Skip to main content

Five-Star Video

I needed a break from work, so I put together a list of video clips of (just about) every single Meltzer-rated ***** match. Thought your readers might be interested.
http://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/10n5xl/video_links_to_every_wrestling_match_dave_meltzer/

That's quite the break!  Thank you, oh MightyGodKing, you rule as always. 

Comments

  1. I enjoyed this list-
    http://www.profightdb.com/wrestlers-with-highest-wrestling-observer-newsletter-average-weighted-star-ratings.html

    *sees who is at #52, goes to get a Coke, sips it, does a spit take*

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ranking Davey Richards at #14 is even worse. He's not anywhere near that good, and if anyone ever deserved the "vanilla midget" moniker, it's Davey. Ranking Evan Bourne, Orton, and the Hardys above Eddy is ridiculous too. And he has Kahli, by far and away the worst wrestler of my lifetime, at 139, ahead of many good wrestlers.

    I'll be the first to say it: Fuck Meltzer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bret fucking Hart is #107? With the same average rating as Santino? Does this not, right there, discredit the entire list?

    ReplyDelete
  4. That is a pretty awesome collection.  And most should probably stay on the internets too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, pretty fucking ridiculous. Jimmy Yang being ranked above Ric Flair is probably my favorite. Not that Yang is a bad worker, but Jesus Christ. I guess these lists include years and years of squash matches that Meltzer rated and that's why so many WWF guys are so far down the list. That's really the only way I could think that this list would wind up being so absolutely terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The fact that there are only five WWF matches that Meltzer has rated five stars doesn't sit well with me. Obviously it's just one guy's opinion and I'm by no means worked up about it, but c'mon.

    As far as the person who compiled the links, this is awesome and thank you for doing so. I have bookmarked the page and plan to come back to it many times.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does everybody realize this isn't a list made by Meltzer?  This is some guy averaging all of Dave's ratings together.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That link to the Sheepherders-Fantastics match is for the wrong match. The real ***** match took place at Crockett Cup 86 and was an insanely bloody brawl that ended in a double DQ. I've seen a heavily clipped 5-minute version of that match on the old Crockett Cup VHS release, but I don't think a complete, uncut version has ever been released on home video. I believe Meltzer was live in attendance to see that show, which is why he gave it the full monty.

    From what I saw, the match looked like a pretty good brawl, though I doubt it would rate ***** by today's standards. But it's probably the best Bushwhackers match by a very wide margin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A little off-topic, but It would be hard for me (as a reviewer) to really develop some sort of metric for what is a ***** match and what is a **** 3/4 match.  I wonder what Scott uses as his guide, or if it just a gut reaction sort of thing.

    For a match to be ***** to me, it should absolutely blow you away, but I imagine it would be really hard to pin down the categories.  I mean, does a five star match have to be excellent in all possible areas to get that rating?  e.g. ringwork (no restholds, no botched spots), heat, payoff to an angle (if applicable), a strong finish, etc. 

    ReplyDelete
  10. Its subjective... and thats that.

    Cuz I think there are matches rated ***** that are balls. Flair/Steamboat for instance.

    Plus you have to put watching the match live in consideration, just too many variables to weigh to really say THIS IS A ***** MATCH RIGHT CHEA!

    But as far as Scott Keith goes, Im sure he gave the brief overview of what separates the matches in his top 20 matches of the 90s for WCW/WWF rants.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Absolutely -- I agree that it is certainly subjective from person to person -- but I mean that for one individual reviewer it must be hard to come up with a way of judging matches and having there be some kind of consistency between your ratings, especially over the years.  I'm sure that is one reason why Melzer's ratings are the way they are -- he started out rating matches in a specific way and probably never intended to be still doing it thirty years later.

    The live part is a good addition too, I think.  Some matches were designed to be watched once and only once.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So basically if Misawa gets out of bed in the morning, Meltzer gives him 5 stars.  Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the half and quarter stars are the issue.  Turns it into a 20-point system rather than 5-point

    ReplyDelete
  14. And if he were matched up with Giant Gonzalez, who was worse than a broomstick, it would also get 5 stars.   

    ReplyDelete
  15. So long as he lands on his head...

    ReplyDelete
  16.  Averages are weird. I don't think anyone would think that Scott thinks Lex Luger is one of the greatest workers of all time but he ranks high in the most 5* rated matches.

    ReplyDelete
  17.  Although I agree with Phred that you can't take this as an opinion based list because it's just comprised of averages, I'd like to know where in the high holy hell Chris Masters had all these high-rated matches to get his average that high?

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's why I don't star rate at all. Wrestling, music, anything. 

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have a hard time taking Meltzer seriously. I don't read anything of his anyway but it just seems to me like, if wrestling journalism as such actually exists (in a non-kayfabe Bill Apter kind of way) that Meltzer should probably be the foremost wrestling critic in the world, and he just doesn't earn it. He relies to heavily on his own biases and he basically throws away American wrestling in favor of puro. Which is fine, if he's just a dude that enjoys wrestling, which is I'm sure all he aspires to be anyway. But it makes it hard for me to care what he thinks. It'd be like if Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert only reviewed little-seen foreign films and never weighed in on anything coming out of Hollywood. It's just hard to see them as an ineffable voice of reason when their frame of reference is probably left-of-center from the get go.

