Meltzer's No Mercy star ratings

[Guest Doyo]

Like they needed a reason for their egos to get any bigger. I can't wait

for all 4 McMahons to main event Wrestlemania XX!

 

Mysterio v. Tajiri ***3/4

Benoit v. A-Train ***1/4

Hardy v. Gowen **

APA v. Bashams 3/4*

Vince v. Stephanie **3/4

Angle v. Cena ****1/4

Eddy v. Big Show **

Lesnar v. Undertaker **

[Tawren 0]

Meltzer's more of a dumbass than SK, to be honest.

[Guest JMA]

How could two non-wrestlers get two stars?

 

[Guest Coffey]

You know, more than half of the time when people rate matches, they base their decision on whom is involved in the match instead of rating what they actually see.

 

I swear people like Mark Henry start at a negative star and people like Guerrero, Benoit & Angle start with two.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Are you sure Scott Keith didn't rate this?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

 

Drugs are Bad, Mmmkay kids?

[Guest Doyo]

He said the crowd was very into it and Vince was incredible at playing the heel role,

but how those two things alone could bring it above ** I don't know.

 

The readers voted it second worst match behind APA vs. Bashams.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Dave is a mark for Mr. McMahon, he always overrates his matches and always uses "for what it was"... DRUGS ARE BAD!! NO! NO! NO DAVE! BAD!

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

I'd give Vince/Steph at HIGHEST ** if I was in mark mode.

 

The crowd was into this match more than most of the show and had great emotion in it....

 

but wrestling wise it sucked so it would drag back to a *.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Meltzer is a great reporter, but a crappy reviewer.

[ISportsFan 0]

Meltzer is a great reporter, but a crappy reviewer.

I was thinking the same thing, word for word.

 

Jason

[Guest Doyo]

Well, half this issue is almost a mini-book on Stu Hart and Hawk. It is pretty amazing

how much info he can come up with week after week.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I'm sure he had the Stu stuff lined up for a few years now, to be honest.

[Highland 0]

You know, more than half of the time when people rate matches, they base their decision on whom is involved in the match instead of rating what they actually see.

 

I swear people like Mark Henry start at a negative star and people like Guerrero, Benoit & Angle start with two.

I think most people base star ratings on who is in the match. How often have you heard "Big Show was in it so that takes it down a few stars"? It's pathetic really, he (or anyone else) could bust his ass and walk on water and they'd still bitch about him being in a match.

[Guest Coffey]

Exactly, that was my point. If you have a match between Chris Benoit & Kurt Angle, no matter how much interference, blown spots, ref bumps, etc., the match will still get at least three stars.

 

If that same match happened between two wrestlers whom weren't "smark darlings" then all the flaws would be pointed out.

 

It's the double standard rearing it's ugly head yet again.

 

It's the same on the opposite side of the spectrum as well. If Mark Henry & Test had a good match that ended clean, was well paced, had zero blown spots, etc. it would get dick for ratings. Why? Well, I think we know why.

 

It's an unfair bias. It's part of the reason why the IWC is a laughing stock. We're (we as in generalizing all of the IWC) supposed to be such BIG fans, when in reality, we're just marks that follow a different set of wrestlers.

 

I can't be the only one who notices how petty and immature we all seem....

 

I know that I try to watch without having any bias towards people. Sure, I might not like a couple of gimmicks or characters, but that doesn't mean that they can't have a good-great night, or a piss poor night.

[Damaramu 0]

Exactly, that was my point. If you have a match between Chris Benoit & Kurt Angle, no matter how much interference, blown spots, ref bumps, etc., the match will still get at least three stars.

 

If that same match happened between two wrestlers whom weren't "smark darlings" then all the flaws would be pointed out.

 

It's the double standard rearing it's ugly head yet again.

 

It's the same on the opposite side of the spectrum as well. If Mark Henry & Test had a good match that ended clean, was well paced, had zero blown spots, etc. it would get dick for ratings. Why? Well, I think we know why.

