The Meltzer Thread

[Big Beard Booty Daddy]

If wrestlers are putting on better matches, then they deserve the full ratings. The talent level today for many, especially the top talent, is incredible. Why should they be penalized just because 10 years ago ratings by one person weren't as high? If filmmakers are making more 4 star movies today, should we start penalizing them? Talent 10 years from now might be even better and there could be even more 5 star matches. Once again, it's all one person's opinion.

 

[909]

If wrestlers are putting on better matches, then they deserve the full ratings. The talent level today for many, especially the top talent, is incredible. Why should they be penalized just because 10 years ago ratings by one person weren't as high? If filmmakers are making more 4 star movies today, should we start penalizing them? Talent 10 years from now might be even better and there could be even more 5 star matches. Once again, it's all one person's opinion.

But are all of these matches featuring the wrestlers giving their maximum effort? Honestly the answer is that they aren't. Ospreay is absolutely not running through everything every time he gets one of these ratings. Great match is one thing, perfect match means they did everything.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

If wrestlers are putting on better matches, then they deserve the full ratings. The talent level today for many, especially the top talent, is incredible. Why should they be penalized just because 10 years ago ratings by one person weren't as high? If filmmakers are making more 4 star movies today, should we start penalizing them? Talent 10 years from now might be even better and there could be even more 5 star matches. Once again, it's all one person's opinion.

But if everybody's having a 5-star match then what's the criteria for a 5-star match? If a perfect score is given too often, then the score loses its meaning.

 

[Valeyard]

Every match I watch is a five star match.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1562761168091226114

Every match I watch is a five star match.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

Melter's ratings are the most famous (sorry useless moron SK) in all of Smarkdom. They've been what people have used as a measuring stick for like 2 generations. It's like Siskel and Ebert. They were the most famous movie reviewers.

Should it be that way? Maybe not. But it is. Dave wants it that way too. He loves the controversy.

As fas as this latest thing... Bryan Danielson didn't get a 5 star match until last year. So yes Dave's system is deeply flawed and deserves to be made fun of. "It's one man's opinions" is true. But they're open to being mad fun of just like anyone elses.

Half of Dave's own tweets are spent shitting on people for having terrible opinions.

 

[alkeiper]

Part of putting on a great match is engaging with your audience. If you’re putting out 5* after 5* match and it’s not having a measurable impact on your business, what are we even measuring exactly? I’m over the idea of rating matches because wrestling isn’t a binary scale. Sometimes you want the epic. Sometimes you want a sprint. Sometimes you want a great angle. Sometimes you want the weird.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

Part of putting on a great match is engaging with your audience. If you’re putting out 5* after 5* match and it’s not having a measurable impact on your business, what are we even measuring exactly? I’m over the idea of rating matches because wrestling isn’t a binary scale. Sometimes you want the epic. Sometimes you want a sprint. Sometimes you want a great angle. Sometimes you want the weird.

This is where I've landed on. I don't care about the MOVEZ~ or false finishes or whatever, I care about how the match fits into the show. Boiling pro wrestling down to just a series of matches has weakened my enjoyment of it at large, so when I find a player that can fit into the company they're working for without a copy & paste effort? When the match(es) fit into a wider narrative and arc? That's when I get excited.

 

[Big Beard Booty Daddy]

Part of putting on a great match is engaging with your audience. If you’re putting out 5* after 5* match and it’s not having a measurable impact on your business, what are we even measuring exactly? I’m over the idea of rating matches because wrestling isn’t a binary scale. Sometimes you want the epic. Sometimes you want a sprint. Sometimes you want a great angle. Sometimes you want the weird.

I don't disagree with this at all. I'm a big fan of many of the great matches being put on, but they all mesh together for me after a while. Thinking about Dynamite, there were 2 great matches, the main event and Lethal vs Dax, which was a really great worked match. But what are people talking about 4 days later? Moxley vs Punk and that whole story. That was the perfect moment made on the show.

Interestingly enough, this is also a part of Omega vs Ospreay. Omega cut a promo on Ospreay post show where he pointed out that Will has all these 5-star matches, but no one can remember anything about any of them. I know people will point out Omega making the comment, but he also isn't wrong about it.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

We live in a hyper excited culture. Everything is awesome or the absolute worst thing ever. There's very little room for mid-level feelings, especially in wrestling.

Like I've heard people on NJPW podcasts refer to a ***1/2 match as mediocre! That was really good/borderline great 20 years ago.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

I don't disagree with this at all. I'm a big fan of many of the great matches being put on, but they all mesh together for me after a while.

I think you just admitted they're not actually great matches, but very enjoyable ones. A great match is one that stands out and is particularly memorable, so if it's fun and exciting but blends in with others? It's not great.

