Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 108 of 108
  1. #81
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by XanMan View Post
    Thanks, Deg.

    I haven't read the rave reviews to which you are referring for Jericho/Naito, but I think it was around a **** match. Did it have the crispness one would normally like? No, but it, too preyed on our emotions. It was actually the perfect type of match for the spot it was in. This bout was sandwiched between a Jr Heavyweight Title match full of high spots that excited the crowd and a match that may have been the most anticipated in NJPW history. The filler had to be solid, but also bring the crowd down between the two so that Omega/Okada could resonate when it was hitting its highest highs.

    The way it started out shocked the crowd and brought it down immediately. The beatdown Jericho gives Naito leaves no doubt Jericho is walking out with the title, as Mr. Tranquilo is beaten before the match even starts. Then, just like Lesnar vs. Styles from Survivor Series '17, the sick bastard in complete control underestimates his advantage and makes a small mistake. Once the door is opened for Naito, he pours on the offense and we think (which Osaka despises) that the champion has a chance, after all. He has more than a chance, as he begins to dominate Jericho the way he was dominated. The hero in the story--but the villain in the arena--is going to be triumphant, after all. Except Jericho isn't just vicious; he's also wily. He's that southpaw who has been saving his devastating forkball for when he needs it to put away the most dangerous hitter on the other team with the game on the line. He finishes their assault on our emotions with a low blow, a second code-breaker, and Naito's reign comes to a disappointingly early, screeching halt, as our hearts drop. The story was exactly what was needed for the semi-main of this show. Give it another chance.
    I like the wild brawl aspects of the match a lot. I think it was definitely something needed on that card, especially between two awesome wrestling matches. My only real faults on the match come from what seemed like a lack of communication. I love that it felt like a fight. Jericho busting open Naito's face twice gave it a lot of added realism.

  2. #82
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,738
    Had a chance to catch Okada/Omega last night and thought it was great. It's not my favorite match ever but I knew it wouldn't be, as it's just not my favorite style. But I do think they did an awesome job and maximized a lot of their best qualities without going overboard, as I thought they've done at other times. I'd say it was my second favorite of their matches to date, still like the first one best of all but this was a really strong entry and the perfect way to segue the title to Omega satisfactorily.

    Also, pretty sure I spotted Deg!

  3. #83
    Puerto Rican dude living in Japan Degenerate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Osaka, Japan
    Posts
    328
    Dave Meltzer has spoken:

    - Roppongi 3K vs. Suzuki-gun: 3.25
    - Finlay/Robinson vs. White/YOSHI-HASHI: 2.25
    - Ishii/Yano vs. Sabre/Suzuki: 3.75
    - Elgin vs. Goto vs. Taichi: 3.5
    - LIJ vs. Young Bucks: 4.5
    - Liger/Mysterio/Tanahashi vs. Bullet Club: 3.5
    - Ospreay vs. Takahashi: 4.75
    - Jericho vs. Naito: 4.5
    - Okada vs. Omega: 7

    The scale has been broken once again. Insanity. I would not disagree with him.

    I do think he over-rated the Jericho / Naito match (I'd give it a solid 4) and slightly under-rated the Bucks / LIJ match (I'd give it at the very least a 4.75, if not a 5 altogether). But hey, that's the beauty of opinions - everyone's will be different.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    240
    I think the ratings of the opener and the 6-man are way too high and Naito/Jericho is a little high; but I can see where he might have rated it that way if he had a similar opinion to my earlier post. The rest I think are right on.

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    514
    Gen, I was literally reading that list and got to LiJ vs Bucks, saw the score, and thought it was slightly low too.

    Jericho vs Naito was a curious one for me, but I think tonally it was pitched perfectly for where it was on the card. I'm loving this evolution of Jericho, and I'm super into it. I thought this was better than the Omega match at the Dome.

    Just as a general question, as someone who has no idea of these things - the Dominion card based on Meltzer's scores averages a 4.1 rating. Are there any cards in history that have averaged more? Obviously this is greatly pulled up by having a 7 in the main (assuming it was a five the card is a 3.8 average) but I'd be interested to see what other big cards have a similar average - by which I'd say something like a 'standard' PPV length, 7/8 matches or more, as opposed to a Takeover with five bouts on it.

