Meltzer's No Mercy star ratings

[Downhome 0]

I really like my idea on the rating scale....

 

*opens wordpad*

It's a good idea, but you still couldn't get everyone to agree on it.

 

Some people see Rock/Hogan and see a dud, and to me I see a ***** classic (when rating matches on MY scale, I take everything into account instead of the in-ring work alone).

 

I'm willing to try it though if you want to lay it all out. Hell, who knows, it just might be an interesting new thing to do here at TSM.

[Damaramu 0]

If they're ranked soley on entertainment value then it's a flawed system. Not everything can be rated on entertainment value. The aformentioned Hogan/Rock match. Some say it was entertaining and I personally say it was boring. Just because a crowd is hot does not mean that I am going to like a crappy match. But there is a reason I thought it was a crappy match. Be it that none of the offense was believable. The match was all over the place in terms of psychology and the fact that Hogan just sucks shit in the ring.

[Downhome 0]

If they're ranked soley on entertainment value then it's a flawed system. Not everything can be rated on entertainment value. The aformentioned Hogan/Rock match. Some say it was entertaining and I personally say it was boring. Just because a crowd is hot does not mean that I am going to like a crappy match. But there is a reason I thought it was a crappy match. Be it that none of the offense was believable. The match was all over the place in terms of psychology and the fact that Hogan just sucks shit in the ring.

I can't dispute a single word of that, I agree with you.

 

It was just one of those matches that just felt right to me, I really FELT it. This obviously has a hell of a lot to do with nostalgia, and that both of the guys meaning a lot to me.

 

It was just perfect to me, in the same way that many people say Hogan/Andre at WM III was perfect.

 

I could never actually sit here and say it was a good MATCH though.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

It was just one of those matches that just felt right to me, I really FELT it. This obviously has a hell of a lot to do with nostalgia, and that both of the guys meaning a lot to me.

I have to ask - what's the difference between that sentiment and Benoit and Angle "always getting ** as a default"?

[Downhome 0]

It was just one of those matches that just felt right to me, I really FELT it. This obviously has a hell of a lot to do with nostalgia, and that both of the guys meaning a lot to me.

I have to ask - what's the difference between that sentiment and Benoit and Angle "always getting ** as a default"?

I don't give every Hogan match a certain rating just because it's fucking Hulk Hogan. I don't do that for anyone.

 

That one match though, for the first time in years, it truly felt special to me as a fan.

 

I wouldn't give Benoit/Angle a "given rating" and I don't do it for Hogan, no matter how big a mark I am for all of them. As I said, I call um as I see um.

[Guest Doyo]

We could have an actual mathematic equation as to how to rank a match. Between zero and five. Add in different factors, each with a varying percentage, and base our ratings off of that.

Uhh, sounds like wrestling nerd heaven. Imagine Star Trek fans coming up with a formula

to rate the episodes. "No you gotta lower the ranking 2% because Captain Kirk's tone of

voice a little too serious in that scene!"

 

At least then we could argue the different ratings because we would all be on the same page.

 

People would still see things differently.

 

Good idea?

 

No, but I'm sure we'd all get a good laugh out of it.

[Dangerous A 0]

Meltzer is a great reporter, but a crappy reviewer.

Exactly. Whereas SK is a crappy reporter AND reviewer.

[KTID 0]

I know Meltzer is considered "The Man" when it comes to "wrestling journalists" but personally I consider Wad Keller to be a much better reviewer. For example, His No Mercy ratings were, in my opinion, much more accurate than Meltzer's. See for yourself:

 

Tajiri/Rey - ***1/4

Benoit/A-Train - **3/4

Gowen/Hardy - **

APA/Bashams - *1/2

Vince/Stephanie - nothing listed

Angle/Cena - ***3/4

Eddie/Show - **1/4

Brock/Taker - **½

 

 

Just as a reminder to save you going back 4 pages, Meltzers ratings:

 

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 **

 

---

 

See, he over-rates Benoit, Angle, Mysterio and Tajiri and under-rates Big Show and The Undertaker.

[AndrewTS 0]

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.

I try to be as unbiased as possible.

 

For example, the Angle/Brock Iron Man match sucked.

 

Angle/Benoit was good but not great.

 

Plus, hasn't the IWC given Test credit for those two good matches he's had his entire career?

 

I've dug Big Show's matches lately when he's been trying.

 

Whereas SK is a crappy reporter AND reviewer.

 

SK isn't a reporter.

[Guest Ray]

I know Meltzer is considered "The Man" when it comes to "wrestling journalists" but personally I consider Wad Keller to be a much better reviewer.  For example, His No Mercy ratings were, in my opinion, much more accurate than Meltzer's.  See for yourself:

Keller gave the Angle/Lesnar iron man *****, so he's officially a member of the Meltzer/Keith crack pipe brigade.

 

Plus, hasn't the IWC given Test credit for those two good matches he's had his entire career?

I count at least four Test matches which weren't horrible:

 

vs. Shane McMahon - Summerslam 1999

vs. Eddie Guerrero - Wrestlemania 17

vs. Edge - Survivor Series 2001

vs. Val Venis - Heat 2003

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I will never 100% hate Test for 2 reasons...

 

"Bitch" - he said after Steph left TnA's lockerroom which to-this-day cracks me up.

 

And his tilt-a-whirl spinning powerbomb he did on Eddie at Wm 17. That was so fuckin righteous.

 

But other than that, I really don't look forward to his matches.

