Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

NXT TAKEOVER: BROOKLYN


RIPPA

Recommended Posts

How have all those random Young Bucks matches been?  I see he's got them all around four stars. I don't dislike the Bucks but maybe Dave is still very much a movez guy. I'm not sure I have seen a better story in wrestling this year beginning to end than Bayley/Sasha.   To me it's a five star match..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meltzer's star rating system used to be a good point of reference for checking out matches back when I was a teenager, nowadays, not so much. Sasha/Bayley is 5 fucking stars.

 

A 1/2* difference! Oh my!

That same 1/2* I would deduct from most of the New Japan matches he rates.

 

The Bucks have been really good in New Japan. I would definitely recommend their IWGP Jr Tag Title match with Roppongi Vice. I felt they lapsed a bit too much into move spamming in the match with ReDragon from the G1 final show, but it was still good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How have all those random Young Bucks matches been?  I see he's got them all around four stars. I don't dislike the Bucks but maybe Dave is still very much a movez guy. I'm not sure I have seen a better story in wrestling this year beginning to end than Bayley/Sasha.   To me it's a five star match..

I skip Young Bucks matches now because I really can't stand them, and every match I've seen of theirs in NJPW has been exactly the same.  So yeah, I'd say he's overrating them.  I've never seen one standout match of theirs on a NJPW show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meltzer's star rating system used to be a good point of reference for checking out matches back when I was a teenager, nowadays, not so much. Sasha/Bayley is 5 fucking stars.

Is it a bias against women, or a bias against Divas? He had no problem giving the full Five Snowflakes to a buncha Manami Toyota matches back in the 90s. Maybe it's easier to more highly rate an "exotic foreigner" than some tanning-bed aficionado from California.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Meltzer's star rating system used to be a good point of reference for checking out matches back when I was a teenager, nowadays, not so much. Sasha/Bayley is 5 fucking stars.

Is it a bias against women, or a bias against Divas? He had no problem giving the full Five Snowflakes to a buncha Manami Toyota matches back in the 90s. Maybe it's easier to more highly rate an "exotic foreigner" than some tanning-bed aficionado from California.

 

Dave's a big fan of women's wrestling, and even women's MMA. I thought his rating for Bailey - Sasha was pretty spot on. 4 stars for Sasha - Becky was low though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Meltzer's star rating system used to be a good point of reference for checking out matches back when I was a teenager, nowadays, not so much. Sasha/Bayley is 5 fucking stars.

Is it a bias against women, or a bias against Divas? He had no problem giving the full Five Snowflakes to a buncha Manami Toyota matches back in the 90s. Maybe it's easier to more highly rate an "exotic foreigner" than some tanning-bed aficionado from California.

 

 

Bayley and Sasha are all about the tans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dave Meltzer rated Bayley vs. Sasha Banks ****1/2. That's got be the highest rating Dave's given a women's match in the WWE.

 

What did he give the Charlotte/Nattie match where he was basically screaming that Nattie was Jumbo Tsuruta with boobs?

 

 

Oh man, thanks for *that* mental picture...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

****1/2 would be great if it weren't relative to ****3/4 or ***** as the actual classics. It's that weird thing.

Meltzer's biases have always been on his sleeve. Lots of spotz and matwork-in-lieu-of-storytelling. It is what it is.

I like star ratings as shorthand but usually they're best paired with analysis. The IWC has gotten bad about just throwing them out like that's the end word. I mean, I typically rate stuff significantly above or below most so I get that mileage varies. Explaining ratings and thus the thought behind them is what matters.

The real problem is Meltz being viewed as 'the word' on these things in 2015. Are we gonna go see what Scott Keith thinks next like it's 2005 again?

EDIT: Checked it for laughs. He gave it ****1/2 too. Interestingly he also gave Corbin/Joe the highest rating I've seen at ***1/2. Of course, he rated Balor/Owens ****1/2 as well which...no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

Haha, that's what I figured. I don't have a problem with him. Reading his stuff is a way to pass the time at work for me. He's not bad as long as you don't take him too seriously. Pretty much just like every other critic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to read Keith quite a bit, but the day he described Dinosaurs as a seminal show from the 90's, I pretty much finished checking out on his stuff.

Which had already started well before that, but that was the point where I could no longer take anything he said seriously.

I will forever laugh at his "El Gato is Spanish for Pat Tanaka" joke though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...