Wrestling Spam Zone Heated Debate (Currently serving up WWE Hall of Fame)

[Slyfox696]

Keep in mind this is the same jackass who gave Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania 3 a NEGATIVE 4 star rating. Even xfearbefore said that was ridiculous.

Why should we respect anything Meltzer says? What authority does he have?

 

[The Crock]

Bischoff and Hogan, two guys who have done FAR more in the business and for the business than Meltzer ever will are Gods in their own eyes, but Meltzer is a God in yours?

Do you realize how fucked up that logic is? I don't respect Meltzer because he's never done anything worthy of my respect. He has ZERO authority when it comes to quality in wrestling, and most times, the things he thinks are good won't ever draw money.

Why the fuck should anyone respect that?

Did I say Meltzer is a God? No. Why does it matter to you if a guy is in the WWE or if he is wrestling in Japan? Skill is skill, regardless. MJ would have been an awesome basketball player, even if he played in fucking Afghanistan. I'm not saying you have to love the guy, but show some respect.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't pay much attention to Meltzer or match ratings in general but when I've ssen what he gives some matchs I always wonder what his criteria is.

He tries to figure out if something will draw money. If it does, it sucks, if it doesn't, he likes it.

Must be a Japaneese match to earn 5 stars.

Oh, this too.

 

[Slyfox696]

Did I say Meltzer is a God? No.

Yes, you did. Maybe not in those exact words, but for the most part yes you have.

Why does it matter to you if a guy is in the WWE or if he is wrestling in Japan?

Who said it did or did not matter? Certainly wasn't me.

I'm not saying you have to love the guy, but show some respect.

Again, what am I supposed to respect about him?

 

[X]

And guys like Bischoff and Hogan actually worked in the business, completely revolutionized the wrestling business, both on screen and off, and they think Meltzer's opinion is shit.

What's your point?

What a terrible example considering you just cited the two men responsible or killing the biggest wrestling promotion on the planet with their inept booking.

Meltzer also worked in the business himself Sly, he was a frequent on-air guest in many different promotions like Mid-Atlantic, Mid-South, World Class and WCW itself just like Apter used to be.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Must be a Japaneese match to earn 5 stars.

Tht seems to be the case really. What's the streak? Like not 5 star matches in WWE in the past ten years or something? Not that I really care, if I like it that's all that matters, but damn there had to be soemthing that was "worthy" of a five star in his eyes.

 

[The Crock]

Keep in mind this is the same jackass who gave Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania 3 a NEGATIVE 4 star rating. Even xfearbefore said that was ridiculous.

Why should we respect anything Meltzer says? What authority does he have?

That is ridiculous. Period. I'm not denying that. But not all his ratings are bad. He can't always be excellent.

 

[klunderbunker]

Keep in mind this is the same jackass who gave Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania 3 a NEGATIVE 4 star rating. Even xfearbefore said that was ridiculous.

Why should we respect anything Meltzer says? What authority does he have?

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on Meltzer and wrestling writers/reviewers in general.

I review shows and matches and rate them, every time giving a validation for why I gave it that rating. Does that mean I'm right? Maybe, maybe not. In my mind I'm right. Does that mean that a match is good because I say it's good? Of course not. Same with Meltzer or anyone.

As for the whole Hogan/Andre match being -****, that's pure idiocy. Sure the wrestling was bad. 90,000+ people paid to see it though, which I'd bet is more than the amount of people that pay to read Meltzer's newsletter.

 

[The Crock]

Yes, you did. Maybe not in those exact words, but for the most part yes you have.

Who said it did or did not matter? Certainly wasn't me.


Again, what am I supposed to respect about him?

No I didn't. You may think that I'm ******ed and all that, but honestly... just like X said Hogan and Bischoff killed part of the wrestling business. You can't deny that. You can't deny that Meltzer is good either, if your match ratings are as good as his... then why aren't you respected worldwide?

 

[Slyfox696]

What a terrible example considering you just cited the two men responsible or killing the biggest wrestling promotion on the planet with their inept booking.

We're not going to get into all the reasons WCW failed, but to say the blame lies solely with Bischoff and Hogan is just asinine.

Not to mention the only reason they WERE the biggest promotion in the business is because of Bischoff and Hogan.

