Is Dave Meltzer Biased Against WWE?

WWE’s Road Agents are to in-ring action what the Writers are to promos: a rather pointless means of over-production. Despite their mammoth number, they somehow contrive to destroy any notion of diversity. With the exception of Brock Lesnar’s matches, so many WWE matches follow the same samey structure. Invariably, we see dives, we see multiple finisher kick-outs, we hear the same calls, we see the same spots week in and week out, many of which cast its performers as dunces for falling into the same traps. WWE evidently fell for the spot in which Braun Strowman chases and bounces his opponents around the ringside area in a tag team scenario. That’s why it is already outstaying its welcome.

This is the inevitable result of WWE’s fast food mass production approach, and the controlling mentality of a Chairman intent on crippling micromanagement.

There is, even if indirectly, a silver lining to this bronze podium. If there is one constant underpinning Meltzer’s unassumingly eclectic preference, it is danger. The AJPW scene of the 1990s, a veritable star shower, was defined by wonderful, long-form storytelling and an absorbing and anxious approach. The head drops and neck bumps ranged from disturbing to, in the case of Mitsuharu Misawa, tragic. The now legendary match between Okada and Omega, at NJPW Wrestle Kingdom 11, saw the latter almost destroy the neck of the former by striking him with a sickening top rope dragon suplex.

Even more recently, Marty Scurll at Sakura Genesis reached the Wrestling Observer’s pinnacle. Tellingly, he did so in a preposterously violent match so dangerous that Will Ospreay almost missed WrestleMania weekend. He didn’t, perhaps addicted to this dubious critical acclaim and the aura it shapes. WWE consciously avoids this approach by putting its performers through an altogether different stupidly stacked schedule of a wringer. Watching a WWE match is nowhere near as dramatic - or terrifying. Perhaps that is for the best, no matter how astute Meltzer’s tastes.

WWE also butchers the potential of its matches with a counterproductive purpose. Consider the abysmal main event of Backlash. In a futile attempt to cast Roman Reigns as a popular babyface, WWE deliberately bored the audience into a response. Samoa Joe was instructed to apply the dreaded chin lock - shorthand for tedious stalling - for five draining minutes. The intention was to encourage fans to get behind Roman to do something, anything, approaching the high-octane action to which they are now accustomed. This reaction did not materialise; instead, the New Jersey fans saw through the transparency and beat the traffic. Meltzer didn’t have to rate the match *1/2. Not really. WWE laid the main event out to be that bad by design.

Conversely, WWE undercards are routinely praised.

I’m going to slip into the first person, since this entire debate is all a matter of opinion anyhow. Evidently, I’m very appreciative of Meltzer. His rating system encouraged me to seek out the international and historical reaches of pro wrestling throughout my fandom. But his ****1/4 rating of Clash of Champion’s nonsensical Fatal 4-Way tag team match proved that, if anything, he is sometimes too kind to a product that, despite the bluster of those on the inside, all too often makes little sense.

Is Dave Meltzer biased against WWE? The verdict is not conclusive. There’s no way that No Mercy 2002 tag match wasn’t pure perfection, though.

But, as his critics are very quick to point out, it is just the opinion of one man - so why does that opinion matter most to those who supposedly don’t care about it?