Meltzer has always been a workrate fan and moves guy above all and, like everyone, he has his favourites. In a world where it wasn't as easy for people to watch wrestling from different eras or from all over the world, he was a great source of recommended matches. For the most part, if he rated a match ***1/2 or more, it would be worth checking out.

Nowadays, loads of people can watch obscene amounts of wrestling and it is quite easy to find someone whose taste matches up well with your own as a source of recommendations. His match ratings have become canonised to an extent by certain people and they are taken almost as gospel. I do think his influence has helped shaped how wrestling has gone to some extent and to its detriment (although there are many other reasons for it). The weight of that influence is definitely up for major debate though.

He is one of the great wrestling historians. The fact that his legacy for many is becoming his match ratings is pretty amusing and almost absurd. Even though he must know the power of his ratings, he does seem to treat them as what they are, just his own rating of a match, that's it.

He definitely has a crazy drive to watch and report on wrestling. The number of words he has written each week for decades is pretty incredible. Along with some of his interactions on radio shows, jokes flying over his head and him taking them dead seriously, you can understand why some people think he may have some mild autism.

Jan 1, 2021 21:14:53 GMT c said:

Also there is this:

The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels Hell in the Cell I - 5 stars.

The Undertaker vs Triple H - End of an era match - 4.75.

The Undertaker vs CM Punk - 4.5

The Undertaker vs Mankind HitC - 4.5

The Undertaker vs Stone Cold Steve Austin vs the Rock vs Triple H vs Rikishi vs Kurt Angle 4.5

Rock vs Mankind I Quit 3.75 

Um what mate?

I'm curious what you aren't too happy with here. I know for me that its the 6-man Cell that stands out majorly. I think I had it at like ** last time I watched it. A mess with one of the most eyeroll-worthy spots of all time.

Jan 3, 2021 19:14:29 GMT Strobe said:

Meltzer has always been a workrate fan and moves guy above all and, like everyone, he has his favourites. In a world where it wasn't as easy for people to watch wrestling from different eras or from all over the world, he was a great source of recommended matches. For the most part, if he rated a match ***1/2 or more, it would be worth checking out.

Nowadays, loads of people can watch obscene amounts of wrestling and it is quite easy to find someone whose taste matches up well with your own as a source of recommendations. His match ratings have become canonised to an extent by certain people and they are taken almost as gospel. I do think his influence has helped shaped how wrestling has gone to some extent and to its detriment (although there are many other reasons for it). The weight of that influence is definitely up for major debate though.

He is one of the great wrestling historians. The fact that his legacy for many is becoming his match ratings is pretty amusing and almost absurd. Even though he must know the power of his ratings, he does seem to treat them as what they are, just his own rating of a match, that's it.

He definitely has a crazy drive to watch and report on wrestling. The number of words he has written each week for decades is pretty incredible. Along with some of his interactions on radio shows, jokes flying over his head and him taking them dead seriously, you can understand why some people think he may have some mild autism.

Jan 3, 2021 19:14:29 GMT Strobe said:

Jan 1, 2021 21:14:53 GMT c said:

Also there is this:

The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels Hell in the Cell I - 5 stars.

The Undertaker vs Triple H - End of an era match - 4.75.

The Undertaker vs CM Punk - 4.5

The Undertaker vs Mankind HitC - 4.5

The Undertaker vs Stone Cold Steve Austin vs the Rock vs Triple H vs Rikishi vs Kurt Angle 4.5

Rock vs Mankind I Quit 3.75 

Um what mate?

I'm curious what you aren't too happy with here. I know for me that its the 6-man Cell that stands out majorly. I think I had it at like ** last time I watched it. A mess with one of the most eyeroll-worthy spots of all time.

For someone who focuses on workrate, a lot of these make no sense and when you get into equality of rating, it gets weirder.  He has Punk vs Taker as being almost as good as the End of an Era match.  That makes no sense at all.  Punk vs Taker was an average match at best.  He also has the 6 man cell and the Mankind HitC as near equals.  The six man match sucked, and it is hard to even call Taker vs Foley II a match in terms of workrate.

Meanwhile a match that was IMO amazing and show insane workrate in Rock vs Foley only gets a 3.75.  This was the match that made the Rock really, and gets a lesser average than that six man piece of crap match.

Basically his ratings do not even make sense as a 4.5 here can go from Punk vs Taker, to that mix man, to two big spots in just these examples.  He is all over the place with no rhyme or reason.  A random number generator can produce a system of rating as reliable as him.

He also claims that he rates matches based on the reaction they get. This I believe was his justification for giving the parking lot brawl on Dynamite 5*. Yet Hogan/Andre was -2* back in the day, a match that 90k people were shitting their pants over.

