Random Wrestling Thoughts (Part 2)

764dak

brianblaze wrote: »

https://youtu.be/grzwGZ8d8Hg

Seems there's a few noticing him being edited out of stuff

What do you think of this comment under that video?

They did the same thing with drew mcintyre the night after royal rumble on RAW they didn’t show drew eliminating Roman at the end
I know it’s sound stupid but They wanna protect roman and make him look strong that's all

Adiboo

I love the WWE Untold series on the Network.

PTH2009

Sting in the wwe was fun when it lasted could of been much better

Sting has to take a small bit of blame, if he wanted Undertaker he should of demanded it. He had a chance of going there in the early 2000s but turned it down for his own selfish reasons

Was nice to see it happen. Sting a true legend of the business. Could work well for AEW

briany

Jim Cornette went in pretty hard on Money in the Bank this week, as you'd expect. He was quite blunt about Dana Brooke's looks, describing her thus,

"Dana Brooke's entire face looks like it was remodeled after somebody set fire to it and put it out with an axe, WTF HAS HAPPENED? Did she do that on purpose or was she in a horrible accident, WTF!"

You'd think Twitter would dogpile corny for that one, just as they did for the Ethiopian chicken joke, but it seems like it's just crickets.

J. Marston

Crickets because everyone is bored of him. He is the "Old man yells at cloud" meme.

Omackeral

Low rent thing to say. Easy target, too. Wonder would he go after Ric Flair’s daughter in the same way.

The Nal

Random Hugh Morrus stat.

Wrestled against Goldberg on Goldbergs Nitro debut and he was also the first person Austin said "what" to.

ShaneU

So I've been gone back to watching WCW since nitro started. Never watched any of it at the time. Finally got to the eagerly awaited Main Event of Starrcade 97 with Sting vs Hogan (They were building this match for a year!). Wow, what a terrible disappointment that was. I can only assume fans at the time thought the same.

Hogan beats Sting with a leg drop, perfectly legal, no interference (for once) and then Bret Hart who's still at ringside for some reason after refereeing the last match (another terrible decision to debut him like that) decides that the referee's count was too fast (it wasn't) and orders the match to restart! Sting then puts Hogan in the sharpshooter and Bret who now decides he's the referee for this match gives him the win!

Worst part was Sting breaking character (he hadn't spoke for months) channeling Eddie Guerrero by shouting "Mama Cita!" at the camera for some reason!

briany

I think the idea of a star rating system for matches should be abolished. That is to say that the idea of any kind of a rating system for any single match should be abolished from the thinking of wrestling fans.

The reason for the above statement is that ultimately the only thing that matters about a wrestling match is how much it draws a crowd, and I'm in agreement with Al Snow's opinion that the best match in WM 3 was not Steamboat/Savage, but Hogan/Andre because Hogan/Andre was the match people had come to see.

This is not to say that any single match is of no importance, but it should be seen in the context of what ability it has to create a program that fans become invested in and leads to a payoff that fans come to see, and if anything should be given a star rating it is the overall program, but not any single match.

The problem with giving the stars to single matches, regardless of whether or not they are part of something greater, is that it generally is predicated on elements of the spectacular or the formulaic, i.e. the big moves and the false finishes that have become so prevalent at big PPVs and this has led to fans generally praising matches as performances (which is a detached form of appreciation vs how wrestling was traditionally intended) rather than being able to suspend their disbelief and appreciating them as contests in which you can become emotionally invested.

J. Marston

Star ratings is just one man's, Meltzer, arbitrary opinion. It means nothing. Unfortunately it is treated like the sacred fúcking texts.

However, rating matches based on financial success is even worse in my opinion. We're fans, we shouldn't give a shít if Rock/Austin drew X million. It's a joyless way to look at wrestling. At leasts Meltzer's system, as much as I don't like him, is based on the spectacle and performances.

LineOfBeauty

briany wrote: »

I think the idea of a star rating system for matches should be abolished. That is to say that the idea of any kind of a rating system for any single match should be abolished from the thinking of wrestling fans.

The reason for the above statement is that ultimately the only thing that matters about a wrestling match is how much it draws a crowd, and I'm in agreement with Al Snow's opinion that the best match in WM 3 was not Steamboat/Savage, but Hogan/Andre because Hogan/Andre was the match people had come to see.

