Dave Meltzer stuff

[Coffey]

That feels backward though. Reigns would have gotten a lot more from being the first person to beat The Undertaker at Wrestlemania than doing it after Brock did it first. The end game should have been The Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak, not beating Brock after Brock beat the Streak. Brock has lost, up until the Streak ended, The Undertaker at Wrestlemania had not. It just feels weird.

 

Instead of having UT retire with the Streak in-tact, or using that big win on someone that'll be around for a long-time, they gave it to Brock which just seems weird to, even still a few years later.

 

Not that the fans would have accepted Roman winning it though. WWE was kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't... which maybe that's why they gave it to Brock, just to "get it over with." But at that point, it should have just remained unbroken.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

Well, they should have just given it to Roman at the end of an all-time great Mania match with Brock. Instead, we got the Rollins cash-in/disaster.

[KawadaSmile]

I don't think Reigns should've beaten Taker at WM first. When Lesnar did that, Roman wasn't even a singles wrestler, he was way lower on the totem pole, and while it took him a while until he got to the superstar status that he has now, Lesnar pretty much became the final boss.

 

Having the same feat as WWE's Shao Kahn is interesting, even more considering they didn't have a proper finish to their 1-on-1 match. Lesnar broke the myth; Lesnar ended his career.

[Victator]

They should not have ended the streak. Nobody really wanted it to happen. It was something done to make fans feel bad.

[Loss]

Imagine if they'd ended the streak and Batista closed the show as champ, as was the original plan.

[Strummer]

I would have trouble calling Roman/Brock long term booking in the traditional sense. Obviously Roman was supposed to beat him three years ago at WM 31 so the last three years have been a bunch of detours and dead ends so to speak but we are finally getting there. This isn't Hogan/Savage 88/89.

[Sean Liska]

So can anyone tell from Dave's Twitter account if he thinks NJPW in-ring is better than WWE and people who don't like NJPW or the Bucks have a limited view of wrestling? I can't tell from the couple dozen tweets on my timeline every day I need clarification.

[Edwin]

So can anyone tell from Dave's Twitter account if he thinks NJPW in-ring is better than WWE and people who don't like NJPW or the Bucks have a limited view of wrestling? I can't tell from the couple dozen tweets on my timeline every day I need clarification.

That's exactly why I unfollowed him.

 

Its annoying scrolling through my Twitter and just see him either: a. arguing with someone over who's more popular or b. seeing him continue his “LOL@WWE SUX; NU NIPPON IZ DA BEST” act.

[Wahoos Leg]

 

So can anyone tell from Dave's Twitter account if he thinks NJPW in-ring is better than WWE and people who don't like NJPW or the Bucks have a limited view of wrestling? I can't tell from the couple dozen tweets on my timeline every day I need clarification.

That's exactly why I unfollowed him.

 

Its annoying scrolling through my Twitter and just see him either: a. arguing with someone over who's more popular or b. seeing him continue his LOL@WWE SUX; NU NIPPON IZ DA BEST act.

I also had to unfollow him. His troll act on Twitter is beyond tiresome

[iamthedoctor]

Well, they should have just given it to Roman at the end of an all-time great Mania match with Brock. Instead, we got the Rollins cash-in/disaster.

 

I still don't see why they surcumbed to the fans the other year and let Bryan win the gold. WWE doesn't normally buckle under fan pressure but when Bryan won the Gold and Seth Rollins did it just seemed they didn't want to do this.

 

Would it really have made a difference if Batista had won then Roman beat Brock because they I guess they don't do the match this year.

[Kadaveri]

They 'succumbed' to the fans in 2014 because Daniel Bryan was doing monster ratings in the quarters for months up to Mania. He wasn't just arena-over.

[FMKK]

 

Well, they should have just given it to Roman at the end of an all-time great Mania match with Brock. Instead, we got the Rollins cash-in/disaster.

 

I still don't see why they surcumbed to the fans the other year and let Bryan win the gold. WWE doesn't normally buckle under fan pressure but when Bryan won the Gold and Seth Rollins did it just seemed they didn't want to do this.

 

Would it really have made a difference if Batista had won then Roman beat Brock because they I guess they don't do the match this year.

If you watched a single episode of Raw between August 2013 and April 2014 it would have been quite obvious

[sek69]

Yes, let's not start a narrative that somehow WWE got bamboozled into giving Bryan the win rather than something they were dragged kicking and screaming into.

[Matt D]

Yes, let's not start a narrative that somehow WWE got bamboozled into giving Bryan the win rather than something they were dragged kicking and screaming into.

They spent a month trying to force the yes chants on to big show.

[Kadaveri]

I remember the reports being "It's the 'Yes' chant that's over, not Daniel Bryan."

 

Oh and in other news Meltzer's given Omega vs. Jericho a 5.

