MichaelRBoh
Unicron
cowpee changed gimmick
Posts: 3,301
|
Post by MichaelRBoh on Jan 9, 2007 22:45:49 GMT -5
No, he's biased toward Kobashi, Kawada, and Misawa in their prime. Obviously he thinks that nothing else, ever, can measure up to what those three did against each other. Seriously! Do you think TNA gets high ratings more often than WWE? Or how about his common pick for "Worst Promotion," NEW JAPAN? well new japan has been run very poorly the last few years. 10 years ago they used to draw 50,000 to tokyo dome shows now they get closer to 10,000 actual tickets sold (not counting free ones given out) and thats if they are lucky. so i'd agree with him on that.
|
|
|
Post by #Classic Hi-Definition X on Jan 9, 2007 23:01:20 GMT -5
Their rematch at the following Backlash was better IMO.
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on Jan 9, 2007 23:15:17 GMT -5
Here's the thing. There is absolutely, positively no set criteria for what a 5* match is that is universally agreed on. Everyone has different tastes depending on what they were brought up on, what they like, what they dislike, how they feel personally about someone, etc. If you like Meltzer's ratings, fine. Use them. But don't go claiming his list is the be all and end all for wrestling matches. Some people may think that the WM XX main event was 5*, some may not. Some people think Joe/Kobashi wasn't 5* either. So no one can come in here and say that one match isn't 5* just because they don't think so. Maybe by your standards it isn't but someone else may think it is.
The whole rating thing is blown out of proportion anyway. It's one think to go straight 1 to 5, but to take off 1/10 of stars or whatever is nitpicky and is just a way to make yourself seem more important.
|
|
|
Post by THE Dinobot on Jan 9, 2007 23:15:56 GMT -5
Their rematch at the following Backlash was better IMO. I'll have to totally agree. The Mania match was sorta awful. The only thing that saved it was (mostly) Benoit's performance and the celebration at the end. But golly, the Backlash match is where everything clicked as far as the actual match aspect goes.
|
|
vinniemac
Don Corleone
No Chance In Hell
Posts: 1,967
|
Post by vinniemac on Jan 9, 2007 23:26:39 GMT -5
well new japan has been run very poorly the last few years. 10 years ago they used to draw 50,000 to tokyo dome shows now they get closer to 10,000 actual tickets sold (not counting free ones given out) and thats if they are lucky. so i'd agree with him on that. Yeah, New Japan are in a downward spiral. First there was a drop in attendance, then there was the reduction of their TV time to about a half hour a week. Then there was the forced paycuts to all of its talents. Then the bigger paycuts to younger talent followed. Then there was an attempted hostile takeover of company control by its board, forcing Antonio Inoki to sell all of his holdings to video game company Yuuke's, just to retain control over the company. New Japan are a shell of their former selves. Pro Wrestling NOAH is the #1 draw in Japan at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 9, 2007 23:28:59 GMT -5
The thing is that most people forget about a lot of the matches on the list, is that you need to look at them for the time that they were had. 5* matches tend to be matches that pretty much set themselves apart and are without a doubt a GREAT match. One of the problems with Angle that Meltzer has stated is that sometimes his matches start to become repetitive. Also another thing with the WWE is that Meltzer takes crowd reaction into account. If a crowd is sitting on their hands for the majority of the match, then chances are that it's not going to get rated high. Exactly; hard to call any match "perfect" if the crowd isn't emotionally invested in it to some degree. Some might argue "Some crowds just can't appreciate a good match", and I'd agree to an extent, but let's face it: if a crowd's not into it, that usually means either A) something's missing from the wrestlers' performance, or, even if there isn't, then B) wrestlers are less likely to perform at their peak to an unresponsive/hostile crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Van Hagar on Jan 9, 2007 23:34:24 GMT -5
Meltzer can have an opinion if he wants. But why rag on him for it? He doesn't come on this thread and call everyone a bunch of WWE marks that are zombies for McMahon.
|
|
|
Post by royboy8 on Jan 9, 2007 23:42:35 GMT -5
I don't get why anyone cares what Meltzer "rates" matches. People all rate matches on a different scale and from different perspectives. Meltzer is no more qualified to "rate" a match than I am.
|
|
|
Post by Voldemar H. "Brak" Guerta on Jan 9, 2007 23:43:47 GMT -5
Any wrestling fan who doesn't have British Bulldog vs. Bret Hart Summerslam 92 on that list is going to hell. Their December '95 rematch was even better than that match.