 

[Cmpunk is wwe]

bryan is one of the most entertain wrestlers i have seen i saw him in person and even though i dont like him he has to be one of the top 3 wrestlers in the world

 

[X]

I'm sorry, but Hogan vs. Andre at Wrestlemania 3 is not a good match. At all. Yeah, its in front of a huge insanely hot crowd. Yeah it was an amazing angle and feud leading up to the match. The match itself is fucking horseshit. 99.9% of the match is Andre holding Hogan in the weakest bear hug of all time, followed by the patented Hulk ending. Important match? For sure. "Good" match? No way. Andre was so done at that point and watching him in the ring was just sad at that point.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm sorry, but Hogan vs. Andre at Wrestlemania 3 is not a good match. At all. Yeah, its in front of a huge insanely hot crowd. Yeah it was an amazing angle and feud leading up to the match. The match itself is fucking horseshit. 99.9% of the match is Andre holding Hogan in the weakest bear hug of all time, followed by the patented Hulk ending. Important match? For sure. "Good" match? No way. Andre was so done at that point and watching him in the ring was just sad at that point.

Yeah I know. It only got the biggest crowd in company history, made Hogan the undisputed biggest star in the world, set buyrate records and drew the biggest TV rating ever for the rematch.

Total failure of a match.

 

[The Doctor]

Just because a match isn't good in-ring-skill-wise, doesn't mean it's not a good match. The angle itself and the drama surrounding it is what made it good.

Same with HBK/Taker II.

 

[Slyfox696]

Tht seems to be the case really. What's the streak? Like not 5 star matches in WWE in the past ten years or something? Not that I really care, if I like it that's all that matters, but damn there had to be soemthing that was "worthy" of a five star in his eyes.

No, any work in the WWE can't compare to a *****fied slap fest between a fat guy and an old guy. Samoa Joe vs. Kobashi is 5 stars...the WWE just can't compare to that.

That is ridiculous. Period. I'm not denying that. But not all his ratings are bad. He can't always be excellent.

Then why respect his ratings over mine? Why over KB's or Xfears, or anyone else who has watched wrestling for 20+ years?

What makes Meltzer's understanding of wrestling so much greater than ours? Or better yet, so much greater than the opinion of guys who actually worked in the business, who pretty much disagree with Meltzer's view of wrestling?

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on Meltzer and wrestling writers/reviewers in general.

I review shows and matches and rate them, every time giving a validation for why I gave it that rating. Does that mean I'm right? Maybe, maybe not. In my mind I'm right. Does that mean that a match is good because I say it's good? Of course not. Same with Meltzer or anyone.

As for the whole Hogan/Andre match being -****, that's pure idiocy. Sure the wrestling was bad. 90,000+ people paid to see it though, which I'd bet is more than the amount of people that pay to read Meltzer's newsletter.

I don't know, there are a lot of sheep out there who prefer to not think for themselves.

No I didn't. You may think that I'm ******ed and all that, but honestly... just like X said Hogan and Bischoff killed part of the wrestling business.

Such a revisionist and short-sighted view of history.

You can't deny that Meltzer is good either, if your match ratings are as good as his... then why aren't you respected worldwide?

Because I wasn't printing my own egotistical newsletter in the 1980s? Because I don't want to?

You're missing the point. I'm not here claiming my authority on wrestling is the end all, be all. YOU, however, are claiming that of Meltzer. And yet, you've not ONCE offered any kind of evidence to support that Meltzer should have any more credibility than anyone else. Just because a bunch of idiots can't think for themselves, doesn't mean he understands what makes a good match more than the millions of other wrestling fans.

 

[X]

Yeah I know. It only got the biggest crowd in company history, made Hogan the undisputed biggest star in the world, set buyrate records and drew the biggest TV rating ever for the rematch.

Total failure of a match.

Did I say it was a total failure of a match? Nope. It accomplished it's goal in making money, sure thing. Wrestling was on fire and Hulk Hogan was one of the most popular figures in the world. Extremely important match and a legendary moment, which is what I said in my last post. But the match itself? Total shit that you can literally see on any show from the 80s with Hogan defending against a big man. Except his matches with big guys like Bossman were actually usually pretty good because they both put in some nice work, unlike the WM 3 match.

Great feud, rousing success, shit match.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yeah I know. It only got the biggest crowd in company history, made Hogan the undisputed biggest star in the world, set buyrate records and drew the biggest TV rating ever for the rematch.

Total failure of a match.

