Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 13:11:26 GMT -5
Expecting a journalist to be objective about reporting the news is one thing, but expecting "objectivity" from reviewing a wrestling match is just ridiculous to me.
This isn't pro basketball or something where you can objectively say, "So-and-so had this many baskets in one game so he's better."
It's wrestling - the enjoyment, assessment etc of it is 100% SUBJECTIVE.
Reporting and reviewing/editorializing are VERY different things.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Sept 8, 2017 13:58:49 GMT -5
I prefer Alvarez but Meltzer is ok Some of his scores are baffling though Instead of stars, he should just roll with the criticisms and rate matches by Spot Monkeys: Keith Lee vs. Whoever gets 4 1/2 Spot Monkeys, topping the 4 1/4 Spot Monkeys they earned in their last meeting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 14:41:26 GMT -5
Everyone needs to keep in mind that the whole point of anyone giving wrestling matches star ratings is to indicate how much the person rating it enjoyed the match. Not to be unbiased or to make sure they never meet the wrestlers involved, or to make sure the wrestlers don't know which fans are there and which are not when deciding what to do in their match. It's a subjective thing, based on the enjoyment that particular fan had watching or attending that match (either live, or on video). There is absolutely nothing wrong with a fan who attended a match live perhaps enjoying the match more because he was there live, and the atmosphere made him like it that much more. It's his own experience, and his own opinion, and his own star rating. Others can agree or disagree with it. That's the beauty of everyone having an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Sept 8, 2017 17:37:01 GMT -5
Meltzer was at this match live and the entire room was chanting "5 star match" at him. The crowd was absolutely off the charts and I'd say it be pretty close to impossible for a person not to be influenced by that atmosphere. That match was good, but I can name dozens of WWE or ROH matches that didn't receive 5 stars yet were significantly better than the PWG 6-man. I think it's very reasonable to say there was plenty of bias in this call. You realize that "bias toward wrestling he likes" is still being biased, right? If a music reviewer loves heavy metal and gives inflated reviews of metal albums compared to other genres, the reviewer is being biased, no? Meltzer is obviously biased towards Japanese wrestling. Yes, it's because he prefers that style of wrestling, but it's still biased. I think a journalist should leave things as objective as possible and leave personal preferences out of their reviews. Meltzer absolutely does not do that. "Man has very nice time at show, lets his enjoyment colour his rating of the match when later talking about it" feels like a weird sticking point for me? That music reviewer who loves metal is probably going to be assigned metal and metal-ish stuff for that publication because unless you're Blabbermouth.net you generally want to put people who will likely enjoy the music they're about to be reviewing in there so they can give accurate reviews as a fan of that kind of music, and then readers can understand where a fan is coming from in what they're saying. There is no "in a vacuum" objectivity to reviews in anything. THat's not how reviews work. And I think where you're missing the mark is in calling him a journalist here. He absolutely is, but his show reviews are not journalism. When he does report on news, he does so very plainly and matter of factly; when there are comments, they're coming from an understanding of the business and what the climate of it is rather than just "Oh it's these f***s again so it's going to suck". I don't think he's biased against WWE or toward something that isn't WWE at all; I think WWE's weaknesses are keeping it down. He tends to be much more charitable to WWE shows I think are atrocious than I think someone who doesn't give WWE its fair shake would be, but WWE isn't trying to put on the level of show that New Japan is, aren't trying to tell stories on the same level or let their top workers fight their other top workers. You're expecting objective truths about something that literally cannot be objective. Yes, they are. They just differ with New Japan on how to accomplish that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 17:58:04 GMT -5
Yeah, personally I prefer NJPW's style of storytelling, but WWE guys kill it every ppv. But I also agree with Meltzer,when he says Yuji Nagata at 49 had more,incredible matches than anyone in 2017 thanks to his G1 run. But that's my opinion. If you think Strowman, Reigns, Styles or others have had a better 2017 match run I'd happily discuss.