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Jan 9, 2007 23:54:03 GMT -5
Damn him for having an opinion! Well I trust his opinion more than some other guy who should remain nameless (His initials are W.K ). You want proof go and see what W.K rated that abortion of a Ladder Match between RVD and the Big Show last year from a ECW show. Andrew WK?
|
|
KLRA
El Dandy
Halt. I am Reptar.
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by KLRA on Jan 9, 2007 23:56:04 GMT -5
Damn him for having an opinion! Well I trust his opinion more than some other guy who should remain nameless (His initials are W.K ). You want proof go and see what W.K rated that abortion of a Ladder Match between RVD and the Big Show last year from a ECW show. Andrew WK? HE WANTS FUN. AND HE WANTS TO GET WASTED.
|
|
|
Post by Mercyful Fate on Jan 10, 2007 0:43:28 GMT -5
If Bret vs. Owen from Wrestlemania X isn't a five star match, then nothing is.
|
|
|
Post by Nice Guy Cody on Jan 10, 2007 1:10:16 GMT -5
No, he's biased toward Kobashi, Kawada, and Misawa in their prime. Obviously he thinks that nothing else, ever, can measure up to what those three did against each other. He's absolutely right.
|
|
|
Post by imnotbooked on Jan 10, 2007 2:45:49 GMT -5
Don't show Angle this... he'll snap Meltzer's ankle, tea bag him, and has his wife urinate on him... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ajdynon on Jan 10, 2007 3:52:12 GMT -5
I view Meltzer similar to the way I view David Stratton (the Australia equivalent of Roger Ebert) - I respect him because he knows what he's talking about, but that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically agree with him.
|
|
|
Post by antimcmahon on Jan 10, 2007 14:36:23 GMT -5
Meltzer can have an opinion if he wants. But why rag on him for it? He doesn't come on this thread and call everyone a bunch of WWE marks that are zombies for McMahon. For the record I did not mean to rag on him or come across as outraged. I just braught the subject up because I know he has high credentials and most "smarky" type fans agree with his opinions. His ratings are the only ratings I ever get to read about. So I figured this topic would be a good way to get a bigger variety of opinions on matches from the only community of people I can find that watch wrestling with a simular aspect as my own. I apologize greatly if I made anyone feel like I was justsome donkey openly complaining about something as rediculous as one mans rating of matches. That was not my intentions at all.
|
|
Shake A Leg
Team Rocket
PLEASE DEAR GOD, LET HIM KEEP THE STREAK!
Posts: 966
|
Post by Shake A Leg on Jan 10, 2007 15:12:58 GMT -5
This is a list of some other WWE that should've been rated 5 Stars by Meltzer. Agree with me if you want.
Kurt Angle vs. Shawn Michaels: WrestleMania 21.
Undertaker vs. Kurt Angle: No Way Out 2006: World Heavyweight Title match.
Paul London and Brain Kendrick vs. William Regal and Dave Taylor vs. MNM vs. The Hardy Boyz: Armageddon 2006: Fatal 4 Way Ladder match for the WWE Tag Team Titles.
Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels: SummerSlam 2002.
Kurt Angle vs. Chris Benoit: Royal Rumble 2003: WWE Title match.
Shawn Michaels vs. Triple H vs. Chris Benoit: WrestleMania 20: Triple Threat match for the World Heavyweight Title.
Team Austin vs. Team Bischoff: Survivor Series 2003.
Undertaker vs. JBL: No Mercy 2004: Last Ride match for the WWE Title.
Undertaker vs. Mr. Kennedy: Armageddon 2006: Last Ride match.
Kurt Angle vs. Rey Mysterio: SummerSlam 2002.
This is a list of TNA matches that Meltzer should give 5 Stars to.
Kurt Angle vs. Samoa Joe: Genesis 2006.
Kurt Angle vs. Samoa Joe: Turning Point 2006.
