How Valid Is the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Star Ratings System?

Though it is solely the opinion of one man, wrestlers and fans alike hold Dave Meltzer's five-star rating system in high regard.  Is something so subjective really worth the weight we give it?

A respected wrestling writer, Meltzer started publishing Wrestling Observer Newsletter in 1983.  The publication is most well-known for the match rating system which factors in the feud, the wrestlers' workrate, crowd reaction among other things. 

Matches are awarded one to five stars.  Particularly terrible matches may receive a negative rating. 

While not quite as influential as Oprah's seal of approval, the five-star system is taken as an honor by wrestlers and used by wrestling writers to help evaluate greatness. 

With a sport with no real stats, it's hard to determine how one wrestler is better than another.  The five star system is one of the few tangible tools we can use in our debates. 

Meltzer has been criticized for having an anti-WWE bias and favoring the Japanese promotions. 

Until John Cena and CM Punk earned a five-star rating for their Money in the Bank clash, a WWE match hadn't earned that honor since Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker in the first Hell in a Cell. 

Meltzer would then have us believe that from 1997 to 2011, there were no WWE five-star matches?

A lot of matches stand out that didn't make the cut.  Chris Benoit vs. Kurt Angle at Royal Rumble 2003 and Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 25 come to mind right away.

If those aren't five-star matches, one has to question just how much we can depend on the system. 

John Cena has one five-star match under his belt.  Triple H, Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle have a total of zero.   

I have to wonder if Meltzer can even watch every match put on by every promotion.  Mexican's AAA promotion has only earned one five-star rating ever.  Is that because the wrestling there is just that inferior or does Meltzer not watch every Mexican match?

You can't fault Meltzer, though, as he never claimed that the ratings were anything more than opinion.  It's just that his opinion is now so respected that earning five stars from him has become a priceless badge. 

What happens when he retires?  Will he pass on the reins to someone else? 

It is a valuable asset to have the ratings to refer to, something to separate the classics from the all-time classics. 

Because Kurt Angle vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 21 got a four and 3/4 rating while Randy Savage vs. Ricky Steamboat at WrestleMania III received four and 1/2 stars doesn't mean it's unequivocally better, but it's a starting point for discussion. 

Partly why his system has become such a staple in wrestling conversation is a lack of a true alternative. 

Pro Wrestling Illustrated awards a Match of the Year.  Countless blogs and forums try to evaluate matches.  But nothing else has the prestige of a Wrestling Observer Newsletter five-star rating.

Despite it being one man's opinion, despite an apparent Japanese preference, despite having holes one could pick at, garnering a Dave Meltzer's five-star rating is a treasured career achievement for every wrestler. 

Unless something better comes along or Meltzer decides he's had enough, we will continue to look to him for answers, continue to argue or agree with his evaluations.