Paid Members Accident Prone Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 Dave is 100% co-opted with AEW at this point so he's going to be dishing out the star ratings willy nilly. Three stars for the Battle Royal is abhorrent. I agree on his ratings for Dustin/Cody and Lucha Bros/Young Bucks though; despite being vastly different styles of wrestling, both matches nailed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieranjennings Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 How can he keep credibility when giving that Battle Royal 3 stars! It was genuinely one of the worst things I've seen on a wrestling show! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 Like has been said, it's one man with a subjective opinion. Personally I'm fine with 3 stars for the Battle Royale. It was goofy, had some memorable characters like Luchasaurus, Orange Cassidy and Michael Nakazawa, it had older wrestlers like Billy Gunn and Glacier, and up and coming stars they're obviously going to push like MJF and Hangman Page. It had a sick table bump and a staple gun spot (that the camera missed). As far as Battle Royals go it was a million times more memorable than any other one I've seen not called Royal Rumble lately. It was meant to showcase everyone and even though they could have done a better job, I came away from it wanting to see more of at least 4 or 5 of them so job done. On the other hand, flippy kickpad matches aren't for me so the tag match got a way higher rating than I'd give it. 5 stars is right for the Rhodes match though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 In fairness to Meltzer, Bleacher Report gave the Battle Royale an A rating. Process that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakashi Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Aren't Bleacher Report a PPV partner of AEW? Not surprised they'd over rate a product they are selling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bohan Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 I honestly think that the battle royal is being over analysed far too much, when was the last time anyone has paid this much attention to the harmless dross that WWE can put out on each and every one of their ppv pre-shows? I had this on when my parents were still up on Saturday night, neither have a paticular interest in wrestling but the match produced a few laughs from them and they were actually engaging with the product. Mum rooting for the bloke with no legs (Dustin Thomas) and praying nobody hurt him and then cheering on the bloke who looks far too old to be doing this wrestling stuff (Billy Gunn). Dad laughing his head off over the bloke putting a fag out on somebodies head, being in awe of luchasaurus, the antics of Sonny Kiss and getting a kick out of seeing Tommy Dreamer getting involved. Point being that yes the match was a mess and production being all over the place, but I honestly feel that there were enough colourful characters involved, with plenty of wild spots to at least keep the casual fan amused for twenty minutes. It was a pre show battle royal which delivered a feel good finish leading into the main show - what more were people expecting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 This is outstanding from AEW Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, FelatioLips said: Like has been said, it's one man with a subjective opinion. Personally I'm fine with 3 stars for the Battle Royale. It was goofy, had some memorable characters like Luchasaurus, Orange Cassidy and Michael Nakazawa, it had older wrestlers like Billy Gunn and Glacier, and up and coming stars they're obviously going to push like MJF and Hangman Page. It had a sick table bump and a staple gun spot (that the camera missed). As far as Battle Royals go it was a million times more memorable than any other one I've seen not called Royal Rumble lately. It was meant to showcase everyone and even though they could have done a better job, I came away from it wanting to see more of at least 4 or 5 of them so job done. I think I'd agree with this. My problems with the battle royal were almost entirely with it as a presentation. The direction was poor, the booking wasn't as good as it could have been and the people in the match were unknown. If I was rating it on a Meltzer scale though, I think it wasn't terrible and wasn't great. It was OK. So I'd go 2* for the battle royal and another 1* for Page's lariat. Edited May 31, 2019 by tiger_rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 I've seen far worse Battle Royals, and they're a bugger to "rate" at the best of times. To call it one of the worst things ever seen on a wrestling show is a ridiculous exaggeration. It had a confusing set of rules that could have been better presented, and the camerawork missed some key spots, but as far as Battle Royals go, it had some memorable spots (I could watch Marko Stunt's elimination a hundred times and not get tired of it), and pretty much everyone got a spot to show what they were about. There's not really any point trying to find wiggle room on two stars or three stars or two and a half, but it was fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 It's probably already been mentioned but the rules were pointless for the Battle Royal. Was anyone told at any point who was in which group? If not what was the point in announcing which card suit was coming out next. Would have made a lot more sense if they'd done a couple of skits announcing who was lumped into which group to at least add a little bit of anticipation and play up the gimmick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Accident Prone Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) I think there's two points in regards to Dave's high rating of the Battle Royal; he was there live, and he is going to go out of his way to showcase this promotion (much like Bleacher Report will now that they are an official distribution partner). I think If I'd have saw the Battle Royal live, I would have given it three stars too. The rules were shoddy and it meant that no one had their entrances highlighted. It was messy and overly long. But the spots were fun, the character work was great and some genuine moments really shone a light on the roster. Also, as someone who knew most of these guys, I was all ready schooled in on what everyone was about. However, as I was a TV viewer, the negatives of the match (five people walking out at a time, no individual entrances, the dead moments) were only confounded by the awful production and the woeful commentary. Spots were missed, the timing was way off and the commentary team had yet to find their groove, leading to some disastrous audio snippets. Due to the television production alone, it gets a star and half at best. Half a star for the last few minutes, half a star for Joey Janela bumping his ass off and half-a-star for Orange Cassidy. If I was there live, I could see myself giving it three stars (maybe). Edited May 31, 2019 by Accident Prone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 One thing they could do to simplify things is just have a huge fuck-off 53-man Rumble - each guy draws a card, and they go in based on that ranking (kayfabe, obviously). Clubs 2 to Ace first, then Diamonds, Hearts, Spades, then the Joker. Or you have the guy who drew the Joker have the right to choose whatever spot he wants, so you can allow for either the hardnut characters looking to "prove themselves" by going first, the crazy ones who want to do things at random, the ones so driven by their hatred of their rival in a feud that they'll choose the one right after them, or the intelligent ones who'll obviously go last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 Just now, Carbomb said: simplify things  Just now, Carbomb said: 53-man Rumble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merzbow Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 They'd just end up having a ring for each deck of cards and you can only fight in your ring until the last 4 people are standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 31, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2019 Just now, tiger_rick said:  More people doesn't make things "more complicated". The rules are what make it complicated. Was the Greatest Royal Rumble difficult to understand? It's easy to explain: take a card, you enter the Rumble in the place that responds to the card. Simply have the announcer announce each one "2 of Clubs!" "5 of Diamonds!" "Jack of Spades!" Or, better still, just don't bother. All people need to know is that a wrestler picked a card, and that determined the number they came in at. Only one they need to know about in particular is the guy who drew the Joker. 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.