The King of Old School Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Well, Hulk and Andre is five stars then. By the logic Meltzer is using, Hulk and Andre should be 11 stars. Also, Rock and Austin must be 5 stars as well. If build up, atmosphere and ability to work the crowd goes above workrate!~ then those two are better than Kobashi vs Joe or Do Fixer against the Blood Generation. And what stars would you give Savage and Warrior if it was based about that? I full five from where I'm sitting. Its such a hypocritical ratings process. Â Surely everything has to be taken into consideration whilst "rating" a certain match? Â I don't like the star rating process at all, but if i had to rate a match i would rate the whole package rather than just the in-ring work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted July 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 Meltzers match ratings are the biggest load of shit ever. He has graded matches ****3/4...four stars and three quarters out of 5? What the fuck? What could have possibly happened in that match to knock 1/4 off of it's star rating? They are completely meaningless. Â And I've seen atleast 100 matches better than Joe/Kobashi and that Dragon Gate tag in ROH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I thought the match was absolutely perfect, so I have no problems with the ***** match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane O' Mac Version 2 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Rock and Hogan at WM 18. The greatest five star match that never was. Well, I think workrate combined with the other stuff is very important. Meltzer's criteria isn't ALL about build-up and atmosphere, nor is it ALL about workrate. Matches such as Rock-Hogan and HBK-Flair are ones that are maybe 3 stars in workrate, but the atmosphere bumps it to 4 stars. In the case of Cena vs Punk, the workrate was 4 stars, bumped up to the big 5 due to a hot crowd and both men's ability to play to it and use it to enhance the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted July 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 Rather than restart another "How did this get *****, but so and so vs so and so didn't?" debate, I'll just say I'm glad that Meltzer's FINALLY seen another WWE match that he finds up there with the best. Â Â Â There's been plenty of WWE matches in the last 14 years that have been at least as good as Punk vs Cena though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted July 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 Well, I think workrate combined with the other stuff is very important. Meltzer's criteria isn't ALL about build-up and atmosphere, nor is it ALL about workrate. Matches such as Rock-Hogan and HBK-Flair are ones that are maybe 3 stars in workrate, but the atmosphere bumps it to 4 stars. In the case of Cena vs Punk, the workrate was 4 stars, bumped up to the big 5 due to a hot crowd and both men's ability to play to it and use it to enhance the match. Hogan vs Rock was better than that six match shit with all those Chinese blokes in it though. I understand the criteria. Its just its a shit criteria. Isnt that the whole point of wrestling? Why would Rock and Hogan or HBK and Flair up their work rate if they have the people eating out of their hands? Makes no sense. And does 800 people screaming because they are seeing live the same thing they watched on a DVD they bought for 3 quid of a trader make it a heated contest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFR42 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Hogan vs the Rock was a fucking abysmal match. The atmosphere was all that saved it. Not deserving of 5 *'s in any way, shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted July 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 Hogan vs the Rock was a fucking abysmal match. The atmosphere was all that saved it. Not deserving of 5 *'s in any way, shape or form. Abysmal in what way? In a way that they did very little and the fans never stopped yelling during the whole match? Jerry Lawler and Jim Ross have both said it was an experience like none other, because of the sheer passion and once in a lifetime feel. It was a real dream match and it lived up to the billing. The fact is: they didnt have to do anything. Thats the point. Some people smack each other with light tubes, others punch, shoulder charge and do elbow drops. The fans make a match, because if they were sitting on their hands they wouldnt be enjoying it. And enjoyment is what wrestling is about. Not how many chops a bloke in shiny underpants can land on a fat bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Obviously Hogan/Rock didn't have enough MOVEZ! for some people. Â Give me Hogan/Rock over anything involving Samoa Joe or the rest of the worrate warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane O' Mac Version 2 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Hogan vs Rock was better than that six match shit with all those Chinese blokes in it though. I understand the criteria. Its just its a shit criteria. Isnt that the whole point of wrestling? Why would Rock and Hogan or HBK and Flair up their work rate if they have the people eating out of their hands? Makes no sense. And does 800 people screaming because they are seeing live the same thing they watched on a DVD they bought for 3 quid of a trader make it a heated contest? I think you're getting mixed up with what the criteria is measuring. A match isn't considered great by how loudly the audience cheers, it's by the output of what is on screen, which largely involves the wrestling, with audience serving as additional enhancement. You're right, they didn't need to do more, but that's because they were freakin' Hulk Hogan and The Rock. The reaction for them was more for the individuals than what they were doing. It's like if you went to a Guns N' Roses concert, and Slash had the crowd in a frenzy by playing a couple of chords. It makes for a great audience experience, but you wouldn't call it a great concert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted July 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 I think you're getting mixed up with what the criteria is measuring. A match isn't considered great by how loudly the audience cheers, it's by the output of what is on screen, which largely involves the wrestling, with audience serving as additional enhancement. You're