Tyson Kidd & Cesaro beat Kofi Kingston & Big E of the New Day in 10:55. **3/4
The Ascension beat The New Age Outlaws in 5:26. *1/4
Jimmy & Jey Uso retained the WWE tag titles over The Miz & Damien Mizdow in 9:20. ***
Bella Twins beat Paige & Natalya in 8:03. *
Brock Lesnar retained the WWE title in a three-way over John Cena and Seth Rollins in 22:42. ****3/4
Roman Reigns won the 2015 Royal Rumble in 59:33. *3/4
I thought the Cesaro/Kidd match was better than the Usos one so id switch those ratings.
Divas match was booked so poorly so no complaints with that rating even though the performers were fine.
People bitch about Dave but he has a really great comprehensive rating list.
Agree with RR match. From a wrestling POV it sucked just a bunch of stomps and working in the corner before getting thrown out. Terrible. Amazing triple threat. Lesnars 4*+ ratio to match must be 2:3 since he came back. Guy is a legend.
I'm sure if Lesnar/Rollins/Cena had better build, it would've got 5*
3* for Usos/Miz? :lol The match was unwatchable. Miz-Dow's stunt double stuff got old weeks ago. It was twice as good as Ascension/NAO, according to Melty. fpalm
It was, without doubt, the worst Rumble match ever, even if you ignore Reigns winning.
IMO, too generous on the Triple Threat. 4 stars is what I gave it. WAY too many finishers and too much overbooking for my taste. But he's entitled to his opinion.
That being said, 4 3/4 is the highest rating for a WWE match he's given since...Taker/Trips HIAC at WM28, IIRC. Even Punk/Lesnar only got 4 1/2, and there's no way this triple threat was better than that match.
Triple Threat was as close to 5 stars as it can get imo. Don't know how anyone could give that basic ass tag match anything more than 2 stars. Pre-show match was way better.
Both this Triple Threat AND the one from WM20 got the same rating. And what person would actually objectively say Cena/Lesnar/Rollins was in any way a better match than Hunter/HBK/Nameless?
I mean, everyone is allowed to have their own opinions and such, but based on Meltzer's usual criteria, I'm just kinda surprised he gave this such a high rating. It was just an overbooked finisher fest and the psychology of the match felt off. Like, why did Rollins risk his own body to take out Lesnar on the table? Its not like they had some bitter rivalry and wanted to make him suffer, it was just "that's the scripted spot, so we're gonna do it." I HATE Cena's kick outs. Kurt Angle has always been really good at getting his shoulder up at 2.59 seconds, for example. With Cena? 2 and a half count at best. The ref's hand hits the mat for 2 and you can see him already moving his body to kick out because its gotta be some grandiose thing. Didn't like the 3 AAs. I'm cool with no selling at times because of adrenaline, will or a delayed reaction, but this looked very fake, with Lesnar rolling over to Cena so he could hit the next one. Again, "we're doing this spot because that's what we've scripted, not because it makes sense." And I've really grown to dislike the overuse of finishers in WWE as a way of building drama. That's all anyone seems to know how to do and I find it lazy and insulting to the people who actually CAN build a match without it. You're supposed to build up to finishers as that final devastating move in your repertoire, and IF there's a kick out, it should be like "holy shit, how is that possible?" Instead, they were hitting finishers like...5 minutes in. So then what are you building up to? And when we get there, why does it matter if you DIDN'T build up to it? The table or barricade spots? Oh yeah, because they were so necessary. THOSE are the new finishers because they can potentially end matches and what are being built up to. Finishing moves themselves are devalued nowadays because you can't seem to have a PPV match in a main event spot where someone doesn't kick out of at least 3 of them.
I watched the WM20 triple threat recently and I did prefer Lesnar/Cena/Rollins. Lesnar matches & triple threats always have more finishers than average which is fine.
RR15 triple threat would have got 5* if it had better build and was less predictable.
Very high rating there for the triple threat. Gave it **** 1/4 myself, still loved it and enjoyed both Lesnar's and Rollins' performances immensely tbh. Looking forward to a rewatch later.
Stone Cold gave it **** 1/2, but even he was edging towards awarding it nearly 5 too.
I'd give the triple threat 4 stars. Great match but not that great. Brock and Rollins were standout but a bit of a finisher fest at points brings it down for me.
Rumble match is not even DUD worthy. It's worse than Meltzer's rating for Hogan/Andre. It's -★★★★★ at best.
Tyson Kidd & Cesaro beat Kofi Kingston & Big E of the New Day in 10:55. **3/4
The Ascension beat The New Age Outlaws in 5:26. *1/4
Jimmy & Jey Uso retained the WWE tag titles over The Miz & Damien Mizdow in 9:20. ***
Bella Twins beat Paige & Natalya in 8:03. *
Brock Lesnar retained the WWE title in a three-way over John Cena and Seth Rollins in 22:42. ****3/4
Roman Reigns won the 2015 Royal Rumble in 59:33. *3/4
I thought the Cesaro/Kidd match was better than the Usos one so id switch those ratings.
Divas match was booked so poorly so no complaints with that rating even though the performers were fine.
I agree on the Divas match. Clearly they are building to something with Paige here (assuming they don't just drop it out of nowhere). But the booking was telegraphing Paige coming in with a hot tag. And while the otherwise hot crowd to that point was pretty quiet I think it is safe to say Paige being tagged would have gotten a reaction. Yet they killed the match with Natalya not making the tag and getting pinned. It killed what was a decent match until then.
It is a shame because for once they gave a Diva match some decent time. But like Survivor Series they seem to experiment with giving Divas time to have a "real match" but they then book it bad. It is going to take time to change fans perception on the women's matches after so many years of treating them as bathroom breaks. But the least WWE could do is try and book them decently when they do give them time to have a longer match.
lol not that i dont agree but star rating system is just weird, someone watches a match and goes 'hmm now how would i rate a great match like that, oh i know, it is four stars and 2.567/4 because why not' the use of 1/4 and 3/4 is just so silly, what the heck is the difference between any of the quarter pieces
I had the triple threat at a "soft" ****1/2. I thoroughly enjoyed it but just felt ****1/4 was a bit low, especially when I compare it to other matches I have at the same rating.
It's not weird if you're a critic and your job is the rate stuff. But it's the same thing as watching a movie and talking about it with your friends and giving your opinion (or rating) of it.
The difference between 1/4 and 3/4 is 1 full point on a scale of 10 so it's actually quite a bit. ****1/4 would be 8.5/10 whereas ****3/4 would be 9.5/10.
How in the Hell can you not go minus stars on that cursed Rumble match. The definition of a -* match.
Or is Alvarez the only guy who goes minus stars.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.