    For my money, Scott is really the one that deserves the Foremost Wrestling Critic status.

    ReplyDelete
  20.  Well said.  When there's a debate over something, an argument shouldn't begin with "But Meltzer said.."  He gets put on a pedestal just a bit.  That doesn't mean he's a bad journalist, but he can be a close-minded critic.

    But if Scott deserves that status as you said, somebody needs to make a YouTube link collection for his highest rated matches.  Now! 

    ReplyDelete
  21. "It'd be like if Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert only reviewed little-seen
    foreign films and never weighed in on anything coming out of Hollywood."

    but Meltzer DOES review US wrestling matches (or at least: did for a long, long time)... he just didn't like it as much.

    ReplyDelete
  22.  That's my point. That's fine if it's what he wants to do, certainly he doesn't owe it to anyone to be a balanced critic. But the fact that his biases weigh in so heavily on what he scores highly and his frame of reference is so different from most people reading him, he really doesn't deserve the consideration he gets.

    ReplyDelete
  23.  I don't think Meltzer believes Johnny Ace is a better worker than Shawn Michaels but guess who has more five star matches?

    I don't think five stars are the be all and end all of wrestling talent.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I only rate Battle Royals and midget matches

    ReplyDelete
  25. Totally agree with all of this, the guy is just a puro snob. What bothers me about him is that everything he says with respect to backstage dirt is taken as gospel, and he's been proven to be as full of shit as everyone else.

    I'm not sure if you could give Scott the Foremost Wrestling Critic status either though. Most entertaining, sure (by a mile), but by his own admission he's not exactly objective.

    ReplyDelete
  26. According to the list (http://www.freewebs.com/wrestlinglists/5.htm) Luger's only been in 2, and one of them was a WarGames match. 

    ReplyDelete
  27. you're damn right Misawa is on there more than anyone else. the thing that most fans of North American wrestling don't get is that guy like Misawa and Kawada are just EONS better than most anything North America has to offer. All one has to do before making a snide, uninformed remark is watch some of those matches. That shit is ART. Literal, unadulterated, pure ART. If you haven't seen all of those Misawa matches, then you are really misinformed, and as such, shouldn't be complaining about Meltzer's bias towards Misawa. Also, if I were to assume that Meltzer's ratings are relative (again, I'm admitting I'm making an assumption), then there are only maybe 10 or so matches from North America that are worthy of getting the same rating as the "average" 5-Star 1990s All Japan match (and yes, All Japan had so many BRILLIANT matches in the 90s that there really is such thing as an "average" 5-star AJPW match). And my favorite promotion is 90s WWF, cuz I'm a Bret mark. But, I can't deny the truth. There's a WHOLE OTHER REALM of Wrestling as Art out there. Don't be ignorant and deny yourself something truly great. Check those matches out.

    ReplyDelete
  28. That list is lije finding will

    ReplyDelete
  29. you're damn right Misawa is on there more than anyone else. the thing that most fans of North American wrestling don't get is that guy like Misawa and Kawada are just EONS better than most anything North America has to offer. All one has to do before making a snide, uninformed remark is watch some of those matches. That shit is ART. Literal, unadulterated, pure ART. If you haven't seen all of those Misawa matches, then you are really misinformed, and as such, shouldn't be complaining about Meltzer's bias towards Misawa. Also, if I were to assume that Meltzer's ratings are relative (again, I'm admitting I'm making an assumption), then there are only maybe 10 or so matches from North America that are worthy of getting the same rating as the "average" 5-Star 1990s All Japan match (and yes, All Japan had so many BRILLIANT matches in the 90s that there really is such thing as an "average" 5-star AJPW match). And my favorite promotion is 90s WWF, cuz I'm a Bret mark. But, I can't deny the truth. There's a WHOLE OTHER REALM of Wrestling as Art out there. Don't be ignorant and deny yourself something truly great. Check those matches out.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Whoa that list is like finding will smith's chicktionary.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It was also pointed out in the thread that the match Meltzer was referring to was a barbed wire match between the two teams, so grain of salt and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yeah, it's fucking insane that only FIVE matches in WWF history can be *****. This excludes any Benoit matches, the Bret/Owen WM X match, Shawn/Taker at WrestleMania, Shawn/Angle at the same, etc. Meltzer really shows his elitist, "Mainstream is Bad" viewpoints here, as if the popular WWF can't match any other genre.

    ReplyDelete
  33. WM xx triple threat, bret v own cage match and wm 10 match, benoit vs angle at RR 2003, savage v steamboat, hbk v undertaker, WTF dave??

    ReplyDelete
  34. I agree that Misawa was great, but there are some GLARING omissions on the north american side here IMO

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment