goodhelmet

When is Ross's last day on the job?

6/9/95 is what I meant. I usually generalize with 6/3/94 because I have never read of anyone who knows the history leading up to the match not call it a *****. Same thing with 6-9-95 or 12-6-96.

I dont think that fine of a line can be drawn. However, I can clearly say I enjoy match X more than I enjoy match Y. However, when you rate them with stars, it makes it easier to see what match you like best. We did it in a previous thread with 12/6/96 and 6/9/95. We argued what was the better ***** match. NO star ratings needed. I'm not arguing your star ratings except to compare them to your other star ratings, or in the above mentioned example, your ranking. I have several match reviews in the match review folder that I think put over the merits of a match without having to resort to star ratings. Nothing intellectually dishonest about it. You can tell by my words which matches I think are great or have problems and it would be easy for me to list them from top to bottom without using star ratings. Really, after watching hundreds of NWA squashes, it makes you appreciate the really good matches that much more. However, if you define a **** match as a great match then you should be critical of what gets labelled as a GREAT match. Why have a match at ***3/4? Probably because it is lacking a particular element that makes it great. I must have overlooked this. No, you gave both of them star ratings and labelled them as great matches. Of course, with the star rating, you are comparing the two. I never ever said you thought they were equal or that you gave them both *****, only that you put both in high standing. I question the Warrior-Savage even more so because I think that is an absolutely dreadful match but you hold it in high esteem. Once again, with the star ratings, it makes it easier for me to dispute you by referring to your own ratings compared to other ratings you have made, not with my own particular star rating. I addressed this above. I'll give youdates next time. You see the point I was making but it's hard to debate? I'll admit I was generalizing but I thought you knew me well enough to understand what I was saying. I'll be more clear next time. Ok, Eddy-JBL, Duggan-DiBiase, Slaughter-Sheik, MX vs. Fans 3-26-88. I would venture to say all of these are around the **** range for me. You chose to rate them higher but we both agree they are great matches. The only real objection or voice of discontent is on three matches where are views are widespread.... Stemaboat-Savage, Hogan-Savage, Warrior-Savage. That's it. However, I would rank two of those matches closer to matches that suck, for shits and giggles ** tops, and you have them hovering around ****. It's no different than you calling JBL-Eddie ****1/2 and SK calling it ** or whatever he said it was. The big difference is that I continually question SK's or Meltzer's "wacky" ratings yet I have only questioned 3 of yours. And once upon a time, we had a big Warrior-Savage debate thread that is lost and I don't want to relive it. Not really. Only because if their is something you see as completely out-of-whack then you are going to question it. In this case, it is the Savage matches. I agree with you that the first 20 matches on your list are great matches. Then I keep chugging along and see some "abnormalities" that don't jive with my opinion or are in the same ballpark. Of course I am going to question the star rating. I guess this is talking about Hogan-Savage to Misawa-Kawada which I already covered above. Once again, it was only a comparison of one of your star ratings compared to another one of your star ratings. Maybe you haven't noticed but this isn't exactly a busy forum and you and I just happen to be the most active participants. If it seems like I am "anxious" to call you out, it might be because there isn't too much debate going on. If you are talking about some other matters, please enlighten me. In relation to your other star ratings, yes. I guess this has to do with me claiming I don't know what makes the difference between a ****1/4 and ****1/2 match. Once again, it was only a comparison of your star rating in relation to your other star ratings... of which you have 200+. It's really easy for me to see JBL-Eddie at the same level as Warrior-Savage and want to question it. Or see Baba-Destroyer above the 6-3-94 and raise an eyebrow because no one has ever made tthat assertion before.