But what I find so frustrating is that it's the guys opinion in the same ways it's yours. This is art, not sport. There is no objective quota. This is essentially the equivalent of big blockbuster movie fans getting pissed at the Japanese equivalent. King Kong fans getting pissed at Godzilla fans. It's just so lame to see people crying 'objectivity' because you don't agree with their subjectivity.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Sept 8, 2017 18:06:42 GMT -5
"Man has very nice time at show, lets his enjoyment colour his rating of the match when later talking about it" feels like a weird sticking point for me? That music reviewer who loves metal is probably going to be assigned metal and metal-ish stuff for that publication because unless you're Blabbermouth.net you generally want to put people who will likely enjoy the music they're about to be reviewing in there so they can give accurate reviews as a fan of that kind of music, and then readers can understand where a fan is coming from in what they're saying. There is no "in a vacuum" objectivity to reviews in anything. THat's not how reviews work. And I think where you're missing the mark is in calling him a journalist here. He absolutely is, but his show reviews are not journalism. When he does report on news, he does so very plainly and matter of factly; when there are comments, they're coming from an understanding of the business and what the climate of it is rather than just "Oh it's these f***s again so it's going to suck". I don't think he's biased against WWE or toward something that isn't WWE at all; I think WWE's weaknesses are keeping it down. He tends to be much more charitable to WWE shows I think are atrocious than I think someone who doesn't give WWE its fair shake would be, but WWE isn't trying to put on the level of show that New Japan is, aren't trying to tell stories on the same level or let their top workers fight their other top workers. You're expecting objective truths about something that literally cannot be objective. Yes, they are. They just differ with New Japan on how to accomplish that. I feel like even if we remove personal views on matters from the situation, WWE really isn't. Forgetting about whether or not I think it's bad, the fact that Jinder Mahal is WWE champion, working like an underneath guy and learning on the job, isn't a different approach to utilizing top talents, it's just straight-up not considering that as a factor. Again, utterly removed from the judgment call of what that means quality-wise. There's little long-term storytelling and explicitly no solid, laid-out game plan for all but a few marquee matches at the next megacard. I'm not saying WWE isn't interested in putting on a good show or doesn't try to, just that there is a real parity in the ways Japan and WWE are doing things that isn't just a difference of opinion, and that the way New Japan can land eight five star matches in 2017 and WWE hasn't had once since 2011 speaks to that fact. What I mean is that by the criteria that Meltzer judges wrestling, New Japan is doing everything "right" and WWE's own approach is what tends to keep them from getting that five star rating more often. It's not intentional bias or favoritism, it's a matter of a product more satisfyingly hitting the groove of what he's looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Sept 8, 2017 18:31:31 GMT -5
Yes, they are. They just differ with New Japan on how to accomplish that. I feel like even if we remove personal views on matters from the situation, WWE really isn't. Forgetting about whether or not I think it's bad, the fact that Jinder Mahal is WWE champion, working like an underneath guy and learning on the job, isn't a different approach to utilizing top talents, it's just straight-up not considering that as a factor. Again, utterly removed from the judgment call of what that means quality-wise. There's little long-term storytelling and explicitly no solid, laid-out game plan for all but a few marquee matches at the next megacard. I'm not saying WWE isn't interested in putting on a good show or doesn't try to, just that there is a real parity in the ways Japan and WWE are doing things that isn't just a difference of opinion, and that the way New Japan can land eight five star matches in 2017 and WWE hasn't had once since 2011 speaks to that fact. What I mean is that by the criteria that Meltzer judges wrestling, New Japan is doing everything "right" and WWE's own approach is what tends to keep them from getting that five star rating more often. It's not intentional bias or favoritism, it's a matter of a product more satisfyingly hitting the groove of what he's looking for. No, it's all still subjective. As of now I'm enjoying New Japan's product a little more, but I can easily see how someone can stay 100% invested in current WWE, even when they book something that isn't to my tastes. I love Dave and consider him a great wrestling analyst, but everyone's criteria is going to be different. I think Cena's most certainly had more than one ***** match, and while I love Misawa's work, I wouldn't have given ***** to some of his matches Dave covered. I'll admit I have some biases in play there, but so does he. We're both big fans of wrestling, so as far as I'm concerned, our opinions would be equally valid.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Sept 8, 2017 18:37:33 GMT -5
