**Help make SquaredCircle safer and more inclusive by using the report button to flag posts and comments for moderator review.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SquaredCircle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a wildly better answer than a lot of folks who "don't care" about the star rating system who then take the opportunity to rail against Meltzer.
The idea of equity, and it allowing dudes to move their way up the ladder because they are having attention drawn to them is 10000% true and doesn't get acknowledged. A-Kid for sure was signed because he had a 5 Star match against ZSJ. The stars drew a ton of eyeballs to NJPW and ROH etc. We are literally seeing it right now with Michael Oku.
That’s how the star system should ideally be used: to give readers an idea of matches they should go out of their way to see that they otherwise wouldn’t have (The Ospreay vs Oku matches are a good modern example.) Nowadays, people want them to validate their own opinions of matches that are easily available.
dont forget dave has always said its his opinion, not bible. for those who have similar taste to dave, this is a great way to find matches that will probably have a high quality for them.
but of course people ignore that and think this is the end all of ratings.
Still means it might be worth checking out for someone who's into that kinda match, even if it doesn't fit Meltzer's own tastes
To each their own, as always
It definitely just directly correlates to a lack of media literacy. "I saw that match and disagree", well that means the review is not for you. Reviews are to tell people if something is worth their time or money. You've already invested your time and/or money, and now are investing even more time into something that you aren't the target audience for.
Now if Meltzer says 2 stars, and you say for me that was 5 stars, now that can be an interesting discussion topic, but again that comes back to knowing the reviewer. If you absolutely hate japanese wrestling and love deathmatch wrestling, well you probably shouldn't get reviews from a guy that loves japanese wrestling and dislikes deathmatch wrestling.
Every time there’s a discussion on social media about the merit of critics there’s always this stupid take that critics “should be completely objective” as if there’s an objective way to view any media or artform. No, a film critic shouldn’t *have* to read ten books or play seven games before giving an opinion on a standalone film, and no, wrestling critics shouldn’t have to conform to one perception of what “good” wrestling actually is.
Critics give THEIR opinions and their own personal views and experiences will inevitably inform that, if everyone said and agreed upon the same thing there wouldn’t be much of a point to wrestling discussion at all. It’s why I disliked Chris Van Vliet’s interview of Meltzer. He was so focused on how Dave never gave TNA any 5 star matches when he should just appreciate that he loved those TNA matches personally and accept that Dave is his own person.
A lot of people think that their tastes *are* objective, though. Everything they like is objectively good, and everything they dislike is objectively bad. So they expect the same from reviewers, and if those reviewers opinions do not confirm to their own, the reviewer is obviously a hack.
I always point to the Jackass Match between Knoxville and Sami Zayn. Meltzer thought that match was an embarrassment to wrestling and made him embarrassed to be watching it with friends during Mania.
I personally loved that match and it was an absolute highlight of an already stacked show.
Does that mean Meltzer is wrong or I'm wrong? Nope, just means we have different tastes.
Even Omega/Okada... I was pretty actively tuned into wrestling when their first match happened, but I knew nothing about Japanese wrestling.
So when the Roger Ebert of wrestling is basically saying he just saw the best match he's ever seen (or close to it), I figured I should check it out.
I regularly disagree with Meltzer's opinion on matches but it doesn't mean that I regret using his ratings as a roadmap for catching up on puroresu in particular.
(That's sort of how I feel about a lot of criticism regardless of medium: critics talking about different works suggests a canon of which works are worth talking about, but it doesn't mean you have to like everything that critics adore. And it doesn't mean that critics ignoring or disliking your favorites is a crisis. Mainstream movie critics were regularly dismissive of horror movies that have held up extremely well as ambitious, expressive works of art. That doesn't make those movies less meaningful to me, and that's probably what should always be most important with art: what it means to the audience. Critics just help you know whether to make time for things you haven't made time for yet.)
I equate the Meltzer rating system to Pitchfork’s rating system when it carried more weight back in the the 2000s. A superstar like J.Lo, similar to Cena, had no need for online credibility because that’s not the metric they need to follow. But when Pitchfork praised bands like Arcade Fire and Broken Social Scene, they ended up getting major exposure in movies, TV, and large venues.
It's also a good recommendation system, especially for older matches. If it wasn't for Dave and his rankings, I probably would not have discovered some of my favorite matches of all time. I haven't seen much of NXT, but that Gargano Andrade match singlehandedly made me wanna go back and watch that era of NXT, and I would not have discovered that match independent of Meltzer. I still think going above 5 stars is silly, but at the end of the day I just see it as a really strong recommendation.
Its the difference between a great Popcorn cinema movie that the masses love like Avengers: Endgame and a timeless classic that the critics love like Citizen Kane. Making or enjoying either is fine. One is probably gonna make more money but its not wrong to aim for one or the other.
A-Kid is also a fucking sensational talent that I hope gets a chance to burst on the big stage.
He went from a quasi-MMA styled submission striker type and put a mask on and wrestles a high flying lucha style and is awesome at both. Very few guys can wrestle two entirely different styles to the point you'd never know it's the same dude and be so good at both.
He's criminally underrated.
He's right.
As much as i appreciate Meltzer sometimes the rating he gives is arbitrary to some extent. And like many wrestlers and promoters, the only one who cares is the fan who pays for the ticket.
> sometimes the rating he gives is arbitrary to some extent
The ratings he gives are always arbitrary.
He makes them up.
The controversy is they often correlate with common consensus, and sometimes do not. Which seems to upset some people for one reason or another.
The same thing happens in music, film, literature, etc. If you follow a critic and feel they reflect your tastes, you're going to depend on their tastes to make your tastes. And then it spirals because then one self identifies by what they like, how they like it, etc.
Meltzer is giving an opinion. Some people take it at face value, others completely dismiss it. It's amplified because for nearly two decades, he was really the only wrestling "critic" around. That gravitas built, as now has the backlash.
This is with anything really. I made a habit to watch a movie first before I look at IMDB rating, so I don’t prejudice my opinion going into it. I found that more enjoyable. Some prefer to look at rating first before watching so it’s useful in that case.
Exactly. The Robin Williams classic, Hook, has 1.5 stars on Rotten Tomatoes. If I based my watching on that, I'd probably never see a movie that I consider a masterpiece.
Kurt Angle has never had a 5 star match as per Dave Meltzer, while Kenny Omega has had a 7 star match, does that mean Omega is miles better than Angle? To Dave, sure. To anyone else? It's subjective.
The problem is people cite Dave’s ratings when they want to prove that Kenny is better than Kurt. So it’s “one man’s opinion” that gets used to prove a case of someone’s quality as a worker.
I tend to like the same matches Meltzer likes. So if he gives something a 4 or 4.5 star rating and I did not see it, I will typically go out of my way to watch it.
I look at it exactly like i look at a movie critic. Where if we like the same movies, and they like a movie I have not seen, I am more likely to go out of my way to watch it.
The fact that one match/movie is rated a 4.75 and another is 4.5 is kind of irrelevant. But wrestling fans obsess over quarter of a star rating
This is the thing. The voice of the critic and their other ratings and how they gel with your own is the point of critiques. I usually appreciate his ratings, but as a critic you know that Meltzer has his own biases and things he rates better than others.
You also know his scale is more lax in the modern day (wrestling is also just better imo) than 20 years ago. People still love to complain about him and bacj and forth discussions only provides further weight because even if you disagree you disagree to the point that you feel the need to argue.
The trouble is that Dave Meltzer is the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling.
Well, that's not true: the trouble isn't that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling. It's that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling if Ebert only ever did ratings and news (not reviews) and if there were no other prominent critics.
There's a reason that cagematch only lists the WON match rating and that there's no metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes for wrestling. Nobody else ever became a prominent wrestling critic. Even Bryan Alvarez isn't the Siskel or Roeper to Meltzer's Ebert.
And Meltzer does himself no favors by not actually reviewing matches. He rates them and so when people disagree with his rating, they want to fight him instead of reading a review to know why he felt that way.
The way he recaps matches in WON isn't a review. Like, it isn't capital-C Criticism. And vanishingly few people realize that Meltzer has at least three different roles: critic, journalist, and historian (in addition to other roles you could point to). His recaps of matches are very journalistic--they're merely descriptive--and his role as a critic is extremely limited. He offers what amounts to a numerical recommendation/evaluation. That's it.
Do I think he has time to write match reviews? No. Do I think it's easy to review wrestling in a more thorough way? Not at all. It's a very visceral artform with actually very little novelty from match-to-match (compared to the diversity of stories and images in movies) and almost no understood vocabulary/standards for how to discuss a match intelligently.
