I was sent this analysis from a fan of Scott's who goes by the name Joesph, the other day. As he puts it:
"It's a frequency analysis I did on all of his matches rated above 4 stars (****1/4 to *****). I took 12 wrestlers as I mention in the study who put on great matches. I just completed a study for Dave Meltzer's ratings as well and compared the two"
It's no surprise who's at number 1, really. Also, keep in mind, this is strictly for a person's WWE career. Other promotions need not apply. This was a great deal of work, and an interesting read. Especially that The Rock doesn't get any 5 star love. I thought for sure most people considered WMX7 to be a 5 star main event, but I suppose the ending does sour it.
Anyone else want to use the Caliber Express Line: caliberw@hotmail.com
Scott Keith Ratings
*****
HBK-8 Austin-6 Jericho-1
Bret-6 Rock-0 Benoit-5
Undertaker-3 HHH-6 Angle-1
Foley-2 Edge-4 Flair-1
****3/4
HBK-6 Austin-2 Jericho-5
Bret-2 Rock-3 Benoit-5
Undertaker-0 HHH-4 Angle-2
Foley-1 Edge-1 Flair-0
****1/2
HBK-7 Austin-3 Jericho-5
Bret-6 Rock-8 Benoit-6
Undertaker-7 HHH-7 Angle-8
Foley-2 Edge-6 Flair-1
****1/4
HBK-9 Austin-4 Jericho-4
Bret-7 Rock-2 Benoit-13
Undertaker-3 HHH-3 Angle-13
Foley-3 Edge-9 Flair-4
Total Values (4.25-5* Matches) From Greatest to Least
HBK-30
Benoit-29
Angle-24
Bret-21
HHH-20
Edge-20
Austin-15
Jericho-15
Undertaker-13
Rock-13
Foley-8
Flair-6
NOTES: I counted every Scott Keith match that was listed above 4* for 12 WWE wrestlers who put on many matches above the 4 star level throughout their careers, in order to evaluate what superstars had higher quality matches over their careers than their fellow wrestlers. (This included the updated Rock vs. John Cena match from WM28 at ****1/2). So from 4.25*-5*, every match was reviewed. I counted tag team matches and survivor series matches as well. For example, The Rockers vs. Brainbusters received a rating of ****1/2 and since it has Shawn in it; therefore, Shawn received a tally mark. Another example: The tag team match from Survivor Series ’87 (rated ****1/4) had Bret compete in it; therefore, he received a tally mark for that match. Royal Rumble matches were only tallied for wrestlers if they won that rumble e.g. Flair, Benoit, and Edge each won a rumble rated *****; therefore, they each received one tally mark. Other participants on this list who participated in the rumble, but did not win it, received no tally mark.
As the results show, Shawn had the most ***** and ****3/4 matches at 8 and 6 respectively. Angle and The Rock tied for the most ****1/2 matches at 8. Benoit and Angle tied for the most ****1/4 matches at 13. Overall, Shawn had the most matches rated above 4 stars on SK’s list at 30 matches, barely beating out Benoit’s 29 matches. Variables included when these wrestlers wrestled. For example, Flair had most of his best matches in the ‘80s in NWA, and since this statistical study only included WWF/WWE matches, he did not score as high. Longevity in a wrestler’s career would statistically increase the amount of matches over 4 stars a wrestler would have, as well as other variables such as: the amount of PPV’s a wrestler wrestled in, lack of injuries, how many TV matches on Superstars/Raw/Smackdown, etc. a wrestler competed in, etc., - would all naturally be factors affecting the outcome of whether a wrestler had a lot of high rated matches or not. Keep in mind that these are the opinions of one man only-Scott Keith, and are in no way determinate on what others may think; however, Scott Keith is one of the most knowledgeable reviewers on the topic and has issued more wrestling reviews than just about any other person I have ever seen (with maybe the exception of Dave Meltzer). Even if very knowledgeable fans disagree with a match by 0.25* or 0.5*, the list is still very accurate for many criteria, such as the following example: If Wrestler “A” had 22 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and Wrestler “B” had 9 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and they both wrestled for about the same amount of longevity, with just a few injuries throughout each one’s career, etc. , then Wrestler “A” clearly had better matches over the course of his career; hence, it can be argued, that Wrestler “A” was the better wrestler and had the better career.
