I think you're making a point to attack something you don't like/understand, but okay. Every WWE/WWF match on the list deserves to be there. There are tons of four and half, quarter, 3/4th star WWE matches that just didn't have that little extra push to be a five star match. Those are mentioned in the letters and there is justification as to why they weren't.

That is like fucking saying every slapdick sports columnist or writer who appears on ESPN or writes for a major newspaper or magazine is never wrong and their words/opinions are canon too.

It is fucking opinion. Just because he had the only major dirtsheet in fucking in the 80s doesn't make him automatically correct and the be-all end-all.

back then there actually was an early form of message boards.

For the most part I agree with Dave's assessments; his outlook on WWE overall is a bit bleak now because he's obsessed with MMA, but he still knows a good match when he sees it. From all the matches I've seen (which is about the same as him) we agree on what a five star match is.

Okada vs. Tanahashi is one of those matches that will eventually be a five star match, just needs something special.

That's great, but that doesn't make you or his opinion fucking holy and inherently more true/correct/important than others.

You can see if that way if you'd like, but if you're going to ask someone on the record about wrestling for something news related or for something you're publishing the go-to guy is Meltzer. He's the name for professional wrestling journalism.

4/5/09 Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels ****3/4
3/28/10 Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels (No Countout, No DQ) ****3/4

Please tell me, what the fuck did the HBK/Taker match at WrestleMania 25 need to get that EXTRA 1/4 STAR!?!?!?

Journalism is a stretch. It is usually nothing but gossip, rumors, and opinion.

2/25/01 Triple H vs. Steve Austin (2/3 falls � Straight wrestling, Street Fight, Cage) ****3/4

4/1/01 Steve Austin vs. Rock (No DQ) ****1/2

Please tell me what was missing from those matches that Punk/Cena had?

Personally the amount of false finishes in those matches dragged it down. The drama was there, the wrestling was there, the psychology was there, but the timing was just off, the match at 26 was better, but just didn't have the same feel that 25 did. They're both great in different ways. If you could combine them it would be perfect.

Go back and watch the match from 97 they had, the pace and the amount of brutality in that match is what made it so perfect. Plus it had that fantastic ending where Shawn, who was dead, got the pin on taker.

1/23/00 Triple H vs. Cactus Jack (Street Fight) ****1/2

2/27/00 Triple H vs. Cactus Jack (Hell in the Cell) ****1/2

8/25/02 Shawn Michaels vs. Triple H (Street Fight) ****1/4

Please tell me what these matches were missing that a fucking Larry Zybysko WarGames match had?

Punk vs Cena was all about the presentation, the drama was real; Punk brought out the best in Cena in the ring, especially on this night. The amount of finishes was right, the pace was good as it was in step with building the drama, and the ending was fucking spectacular. No one had any idea what was going to happen, the match was probably the best WWE/WWF match in history as far as Drama and Psychology.

:lol: Wow. The corny Kane debut ("That's gotta be...THAT'S GOTTA BE KANE!" *RIP DOOR OFF*) and cheap win for HBK didn't hurt the debut of the Hell in a Cell match which was meant to keep HBK from getting a cheap victory thanks to interference had the perfect blend of everything that the WrestleMania matches did not?

As pretentious as your opinions sound, I can live with them because your opinions aren't heralded as fucking gospel unlike the "journalist".

HBK was the heel in 1997, that win was fucking amazing. That crowd was pissed at that ending and kept them wanting more. Too bad that led into Montreal, but hey...

I can see where you are coming from, but that is a stretch. You didn't think the McMahon interference and Cena decking Ace and stopping the "screwjob" only to get GTS'd didn't kind of kill it? The match itself wasn't that fucking amazing. The crowd was awesome, but not enough to bump it over how many ever fucking matches over the past 14 years Meltzer felt were just 1/4 star short of PERFECTION.

Is that the 1/4 they were missing? Would the shocker of HBK ending The Streak have given it that final precious 1/4 star to forever cement its status among 24 Misawa matches?

Wait, I know...I know...it was the camerman bump wasn't it? 5-star matches don't have epic fuck ups, even if it gets a jaded smark like me to believe for a split second that The Streak will end via countout.

I thought the McMahon/Ace part was great because it showed the rest of the world what Chicago knew: John Cena is his own worst enemy. John Cena always has to go against the grain. John Cena cost himself the WWE title against the biggest heel in the company on his last night because of his pride.