Meltzer works hard, really studies, and is incredibly detailed. I think he may in some ways be unintelligent.

Jan 3, 2021 20:35:12 GMT c said:

For someone who focuses on workrate, a lot of these make no sense and when you get into equality of rating, it gets weirder.  He has Punk vs Taker as being almost as good as the End of an Era match.  That makes no sense at all.  Punk vs Taker was an average match at best.  He also has the 6 man cell and the Mankind HitC as near equals.  The six man match sucked, and it is hard to even call Taker vs Foley II a match in terms of workrate.

Meanwhile a match that was IMO amazing and show insane workrate in Rock vs Foley only gets a 3.75.  This was the match that made the Rock really, and gets a lesser average than that six man piece of crap match.

Basically his ratings do not even make sense as a 4.5 here can go from Punk vs Taker, to that mix man, to two big spots in just these examples.  He is all over the place with no rhyme or reason.  A random number generator can produce a system of rating as reliable as him.

It isn't like he only focuses on workrate, but a match with a whole bunch of fast-paced action and big spots and kick-outs is right up Meltzer's street. Cardio wrestling. This doesn't mean that he doesn't also like story-heavy matches.

I think you are a minority opinion on Taker/Punk being average. Plenty had it as a MOTYC.

I know different people have different definitions of workrate. An old worker may consider it the working of the crowd. I think most fans mean simply the rate of the work. Which when taken to excess is a detriment to a match in the eyes of many, as it means you have to forego selling and big moments aren't allowed to register. While Rock and Foley absolutely worked very hard, it isn't something I'd consider a workrate match in the sense it is typically meant.

That 6-man Cell match rating does stand out to me. It had plenty of action and the big (shit) spot, but so did the I Quit match. And when you look at how many great matches he has rated under ****½, it is almost bizarre. But one thing he has always been consistent on is that his rating is for his first-time watching in real time. He doesn't re-evaluate. He sees matches as being intended to be watched at the time and beyond that the context is lost. And we've all had shit opinions on matches that we've changed on re-watching.

With all this discussion on workrate, if you haven't seen Ilja Dragunov v WALTER from October of this year (Dave gave it 5 stars) go and watch it.

Cornette reviewed it, and noted, that this is what wrestling should have evolved into instead of the flipping-flopping-diving-superkickathons. Stiff as hell, brutal maybe but arguably safer than working high spots after high spots for Meltzer-points.

Jan 3, 2021 21:10:41 GMT Todd said:

He also claims that he rates matches based on the reaction they get. This I believe was his justification for giving the parking lot brawl on Dynamite 5*. Yet Hogan/Andre was -2* back in the day, a match that 90k people were shitting their pants over.

This is the sort of thing that seems to drive Cornette, or his podcast persona at least, mad. Meltzer would shit on stuff he didn't like back in the day, even if it was the most popular thing in the world. Then today he justifies silly spots by saying they work for that audience or in that building. It does bring up some potentially interesting discussion points on what Meltzer's motivations could be, if any.

Personally, I think Hogan/Andre is a finely worked match given the limitations of Andre at the time and the setting/stage of the match. Staredown, slam fail and "did he get him?" pin, Andre dominates and works over Hogan's back that he hurt with the slam fail, few hope spots, Hogan comes back and knocks him down with a clothesline, hits the slam, big leg, 1-2-3. A spectacle match done well all things considered. If they changed camera angle on Andre's ringpost headbutt and didn't have Hogan try a piledriver (which makes no sense whatsoever) only to pussy out of taking the back bump on the floor, it would be even better. Meltzer originally rated it -**** which is so pure unadulterated 80s smark that I love it. I think he revised it (the only time I can think of him doing so) to like a * or **.

Jan 3, 2021 21:44:03 GMT NATH45 said:

With all this discussion on workrate, if you haven't seen Ilja Dragunov v WALTER from October of this year (Dave gave it 5 stars) go and watch it.

Cornette reviewed it, and noted, that this is what wrestling should have evolved into instead of the flipping-flopping-diving-superkickathons. Stiff as hell, brutal maybe but arguably safer than working high spots after high spots for Meltzer-points.

I've been meaning to watch this. I don't think I've seen a wrestling match from 2020. I saw some clips of the Boneyard Match but not the whole thing.

Big Pete, I dislike Corette as well in terms of most of his takes on today's wrestling. I'm glad there are a vast array of voices in the IWC beyond Dave & Jim.