Yeah, personally I prefer NJPW's style of storytelling, but WWE guys kill it every ppv. But I also agree with Meltzer,when he says Yuji Nagata at 49 had more,incredible matches than anyone in 2017 thanks to his G1 run. But that's my opinion. If you think Strowman, Reigns, Styles or others have had a better 2017 match run I'd happily discuss. But what I find so frustrating is that it's the guys opinion in the same ways it's yours. This is art, not sport. There is no objective quota. This is essentially the equivalent of big blockbuster movie fans getting pissed at the Japanese equivalent. King Kong fans getting pissed at Godzilla fans. It's just so lame to see people crying 'objectivity' because you don't agree with their subjectivity. Exactly. Wrestling is performance art, so there are no truly tangible stats to assess who the best wrestler is. It may simulate a sport, but what makes it good is as open to interpretation as cinema. That and it's such a versatile art form, people will get a kick out of it for varying reasons. So if you want to tell me how much you love....who's a charismatic star that isn't exactly a "great worker"....Grado! If you think he's the best out there, I won't come down on you.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Sept 8, 2017 19:35:11 GMT -5
Yes, they are. They just differ with New Japan on how to accomplish that. I feel like even if we remove personal views on matters from the situation, WWE really isn't. Forgetting about whether or not I think it's bad, the fact that Jinder Mahal is WWE champion, working like an underneath guy and learning on the job, isn't a different approach to utilizing top talents, it's just straight-up not considering that as a factor. Again, utterly removed from the judgment call of what that means quality-wise. There's little long-term storytelling and explicitly no solid, laid-out game plan for all but a few marquee matches at the next megacard. I'm not saying WWE isn't interested in putting on a good show or doesn't try to, just that there is a real parity in the ways Japan and WWE are doing things that isn't just a difference of opinion, and that the way New Japan can land eight five star matches in 2017 and WWE hasn't had once since 2011 speaks to that fact. What I mean is that by the criteria that Meltzer judges wrestling, New Japan is doing everything "right" and WWE's own approach is what tends to keep them from getting that five star rating more often. It's not intentional bias or favoritism, it's a matter of a product more satisfyingly hitting the groove of what he's looking for. WWE just has crap people booking the shows, talent wise I can't fault em. Sort that issue out and they'd put in some entertaining shows for a change (some matches aside)
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Sept 8, 2017 19:37:58 GMT -5
I feel like even if we remove personal views on matters from the situation, WWE really isn't. Forgetting about whether or not I think it's bad, the fact that Jinder Mahal is WWE champion, working like an underneath guy and learning on the job, isn't a different approach to utilizing top talents, it's just straight-up not considering that as a factor. Again, utterly removed from the judgment call of what that means quality-wise. There's little long-term storytelling and explicitly no solid, laid-out game plan for all but a few marquee matches at the next megacard. I'm not saying WWE isn't interested in putting on a good show or doesn't try to, just that there is a real parity in the ways Japan and WWE are doing things that isn't just a difference of opinion, and that the way New Japan can land eight five star matches in 2017 and WWE hasn't had once since 2011 speaks to that fact. What I mean is that by the criteria that Meltzer judges wrestling, New Japan is doing everything "right" and WWE's own approach is what tends to keep them from getting that five star rating more often. It's not intentional bias or favoritism, it's a matter of a product more satisfyingly hitting the groove of what he's looking for. No, it's all still subjective. As of now I'm enjoying New Japan's product a little more, but I can easily see how someone can stay 100% invested in current WWE, even when they book something that isn't to my tastes. I love Dave and consider him a great wrestling analyst, but everyone's criteria is going to be different. I think Cena's most certainly had more than one ***** match, and while I love Misawa's work, I wouldn't have given ***** to some of his matches Dave covered. I'll admit I have some biases in play there, but so does he. We're both big fans of wrestling, so as far as I'm concerned, our opinions would be equally valid. But that's not really my point; my point is that what Meltzer is looking for in a wrestling product and something he will give five stars to is something New Japan is putting out, and something WWE isn't. It's not about the weight of his opinion over anyone else's, but that the "It would be five stars in the Tokyo Dome" jokes and less jovial versions of same are missing a crucial difference in the circumstances of what he's doing. WWE and New Japan are not putting out similar products, and the guiding sensibilities behind them are not particularly similar. Dave can rate one as higher in his own rating scale without inherently being biased toward New Japan from a pure love-of perspective. I'm not saying anyone is doing anything right or wrong or that Dave's scale matters more, but Dave's scale is what people in this thread are slamming and so I'm speaking in terms of his ratings only and how they're shaped.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Sept 8, 2017 20:57:40 GMT -5
Also, someone else mentioned it, but if you ever listen to WOR post WWE PPV shows he is generally WAAAYY more forgiving then 90% of the people who post in the WWE boards here, so I really don't think he's anti-WWE.
Now the case could definitely be made he had an anti-WWF bias in the 1980's, but lot's of people are elitist douches when they're in their mid 20's. He definitely grew out of it by the time The National put him on the map.