This is not to say that any single match is of no importance, but it should be seen in the context of what ability it has to create a program that fans become invested in and leads to a payoff that fans come to see, and if anything should be given a star rating it is the overall program, but not any single match.

The problem with giving the stars to single matches, regardless of whether or not they are part of something greater, is that it generally is predicated on elements of the spectacular or the formulaic, i.e. the big moves and the false finishes that have become so prevalent at big PPVs and this has led to fans generally praising matches as performances (which is a detached form of appreciation vs how wrestling was traditionally intended) rather than being able to suspend their disbelief and appreciating them as contests in which you can become emotionally invested.

Snow's take is bad. If you want to talk about what's the highest grossing match you can. The figures are always available to judge such things and you can even have debates about impact of a singular match on live gate, ppv buys, TV numbers, streaming subscriptions ect. Match ratings are an entirely different thing to highest grossing matches.

Star ratings (or Cagematch) is just a tool to rank your personal enjoyment of a wrestling match. It's a handy tool for keeping on top of what you enjoyed and what you did not, what company did well in ring in your opinion ect.

Aside from kids there's nobody in the modern world watching this thinking it's real but if you buy into the medium, the characters, the stories, then wrestling can absolutely hit on an emotional level.

Itssoeasy

J. Marston wrote: »

Star ratings is just one man's, Meltzer, arbitrary opinion. It means nothing. Unfortunately it is treated like the sacred fúcking texts.

However, rating matches based on financial success is even worse in my opinion. We're fans, we shouldn't give a shít if Rock/Austin drew X million. It's a joyless way to look at wrestling. At leasts Meltzer's system, as much as I don't like him, is based on the spectacle and performances.

Metlzer didn't come up with the system he uses.

The problem isn't the system it's the way it's changed from the way it was first devised. It was based off the TV guide in America three star rating and expanded to five.

sky88

I never got the obsession with the star ratings

And when Daniel Bryan hasn’t got a five star match in his career there’s something up with your scale

Itssoeasy

Btw the main reason I've started to dislike meltzer more is when Bruno samartino died and WWE put out the supposed number of MSG sellouts he had. Now WWE is known to embellish numbers but Bruno's actual number was impressive enough without it being emblished by WWE. Meltzer either the day he died or the next day had to do his usual "well actually..." ****e. I mean that soon after was hardly the time or place to be metlzer.

LineOfBeauty

sky88 wrote: »

I never got the obsession with the star ratings

And when Daniel Bryan hasn’t got a five star match in his career there’s something up with your scale

What are your 5 star Bryan matches?

leggo

Al Snow’s rating system is ridiculous because, by his own logic, he’s never had a good match. His own system invalidates any right he has to make a system! It’s such a weird thing for that guy in particular to say.

Besides, the amount of people a match draws simply can’t be used as a way to measure the quality of the match...because the match hasn’t happened by the time they enter the building or chosen to watch! All that’s a measure of is the marketing, the promos and build-up on TV.

Rating/reviewing matches has a place in the same way rating movies etc does: it tells us what we should spend our time watching and what we should avoid. Star ratings in particular, and how people apply them, have never personally connected with me, or maybe I’ve just never found someone I’ve felt used them in a way that connected with me. But yeah, in theory, it’s a fine thing to have that other industries don’t freak out about and the only controversy around it has come from insecure, butthurt wrestlers and fans desperate to be friends them so they’ll agree with whatever opinion they put out in the hopes of being acknowledged.

B.A._Baracus

J. Marston wrote: »

Don't know how true it is but I remember reading somewhere that Asuka has two children. Some undertaking if she does, moving to America and working a full-time schedule.

Did not know that. Wow. Impressive as you say.

B.A._Baracus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Btw the main reason I've started to dislike meltzer more is when Bruno samartino died and WWE put out the supposed number of MSG sellouts he had. Now WWE is known to embellish numbers but Bruno's actual number was impressive enough without it being emblished by WWE. Meltzer either the day he died or the next day had to do his usual "well actually..." ****e. I mean that soon after was hardly the time or place to be metlzer.

I personally don't understand why people place value in Meltzer's star match "ratings"
What the fu*k does he know? Now fair play for a man who's never taken a bump to make a living for so many years out of wrestling. Well done and I mean that. But you can wipe your arse with his opinions :pac:

WWE workers have to feel the same too. As the only "rating" you'd care about is from Vince, Triple H, various road agents, kevin dunne etc.