[Guest Doyo]

I know Meltzer is considered "The Man" when it comes to "wrestling journalists" but personally I consider Wad Keller to be a much better reviewer. For example, His No Mercy ratings were, in my opinion, much more accurate than Meltzer's. See for yourself:

Being a good reviewer has more to do with them backing up their opinion, than

with the actual opinion. Roger Ebert rated "Gigli" higher than "Fight Club", but that

doesn't automatically mean that his reviews of those movies were bad or that he

is a bad reviewer.

 

I don't know about recent years, but years back I got the Torch and Observer for a

few months and Wade's ratings seemed way more out there than Dave's. I seem to

remember Wade handing out **** for a lot of WCW Hogan matches that Dave gave

around **1/2. Dave seems to overate a lot of stuff now.

[AndrewTS 0]

I count at least four Test matches which weren't horrible:

 

vs. Shane McMahon - Summerslam 1999

vs. Eddie Guerrero - Wrestlemania 17

vs. Edge - Survivor Series 2001

vs. Val Venis - Heat 2003

 

Oh, okay...I haven't seen those last two.

[Guest MikeSC]

No there is good and bad.

It's like I've said before. The things that go into making a wrestling match a good math are not subjective. It is a set standard for every match.

Now a match can be entertaining...yes...and that depends on the person watching.

But how technically good a match is does not depend on the person watching. That's generally how people rate matches...by looking at those things.

It's like Scott Keith said..."If every match was rated on how entertaining it was then Big Show/Angle from Backlash 00 would be *****."

Actually, you're incorrect. In terms of entertainment value, then there is no right and wrong. It is ALL opinion.

 

Some people think "Pulp Fiction" is a great movie. I thought it was dull and uninteresting. Is my opinion "wrong"? No. It just says that I didn't like it.

 

Same with wrestling. Some call Steamboat v Flair at WrestleWar '89 the best match they ever had and the best match of the 80's. I thought it was the weakest match that they had. Some thought Hart v Michaelsat WM12 was great. I thought it was horribly dull.

 

The "rating" is for the match as a whole. I've seen technical matches that were terrible. I've seen highly entertaining garbage matches. I'd rather a good crap match the same as a good "technically sound" match.

 

As a fan, my entertainment is all that matters.

-=Mike

[Damaramu 0]

No there is good and bad.

It's like I've said before. The things that go into making a wrestling match a good math are not subjective. It is a set standard for every match.

Now a match can be entertaining...yes...and that depends on the person watching.

But how technically good a match is does not depend on the person watching. That's generally how people rate matches...by looking at those things.

It's like Scott Keith said..."If every match was rated on how entertaining it was then Big Show/Angle from Backlash 00 would be *****."

Actually, you're incorrect. In terms of entertainment value, then there is no right and wrong. It is ALL opinion.

 

Some people think "Pulp Fiction" is a great movie. I thought it was dull and uninteresting. Is my opinion "wrong"? No. It just says that I didn't like it.

 

Same with wrestling. Some call Steamboat v Flair at WrestleWar '89 the best match they ever had and the best match of the 80's. I thought it was the weakest match that they had. Some thought Hart v Michaelsat WM12 was great. I thought it was horribly dull.

 

The "rating" is for the match as a whole. I've seen technical matches that were terrible. I've seen highly entertaining garbage matches. I'd rather a good crap match the same as a good "technically sound" match.

 

As a fan, my entertainment is all that matters.

-=Mike

Yes...like I said entertainment and how much you enjoyed the match depends on the person and is an opinion.

But when it comes to actually rating the match with snowflakes and deciding if it was better than another you can't use just entertainment.

[Damaramu 0]

And I agree that Michaels/Hart was horribley dull. And I can give reasons for why it wasn't technically a good match to.

[Guest Doyo]

But when it comes to actually rating the match with snowflakes and deciding if it was better than another you can't use just entertainment.

 

Because if you do the police will come and arrest you?

[Damaramu 0]

But when it comes to actually rating the match with snowflakes and deciding if it was better than another you can't use just entertainment.

 

Because if you do the police will come and arrest you?

Damn straight.

[Guest Anglesault]

I know Meltzer is considered "The Man" when it comes to "wrestling journalists" but personally I consider Wad Keller to be a much better reviewer.  For example, His No Mercy ratings were, in my opinion, much more accurate than Meltzer's.  See for yourself:

Keller gave the Angle/Lesnar iron man *****, so he's officially a member of the Meltzer/Keith crack pipe brigade.

 

Plus, hasn't the IWC given Test credit for those two good matches he's had his entire career?

I count at least four Test matches which weren't horrible:

 

 

vs. Edge - Survivor Series 2001

Vastly, vastly over rated match.

[Michrome 0]

Meltzer and Keller overrate everything. If Lesnar-Angle was *****, I guess the Ki-Spanky-Williams-Daniels 4-way ironman was 20 million stars. I think it was Meltzer who gave that Armageddon 6-man HIAC ****1/2. Anyways, I tend to agree most with the star ratings of Shuriken from happywrestlingland.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Entertainment value can be effected by external factors independant of the match itself. If you are watching a match with two people talking loudly in the next room your entertainment value will shift while the match quality will not.

 

How many times do I have to say this?

[Damaramu 0]

Entertainment value can be effected by external factors independant of the match itself. If you are watching a match with two people talking loudly in the next room your entertainment value will shift while the match quality will not.

 

How many times do I have to say this?

Forever...I think we're the only two that understand.