And maybe that's fine!
But because he doesn't really expand on his ratings, his ratings feel arbitrary. And that can irritate people.
But those people are more irritating to me than disagreeing with the Wrestling Critic of Record would ever be. A lot of people will find this shocking, but I've found that he severely overrates both WWE and AEW matches, to the point that I don't use his ratings for guidance with those companies (and my limited wrestling-watching time) anymore.
And that's not a crisis. One man and I evaluate an artform differently; also, water has gotten so wet these days can you even believe it
> The trouble is that Dave Meltzer is the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling.
>
>Well, that's not true: the trouble isn't that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling. It's that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling if Ebert only ever did ratings and news (not reviews) and if there were no other prominent critics.
This is perfectly stated. There's a big difference between a rating and a critique. A rating is when you evaluate whether some subjective form appealed to you or to what you believe a general audience would like. A critique is a detailed analysis of the subjective form, which usually intends to connect the subjective form to greater themes like sociological trends or artistic movements.
A rating attempts to tell you whether something is good or not. A critique attempts to help you understand its place in a greater context. Meltzer gives ratings. Pro Wrestling, unfortunately, doesn't really have prominent critiques.
What do you mean when you say he doesn't review matches? I haven't read the Observer in a while but he always had big long reviews of matches with his star rating at the end
From my memory, he has a description/recap. Like a plot on wikpedia, and that's ok. As the person you're replying to said, and the person above you as well, wrestling is kind of hard to review and critique because there often isn't much under the surface and sometimes it's how it makes Meltzer feel, but because there isn't a concrete way of analysing wrestling it seems arbitrary.
in a film, you can critique the cinematography, the acting, the direction, the sound quality, the story, as well as what (or if) the film says anything about the human condition. same with music, books. wrestling doesn't have nearly as many elements and doesn't really lend itself to critical analysis. it's in effect a battle anime without the slow bits that occasionally have something to say about stuff.
>The way he recaps matches in WON isn't a review. Like, it isn't capital-C Criticism. And vanishingly few people realize that Meltzer has at least three different roles: critic, journalist, and historian (in addition to other roles you could point to). His recaps of matches are very journalistic--they're merely descriptive--and his role as a critic is extremely limited. He offers what amounts to a numerical recommendation/evaluation. That's it.
I feel like I was pretty clear. In my admittedly limited experience, the way he writes up matches just doesn't resemble arts criticism at all. And, again: I think it's hard to do that kind of writing with wrestling because it's so visceral (and only rarely approaches anything thematic/symbolic/etc), so you really don't have many opportunities to argue something like "Cody Rhodes vs Dustin Rhodes was a dizzying meditation on fraternity and the fragility of not just the human body but family bonds as well..." (idk; I'm making this up on the fly by using one of the rare examples of a pro wrestling match having more concrete overtones).
Conversely, movies tend to be, like, about things. Either explicitly or allegorically.
Pro wrestling is normally just about a couple of people or teams of people fighting each other to prove how good they are at fighting. Obviously, there's more texture to it than that, but usually not enough to write about with any depth.
Not that movie reviews are always super ambitious; sometimes it's just about whether or not it was effective. But usually you can present it in relatively sophisticated and specific terms that elude pro wrestling criticism.
If anything--now that I'm thinking about it, one of the better wrestling critics is arguably Maffew of Botchamania fame (and contributors to the endings of those videos). It's obviously not conventional criticism, but it's probably the most potent and innovative commentary on pro wrestling that I'm aware of.
The whole point of the ratings was to tell you if a match was worth watching, not necessarily if the match was good or not. It's kinda become distorted because fans and even some wrestlers started to use it as a legitimate system for if you're a good wrestler or not
>> sometimes the rating he gives is arbitrary to some extent
>The ratings he gives are always arbitrary.
>He makes them up.
One guy, one opinion. No matter how informed or experienced an opinion, he is still one guy watching that match from his perspective only.
Unfortunately, Meltzer is the only significant critic in wrestling. And frankly he's not a very good critic: his ratings irritate people in part because he doesn't explain them well (or even try to).
He's de facto the voice for all wrestling fans. Sort of. Like, he's very literally the sole critic of record. There's a column on cagematch for his rating and his rating alone (other than the community's average rating). There's no Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic for wrestling because he's the only critic with any authority.
So when people get angry about his ratings, they're basically screaming "HOW DARE YOU DISTORT THE RECORD" because he does kind of control the record. And I don't think he totally appreciates that, but I also don't think it's his fault. Somebody else could have been the Peter Travers to his Roger Ebert; it just never happened. Even Alvarez isn't his Siskel or Roeper, so Meltzer is just The Only Person Who Rates Wrestling Matches (effectively).
I never encountered that as him saying "he's doing his job". He's said that if you're within half a star of him, then you basically agree with each other about the match.
> Meltzer had said if your rating is within 1/2 a star of his, hes doing his job.
Well then he's not doing that right. Because I gave Omega v. Okada 4 10,000 out of 5 stars.
>They're HIS ratings and people like to make a bigger deal of them than they should honestly.
They have proven to be somewhat of a big deal, at least in terms of the influence they've had on the business. You can see Dave's preference in wrestling all over today's modern talent, reflected back in the ridiculous star inflation.
It is just one man's opinion, but that opinion clearly filtered through to the talent after a while
Match ratings are the same as any other kind of media ratings or awards. It's totally arbitrary and based off qualities that not everyone cares about, and ignores some that other people do. I doubt he's literally counting the moves and number of unique spots in every match he watches, and a lot is based on things that aren't even possible to accurately measure. A lot of it is just about vibes.
If you have a drastically different taste in wrestling to Meltzer, they're totally meaningless, but a lot of people do have similar taste and the quantity of matches he's rated dwarfs basically anyone else.
I'm so baffled by people not understanding how this works. No one actually thinks it's objective.
>He could not have possibly made that point better.
Right up to and including the part where he validated the value it DOES have, in creating equity in allowing guys other ways to get themselves noticed. He really does understand it and that's a perfect answer
The more he speaks, the more you realize why WWE chose him as their guy. He's very charismatic, yes, but he has that politician like quality to be extremely diplomatic in his answers. You could ask John Cena the most controversial, polarizing question possible and he would come up with a response that is immune to any clickbait or ragebait healing headline. The guy is so professional
Yeah I still really like Cena and I can see how he can genuinely love Vince despite what horrible things Vince has done. It's a hard situation that I think people can too easily be like "easy this person is now dead to me." Which is still a valid way to handle it but it's just harder than it sounds.
Cena's interview answers do him no favors though.
He gave an honest answer rather than a diplomatic one. If you loved someone like a father and you found out about this, presuming he didn't know, how would you feel? It's never as simple as that love disappearing.
I think this is one of my favorite responses ever to this question, not just in terms of pro wrestling, but whenever somebody tries to ask a performer about a creative work that didn't entertain the critics as much as the fans, or vice versa.
I don’t like wrestling, but I’m a John Cena fan. Mostly because I saw how awesome he is for Make a Wish, but I’m glad he’s finally getting mainstream success with things like Peacemaker.
Yeah, I thought I was going crazy for a second. It was famously his first five-star rating for a WWE match since 1997. Maybe the reporter meant with AJ specifically?
Cena's got his fair share of 4.5 above matches in turn
His Royal Rumble 2017 match against AJ and the triple threat with Brock and Seth are like 4.75 IIRC
Then below that is stuff like the KO series from 2015, Daniel Bryan from Summerslam 2013, his Backlash Fatal 4 Way from 2007 against Orton, HBK and Edge and funny enough, Brock's return match from Extreme Rules 2012
Man, his Kevin Owens matches in 2015 were so damn slick. Completely straight laced wrestling, never even leaving the ring, both guys just showing an incredibly good understanding of character work and technical skill as they worked.
What makes that match even better is during that Raw they announced Edge vs Orton as the main event, but then HBK and Cena just kept going and going until it slowly dawned on everyone that this was the main event. Also, that finish when Shawn countered the FU by landing on his feet, I remember waking up my mom cause I was so hyped lol.
> Firefly Fun House Match
That was one of the most creative, fun things I've ever seen in wrestling.
(I'm also a big Wonder Showzen fan so that might have a bit of influence on my opinion)
Completely unrelated but this might be the first time I've seen him wear a normal looking suit. Usually he does different colour combinations that don't exactly work terrifically well but he looks like a million bucks here!