 

It's an unfair bias. It's part of the reason why the IWC is a laughing stock. We're (we as in generalizing all of the IWC) supposed to be such BIG fans, when in reality, we're just marks that follow a different set of wrestlers.

 

I can't be the only one who notices how petty and immature we all seem....

 

I know that I try to watch without having any bias towards people. Sure, I might not like a couple of gimmicks or characters, but that doesn't mean that they can't have a good-great night, or a piss poor night.

Actually I never use star ratings. And I'm a super-smark so to speak. And if I were to see an Angle/Benoit match with a crappy finish, interference, and tons of ref bumps I'd probably say what I woudl if it happened in an Albert/Big Show match..."It sucked" I believe i said that about there 7 minute match on SD! last year as a matter of fact.

Usually whenever you see 2 GOOD workers in a match who generally have GOOD matches on a regular basis of course it's going to get higher ratings and people will be expecting a good match going in. But if you see that it's got Big Show and Mark Henry in it you're probably going to have low expectations because they're BAD wrestlers. And they put on BAD matches.

[Guest Coffey]

It was a generalization, obviously, so it won't apply to 100% of the IWC community.

 

That being said, we, as a majority, are definitely stereotyped.

[Damaramu 0]

Yeah and it sucks. Because I consider myself a smark and I don't do half of the crap that people seem to think smarks do. As a matter of fact most smarks on here don't do half of the crap that is sterotyped to us.

It's like the stereotype of the black man eating fried chicken and robbing you. It generally isn't true...but people cling to it to try and get a point across. Those people are called morons.

[Guest Coffey]

I'd say the majority of the smarks here are sheep. It seems as if no one is willing to type what it is they are actually thinking anymore. Everyone just tries to say what they think other people want to read. So, it comes off as everyone sounding like they have the same opinion.

 

I know where you're coming from however, and I agree. Stereotypes, in general, suck.

[Damaramu 0]

Yes but the thing is I don't post what I think other people want to see...hell if I did that I'd probably have more fans here. And I know I'm not the only one. That's why I think that the sheep are a small minority while the rest of the people are posting what they actually think. And if a few people's opinions and thoughts turn out the same....so what!? People can have the same opinion. It doesn't make them a sheep to have the same opinion.

I mean I'm pretty sure most people hate HHH for the same reason I do. Because he puts on boring shitty matches and takes up to much TV time. Not because it's the "cool" thing to do.

And as for all the "anti-smarks" generally they are the sheep. They post the exact opposite of the majority opinion just because it's the opposite. It doesn't matter what is being said or what they actually believe...they post the opposite just because they think it makes them cool or whatever. I mean they'll disagree just to disagree.

"Man I hate HHH..."

"You stupid smark! Always hating HHH! HHH rules!"

"Ok I love HHH...."

"What? HHH sucks! Smark sheep!"

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Exactly, that was my point. If you have a match between Chris Benoit & Kurt Angle, no matter how much interference, blown spots, ref bumps, etc., the match will still get at least three stars.

 

If that same match happened between two wrestlers whom weren't "smark darlings" then all the flaws would be pointed out.

 

It's the double standard rearing it's ugly head yet again.

 

It's the same on the opposite side of the spectrum as well. If Mark Henry & Test had a good match that ended clean, was well paced, had zero blown spots, etc. it would get dick for ratings. Why? Well, I think we know why.

 

It's an unfair bias. It's part of the reason why the IWC is a laughing stock. We're (we as in generalizing all of the IWC) supposed to be such BIG fans, when in reality, we're just marks that follow a different set of wrestlers.

 

I can't be the only one who notices how petty and immature we all seem....

 

I know that I try to watch without having any bias towards people. Sure, I might not like a couple of gimmicks or characters, but that doesn't mean that they can't have a good-great night, or a piss poor night.

That may be true for some, but some of the better posters will call a spade a spade no matter who's in the match.

 

One of the biggest problems with the "anti-smarks" are the ones who turn the blind eye when we actually say we like something and only tend to pay attention when we bitch. Selective reading, they read only what benefits their argument.