  6. #86
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,738
    Throwing on that 7 kind of screws up any kind of attempt at an average. I'd be curious what it looks like if you cap that one at 5. I bet there are a couple PWG shows that might compete, he tends to throw lots of snowflakes at those too.

    Here's an except from Meltzer's comments:

    "When it had ended, my thought was that this was the greatest match I’ve ever seen. Not arguably, and not by a little big [sic] either. It was at a level far beyond when it came to emotion, storytelling, and attention to detail. It was almost astonishing watching it. But the biggest difference was I thought I would never see another match this good again. This was not some five-star match or six-star match."
    I'll be honest, to me this feels a little overblown, but at the same time I think it's really awesome that others are having this experience even if it's not full translating on that level for me. I still think the scale breaking thing is very silly, but it's just one man's opinion after all.

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    193
    I mean, I can't call it overblown because I pretty much felt the same way! I thought it was the best match I had ever witnessed, which is now about the third time I've said this regarding match between these two. Part of it is definitely because the previous three matches helped set the table, not to mention Kenny's own personal struggles this year between becoming estranged from the Bucks, the Bullet Club infighting and reuniting with Ibushi that all tied into this. But let's say you take the first three matches away, take away Okada's reign and all of Kenny's stuff; it's still the best match ever to me! I've seen matches with equally good in the moment storytelling, attention to detail and I've seen matches with more emotion and athleticism (especially in lucha libre). But all together at the same time? Not even close. That's been the genius of these two; they combine every single quality that can make a match great and do all of them at an exceedingly high level. Once you add the other elements in you get a seven star match. I truly believe it was that good.

    And frankly I think the only thing about this "star rating system being broken" thing is that we're even having the discussion. It be one thing if this was the first time Meltzer had ever done anything like this but it isn't; it's pretty well documented that the system was originally four stars before he rated Tiger Mask-Dynamite Kid the full five, not to mention that's he at least given a Kawada-Misawa match and a Flair-Steamboat match five plus stars prior to Omega-Okada I. No one ever said a damn thing about silliness and systems being shattered when that happened, which I think tells you this whole "controversy" is less about people being ticked off about that and more fans being a) hesitant/unwilling to give Okada and Omega full credit for what they've done and b) being unhappy that something is being rated higher than something they believe to be the best. That of itself is silly. If Meltzer, myself or anyone else thinks this match or any other was beyond five stars then it should be rated as such. Otherwise you're copping out labeling something on the same level as a match you think it was vastly better than.


  8. #88
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,738
    Overblown wasn't really the right way to say it, more accurately I should say it didn't resonate on that level with me, but that's fine, that's just how wrestling is, and it's better for the variety of tastes and opinions.

    I also don't have stake in the star ratings thing because everyone does their own, and everybody does it their own way. But as someone who spent a LOT of time digging through Meltzer star ratings in the earlier part of this decade, I will say that I never, not once, saw any reference to a six star match before Okada/Omega. Everyone referred to Kawada/Misawa and Steamboat/Flair as being 5 stars. That may not have been Meltzer's intention, but regardless the only conversation I ever saw, from Cornette bumping up the scale from 4 to 5 in 1981 all the way to 2017, was 5 stars. Now the conversation is different, and that's fine too. If I see my new favorite match, it'll just be my favorite 5 star match, but someone else can give it 7 stars, 8, 12, 15.7, a billion, whatever works for them. But it does mean there's a bigger adjustment if you want to compare and discuss based on star ratings (which isn't the best way to compare and discuss anyway, but it does come up a lot).

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    240
    That's my take, too. If you have a series of matches rated at 5 stars, but then you see matches that are clearly better than that to your view, what else can you do? Say, "This one is far and away better than these others, but since I have this system, I have to give it the same rating?" That is the approach that makes no sense to me. And really, Meltzer didn't break the scale; the matches broke the scale. And, as far as I'm concerned--criticize me or not, Omega has now wrestled the 4 best matches of all time; three against Okada and one against Naito.