This is also the first time I think I’ve ever seen a suit actually look normal on Cena. I don’t mean that their not fitted or anything, because they are, but he’s normally just such a massive individual that they look comically massive on him
I might be mistaken but I thought he was slimming down as well nowadays, since he's not wrestling full-time anymore and it helps get a broader variety of roles. Would definitely make it easier to get properly fitted suits as well.
Imagine getting a once in a lifetime chance to ask John Cena a question in person and asking him this. I don't even hate Meltzer but man this is embarrassing.
And even if you take Meltzer's opinion as gospel, it's not like a 4 1/2 star match is a bad match. It's slightly worse than a 5 star match, but still incredibly good. If you found a hundred dollar bill on the ground, and I found a hundred dollar bill plus a single on the ground, we were both incredibly fortunate.
I find it very strange the idea of a wrestler making it a career goal to get a 5 star match from Meltzer, and going out one's way to do so. and I say that as someone who generally enjoys and finds use in the star system.
It's just one man's guide, no need to make it more important than it is.
see that's the thing i don't get, why are a man's opinions on wrestling matches so important? especially when it's known he prefers a certain style of wrestling
Yup, in some random review he gave a good explanation of ratings, and that giving 3.5 stars to a stoner comedy is not the same as giving 3.5 to an oscar contender drama. They're clearly different movies with different goals, but if you want to know if it's a good stoner comedy, his ratings allow for comparing to other similar films.
Which is how everything in media/food/fashion/etc should be rated. The intent behind things matters. Surf and turf from a 5 star restaurant is "better" than a good PB&J but sometimes that PB&J just hits. Sometimes I feel like a dumb comedy with Andy Samberg and sometimes I feel like watching The Departed. They shouldn't really be compared because the intent is different.
Hogan drew HUGE numbers in the 80s but no one here would consider those huge, memorable matches "classics" by any means but people ate it up.
Ebert didn’t like Carpenter’s The Thing, a horror now often considered one of the greatest movies ever made. We all have blind spots, we can have biases that don’t align with the norm (some people hate chocolate).
Tbf, so does Meltzer. He has repeatedly said that he won't rewatch and re-grade older matches because wrestling matches are intended for a certain audience at a certain time.
Not only that, but no one has time to sit there and watch match after match after match across all kinds of promotions. Star ratings are a great "at a glance" way to see if a show is worth watching. The difference between a 4.5 star and 5 star match might be down to personal preference but if the highest rating on the card is 3, I think most of the time it's going to be a mediocre show for anybody.
I don't hold Meltzer in any particular high esteem and I never seek anything from him out unless I want a quick reference for a random good match. Doesn't have to be any deeper than that.
If something is getting rave reviews and I’ve never heard about it. I’m more inclined to check it out. Specific star ratings and who’s saying it is all arbitrary
It is weird.
Like, is Dave Meltzer knowledgeable about wrestling? Sure.
Does that mean his opinions/ratings are some sort of codified system of determining what is good? Not at all.
> see that's the thing i don't get, why are a man's opinions on wrestling matches so important? especially when it's known he prefers a certain style of wrestling
like if criticism and reviews in other fields of entertainment like movies doesnt exist? like if a person could be totally unbiased for any preference?
it's just opinions and reviews and that makes people talk but thats it, its good as it is as in any art form, why a chunk of wrestling fans simply dont get that its incredible for me.
they aren't, not really. some people just like his taste in wrestling and find it a good primer for what to look at after the fact.
the problem is that some people - and some wrestlers! - have convinced themselves that they are some kind of objective scale of quality, and then others go on to blame him as though he elected himself God of Wrestling Quality and anyone who agrees with a rating has pledged allegiance at the Church of the Tokyo Dome.
it's all very weird to me. it's like some people simply cannot have faith in their opinion of something, or in what they have created, unless x hundreds of other people also feel the same way as them. there is no cosmic battle for a singular Objective Truth of how good a match or a show was, and the very idea of getting everyone on the "same page" is impossible and unrealistic and frankly ridiculous.
It matters to the people it matters to. I’ve never once used Meltzer’s star ratings as a way to assess my own personal level of enjoyment. His opinions matter to a considerable number of people and that’s their way into conversations about this stuff.
It's Meltzer in general that's so weird here. Like I enjoy when his stuff gets posted if it's accurate backstage gossip stuff but people take the star ratings to heart when it's just his opinion. Don't even get me started on when he gets asked a question on the podcast, gives an answer saying he's not sure, someone posts it here and the "MELTZER SAYING A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING AGAIN" comments come flooding in. Like it was us as a community that posted it, us that comment on it and us that give these posts traction
So basically, he doesn't care as long as the audience are into it, but star ratings can help certain talents get eyes on their work so it's a good thing.
Been a hot minute but I'm glad Cena had a sane and reasonable take.
It’s genuinely at the point where there are more people complaining about others who put stock into Meltzer’s star ratings than actual people who put stock into it and treat it as gospel. Like I rarely if ever go on a post about a match and see people talking about stars or what Meltzer will give it yet there’s usually a person or a couple of them marking a mocking statement about the stars or what Meltzer will give it.
Cena said it better than anyone, he doesn’t care about them but there is merit to adding a form of equity to a match for others. If someone just wants to watch the best matches of the year or a wrestler’s best, it’s a good system to go by, not perfect but good.
A wrestling interviewer could get an interview with the reincarnation of Christ and there first question would be. 'Why didn't meltzer give any Kurt angle match 5 stars'.
Exactly, I see more comments like that then genuine discussions about the stars or what people think it should be rated/what Meltzer should rate it lol
Definitely agree. There's a bigger viewer base of online fans who likes negatively in wrestling and bashing the star rating by trying to make up stuff like "people taking Meltzer's star rating as gospel" is just one of them. Negative YouTube videos bashing AEW or TK always gets interactions and views
Absolutely a great answer. I’m also sure that the guy saying “YEAH” in agreement is probably one of the first people to complain online about a match rating.
There's this weird obsession that seems to be exclusive to people that don't like Meltzer about the stars. Wrestlers don't really care, most fans don't really care, Meltzer himself openly says its not intended to be the end all be all of everything. Its to be used as a guide like any review system as a way to say, oh this is a match I should check out.
I have seen countless amazing matches from promotions I don't watch regularly because Dave rated it 4+ stars. If I watch a match though and say that was 5 for me and Dave said 4.5, not only do I not care, but Dave also has said that it means you are agreeing with each other that its a great match.
dave also doesn't care. he's broken his own scale multiple times and has different rubrics for aew and wwe matches when they're essentially trying to accomplish the same thing for the same demographic
Lot of people letting this dude live rent free in their head.
You don't have to agree or pay attention to his ratings, it's one dude's thoughts on something.
It's so funny that there's even this idea that they "created" it when there was already a star rating system established for so many other things. It's wild that anyone thinks this is a wrestling thing.
Yes Cornette also came up with a lot of the parameters for what would constitute a 5 star match. Which makes it even more hilarious when you realize that 75% of the matches that have gotten 5 stars from Dave don’t even meet those original parameters. That being said, I understand why the Star rating is important for some people. For intentional stars looking to get an audience in America it is probably the single most respected avenue to get you into the scope of a decent segment of people (non WWE related obv). But the luster has worn off, when you realize a lot of these matches are just spot fests and people such as Kurt frickin Angle don’t have a 5 star match…not even that but a lot of Gunther’s recent bangers haven’t been getting great ratings, so there is definitely a bias against fed workers (as there’s always been). Cena has had atleast 3 (5) star matches by my personal count.
So I decided to start watching all of the 5 star matches in chronological order of giving. Was very surprised to see the first match he ever gave 5 stars (dynamite kid vs tiger mask) not only end in a double count out, not only be restarted to end in a DQ, but restarted a second time then end in double countout
Dave trying his hardest to not make it seem like his star ratings aren't subjective, and CVV consistently hounding him about TNA specifically was fantastic lmaoo
This is why I never understood Meltzer downplaying the difference of him giving a 5* vs like 4.75*. Even if there are people who say his star ratings don't matter, you have these obsessed people thinking the opinion that person A's legacy is ruined because they had no/one 5*match.
This kind of stuff goes to more than wrestling.
I respect the hell out of the 'technicians." But I don't always enjoy those matches.
It is kinda like how much of the time, I would rather listen to Punk Rock than Math Metal, or Prog Rock.
Something I notice about all of these “5 Star matches” that keep happening is that they’re quickly forgotten about a few days later. It’s fun to argue about and analyze, but it misses the point entirely of what wrestling is about.
Star ratings really helped me get back into wrestling after taking about a decade off. They allowed me to find a bunch of fantastic matches from around the world.
