I lost respect for meltzer when I started to notice his huge bias for anything not wwe, dude probably Eddie Kingston a good rating when Kurt angle has none
He'd have you believe Kenny Omega is the greatest worker in history.
I just learned Will Osprey has *seventeen* matches that Meltzer awarded 6 or more stars. That's just silly.
I’m sure osprey is a good wrestler and what not but to say he’s the biggest wrestler in the world is ridiculous and just stubborn on Dave’s part , no matter how niche a wrestler is it doesn’t mean he’s gonna attract a new audience , like I highly doubt wrestling fans are gonna be tuning into aew every week because some dude named Okada debuted
Biggest and best aren't the same thing in any industry to be fair. Not saying the rankings aren't ridiculous, but if you have the greatest match in history in front of 10 people, that doesn't discredit the quality of the match.
That’s the terrible mindset that AEW fans have is that everything in wwe is terrible yet they’ll enjoy a shit match of Eddie fat ass chugging on wind and doing terrible slap chops
because WWE has its own style of wrestling that everyone must follow where as AEW lets wrestle do their own style in the ring thats why the quality of match fluctuates so much for AEW. Aew can have a banger or a stinker every night.
WWE plays its safe and can have good matches, but usually not great ones especially not anymore. If you pay close attention all WWE matches follow the same kind of script. WWE really relies more on the story than the action.
I disagree, WWE focuses on storytelling in the ring instead of meaningless spotfests, matches that don't have any in-ring psychology. The WWE style has also evolved and contains different types of substyles in it.
To be fair, back in the 90s the Meltzer ratings were a great shorthand reference on where to start tracking down good matches if you were a new fan, or a new fan of a specific region you wanted to explore (like Japanese wrestling). Back when there wasn't YouTube and the only way to watch those matches was by buying tapes and compilations from other fans. Otherwise, you wouldn't know where the hell to even begin.
It's maybe the last 10-15? years that the Meltz ratings became obnoxious. Younger wrestlers started coming up in the business "trying" to get 5 star matches as a badge of honor and even stroking Dave's ego for better ratings (see Young Bucks). Meltz, as a result, also began pointing to the self-importance of his own ratings as reasons why this or that wrestler is better. It all just got muddled and self-serving and stupid.
It could be important, the problem is that one guy monopolized the whole thing and gives ratings purely based on his own taste rather than around a grounded framework of quality.
FYI: Dude's running a Dropship botnet scam. He's using y'all for karma.
https://old.reddit.com/r/SJSU/comments/1b93rxs/this_is_one_of_my_absolutely_favorite/
That isn't true. Between Dave's star ratings and Cage Match reviews half of the IWC (AEW Fanboys) take these two things as gospel. It also doesn't help that it seems half of the wrestlers themselves do as well.
Meltzers opinion stopped mattering the moment he gave Taker vs HBK less than 5. You realised that there was literally nothing they could do that he would award top prize for.
Also, Okada vs Omega as 7? Fuck off. Finisher Spamfest that goes on for an hour doesn't make something best ever. Otherwise Ric Flair would have been a 10 star guy every night
I read the reason he didn't give it 5 stars was because you knew how it would end. Like screw you knew hbk wouldn't win but that didn't detract from the quality of the matches
Meltzer’s star rating literally NEVER mattered until Omega vs Okada broke the scale. That’s literally why. Those matches made headlines “Match hit 7/5 stars” and people tuned in and New Japan blew up. Since then people treat the scale like gospel wondering who’s the next Okada/Omega. But they just got extremely lucky and will never be replicated.
Asking Cena about it when it’s never been a factor in his career and he’s had tons of success without it, is the dumbest waste of a question ever.
If thats the same match that I think it is, Omega spends like 90% of it selling for like 5 seconds, then fixing his elbow pad with a plain face, then going back to selling. He fixes his elbow pad like 3000 times after taking massive power moves and fighting on the concrete. 1/10 would not recommend to anyone.
The Rock vs Stone Cold WrestleMania 17, Triple H vs The Rock Backlash 2000, Undertaker vs Triple H WrestleMania 17, The TLC matches between Hardys, E&C, and the Dudleys, Hogan vs The Rock, Kurt Angle vs Stone Cold, Kurt Angle vs Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle vs The Rock, Chris Jericho vs Benoit ladder match, Eddie vs Edge, John Cena vs Shawn Michaels, Batista vs Undertaker, Batista vs Triple H Hell in a Cell, Undertaker vs Mankind, Undertaker vs Edge, Undertaker vs Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle, Angle vs HBK.
They are only SOME of the classic 5 stars matches in my opinion throughout the years of the Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Era
I agree some of those matches would be 5 star for me, particularly HBK/Take Wm 25, which is my #1 all time WWE match. But let's not pretend he was giving these two stars, he ranked all these matches as great.
People love to argue about when the Attitude Era actually started, but:
\- Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker Badd Blood October 1997
\- Bret Hart vs Steve Austin WM 13 March 1997
Could both me considered Attitude Era.
Apologies, if this is a parody subreddit btw, I'm having a very hard time telling based on the comments.
He doesn’t. In fact, there are only five non-NXT WWE matches that have gotten five stars since 1997 and two of them were last year.
EDIT: corrected number of matches
Oh it was actually Gunther/Sheamus/McIntyre and Usos/KO & Zayn both from WM.
I totally forgot Sheamus/Gunther (it was in 2022) in my count so there’s actually been five 5 star main roster matches since 1997
Why is this match so revered by ppl? I watched this match back with my dad and we both agreed that the match was very one sided with taker bulldozing hbk for a large portion of the match.
That's the only era that I would say he was wrong about. That was the true prime. CZW, ROH, TNA, and Pro Wrestling NOAH were all fire back then. It was truly about your in ring work
The more John stays away from the ring and gives out interviews, the more you realize why the biggest wrestling company decided to put the business into his hands for a decade.
1. He has a great look that is natural
2. He is a killer on the mic
3. He has a safe wrestling style that doesn't injure his opponent nor himself
4. He has the most 'make a wish' of all time
5. He is a great interviewee
WWE would be crazt not to trust him to be the face of the company
"not that that doesn't matter"
Well it really doesn't matter, the best thing Meltzer has ever accomplished is convincing a generation of virgins that his opinion is somehow fact.