AJ Styles and Christopher Daniels vs. LAX: No Surrender 2006: Ultimate X match for the NWA World Tag Team Titles.
AJ Styles and Christopher Daniels vs. AMW: Slammiversary 2006: NWA Tag Team Title match.
Samoa Joe vs. Rhino vs. Monty Brown: Hard Justice 2006: Falls Count Anywhere Triple Threat match.
Samoa Joe vs. AJ Styles: Turning Point 2005: X Division Title match.
|
|
Shake A Leg
Team Rocket
PLEASE DEAR GOD, LET HIM KEEP THE STREAK!
Posts: 966
|
Post by Shake A Leg on Jan 10, 2007 15:18:01 GMT -5
Oh and that Brain Pillman Tribute show match between Chris Benoit and William Regal.
|
|
Brain Of F'n J
Hank Scorpio
Not that cool enough to have one of these....wait.
We Discodians must stick apart.
Posts: 6,890
|
Post by Brain Of F'n J on Jan 10, 2007 15:27:25 GMT -5
I would disagree with most of those matches. No, all of them. Five star ratings are meant for a PERFECT match. No slow spots, no blown spots, no lapses in selling or psychology, no length issues shortening the story told in the ring, and that certain perfect collision of all parts that give the match a certain legendary weight. A few of these matches deserve a high rating ... four stars ... maybe a fraction higher ... but none of those ***** quality. They are fall short in one area or another (even Benoit/Angle at the '03 Rumble, which has a few slow spots caused by badly placed restholds). I sincerely doubt NOBODY will be talking about JBL vs. Undertaker or Team Austin vs. Team Bischoff with the same reverential treatment as they do Shawn/Razor Ladder #1 or Steamboat/Flair.
Five star ratings aren't supposed to be thrown around lightly. They're the nuclear bomb of ratings: you only trot them out when the situation DEMANDS it. Giving a match ***** simply because it was a cool match cheapens the star ratings. I hate to agree with Da Meltz, but I can count on one hand (probably using one finger) the number of ***** matches I've seen since 1997.
Jed Shaffer ~Of course, star ratings are subjective. But there has to be a standard of some kind.
|
|
vinniemac
Don Corleone
No Chance In Hell
Posts: 1,967
|
Post by vinniemac on Jan 10, 2007 16:39:44 GMT -5
Five star ratings aren't supposed to be thrown around lightly. They're the nuclear bomb of ratings: you only trot them out when the situation DEMANDS it. Giving a match ***** simply because it was a cool match cheapens the star ratings. I hate to agree with Da Meltz, but I can count on one hand (probably using one finger) the number of ***** matches I've seen since 1997. Jed Shaffer ~Of course, star ratings are subjective. But there has to be a standard of some kind. Agreed. If you dole out 5*s then there's no point in having a ratings system, since the BEST of the BEST ='s an ELITE group. That means lots of great matches won't make that tier. It's like the highest compliment. It's painfully laughable how many people just flippantly give a 5 * rating to matches (especially WWE marks) and immediately make their opinions suspect just by virtue of how many are doled out. On the other hand, a 4* match is nothing to sneeze at and is a supreme compliment. It, too is an unfairly abused rank, since the people who cheapen the 5* criteria by liberally doling it out, cheaping the 4* by making it seem markedly inferior. 5* ='s perfection. It equals raising the bar and setting it for others to rise above or at least equal. 4* gives all the kudos and aprpeciation and love, but realizes there was something missing. 3* means it was a good, solid match. It didn't re-invent the wheel or break the mold, but it lived up to its expectations. It's a match that did its job and was professional. Not perfect, but it delivered. 2* is alright. Below average but not a waste. Anything below the 2* criteria is a slight. *s are awarded based on good moments, but overall the match was not good. Again, a 5* match has to remain few and far between, since it means nothing if there are so many of them. Yeah, some people are easy to please (like anyone who thinks WWE has had matches that broke a 4* in the last 5 years), but even I rarely dole out 5*s. In fact, in North America, I'm strugling to remember the last time I gave anything a 5*. 4*s - many, even recently. 5*s - it's been a while. WWE hasn't had a 5* match in a long, long LONG time, FWI'sW.
|
|