  10. #90
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,738
    Honestly, I get that view. If it makes sense for your personal scale, I'm all for it. I just hope y'all seven-ers can understand why it sounds a bit like this to me:


  11. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    240
    Really don't; I can't until you explain why. To me, there were four choices:

    1) Re-grade every match ever reviewed.
    2) Put a far and away best match you've ever witnessed in the same class of something you feel is immensely inferior.
    3) Allow the matches to break the scale.
    4) Get rid of the scale altogether; which would be dumb, it's kind of his money maker.
    Last edited by XanMan; 06-14-2018 at 06:01 PM. Reason: I can't count.

  12. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    601
    I think breaking the scale is just dumb because eventually, 5 stars will be as common as 3 star matches and you shouldn't need to break the scale to show how great a match is. Movies that get rated out of 5 don't get 7 stars just to show they're better movie than a 5 star movie from 20 years ago.

    I just think Dave wants to stay out there and relevant now that other people do what he does, and some better than he does.. so break the scale! Keeps his name alive.

    jmo

  13. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    240
    I can see that point and maybe that's what Mizzie was getting at, but isn't it possible that there hasn't been a movie critics feel about the same way that Dave (and I, and Ollie, etc) feel about these matches Okada and Omega have been having over the last couple of years? And how do we know there isn't a movie critic out there that hasn't done the same thing? It's all subjective. I haven't seen an increase in 5 star matches to compensate. If it starts happening, I would be happy to rally against it. And if he did it for the reason you suggest, I'm not as much with it; even if it's a smart business move. It might be best to not use ratings altogether and instead keep some sort of list where matches could be fit in where you see fit; more of a ranking than a rating, if you will.

  14. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by LK3185 View Post
    I think breaking the scale is just dumb because eventually, 5 stars will be as common as 3 star matches
    I don't see that and I'm not sure how anyone could. Certainly there's been a lot more of them in the past year or so but a) only Elgin-Naito, Lee-Dijak and the Takeover Ladder Match in New Orleans were unworthy of the rating in my eyes (and at most they were a point or two below that) and b) it's a fucking amazing time in wrestling were even the worst promotions are delivering dozens of great matches during the year, some of which are actually underrated (CMLL has had several matches I'd rate five stars and not a single one has gotten that). On top of that it's not like Meltzer is breaking the scale every week; the only ones to get higher ratings are the Okada-Omega matches, Naito-Omega, Tanahashi-Okada and Ishimori-Hiromu. That's seven matches out of thousands; they're the anomalies in this situation, not the other way around. And none of those matches have made me stop and appreciate matches like Shibata-Okada, the When Worlds Collide Tag match, Punk-Cena, Gargano-Sombra, Kikuchi/Kobashi vs. Can Am Express or any other only five star matches less.

    It's much to do about nothing from where I stand. I can get not liking it if you're someone who thinks (like I think mizfan does) that once you set a limit you stick with it (even though I don't agree) but beyond that anyone complaining about this just seems to me like they want devalue what Okada and Omega did for whatever reason or because it's something to do.


  15. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    240
    Off-topic, but I definitely think Naito-Elgin was 5 stars.

  16. #96
    Puerto Rican dude living in Japan Degenerate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Osaka, Japan
    Posts
    328
    I saw that match in person and thought Meltzer's rating was more than fair. Crowd was super-hot that night for Naito and Elgin more than brought it that night. Awesome match.

    I would have preferred that the rating system stayed in its five-star limit, as well. It is what it is, though. I think at this point Meltzer is just doing this to get people riled up.

  17. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by LK3185 View Post
    I think breaking the scale is just dumb because eventually, 5 stars will be as common as 3 star matches and you shouldn't need to break the scale to show how great a match is. Movies that get rated out of 5 don't get 7 stars just to show they're better movie than a 5 star movie from 20 years ago.
    I don't think that's quite it - Meltzer's not going out of his way to say there's a new scale, he's just saying the scale has been broken by these certain matches. What I do find a little bit lame is him adding in these 5.5/5.75/6.25 matches, because that suggests he's extended the scale.

    But he's not saying that a five star match is somehow lesser than it was before - he's just saying that he's watching wrestling that is blowing him away.

    If he adjusted the scale and worked his way back through, you end up with a five star match previously now being a three star match, and those ones are far from average.

    The film critic argument is an interesting one - I wonder if there is ever any consideration to break that scale? It's much more widely established, it feels, to rate films than it is to rate wrestling - and is certainly more public.