Dave Meltzer Ratings
*****
HBK-2 Austin-1 Jericho-0
Bret-2 Rock-0 Benoit-0
Undertaker-1 HHH-0 Angle-0
Foley-0 Edge-0 Flair-0
****3/4
HBK-7 Austin-2 Jericho-3
Bret-2 Rock-0 Benoit-6
Undertaker-3 HHH-4 Angle-3
Foley-0 Edge-3 Flair-0
****1/2
HBK-9 Austin-7 Jericho-6
Bret-2 Rock-5 Benoit-5
Undertaker-6 HHH-7 Angle-8
Foley-5 Edge-9 Flair-0
****1/4
HBK-13 Austin-5 Jericho-9
Bret-6 Rock-7 Benoit-13
Undertaker-4 HHH-10 Angle-15
Foley-1 Edge-16 Flair-2
Total Values (4.25-5* Matches) From Greatest to Least
HBK-31
Edge-28
Angle-26
Benoit-24
HHH-21
Jericho-18
Austin-15
Undertaker-14
Bret-12
Rock-12
Foley-6
Flair-2
NOTES: I counted every Dave Meltzer match that was listed above 4* for 12 WWE wrestlers who put on many matches above the 4 star level throughout their careers, in order to evaluate what superstars had higher quality matches over their careers than their fellow wrestlers. So from 4.25*-5*, every match was reviewed. I counted tag team matches and survivor series matches as well. For example, The Rockers vs. Brainbusters received a rating of ****1/4 and since it has Shawn in it; therefore, Shawn received a tally mark. Another example: The tag team match from Survivor Series ’01 (rated ****1/2) had Austin, Angle, The Rock, and Jericho compete in it; therefore, they each received a tally mark for that match. As the results show, Shawn and Bret had the most ***** matches at 2 apiece (though DM only has given a 5 star rating 5 times). Shawn had the most ****3/4 matches at 7. Shawn and Edge tied for the most ****1/2 matches at 9 apiece. Edge had the most ****1/4 matches at 16. Overall, Shawn had the most matches rated above 4 stars on DM’s list at 31 matches, beating out Edge’s 28 matches. Variables included when these wrestlers wrestled. For example, Flair had most of his best matches in the ‘80s in NWA, and since this statistical study only included
WWF/WWE matches, he did not score as high. Longevity in a wrestler’s career would statistically increase the amount of matches over 4 stars a wrestler would have, as well as other variables such as: the amount of PPV’s a wrestler wrestled in, lack of injuries, how many TV matches on Superstars/Raw/Smackdown, etc. a wrestler competed in, etc., - would all naturally be factors affecting the outcome of whether a wrestler had a lot of high rated matches or not. Keep in mind that these are the opinions of one man only-Dave Meltzer and are in no way determinate on what others may think; however, Dave Meltzer is one of the most knowledgeable reviewers on the topic and has issued more wrestling reviews than just about any other person I have ever seen (with maybe the exception of Scott Keith). Even if very knowledgeable fans disagree with a match by 0.25* or 0.5*, the list is still very accurate for many criteria, such as the following example: If Wrestler “A” had 22 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and Wrestler “B” had 9 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and they both wrestled for about the same amount of longevity, with just a few injuries throughout each one’s career, etc. , then Wrestler “A” clearly had better matches over the course of his career; hence, it can be argued, that Wrestler “A” was the better wrestler and had the better career.
***Comparing Dave Meltzer to Scott Keith’s ratings***
Scott and Dave’s lists are interesting to compare for a number of reasons. First off, once again Shawn Michaels tops the list with the highest number of matches rated above **** at 30 and 31, respectively. Angle and Benoit finished high on DM’s ratings, just like SK’s, only on DM’s, Edge finished very high at #2 for highest number of matches rated above ****. HHH, Austin, Undertaker, and The Rock finished similar on both frequency analyses. Jericho scored higher on DM’s list; whereas, Bret surprisingly finished much lower on DM’s list, than he did on SK’s. Foley and Flair, once again finished in the bottom two.
There were naturally some matches that only Scott Keith reviewed and not Dave Meltzer and vice versa, which would naturally be a factor scoring; however, both guys had about the same amount of matches rated in each of the four categories from ****1/4 to *****. Meltzer is very harsh on giving out a 5 star rating with only 5; whereas, Keith (like most fans) goes the full monty much more generously.