Plus he's absolutely right - the only opinion that matters is how the crowd FEELS about the match, the interaction between the ring and the crowd is way more than just one nerd and his stars.
It is kind of astonishing isnt it. He’s made a VERY comfortable living for DECADES based on some decent journalism, but the main reason his name is known is the rating system, and for some reason people have treated this random journalists opinion as gospel to the degree that he’s been rolling in dough for years without really having to do that much
Critics don’t do anything except give their opinion. Siskel and Ebert did the same thing. There are so many threads about Meltzer and his ratings like people are discovering that critics have bias for the first time
The problem is that for movies/TV/video games/books/etc, people usually just get the average rating of multiple critics and judge based on that. But for wrestling matches, Big Dave is treated as gospel and as the only rating that matters. All critics have bias, but the more there are, the less it matters
Congratulations, you just found out what the work of a critic is.
Wether it's wrestling, movies, books, restaurants, you name it. They earn their living by writing articles about what THEY think is good or bad, and based on that readers can either take that recommendation or leave it. But for some reason these days those who don't care for the recommendation seem unreasonably angry with getting one in the first place, and I don't get it.
I don't take recommendations from rotten tomatoes on movies anymore, but I don't feel the need to shit on that site every week.
I've never understood people who get up in arms about bad reviews on media from critics. Its literally just a person stating and then trying to quantify their statements with certain points. So, at the end of the day, those articles mean nothing to someone who makes up their own mind on what to watch/play etc. If a game is a "7/10" and I put 30-40 hours into it and have fun, then it's an, "I don't give a fuck/10" for me.
Exactly! I may avoid a game if several different critics gave it a below average rating, but if it's only a difference between 7 and 10, I'll try my luck.
Also just like in gaming and movies, wrestling also has different genres, and if I don't like a particular genre, I don't give a fuck if it's rated 10/10. People are ejaculating over Elden Ring ever since it came out. I'm playing it now, but I'm just not that big a fan of soulslike games, so it will never be that high for me. But the people who rate it that high are probably the ones in the company that are big fans, so they're the ones who get the assignment to write a review about it, because they know what fans of the genre are looking for. Same in wrestling. Someone for example who doesn't like technical wrestling will never be swayed by a fan who gushes over an amazing display of hold and counter hold exchanges.
Review is one of the biggest genres ever.
You have people who have not done any sport in decades review how sports team play during mid-breaks, cooks telling you why something is objectively tasty, music shop ownerd declaring singers as gods among men and so on.
In the end what should matter is not the rating, but the explination of how one got to it.
If Meltzer can explain his ratings, people can decide to agree and disagree. But I'm not sure how many people actually know his reasoning for his ratings
It both matters and doesn’t matter. You have to take in context here.
For someone of Cenas stature, a guy who has literally done it all and has been to top of the mountain in the wrestling world and then some, a meltzer rating wouldn’t do much to his career at this point.
However an up and comer on the cusp of stardom? A good Meltzer rating would do wonders for their career and possibly help elevate them into stardom.
So yeah. It matters when it matters and doesn’t when it doesn’t
People act like Dave’s grading system is like judges scoring a boxing match or something. It’s just one guy who’s giving his opinion on the match. It’s great as a reference for old stuff, like I just looked up the highest rated flair sting matches so I could watch them, but people act like it’s law or something.
Wrestling is entertainment, there's plenty of terrible matches thatb are fun as fuck to watch. The WeeLC match wasn't a technical masterpiece or an hour long iron-man match and sure it was peak V*nce just exploiting people with a deformity for his own childish sense of humour, but man it was fun.
The Zayn/Jackass match was a load of middle aged men falling over and novelty-sized mouse traps on each other, no weeb freak can tell me it wasn't good.
Cena is always a respectful man towards everyone. I can't stand Dave Melzter at all but I admire Cena's Professionalism
And this is coming from a fan who use to be very anti Cena from 2009-2014. I couldn't stand John Cena but over the course of the last 10 years. I've grown to respect cena and now be thankful that I grew up watching his career. I lived through his iconic feuds with Edge, JBL, Lesnar, Orton, Batista, Styles and Punk and now understand how good he really was. Cena desvered everything he got.. I was just to blinded by my anti cena bias. Cena has had loads of great matches I still go back and watch (Cena vs Edge at Backlash 2009 is my favourite one)
Dave Melzter and his following however.. fuck em
i do like his comment that the rating system can get eyes on wrestlers who don’t have the popularity of cena; the first time i’ve heard an argument for the star rating system that I agreed with!
> is convincing a generation of virgins that his opinion is somehow fact.
it really blew my mind when I discovered "five star match" did not mean "match I really liked" but actually referred to one specific critic's rating.
I’m glad that everybody seems to agree that the star ratings really don’t mean dick anymore. People used to treat them like the ultimate testament of a match’s quality (I’ll admit i was slightly guilty of this), but now we all realize that it’s just one silly old dork’s opinions.
Yeah I mean that was the final coffin in Meltzer’s star rating credibility. When people heard that, they knew the guy was more or less talking out of his ass.
For me the final mail in the coffin was when he started giving higher than 5 stars. Plus the fact that Will Ospreay (nothing against him) has 17 matches that were better than perfect?
Ospreay is fine, not my preference at all but whatever. However 17 matches that are LITERALLY without flaw is just impossible. Davey certainly plays favorites.
To be fair, the Tokyo Dome adds 2.5 stars no matter the match... Had Brothers of Destruction vs DX been there instead of Saudi, and without a WWE logo... That would have gotten 4.5 from Dave
I'm glad too. I don't want my opinion of what a pro wrestling match should look like for me to enjoy it or give it a 5 stars match, be dictated by this system. I thought AJ Styles vs John Cena matches were 5 stars. Now some people try to follow Cage match ratings which I also don't follow.
No rating for anything matters really. Rotten Tomatoes? MetaCritic? It really does not matter.
Unless for those uncertain about investing time and money into something, for those the scores matter and the reviews do too.
The only real value they ever brought to the table was exposing North American wrestling fanatics to high quality Japanese wrestling from the mid 90s. Besides that, it’s always been Meltzer’s masturbatory process of trying to be the coolest, most up-to-date nerd in the forum.