 

[Big Beard Booty Daddy]

I think you just admitted they're not actually great matches, but very enjoyable ones. A great match is one that stands out and is particularly memorable, so if it's fun and exciting but blends in with others? It's not great.

My memory isn't the greatest to start with, never really has been, which is weird since I wanted to be an actor when I was young and had a pretty solid memory back then. But as I mentioned, when you watch a lot of stuff it does have an effect on meshing together. It has more to do with the amount I watch. Last night I had 3 shows going at once, and I'll remember the moments from them more than the really good matches that might have been on the shows. I have a running list of matches I like from the shows I watch during the year. Many times, I have to go back and re-watch them to remember them later in the year.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

See I'm somewhere in between BBBD and everyone else. I agree with him that there are more great matches (at least in terms of what Meltzer has traditionally thought is a great match) than ever but I also agree with everyone else that it's become way way too easy to get a ***** rating. If the standards are being raised in terms of MAY-TCH quality, that should make it harder to reach five stars not easier. I guess Meltz has just grown soft in old age.

 

[BUTT]

The "it's one man's opinion" argument is kind of undermined by Dave's claims in recent years that his star ratings are not simply based on his opinion but rather some sort of objective assessment of how well the match worked. He'll say that just because he gave a match a high rating doesn't necessarily mean he liked it but in practice that only applies to well-executed but excessively violent stuff like Omega-Moxley from Full Gear.

 

[Big Beard Booty Daddy]

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. He can have his criteria of what should constitute a great match, but in the end it's his opinion. When I would review movies for a website, there were times I gave higher ratings to movies I didn't like because I could at least appreciate the elements in the movie, and gave lower ratings to movies I liked since I knew they weren't truly good movies. Yes, I get the idea that if I liked something then it's ok to give it higher ratings, but if someone else is taking my opinion on something, they're trusting me to be truthful.

Watching a match, you can almost always tell what he's going to give a match depending on who is in it and the style. Someone I know watched Dynamite and after the opening sequence Tweeted out that he expects Dave to give it a 5-star rating just on that alone. He said it very tongue-in-cheek, but there was also a little truth to it, and he likes Dave, so it wasn't a dig but an observation. Dave can say it's not based on his opinion, but it really is.

 

[tekcop]

One of the things that's really odd to me about Dave's love for flippy spotfests is that he's been watching wrestling for like 50 years. At some point the novelty wears off. You can only see Will Ospreay do the same sequence of moves or watch someone kick out of the 5th finisher of a match at 2.99 so many times before everything just blurs together.

When my wife and I first started dating and she started watching wrestling with me in like 2007, her favorite wrestler was Evan Bourne and she couldn't understand why the company didn't push him more. He was just so much more athletic than anyone in WWE at the time. But now she's been watching wrestling for 15 years and just rolls her eyes at every new, bland-but-athletic wrestler.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

I think Meltzer is in the right age demographic of people who were becoming "smart" wrestling fans when Tiger Mask and Dynamite Kid broke through who are just inherently impressed with flippy shit and people landing on their heads.

 

[Valeyard]

Genuine 5 star matches hold up as well. So many of the recent ones he's given out don't age well, sometimes as soon as the next show happens.

But star ratings are inherently bullshit and people should just like whatever they like without needing to label like that.

 

[alkeiper]

I remember reading Roger Ebert saying they wanted to get away from numerical rankings, but Gene Siskel was doing them at the Tribune and people wanted the ratings. I don’t begrudge giving a rating, but the content of the criticism is mire important than the number.

 

[BruiserBrody]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564641365216075780

 

[Valeyard]

Dude's meaty Hobbit legs are the best part.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1566054665808142341

Can't hate him for that.

 

[Big Beard Booty Daddy]

I'm part of a Facebook group with Garrett Gonzales, who worked for Figure 4, and others that work there. Garrett was there and said that they went backstage after the match to check on Bryan. Dave (and Bryan) also had the Observer Q&A early the next morning.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567257425677369345

oh wow.

 

[Valeyard]

Some people pay good money for non-answers so be thankful.

 

[alkeiper]

It’s not just journalism. My wife will let out a similar exclamation and I have to wait five minutes to find out if it’s something that’s going to force me off the couch.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

that was him talking aobut our cxf draft btw

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

There's a draft? Hmm, maybe if you'd just shut the damn window...

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568004380208599044

"Um, the Queen actually stayed on way past her expiration date and buried a lot of up and coming royal talent like Lady Diana and Meghan Markle. Um, it's going to be interesting to see Prince Charles can rebuild the British royal promotion."

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568279031459762178

This is concrete evidence that Meltzer is throwing out the five piece WAY too much in the past few years.

Three five star matches before this year and he might double it before the end of this year.

(Some Observer subscriber on here: Well, actually, there were two five star matches in 1997 too)