LineOfBeauty

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I personally don't understand why people place value in Meltzer's star match "ratings"
What the fu*k does he know? Now fair play for a man who's never taken a bump to make a living for so many years out of wrestling. Well done and I mean that. But you can wipe your arse with his opinions :pac:

WWE workers have to feel the same too. As the only "rating" you'd care about is from Vince, Triple H, various road agents, kevin dunne etc.

Probably the closest thing in wrestling we have to a historian, and, while I know people who would have greater knowledge of certain niches of pro wrestling, Meltzer is probably the most complete voice wrestling has ever had.

And if you want to know about who cares about Meltzer's opinions or what impact they have, you can see his impact run through the history of pro wrestling right up to today. He's absolutely a contributing factor in current wrestling from the spread West of New Japan, to the very creation of AEW (the owner being a previous poster on Meltzer's board too, but that's not even what I'm talking about) to the influence of Meltzer's preferences on modern in ring styles.

B.A._Baracus

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Probably the closest thing in wrestling we have to a historian, and, while I know people who would have greater knowledge of certain niches of pro wrestling, Meltzer is probably the most complete voice wrestling has ever had.

And if you want to know about who cares about Meltzer's opinions or what impact they have, you can see his impact run through the history of pro wrestling right up to today. He's absolutely a contributing factor in current wrestling from the spread West of New Japan, to the very creation of AEW (the owner being a previous poster on Meltzer's board too, but that's not even what I'm talking about) to the influence of Meltzer's preferences on modern in ring styles.

How tho?
If you were to ask me about influences of modern pro wrestling I would go back twenty-ish years and say the likes of Shawn Michaels, RVD, hardy boys etc. In-ring workers who today's workers emulated as they were fans of when growing up. They influence the most.

Don't see how Meltzer could.

LineOfBeauty

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

How tho?
If you were to ask me about influences of modern pro wrestling I would go back twenty-ish years and say the likes of Shawn Michaels, RVD, hardy boys etc. In-ring workers who today's workers emulated as they were fans of when growing up. They influence the most.

Don't see how Meltzer could.

Michaels sure, the other two are far more debatable. For a modern indie style you're probably looking closer to guys like Amazing Red, Low Ki and later that Dragon Gate style. Of course that's before American indie before it became a hot bed of death match and irony wrestling.

The hallmarks of the Meltzer likes are move heavy matches, call backs and melodrama. The stuff he personally enjoys (early and mid 90's All Japan, PWG 2011 roughly onwards, and current NJPW) are all heavy on those things in their big matches.

It only makes sense. Meltzer's ratings played a big part in generating buzz around a wrestler, buzz is more bookings, more bookings is more exposure and more money. It's not a catch all argument, he's hardly the only influence, he might not even be the strongest influence, but he's been an influence for sure.

cian68

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I personally don't understand why people place value in Meltzer's star match "ratings"
What the fu*k does he know? Now fair play for a man who's never taken a bump to make a living for so many years out of wrestling. Well done and I mean that. But you can wipe your arse with his opinions :pac:

WWE workers have to feel the same too. As the only "rating" you'd care about is from Vince, Triple H, various road agents, kevin dunne etc.

His ratings are just a handy way to look up match recommendations. Not that many people doing star ratings in 1991.

leggo

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Probably the closest thing in wrestling we have to a historian, and, while I know people who would have greater knowledge of certain niches of pro wrestling, Meltzer is probably the most complete voice wrestling has ever had.

And if you want to know about who cares about Meltzer's opinions or what impact they have, you can see his impact run through the history of pro wrestling right up to today. He's absolutely a contributing factor in current wrestling from the spread West of New Japan, to the very creation of AEW (the owner being a previous poster on Meltzer's board too, but that's not even what I'm talking about) to the influence of Meltzer's preferences on modern in ring styles.

This kind of Meltzer worship just doesn’t bare out in the real world. I’ve never met one wrestler who cited Dave Meltzer as in any way a motivational factor in how they work, it’s not something that gets taken seriously or discussed and doesn’t go into planning matches or making short/long-term plans (beyond occasional stuff like the Young Bucks or some PWG heads playing towards him). I can’t even personally think of having a chat with wrestlers at a show where the words ‘Dave Meltzer’ were even said off the top of my head, and that’s the god’s honest truth. At best, he’s a fan that a tiny amount wrestlers try to work and indulge to get on his good side in the hopes of getting good reviews. But at a low enough level that’s just a thing wrestlers will do, and on a high enough level it’s something wrestlers are told not to do. Wrestlers will try befriend me because I’ve got a podcast and they see an opportunity in currying favour from anyone that listens to me, and I see it happen with podcasts or websites even smaller than mine too. They’ll do it to people who have large Twitter followings or spend a lot on merch too. It’s not a big thing and doesn’t make anyone ‘influential’, and if it even works it’s just a fan getting worked into giving up their objectivity. From low level wrestlers it’s just intelligent customer service.

Best case scenario, Dave Meltzer is the most notable version of THAT. That’s a far cry from being a serious influence on wrestling’s in-ring style as a whole today. Nobody says this outside of his little cult. Has he influenced wrestling in other ways? Sure, he has a following, he’s influenced how you and I discuss wrestling scoops. But that’s his sphere of influence: boards.ie, Twitter, other wrestling message boards and places containing people who subscribe to him. Basically his subscriber base and wherever they talk about wrestling.

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

This kind of Meltzer worship just doesn’t bare out in the real world. I’ve never met one wrestler who cited Dave Meltzer as in any way a motivational factor in how they work, it’s not something that gets taken seriously or discussed and doesn’t go into planning matches or making short/long-term plans (beyond occasional stuff like the Young Bucks or some PWG heads playing towards him). I can’t even personally think of having a chat with wrestlers at a show where the words ‘Dave Meltzer’ were even said off the top of my head, and that’s the god’s honest truth. At best, he’s a fan that a tiny amount wrestlers try to work and indulge to get on his good side in the hopes of getting good reviews. But at a low enough level that’s just a thing wrestlers will do, and on a high enough level it’s something wrestlers are told not to do. Wrestlers will try befriend me because I’ve got a podcast and they see an opportunity in currying favour from anyone that listens to me, and I see it happen with podcasts or websites even smaller than mine too. They’ll do it to people who have large Twitter followings or spend a lot on merch too. It’s not a big thing and doesn’t make anyone ‘influential’, and if it even works it’s just a fan getting worked into giving up their objectivity. From low level wrestlers it’s just intelligent customer service.

Best case scenario, Dave Meltzer is the most notable version of THAT. That’s a far cry from being a serious influence on wrestling’s in-ring style as a whole today. Nobody says this outside of his little cult. Has he influenced wrestling in other ways? Sure, he has a following, he’s influenced how you and I discuss wrestling scoops. But that’s his sphere of influence: boards.ie, Twitter, other wrestling message boards and places containing people who subscribe to him. Basically his subscriber base and wherever they talk about wrestling.

I doubt any wrestler ever will cite Dave Meltzer as an influence on their style, it would sound ridiculous and who gets into the business and hopes to emulate a dirt sheet writer? Makes no sense. But in terms of pro wrestling discourse from an in ring perspective for much of the last 4 decades a lot of it is centered around Meltzer, his opinions and his ratings. If you're telling me that we in the west haven't seen that bleed into the wrestlers and wrestling you see today then I'd say you're on an island. I'm not talking even about how he's influenced the business side of things but it's fairly clear how the traits that Meltzer likes in his matches running from Dynamite Kid/Tiger Mask, to Flair/Steamboat, to the 4 Pillars of Heaven stuff and then onto more contemporary stuff has bled into the west and, given that he was one of the few voices covering puroresu at the time, and probably the most preeminent voice covering it, it's his voice through which that work has been filtered in Western coverage. On a more recent basis, his PWG coverage and how the stuff that gets over with that audience, is accepted now as the current in trend wrestling style of the west. Meltzer's influence spans decades.

By the way I'm not in any cult, much less a Dave Meltzer cult, but I think he's a pretty great eye for wrestling, an important figure in wrestling journalism and absolutely an influence on the medium in different ways.

leggo

You’re making Dave Meltzer responsible for people enjoying Flair/Steamboat there...that’s farcical. Have you considered that wrestlers may wrestle like Flair and Steamboat because they enjoy Flair and Steamboat, and not because they needed one fan to tell them how to feel about it? Nobody has ever said that people only enjoy movies because of movie reviewers’ opinion on them, I mean at best maybe they can highlight an obscure movie some people wouldn’t have heard of otherwise, but aside from that all they are are a part of the noise surrounding a movie. Same goes for wrestling. And in 2020 critics’ volume is lowering if anything because social media etc has given everyone a voice, so it’s a debate in many fields whether we actually ‘need’ critics anymore. Even in wrestling, with apps like the Grappl app the trend is towards more groupthink when it comes to people rating matches. And even at that, it’s still not something that meaningfully penetrates wrestling locker rooms beyond being good for a laugh.