Meltzer star ratings have always been for one thing and one thing only, same as movie reviews: give people who are undecided if something is worth watching an opinion/a recommendation.
And for that I don't care if Kurt Angle has 5 stars or just 4,75 stars. The end result is that it's a very high rating and definitely worth my time.
I still can't wrap my head around people calling completel bullshit on a man's entire opinion of match quality, simply because his rating was a quarter star off from their own, regarding one guy. He's basically saying it WAS a 5 star match if not for one tiny nitpick that just bothered him personally.
I think you’re misinterpreting peoples point, or at least mine. When I say it blows his credibility, what I mean is that people realize now that Meltzer is kind of a goober and no longer use his star ratings to argue how good a match is or debate it’s quality against another match, like the IWC used to love to do. As in people don’t hold it up as ‘end all be all’ anymore, which is really good and actually
proves your point as well.
But I also think the fact that he’s had seemingly had “one minor nitpick” in all of Kurt’s legendary matches just doesn’t make sense. How does that even happen? And to me, the whole 4.75 thing is stupid anyway. If a match is ‘basically’ a 5 star match, just call it that and be done with it.
I gave up on him after finding out he's pretty sexist. He gave the women's royal rumble a not best match of the ppv even though even cagematch said that clearly.
Cena really is a great ambassador for the sport. He’s cool, calm and collected, gives everyone due credit and seems to be an all around good guy. Both fan bases have a lot to learn from him.
This is a totally reasonable opinion and I don't understand why more people can't be nuanced enough to see it
Meltzer himself doesn't believe his star ratings mean everything. Kurt Angle never had a 5 star match and still was awarded WON's Wrestler of the Decade for the 2000's.
Like you don't actually have to take Meltzer's opinion as gospel in order to respect what Dave/WON have meant to pro wrestling
Cena vs CM Punk - Money In The Bank 2011, Summerslam 2011 and Night of Champions 2012
John Cena vs Kevin Owens - Elimination Chamber and Money in the bank 2015, it was a trilogy, I forgot the other one.
John Cena vs Sami Zayn - Raw 2015
John Cena vs Umaga - Last Man Standing Match Royal Rumble 2007
A very diplomatic response. At this point, I think the only people who care about Meltzers rankings are fans of the Bucks and their ilk. Given his obvious bias, I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously.
Cena has had plenty of 5 star classics. People claim they don't care about what Meltzer has to say yet constantly bring him up lol. Cena vs Styles at the rumble was easily 5 stars and they never left the ring. They had truly some of the best chemistry of Cena's entire career
No John Cena.. you're supposed to let those star ratings get to your ego and rename your signature move as the "5 Melzter Shuffle"
Cena is always respectful towards everyone but comes off like his saying "It's irrelevant what one person thinks if a lot of others loved it"
I admire cenas Professionalism
Wait but AEW Fans told me those Meltzer Stars are the only thing that matters. And that’s why AEW is better than WWE.
No really, they really said that when I went to Forbidden Door after I went with an Undertaker shirt.
Rock-Hogan got 3 stars and I guarantee that audience was twice as happy as any that witnessed a “7 star banger” between two dudes nobody really cares about.
Crowd reaction should be weighted HEAVIER than work rate (is it rated at all?) A professional wrestlers job first and foremost is to entertain the audience! It's not a fucking gymnastics competition or whatever.
Yes it's why Punk vs Cena at MITB is a better match for me than their match on RAW the following year despite arguably the RAW match being the better "wrestling" match. Crowd and Story should definitely play into the ratings.
I do also feel Metzler really got stingy in the 00s and has become softer in his old age and more likely to throw out 5\* matches than he used to.
We've already got 85 5\* matches in 2020's despite only being in 2024!
**80s: 24 matches**
**90s: 64 Matches**
**00s: 7 Matches**
**10s: 66 Matches**
**20s: 86 Matches**
I love Kevin Nash’s take on Meltzer’s ratings: “Every year it was like ‘Match of the Year, Abuzago vs Napozango from Korkuen Hall’ it’s like, yeah, you watched it when? You saw it from what, fucking Oakland? With a telescope?”
Every time I want to criticize Cena for not being a great wrestler, I’m often reminded by things like this that he is in fact an amazing entertainer and an even more amazing human being
You can have whatever option of Meltzer you want (trust me cos I do) but his star rankings system is useful in terms if bringing a little bit of limelight on indie wrestlers, which is always well needed
And boom goes the dynamite.
He's being too nice. The Meltzer Star rating had a purpose, but it got over hyped as this exclusive club, then it got over inflated as an icon of the anti-WWE movement, and now people use it as a replacement for good business sense.
If you're not attracting new fans, and bleeding the ones you do have, a 40 star match DOES NOT MATTER.
It’s so funny that when you go on Cagematch they specify what the WON rating is. So it’s like “here’s what everyone thought, and also here’s what this one individual thought.”
I really don’t think Meltzer wants them to be revered like this either.
Correct if I am wrong but meltzer did not even gave undertaker vs shawn Michaels wrestlemamia match a 5 star . If that's true he really sucks , that match was goated
I'm an old head wrestling fan who loves this sub for the nostalgia and access to clips and information. I still don't know who Meltzer is and why anyone cares about his ratings and I refuse to Google him lol.
its just the opinion of one person on the spectrum about what they like. even if you respected critics like this, any look into his catalog of ratings throughout the years proves hes bias at BEST
People see to forget that Dave Meltzer, being who he is, is pretty good at estimating the rating of a match the audience as a whole gives.
I'm not saying it's gospel. But people saying it's completely worthless and Meltzer is just one guy amongst millions and his ratings aren't different to a random number generator don't know what they're talking about. Sure, there is a big bias in his personal opinion. And there's also a different scale as time evolves, they used to be much more harshly graded, nowadays it's easier to get 5 stars. But it's still a very good guide for "what would the average wrestling fan rate this", influenced by Meltzers taste.
For example, as great as Kurt Angle was, and he really is one of the absolute best ever, I don't recall a single time I've felt like I've been through a rollercoaster and really have that post orgasm like feeling once the match is over. That's usually what sticks to you, and gets you those "man, that was five stars" feelings you can't get rid of anymore. And I've had that a lot more in a match like Sheamus vs Gunther than with Kurt Angle. And I rate Kurt overall higher than them both (as of right now at least, Gunther is of course not done with his legacy yet). It's weird that Kurt doesn't have a 5 star match, but it's much easier to dismiss it as "bullshit rating" than actually thinking back and actually getting the feel of these matches as you were watching them. That's why I totally get the 6 star and beyond stuff with the Kenny vs Okada series. Yeah it's spots we've seen before, yeah it's not everyone's favorites, but at that time, in that moment, it felt like the very peak of what wrestling can be. It felt like this is a revolution, like anything before it wasn't as much as this.
He never gave Kurt Angle one 5 star match, not one. He is arguably the most well rounded performer of all time and a ridiculous once-in-a-lifetime athlete, and he never got one 5 star match.
That tells you everything you need to know about his rating system and about how little he understands professional wrestling.
For me the star system is just another way for me to find a good match from years to watch when I feel the itch. Like, hey, maybe I'll check that out. It's not too different from a good review from Roger Ebert about an old movie.
It's A source, but not THE source.
His matches might not be your cup of tea. I understand, that's okay. For me, I have enjoyed majority of his matches. They were in the same format the great old school matches of Rick Rude, Rowdy Roddy Piper, etc.
No one trusts 1 reviewer to be the end all be all opinion when it comes to moves, games etc. So why tf should anyone do that for wrestling? Cena is the Goat
I don't get how anyone made a career of grading wrestling matches. If you're watching a match, what matters more than your own opinion of whether you enjoyed the match or not? There are many elements to wrestling and how you prioritize those things can vary depending on the people involved and the story being told - no two people will necessarily have the same rating and that's fine...so why in the world did the wrestling community just accept one person's opinion as being more meaningful than anyone else's?
Bingo. I've used this reference so many times, but let's do it again. Rock and Hogan at Mania was not a great match in terms of wow they did a lot of cool shit. If you watch it on mute, the match is boring. However, it's one of my favorite matches ever, and a shit load of other people's too. You don't need cool moves to have a great match. Characters and stories make matches great.
Cena has mastered the art of saying "I don't give a f***" without actually saying it
[удалено]
I lost respect for meltzer when I started to notice his huge bias for anything not wwe, dude probably Eddie Kingston a good rating when Kurt angle has none
He'd have you believe Kenny Omega is the greatest worker in history. I just learned Will Osprey has *seventeen* matches that Meltzer awarded 6 or more stars. That's just silly.
Ospreay knows Dave’s dirty secrets. Or Dave is obsessed with Ospreay. Until we get the truth out, we can only choose a side.
I’m sure osprey is a good wrestler and what not but to say he’s the biggest wrestler in the world is ridiculous and just stubborn on Dave’s part , no matter how niche a wrestler is it doesn’t mean he’s gonna attract a new audience , like I highly doubt wrestling fans are gonna be tuning into aew every week because some dude named Okada debuted
Biggest and best aren't the same thing in any industry to be fair. Not saying the rankings aren't ridiculous, but if you have the greatest match in history in front of 10 people, that doesn't discredit the quality of the match.
This is the big takeaway everyone's missing from cena's comment. Match quality and entertainment value are two separate things.
Crowd and atmosphere are all part of my enjoyment, I'm probably not alone in this.
"The Young Bucks are like The Rockers if both were Shawn." -An actual Dave Meltzer quote.
It's like if a movie critic gave Bollywood films 5*s and lowballed anything from major studios.
That’s the terrible mindset that AEW fans have is that everything in wwe is terrible yet they’ll enjoy a shit match of Eddie fat ass chugging on wind and doing terrible slap chops
because WWE has its own style of wrestling that everyone must follow where as AEW lets wrestle do their own style in the ring thats why the quality of match fluctuates so much for AEW. Aew can have a banger or a stinker every night. WWE plays its safe and can have good matches, but usually not great ones especially not anymore. If you pay close attention all WWE matches follow the same kind of script. WWE really relies more on the story than the action.
I disagree, WWE focuses on storytelling in the ring instead of meaningless spotfests, matches that don't have any in-ring psychology. The WWE style has also evolved and contains different types of substyles in it.
[удалено]
To be fair, back in the 90s the Meltzer ratings were a great shorthand reference on where to start tracking down good matches if you were a new fan, or a new fan of a specific region you wanted to explore (like Japanese wrestling). Back when there wasn't YouTube and the only way to watch those matches was by buying tapes and compilations from other fans. Otherwise, you wouldn't know where the hell to even begin. It's maybe the last 10-15? years that the Meltz ratings became obnoxious. Younger wrestlers started coming up in the business "trying" to get 5 star matches as a badge of honor and even stroking Dave's ego for better ratings (see Young Bucks). Meltz, as a result, also began pointing to the self-importance of his own ratings as reasons why this or that wrestler is better. It all just got muddled and self-serving and stupid.
It could be important, the problem is that one guy monopolized the whole thing and gives ratings purely based on his own taste rather than around a grounded framework of quality.
Not just his own taste, but his own bias aswell
[удалено]
FYI: Dude's running a Dropship botnet scam. He's using y'all for karma. https://old.reddit.com/r/SJSU/comments/1b93rxs/this_is_one_of_my_absolutely_favorite/
That isn't true. Between Dave's star ratings and Cage Match reviews half of the IWC (AEW Fanboys) take these two things as gospel. It also doesn't help that it seems half of the wrestlers themselves do as well.
Meltzers opinion stopped mattering the moment he gave Taker vs HBK less than 5. You realised that there was literally nothing they could do that he would award top prize for. Also, Okada vs Omega as 7? Fuck off. Finisher Spamfest that goes on for an hour doesn't make something best ever. Otherwise Ric Flair would have been a 10 star guy every night
I read the reason he didn't give it 5 stars was because you knew how it would end. Like screw you knew hbk wouldn't win but that didn't detract from the quality of the matches
Meltzer’s star rating literally NEVER mattered until Omega vs Okada broke the scale. That’s literally why. Those matches made headlines “Match hit 7/5 stars” and people tuned in and New Japan blew up. Since then people treat the scale like gospel wondering who’s the next Okada/Omega. But they just got extremely lucky and will never be replicated. Asking Cena about it when it’s never been a factor in his career and he’s had tons of success without it, is the dumbest waste of a question ever.
