Michael_3165 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Meltzer is Meltzer. He guesses a fair amount, he has some decent contacts but I think the company chop and change so frequently that he probably gets things after they happen. His rating system is now a joke (6 stars?) and his podcasts are hideous ('ya know'....)Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakashi Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 11 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said: Meltzer is Meltzer. He guesses a fair amount, he has some decent contacts but I think the company chop and change so frequently that he probably gets things after they happen. His rating system is now a joke (6 stars?) and his podcasts are hideous ('ya know'....) It’s 7 stars now actually. You get one extra star for the Tokyo dome and one extra for pretending to be his friend for PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted December 11, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 11, 2018 The glory of Meltzer isn't in his reviews (in all fairness, I don't see why anyone would put stock in anyone's reviews. Wrestling is a thing of personal taste), it's in his analysis and historical knowledge, where he is super ace. I don't get why people get upset about his reviews, just ignore them, they should mean nothing to you. They mean fuck all to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, PowerButchi said: The glory of Meltzer isn't in his reviews (in all fairness, I don't see why anyone would put stock in anyone's reviews. Wrestling is a thing of personal taste), it's in his analysis and historical knowledge, where he is super ace. I don't get why people get upset about his reviews, just ignore them, they should mean nothing to you. They mean fuck all to me. Well, the thing is with his ratings is he used to be a great resource if you wanted to get into things like AJW and old AJPW. his old ratings are still very useful for that stuff Nowadays he really doesn't appear to be watching that much that isn't WWE or NJPW and has a bizarre insistence that all the world's best matches happened in the last year and a half of NJPW  The other side of his journalism is Fine though he gets his stories jumbled up sometimes (good luck finding out why Katsuya Kitamura had to retire earlier this year). Although aside from that, it feels like there is less intriguing backstage antics for him to report these days, but if you want to find out about a scuffle on a bus involving Sin Cara then Dave is still the man I guess  Edited December 12, 2018 by sj5522 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted December 12, 2018 Moderators Share Posted December 12, 2018 48 minutes ago, sj5522 said: Well, the thing is with his ratings is he used to be a great resource if you wanted to get into things like AJW and old AJPW. his old ratings are still very useful for that stuff  Not if your tastes don't mesh with his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Milano Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, PowerButchi said: The glory of Meltzer isn't in his reviews (in all fairness, I don't see why anyone would put stock in anyone's reviews. Wrestling is a thing of personal taste), it's in his analysis and historical knowledge, where he is super ace. I don't get why people get upset about his reviews, just ignore them, they should mean nothing to you. They mean fuck all to me. Exactly, just because Dave throws a high rating out doesn't mean it's automatically a great match, it's all subjective. I wonder how many people who have commented in this thread actually read what Dave says/writes, because so much of the stuff posted here is the usual predictable, repetitive, rubbish you see on Twitter (extra star for New Japan nonsense).  For clarification it isn't Dave's star system, something that he readily admits, and he first rated a match at six stars back in the 80's (and no it wasn't Japan!).  In regard to only watching WWE and New Japan, he's a regular live attendee of PWG, clearly watches ROH, Impact and CMLL, often tweets about Revolution Pro and other UK promotions (heck he was even watching WOS during it run), has mentioned numerous times about wanting to see OTT live and it was not too long ago he was raving about an A-Kid match against Zack Sabre Jr from Spain.  How many five stars has Dave given to NXT matches this year?  That's hardly Japan is it?  If someone doesn't like Meltzer or doesn't care for his journalism fair enough, but there has been so many untruths in this thread alone written about him it's laughable.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pier Six Brawler Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 I don't understand how there can be a rating system that is just an arbitrary number that isn't out of anything. If it's a five star system, the best matches should get five stars and anything else a lesser number of stars. Otherwise it is meaningless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 It's well known Meltzer has adopted the Brendan Sullivan system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members gmoney Posted December 12, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted December 12, 2018 4 hours ago, Pier Six Brawler said: I don't understand how there can be a rating system that is just an arbitrary number that isn't out of anything. If it's a five star system, the best matches should get five stars and anything else a lesser number of stars. Otherwise it is meaningless It has always been meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 6 hours ago, Pier Six Brawler said: I don't understand how there can be a rating system that is just an arbitrary number that isn't out of anything. If it's a five star system, the best matches should get five stars and anything else a lesser number of stars. Otherwise it is meaningless But then he can never rate anything 5 in case it is battered in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted December 12, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted December 12, 2018 He rated one or two matches "five stars plus" in the past, and Cornette has explained how the scale was previously only four stars. So "six stars" isn't some new absurd thing. It's broadly meaningless because he rarely quantifies what constitutes a five star match, or what a four star match could have done differently to gain an additional star, nor does he consider context (he has claimed that some matches he enjoyed live more than on tape, but there doesn't seem to be any consideration of the fact that, for example, a match's position in the card, or as part of an ongoing programme, plays into the content). Star ratings were useful when they were a means of knowing what you were getting when ordering a compilation VHS, but when all of these matches are more accessible than they've ever been, it's no more than one bloke's opinion - and because we're able to see almost all of the same matches Meltzer does and in context, at the same time he sees them, the impact his own personal tastes have has never been more obvious. In terms of coverage and journalism - I'm no real fan of Meltzer, but most of his critics seem to be a bit simple, to say the least. A lot of it comes from them not actually listening to him or reading the Observer, but seeing the third-hand repeated version of the headline on another website, and thinking he's reported something as fact when he's most likely just talked around the possibility for ten minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kaz Hayashi Posted December 12, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted December 12, 2018 At one point an A in your exams was the best, then it became A*, then A** and now it’s changed to a 9, and considering 7, 8 & 9 is the equivalent of an old A to A*, Dave is clearly on to something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Weezenal Posted December 12, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted December 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Kaz Hayashi said: At one point an A in your exams was the best, then it became A*, then A** and now it’s changed to a 9, and considering 7, 8 & 9 is the equivalent of an old A to A*, Dave is clearly on to something. I give this post 3 yellows*** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pier Six Brawler Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Yes but when A was the best, you couldn't get better than an A. Now that 9 is the best, you aren't going to get a really clever kid getting a 10. The limit was announced beforehand, not just broken whenever the the person marking the exams felt like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members bAzTNM#1 Posted December 13, 2018 Paid Members Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) Mabel probably wasn't in the WWF middle of 1996. I could have seen him coming in, just not as the third man. ADDED: Didn't Meltzer say that Yokozuna was going to do a slow run-in and destroy both Nash and Hall during that match that they had at whatever WCW PPV so Hogan could get his win back from KOTR 93? Edited December 13, 2018 by bAzTNM#1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.