right, they didn't need to do more, but that's because they were freakin' Hulk Hogan and The Rock. The reaction for them was more for the individuals than what they were doing. It's like if you went to a Guns N' Roses concert, and Slash had the crowd in a frenzy by playing a couple of chords. It makes for a great audience experience, but you wouldn't call it a great concert. The Rock and Hogan had a match in a six man tag the previous week, which Hogan won clean. Hogan and Rock had a match a year later. Neither was as good and didnt have half the atmosphere. Rock and Hogan had wrestled before and after the WM18 match, but the match at WM18 was special, because of the aura, the buzz, the excitment, the way the match was worked, the order of the moves, the result at the end, the way they worked the fans afterwards and gave it the perfect ending. It was a wet dream for the modern WWF fan at the time. Its perfect Sports Entertainment. The old megastar vs the new megastar infront of a hot crowd. What more does anyone want out of a match? I understand what your saying, but that still doesnt make a difference to what I'm saying. Kobashi vs Joe was basically Hogan vs Rock for a smark crowd. Two people who all that audience wanted to see going through a routine to please those in the building that night. It was no different to Hogan vs Rock. They chopped and did trademark moves. Kobashi has had better matches than the one with Joe before. Much better ones. Why did they give it five stars? Because it was unique and the atmosphere was huge. What did they say about Hogan vs Rock? "The crowd made it". Well no shit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane O' Mac Version 2 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The Rock and Hogan had a match in a six man tag the previous week, which Hogan won clean. Hogan and Rock had a match a year later. Neither was as good and didnt have half the atmosphere. Rock and Hogan had wrestled before and after the WM18 match, but the match at WM18 was special, because of the aura, the buzz, the excitment, the way the match was worked, the order of the moves, the result at the end, the way they worked the fans afterwards and gave it the perfect ending. It was a wet dream for the modern WWF fan at the time. Its perfect Sports Entertainment. The old megastar vs the new megastar infront of a hot crowd. What more does anyone want out of a match? I understand what your saying, but that still doesnt make a difference to what I'm saying. Kobashi vs Joe was basically Hogan vs Rock for a smark crowd. Two people who all that audience wanted to see going through a routine to please those in the building that night. It was no different to Hogan vs Rock. They chopped and did trademark moves. Kobashi has had better matches than the one with Joe before. Much better ones. Why did they give it five stars? Because it was unique and the atmosphere was huge. What did they say about Hogan vs Rock? "The crowd made it". Well no shit? I've never seen Kobashi and have only seen Joe sporadically in TNA. It seems to be that you think showmanship is the most essential ingredient in pro wrestling, but you're not arguing with someone who thinks that all that matters is workrate and moves. My original point was that both matter- hence it being sports entertainment. Hogan and Rock at WMX8 was the result of terrific production and hype, not present with the 6 man tag and the No Way Out match. Going back to the music metaphor, because music and wrestling are both forms of entertainment, Lady Gaga is one of the most successful and popular musicians of the modern era, but that doesn't make her the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 BTW, I bet Powerslam Magazine will still hate on the show. They will find something wrong with the Main Event. And with Meltzer giving the main event the 5* stamp it'll be interesting what Fin Martin has to say about Cena in that match! Bound to be "NPSTF" mentioned at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted July 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 21, 2011 I've never seen Kobashi and have only seen Joe sporadically in TNA. It seems to be that you think showmanship is the most essential ingredient in pro wrestling, but you're not arguing with someone who thinks that all that matters is workrate and moves. My original point was that both matter- hence it being sports entertainment. Hogan and Rock at WMX8 was the result of terrific production and hype, not present with the 6 man tag and the No Way Out match. Going back to the music metaphor, because music and wrestling are both forms of entertainment, Lady Gaga is one of the most successful and popular musicians of the modern era, but that doesn't make her the best. Your not understanding me at all. None of what your saying is relevent, because I'm only using Rock and Hogan as an example. I'm not saying one shouldnt be a five star and the other shouldnt. I'm not saying what shouldnt be, I'm saying how certain things arent. I'm saying the same reasons that Kobashi and Joe was given the full five and Hogan and Rock was only given what it was given was because of the same reasons. Forgot the dream match shite for a second, and we'll take Austin and Rock. That had everything. Workrate, atmosphere, a hot ending, the lot. HHH vs Michaels vs Benoit had everything. They never got five stars. Nobody can tell me that Benoit's three way with HHH and Michaels was less of a match than Joe/Styles/Daniels three way. I'm saying the whole five star crap is ridiculous, because most of it contradicts the other stuff it down grades. Michaels vs Undertaker had everything you could want in a match. It even did enough to warrent another match with similar results. How is that not getting full marks? Talk about "workrate". This pair had to take months off because they worked so hard. It makes you wonder what world someone is living in when Rock vs Triple H at Bashlash 2000 is seen as less entertaining than a Dragon Gate six man that wasnt as good as the matches they have in the Orient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstar69 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Never understood rating for wrestling or otherwise everybody likes what they like might not be the same thing, but what i would say the best wrestling matches are the ones that get the most people intrested regaurdless of tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.