|
|
|
Post by Ted Sheckler on Sept 10, 2017 4:01:08 GMT -5
Agree 100%. His ratings have become so ridiculously biased that I can hardly put any stock in them whatsoever anymore. It was bad enough when his PWG ratings last year were so generous and over the top (can't help but believe the pressure of the "5 star match" chants forced his hand), but he lost all credibility with me when he started giving 6 stars to the Japanese matches. Obviously match ratings are subjective, but until recently, I would put a lot of value in Meltzer's opinions and match analysis. Now, not so much. The one match at PWG last year that got 5 stars (the first he'd ever given PWG) was a five star match. And the Tokyo Dome match was a 6 star match. It was a first time meeting that was built for two years and beyond delivered. There's nothing biased about those calls at all. Not sure if joking. First of all, there isn't a possible six star match because the maximum is five. How can you be better than perfect? The extra star is because Meltzer marks for Japan and is biased towards matches that happen in that country. Simple. Second of all, I love athletic style wrestling and Omega/Okada was far from the best athletic style match ever. I can name several matches that were better than what those two did. Again, people tend to overrate these matches and be biased towards them simply because Japan. Dude is biased which is fine. I'm biased towards old school wrestling, some are biased towards European style, WWE style whatever. Lets not pretend the dude isn't biased and absolutely adores Japanese wrestling and the "omgwtfcrazyspot!" that companies like PWG offer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 4:27:57 GMT -5
I also can't understand the people who freak out about the 6 star thing. It's his scale, there's no actual rules to this.
|
|
魔界5号
Hank Scorpio
No. 1 FAN Poster You Want To Hug
Posts: 6,324
|
Post by 魔界5号 on Sept 10, 2017 5:39:37 GMT -5
Wrestling fan offers high praise to style of wrestling he likes. In other news, water is wet. Is he expected to lie and say he didn't like it just so he won't be accused of bias? To try and make someone look bad for rating something they enjoy highly is ridiculous. At the end of the day Meltzer is just a fan when it comes to his reviews and they're only his opinions. Yeah when it comes to news and rumours, he's a reporter/journalist, but reviews and ratings are just his opinions. Of course he's going to be biased towards what he likes because why wouldn't he? It's what he enjoys.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,017
|
Post by chazraps on Sept 10, 2017 11:31:46 GMT -5
The one match at PWG last year that got 5 stars (the first he'd ever given PWG) was a five star match. And the Tokyo Dome match was a 6 star match. It was a first time meeting that was built for two years and beyond delivered. There's nothing biased about those calls at all. Not sure if joking. First of all, there isn't a possible six star match because the maximum is five. How can you be better than perfect? The extra star is because Meltzer marks for Japan and is biased towards matches that happen in that country. Simple. Second of all, I love athletic style wrestling and Omega/Okada was far from the best athletic style match ever. I can name several matches that were better than what those two did. Again, people tend to overrate these matches and be biased towards them simply because Japan. Dude is biased which is fine. I'm biased towards old school wrestling, some are biased towards European style, WWE style whatever. Lets not pretend the dude isn't biased and absolutely adores Japanese wrestling and the "omgwtfcrazyspot!" that companies like PWG offer. Nah, incorrect. First, Meltzer grades star ratings on a curve. On the rare event that a match has gone past the point of all other 5 star matches, in his eyes it wouldn't do it justice to put it with the other 5 star matches. That's how we get the rare event of earning an extra star. Second, it sounds like you're letting your own bias color how you see others' opinions. The storytelling that went into the match, the atmosphere and set-up as a big deal and the more than satisfying outcome puts it at that top level. You may disagree, but this isn't a thread about "Ted and his star ratings." It's a subjective medium and it all comes down to opinion. As someone who was sitting inside the Tokyo Dome watching the match happen, I can vouch firsthand it was like nothing else I've ever experienced at any other company's shows, and I've been to them all. Finally, nobody is denying that Meltzer likes what he likes. Stop projecting.
|
|
MrElijah
Crow T. Robot
Posts: 43,332
Member is Online
|
Post by MrElijah on Sept 11, 2017 11:34:43 GMT -5
PWG can make or break a person's career more than any other place in the States right now. It doesn't matter that Meltzer is there, PWG is the place that if they get over, it will get their name out to ROH, EVOLVE, LU, WWE, and just about every major company out there. Meltzer being there is an added plus because of the additional publicity he can give but PWG was doing this same thing before he got there. What really helped BOLA is the fact AJ Styles as IWGP Heavyweight Champion, wrestled in the tourney. That's pretty damned big.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Grimlock
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 14,568
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Sept 11, 2017 11:53:21 GMT -5
I also can't understand the people who freak out about the 6 star thing. It's his scale, there's no actual rules to this. Actually Jim Cornette and Weasel Dooley created the 5 star match rating system. Meltz just made it well known.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 19:39:55 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of the six stars thing existing either. There are ways to express that a particular five star match had qualities that made it "better than previous five star matches." I remember years ago, he added pluses after the five stars to indicate that. I recall a *****+++ and a *****++. He should've stuck with that system.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Sept 12, 2017 23:05:35 GMT -5
Dave seems to love spotfests and the Bucks are big regulars so there must be something to that.
|
|