Dave Meltzer stuff

[Loss]

The six-star thing was clearly, to me, Dave's way of saying that the Dome match transcended even what he normally sees as a five-star match. To me, what that says is that he gives too many matches five stars, but you only live once, and the ratings are his, not mine. It was a five-star match and this is a five-star match for ratings purposes. It's a poorly thought out way to phrase how great he thinks this series is, but I do think it was meant to be figurative.

[Matt D]

Yeah, OK. I think it is time to call for a Special Counsel.

[El-P]

After 20 years of watching pro-wrestling with mostly critical eyes, I don't think I have seen ten matches I would give a 5 star ratings. I don't use the scale anymore, but I'm pretty positive about that fact. People are just praising way too much shit left and right as great for me to take any of this seriously.

[Loss]

If anyone has ever said 110% or some other variation over 100% when defining an extreme (for example, "I'll give it 110%"), are they breaking the description system? Or are they just being figurative?

[El-P]

Of course it's figurative. Like the BILLION TRILLION STARS of old Dean Rassmussen reviews.

 

But Meltz star ratings aren't. It's a system with a scale that has been established over the last 30 years. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it means absolutely zilch. Except when he does, as it influences the way the (hardcore, the only one that matters today for indies and such) audience see what a great match is, and then the way business works when it leans on the need of having "great" matches to draw said hardcore audience.

[Jetlag]

If anyone has ever said 110% or some other variation over 100% when defining an extreme (for example, "I'll give it 110%"), are they breaking the description system? Or are they just being figurative?

 

[stro]

The scale was meaningless anyway since it's one guy and he has WILDLY different matches and talents involved in the same star level of matches all over the place. Jim Cornette has a **** match to his name, for example. If you watched Dominion or WK and thought Naito/Tanahashi had better matches than Okada/Omega, but then get bent out of shape that Meltzer didn't rate them as high or higher, you're missing out on just enjoying what you like more.

[El-P]

 

If anyone has ever said 110% or some other variation over 100% when defining an extreme (for example, "I'll give it 110%"), are they breaking the description system? Or are they just being figurative?

 

 

Best summary indeed.

[WrestlingPower]

I agree that he was probably being figurative, but why not use 6*+, there were All Japan and AJW matches in the 90s that he listed as *****+ or *****++. I guess this is his new 6*. I agree going with 6 1/4* does kind of take it to the next level of rendering the scale useless. And for those saying he's not taking his ratings seriously, that's not the case as this is a guy that used to routinely write numerical analysis pieces where his whole formula of ranking who the best workers were was based on what match ratings he gave them. I always figured if you're going to present yourself as the foremost authority and your ratings are the gospel, may as well go all the way with it and treat your * ratings the same as you would attendance figures or whatever. For those that have followed the Meltzer bubble for all these years it wasn't all that surprising that he would think this way.

[Sean Liska]

I feel like Dave is going through a late mid-life crisis issue with these NJPW and PWG reviews. Or all the 3-hour Raws broke him. I wouldn't care, except, as said, so many wrestlers are aiming for Meltzer star ratings nowadays and his preferred style doesn't interest me.

[WingedEagle]

The six-star thing was clearly, to me, Dave's way of saying that the Dome match transcended even what he normally sees as a five-star match. To me, what that says is that he gives too many matches five stars, but you only live once, and the ratings are his, not mine. It was a five-star match and this is a five-star match for ratings purposes. It's a poorly thought out way to phrase how great he thinks this series is, but I do think it was meant to be figurative.

 

I think this is very much the point. He got cute rating the Dome match and is likely running with it now after seeing how it took on a life of its own. He undoubtedly thinks this series has produced a pair of GOAT matches and stumbled upon a means of expressing is that probably increased traffic and attention for the site. It follows the same logic he's laid out for why he engages with trolls on Twitter.

[stro]

He actually said the first match was better than any match in the history of wrestling, but now he ranked the rematch higher so even if you don't take the stars at face value, his words say these are the two greatest matches in the history of pro wrestling. Which is lol, but whatever.

[cheapshot]

He actually said the first match was better than any match in the history of wrestling, but now he ranked the rematch higher so even if you don't take the stars at face value, his words say these are the two greatest matches in the history of pro wrestling. Which is lol, but whatever.

 

I have said this multiple times, but it's worth repeating I feel: If Dave rates a match x stars, it's x stars to him. If you rate it at xy stars then it's xy to you. It's all subjective. He's clearly not taking them seriously anymore, so why does anyone else?

[Jmare007]

To me, this is great. Not only do we get funny reactions to a useless star rating but I think it eventually will make people stop caring so much about them, and that's awesome news.

[Rah]

Except now the scale is worthless. What does a ***** match even means, since you can give whatever snowflakes you want basically ? ******1/4 on what scale ? Seven ? Six and a half ? It's just stupid. And yes, Meltz officialy made his own system look like a joke (I'd say, again, but at least the 6 stars felt like, okay, this is a very special case) and himself as a complete parody as far as evaluating a match goes.

 

If you work things on a 10 star scale, I've found his ratings make more sense.

[WrestlingPower]

So Jim Cornette has invited Meltzer to come on his podcast next week to debate, among other things, PWG, Young Bucks & Kenny Omega, Chuck Taylor's grenade spot, Joey Ryan's dick spot, and quite possibly now the star ratings stuff.

 

I'm sure Cornette's take will continue to be that his style of wrestling & the wrestling of his day was more successful and therefore the "right" definition of what pro wrestling is.