What do you mean I don't understand how star ratings work??? Of course I do. Because I choose not to attach a star rating to a match it means I can't question someone else's rating? Of course I can. If Misawa-Kawada is a bonafide ***** match then on a comparitive scale, there is no way Hogan-Savage matches up with the true **** matches out there. It is why we BOTH question Meltzer giving the last TNA main event *****. It is why we both jump on the attack when people praise the over-hyped Kurt Angle match and are quick to point out the flaws. It is also why we are capable of praising a Slaughter-Sheik match, a JBL match or a Duggan match because these guys are historically known as bad workers but we can overlook popular opinion and evaluate matches on their own merits. We can also admit when a Chris Benoit or (gasp~!) a Ricky Steamboat match sucks. We can and do evaluate matches based on merit and not on some star rating When you give Warrior-Savage ****1/2 then you would hold it up against any other ****1/2 match... not just ****1/2 WWF matches. On your list, you have it right smack dab in the middle of a bunch of great matches from different promotions. However, when someone disagrees on the worth of a match then it can and will be questioned and evaluated. I know in my heart of hearts that Warrior-Savage is inferior to the best ****1/2 Misawa/Kobashi/Kawada matches. I choose not to rate matches according to 1/4 stars because I think it is frivolous but when someone does put those star ratings out there then they should receive scrutiny. However, I think I am capable, even though you would have a hard time admitting it publicly, of properly evaluating a match on its own merits without resorting to star ratings to support my opinions. I like the fact that you use star ratings. It makes debates like this much easier to know where you stand on a particular subject. I know that you think Steamboat-Hart is better than JBL-Taker because your star ratings indicate it. However, I think sometimes that you can only see so many *** matches that after awhile it becomes pointless to label them as such. If a star rating was mandatory for every single match we reviewed, why do you only bother to give ratings to *** and above? Why do you choose to omit your ratings from certain forums when posting your thoughts on the matches? If the star is what matters, then shouldn't it be done for all matches? So, ultimately when we complete ranking these matches, does every match have to have a star rating? No. But when they are put out there for the world to see, it raises a flag when the words describing the match don't match the action on the screen. Hell, if not for Tim, I don't know if I would have ever seen JBL-Eddie. In Tim's assessment, he had no star rating or list of where it stood compare to other great matches but I think it was clear enough that his evaluation made it hard to dispute its greatness. I could have taken SK's wword that it was a match that was watchable because it had blood and little else. You've had dozens of matches in your list that I agree 100% with you yet I disagree with you on 3 matches so I don't grasp the way star ratings work? Give me a break.

As was Hogan-Savage and Savage-Warrior, moreso than Steamboat-Savage. It is only mentioned because Steamboat, who is known for NOT planning out matches, mentioned it whenever asked about it, yet he still continues to call the Savage matches some of the best of his career. I will and there will be more to come when I sit down and watch it again. You're right. It isnt on the same planet. The Steamboat match is much better. Absolutely, you can. This is like saying that everyone in your audience enjoys the same things. I am not even worried about winners and losers. I am specifically referencing the match itself. If someone is no-selling Macho Man elbows, the way we criticize Angle for popping up after Rolling Germans or Ric Flair forgetting to sell the knee after a figure four then we put them through the ringers... Wrestlemania or not. It kills the suspension of disbeleif when we were lead to believe that the move is a killer sure-fire way of ending the match. I had the same problem with Warrior-Savage that I have with Savage-Hogan. I didn't say it was actively bad but I have seen too many **** matches to believe that this one can stand with the best matches I have seen. It is merely adequate. As for the Steamboat-Savage match, I wouldnt call it **** or ***** either BUT that has more to do with what is surrounding it in the WWF than what the match actually is. The WM3 match does not match up favorably against Jumbo-Funk, Misawa-Kawada, JOe-Punk, etc. However, when I see a star rating that suggests that Hogan-Savage is as good as any other **** match I have sene, I simply do not believe it. It is like me viewing Bret-Owen and calling it ***** and then revisiting it 5 years later and realize that it is a very good match that cannot compete with the best matches that have happened. Maybe I have more of a problem with your star ratings than your feelings with the match. Bell rang... will finish up shortly.

Hogan's blatant no selling, kicking out of the elbows, the puffy face and hulking up routine. you said it yourself... it was for the kids and it is expected, just like a Flair flop or running on the apron to get press slammed off the top. However, if a particular match does not call for those things then there is absolutely no reason to do them. As for being rehearsed and by the numbers, I could say the exact same thing about Warrior-Savage but you would defend that match to the ends of the earth. However, when watching it, I know it was rehearsed NOW but I certainly had no idea when the match was going on. If you are going to criticize this particular match for being rehearsed then you should be prepared to do that for nearly every Savage match in existence. Hell, I thought the Hogan-Savage match looked much more choreographed than anything in the Steamboat match save the George Steele interference.