"It's a frequency analysis I did on all of his matches rated above 4 stars (****1/4 to *****). I took 12 wrestlers as I mention in the study who put on great matches. I just completed a study for Dave Meltzer's ratings as well and compared the two"
It's no surprise who's at number 1, really. Also, keep in mind, this is strictly for a person's WWE career. Other promotions need not apply. This was a great deal of work, and an interesting read. Especially that The Rock doesn't get any 5 star love. I thought for sure most people considered WMX7 to be a 5 star main event, but I suppose the ending does sour it.
Anyone else want to use the Caliber Express Line: caliberw@hotmail.com
Scott Keith Ratings
*****
HBK-8 Austin-6 Jericho-1
Bret-6 Rock-0 Benoit-5
Undertaker-3 HHH-6 Angle-1
Foley-2 Edge-4 Flair-1
****3/4
HBK-6 Austin-2 Jericho-5
Bret-2 Rock-3 Benoit-5
Undertaker-0 HHH-4 Angle-2
Foley-1 Edge-1 Flair-0
****1/2
HBK-7 Austin-3 Jericho-5
Bret-6 Rock-8 Benoit-6
Undertaker-7 HHH-7 Angle-8
Foley-2 Edge-6 Flair-1
****1/4
HBK-9 Austin-4 Jericho-4
Bret-7 Rock-2 Benoit-13
Undertaker-3 HHH-3 Angle-13
Foley-3 Edge-9 Flair-4
Total Values (4.25-5* Matches) From Greatest to Least
HBK-30
Benoit-29
Angle-24
Bret-21
HHH-20
Edge-20
Austin-15
Jericho-15
Undertaker-13
Rock-13
Foley-8
Flair-6
NOTES: I counted every Scott Keith match that was listed above 4* for 12 WWE wrestlers who put on many matches above the 4 star level throughout their careers, in order to evaluate what superstars had higher quality matches over their careers than their fellow wrestlers. (This included the updated Rock vs. John Cena match from WM28 at ****1/2). So from 4.25*-5*, every match was reviewed. I counted tag team matches and survivor series matches as well. For example, The Rockers vs. Brainbusters received a rating of ****1/2 and since it has Shawn in it; therefore, Shawn received a tally mark. Another example: The tag team match from Survivor Series ’87 (rated ****1/4) had Bret compete in it; therefore, he received a tally mark for that match. Royal Rumble matches were only tallied for wrestlers if they won that rumble e.g. Flair, Benoit, and Edge each won a rumble rated *****; therefore, they each received one tally mark. Other participants on this list who participated in the rumble, but did not win it, received no tally mark.
As the results show, Shawn had the most ***** and ****3/4 matches at 8 and 6 respectively. Angle and The Rock tied for the most ****1/2 matches at 8. Benoit and Angle tied for the most ****1/4 matches at 13. Overall, Shawn had the most matches rated above 4 stars on SK’s list at 30 matches, barely beating out Benoit’s 29 matches. Variables included when these wrestlers wrestled. For example, Flair had most of his best matches in the ‘80s in NWA, and since this statistical study only included WWF/WWE matches, he did not score as high. Longevity in a wrestler’s career would statistically increase the amount of matches over 4 stars a wrestler would have, as well as other variables such as: the amount of PPV’s a wrestler wrestled in, lack of injuries, how many TV matches on Superstars/Raw/Smackdown, etc. a wrestler competed in, etc., - would all naturally be factors affecting the outcome of whether a wrestler had a lot of high rated matches or not. Keep in mind that these are the opinions of one man only-Scott Keith, and are in no way determinate on what others may think; however, Scott Keith is one of the most knowledgeable reviewers on the topic and has issued more wrestling reviews than just about any other person I have ever seen (with maybe the exception of Dave Meltzer). Even if very knowledgeable fans disagree with a match by 0.25* or 0.5*, the list is still very accurate for many criteria, such as the following example: If Wrestler “A” had 22 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and Wrestler “B” had 9 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and they both wrestled for about the same amount of longevity, with just a few injuries throughout each one’s career, etc. , then Wrestler “A” clearly had better matches over the course of his career; hence, it can be argued, that Wrestler “A” was the better wrestler and had the better career.
