Was the Fantastics vs Sheepherders match from Crockett Cup '86 something that he at least saw live in full?

He was at the Crockett Cup in 1986 if I recall correctly.

Dynamite vs Tiger Mask 4/21/83 (draw for the vacant WWF Jr. Title)

 

Haven't seen that match in almost a decade and my tastes in wrestling have changed quite a bit. But I remember watching that match and having no clue how it got that rating.

I don't know if he actually rated that at the time. He talked about it for years after as being a classic, but ratings weren't very consistently given out in the 1983-85 range.

Elgin v. Richards easily

I just watched this last week cause I haven't watched much wrestling in years and was shocked to see that Dave has rated some many 5 star matches the last couple years when I looked up a list of 5 star matches on google. I saw this and wasn't blown away at all.

 

I hope the New Japan matches don't underwhelm me like this did.

Meltzer is human and prone to giving 5* ratings based on short-term emotional sentiments. He has never claimed to be the best reviewer or have the best opinion. For obvious reasons his opinion gets a lot of weight (deservedly so), but it's not like 25 years ago where only a tiny number of people were watching everything from around the world. We no longer need Dave Meltzer to tell us what's good.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all know Meltzer's flaws, they've been known for a while, and at this point it's a dead horse. The 'Meltzer 5 star rating' only matters to the extent that we make it matter; I guarantee he's never lost sleep upon realizing in hindsight that he overrated something.

Dynamite vs Tiger Mask 4/21/83 (draw for the vacant WWF Jr. Title)

 

Haven't seen that match in almost a decade and my tastes in wrestling have changed quite a bit. But I remember watching that match and having no clue how it got that rating.

That's the one with the stupid bullshit involving Dynamite breaking a bottle, right? Even by the overrated standards of their series that match easily stands out as the worst of the bunch.

 

Yep, that's the one.

 

This gets my vote seeing as how Sayama was having ten times better matches with other people at around the same time period. His matches with Steven Wright, Hamada and Canek are all worlds better in my view.

Meltzer is human and prone to giving 5* ratings based on short-term emotional sentiments. He has never claimed to be the best reviewer or have the best opinion. For obvious reasons his opinion gets a lot of weight (deservedly so), but it's not like 25 years ago where only a tiny number of people were watching everything from around the world. We no longer need Dave Meltzer to tell us what's good.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all know Meltzer's flaws, they've been known for a while, and at this point it's a dead horse. The 'Meltzer 5 star rating' only matters to the extent that we make it matter; I guarantee he's never lost sleep upon realizing in hindsight that he overrated something.

Tremendous post.

 

By now we all realize what his tastes are, and also things he tends to overrate, so you should know where your taste falls in or out of line with his.

 

dave went through a period where every WWE PPV main event got a minimum of 4-stars. I knew I wasn't particularly into the WWE main event style during that time, so I understood the curve I was dealing with if he rated some forgettable Randy Orton vs Triple H b-show PPV match ****1/4. He digs that shit, I don't. It's no big deal.

I agree with Ditch's point. No reason to Dave bash. Not to say anyone is, just agreeing with that sentiment. We give him a hard time about some of his ratings, but we've all had nutty opinions on matches at times, and I think I agree with him just as often as I disagree with him, especially on older matches.

As an aside, when Dave gave Punk/Cena *****, rovert asked if there were any other matches he gave that rating to that weren't technically smooth. At the time, I suggested TM/DK. After thinking about it some more, the correct answer is "every Manami Toyota match ever."

What's the general argument against Bret vs Owen? Or is this just a case where everyone admits that it's very, very good but not necessarily five star? People are pretty effusive in the yearbook note I think.

Meltzer is human and prone to giving 5* ratings based on short-term emotional sentiments. He has never claimed to be the best reviewer or have the best opinion. For obvious reasons his opinion gets a lot of weight (deservedly so), but it's not like 25 years ago where only a tiny number of people were watching everything from around the world. We no longer need Dave Meltzer to tell us what's good.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all know Meltzer's flaws, they've been known for a while, and at this point it's a dead horse. The 'Meltzer 5 star rating' only matters to the extent that we make it matter; I guarantee he's never lost sleep upon realizing in hindsight that he overrated something.

Tremendous post.

 

By now we all realize what his tastes are, and also things he tends to overrate, so you should know where your taste falls in or out of line with his.