Streak Matches are hard to rank as five stars because they're predictable. Y'all know Taker ain't gonna lose.

4/1/01 Kurt Angle vs. Chris Benoit ****1/4

1/19/03 Kurt Angle vs. Chris Benoit ****3/4

What were these missing? Not enough flips? Not "realistic enough"? Did he retroactively downgrade them due to "character issues"/"murderers can't have 5 star matches"?

My whole point is this: other than the fact Meltzer was the only one with enough time, money, and loneliness to do this shit first, what makes him the match ranking aficionado especially when he does such bizarre rankings like the ones I've mentioned. How can you watch HBK/Taker from WM25 (especially if you watched it live) and at the end of it go...eh...it was missing something...MINUS 1/4 STAR!

Especially when Japanese matches make up over half of the list and half of those are Misawa matches.

It's about retrospective analysis. Comparing what it is to what it could've been by looking at other instances of what a five star match is. Both Taker/HBK matches weren't as good as the 97 one. They were better in different ways and worse in others. There was no heat in those matches, it was just two faces fighting for pride. It lacked classic wrestling build and didn't deliver the emotion it needed as such.

Misawa was that good.

It seems obvious to me by looking at the list and his match rankings for several WWE matches, that he has a clear bias against the North American/"sports entertainment" style.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I'm not comfortable in assuming that. There's lots of other Puro matches that could be on that list that aren't. The only company I feel got pretty shafted was WCW; WCW had so many "could've been" five star matches.

I feel the ROH list is dead on, no more no less.

So, babyface vs babyface matches are incapable of being 5 stars? Matches that don't rely on heat for reaction, but rather the conflict of the fans' love of 2 wrestlers and their awe-inspiring legacies against each other is no good? I'm just even going to justify the statement that HBK/Taker didn't have enough emotion with a smartass rhetorical question.

Triple H vs. Taker build was better, it had that "MOTHERFUCKER I WILL KILL YOU" feel. The matches sadly didn't deliver on the wrestling side, much more on the brutality and drama side.

Those ROH matches had the babyface vs heel dynamic, the epic heat, the raw emotion, and the heart-stopping action that HBK/Taker lacked? Get the fuck out of here. If he is comparing all matches to previous 5-star matches to determine rankings, then there should probably never be another 5 star match. FFS, each match is its own story and its own moment frozen in time. You can't arbitrarily compare it to a match from a decade ago when both characters, actual people, the promotion, etc. were in an entirely different place.

How the fuck can you expect a match built as "The End of an Era - The Final Battle" or "The Last Outlaw vs The Warrior King" to be a technical masterpiece? It'd be retarded and not make sense. Wrestling isn't paint by numbers or a fucking cake recipe.

What Triple H and Undertaker did deserves just as much respect as a Benoit/Angle match. Despite what Meltzer might have you believe, Triple H and Undertaker did WRESTLE. They had a hell of a WRESTLING MATCH. It didn't need 20 variations of suplexes or 30 minutes of counter-for-counter exchanges to be a great wrestling match.

4/3/11 Triple H vs. Undertaker (No Holds Barred) ****1/2

4/1/12 Undertaker vs. Triple H (Hell in a Cell) ****3/4

Would Triple H's "Inverted Indian Deathlock" given them that extra 1/2 and 1/4 star?

I believe the answer is YES.

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gz2K-qUdhKk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gz2K-qUdhKk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Fuck, if only HHH had done that and then Undertaker escape with a 720 Corkscrew Quadriceps Suplex with a look of anguish on his face. That would have been the DRAMA. The REALISM. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4 1/2 and IMMORTATLITY.

2/19/12 John Cena vs. Kane (Ambulance Match) ***

4/1/12 CM Punk vs. Chris Jericho ***3/4

4/29/12 CM Punk vs. Chris Jericho (Chicago Street Fight) ***1/2

4/29/12 John Cena vs. Brock Lesnar (Extreme Rules) ****1/2


...so Punk/Jericho's matches were only slightly better than the Kane/Cena Ambulance match and soundly inferior to the Brock/Cena match?

9/17/06 Shawn Michaels/Triple H vs. Vince McMahon/Shane McMahon/Big Show (Hell in a Cell) ***1/4

Punk/Jericho was equal or only slightly better than the match where DX shoved Vince up Big Show's ass?

I assume this applies to all matches.