Someone brought up the Peyton Royce thing. THis really amuses me. Dave sarcastically mentioned how she put on weight or something, and based on conversational contextual clues, he was clearly referring to how she just got implants and he was expressing his disdain for how that happened coincidentally at the same time as her being called up. And then Peyton thought she was called fat. Think whatever you want about implants and womens empowerment and all that, but at least understand what someone said before you get upset

Jan 3, 2021 21:44:03 GMT NATH45 said:

With all this discussion on workrate, if you haven't seen Ilja Dragunov v WALTER from October of this year (Dave gave it 5 stars) go and watch it.

Cornette reviewed it, and noted, that this is what wrestling should have evolved into instead of the flipping-flopping-diving-superkickathons. Stiff as hell, brutal maybe but arguably safer than working high spots after high spots for Meltzer-points.

That Nigel on commentary?  

Fun match with a great blend of strong style and catch.  

I hate the notion that wrestling should evolve into one thing.  That match was good, but do a full show of it and it will get boring fast.  RoH proved that several times when that style was all they did for a year or so.  A blend of styles makes shows great.  The high spot fests have their place as there is no better way to open a show or return from intermission than with a multiman spotfest.  Likewise doing matches like that NXT UK one are great ways to end shows or break for intermission with.  Different styles have different places on a good card.

Jan 4, 2021 0:58:28 GMT nazzer said:

Someone brought up the Peyton Royce thing. THis really amuses me. Dave sarcastically mentioned how she put on weight or something, and based on conversational contextual clues, he was clearly referring to how she just got implants and he was expressing his disdain for how that happened coincidentally at the same time as her being called up. And then Peyton thought she was called fat. Think whatever you want about implants and womens empowerment and all that, but at least understand what someone said before you get upset

It was classic Dave where he failed to communicate properly and ended up being so vague his words were misinterpreted. It's something he really should have thought long and hard about saying and really shouldn't have been said at all and yet he made it worse for himself.

Jan 4, 2021 2:02:08 GMT Big Pete said:

Jan 4, 2021 0:58:28 GMT nazzer said:

Someone brought up the Peyton Royce thing. THis really amuses me. Dave sarcastically mentioned how she put on weight or something, and based on conversational contextual clues, he was clearly referring to how she just got implants and he was expressing his disdain for how that happened coincidentally at the same time as her being called up. And then Peyton thought she was called fat. Think whatever you want about implants and womens empowerment and all that, but at least understand what someone said before you get upset

It was classic Dave where he failed to communicate properly and ended up being so vague his words were misinterpreted. It's something he really should have thought long and hard about saying and really shouldn't have been said at all and yet he made it worse for himself.

Yeah, i think the situation might be a good example of todd's description as 'unintelligent'

Yeah, and I don't mean that to sound catty, and perhaps I could have chosen a better word, but it comes across in his writing sometimes too. I've met a lot of people like that especially in business. Smart in some ways, but in other ways couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. That's how he strikes me.

The way Dave verbalizes his thoughts strikes me as a bit bizarre. His interviews are filled with you know like long-winded soliloquies that often lead to nowhere. He could save a lot of time by saying. let's agree to disagree. Instead, he wastes a bunch of time belaboring a point that he's already made 3 times before. listen to his interview from 2000 with Ole Anderson as a prime example of this.

Jan 3, 2021 21:10:41 GMT Todd said:

He also claims that he rates matches based on the reaction they get. This I believe was his justification for giving the parking lot brawl on Dynamite 5*. Yet Hogan/Andre was -2* back in the day, a match that 90k people were shitting their pants over.

Meltzer works hard, really studies, and is incredibly detailed. I think he may in some ways be unintelligent.

I don't think he was a big Hogan fan, seemed like the anti Meltzer. Cared more about playing up to the fans and the spectacle over the wrestling, probably didn't like that he held back from what he used to show in (very brief) Japanese wrestling bouts since Hogan was smart enough to not kill himself and instead politic backstage for him and his close friends to get the money. You are completely correct though that it is hypocritical. 

Jan 3, 2021 21:44:03 GMT NATH45 said:

With all this discussion on workrate, if you haven't seen Ilja Dragunov v WALTER from October of this year (Dave gave it 5 stars) go and watch it.

Cornette reviewed it, and noted, that this is what wrestling should have evolved into instead of the flipping-flopping-diving-superkickathons. Stiff as hell, brutal maybe but arguably safer than working high spots after high spots for Meltzer-points.

I saw it "live", really enjoyed them selling and Dragunov looked absolutely worn down by the end of it. I think only certain guys will want WALTER and I wonder if WALTER can do this on a weekly basis and not lose luster. I think he's a perfect once a month performer or so on the big shows, kinda like how the Okada's, Naito's look great when they don't have to do this 5 nights a week back when house shows were a thing.