Dave Meltzer Ratings
*****
HBK-2 Austin-1 Jericho-0
Bret-2 Rock-0 Benoit-0
Undertaker-1 HHH-0 Angle-0
Foley-0 Edge-0 Flair-0
****3/4
HBK-7 Austin-2 Jericho-3
Bret-2 Rock-0 Benoit-6
Undertaker-3 HHH-4 Angle-3
Foley-0 Edge-3 Flair-0
****1/2
HBK-9 Austin-7 Jericho-6
Bret-2 Rock-5 Benoit-5
Undertaker-6 HHH-7 Angle-8
Foley-5 Edge-9 Flair-0
****1/4
HBK-13 Austin-5 Jericho-9
Bret-6 Rock-7 Benoit-13
Undertaker-4 HHH-10 Angle-15
Foley-1 Edge-16 Flair-2
Total Values (4.25-5* Matches) From Greatest to Least
HBK-31
Edge-28
Angle-26
Benoit-24
HHH-21
Jericho-18
Austin-15
Undertaker-14
Bret-12
Rock-12
Foley-6
Flair-2
NOTES: I counted every Dave Meltzer match that was listed above 4* for 12 WWE wrestlers who put on many matches above the 4 star level throughout their careers, in order to evaluate what superstars had higher quality matches over their careers than their fellow wrestlers. So from 4.25*-5*, every match was reviewed. I counted tag team matches and survivor series matches as well. For example, The Rockers vs. Brainbusters received a rating of ****1/4 and since it has Shawn in it; therefore, Shawn received a tally mark. Another example: The tag team match from Survivor Series ’01 (rated ****1/2) had Austin, Angle, The Rock, and Jericho compete in it; therefore, they each received a tally mark for that match. As the results show, Shawn and Bret had the most ***** matches at 2 apiece (though DM only has given a 5 star rating 5 times). Shawn had the most ****3/4 matches at 7. Shawn and Edge tied for the most ****1/2 matches at 9 apiece. Edge had the most ****1/4 matches at 16. Overall, Shawn had the most matches rated above 4 stars on DM’s list at 31 matches, beating out Edge’s 28 matches. Variables included when these wrestlers wrestled. For example, Flair had most of his best matches in the ‘80s in NWA, and since this statistical study only included
WWF/WWE matches, he did not score as high. Longevity in a wrestler’s career would statistically increase the amount of matches over 4 stars a wrestler would have, as well as other variables such as: the amount of PPV’s a wrestler wrestled in, lack of injuries, how many TV matches on Superstars/Raw/Smackdown, etc. a wrestler competed in, etc., - would all naturally be factors affecting the outcome of whether a wrestler had a lot of high rated matches or not. Keep in mind that these are the opinions of one man only-Dave Meltzer and are in no way determinate on what others may think; however, Dave Meltzer is one of the most knowledgeable reviewers on the topic and has issued more wrestling reviews than just about any other person I have ever seen (with maybe the exception of Scott Keith). Even if very knowledgeable fans disagree with a match by 0.25* or 0.5*, the list is still very accurate for many criteria, such as the following example: If Wrestler “A” had 22 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and Wrestler “B” had 9 matches rated in his career between 4.25* - 5*, and they both wrestled for about the same amount of longevity, with just a few injuries throughout each one’s career, etc. , then Wrestler “A” clearly had better matches over the course of his career; hence, it can be argued, that Wrestler “A” was the better wrestler and had the better career.
***Comparing Dave Meltzer to Scott Keith’s ratings***
Scott and Dave’s lists are interesting to compare for a number of reasons. First off, once again Shawn Michaels tops the list with the highest number of matches rated above **** at 30 and 31, respectively. Angle and Benoit finished high on DM’s ratings, just like SK’s, only on DM’s, Edge finished very high at #2 for highest number of matches rated above ****. HHH, Austin, Undertaker, and The Rock finished similar on both frequency analyses. Jericho scored higher on DM’s list; whereas, Bret surprisingly finished much lower on DM’s list, than he did on SK’s. Foley and Flair, once again finished in the bottom two.
There were naturally some matches that only Scott Keith reviewed and not Dave Meltzer and vice versa, which would naturally be a factor scoring; however, both guys had about the same amount of matches rated in each of the four categories from ****1/4 to *****. Meltzer is very harsh on giving out a 5 star rating with only 5; whereas, Keith (like most fans) goes the full monty much more generously.