 

dave went through a period where every WWE PPV main event got a minimum of 4-stars. I knew I wasn't particularly into the WWE main event style during that time, so I understood the curve I was dealing with if he rated some forgettable Randy Orton vs Triple H b-show PPV match ****1/4. He digs that shit, I don't. It's no big deal.

 

I know you were just throwing shit out there to make a point, but in the interests of nitpicking, I absolutely love the ****1/4 Orton/Hunter match.

 

I actually get the same feeling though now about him reviewing New Japan. He's watching what he feels is a transcendentally great period of wrestling by that company and those guys, so every great match isn't just great, it's one of the greatest matches of all time. Same as during the time he'd rate every Kurt Angle TNA PPV match **** seemingly as a baseline. You just gotta roll with it. At the end of the day it's just a guy saying how much he liked a wrestling match.

 

On the "Dave losing sleep" point above, I've always wanted to know if anyone has asked him how he feels now about rating Hogan/Andre -****.

What's the general argument against Bret vs Owen? Or is this just a case where everyone admits that it's very, very good but not necessarily five star? People are pretty effusive in the yearbook note I think.

That it's boring and repetitive. That they spend too much time climbing. I don't even think it's good.

What's the general argument against Bret vs Owen? Or is this just a case where everyone admits that it's very, very good but not necessarily five star? People are pretty effusive in the yearbook note I think.

Sentiment in the yearbook note seemed to be pretty split, with roughly half the people posting thinking the match wasn't very good at all. Count me among those who consider the match akin to watching paint dry.

Someone who finds WWF cage matches more tolerable than I do can say if they feel like the match pushed that particular style of match as far as it could go.

I used to absolutely hate that Owen and Bret Cage Match, but came to really like it over the years. Having said that I can't counter the arguments against it because I completely understand them and think they are valid. It's just that I happen to think within the "escape he cage" WWE/F framework it was about as logical a match as I've ever seen.

What's the general argument against Bret vs Owen? Or is this just a case where everyone admits that it's very, very good but not necessarily five star? People are pretty effusive in the yearbook note I think.

That it's boring and repetitive. That they spend too much time climbing. I don't even think it's good.

 

All of that and then some. It wasn't as violent or intense as a cage match should be, they did nothing to generate heat missing from the lack of falls and basically worked a slow, repetitive chase and repeat for 30-35 minutes. I haven't watched it in forever, so I could easily think otherwise the next time I watch it, but this is the type of thing that comes to mind for worst the match ever thread. Slow, never ending and not at all appropriate for the feud and build.

Ah sorry. I thought it was the Mania match. Yeah, I can see the arguments against the cage match.

Meltzer is human and prone to giving 5* ratings based on short-term emotional sentiments. He has never claimed to be the best reviewer or have the best opinion. For obvious reasons his opinion gets a lot of weight (deservedly so), but it's not like 25 years ago where only a tiny number of people were watching everything from around the world. We no longer need Dave Meltzer to tell us what's good.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all know Meltzer's flaws, they've been known for a while, and at this point it's a dead horse. The 'Meltzer 5 star rating' only matters to the extent that we make it matter; I guarantee he's never lost sleep upon realizing in hindsight that he overrated something.

Dave himself has somewhat admitted so, and when somebody points out to him "I just watched XXX vs XXX from 199X and I don't think it's five stars at all" he often goes back to the point that maybe he wouldn't rate it as five stars today but he doesn't believe in revisionism and that a certain match is to be enjoyed at the time in a certain context. And at that time, he thought it was five stars, and that's what matters (according to him, of course).

 

Another way to measure the "Meltzer 5 star rating" not meaning what it used to are DVD sales. I believe it was Sapolsky who once said that whenever Dave rated a match as five stars DVD sales and pre-orders would go through the roof but at one point it stopped mattering as much (and that was before today's landscape with live iPPVs, youtube, pirate streams, etc.).

All of that and then some. It wasn't as violent or intense as a cage match should be, they did nothing to generate heat missing from the lack of falls and basically worked a slow, repetitive chase and repeat for 30-35 minutes. I haven't watched it in forever, so I could easily think otherwise the next time I watch it, but this is the type of thing that comes to mind for worst the match ever thread. Slow, never ending and not at all appropriate for the feud and build.

"Worst match ever" feels like taking it too far in the other direction. Both guys looked like competent pro wrestlers, and, most importantly, they had the crowd with them the whole way. The truly terrible matches tend to lose a lot of the heat they had at the start.