You know what the problem was? Not enough chain wrestling and 450 splashes. Add a couple of those, maybe a Japanese referee, and the match would have been 4 stars easy.

 

[klunderbunker]

Did I say it was a total failure of a match? Nope. It accomplished it's goal in making money, sure thing. Wrestling was on fire and Hulk Hogan was one of the most popular figures in the world. Extremely important match and a legendary moment, which is what I said in my last post. But the match itself? Total shit that you can literally see on any show from the 80s with Hogan defending against a big man. Except his matches with big guys like Bossman were actually usually pretty good because they both put in some nice work, unlike the WM 3 match.

Great feud, rousing success, shit match.

Except for, you know, being against Andre the Giant in front of 90,000 people in the main event of the biggest show ever.

 

[The Crock]

Ok. I said Hogan and Bischoff killed PART of the business... not closeminded at all. The good they have done far outweighs the bad. Meltzer has been called the best by many people, respected people. People from Sports Illustrated, and even some wrestlers. Sure people will hate him because he doesn't give them 5 stars, but at the end of the day that doesn't make them right.

 

[X]

You know what the problem was? Not enough chain wrestling and 450 splashes. Add a couple of those, maybe a Japanese referee, and the match would have been 4 stars easy.

Lol you guys are so predictable with this shit. I don't require 450 splashes or Japanese refs to recognize a good match Sly. You know what's nice though? Some storytelling, working the crowd, and living up to expectations. This was supposed to be the biggest match of all time and it ended in ten minutes with the same Hogan formula used a thousand times already, Hogan had faced bigger threats from the likes of Paul Orndorff and dozens of others he had defended the title against in longer, harder fought matches with superior storytelling.

 

[The Brain]

Did I say it was a total failure of a match? Nope. It accomplished it's goal in making money, sure thing. Wrestling was on fire and Hulk Hogan was one of the most popular figures in the world. Extremely important match and a legendary moment, which is what I said in my last post. But the match itself? Total shit that you can literally see on any show from the 80s with Hogan defending against a big man. Except his matches with big guys like Bossman were actually usually pretty good because they both put in some nice work, unlike the WM 3 match.

Great feud, rousing success, shit match.

In my opinion there are several things that make up a match. Not just the in ring action. Angle, hype, drama, anticipation, significance, and action all contribute to a match. For example if two unkowns in a high school gym put on the same match hold for hold as Savage and Steamboat did at WM3 I wouldn't give a damn. Beacuse it was Savage vs. Steamboat in a great dramatic emotional feud in front of 93,000 people at WrestleMania the match was awesome.

 

[Slyfox696]

Ok. I said Hogan and Bischoff killed PART of the business... not closeminded at all. The good they have done far outweighs the bad. Meltzer has been called the best by many people, respected people. People from Sports Illustrated, and even some wrestlers. Sure people will hate him because he doesn't give them 5 stars, but at the end of the day that doesn't make them right.

And this is you NOT wanting me to think you're stupid?


Again you haven't given me ONE indication that shows that Meltzer's opinion on wrestling, and specifically Danielson, should carry any weight in any discussion.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Just a thought.

How is one of the most important matches in wrestling history get a negative 4 stars?

 

[klunderbunker]

Just a thought.

How is one of the most important matches in wrestling history get a negative 4 stars?

We've covered this: lack of 450s, chain wrestling and a low Asian population.

 

[Slyfox696]

Lol you guys are so predictable with this shit. I don't require 450 splashes or Japanese refs to recognize a good match Sly. You know what's nice though? Some storytelling, working the crowd, and living up to expectations. This was supposed to be the biggest match of all time and it ended in ten minutes with the same Hogan formula used a thousand times already,

Actually that Hogan formula wasn't standard back when Hogan was matched up with Andre. It was starting to show itself, but to say it was used a thousand times is a gross exaggeration. Has it been used thousands of times since? Absolutely, but at the time you can't really say it was.

I'm not going to sit here and argue the match was the most entertaining ever. But to say it's a negative 4 star match is just about as stupid as anything can ever be.

Hogan had faced bigger threats from the likes of Paul Orndorff and dozens of others he had defended the title against in longer, harder fought matches with superior storytelling.

There was no bigger threat than Andre, either figuratively or literally. Andre was the largest wrestler around, and was undefeated (or was at least billed that way). There was no bigger threat to Hulkamania.