That was a good read which leads into the GOAT argument, in the WWE universe only, it has to be HBK doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteThere's no question.
ReplyDeleteI always considered Dave's rare handing out of the full monty to be somewhat elitist. Like, really, there are only a handful of matches in North America that are worth five stars? There are far fewer films than there are wrestling matches that have happened, and there are a shitload of movies that would necessitate *****.
ReplyDelete(BTW, Tarantino = HBK and Scorsese = Benoit)
I even feel Scott should have given more matches *****. Like, Benoit/Angle from Royal Rumble '03 is wrestling perfection and it was nail-bitingly intense, yet it's 1/4* lower than say, HHH/Austin vs. Benoit/Jericho which isn't as "whole" as a match.
Also, Austin/Rock from X7 is 1/4* lower than HHH/Taker from 28. I love both matches, but the former match is on such a higher plateau and the storytelling, to me, is so subtle that it doesn't completely make sense until the ending, which warrants further viewing.
I am, of course, nitpicking. I appreciate the star ratings because they give me an idea of how good a show was, but a show's whole is greater than the sum of its parts: If I order a PPV, I want a good opener to get my attention, a solid momentum the whole way through, and most importantly a main event that delivers. There might be an average rating of **1/2 on said show.
Also, who would be considered better: Wrestler A, who consistently puts on ****1/4 10-minute matches, or Wrestler B, who can easily make any match 20-30 minutes ****?
Personally, I prefer Bret Hart's style over Shawns, but it's hard to debate how great Shawn was and for how long he was good.
ReplyDeleteShawn maintained a very high quality of work right until he retired, even though he was at an age where with most wrestlers, you notice that they're not as good as they used to be. He adapted as he got older and continued to be great.
I suspect Bret Hart would've been similar if he had remained in the WWF until he retired and also with Austin if it weren't for his neck. Considering Shawn's back, it is remarkable that he was as good as he was for his second run, as one could see how easily it could have hindered him as much as Austin's neck did.
If I may nitpick just a tad, I thiiink Scott gave Austin/HHH vs Benoit/Jericho the same ****3/4 that he gave Angle/Benoit.
ReplyDeleteAnd for some friendly subjectivity, I'd actually give both of those matches *****. HHH/Austin vs Benoit/Jericho is my favourite match ever. You are not going to have a tag match, given that amount of time, ever be more perfectly executed than that one. Insanely hot crowd, HHH manning through a devastating injury, an ending that fit perfectly in the current storyline (dissesion within the two-man power trip), and the right team going over.
Then with your more standard tag checklist, you've got a good heat segment, a false tag, a hot crowd, and heel double teaming.
I see Shawn as a unique case in that he had not one, but two careers.
ReplyDeleteBret Hart and Steve Austin basically had a long run each, and they dwindled in quality relatively quickly until they slowly crawled across the finish line due to injuries.
Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair have had careers that never officially ended.
Shawn Michaels had his first run which ended in 1998 due to injuries. For a long time, it was considered a done deal and ALREADY he was considered a contender for GOAT. He makes his comeback in 2002 which at the time seemed like a one-off, but it ended up giving us countless great matches (which put the younger guys to shame, it has to be said) within an 8 year span. He's said that his last match with Taker was gonna be his last and so far he's stuck with it for 3 years.
Oh, and the guy merely preferred not to constantly be on the top of the card the second time around. Who... who else said that in wrestling, EVER!?
My mistake.
ReplyDeleteI love that match, too. It was such giant, gaping loss for the WWF at the time to discontinue the Power Trip angle.
That Angle/Benoit match, though, was the best of their series. I haven't seen the match in at least 5 years, but I still remember the highlights:
- A shitload of Germans
- Angle gets DDT'd on the ring apron
- Angle gets German'd so hard he flips 270 degrees and lands on his front
- Benoit hits a diving headbutt from 3/4 the distance of the ring
- A genuine standing ovation for the loser
Speaking of the murderer, his match for the WWF Title on Smackdown with Steve Austin was truly ***** and it's incredible. The year 2001 is seen as something of a fuck-up, but Austin as a heel was just as good in the ring than anybody ever. I saw it on Youtube a couple of months ago...
Now that we can agree on. Austin in 01 sorta strikes me the same way as Austin in late 96-97, on a mission to have a great outing everytime in the ring, awesome conditioning too--cardio for days.