I saw Owen/Bret cage match live when I was nine years old. One of only two shows I got to go to as a kid. I'll never be able to see it with adult eyes. I tried to re-watch it objectively last year, but I can't do it. All I think is ZOMG AWESOME.

All of that and then some. It wasn't as violent or intense as a cage match should be, they did nothing to generate heat missing from the lack of falls and basically worked a slow, repetitive chase and repeat for 30-35 minutes. I haven't watched it in forever, so I could easily think otherwise the next time I watch it, but this is the type of thing that comes to mind for worst the match ever thread. Slow, never ending and not at all appropriate for the feud and build.

"Worst match ever" feels like taking it too far in the other direction. Both guys looked like competent pro wrestlers, and, most importantly, they had the crowd with them the whole way. The truly terrible matches tend to lose a lot of the heat they had at the start.

 

Yeah, its not something you can point to that suffers from awful execution or that makes an absolute joke out of wrestling. Its just incredibly long with nothing compelling happening much of the way. That's tough for me to sit through.

Bret/Owen Summerslam is an instance where I don't see the case for it being rated that high. Something like Toyota vs Kyoko Inoue from '95, I vehemently disagree but I can at least understand. Bret/Owen wasn't historically significant, wasn't a spotfest, wasn't technically great, wasn't super-heated...

Richards/Elgin. IIRC the only one of Meltzer's five star matches I thought was legitimately bad as opposed to 'OK' or 'not that good'. I remember thinking it wasn't terrible until Richards no-sold a turnbuckle powerbomb and sprinted toward Elgin to do some ridiculous Davey nonsense (or just a kick, w/e). Went to shit from there.

What's the general argument against Bret vs Owen? Or is this just a case where everyone admits that it's very, very good but not necessarily five star? People are pretty effusive in the yearbook note I think.

That it's boring and repetitive. That they spend too much time climbing. I don't even think it's good.

 

Yeah... generally that.

 

I think Yohe, Hoback and I all thought this was like a *** match at best, and that we may be overrating it because we liked Bret. We thought the Yoko vs Bret that we'd seen at The Pond the year before was vastly better. Then we saw ***** in the WON and our heads exploded.

 

When this match came up, and it often did back then in all sorts of settings including people in the business, Dave never was very good at explaining why he thought it was *****. It was of the two matches that I recall getting the fall back, "Well... I liked it" defense when he ran dry on explanation.

 

john

Bret/Owen Summerslam is an instance where I don't see the case for it being rated that high. Something like Toyota vs Kyoko Inoue from '95, I vehemently disagree but I can at least understand. Bret/Owen wasn't historically significant, wasn't a spotfest, wasn't technically great, wasn't super-heated...

Yeah... that too.

 

There are ones where I disagreed with him in the terms of relativity: look, this ***** that you gave to a match with these guys isn't really as good as this ***** match with these same/similar guys. We didn't see Doc vs Kobashi eye-to-eye at all, with me pointing to the over-the-top-goofy finish (which I'll admit is something that people disagree and agree with me on whether they like it) and to Stan vs Kobashi the month before. While we might have gone around on that match / those matches, in the end it's a bit of a difference on what we liked... and it's not like I thought Doc vs Kobashi was a shitty match, or would have rated it at **1/2 to *** in contrast to his *****.

 

Bret-Owen was just odd. I can't think of a match that got a bigger WTF? back then. I'm sure there were people who liked it. But this was also a time when *****+ was still pretty rare, though starting to escalate at that point. I just don't recall a lot of people putting it on the level of Shawn vs Razor and Bret vs Owen at Mania... or say Flair-Steamboat. Even those cool Sting vs Vader matches in 1992-93 weren't getting *****.

 

So it was... odd at time time.

Just checked out the match thread for Bret/Owen in yearbook and amazing to see how evenly people thought it was great versus those who disliked it. Count me as someone who is a big fan of it. Thought Owen and Bret were great in it. There are people just do not like the WWF blue cage and the escape rules. So they will be down on this one too. No blood allowed at the time so they had to wrestle the match different. I do contend they started the climbing stuff too early in match with it going over 30 minutes. But I loved the drama with the escapes in it. The finish is fantastic. I do not do star ratings but if I did I would not go the full five though. My issue with the rating of the match is that their WrestleMania one was given a lower rating. I have that one much higher than cage match.