|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 11, 2008 17:27:29 GMT -5
Star ratings for wrestling matches have always puzzled me.. is it supposed to be based on the moves? Cuz otherwise the idea that Taker/Edge, while a good match, told a more compelling story than Flair/Michaels is kinda laughable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Killah Ray on Apr 11, 2008 18:40:13 GMT -5
This is true. It's a very ominous sign for the business. How exactly that it's ominous just because one person is getting interested in something else? I mean I know who Meltzer is and all, but seriously over 30 years of wrestling and you wouldn't want to watch something else every now and then? I'd more or less call him a mark because of it, because he is buying into the whole "next big thing" campaign that the UFC has started. And I'm not going to crap on Meltzer, but I think it's laughable that he has Taker/Edge higher than HBK/Flair. I really want to read the whole review on both of those matches to get some insight on that. Was it "workrate"(I really hate that term by the way)? Because I think the story that both of those men told in the ring made it at least 3 1/2 stars. |
|
|
|
Post by James McCloud IS John Godot on Apr 11, 2008 18:57:08 GMT -5
If Meltzer quits wrestling, we're all doomed! Dooooomed!
Yeah, I think wrestling as we know it may pull through if Dave Meltzer was to quit writing and assigning arbitrary ratings that people take way too seriously anyway tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by daveholmes on Apr 12, 2008 21:12:48 GMT -5
I mean, doesn't Meltzer supposedly grade on the "feel of the moment" factor as well? He gave Andre-Hogan from WrestleMania III -****, and gave Hogan-Rock from WrestleMania X-8 ***. So no, apparently not. |
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,240
|
Post by Mecca on Apr 12, 2008 22:34:05 GMT -5
I thought the new trend in wrestling fandom was to shit on guys who can work that the net use to love and now just immediately go to saying things like "oh yea how much money did he draw!"
And as far as Meltzer's ratings he does like this..
Meltzer popularized the "star rating" system (originated by Jim Cornette & Norm Dooley), which rates matches on a scale of zero to five stars in a similar manner to that used by many movie critics.[3]. As in the field of film, a rating is a largely subjective affair that may take into account the amount of action, as opposed to restholds ("workrate"); the difficulty and variety of moves used; the history of the workers and their feud; the development of an in-match storyline based on the wrestling moves and how they affect the wrestlers; and the overall reaction of the crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghettooverlord on Apr 12, 2008 22:36:05 GMT -5
I mean, doesn't Meltzer supposedly grade on the "feel of the moment" factor as well? He gave Andre-Hogan from WrestleMania III -****, and gave Hogan-Rock from WrestleMania X-8 ***. So no, apparently not. I'd say that just means he's inconsistent with the way he rates. |
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Apr 12, 2008 23:44:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I think wrestling as we know it may pull through if Dave Meltzer was to quit writing and assigning arbitrary ratings that people take way too seriously anyway tomorrow. Wrestling was better when people took those star ratings seriously. It meant they were into the product. Now, few people care about enough to even give them out. I remember the majority of online fans constantly giving out ratings a few years ago. Now, they just don't bother. And it's not just Meltzer. Go to any wrestling news site and you'll see just as much MMA news. I have nothing against MMA, but you sure as hell don't see MMA sites covering pro-wrestling (nor should they). That tells me that wrestling is pretty much a distant second to MMA in the eyes of online wrestling fans. So yeah, it is kind of depressing. |
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,240
|
Post by Mecca on Apr 12, 2008 23:51:33 GMT -5
I stopped getting the observer because I wanted to read the WRESTLING observer not the MMA observer, it got on my nerves after awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Apr 12, 2008 23:52:24 GMT -5
Taker/Edge was the best match of the night. The crowd was completely on the edge of their seats and every near fall felt like it could be the end. People were into the HBK/Flair match but it was more of the jokey kind of feeling, especially with the "Wooo" "Boooo" thing going on. The other match was very serious, even Charles Robinson running down the aisle was something where people were going "RUN! COME ON! HURRY!" instead of laughing at it like so many people were online.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Apr 13, 2008 0:01:42 GMT -5
Taker/Edge was the best match of the night. The crowd was completely on the edge of their seats and every near fall felt like it could be the end. People were into the HBK/Flair match but it was more of the jokey kind of feeling, especially with the "Wooo" "Boooo" thing going on. The other match was very serious, even Charles Robinson running down the aisle was something where people were going "RUN! COME ON! HURRY!" instead of laughing at it like so many people were online. 100% agree, There was more drama for Taker losing his streak than Flair ending his career. |
|
|
|
Post by KevFalcön07 on Apr 13, 2008 1:12:18 GMT -5
I put Flair/Michaels ahead of Undertaker/Edge. It probably was a good match but I didn't get all that in to it watching it on live TV because I was just 100% sure that no matter what happened, Undertaker would win and I was used to that happening.
I know thats not a good argument to be made when comparing it to the somewhat(?) obvious finish that we had going in to Flair vs. Michaels but it was just knowing that Flair would be doing his best (which I thought seemed like he was) to have one last classic against Shawn...that along with just the way the match went and the ending...it's been said again and again the emotion during and after that one was amazing
call me a sucker but I bought it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by springwater on Apr 13, 2008 1:30:57 GMT -5
Meltzers just mad his hero Ric didn't main event and win  |
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Apr 13, 2008 1:45:49 GMT -5
Meltzer's always been a big-time mark for the in-ring work of both Flair and Michaels, it seems like he rated it lower than he normally would've, so he could look like a super serious, super objective journalist, and not a mark for HBK and The Nature Boy (which he is). The emotion was five-stars, the spectacle was five-stars, the action was as good as you could expect out of those two when one guy is 60, and the other guy is early 40s with a bad back...and damn near crushed his sternum five or six minutes into the match.
Personally, I have that Flair/Michaels match way ahead of everything else on the card, because after the "I'm Sorry...I Love You" superkick ending...one of the coolest endings to a wrestling match I've ever seen, I was kind of zoned out for the rest of the card. Triple Threat and Edge/Taker were anti-climactic to me, though Big Show/Mayweather was a nice surprise considering my low expectations. I watched WM with a bunch of casual fans, and Flair/Michaels was all they kept talking about after it was over, even they thought it was awesome.
And Ric Flair winning that match as a swerve was FAR more likely than WrestleMania 24 ending with Edge standing in the middle of the ring holding the belt with fireworks going off to end the show...so I don't know why anyone would rank Edge/Taker higher just on the basis of the outcome of the HBK/Flair match being expected. Did anyone really expect Edge to win?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2008 5:02:08 GMT -5
I stopped caring about Meltzer's ratings after he didn't give Angle/Michaels 5 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Apr 13, 2008 11:16:18 GMT -5
I think Meltzer's ratings are finally, mercifully, irrelevant in the eyes of internet wrestling fans. Not really. Mainstream wrestling just sucks right now so Internet fans aren't that interested in reading anyone's match ratings. A few years ago, all the wrestling sites and boards would've had star ratings. Now. not so much. Mediocrity doesn't create excitement. I wouldn't call WrestleMania XXIV "mediocre"... But speaking of the bigger picture, I've never understood all the fuss about ratings. My enjoyment of a match/angle/show varies depending on many factors, and the opinion of a columnist (be him Meltzer or John Doe) is irrelevant to me. Mainstream wrestling "sucks" because the fans are jaded and the columnists help spreading negativity and "defeatism". Hell, the Attitude Era is dead and buried. And it's not like we had 5* matches week in and week out anyway. But we tend to forget that. Before finding WC, I had no idea about who Meltzer was, and I don't think I've ever read something by him except for the stuff quoted in here. If he's more into MMA, that doesn't mean wrestling sucks. He's not the measuring stick for the quality of the product. He's probably trying to jump on another bandwagon, as pro wrestling is back to its original niche, while MMA is becoming the flavour of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 13, 2008 11:21:28 GMT -5
Not really. Mainstream wrestling just sucks right now so Internet fans aren't that interested in reading anyone's match ratings. A few years ago, all the wrestling sites and boards would've had star ratings. Now. not so much. Mediocrity doesn't create excitement. I wouldn't call WrestleMania XXIV "mediocre"... But speaking of the bigger picture, I've never understood all the fuss about ratings. My enjoyment of a match/angle/show varies depending on many factors, and the opinion of a columnist (be him Meltzer or John Doe) is irrelevant to me. Mainstream wrestling "sucks" because the fans are jaded and the columnists help spreading negativity and "defeatism". Hell, the Attitude Era is dead and buried. And it's not like we had 5* matches week in and week out anyway. But we tend to forget that. . Oh absolutely, in fact the Attitude era had a ton of truly terrible matches for every good to great one. There was a lotta good in that timeframe, but there was a whole lot of suck there too; as much if not more as there is now. |
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Apr 13, 2008 11:37:26 GMT -5
The Attitude Era had some HORRIBLE matches. Hell, I remember most matches usually ended in a DQ or lasted like 3-5 minutes because they had so much to fill in the two hours of air time.
As for all of the Meltzer hate, I don't really get it. The guy rates matches. A lot of people do that. Hell, there were people in this same thread rating matches. The difference between him and everyone else is that his opinions reach out to the largest wrestling demographic possible, which makes him the Roger Ebert of wrestling.
But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what he thinks. You may disagree with his opinions, and I'm sure the feeling is more than mutual. If you think HBK-Flair was a classic match, then great. If you think Taker-Edge was better, then great.
But if anyone thinks the divas tag match was better.....then you should have your opinions revoked.
|
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Apr 13, 2008 12:59:19 GMT -5
As for all of the Meltzer hate, I don't really get it. The guy rates matches. A lot of people do that. Hell, there were people in this same thread rating matches. The difference between him and everyone else is that his opinions reach out to the largest wrestling demographic possible, which makes him the Roger Ebert of wrestling. I always find it funny when people go "Why should we care about what Meltzer thinks about these matches? He's just some guy posting on the internet! I give that match 5 stars, the main event 4, etc etc etc" |
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on Apr 13, 2008 14:57:47 GMT -5
Flair/Michaels had tons of emotion, and a heartbreaking ending.
If you strip that away, and just look at the match itself without the emotion involved, Edge/Taker was better.
Like Hogan/Rock, it was the emotion that made Flair/HBK special.
But if you're judging based on the in-ring action specifically, I can definately see rating Edge/Taker higher. It really just depends what criteria you judge with.
But I gotta agree that Flair/HBK should be higher than the triple threat.
|
|