ReplyDeleteIf I can jerk off Steve Austin some more: vs. Kurt Angle, SummerSlam 2001.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it ends in a shitty DQ, but the match itself is representative of my love for wrestling. Austin absolutely obliterates, batters and bloodies Kurt with no regard for his health or sportsmanship, and so Kurt fights back with every ounce he has because by God, he HAS to win that goddamn belt.
Dave's ****3/4 ratings are as annoying as it gets. Like cmon dude, neither HBK/Taker match from WM could get that extra 1/4 star??
ReplyDeleteI place Steiners/Lex and Sting from SB1 over the raw tag, but thats just me
ReplyDelete"I always considered Dave's rare handing out of the full monty to be
ReplyDeletesomewhat elitist. Like, really, there are only a handful of matches in
North America that are worth five stars?"
Especially when he gives them out to any match involving a Japanese name. All Japan had *15* 5-star matches before WWE's first (Razor/Shawn ladder match). They had 31 from 1984 to 1999.
To add to it, All Japan's Women's promotion had 8 5-star matches. In a 3-year span.
And WWE has 5. None from their best year of wrestling ever (2000) by the way.
This is why I never take Dave's opinion on ratings seriously.
Early 90' Japan women matches were great stuff, but Dave can never convince me that they brought more classics in a 3 year span than the WWE has done in 31 years
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's AMW vs XXX in that cage match. It's absolutely incredible, and hands down the greatest tag-match ever, I think. It's non-stop in it's brutality, and amazingness, and THEN Elix does the off-the-top-of-the-cage hurricarana. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I've been wanting to do some different style of reviews, like "Suchandsuch's Year in 2000" and rate all their big time matches, or well known. Stone Cold in 2001 has been something that people often talk about, yet I don't know the many high-lights, as I wasn't watching religiously then. Can you tell me which ones I need to see?
ReplyDeleteI know 3 stages of Hell, the WM match, the SummerSlam match with Kurt, and the tag-match on Raw. What else is there?
When I first looked up Dave's ratings a few years ago, I thought it was a wikipedia fuck up, because the last 5 star match was the 1997 HIAC. I couldn't believe he'd negate so many classics.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do wonder why he didn't give 5 stars to Taker/HBK. I mean, EVERYONE loved that shit.
You hand out too many 5 stars, you lose credibility [IE Caliber] and if you're too stingy you lose credibility [IE Dave]
The couple of ones with Benoit on Raw & SD. The week before with Jericho wasn't too shabby either.
ReplyDeleteNot giving 5 to Punk/Cena MitB is just insane.
ReplyDeleteNot to nitpick, b/c I can tell this was a ton of work, but Punk and Cena (maybe Jeff Hardy as well) should be on this list as they certainly match some lower end guys for number of 4 star matches.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to guess on HBK/Taker I, it's because Michaels' "figure-four leglock" looked more like a yoga exercise. I would've given it ****3/4, but I won't argue with anyone who goes the full monty.
ReplyDeleteMeltzer did give Punk/Cena MITB 5 stars... it's not included in this study though.
ReplyDeleteI think the finish of the X-7 main event takes away the five-star status... in real time and definitely in hindsight, as the Austin heel turn started the downfall from the boom period.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the Curtis Axel matches? Or Hillbilly Jim's? Glaring omissions in this incomplete analysis.
ReplyDeleteRanking Ric Flair by WWE matches only is like ranking Black Sabbath by Ronnie James Dio albums only. You'll still find some great stuff worthy of mention but it's at the exclusion of everything that brought them greatness.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't love Taker v. HBK. You gave it ***1/4.
ReplyDeleteHe's not negating many classics, he just doesn't think they are worthy of full five stars. It means that when he does give something the full five, you stand up and take notice.
HBK v. Taker 2 was too sloppy to go full five.
There's the two matches with Benoit from May and the No Mercy three-way.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Angle in Jan 01 from RAW, and he had a match with RVD from Smackdown.
"And WWE has 5. None from their best year of wrestling ever (2000) by the way."
ReplyDeleteIf HHH/Cactus from RR2000 isn't a ***** match, I don't know what is.
So no NWA/WCW matches? This list is incomplete.
ReplyDeleteWell, no Dave gets criticized for being too stingy. Your rating for the match was completely idiotic.