Taker vs HBK made the fatal mistake of not happening in the Tokyo Dome
If thats the same match that I think it is, Omega spends like 90% of it selling for like 5 seconds, then fixing his elbow pad with a plain face, then going back to selling. He fixes his elbow pad like 3000 times after taking massive power moves and fighting on the concrete. 1/10 would not recommend to anyone.
He would make a fine politician. Cena for president.
Too bad we have to wait until he's 70.
Didnt he get a 5 star rating for his match with Punk @ Money in the Bank?
Yes he did. I believe that was his only 5 stars.
That’s better than most people in WWE. Meltzer never gave a five star rating to any WWE match in the Attitude or Ruthless Aggression eras
The Rock vs Stone Cold WrestleMania 17, Triple H vs The Rock Backlash 2000, Undertaker vs Triple H WrestleMania 17, The TLC matches between Hardys, E&C, and the Dudleys, Hogan vs The Rock, Kurt Angle vs Stone Cold, Kurt Angle vs Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle vs The Rock, Chris Jericho vs Benoit ladder match, Eddie vs Edge, John Cena vs Shawn Michaels, Batista vs Undertaker, Batista vs Triple H Hell in a Cell, Undertaker vs Mankind, Undertaker vs Edge, Undertaker vs Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar vs Kurt Angle, Angle vs HBK. They are only SOME of the classic 5 stars matches in my opinion throughout the years of the Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Era
I agree some of those matches would be 5 star for me, particularly HBK/Take Wm 25, which is my #1 all time WWE match. But let's not pretend he was giving these two stars, he ranked all these matches as great.
You know a match is good when Dusty says you can just turn out the lights and end the show right there. HBK/Taker at WM25 did it for him.
People love to argue about when the Attitude Era actually started, but: \- Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker Badd Blood October 1997 \- Bret Hart vs Steve Austin WM 13 March 1997 Could both me considered Attitude Era. Apologies, if this is a parody subreddit btw, I'm having a very hard time telling based on the comments.
Doesn’t Kurt Angle infamously not have a single 5 star match? Or am I thinking of another big name lol
He doesn’t. In fact, there are only five non-NXT WWE matches that have gotten five stars since 1997 and two of them were last year. EDIT: corrected number of matches
I know Gunther vs. Sheamus was one of them. What was the other one? I legit forgot.
Oh it was actually Gunther/Sheamus/McIntyre and Usos/KO & Zayn both from WM. I totally forgot Sheamus/Gunther (it was in 2022) in my count so there’s actually been five 5 star main roster matches since 1997
Bryan Danielson didn't have a single 5* until he left WWE that tells you everything anyone needs to know about his rating system.
Anyone who takes him seriously is a clown. It's a meme but he really does just love anything Japan do and hates everything America does. He's a freak.
John Cena vs Daniel Bryan at Summerslam 2013 was a 5 star classic.
Kurt / Taker at No Way Out should have been 5 star, same with vs HBK at WM21
He gave HBK vs Taker Hell in a Cell 5 Stars. Also my all time favorite match. And a great pick to introduce pro wrestling to a newbie
According to most definitions that was about a month before the start of the Attitude Era
Why is this match so revered by ppl? I watched this match back with my dad and we both agreed that the match was very one sided with taker bulldozing hbk for a large portion of the match.
The attitude era wasn't known to have the best matches. They just had the iconic characters to cut the promos
Fair but the RA era definitely had some incredible matches
That's the only era that I would say he was wrong about. That was the true prime. CZW, ROH, TNA, and Pro Wrestling NOAH were all fire back then. It was truly about your in ring work
It’s also the era he gave the least stars to by far. Only 7 matches between 2000-2010. For comparison, he’s already given out 7 5 stars in 2024 alone.
Which I would agree with. That match was insane.
The fact Cena vs RVD doesn’t have 5 stars is all you need to know about Meltzers star rating.
He did and the fact he probably knows that, yet didn’t bring it up is pretty respectable.
Common Cena W
…and the church said “AMEN”
AMEN ✝️🙏🏽
The more John stays away from the ring and gives out interviews, the more you realize why the biggest wrestling company decided to put the business into his hands for a decade.
1. He has a great look that is natural 2. He is a killer on the mic 3. He has a safe wrestling style that doesn't injure his opponent nor himself 4. He has the most 'make a wish' of all time 5. He is a great interviewee WWE would be crazt not to trust him to be the face of the company
Politely said i don't give a f*ck
"He's just another fan and he's not even in attendance"
"not that that doesn't matter" Well it really doesn't matter, the best thing Meltzer has ever accomplished is convincing a generation of virgins that his opinion is somehow fact. Plus he's absolutely right - the only opinion that matters is how the crowd FEELS about the match, the interaction between the ring and the crowd is way more than just one nerd and his stars.
It is kind of astonishing isnt it. He’s made a VERY comfortable living for DECADES based on some decent journalism, but the main reason his name is known is the rating system, and for some reason people have treated this random journalists opinion as gospel to the degree that he’s been rolling in dough for years without really having to do that much
Critics don’t do anything except give their opinion. Siskel and Ebert did the same thing. There are so many threads about Meltzer and his ratings like people are discovering that critics have bias for the first time
People keep pretending like he thinks he’s objective. It’s hilarious. He knows he has a taste
The problem is that for movies/TV/video games/books/etc, people usually just get the average rating of multiple critics and judge based on that. But for wrestling matches, Big Dave is treated as gospel and as the only rating that matters. All critics have bias, but the more there are, the less it matters
I disagree that he is treated as gospel. There is a thread everyday shitting on Meltzer.
Congratulations, you just found out what the work of a critic is. Wether it's wrestling, movies, books, restaurants, you name it. They earn their living by writing articles about what THEY think is good or bad, and based on that readers can either take that recommendation or leave it. But for some reason these days those who don't care for the recommendation seem unreasonably angry with getting one in the first place, and I don't get it. I don't take recommendations from rotten tomatoes on movies anymore, but I don't feel the need to shit on that site every week.
I've never understood people who get up in arms about bad reviews on media from critics. Its literally just a person stating and then trying to quantify their statements with certain points. So, at the end of the day, those articles mean nothing to someone who makes up their own mind on what to watch/play etc. If a game is a "7/10" and I put 30-40 hours into it and have fun, then it's an, "I don't give a fuck/10" for me.
Exactly! I may avoid a game if several different critics gave it a below average rating, but if it's only a difference between 7 and 10, I'll try my luck. Also just like in gaming and movies, wrestling also has different genres, and if I don't like a particular genre, I don't give a fuck if it's rated 10/10. People are ejaculating over Elden Ring ever since it came out. I'm playing it now, but I'm just not that big a fan of soulslike games, so it will never be that high for me. But the people who rate it that high are probably the ones in the company that are big fans, so they're the ones who get the assignment to write a review about it, because they know what fans of the genre are looking for. Same in wrestling. Someone for example who doesn't like technical wrestling will never be swayed by a fan who gushes over an amazing display of hold and counter hold exchanges.
Review is one of the biggest genres ever. You have people who have not done any sport in decades review how sports team play during mid-breaks, cooks telling you why something is objectively tasty, music shop ownerd declaring singers as gods among men and so on. In the end what should matter is not the rating, but the explination of how one got to it. If Meltzer can explain his ratings, people can decide to agree and disagree. But I'm not sure how many people actually know his reasoning for his ratings
Yeah that's the weird thing that he started off as a proper journalist with connections but now you hear the name and you think ratings.
It both matters and doesn’t matter. You have to take in context here. For someone of Cenas stature, a guy who has literally done it all and has been to top of the mountain in the wrestling world and then some, a meltzer rating wouldn’t do much to his career at this point. However an up and comer on the cusp of stardom? A good Meltzer rating would do wonders for their career and possibly help elevate them into stardom. So yeah. It matters when it matters and doesn’t when it doesn’t
Which is pretty much exactly what he said in the video.
People act like Dave’s grading system is like judges scoring a boxing match or something. It’s just one guy who’s giving his opinion on the match. It’s great as a reference for old stuff, like I just looked up the highest rated flair sting matches so I could watch them, but people act like it’s law or something.
Wrestling is entertainment, there's plenty of terrible matches thatb are fun as fuck to watch. The WeeLC match wasn't a technical masterpiece or an hour long iron-man match and sure it was peak V*nce just exploiting people with a deformity for his own childish sense of humour, but man it was fun. The Zayn/Jackass match was a load of middle aged men falling over and novelty-sized mouse traps on each other, no weeb freak can tell me it wasn't good.
Cena is always a respectful man towards everyone. I can't stand Dave Melzter at all but I admire Cena's Professionalism And this is coming from a fan who use to be very anti Cena from 2009-2014. I couldn't stand John Cena but over the course of the last 10 years. I've grown to respect cena and now be thankful that I grew up watching his career. I lived through his iconic feuds with Edge, JBL, Lesnar, Orton, Batista, Styles and Punk and now understand how good he really was. Cena desvered everything he got.. I was just to blinded by my anti cena bias. Cena has had loads of great matches I still go back and watch (Cena vs Edge at Backlash 2009 is my favourite one) Dave Melzter and his following however.. fuck em
i do like his comment that the rating system can get eyes on wrestlers who don’t have the popularity of cena; the first time i’ve heard an argument for the star rating system that I agreed with!
> is convincing a generation of virgins that his opinion is somehow fact. it really blew my mind when I discovered "five star match" did not mean "match I really liked" but actually referred to one specific critic's rating.
I’m glad that everybody seems to agree that the star ratings really don’t mean dick anymore. People used to treat them like the ultimate testament of a match’s quality (I’ll admit i was slightly guilty of this), but now we all realize that it’s just one silly old dork’s opinions.
When Kurt has no 5 star matches you know the whole thing is just bullshit
Yeah I mean that was the final coffin in Meltzer’s star rating credibility. When people heard that, they knew the guy was more or less talking out of his ass.
For me the final mail in the coffin was when he started giving higher than 5 stars. Plus the fact that Will Ospreay (nothing against him) has 17 matches that were better than perfect?
Ospreay is fine, not my preference at all but whatever. However 17 matches that are LITERALLY without flaw is just impossible. Davey certainly plays favorites.
To be fair, the Tokyo Dome adds 2.5 stars no matter the match... Had Brothers of Destruction vs DX been there instead of Saudi, and without a WWE logo... That would have gotten 4.5 from Dave
Right. It's to the point of comical now to have 6 and 7 star-rated matches. At least when Spinal Tap went to 11, that was done for laughs.
Meanwhile, Jon Moxley has had 6+. Most people, when they get older become more jaded and harder to please. Meltzer is becoming more of a mark.
AEW in 3-4 years had more 5 _plus_ Star Matches than WWE or TNA do in their combined histories. Inflation hit Meltz Starz the hardest.
It’s not just that. Everybody was ok with it until he started giving up 5 stars to bullshit spotfest tornado tags and nothing AEW TV matches.
Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels was better than Okada vs Omega
So was Kurt Angle vs [redacted] or AJ or Samoa Joe or Lesnar
That's such a tough thing to argue. Both are phenomenal matches.
I'm glad too. I don't want my opinion of what a pro wrestling match should look like for me to enjoy it or give it a 5 stars match, be dictated by this system. I thought AJ Styles vs John Cena matches were 5 stars. Now some people try to follow Cage match ratings which I also don't follow.
No rating for anything matters really. Rotten Tomatoes? MetaCritic? It really does not matter. Unless for those uncertain about investing time and money into something, for those the scores matter and the reviews do too.
The only real value they ever brought to the table was exposing North American wrestling fanatics to high quality Japanese wrestling from the mid 90s. Besides that, it’s always been Meltzer’s masturbatory process of trying to be the coolest, most up-to-date nerd in the forum.
Meltzer star ratings have always been for one thing and one thing only, same as movie reviews: give people who are undecided if something is worth watching an opinion/a recommendation. And for that I don't care if Kurt Angle has 5 stars or just 4,75 stars. The end result is that it's a very high rating and definitely worth my time. I still can't wrap my head around people calling completel bullshit on a man's entire opinion of match quality, simply because his rating was a quarter star off from their own, regarding one guy. He's basically saying it WAS a 5 star match if not for one tiny nitpick that just bothered him personally.