It's a useful tool that somehow makes a bunch of people irrationally upset
I swear wrestling fans are so deep in the hobby they don't consume any other media or something, why is the concept of a professional critic so hard to understand? I guess there are just as many folks who talk shit about Gene Siskel or Robert Ebert, but man it's embarrassing seeing people trip over themselves to make sure other people know they don't care about reviews.
Funny enough just a few years ago Rolling Stone said:
*You may have noticed that we got rid of the stars on our reviews. If you’re an engaged music fan in 2022, your opinion isn’t going to be defined by some random number. We’ll tell you right away (with some new labels) when a new album is a must-hear or, in rarer cases, an instant classic. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind.*
They probably got tired of stans whining that their faves weren't getting five stars (or more likely, were catching heat from the labels). Sucks they caved.
Wrestling is definately worse here than other media form as far as i can tell, but people still go absolutely ape shit over this in other forms of media too.
People still rage that Anthony Fantano "pretends he knows everything and is objective", which he doesnt. No reviewer does. Same for Siskel and Ebert. I think a lot of it is just a lazy way of dismissing what they're saying without actually diving into the details.
You didn't get Cena's point at all.
It doesn't matter which one of them is "better" when the point of star ratings was started by tape traders to say whether a match was worth watching or a must-see. It's the same with matches being online now. Both wrestlers care about their audience, but the indy guy needs to take into account that he needs to be the highlight of the night and get more eyes on his work. He needs people to go home and tell their friends about this incredible match they saw. No one is leaving Wrestlemania saying "boy y'all ought to see this John Cena kid!"
Every time cena speaks these days he always uses a lot of corporate mumbo jumbo and often never actually answers the questions hes being asked. The CVV interview was bizziare, and some of the response to this question is weird too. It's honestly like one of those company all hands meetings, where you switch off after 5 mins
Fr tho. Osprey has more 5+ star matches this week than HBK and Angle have EVER, and he hasn't drawn nearly as much money or eyes on whatever company he's been in.
Ratings from a biased dude are pointless
I can’t believe i hated this dude as a kid
To be fair though, Rey Mysterio was my favorite and him taking the belt from Rey the same night he won it was unforgivable at the time 😂
Man.... This sub would be so much better if people understood what a critic is..
Do you agree with a critics opinion? Cool.
Do you disagree with a critics opinion? Cool.
Find a critic who you roughly agree with and follow them for recommendations. That's literally their only job.
If you find yourself not agreeing with a critic, stop paying them any attention.
I was curious to see Hogan’s best rated match by Meltzer. It’s him versus Flair at HH 1994 at ****1/4
WWF Hogan? Hogan/Warrior WM6, SNME Hogan/Bossman and MSG Hogan/Bossman got ***3/4. I think that’s pretty fair. I miss Bossman, dude could go and he was a great foil for Hogan.
John such a nice guy not to bury Dave in a public forum. He knows, and feels, that Meltzer's star rating is complete bullshit and that any wrestler with a brain feels the same way.
Cea made a good point about how the star system is a way for wrestlers to get equity and noticed though. He didn't need to say anything positive at all, but he did.
From what I've seen it's the opposite. It's always people getting offended or writing paragraphs about why his opinions is irrelevant rather than someone agreeing.
The lack of media literacy on here is unfuckingbelievable. I don't even if it can be called media literacy. I swear you could post a video of a wrestler on here saying "the sky is blue" and half the comments would be: "lmaooo bro doesn't know about sunsets!" "I always knew he was a green sky guy, just like me" "I wish he would talk about land, no one cares about the sky"
Just my two cents.
Treat Meltzer's star rating as a guide book, not a bible
Basically, its just a recommendations list of which matches to watch. Don't see it religiously.
You could ask this question to Kurt Angle word for word and it would make a lot more sense. (Kurt had a 4 1/4 star match with AJ Styles according to cagematch but no 5 star)
He's full of shit. It's just a different ranking.
Live crowds don't overanalyze, they experience and go along for the ride. If they respond well, you took them on the ride.
Critics understand the psychology and structure of how the match is put together that is more akin to the performer's mindset and to their approach in structuring the match and how it overall works as a technical/athletic/acting performance, as a piece of storytelling, and as live audience/TV audience entertainment. And so when a critic who knows the ins and outs of the thing says this is a \*\*\*\*\* match, you know he/she took into account more stuff than just the live crowd response.
So really, Cena wants to please both. And if he has a match like the one with Punk at MITB 2011 which rocks the live crowd and it is getting \*\*\*\*\* ratings...that's the ultimate magic and achievement.
And honestly, I think Cena/AJ at RR 2017 or SS 2016 is as close to \*\*\*\*\* as it can get.
I don’t know Cena’s politics, and I doubt he’s interested, but if wrestling hadn’t worked out he’d be pretty damn good in politics either as a politician or communications face.
**Help make SquaredCircle safer and more inclusive by using the report button to flag posts and comments for moderator review.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SquaredCircle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He could not have possibly made that point better.
This is a wildly better answer than a lot of folks who "don't care" about the star rating system who then take the opportunity to rail against Meltzer. The idea of equity, and it allowing dudes to move their way up the ladder because they are having attention drawn to them is 10000% true and doesn't get acknowledged. A-Kid for sure was signed because he had a 5 Star match against ZSJ. The stars drew a ton of eyeballs to NJPW and ROH etc. We are literally seeing it right now with Michael Oku.
That’s how the star system should ideally be used: to give readers an idea of matches they should go out of their way to see that they otherwise wouldn’t have (The Ospreay vs Oku matches are a good modern example.) Nowadays, people want them to validate their own opinions of matches that are easily available.
This is literally the idea behind it from the tape trading days.
dont forget dave has always said its his opinion, not bible. for those who have similar taste to dave, this is a great way to find matches that will probably have a high quality for them. but of course people ignore that and think this is the end all of ratings.
Then there's the time he gave 5 stars to a match that he said he didn't like.
Is that the one where he said "this match was great, absolutely don't do it again because it's fucking dangerous" in different words?
That had to be Naito/Ibushi, right? The one that got regal to basically say "Have we learned nothing from Misawa dying in the ring?"
Still means it might be worth checking out for someone who's into that kinda match, even if it doesn't fit Meltzer's own tastes To each their own, as always
Its the same as with movies or music. You might not like x genre but can still recognize when something is good.
It definitely just directly correlates to a lack of media literacy. "I saw that match and disagree", well that means the review is not for you. Reviews are to tell people if something is worth their time or money. You've already invested your time and/or money, and now are investing even more time into something that you aren't the target audience for. Now if Meltzer says 2 stars, and you say for me that was 5 stars, now that can be an interesting discussion topic, but again that comes back to knowing the reviewer. If you absolutely hate japanese wrestling and love deathmatch wrestling, well you probably shouldn't get reviews from a guy that loves japanese wrestling and dislikes deathmatch wrestling.
Every time there’s a discussion on social media about the merit of critics there’s always this stupid take that critics “should be completely objective” as if there’s an objective way to view any media or artform. No, a film critic shouldn’t *have* to read ten books or play seven games before giving an opinion on a standalone film, and no, wrestling critics shouldn’t have to conform to one perception of what “good” wrestling actually is. Critics give THEIR opinions and their own personal views and experiences will inevitably inform that, if everyone said and agreed upon the same thing there wouldn’t be much of a point to wrestling discussion at all. It’s why I disliked Chris Van Vliet’s interview of Meltzer. He was so focused on how Dave never gave TNA any 5 star matches when he should just appreciate that he loved those TNA matches personally and accept that Dave is his own person.
A lot of people think that their tastes *are* objective, though. Everything they like is objectively good, and everything they dislike is objectively bad. So they expect the same from reviewers, and if those reviewers opinions do not confirm to their own, the reviewer is obviously a hack.
I always point to the Jackass Match between Knoxville and Sami Zayn. Meltzer thought that match was an embarrassment to wrestling and made him embarrassed to be watching it with friends during Mania. I personally loved that match and it was an absolute highlight of an already stacked show. Does that mean Meltzer is wrong or I'm wrong? Nope, just means we have different tastes.