[Guest Coffey]

I think you may be misunderstanding me.

 

First off, these are generalizations. I'm not talking to you directly when I say things like the majority of the posters are sheep.

 

Secondly, when I say sheep, I don't mean people who share the same opinion. I mean people who don't have an opinion (or personality) so they just form one based on what everyone else says. I have no problem with people having the same opinion. However, doesn't it irk you when you see a new poster and their first posts are "Why Triple H is bomb" and ten to twenty posts later "Yeah, he sucks, I was just goofin." ???

 

TMD, you talking about the "anti-smark" is another stereotype and sounds hypocritical after reading the previous paragraph. It sounds like you are saying that since they "anti-smarks" are in the minority, and share the same opinion (which doesn't make them sheep, remember?) means that they are wrong.

[Damaramu 0]

I've never seen someone say they were kidding.

But I do hate the people who's first post is "OMG! I'm so tired of HHH! He's having sex with Stephanie! God I hope he dies!"

[Damaramu 0]

TMD, you talking about the "anti-smark" is another stereotype and sounds hypocritical after reading the previous paragraph.

Actually what I'm saying about the anti-smark isn't a stereotype. If you've ever seen one post they all follow the same basic pattern.

I'm talking about people who come on here just to disagree. Every post they make is to disagree with majority opinion. Pay attention and you'll see them. Now someone that is here and disagreeing is fine but I'm talking about someone that comes on here and does what I said they do. Watch....they exist. That's what I'm referring to. I'm not referring to every person who disagrees. Just those.

[Guest Coffey]

I'm just trying to say, that it seems like a lot of people around these parts are more "fake" nowadays.

 

You know what I mean?

 

Everyone wants to stand out, but they all want to fit in. So, what we get is two sides. People who like one thing and people who don't. Then, they post the same thing back and forth to one another. The member names don't even matter. It's all the same content.

[Damaramu 0]

I'm just trying to say, that it seems like a lot of people around these parts are more "fake" nowadays.

 

You know what I mean?

 

Everyone wants to stand out, but they all want to fit in. So, what we get is two sides. People who like one thing and people who don't. Then, they post the same thing back and forth to one another. The member names don't even matter. It's all the same content.

Then may I ask...why are you here?

[Guest Coffey]

Actually what I'm saying about the anti-smark isn't a stereotype. If you've ever seen one post they all follow the same basic pattern.

I'm talking about people who come on here just to disagree. Every post they make is to disagree with majority opinion. Pay attention and you'll see them. Now someone that is here and disagreeing is fine but I'm talking about someone that comes on here and does what I said they do. Watch....they exist. That's what I'm referring to. I'm not referring to every person who disagrees. Just those.

I know the people you're talking about. Like the 1inch punch in the NWA:TNA folder. They exist, so it seems, to flamebait, derail threads, and disagree with anything the other posters say, even at the extent of sounding hypocritical.

 

Still, when you say that "anti-smarks do this:" that's a stereotype.

[Guest Coffey]

I'm just trying to say, that it seems like a lot of people around these parts are more "fake" nowadays.

 

You know what I mean?

 

Everyone wants to stand out, but they all want to fit in. So, what we get is two sides. People who like one thing and people who don't. Then, they post the same thing back and forth to one another. The member names don't even matter. It's all the same content.

Then may I ask...why are you here?

The same reason you are, to an extent. I just wish things would get looked at with a bigger microscope so the speak. It would be nice to have more than two different perspectives on things. Like, a poster could say something and someone else would disagree. That's the norm. However, what's stopping a third person from saying "Hey, what about this?"

 

I think it's because people are afraid that they will get shunned.

Edited October 26, 2003 by Coffey

[Damaramu 0]

Well I'm here to post and discuss wrestling. I don't think the same thing is said over and over again.

But you said you do....so then you could actually just come one day...read it all and not have to come back for about 2 weeks....because the same thing is being said.

[Guest Coffey]

edited previous post