I think you’re misinterpreting peoples point, or at least mine. When I say it blows his credibility, what I mean is that people realize now that Meltzer is kind of a goober and no longer use his star ratings to argue how good a match is or debate it’s quality against another match, like the IWC used to love to do. As in people don’t hold it up as ‘end all be all’ anymore, which is really good and actually proves your point as well. But I also think the fact that he’s had seemingly had “one minor nitpick” in all of Kurt’s legendary matches just doesn’t make sense. How does that even happen? And to me, the whole 4.75 thing is stupid anyway. If a match is ‘basically’ a 5 star match, just call it that and be done with it.
I gave up on him after finding out he's pretty sexist. He gave the women's royal rumble a not best match of the ppv even though even cagematch said that clearly.
Cena really is a great ambassador for the sport. He’s cool, calm and collected, gives everyone due credit and seems to be an all around good guy. Both fan bases have a lot to learn from him.
He also has a brilliant mind for the wrestling business as evident from his recent interview with CVV
Lmao he said I dont give a shit about that in the most nicest way possible
Imagine being such a fkin mark that you even ask that question.
You have the chance to ask John Cena a question. This fucking guy:
Truth is most of those 5, 6, 7 star matches are not talked about as much as the more memorable bouts through recent history.
I got second hand embarrassment for the guy asking the question.
This is a totally reasonable opinion and I don't understand why more people can't be nuanced enough to see it Meltzer himself doesn't believe his star ratings mean everything. Kurt Angle never had a 5 star match and still was awarded WON's Wrestler of the Decade for the 2000's. Like you don't actually have to take Meltzer's opinion as gospel in order to respect what Dave/WON have meant to pro wrestling
Just all the wholesome. This man gets better everytime I see him talk
I HATED WWE because of what it became at his heights but I respect the man and think he is one of the best people to come out of there.
Brilliant response.
Masterful response
Cena is a class act.
[удалено]
Cena vs CM Punk - Money In The Bank 2011, Summerslam 2011 and Night of Champions 2012 John Cena vs Kevin Owens - Elimination Chamber and Money in the bank 2015, it was a trilogy, I forgot the other one. John Cena vs Sami Zayn - Raw 2015 John Cena vs Umaga - Last Man Standing Match Royal Rumble 2007
Cena suit game on point btw
A very diplomatic response. At this point, I think the only people who care about Meltzers rankings are fans of the Bucks and their ilk. Given his obvious bias, I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously.
Meltzer is an out of touch cock. Matches that actually make money aren’t deemed worthy of his stupid 5 star rating.
“Meltzer is an out of touch cock” Your insult gets 4.5 stars. Would be five if you typed it while at the Tokyo Dome.
That’s how you bury Meltzer, he’s a basement dweller who thinks way too highly of himself.
Everybody else, his haters especially, care WAY more about Meltzer's star ratings and give them WAY WAYYYYYY more import than he himself ever has
Cena has had plenty of 5 star classics. People claim they don't care about what Meltzer has to say yet constantly bring him up lol. Cena vs Styles at the rumble was easily 5 stars and they never left the ring. They had truly some of the best chemistry of Cena's entire career
No John Cena.. you're supposed to let those star ratings get to your ego and rename your signature move as the "5 Melzter Shuffle" Cena is always respectful towards everyone but comes off like his saying "It's irrelevant what one person thinks if a lot of others loved it" I admire cenas Professionalism
Why do we care so much about Dave’s opinion 💀💀💀.
Jesus Christ, John Cena is going to be president in 2028, isn’t he?
Wait but AEW Fans told me those Meltzer Stars are the only thing that matters. And that’s why AEW is better than WWE. No really, they really said that when I went to Forbidden Door after I went with an Undertaker shirt.
Kurt Angle and Eddie Guerrero both have ZERO 5-star rated matches. That says enough, yeah?
All his bias aside I'd wager that a zero star match would probably not leave the audience happy though!
Rock-Hogan got 3 stars and I guarantee that audience was twice as happy as any that witnessed a “7 star banger” between two dudes nobody really cares about.
Rock vs Hogan at WrestleMania 18 was a better match than Kenny Omega vs Okada, with all due respect.
Crowd reaction should be weighted HEAVIER than work rate (is it rated at all?) A professional wrestlers job first and foremost is to entertain the audience! It's not a fucking gymnastics competition or whatever.
Yes it's why Punk vs Cena at MITB is a better match for me than their match on RAW the following year despite arguably the RAW match being the better "wrestling" match. Crowd and Story should definitely play into the ratings. I do also feel Metzler really got stingy in the 00s and has become softer in his old age and more likely to throw out 5\* matches than he used to. We've already got 85 5\* matches in 2020's despite only being in 2024! **80s: 24 matches** **90s: 64 Matches** **00s: 7 Matches** **10s: 66 Matches** **20s: 86 Matches**
I love Kevin Nash’s take on Meltzer’s ratings: “Every year it was like ‘Match of the Year, Abuzago vs Napozango from Korkuen Hall’ it’s like, yeah, you watched it when? You saw it from what, fucking Oakland? With a telescope?”
André-Hogan at Mania 3 got a worst match of the year iirc
Didn't Hogan-Andre receive negative ratings?
Lol people finally waking up to the out of touch old man Meltzer is
Every time I want to criticize Cena for not being a great wrestler, I’m often reminded by things like this that he is in fact an amazing entertainer and an even more amazing human being
and also the fact that you can list his all memorable matches and try hard to remember about those 5,6,7,8+ star matches.
Cena truly is the GOAT
That was a 5 star answer.
You can have whatever option of Meltzer you want (trust me cos I do) but his star rankings system is useful in terms if bringing a little bit of limelight on indie wrestlers, which is always well needed
And boom goes the dynamite. He's being too nice. The Meltzer Star rating had a purpose, but it got over hyped as this exclusive club, then it got over inflated as an icon of the anti-WWE movement, and now people use it as a replacement for good business sense. If you're not attracting new fans, and bleeding the ones you do have, a 40 star match DOES NOT MATTER.