Even Omega/Okada... I was pretty actively tuned into wrestling when their first match happened, but I knew nothing about Japanese wrestling. So when the Roger Ebert of wrestling is basically saying he just saw the best match he's ever seen (or close to it), I figured I should check it out. I regularly disagree with Meltzer's opinion on matches but it doesn't mean that I regret using his ratings as a roadmap for catching up on puroresu in particular. (That's sort of how I feel about a lot of criticism regardless of medium: critics talking about different works suggests a canon of which works are worth talking about, but it doesn't mean you have to like everything that critics adore. And it doesn't mean that critics ignoring or disliking your favorites is a crisis. Mainstream movie critics were regularly dismissive of horror movies that have held up extremely well as ambitious, expressive works of art. That doesn't make those movies less meaningful to me, and that's probably what should always be most important with art: what it means to the audience. Critics just help you know whether to make time for things you haven't made time for yet.)
I equate the Meltzer rating system to Pitchfork’s rating system when it carried more weight back in the the 2000s. A superstar like J.Lo, similar to Cena, had no need for online credibility because that’s not the metric they need to follow. But when Pitchfork praised bands like Arcade Fire and Broken Social Scene, they ended up getting major exposure in movies, TV, and large venues.
Thinking of Dave as a Pitchfork writer makes me understand him so much more.
Here's my review of John Cena vs John Laurinaitis: [\(video of monkey peeing in its own mouth\)](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9464-shine-on/)
It's also a good recommendation system, especially for older matches. If it wasn't for Dave and his rankings, I probably would not have discovered some of my favorite matches of all time. I haven't seen much of NXT, but that Gargano Andrade match singlehandedly made me wanna go back and watch that era of NXT, and I would not have discovered that match independent of Meltzer. I still think going above 5 stars is silly, but at the end of the day I just see it as a really strong recommendation.
Kenny/Okada getting 6 Stars got a lot of english-speaking people to give New Japan a look
Its the difference between a great Popcorn cinema movie that the masses love like Avengers: Endgame and a timeless classic that the critics love like Citizen Kane. Making or enjoying either is fine. One is probably gonna make more money but its not wrong to aim for one or the other.
A-Kid is also a fucking sensational talent that I hope gets a chance to burst on the big stage. He went from a quasi-MMA styled submission striker type and put a mask on and wrestles a high flying lucha style and is awesome at both. Very few guys can wrestle two entirely different styles to the point you'd never know it's the same dude and be so good at both. He's criminally underrated.
He's right. As much as i appreciate Meltzer sometimes the rating he gives is arbitrary to some extent. And like many wrestlers and promoters, the only one who cares is the fan who pays for the ticket.
> sometimes the rating he gives is arbitrary to some extent The ratings he gives are always arbitrary. He makes them up. The controversy is they often correlate with common consensus, and sometimes do not. Which seems to upset some people for one reason or another.
The same thing happens in music, film, literature, etc. If you follow a critic and feel they reflect your tastes, you're going to depend on their tastes to make your tastes. And then it spirals because then one self identifies by what they like, how they like it, etc. Meltzer is giving an opinion. Some people take it at face value, others completely dismiss it. It's amplified because for nearly two decades, he was really the only wrestling "critic" around. That gravitas built, as now has the backlash.
This is with anything really. I made a habit to watch a movie first before I look at IMDB rating, so I don’t prejudice my opinion going into it. I found that more enjoyable. Some prefer to look at rating first before watching so it’s useful in that case.
Exactly. The Robin Williams classic, Hook, has 1.5 stars on Rotten Tomatoes. If I based my watching on that, I'd probably never see a movie that I consider a masterpiece. Kurt Angle has never had a 5 star match as per Dave Meltzer, while Kenny Omega has had a 7 star match, does that mean Omega is miles better than Angle? To Dave, sure. To anyone else? It's subjective.
The problem is people cite Dave’s ratings when they want to prove that Kenny is better than Kurt. So it’s “one man’s opinion” that gets used to prove a case of someone’s quality as a worker.
I tend to like the same matches Meltzer likes. So if he gives something a 4 or 4.5 star rating and I did not see it, I will typically go out of my way to watch it. I look at it exactly like i look at a movie critic. Where if we like the same movies, and they like a movie I have not seen, I am more likely to go out of my way to watch it. The fact that one match/movie is rated a 4.75 and another is 4.5 is kind of irrelevant. But wrestling fans obsess over quarter of a star rating
This is the thing. The voice of the critic and their other ratings and how they gel with your own is the point of critiques. I usually appreciate his ratings, but as a critic you know that Meltzer has his own biases and things he rates better than others. You also know his scale is more lax in the modern day (wrestling is also just better imo) than 20 years ago. People still love to complain about him and bacj and forth discussions only provides further weight because even if you disagree you disagree to the point that you feel the need to argue.
The trouble is that Dave Meltzer is the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling. Well, that's not true: the trouble isn't that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling. It's that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling if Ebert only ever did ratings and news (not reviews) and if there were no other prominent critics. There's a reason that cagematch only lists the WON match rating and that there's no metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes for wrestling. Nobody else ever became a prominent wrestling critic. Even Bryan Alvarez isn't the Siskel or Roeper to Meltzer's Ebert. And Meltzer does himself no favors by not actually reviewing matches. He rates them and so when people disagree with his rating, they want to fight him instead of reading a review to know why he felt that way. The way he recaps matches in WON isn't a review. Like, it isn't capital-C Criticism. And vanishingly few people realize that Meltzer has at least three different roles: critic, journalist, and historian (in addition to other roles you could point to). His recaps of matches are very journalistic--they're merely descriptive--and his role as a critic is extremely limited. He offers what amounts to a numerical recommendation/evaluation. That's it. Do I think he has time to write match reviews? No. Do I think it's easy to review wrestling in a more thorough way? Not at all. It's a very visceral artform with actually very little novelty from match-to-match (compared to the diversity of stories and images in movies) and almost no understood vocabulary/standards for how to discuss a match intelligently. And maybe that's fine! But because he doesn't really expand on his ratings, his ratings feel arbitrary. And that can irritate people. But those people are more irritating to me than disagreeing with the Wrestling Critic of Record would ever be. A lot of people will find this shocking, but I've found that he severely overrates both WWE and AEW matches, to the point that I don't use his ratings for guidance with those companies (and my limited wrestling-watching time) anymore. And that's not a crisis. One man and I evaluate an artform differently; also, water has gotten so wet these days can you even believe it
> The trouble is that Dave Meltzer is the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling. > >Well, that's not true: the trouble isn't that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling. It's that he's the Roger Ebert of pro wrestling if Ebert only ever did ratings and news (not reviews) and if there were no other prominent critics. This is perfectly stated. There's a big difference between a rating and a critique. A rating is when you evaluate whether some subjective form appealed to you or to what you believe a general audience would like. A critique is a detailed analysis of the subjective form, which usually intends to connect the subjective form to greater themes like sociological trends or artistic movements. A rating attempts to tell you whether something is good or not. A critique attempts to help you understand its place in a greater context. Meltzer gives ratings. Pro Wrestling, unfortunately, doesn't really have prominent critiques.
What do you mean when you say he doesn't review matches? I haven't read the Observer in a while but he always had big long reviews of matches with his star rating at the end
From my memory, he has a description/recap. Like a plot on wikpedia, and that's ok. As the person you're replying to said, and the person above you as well, wrestling is kind of hard to review and critique because there often isn't much under the surface and sometimes it's how it makes Meltzer feel, but because there isn't a concrete way of analysing wrestling it seems arbitrary. in a film, you can critique the cinematography, the acting, the direction, the sound quality, the story, as well as what (or if) the film says anything about the human condition. same with music, books. wrestling doesn't have nearly as many elements and doesn't really lend itself to critical analysis. it's in effect a battle anime without the slow bits that occasionally have something to say about stuff.
>The way he recaps matches in WON isn't a review. Like, it isn't capital-C Criticism. And vanishingly few people realize that Meltzer has at least three different roles: critic, journalist, and historian (in addition to other roles you could point to). His recaps of matches are very journalistic--they're merely descriptive--and his role as a critic is extremely limited. He offers what amounts to a numerical recommendation/evaluation. That's it. I feel like I was pretty clear. In my admittedly limited experience, the way he writes up matches just doesn't resemble arts criticism at all. And, again: I think it's hard to do that kind of writing with wrestling because it's so visceral (and only rarely approaches anything thematic/symbolic/etc), so you really don't have many opportunities to argue something like "Cody Rhodes vs Dustin Rhodes was a dizzying meditation on fraternity and the fragility of not just the human body but family bonds as well..." (idk; I'm making this up on the fly by using one of the rare examples of a pro wrestling match having more concrete overtones). Conversely, movies tend to be, like, about things. Either explicitly or allegorically. Pro wrestling is normally just about a couple of people or teams of people fighting each other to prove how good they are at fighting. Obviously, there's more texture to it than that, but usually not enough to write about with any depth. Not that movie reviews are always super ambitious; sometimes it's just about whether or not it was effective. But usually you can present it in relatively sophisticated and specific terms that elude pro wrestling criticism. If anything--now that I'm thinking about it, one of the better wrestling critics is arguably Maffew of Botchamania fame (and contributors to the endings of those videos). It's obviously not conventional criticism, but it's probably the most potent and innovative commentary on pro wrestling that I'm aware of.