[DMJ]

Not that I personally care or really follow Dave's ratings closely, but I do think its worth noting that him giving the match 5 stars doesn't seem like that big of a deal after a year of him abandoning his own scale and awarding Omega multiple 5+/6-star matches.

 

People talked about how changing his star system effected the 5-star matches of the past - how giving a match 6-stars in 2017 would retroactively devalue the 5-star matches of 1989, for example - but here is a pretty clear example of how the change to his star system has already impacted the ratings for future matches. Giving Jericho/Omega 5-stars does put it notches below that "rarefied air" of the "perfect match" the same way a 4 or 4.25 match used to be considered a great, great match, but maybe not all-time spectacular.

[KawadaSmile]

Pretty much this. Star ratings are now, more than ever, just something that people will mention in arguments on the internet.

 

"Oh, but Roman has never had a 5 star match! Omega had two SIX STAR MATCHES gaaaaaah"

[Richeyedwards]

if you looked on wreddit (you really shouldnt it is bad for your mental health) you would have seen people making jokes that omega finaly has a five star match beacuse last year he had 3 six star matches and one 5 3/4 macthes meaning that this was his first five star. If that does not show you about how silly his ratings systm is I dont know what does.

 

 

Not that I personally care or really follow Dave's ratings closely, but I do think its worth noting that him giving the match 5 stars doesn't seem like that big of a deal after a year of him abandoning his own scale and awarding Omega multiple 5+/6-star matches.

 

People talked about how changing his star system effected the 5-star matches of the past - how giving a match 6-stars in 2017 would retroactively devalue the 5-star matches of 1989, for example - but here is a pretty clear example of how the change to his star system has already impacted the ratings for future matches. Giving Jericho/Omega 5-stars does put it notches below that "rarefied air" of the "perfect match" the same way a 4 or 4.25 match used to be considered a great, great match, but maybe not all-time spectacular.

 

according to cagematch big dave gave 10 5 star+ matches last year 8 from njpw and 2 from pwg. So it makes it look like 4 star matches are not a important anymore and get no play from people who follow his ratings as it no longer means great 41/2 is the floor for great now apparantly.

[FMKK]

It's almost like making himself into a Twitter gimmick was a silly move on Dave's part. Not that what one person thinks of a match should matter all that much in the scheme of things, but there is a strange subsection that takes a Dave star rating as an objective reality. I think he's one of them.

[Migs]

The ****3/4 rating for the Junior title match was batshit.

[Loss]

Dave said something not long ago that the **** matches that used to be the pinnacle just aren't good enough anymore. I can't tell you how much that bugs me as a wrestling fan. A show where the best match peaks at *** can still be an artistic success, and that can still be because of the in-ring. Anyone who attends a live show of 8 matches where 6 of them are in the *** range and leaves disappointed is probably a bit too spoiled. We don't appreciate matches that are simply good, or great but not quite all-timers, nearly enough.

[Richeyedwards]

It's almost like making himself into a Twitter gimmick was a silly move on Dave's part. Not that what one person thinks of a match should matter all that much in the scheme of things, but there is a strange subsection that takes a Dave star rating as an objective reality. I think he's one of them.

He regularly uses his own rating as a way of saying that someone else is wrong, after the g1 somebody said that nagata had the best g1 last year, but he responded that omega got more **** matches even though nagata had 5 so omega must have been better.

[Sean Liska]

Dave said something not long ago that the **** matches that used to be the pinnacle just aren't good enough anymore. I can't tell you how much that bugs me as a wrestling fan. A show where the best match peaks at *** can still be an artistic success, and that can still be because of the in-ring. Anyone who attends a live show of 8 matches where 6 of them are in the *** range and leaves disappointed is probably a bit too spoiled. We don't appreciate matches that are simply good, or great but not quite all-timers, nearly enough.

Twitter Dave just lost his mind at some point recently. Newsletter Dave is still very good with lots of cool scoops in the recent Observer.

[Edwin]

The fact that he gets insider newz and what not doesnt mean his opinion should be celebrated as the definitive truth without argument and whoever disagrees with it is automatically disqualified from any argument.

 

Luckily that doesnt seem to the issue on this board for the most part, but based on some replies to this topic, unfortunately some think him upping his scale to ****** somehow devaules the past ***** matches when realistically it doesnt.

 

He can give Omega/Okada 10 stars if he wants and Id still rank it beneath something like Benoit/Sullivan from GAB 96 simply because I liked it more and his opinion wont affect one bit how I feel about it.

 

Edit: Wasnt there a podcast where Jim Cornette talked about the star rating system and him creating it with a friend of his and it only being **** originally and then Meltzer or someone adopting it and making it a ***** system then?

[NintendoLogic]

Actually, Cornette is the one responsible for the fifth star. The star rating system as originally constituted maxed out at four stars, but Cornette and the friend who came up with the system agreed that the Lawler/Funk no-DQ match broke the scale and deserved an extra star.