ReplyDeleteAustin REALLY needs to get more mention in the GOAT column. Because he was around so much after he stopped being active in-ring I don't think he gets the credit he deserves. But I've been listening to his podcast and it reminds me of just how amazing he was as a character as well as being a total machine in the ring.
ReplyDeleteActually, I ended up watching it about a month later for the Streak DVD and changed it to ****1/2
ReplyDeleteSee, you're forgetting that neither guy is Japanese. That's a big stickler for Meltzer.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Dave was always VERY elitist- he openly hated MANY beloved WWF PPVs, and has showed repeatedly a bias towards Japanese wrestling and style.
ReplyDeleteBut nearly everybody holds back on the full-monty ***** rating, I've noticed. I think that wrestling matches can open up too many "flaws" just by virtue of being a long display of athletics, and it's a much different criteria than say, a 2-hour controlled-experience film.
I think giving a match ***** is too much like saying a match is 100% flawless and could NEVER be upgraded, ever. I think the early adopters of the process (Jim Cornette, right?) were more open about it, just judging something as perfect just by looking at it, but later wrestling nerds have made it a nigh-insurmountable obstacle.
I dunno... to throw in my 2c, a part of me feels that a 5* match should be one where, going into it, you don't know who is going to win. Say, with HBK v Taker in HIAC or Bret v Austin at WM13.
ReplyDeleteRR2K was the height of my Foley markdom, but I could tell from the start that this was all to make HHH. I wanted to see the story but I knew the ending. That predictability I think detracts but for me, only by like 1/4 *.
The promos with VInce / Angle. Not matches, doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteI can understand that, matches where the outcome is never in doubt is one of my biggest pet peeves in wrestling, second only to commercials during matches. Every match at this past WM was like that, and that's why it sucked. But in the case of Rock/Foley I already knew the outcome (I first saw it about a month after it happened) and I'm not a mark for either guy, so I had more of an objective view, I guess. But watching something live? Yeah, I totally agree.
ReplyDeleteNo differance between clean Shawn and druggy Shawn, case in point the dick head move he did to Hogan at Summer Slam '05 bouncing around like a pin ball. I'm pretty confident Hogan could ahve kicked the shit out of Shawn legitmiately and shoulda eith shot on him mid match or got to him in the back. Once a dick, always a dick.
ReplyDeleteThis. Austin's 2001 run is greatly underrated. He was near five-stars in every match he had. In fact I think his lowest-rated match that year was a three-star match against The Undertaker.
ReplyDeleteSo...according to Dave, Triple H is better than Bret?
ReplyDeleteI actually kind of agree...but somewhat surprising as well.
Except Dio was better then Ozzie ever was
ReplyDeleteNOT IN BLACK SABBATH. DON'T EVEN PLAY WITH THAT.
ReplyDeleteSTFU CALIBER. ADMIT IT, YOU GAVE IT A LOW RATING SO PEOPLE CAN TAKE NOTICE OF YOUR SHIT REVIEWS.
ReplyDeleteYOU'RE NOTHING MORE THAN A PUBLICITY STUNT WHORE AND YOU'RE DEVALUING FUJI'S STOCK FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT.
YOU'RE METHOD OF CHEAP TACTICS REALLY TURNED ME OFF AS A FAN OF YOUR WORK. I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT KIND WAY OF GETTING ATTENTION. IF YOU NEED HELP, LEMME KNOW.
I'd disagree that there was no difference, he clearly was better adjusted, but I do agree that incidents like that show he wasn't totally rid of the old Shawn. It's not very professional to deliberately sabotage a match because you don't agree with the booking, but I can kind of see his perspective in that Hogan was sabotaging him.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Jim Cornette in the sense that you only find God once there's no one left here who wants to talk to you and that Shawn basically replaced his drug addiction with an addiction to god. Doesn't really change my view on him as a performer though.
I would say that Bret's decline in quality was more him not giving a shit in WCW, but yeah, I agree with this.
ReplyDeleteSo you're a fan of my work? Awesome. I have a new e-book coming, so look out for it!
ReplyDeleteNO, DUMBASS, I AM NOT A FAN. AND I AIN'T BUYING YOUR SHITTY BOOK EITHER
ReplyDeleteOh, so you have Amazon Prime, and you'll get it for free? That's OK. Just promise me you'll dig it!
ReplyDelete