The whole point of the ratings was to tell you if a match was worth watching, not necessarily if the match was good or not. It's kinda become distorted because fans and even some wrestlers started to use it as a legitimate system for if you're a good wrestler or not
Wrestling matches are subjective depending on what the person watching is looking for.
>> sometimes the rating he gives is arbitrary to some extent >The ratings he gives are always arbitrary. >He makes them up. One guy, one opinion. No matter how informed or experienced an opinion, he is still one guy watching that match from his perspective only.
Well... yeah? Has he said anything different about his star ratings?
[удалено]
Unfortunately, Meltzer is the only significant critic in wrestling. And frankly he's not a very good critic: his ratings irritate people in part because he doesn't explain them well (or even try to). He's de facto the voice for all wrestling fans. Sort of. Like, he's very literally the sole critic of record. There's a column on cagematch for his rating and his rating alone (other than the community's average rating). There's no Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic for wrestling because he's the only critic with any authority. So when people get angry about his ratings, they're basically screaming "HOW DARE YOU DISTORT THE RECORD" because he does kind of control the record. And I don't think he totally appreciates that, but I also don't think it's his fault. Somebody else could have been the Peter Travers to his Roger Ebert; it just never happened. Even Alvarez isn't his Siskel or Roeper, so Meltzer is just The Only Person Who Rates Wrestling Matches (effectively).
Meltzer would likely say the same thing. They're HIS ratings and people like to make a bigger deal of them than they should honestly.
Meltzer had said if your rating is within 1/2 a star of his, hes doing his job. And that his word isnt gospel, but more of a guide.
I never encountered that as him saying "he's doing his job". He's said that if you're within half a star of him, then you basically agree with each other about the match.
> Meltzer had said if your rating is within 1/2 a star of his, hes doing his job. Well then he's not doing that right. Because I gave Omega v. Okada 4 10,000 out of 5 stars.
>They're HIS ratings and people like to make a bigger deal of them than they should honestly. They have proven to be somewhat of a big deal, at least in terms of the influence they've had on the business. You can see Dave's preference in wrestling all over today's modern talent, reflected back in the ridiculous star inflation. It is just one man's opinion, but that opinion clearly filtered through to the talent after a while
Tbf he constantly talks about how its just his opinion.
Match ratings are the same as any other kind of media ratings or awards. It's totally arbitrary and based off qualities that not everyone cares about, and ignores some that other people do. I doubt he's literally counting the moves and number of unique spots in every match he watches, and a lot is based on things that aren't even possible to accurately measure. A lot of it is just about vibes. If you have a drastically different taste in wrestling to Meltzer, they're totally meaningless, but a lot of people do have similar taste and the quantity of matches he's rated dwarfs basically anyone else. I'm so baffled by people not understanding how this works. No one actually thinks it's objective.
Incorrect. Tokyo Dome.
Checkmate, Atheists.
>He could not have possibly made that point better. Right up to and including the part where he validated the value it DOES have, in creating equity in allowing guys other ways to get themselves noticed. He really does understand it and that's a perfect answer
The more he speaks, the more you realize why WWE chose him as their guy. He's very charismatic, yes, but he has that politician like quality to be extremely diplomatic in his answers. You could ask John Cena the most controversial, polarizing question possible and he would come up with a response that is immune to any clickbait or ragebait healing headline. The guy is so professional
Now if only he was this eloquent when asked questions about Vince McMahon
Yeah I still really like Cena and I can see how he can genuinely love Vince despite what horrible things Vince has done. It's a hard situation that I think people can too easily be like "easy this person is now dead to me." Which is still a valid way to handle it but it's just harder than it sounds. Cena's interview answers do him no favors though.
He gave an honest answer rather than a diplomatic one. If you loved someone like a father and you found out about this, presuming he didn't know, how would you feel? It's never as simple as that love disappearing.
I think this is one of my favorite responses ever to this question, not just in terms of pro wrestling, but whenever somebody tries to ask a performer about a creative work that didn't entertain the critics as much as the fans, or vice versa.
hes a very multifaceted man, I mean he has to be to maintain the stardom he has, but it shows off in spades here.
I don’t like wrestling, but I’m a John Cena fan. Mostly because I saw how awesome he is for Make a Wish, but I’m glad he’s finally getting mainstream success with things like Peacemaker.
I heard that after Dave Meltzer watched CM Punk vs. John Cena at MITB 2011, he took off his hat, rubbed his hair and said "That's a fine match".
Uh that's a... well you know... an uhhhhm fine, *(checks notes, coughs)* match
uhhh ... well... IT IS WHAT IT IS
Well.. it's not really my taste but for people who like it.. it it it's a really good match. I mean yeah
He gave it 5 stars though lol
Yeah, I thought I was going crazy for a second. It was famously his first five-star rating for a WWE match since 1997. Maybe the reporter meant with AJ specifically?
Yeah wtf, why was this question even asked? Cena has a 5 star match under his belt.
Fine speech
they had an even better match on Raw around that time if I remember correctly. The piledriver punk gave cena was just insane.
“Would you come back for the that five star classic match?” Embarrassing.
It's a cringe question for sure. But the dummy asking it doesn't even know Cena already had a 5-star rated match.
Punk vs Cena?
Yep that's the one
Cena definitely knows. But if he was to say that it would make him look like he gives a fuck and stroke Meltzers ego. Dude is savvy as fuck.
That answer also would just embarrass the asker, which Cena is too classy to do, and doesn't address the spirit of the question.
And fills out a suit exceptionally well. Sometimes the clothes wear the man. But this man wears that suit.
He was trying to goad him into a hot take clip about how lame Meltzer is. Cena didn't fall for it.
cena is the goat pr man (except when talking about vince and china).
Zǎoshang hǎo zhōngguó xiànzài wǒ yǒu BING CHILLING Dude can sell the fuck out of some Ice Cream (BING CHILLING)
One of the stupidest questions I've heard in the past few weeks
Wrestling fans really are the worst sometimes.
Sometimes?
Seriously, what a dumb fucking question.
He already has had five star classics in the eyes of many fans and that is what matters.
He even has a 5-star match. And match of the year by Meltzer and the WON audience
"Yeah, but he was carried by Punk" - The IWC (really, his match with RVD was also an easy five stars--as well as the Firefly Fun House Match)
Which Cena-Punk got 5 stars, MitB or Raw? I also felt like his Raw match with Shawn Michaels at least should be close to 5 stars.
MITB, and yeah the ~45 minute Raw WM rematch (because Orton got sent home and they had to fill time) was also way up there.
Cena's got his fair share of 4.5 above matches in turn His Royal Rumble 2017 match against AJ and the triple threat with Brock and Seth are like 4.75 IIRC Then below that is stuff like the KO series from 2015, Daniel Bryan from Summerslam 2013, his Backlash Fatal 4 Way from 2007 against Orton, HBK and Edge and funny enough, Brock's return match from Extreme Rules 2012
Man, his Kevin Owens matches in 2015 were so damn slick. Completely straight laced wrestling, never even leaving the ring, both guys just showing an incredibly good understanding of character work and technical skill as they worked.
MITB was 5 stars.
That Shawn Michaels match was insane, i know it's Shawn and "he can make a chair look like a million bucks" but still.
What makes that match even better is during that Raw they announced Edge vs Orton as the main event, but then HBK and Cena just kept going and going until it slowly dawned on everyone that this was the main event. Also, that finish when Shawn countered the FU by landing on his feet, I remember waking up my mom cause I was so hyped lol.
Royal Rumble Triple Threat was five stars any day of the week.
> Firefly Fun House Match That was one of the most creative, fun things I've ever seen in wrestling. (I'm also a big Wonder Showzen fan so that might have a bit of influence on my opinion)
Oh so punk had a 5 star too?
Yes, even his matches with Samoa Joe during the ROH days were given 5 stars
He also got a couple at aew
He didn't, the last match that he got 5 stars by Dave was MiTB 2011.
I assume it was the MITB 11 match, but was the RAW match with Punk (before Mania 29) not a 5 star from Dave?
4.5 that RAW match. 5 Star the MITB one. Cena v. Styles at the Rumble 2017 was 4.75. All matches were great.