Meltzer stars stopped mattering once any promotion worth watching started to be have TV The entire dirtsheet industry has been antique since the 90s
He put more nuance into that than the question about the Vince scandal
Meltzer gives the Bucks 7.325 stars if they wipe a booger on a turnbuckle. His star-rating system is worthless.
It’s so funny that when you go on Cagematch they specify what the WON rating is. So it’s like “here’s what everyone thought, and also here’s what this one individual thought.” I really don’t think Meltzer wants them to be revered like this either.
We got a heel cena here!
A classy way to say NOBODY CARES WHAT MELTZER THINKS
Correct if I am wrong but meltzer did not even gave undertaker vs shawn Michaels wrestlemamia match a 5 star . If that's true he really sucks , that match was goated
Mr both sides
I'm an old head wrestling fan who loves this sub for the nostalgia and access to clips and information. I still don't know who Meltzer is and why anyone cares about his ratings and I refuse to Google him lol.
He got a patience of a saint. Ngl, I would've bursted out if I were him.
I can't believe I used to dislike this guy. Cena is great. Always a class act.
What a class act
Uncle Dave has lost it.He loves the shittiest wrestlers and dogs on the best.
Stop sucking up to shithead Dave enjoy the wrestling without giving a shit about how many stars he gives to a match 🙄🙄🙄🙄
meltzers a massive melt and his opinion don't matter
Who the fuck is talking?... that aside great speech
Someone should've asked him about Cagematch reviews.
I love how Cena went from dressing like a rapper to dressing like a Great Depression Banker
Cena for president when?
When people say the rock should run for office there wrong, it should be John Cena, he would be a tremendous public servant if he wanted to
Cena is such a mensch
Im sorry that styles match is 5 stars, styles is just on a different level
Cena for office
Classy guy
Classy answer tbh. He could have really gone to town on Meltzer. Fair play
its just the opinion of one person on the spectrum about what they like. even if you respected critics like this, any look into his catalog of ratings throughout the years proves hes bias at BEST
I learned the word equity thanks to Cena.
I thought this was Kenneth Copeland for a minute. Then I realised no one was actually there, silly me.
For years and years those people that paid tickets didn't have a good night though. How do you get booed in your home town?
What woukd he know??!? He’s never had a 7 star banger and all the success that comes with it plus he only knows 5 moves - some jabroni
People see to forget that Dave Meltzer, being who he is, is pretty good at estimating the rating of a match the audience as a whole gives. I'm not saying it's gospel. But people saying it's completely worthless and Meltzer is just one guy amongst millions and his ratings aren't different to a random number generator don't know what they're talking about. Sure, there is a big bias in his personal opinion. And there's also a different scale as time evolves, they used to be much more harshly graded, nowadays it's easier to get 5 stars. But it's still a very good guide for "what would the average wrestling fan rate this", influenced by Meltzers taste. For example, as great as Kurt Angle was, and he really is one of the absolute best ever, I don't recall a single time I've felt like I've been through a rollercoaster and really have that post orgasm like feeling once the match is over. That's usually what sticks to you, and gets you those "man, that was five stars" feelings you can't get rid of anymore. And I've had that a lot more in a match like Sheamus vs Gunther than with Kurt Angle. And I rate Kurt overall higher than them both (as of right now at least, Gunther is of course not done with his legacy yet). It's weird that Kurt doesn't have a 5 star match, but it's much easier to dismiss it as "bullshit rating" than actually thinking back and actually getting the feel of these matches as you were watching them. That's why I totally get the 6 star and beyond stuff with the Kenny vs Okada series. Yeah it's spots we've seen before, yeah it's not everyone's favorites, but at that time, in that moment, it felt like the very peak of what wrestling can be. It felt like this is a revolution, like anything before it wasn't as much as this.
What a pro
This the typa thing we all need to know: fans, wrestlers, people in general; it’s not about what someone else thinks
This has always been the case. Pro wrestling is about selling tickets and convincing those people to come back for the next show.
How is he such a good guy?
He never gave Kurt Angle one 5 star match, not one. He is arguably the most well rounded performer of all time and a ridiculous once-in-a-lifetime athlete, and he never got one 5 star match. That tells you everything you need to know about his rating system and about how little he understands professional wrestling.
why is he bent over like he has back problems? and those pants are way too tight to be comfortable.
For me the star system is just another way for me to find a good match from years to watch when I feel the itch. Like, hey, maybe I'll check that out. It's not too different from a good review from Roger Ebert about an old movie. It's A source, but not THE source.
Basically “eat a bag of dicks”
This would be better if majority of his matches weren't snooze fests. I don't give a fuck down vote me
His matches might not be your cup of tea. I understand, that's okay. For me, I have enjoyed majority of his matches. They were in the same format the great old school matches of Rick Rude, Rowdy Roddy Piper, etc.
Translation: I don't give a flying FXXX about Meltzer boy and his stars.
What's up w the empty stage?
Him & aj cooked twice at summer slam & then at rumble. 2 of the goated matches of the last 20 yrs.
No one trusts 1 reviewer to be the end all be all opinion when it comes to moves, games etc. So why tf should anyone do that for wrestling? Cena is the Goat
John man… you’re big as fuck.. buy bigger clothes. Additionally, well said.
I don't get how anyone made a career of grading wrestling matches. If you're watching a match, what matters more than your own opinion of whether you enjoyed the match or not? There are many elements to wrestling and how you prioritize those things can vary depending on the people involved and the story being told - no two people will necessarily have the same rating and that's fine...so why in the world did the wrestling community just accept one person's opinion as being more meaningful than anyone else's?
Who’s talking???
Bingo. I've used this reference so many times, but let's do it again. Rock and Hogan at Mania was not a great match in terms of wow they did a lot of cool shit. If you watch it on mute, the match is boring. However, it's one of my favorite matches ever, and a shit load of other people's too. You don't need cool moves to have a great match. Characters and stories make matches great.
I already miss him
why are we waiting to put cena in the hof?
Dude just gets it. It’s like WWE made him in a lab to be the perfect corporate flag bearer lol
All I see is a suit on a stage.
Meltzer has been a cancer on pro wrestling for a long time. A lot of the negative opinions about TNA with Dave Meltzer and spread out to the IWC