  18. #98
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,738
    Film has the benefit of having more than just one singular guy whose ratings hold the biggest weight. Even Ebert was just one of many at the end of the day.

    For me, I guess I already love my favorite 5 star matches with basically all my heart, so the idea that a match would come along and be so clearly in a whole new class is pretty much impossible for me. It's just a different perspective though, so I'll (try to) just leave it at that.

  19. #99
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    162
    Two questions:

    1) Does Meltzer's rating really matter? It's just the opinion of one guy who clearly favours certain things.

    But, with that said...

    2) Is it possible that many of those previous 5 star matches are 3 star matches when judged by today's standards? There are so many matches that are so good every week today, that if you put some of those matches on in 2018, would they not be 3 star matches? So, with that said, maybe the scale has been adjusted. If not officially by Meltzer, just by the quality of work being put on.

    At the end of the day, though, FDM. Who cares how he rates a match? If you think it's a work of art and he gives it 3 stars, you're going to think he's wrong. If he gives a match 5 stars that you think was just pretty good, you're going to think he's wrong.

  20. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    601
    To the second point, you can't judge matches as if they float back and forward in time imo. if someone thinks a match from 1992 is 5 stars and someone works the same match in 2018 and its not judged as such... oh well. I believe that while time moves forward, wrestling evolves, matches are very much of their time.. similar to black and white movies, or 70s movies. Doesn't mean those movies are still the best ever made, just of that time, they were.

    Same with wrestling and why i would have no issue of just throwing 5 stars at match in 2018 but no break the scale and act like somehow wrestling today is better. That's pretty arrogant imo.

  21. #101
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,738
    I think they matter insofar as he is a taste maker, and there are a lot of people who hold his ratings in high esteem or use them as a benchmark when talking about wrestling in general. How much THAT matters is debatable, but I think it influences wrestlers as well as fans to some extent, so it does matter more than your average Joe Schmo giving his opinion.

    Past 5 star matches aren't 3 star matches to me. I watched a match from 1952 recently that I liked quite a bit more than Omega/Okada IV. But it's completely subjective, so to others maybe the scale slides, and that's fine.

  22. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    Two questions:

    1) Does Meltzer's rating really matter? It's just the opinion of one guy who clearly favours certain things.

    But, with that said...

    2) Is it possible that many of those previous 5 star matches are 3 star matches when judged by today's standards? There are so many matches that are so good every week today, that if you put some of those matches on in 2018, would they not be 3 star matches? So, with that said, maybe the scale has been adjusted. If not officially by Meltzer, just by the quality of work being put on.

    At the end of the day, though, FDM. Who cares how he rates a match? If you think it's a work of art and he gives it 3 stars, you're going to think he's wrong. If he gives a match 5 stars that you think was just pretty good, you're going to think he's wrong.
    This is hilarious you're saying Fuck Meltzer Coach when the dude says the same thing you just said all the time. They are his ratings and his alone; if a match he gives 4.75 is a 5 star match to someone else then excellent. No skin off his back. That's why it bewilders me that so many people get so riled up one way or the other over this whole thing. At the end of the day Dave Meltzer is just a guy, albeit a very visible and respected voice in the wrestling industry, who watches matches and gives a grade.

    Now do his ratings matter or mean that much? Depends on if you're a rational or irrational fan. I personally use his ratings more or less as a guide for matches to check out and I think most reasonable fans do as well. The problem is you have a small number of people who take his word as gospel when it comes to ratings for better or worse, and both sides (those who think him rating one match a certain way guarantees it's the greatest match ever or those who think him rating Naito-Omega better than Taker-HBK makes the former better and HOW COULD HE?!) take it so seriously that it gets warped into a be all, end all sort of deal. It's those people, not Meltzer, who have made this something it isn't. To me the ratings are more or less recommendations; if he rates it 3, 4, 5 or now 6 or 7 stars then it's a match I should probably see and more often than not I'm going to agree it's a match of high quality. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll agree with how great Meltzer thinks it is or isn't and it doesn't mean matches Meltzer hasn't rated or seen aren't great. But if he gives a match five, six or seven stars, the likelihood is myself or anyone else who sees the match isn't going to think that much differently. So from that standpoint I think his ratings do matter. It's when you treat them as the only thing that matters when it becomes problematic.