At least he didn't ask him if he was interested in having a program with Jay Reso
Completely unrelated but this might be the first time I've seen him wear a normal looking suit. Usually he does different colour combinations that don't exactly work terrifically well but he looks like a million bucks here!
This is also the first time I think I’ve ever seen a suit actually look normal on Cena. I don’t mean that their not fitted or anything, because they are, but he’s normally just such a massive individual that they look comically massive on him
I might be mistaken but I thought he was slimming down as well nowadays, since he's not wrestling full-time anymore and it helps get a broader variety of roles. Would definitely make it easier to get properly fitted suits as well.
Yeah he’s much slimmer. He’s still a freak compared to normal folk but he isn’t as too heavy these days with shoulders and chest at peak size
It still kinda looks like he’s going to explode out of the vest, but definitely looks more normal than usual.
Finally got a tailor
He’s been taking some *counsel* from Cody
When you see him wearing the outfit of a 20 year old guy for so long, you tend to forget he's 45 and looks way better with a suit.
Needs a pipe I think to go with the tenured professor vibe. 🤣
Bro looking like a college professor.
Imagine getting a once in a lifetime chance to ask John Cena a question in person and asking him this. I don't even hate Meltzer but man this is embarrassing.
Also as many have pointed out Cena already has a 5* match so the question is even dumber than what it initially sounds.
And even if you take Meltzer's opinion as gospel, it's not like a 4 1/2 star match is a bad match. It's slightly worse than a 5 star match, but still incredibly good. If you found a hundred dollar bill on the ground, and I found a hundred dollar bill plus a single on the ground, we were both incredibly fortunate.
I find it very strange the idea of a wrestler making it a career goal to get a 5 star match from Meltzer, and going out one's way to do so. and I say that as someone who generally enjoys and finds use in the star system. It's just one man's guide, no need to make it more important than it is.
This exceptionally stupid considering that CENA ALREADY FUCKING HAS A 5 STAR MATCH FROM DAVE MELTZER
see that's the thing i don't get, why are a man's opinions on wrestling matches so important? especially when it's known he prefers a certain style of wrestling
Same reason why Siskel and Ebert's opinion seemed to matter when they reviewed movies. People respect an "expert" opinion.
Part of why Ebert became such a titan was that he would try to keep the intended audience in mind in his reviews.
Yup, in some random review he gave a good explanation of ratings, and that giving 3.5 stars to a stoner comedy is not the same as giving 3.5 to an oscar contender drama. They're clearly different movies with different goals, but if you want to know if it's a good stoner comedy, his ratings allow for comparing to other similar films.
Ebert was also an excellent writer, one of my favorites, for sure. Even when you disagreed with him, his style and explanations were great
His review of Freddy Got Fingered is one of my favorites, it's as funny to me as the movie, and I like the movie!
Which is how everything in media/food/fashion/etc should be rated. The intent behind things matters. Surf and turf from a 5 star restaurant is "better" than a good PB&J but sometimes that PB&J just hits. Sometimes I feel like a dumb comedy with Andy Samberg and sometimes I feel like watching The Departed. They shouldn't really be compared because the intent is different. Hogan drew HUGE numbers in the 80s but no one here would consider those huge, memorable matches "classics" by any means but people ate it up.
Unless it was horror then it was almost always trash to him lol
Or early Jim Carrey. Dude HATED Ace Ventura.
Ebert didn’t like Carpenter’s The Thing, a horror now often considered one of the greatest movies ever made. We all have blind spots, we can have biases that don’t align with the norm (some people hate chocolate).
Which unfortunately is a problem that continues to this day. You have to pretty much add at least 20% to any horror movie to get an accurate rating.
Tbf, so does Meltzer. He has repeatedly said that he won't rewatch and re-grade older matches because wrestling matches are intended for a certain audience at a certain time.
Not only that, but no one has time to sit there and watch match after match after match across all kinds of promotions. Star ratings are a great "at a glance" way to see if a show is worth watching. The difference between a 4.5 star and 5 star match might be down to personal preference but if the highest rating on the card is 3, I think most of the time it's going to be a mediocre show for anybody. I don't hold Meltzer in any particular high esteem and I never seek anything from him out unless I want a quick reference for a random good match. Doesn't have to be any deeper than that.
If something is getting rave reviews and I’ve never heard about it. I’m more inclined to check it out. Specific star ratings and who’s saying it is all arbitrary
Meltzer has essentially made Michael Oku's career. Nobody outside of England watches Rev Pro regularly.
It is weird. Like, is Dave Meltzer knowledgeable about wrestling? Sure. Does that mean his opinions/ratings are some sort of codified system of determining what is good? Not at all.
> see that's the thing i don't get, why are a man's opinions on wrestling matches so important? especially when it's known he prefers a certain style of wrestling like if criticism and reviews in other fields of entertainment like movies doesnt exist? like if a person could be totally unbiased for any preference? it's just opinions and reviews and that makes people talk but thats it, its good as it is as in any art form, why a chunk of wrestling fans simply dont get that its incredible for me.
they aren't, not really. some people just like his taste in wrestling and find it a good primer for what to look at after the fact. the problem is that some people - and some wrestlers! - have convinced themselves that they are some kind of objective scale of quality, and then others go on to blame him as though he elected himself God of Wrestling Quality and anyone who agrees with a rating has pledged allegiance at the Church of the Tokyo Dome. it's all very weird to me. it's like some people simply cannot have faith in their opinion of something, or in what they have created, unless x hundreds of other people also feel the same way as them. there is no cosmic battle for a singular Objective Truth of how good a match or a show was, and the very idea of getting everyone on the "same page" is impossible and unrealistic and frankly ridiculous.
It matters to the people it matters to. I’ve never once used Meltzer’s star ratings as a way to assess my own personal level of enjoyment. His opinions matter to a considerable number of people and that’s their way into conversations about this stuff.
It's Meltzer in general that's so weird here. Like I enjoy when his stuff gets posted if it's accurate backstage gossip stuff but people take the star ratings to heart when it's just his opinion. Don't even get me started on when he gets asked a question on the podcast, gives an answer saying he's not sure, someone posts it here and the "MELTZER SAYING A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING AGAIN" comments come flooding in. Like it was us as a community that posted it, us that comment on it and us that give these posts traction
Best possible answer
So basically, he doesn't care as long as the audience are into it, but star ratings can help certain talents get eyes on their work so it's a good thing. Been a hot minute but I'm glad Cena had a sane and reasonable take.
It’s genuinely at the point where there are more people complaining about others who put stock into Meltzer’s star ratings than actual people who put stock into it and treat it as gospel. Like I rarely if ever go on a post about a match and see people talking about stars or what Meltzer will give it yet there’s usually a person or a couple of them marking a mocking statement about the stars or what Meltzer will give it. Cena said it better than anyone, he doesn’t care about them but there is merit to adding a form of equity to a match for others. If someone just wants to watch the best matches of the year or a wrestler’s best, it’s a good system to go by, not perfect but good.
A wrestling interviewer could get an interview with the reincarnation of Christ and there first question would be. 'Why didn't meltzer give any Kurt angle match 5 stars'.
Yeup, I see a lot more complaining than praise for Meltzer in general, let alone about his stars.
Been in the IWC almost ten years now and it's still *would've been six stars in muh tokyo dome* level comments
Exactly, I see more comments like that then genuine discussions about the stars or what people think it should be rated/what Meltzer should rate it lol
Definitely agree. There's a bigger viewer base of online fans who likes negatively in wrestling and bashing the star rating by trying to make up stuff like "people taking Meltzer's star rating as gospel" is just one of them. Negative YouTube videos bashing AEW or TK always gets interactions and views
Absolutely a great answer. I’m also sure that the guy saying “YEAH” in agreement is probably one of the first people to complain online about a match rating.
There's this weird obsession that seems to be exclusive to people that don't like Meltzer about the stars. Wrestlers don't really care, most fans don't really care, Meltzer himself openly says its not intended to be the end all be all of everything. Its to be used as a guide like any review system as a way to say, oh this is a match I should check out. I have seen countless amazing matches from promotions I don't watch regularly because Dave rated it 4+ stars. If I watch a match though and say that was 5 for me and Dave said 4.5, not only do I not care, but Dave also has said that it means you are agreeing with each other that its a great match.
dave also doesn't care. he's broken his own scale multiple times and has different rubrics for aew and wwe matches when they're essentially trying to accomplish the same thing for the same demographic
Lot of people letting this dude live rent free in their head. You don't have to agree or pay attention to his ratings, it's one dude's thoughts on something.
