Jump to content


Photo

Dave Meltzer stuff


  • Please log in to reply
8843 replies to this topic

#8741 Mad Dog

Mad Dog
  • Members
  • 5773 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2018 - 04:21 PM

 

I think you might be on to something. People get really really defensive in some places if you mention DragonGate and DDT being bigger companies than All Japan has been in recent years.

 

Who are those people and have they been living under a rock?

 

 

I have no idea. I'm guessing they don't follow the scene closely. I just know I get weird comments on Reddit from All Japan fanboys if I mention they have to start doing better than DDT before they should be aiming for New Japan.



#8742 Richeyedwards

Richeyedwards

    King of typos

  • Members
  • 339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cardiff Wales

Posted 13 June 2018 - 12:37 AM


 


I think you might be on to something. People get really really defensive in some places if you mention DragonGate and DDT being bigger companies than All Japan has been in recent years.

 
Who are those people and have they been living under a rock?
 
 
I have no idea. I'm guessing they don't follow the scene closely. I just know I get weird comments on Reddit from All Japan fanboys if I mention they have to start doing better than DDT before they should be aiming for New Japan.

As an all Japan fanboy I can say of course ddt and especially dragon gate are bigger. Ajpw just ran a Korakuen and got 1000 people in for a relitivly weak card, Dragon gate can run one without a single match announced and get 1600+ (they will announce it as 1850 but that is bullshit).

Ajpw are the 4th biggest promotion in Japan but are growing quickly so they do have the potential to move past ddt and dragon gate, especially if DG does not recover well from the recent changes. I don't see it happening all to soon as both ddt and DG have very strong core fanbases.

#8743 Jmare007

Jmare007
  • Members
  • 1543 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:29 AM

I'm still amazed that DG keeps working the numbers for their shows :lol:



#8744 Mad Dog

Mad Dog
  • Members
  • 5773 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:37 AM

DG would lose some of the charm of they stopped claiming 8000 for a building that only holds 6500.

#8745 Richeyedwards

Richeyedwards

    King of typos

  • Members
  • 339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cardiff Wales

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:41 AM

I'm still amazed that DG keeps working the numbers for their shows :lol:

I love how every Kobe World hall outsells the previous despite them all being sold out. From 2008-2014 the next one outsold the previous by 100 until they get to the point now where they are announcing that they get 9800 in kobe world hall a building that holds 6500 at the most. DG always has huge gaps from the big stage to where the audience seating starts at kobe or dead or alive, final gate, gate of destiny and dangerous gate which is obvious space they are not using.

 

...

 

...



#8746 SpecialK

SpecialK
  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 04:06 PM

"We keep having to add extra seats!" - President Okamoto's speech at Kobe World every year.

#8747 fxnj

fxnj
  • Members
  • 662 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 08:37 PM

Not sure why people are still hung up on the "Dave broke the scale" aspect of this. When Cornette came up with the star system 4 was the max. The idea was when something that was head and shoulders above the previous benchmark, the level would be raised. There's never been any fuss about it until New Japan matches started becoming the ones raising the bar and now people are losing their shit and honestly acting silly over it.

 

I have a theory that a lot of it stems from most folks' intro to non US wrestling being 90s All Japan, either as it was happening or years after the fact via tapes or internet. Most folks have an inherent bias toward what they grew up with/were introduced to and have a kneejerk reaction to the idea that something better might have come along. There's been good matches since then of course, but this is the first time we've had a core group having consistent high level matches on a regular basis since then and some people seem weirdly threatened by it. 

I guess I would qualify as someone who grew up with 90's AJPW. King's Road is the most popular style in the world right now. I don't know about DG with its lucharesu thing, but NJPW, DDT, AJPW, NOAH, and BJW all have clearly styled their big matches after it. It's also had a big influence on US Super Indys and WWE. I also hear there's a big movement among European indies to incorporate it under the erroneous name of "strong style." Not much reason to be resentful about the current scene when nearly every name promotion outside of Mexico seems to be catering its product towards fans of 90's AJPW. If I speak out against newer stuff it's simply because I don't think it's as good as the best of 90's AJPW. Also, I don't think Lawler/Funk was so great it deserved to blow the roof off the 4 star scale, but what's done is done and the 5 star scale is so firmly entrenched that anyone saying a match can blow the roof off of it just looks silly.



#8748 Laz

Laz
  • Members
  • 581 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2018 - 08:49 PM

5 stars also feels more natural since the average grading scale is either 10 or 100. You can easily translate ****3/4 to 9.5/10 (thus 95/100, or an A+), whereas a scale based on 6 just feels odd.

RE: King's Road everywhere
That may actually be why I don't care for a whole lot of current wrestling as I didn't care too much for 90s AJPW.

#8749 BrianB

BrianB
  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 09:37 PM

 

I can't wait to the fuckery that will ensue once Dave goes 7 stars - I personally want him to go 6.75, that would be hilarious on so many levels - but I do hope we don't get discussion n°20 about Dave and his tastes in wrestling in here. At this point we all know the deal, no need to get worked up about it, just have fun as others are the ones losing their shit :lol:

I think it all comes from a place of disappointment, that the top wrestling reporter (or whatever) is essentially Scott Keith.

 

 

I think he's Ebert. As he gets older, he inflates ratings for things he likes.

 

Dave's match ratings don't really have anything to do with him as a reporter, except to the extent some people conflate his ratings with facts, which they aren't.



#8750 Fando

Fando
  • Members
  • 278 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 05:10 AM

Lordy, he went the full *******



#8751 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 44075 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2018 - 05:47 AM

It's his choice to do what he wants, of course. I was just reading his full explanation for it in the WON and while you could question a lot or even most of his logic, there is a consistency there. The challenge I think he'll face is that a better match can come along, particularly with so many people of the current generation producing matches at that level that are still so young. If there's a better match next year, then what? What if there's a better one after that? And then another? I think in his mind, great! He doesn't draw a line. So be it. 

 

It's as much a commentary on star ratings in general as it is Dave's approach to them. I've used them for years myself, but the limitations have become more apparent to me, to where it's baffling as a long time fan hearing complaints that a match "only" got ****1/2 or ****3/4. If we start hearing that about ***** matches, wow. But when he intentionally has no historical compass in matches, the ratings become useless. 

 

The reason people care so much is that the WON is the closest thing to a "paper of record" that pro wrestling has. It will live longer than Dave or any of us. It will eventually be not that someone had a match rated seven stars in the WON, but simply that they had a seven-star match. I noticed when he did the Misawa and Kobashi bios over the last decade that he (and more interestingly, Bryan Alvarez in deference) did not say that they'd had "22 matches rated ***** in the WON". They simply said, presented as fact, that they'd had "22 ***** matches". 

 

When an opinion or viewpoint is prevalent and unchallenged enough, time turns it into a fact. See current debates about the very existence of climate change being a matter of opinion. It's either happening or it's not, regardless of what those opinions are, but we've socially constructed the idea that it's an opinion. It's not so much about what Dave likes and dislikes as it is that he's made it much harder for future fans to understand the era when compared to previous eras. Wrestling changes, life goes on, yes to all of that, but now it seems like the matches in the past didn't get a fair shake from Dave, the most high-profile match critic in wrestling. People rely on those to determine what they prioritize in their viewing and it has a huge impact on consensus. That's why people care, not so much because they disagree with Dave on how good a match is.



#8752 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 11243 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2018 - 06:28 AM

The idea that the Bucks' match was 4.5 stars speaks to the inflation as much as anything else, maybe because we have so many other 4.5 star matches to compare it to.

It was a fun little thought experiment of a match: "What if you tack on hyper-focused limb selling to a standard sort of YB NJPW match?" but it wasn't any sort of organic selling that drove the spots; instead the spots drove the selling. The back selling was far more inconsistent and never, to me, felt earned. The timing on the mid-match hot tag was hardly maximized and the work that he had to do for it involved a lot of standing around a waiting for people to get into their places. Again, fun thought experiment and solid effort but 4.5 stars apparently don't buy you what they once did.



#8753 World's Worst Man

World's Worst Man
  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 06:44 AM

Dave's breaking of his scale is simply due to, in my opinion, him overrating matches in general. While I certainly think he throws around ****+ ratings way too much, there is also a problem on the low end as well and that I think is due to the paucity of truly bad matches in modern pro-wrestling. It just seems like there's less utter crap these days whereas in days past it was easy to find matches with utterly incompetent pro-wrestling basics. If anything, the standards for what constitutes an average or sub-par match need to change so that the scale doesn't essentially start at ***. This would leave more room in the ***-**** range so not everything that's halfway decent needs to be rated ****1/2.

 

What I've realized with Dave's pimping of these matches is that he values quantity over quality, from my point of view. A match with a lot of near-falls or a lot of "drama" will be rated highly regardless of whether the near-falls and drama were done in an interesting way. This is where the modern NJPW stuff falls a bit short of the 90's AJPW that it's based off of. The AJPW guys were better at creating interesting sequences and drama, particularly in the early-mid portions of the match. I'm still a fan of modern NJPW but I do wish they would take it a bit easier at times and do less shit while trying to make what they do a bit more meaningful.



#8754 William Bologna

William Bologna
  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2018 - 06:57 AM

When you hear him talk about good matches - "Well, they'll have a good match" - it's almost a mechanical thing. Number of hot moves plus number of nearfalls equals good match.

 

Serious question: Has there ever been a PWG-style Meltzerbait match that he didn't fall for? Has he ever been bored by lots of moves and nearfalls?



#8755 Fando

Fando
  • Members
  • 278 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:39 AM

Should really be asking if there has been a match like that with lots of moves and nearfalls that the live crowd loved but he didn't, because the in-building reaction influences how sees the performance a lot, too (Punk-Cena, HHH-Taker, far from PWG style). I don't think it's fair to just write them off as "Meltzerbait" when the crowds are loving them in the building. There's been a real change in the "agreement" fans have with workers and what they expect and tolerate in the ring and you can argue Meltzer has had some influence there but I think it's really bigger than him. Think about how different fight scenes are in the average action movie today compared to 30 years ago.



#8756 CapitalTTruth

CapitalTTruth
  • Members
  • 1058 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markout Mountain
  • Interests:Wrestling, Reading, BJJ, Traveling, Beer, Cooking, Dogs

Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:51 AM

I knew it! I knew this was going 7.  haha. Honestly, I kind of love it, but that is because I have accepted this persona of Dave's (for better or worse). 

 

Dave's ratings are a fascinating case study in influence in the wrestling industry. Its been beaten to death, but Dave is almost overvalued and undervalued in terms of his influence and impact. Ultimately, I suspect all the star throwing he does is going to throw the balance off on the public perception of who and what he has been in wrestling over the years, at least for at time period before it is ultimately recovered that he was more than just the star-rating guy. 



#8757 NintendoLogic

NintendoLogic

    Grim and frostbitten

  • Members
  • 3084 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:51 AM

In his review of Final Battle 2012, he said the Steen/Generico ladder match wasn't his cup of tea because it was just an exhibition of crazy spots and didn't feel like a world title match, but he gave it four stars largely because the live crowd ate it up.



#8758 Tim Cooke

Tim Cooke
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 1562 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birdland

Posted 14 June 2018 - 08:13 AM

I found his discussion of how he views matches today fascinating.  It's pretty clear that he operates in the wrestling bubble when it comes to match criticism and doesn't read a ton of critical analysis for books, TV shows, films, video games, etc.  If he had been using a __/10 scale since the beginning and gave a match an 11, I don't think people would bat an eye.  But because he used the five star scale for 36 years, which is about half of the time that pro wrestling has been accessible to a wide audience (I'm using 1950 as the year - I know we can go back to 1905 or some other date), he's essentially relied on the same system for the half life of pro wrestling in the US/Japan.

 

Ultimately, I rate matches so I can compare, list, and sequence what I think is great, very good, average, etc.  Dave's professional life is worked pro wrestling and UFC.  You rarely see ratings thrown around for sporting events.  I usually just list when I'm doing something with baseball like the top 10 Orioles live games of 2012.  

 

But I also have star ratings for MMA fights because I see it as a compliment to pro wrestling in that I know what I like, I know what I don't like, and am willing to go back and review periodically to see where my current opinion lives with my past opinions.  The ***** classics like Rumina Sato vs. Caol Uno or Fedor vs. Nog I still stand firm, just like Misawa/Kawada 6/3/94.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what Dave would say about Amazon reviews.  It's a five star scale and if someone really, really likes a product, they give it five stars and back it up with a thorough review.  If Amazon just started saying you can rate this out of an infinite scale, it would become useless.  Dave's scale isn't useless for everyone but it's less and less of a resource as time goes by.



#8759 stomperspc

stomperspc
  • Members
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2018 - 08:34 AM

The high and low limits of a scale provide the rest of the points with their meaning. A point on a scale is only meaningful relative to the end points. If there is no upward (or downward for that matter) limit to a scale, then it is useless. A **** ¾ match on a 5-star scale derives its meaning from being so close to 5-stars. A **** ¾ match on an infinite scale doesn’t mean anything on its own. You’d have to dig into the person’s full history of ratings in order to see where on the scale a **** ¾ match falls to figure out how highly the rater feels about a match with that rating. Nobody has time to do that. That’s why we invent scales in the first place so we can easily know what the rater is saying with the rating. To Tim’s point about Amazon, if they had an infinite scale you would have to check every rating for a person to see what a ***** rating really means to them. At that point, the whole thing becomes useless.

 

Also I don’t buy the “Meltzer doesn’t take his ratings seriously so you shouldn’t either” line of reasoning. Why would he waste time on a regular basis with something that isn’t meant to have any value. If it doesn’t have any value, don’t post the ratings. If he continues using them it is perfectly reasonable to discuss them from both a critical stand point (do I agree with his opinion?) and a general standpoint (does it make sense to have an infinite scale?)



#8760 SPS

SPS
  • Members
  • 268 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2018 - 08:37 AM

I think with the star system it has now broken apart to a point where you can't really utilize it anymore to compare a match rated before 2017 to matches now because the whole spectrum has changed.

 

Dave has moved the goal posts, where before no matter what ***** was the max save for a very limited group of matches getting *****+ which now is being construed as ****** like the previous Okada/Omega match which I thought was a bit much for Dave but since there were other matches previously that got *****+ I felt it wasn't anything too outrageous as it was a great match.

 

But now with more than ***** possible and it eclipsing even the most rare of the rare(Don't even get me started on the *****1/2 or 3/4 stuff we saw) it totally has skewed the rating of matches that before 2017 would've gotten in the ***+ range now getting up to ****+. I don't believe that anyone can believe that YB vs LIJ was on par with other ****1/2 matches from the past.

 

So now with ******* being possible and a couple ***** or ******+, then what does a ***** really mean anymore? is it still a top of the line match? or is it now what ****+ used to be and the real top of the line is ****** and ******* is the elite?

 

It's jumped the shark for me even just taking it for what it's worth as I always considered it more of a recommended match measurement from the tape trading days and a fun way to track the quality output over the years and decades.

 

But it's now pretty much separated to before Okada/Omega and after.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

3 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users