That’s the real world, and sorry man but you’re in a very small bubble if you think otherwise.

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

You’re making Dave Meltzer responsible for people enjoying Flair/Steamboat there...that’s farcical. Have you considered that wrestlers may wrestle like Flair and Steamboat because they enjoy Flair and Steamboat, and not because they needed one fan to tell them how to feel about it? Nobody has ever said that people only enjoy movies because of movie reviewers’ opinion on them, I mean at best maybe they can highlight an obscure movie some people wouldn’t have heard of otherwise, but aside from that all they are are a part of the noise surrounding a movie. Same goes for wrestling. And in 2020 critics’ volume is lowering if anything because social media etc has given everyone a voice, so it’s a debate in many fields whether we actually ‘need’ critics anymore. Even in wrestling, with apps like the Grappl app the trend is towards more groupthink when it comes to people rating matches. And even at that, it’s still not something that meaningfully penetrates wrestling locker rooms beyond being good for a laugh.

That’s the real world, and sorry man but you’re in a very small bubble if you think otherwise.

Didn't say he was responsible at all but he did certainly help to spread the message of those matches to a wider base which at the time circled solely around a handful of journalists. There's a good chance that without Meltzer spreading the word of some 80's and 90's Japanese stuff maybe it doesn't get the foothold in western wrestling that it has (I say maybe because that's far from a foregone conclusion). Sure group think is great and hey I use Grappl myself and things like Cagematch are brilliant for a consensus view, I still like to hear the opinions though of individuals whose opinion I respect and value and I think there'll always be a place for that. Just a very recent example of it, I'm currently watching Dynamite, on a video recap the voice over calls the Omega/Page vs Bucks tag arguably the greatest tag match ever and honestly until Meltzer floated that thought I don't think I saw it anywhere else, after that it got some real debate. That's a very minor but very recent example of the influence he has.

Wrestling is a small bubble to begin with, but its most hardcore base tends to be what generates buzz to more casual fans. I think you're totally off base saying that section of wrestling fans isn't important given it's that super hardcore base that helped generate a groundswell that's given rise to NJPW having an established fan base in the west and AEW existing in the first place.

leggo

Ah now, if you have to try and change what I said, did you ever have a point to begin with? Find for me where I said that the AEW and Japanese fanbase weren’t important and we can talk, otherwise jog on. :rolleyes:

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

Ah now, if you have to try and change what I said, did you ever have a point to begin with? Find for me where I said that the AEW and Japanese fanbase weren’t important and we can talk, otherwise jog on. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure I did. You said Meltzer's sphere of influence is limited to a small bubble. I said Meltzer has played a big part in bringing more western eyes to NJPW, which AEW has basically sprung out of, thus Meltzer is influential.

The White Wolf

briany wrote: »

Jim Cornette went in pretty hard on Money in the Bank this week, as you'd expect. He was quite blunt about Dana Brooke's looks, describing her thus,



You'd think Twitter would dogpile corny for that one, just as they did for the Ethiopian chicken joke, but it seems like it's just crickets.

Cornette can still shock with how blunt he can be but I understand his point. What is she late 20s/early 30s?

Anyway...it's not a good discussion to start. Some lads on here take massive umbrage to such talk.

PTH2009

ShaneU wrote: »

So I've been gone back to watching WCW since nitro started. Never watched any of it at the time. Finally got to the eagerly awaited Main Event of Starrcade 97 with Sting vs Hogan (They were building this match for a year!). Wow, what a terrible disappointment that was. I can only assume fans at the time thought the same.

Hogan beats Sting with a leg drop, perfectly legal, no interference (for once) and then Bret Hart who's still at ringside for some reason after refereeing the last match (another terrible decision to debut him like that) decides that the referee's count was too fast (it wasn't) and orders the match to restart! Sting then puts Hogan in the sharpshooter and Bret who now decides he's the referee for this match gives him the win!

Worst part was Sting breaking character (he hadn't spoke for months) channeling Eddie Guerrero by shouting "Mama Cita!" at the camera for some reason!

Acting and wrestle crap at its finest, so bad it's good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0CIWm592sI