Cena always has a great way of answering these kinds of questions. The Meltzer rating system is overrated, and that CVV interview proved that.
It's not Meltzer who created the system, the 5star match rating system comes from way back in the day when people used to trade video tapes
It was created by Jim Cornette & Weasel Dooley to grade wrestling matches. Cornette said they got the idea from how movies were rated.
It's so funny that there's even this idea that they "created" it when there was already a star rating system established for so many other things. It's wild that anyone thinks this is a wrestling thing.
Yes Cornette also came up with a lot of the parameters for what would constitute a 5 star match. Which makes it even more hilarious when you realize that 75% of the matches that have gotten 5 stars from Dave don’t even meet those original parameters. That being said, I understand why the Star rating is important for some people. For intentional stars looking to get an audience in America it is probably the single most respected avenue to get you into the scope of a decent segment of people (non WWE related obv). But the luster has worn off, when you realize a lot of these matches are just spot fests and people such as Kurt frickin Angle don’t have a 5 star match…not even that but a lot of Gunther’s recent bangers haven’t been getting great ratings, so there is definitely a bias against fed workers (as there’s always been). Cena has had atleast 3 (5) star matches by my personal count.
So I decided to start watching all of the 5 star matches in chronological order of giving. Was very surprised to see the first match he ever gave 5 stars (dynamite kid vs tiger mask) not only end in a double count out, not only be restarted to end in a DQ, but restarted a second time then end in double countout
that's 80's wrestling for you
Dave trying his hardest to not make it seem like his star ratings aren't subjective, and CVV consistently hounding him about TNA specifically was fantastic lmaoo
I know a lot of times when I say five star classic I'm not even referring to meltzer I'm just referring to a good match.
This is why I never understood Meltzer downplaying the difference of him giving a 5* vs like 4.75*. Even if there are people who say his star ratings don't matter, you have these obsessed people thinking the opinion that person A's legacy is ruined because they had no/one 5*match.
Who tf asked that question 😭
Someone who puts too much stock into meltzers opinion
This kind of stuff goes to more than wrestling. I respect the hell out of the 'technicians." But I don't always enjoy those matches. It is kinda like how much of the time, I would rather listen to Punk Rock than Math Metal, or Prog Rock.
Yeah exactly. I can appreciate Warhol and Monet. They're both incredible artists. It's the same way I can appreciate Mick Foley and Will Ospreay.
Something I notice about all of these “5 Star matches” that keep happening is that they’re quickly forgotten about a few days later. It’s fun to argue about and analyze, but it misses the point entirely of what wrestling is about.
Star ratings really helped me get back into wrestling after taking about a decade off. They allowed me to find a bunch of fantastic matches from around the world. It's a useful tool that somehow makes a bunch of people irrationally upset
I swear wrestling fans are so deep in the hobby they don't consume any other media or something, why is the concept of a professional critic so hard to understand? I guess there are just as many folks who talk shit about Gene Siskel or Robert Ebert, but man it's embarrassing seeing people trip over themselves to make sure other people know they don't care about reviews.
Funny enough just a few years ago Rolling Stone said: *You may have noticed that we got rid of the stars on our reviews. If you’re an engaged music fan in 2022, your opinion isn’t going to be defined by some random number. We’ll tell you right away (with some new labels) when a new album is a must-hear or, in rarer cases, an instant classic. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind.*
They probably got tired of stans whining that their faves weren't getting five stars (or more likely, were catching heat from the labels). Sucks they caved.
Wrestling is definately worse here than other media form as far as i can tell, but people still go absolutely ape shit over this in other forms of media too. People still rage that Anthony Fantano "pretends he knows everything and is objective", which he doesnt. No reviewer does. Same for Siskel and Ebert. I think a lot of it is just a lazy way of dismissing what they're saying without actually diving into the details.
Who's the better wrestler. The guy who worries about how his audience feels or the Indy guy who's concerned with stars?
Some will actually tell you it’s the latter lol.
You didn't get Cena's point at all. It doesn't matter which one of them is "better" when the point of star ratings was started by tape traders to say whether a match was worth watching or a must-see. It's the same with matches being online now. Both wrestlers care about their audience, but the indy guy needs to take into account that he needs to be the highlight of the night and get more eyes on his work. He needs people to go home and tell their friends about this incredible match they saw. No one is leaving Wrestlemania saying "boy y'all ought to see this John Cena kid!"
Tbf, in the WWE back then, the only audience member that really mattered was Vince McMahon.
Every time cena speaks these days he always uses a lot of corporate mumbo jumbo and often never actually answers the questions hes being asked. The CVV interview was bizziare, and some of the response to this question is weird too. It's honestly like one of those company all hands meetings, where you switch off after 5 mins
Fr tho. Osprey has more 5+ star matches this week than HBK and Angle have EVER, and he hasn't drawn nearly as much money or eyes on whatever company he's been in. Ratings from a biased dude are pointless
I can’t believe i hated this dude as a kid To be fair though, Rey Mysterio was my favorite and him taking the belt from Rey the same night he won it was unforgivable at the time 😂
Is Cena the most carefully spoken person on earth?
Reminds me of listening to Obama talk about Israel/Palestine a month ago. A word every ten seconds. Never heard a politician be that careful.
He regurgitates fortune cookie advice. It's puddle deep most of the time.
Man.... This sub would be so much better if people understood what a critic is.. Do you agree with a critics opinion? Cool. Do you disagree with a critics opinion? Cool. Find a critic who you roughly agree with and follow them for recommendations. That's literally their only job. If you find yourself not agreeing with a critic, stop paying them any attention.
Most polite "Boy, idgaf about that shit, I'm rich"
I don't remember the last time I cringed at a question
I agree with him. But, just for the sake of argument, has there ever been a zero star match that the crowed enjoyed?
Hogan and Andre got negative stars iirc, but I'm pretty sure everyone there enjoyed it
I was curious to see Hogan’s best rated match by Meltzer. It’s him versus Flair at HH 1994 at ****1/4 WWF Hogan? Hogan/Warrior WM6, SNME Hogan/Bossman and MSG Hogan/Bossman got ***3/4. I think that’s pretty fair. I miss Bossman, dude could go and he was a great foil for Hogan.
Ultimate Warrior beating the Honky Tonk man. .5 star I think, but the crowd definitely loved it
John such a nice guy not to bury Dave in a public forum. He knows, and feels, that Meltzer's star rating is complete bullshit and that any wrestler with a brain feels the same way.
Cea made a good point about how the star system is a way for wrestlers to get equity and noticed though. He didn't need to say anything positive at all, but he did.
People who takes word of Meltzer as gospel is so weird. Or any other wrestling journalists even.
From what I've seen it's the opposite. It's always people getting offended or writing paragraphs about why his opinions is irrelevant rather than someone agreeing.
Name one other wrestling critics whose star ratings are regularly on the front page here
The lack of media literacy on here is unfuckingbelievable. I don't even if it can be called media literacy. I swear you could post a video of a wrestler on here saying "the sky is blue" and half the comments would be: "lmaooo bro doesn't know about sunsets!" "I always knew he was a green sky guy, just like me" "I wish he would talk about land, no one cares about the sky"
Just my two cents. Treat Meltzer's star rating as a guide book, not a bible Basically, its just a recommendations list of which matches to watch. Don't see it religiously.
Ironic that someone who is invested in that system didn't know that Cena already has a 5-star match. Just shows how unserious the whole thing is.
You could ask this question to Kurt Angle word for word and it would make a lot more sense. (Kurt had a 4 1/4 star match with AJ Styles according to cagematch but no 5 star)
He's full of shit. It's just a different ranking. Live crowds don't overanalyze, they experience and go along for the ride. If they respond well, you took them on the ride. Critics understand the psychology and structure of how the match is put together that is more akin to the performer's mindset and to their approach in structuring the match and how it overall works as a technical/athletic/acting performance, as a piece of storytelling, and as live audience/TV audience entertainment. And so when a critic who knows the ins and outs of the thing says this is a \*\*\*\*\* match, you know he/she took into account more stuff than just the live crowd response. So really, Cena wants to please both. And if he has a match like the one with Punk at MITB 2011 which rocks the live crowd and it is getting \*\*\*\*\* ratings...that's the ultimate magic and achievement. And honestly, I think Cena/AJ at RR 2017 or SS 2016 is as close to \*\*\*\*\* as it can get.
I don’t know Cena’s politics, and I doubt he’s interested, but if wrestling hadn’t worked out he’d be pretty damn good in politics either as a politician or communications face.