explaining Charlotte's storyline suspension being a cover for her getting some dental work done and how women are expected to get more cosmetic things done than the men. That got twisted by the usual cut-n-paste sites and bad faith actors on Twitter into "Dave called Charlotte ugly and insecure". FFS, the guy's not infallible but the cottage industry of Dave Obsessives is starting to get scary. 

[MoS]

He should not have talked about whether Charlotte herself felt pressured into getting cosmetic surgery without checking with her first. However, yeah, all the pathetic WWE stans and the usual Meltz haters are as usual amplifying this in the most bad faith possible, cuz their entire online existence revolves around trying to show up Dave. It's pathetic, and the fact that Dave mostly ignores them must fill them with fury 

[sek69]

It's one thing for the usual rando WWE stans to do it, but when it's people who get paid by WWE like Rosenberg and Ryan Satin do it, it starts to get into dangerous territory where you basically have WWE sending their proxies to attack a reporter. 

[C.S.]

WWE stans and proxy shills like Satin and Rosenberg are one thing, but Charlotte herself responded to Dave, and she wasn't happy...

Update: Andrade too (but already deleted).

 

[PeteF3]

At this point I've completely tuned out any WWE wrestler contradicting a Dave report on anything. Fair or not, they've played that card too many times when it was plainly obvious that Dave had it right.