 

Meltzer will likely counter with the need to evolve with the times and that these elements are the kind of thing that are "over" with the current audience and therefore have changed the definition of what modern pro wrestling is.

 

It should be interesting listening nonetheless even though we already know both guys' talking points. I guess you could argue that it is ironically comedic that 2 mid-50s guys are going to argue over whether what is "hip" is a good thing or not in their genre.

[El-P]

I like Joey Ryan's dick spot.

[sek69]

I have never once watched a wrestling match and thought about what star ranking to give it. That it became the essential part of a lot of people's viewing habits baffles me to no end. If Dave gives the next Okada-Omega match eleventy million stars and you disagree, so what? It shouldn't matter what someone else thinks.

[GOTNW]

A star rating is just a formatting of a number. A lot of people became insecure when Dave "broke" the system because they felt it somehow impacted their own ratings. I don't believe a perfect match has ever taken place, and use ***** to refer to a match belonging to "best x of all time" and reaching a certain level of transcendence, but when I express myself more clearly (using percentages) the best match ever is 97%, second is 96%, fifth 95% and so on. I'm too lazy and frankly just don't care about the average match enough to give it a rating with such precision, so I just reserve it for those that would usually be "five stars" or over 90%. I have one philosophy, Meltzer has another, you may have a third one, all are fine. Dave is on record saying a perfect match doesn't exist and everything can be topped. And even Cornette, who was supposedly the one that started the use of star rating in wrestling critique, said that initially the highest rating was four stars-until he saw a match that was too good and had to be rated with a fifth one (Lawler vs Funk). It's clear Meltzer's ratings of wrestling matches are like those of gymnastics, except he just comes up with a number according to how he feels at the time instead of thinking it through in a manner a professional judge does. What you see with Dave isn't even unique to the wrestling culture-we haven't had a musical reference in a while-do you fellow kids know Anthony Fantano and Pitchfork? The same thing happens when they give out a "controversial" rating. Meltzer is also running a business, and has shown himself to be a smart businessman-we know a lot of his decisions are based on what will drive subscription numbers. Rating a match may or may not be one of them.

[El-P]

do you fellow kids know Anthony Fantano and Pitchfork?

 

Yes. They're both useless. And Fantano is your typical Youtube hipster jerkoff.

[Cap]

 

He actually said the first match was better than any match in the history of wrestling, but now he ranked the rematch higher so even if you don't take the stars at face value, his words say these are the two greatest matches in the history of pro wrestling. Which is lol, but whatever.

 

I have said this multiple times, but it's worth repeating I feel: If Dave rates a match x stars, it's x stars to him. If you rate it at xy stars then it's xy to you. It's all subjective. He's clearly not taking them seriously anymore, so why does anyone else?

 

Yeah, this (and similar sentiments) most jives with my feelings on the matter. I find the backlash against star ratings at least as, if not more, insufferable than the subjective use and supersaturation of star ratings. It seems like every couple months the conversation comes up and people bicker about what star ratings mean and what their value is. It is just a way to quantify one person's take on something. People approach how they give those stars differently and it doesn't take long to figure out if theirs is an opinion that you value and want to stock into. I have heard people mock star ratings in one breath and then painstaking try to decide if they think a match is "good" or "very good" in the next... ugh! It is all just different ways of trying to articulate the quality of a match from a singular perspective at a given time. It is a flawed system that is not remotely exhaustive for understanding or evaluating wrestling, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

I think people get hung up on Dave's star ratings because they are the last bastion in this idea that star ratings somehow represent a more objective way or ordering wrestling because Meltzer remains probably the most recognizable critical voice in wrestling. Hell there might have been a time in internet fandom where the communities were small enough to maintain the illusion that star ratings meant more (or maybe they really did in certain places), but those days are more or less gone. The star system's flaws are on full display for everyone to see and Dave is highlighting them as much or more than anyone. As long as people keep coming back to them and talking about/debating his stars, they will be the most meaningful ratings in wrestling.

[El-P]

Actually it's odd. The whole idea of star rating passed me by around 2001 at the latest. I haven't used this stuff in my writing in more than 15 years and wouldn't even consider it. I'm actually kinda shocked how much people still consider it of any interest to be honest.

[rzombie1988]

So Jim Cornette has invited Meltzer to come on his podcast next week to debate, among other things, PWG, Young Bucks & Kenny Omega, Chuck Taylor's grenade spot, Joey Ryan's dick spot, and quite possibly now the star ratings stuff.

 

I'm sure Cornette's take will continue to be that his style of wrestling & the wrestling of his day was more successful and therefore the "right" definition of what pro wrestling is.

 

Meltzer will likely counter with the need to evolve with the times and that these elements are the kind of thing that are "over" with the current audience and therefore have changed the definition of what modern pro wrestling is.

 

It should be interesting listening nonetheless even though we already know both guys' talking points. I guess you could argue that it is ironically comedic that 2 mid-50s guys are going to argue over whether what is "hip" is a good thing or not in their genre.

I've argued Dave on a lot of this stuff and I'm almost willing to bet these are going to be his replies:

 

- Wrestling has changed

 

- Nothing draws anymore and you can't measure how well something is drawing anyway

 

- He'll bring up various angles/gimmicks/wrestlers from the past that sucked

[Loss]

It's rare that Dave disagrees with wrestling personalities in live conversations.

[LowBlowPodcast]

Kind of off topic, but does anyone have a link to that file from a couple of years ago where Dave answered questions and they put it together into a 5 hour mp3 file? It was fantastic with a good insight into Pride and other topics. Thanks!