  23. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    601
    I don't care about Meltzer ratings and how he rates... but when he's rating something 6 or 7 stars, I feel it has a negative impact. I see people on twitter on everyday hate on Omega for no reason other than the matches Meltzer rated.. or WWE fanboys who avoid new Japan cause people feel its overhyped only to find out its not for them...

    I don't know, like i said, Meltzer can rate however he wants, but I don't think giving a match 6 bazillion stars helps the business. But maybe Meltzer doesn't care about that.

  24. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by LK3185 View Post
    I don't care about Meltzer ratings and how he rates... but when he's rating something 6 or 7 stars, I feel it has a negative impact. I see people on twitter on everyday hate on Omega for no reason other than the matches Meltzer rated.. or WWE fanboys who avoid new Japan cause people feel its overhyped only to find out its not for them...
    Are we really going to blame Dave Meltzer rating a match a certain way for people hating on certain matches or Kenny Omega? That's those fuckers fault, not Dave Meltzer. If Meltzer had given the Okada-Omega matches five stars on the normal scale then those same people would've just said "New Japan gets all the five stars matches, Meltzer hates WWE" or "Kenny Omega can't be the best wrestler in the world till he goes to WWE" and so on and so forth. Dave Meltzer has nothing to do with people being close minded; that's on them and they would've found a way to put the match or New Japan down anyway.


  25. #105
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    I personally use his ratings more or less as a guide for matches to check out and I think most reasonable fans do as well.
    See, this is where I don't fully comprehend the concept of Dave as a tastemaker. I genuinely would have no idea what ratings he assigns to matches if they didn't show up on this forum. I legitimately had no idea he'd broken the scale with Naito-Elgin, (or that he'd rated anything other than Omega-Okada above 5 at all) because I can't be bothered to look his ratings up.

    I'll watch what I watch, and try and keep up with most stuff that I enjoy. I'll look up a specific match that I might not have otherwise if people are raving about it, but that usually happens on Facebook/Twitter/here before Dave publishes a review with star ratings.

  26. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    240
    I agree with that last point and the way Cult uses Meltzer's scale is correct. Using it to decide which matches to watch or as a debating point makes perfect sense; using it as gospel does not. Some of you may remember that I said multiple times after Okada/Omega I that I would have given it 7 stars. I stand by that and I do think both Dominion matches were better, so where would I rate those? Probably 7.25 and 8, I guess. It's up to you how much weight you put on that; I know Mizzie will scoff.

    My money and my time are both in limited quantities. I won't play a video game that hasn't gotten at least an 8 review from a gaming site I'm a fan of, because I don't have time for mediocre. The same is true of pro wrestling matches, though I just tend to watch the matches I'm interested, rather than seeing what Big Dave thinks as a way to gauge what I want to watch. A lot of that is because I don't want to be spoiled, and I'm unaware of a way to see his ratings without knowing who won. I occasionally check his ratings, but don't live and die by them. Those that do are fools afraid to have their own opinion.

  27. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    601
    The good reviews point is interesting cause I get it with video games or even books/movies even though i usually just go off a blurb or trailer. You don't get that in wrestling really.. I guess a rating would help but am I not going to watch an Omega match if I like him if its rated 3 stars? No... Cause the performers matter to me more than someone's opinion on a match.

    I think i'd be more curious to see a match if a wrestler i didn't care for had a highly rated match. Like how that happen? lol.

    like if someone rated a Jinder Mahal match 5 stars i'd be like i have to see this.
    Last edited by LK3185; 06-20-2018 at 03:56 PM.

  28. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    514
    I mean, LA Park is having a better WOTY shout than Omega right now, and he hasn't got a single five star match in the past six months, so whatever.

    I'm very much in the park that I use Meltzer's scorings to guide me for things to watch that might be good. And I like to think that if someone who has watched years of wrestling in 2040 and gets to 20, like me, and then goes 'oh, I wonder why these Omega/Okada matches are so highly rated?' and starts watching back to fall in love with this period of NJPW in the way that I did 90s AJPW and Misawa/Kawada as a result, who cares? It's just a guys opinion. Others will continue to rate out of five stars, pop tarts, or testicles. Dave has a 7 star scale that he might start to use now, or alternatively he just leaves it and goes back to five.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •