A look at Meltzer's highest rated 2012 WWE matches

[Deleted]

Cena/Punk from Night of Champions has got to be the most overrated match of all time. Every other match listed was a lot better, even the 3 1/2 star ones.

[AdamAFL was sooooo wrong]

Dec 22, 2012 23:30:34 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

It might be just me, but I prefered Punk and Jericho's Extreme Rules match.

I liked both but like you preferred the XR match. Then again I think Bryan/Sheamus was the 2nd best WWE Match (after Hunter/Taker) of the year so clearly me and Meltzer disagreed this year.

Dec 22, 2012 23:58:29 GMT -5 EoE: Well There's Your Problem said:

Dec 22, 2012 23:55:45 GMT -5 Celgress said:

I actually, both for movies & pro wrestling, prefer consenus sites like Rotten Tomatoes.

Is there a wrestling equivalent of Rotten Tomatoes yet? That could really clean up if it gets off the ground.

Someone really should set something like that, it'd be awesome.

[Deleted]

Dec 23, 2012 0:03:18 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Dec 22, 2012 23:58:29 GMT -5 EoE: Well There's Your Problem said:

Is there a wrestling equivalent of Rotten Tomatoes yet? That could really clean up if it gets off the ground.

I have a feeling Trish/Bradshaw vs. Nowinski/Gayda would probably have the same rating as Disaster Movie.

100% Fresh?

[Kash Flagg]

Meltzer was a huge Star Search fan back in the day. That's how he came up with the ranking system.

[Arrow]

I have no problem with star rankings, but I honestly cannot see what a match would do to earn a "****1/4" or "****3/4" rating. Personally, I would just go with "****" or "****1/2" and I think that'd get the point across just the same.

Dec 23, 2012 2:53:37 GMT -5 Urethra Franklin said:

Dec 23, 2012 1:25:01 GMT -5 The OP said:

While a very good match, I am more convinced than ever that Taker/Triple H is the most overrated match in ages. There are at least three other matches on the list that in my opinion were unquestionably better.

I have to agree. For me, I saw a lot of big spots followed by rest spots. I understand the story that was trying to be told, but I wasn't remotely emotionally invested in it the way that I was with the two HBK matches and even the previous HHH match.

I've never gotten this point of view. I wasn't emotionally invested in John Cena vs. Brock Lesnar, but that didn't mean that the story of that match wasn't told well or that I couldn't see how well they worked. Same with 'Taker/HHH III. I get not liking or caring for the match, or not being drawn in, but even then it's not impossible to see how well they got the point of their match across. Doesn't make it overrated.

And if anything, the WM27 'Taker/HHH was the one with the whole "big spot, rest, finisher, rest" formula. Only with nothing really linking it together.

[Bo Rida]

I'm usually pretty quick to criticise Meltzer and his stupid star rating system but that list is pretty good.

["American Cream" Dusty Loads]

I'm still baffled whenever anyone says Taker/HHH was match of the year. It's all subjective, but I just don't see it. It was the biggest disappointment of this years Mania next to D Bry getting squashed.

[The Ichi]

Dec 23, 2012 1:25:01 GMT -5 The OP said:

While a very good match, I am more convinced than ever that Taker/Triple H is the most overrated match in ages. There are at least three other matches on the list that in my opinion were unquestionably better.

Hell, the next PPV (Extreme Rules) gave us a better match. Twice.

[JTH]

Where are all the RAW matches???

[Deleted]

Dec 23, 2012 15:31:47 GMT -5 "American Cream" Dusty Loads said:

I'm still baffled whenever anyone says Taker/HHH was match of the year. It's all subjective, but I just don't see it. It was the biggest disappointment of this years Mania next to D Bry getting squashed.

I'm not a huge fan of either, and definitely didn't want to see that match again at Mania, but I was there in person and it was ELECTRIFYING. They created some serious drama, and HBK's oft-criticized overacting really helped sell the match in the huge stadium setting.

Totally understandable to not like it, but they really did pull-off something special just in the reactions they were getting.

[eJm]

Dec 23, 2012 16:26:02 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

Dec 23, 2012 15:31:47 GMT -5 "American Cream" Dusty Loads said:

I'm still baffled whenever anyone says Taker/HHH was match of the year. It's all subjective, but I just don't see it. It was the biggest disappointment of this years Mania next to D Bry getting squashed.

I'm not a huge fan of either, and definitely didn't want to see that match again at Mania, but I was there in person and it was ELECTRIFYING. They created some serious drama, and HBK's oft-criticized overacting really helped sell the match in the huge stadium setting.

Totally understandable to not like it, but they really did pull-off something special just in the reactions they were getting.

They got me into the match and I HATED their match last year.

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

Dec 22, 2012 23:32:27 GMT -5 Brother Nero....Wolfe said:

Question:

Wouldn't it be easier to rank matches out of 100 than ranking something 4 stars and three quarters of a star? I mean that's...kind of a weird way to rank things.

It's the same as a scale of 1 to 10 where you count halves (like most video game reviews). ****3/4 = 9.5. And it's derived from movie ratings that use five stars. *shrug* I always just thought "how much can a quarter star matter" was a weird argument, since it's mostly a perception thing. 5% would matter on a percentage scale, and .5 would matter on a 10-scale, so 1/4 matters on a 5-scale.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

I didn't like the Triple H vs 'Taker match. I found it to be boring, although perhaps some of that has to do with the fact I just don't care about either guy.

[Bo Rida]

Dec 23, 2012 17:31:24 GMT -5 Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby said:

Dec 22, 2012 23:32:27 GMT -5 Brother Nero....Wolfe said:

Question:

Wouldn't it be easier to rank matches out of 100 than ranking something 4 stars and three quarters of a star? I mean that's...kind of a weird way to rank things.

It's the same as a scale of 1 to 10 where you count halves (like most video game reviews). ****3/4 = 9.5. And it's derived from movie ratings that use five stars. *shrug* I always just thought "how much can a quarter star matter" was a weird argument, since it's mostly a perception thing. 5% would matter on a percentage scale, and .5 would matter on a 10-scale, so 1/4 matters on a 5-scale.

Then why not just mark matches out of 10?

[flatsdomino]

I was watching 'Mania with about ten other people. Some of whom just got into it, some of whom weren't really fans.

After Undertaker and Trips' match this year, they were ALL fans.

That's a classic wrestling match.

Anytime you've got a room full of people watching TV STANDING UP and screaming at every big spot and twist for a solid 20 minutes...

Yeah, they KILLED it this year. And I'm NOT a Triple H fan at all. But that was sports-entertainment magic right there.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't sweat whether a mathc gets 4 1/2 or 4 3/4 stars or whatever.

Main use is just a list of stuff you should probably check out if you missed it.

If you see a match listed he gave 4 stars or more to that you haven't seen, it's probably worth checking out. 4 1/2 star matches or better tend to be very special matches that any wrestling fan should watch. If you have a favorite he gave 4 1/2 stars to and another that you didn't like quite as much that he gave 4 3/4 stars, that doesn't really mean he's wrong or you're wrong.

I can't think of any match he rated very highly where I watched it later on and thought "That was crap, why'd he rate it highly?" It's good for that much.


Kind of like college football or basketball rankings. Rather than see a team ranked #5 and think "Are there exactly 4 teams better than them? What about x or x?" Just think "This is a team doing very well".

[________ has left the building]

Dec 23, 2012 15:05:01 GMT -5 Kash Flagg said:

Meltzer was a huge Star Search fan back in the day. That's how he came up with the ranking system.

How dare people no sell this?

For shame.

[molson5]

Dec 23, 2012 18:41:24 GMT -5 Bo Rida said:

Dec 23, 2012 17:31:24 GMT -5 Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby said:

It's the same as a scale of 1 to 10 where you count halves (like most video game reviews). ****3/4 = 9.5. And it's derived from movie ratings that use five stars. *shrug* I always just thought "how much can a quarter star matter" was a weird argument, since it's mostly a perception thing. 5% would matter on a percentage scale, and .5 would matter on a 10-scale, so 1/4 matters on a 5-scale.

Then why not just mark matches out of 10?

Stars are the traditional means of rating movies, plays, restaurants, and hotels, so back when Meltzer started doing this 30 years ago, he rated matches that way. It's become its own sort of language, and it works for me. I know what a 4 star match is, and a 3 star match. There's something less elegant about a "7 out of 10 match". It's not about being as technical and exact as possible, it's just a quick way of saying how good a match was.

[AdamAFL was sooooo wrong]

Dec 23, 2012 18:41:24 GMT -5 Bo Rida said:

Dec 23, 2012 17:31:24 GMT -5 Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby said:

It's the same as a scale of 1 to 10 where you count halves (like most video game reviews). ****3/4 = 9.5. And it's derived from movie ratings that use five stars. *shrug* I always just thought "how much can a quarter star matter" was a weird argument, since it's mostly a perception thing. 5% would matter on a percentage scale, and .5 would matter on a 10-scale, so 1/4 matters on a 5-scale.

Then why not just mark matches out of 10?

Because why change it now if it's pretty much the same scale just with different numbers? People bitching about the way the star rating system works is probably the most absurd thing in the already crazy world of pro wrestling.