I think it is Randy Savage's greatest carry job. I think I said as much in my review but the match suffers because of Hogan's participation. I also cannot agree with your assessment that since people expect Hogan to be hokey that it is ok. It may make the crowd cheer, it may be "fun", but it doesn't make the match better. Not only did it meet expectations, it far exceeded them. Maybe it didn't meet your expectations because you didn't experience it live or were too young to understand what was going on at the time. That isn't an insult esp. since every Japanese match I watch, I could only rely on a modern perspective and wasn't there. Maybe you did watch it live. However, These two stole the show in the biggest event in wrestling history at the time. Steamboat played his role to perfection. Savage played his. While Steele's interference may be annoying, it was absolutely just desserts for those of us who saw Steele fawn over Elizabeth as Savage abused her time and again. When I saw this match in 1999, it was the first time I had seen it in 12 years. I was shocked at how much I still liked the match. about every year and a half I have revisited the match and it still holds up. While I am being exposed to new matches and excited over discovering more, I can't really accurately compare them fairly to this match because this match has stood the test of time like few other WWF matches have. The staying power has been amazing.

Because I posted my thoughts less than a year ago on every supposedly worthwhile Wrestlemania match at SNKT, I really didn't feel like doing it again. However, for a match that was hailed as the best WWF match of the 80s, The Savage-Steamboat affair has held up remarkably well, IMO and the Savage-Hogan match was a Savage carry-job tha was nearly ruined by Hogan's hokey routine.

I wish SNKT had not gone down because I could not disagree with you more about the last two matches.

I have devised a color code system to keep track of the matches. If I feel a match is a great match, I place it in the green zone. If I enjoy the hell out of a match but don't know if it truly worthy of a top 20 spot, I place it in the light green zone. I have seen quite a few matches that don't offend me but are nothing special. These are your middle-of-the-road matches that I tagged orange. Then there are the clipped to hell matches that prevent me from truly evaluating the true worth of the match. These get tagged light red. Then I have matches that I think flat out suck or are overrated that I am upset better matches were overlooked. These are tagged dark red. Eventually, I will have an idea of where all of the matches will go. The last 20 or so will probably be interchangeable and be in no particular order. The middle of the road matches will probably get looked over but I'll try and place them the best I can. The really good matches might get a reviewing if I want to re-evaluate their position. The top 20 will def. get repeated viewings. Hell, I have already watched the boot camp match 4 times and still have problems knowing where it will place in my Top 5.

Pinned!!! Since Tim, Loss, WP, and myself have this set, I know there is going to be alot of talk going on in the next couple of months.

I wish alot of us had these so people would start discussing them more. I only think a small handful of people here actually possess them.

ROH doesn't ship to England?

Oh, there is no comparison between the two. #2 blows away the first match BUT you need the first match to truly appreciate the second... which is wierd coming from my mouth. And you need both to appreciate the third.

Notes from this week's Observer on Lesnar and New Japan: ---On 8/30, WWE asked for everything to be sealed as it pertains to the lawsuit and countersuit and it was approved on 9/20. Neither side is allowed to say a thing. Meltz speculates that something probably happened beofre 8/30 that damaged their position and they want to keep it quiet. ---It is unknown if the settlement will keep Lesnar from working for TNA or not. ---It is specualted that the WWE offer was far less than the million dollar downside guarantee of the original contract and Lesnar called the offer insulting. It was a tactical error on WWE's part because they were offering him less than market value that they themselves had helped create so there was no reason to uphold the non-compete clause. ---Lesnar turning down the offer came about the same time that the judge ordered them to settle rather than going forward, which in turn ended the WWE's "starve him out" stalling tactic.

To clarify once again, I thought Loss made the "winter is cold" post but... OK, well I really don't know what you expect from wrestling then if you didn't enjoy the Liger stuff or the Joe-Punk feud.

Dude, you have watched 2002 ROH which Tim has told you countless times to take sparingly... but given the context of what was going on at the time, I would have watched 2002 ROH over anything else going on at the time. And yes... you are generalizing. EDIT: I was replying to Rudo's post thinking it was Loss and did not see Loss's actual post.

I still think you are harping on the bad and completely ignoring the positive. Hell, the worst match I have seen in the last 3 years was Homicide-Trent Acid from Wrestlerave 03. Just an embarassing piece of trash. However, this company has also given me great matches like Joe-Punk 2 that I think are non-robotic, non-paint by numbers, non-business exposing, non-masturbatory bullshit. Watch the James Gibson matches from this year. The company practically re-invented this guy's career. You can easily follow the stories of guys that might interest you and you can also choose to ignore the ones that don't... just like any other promotion.

The thing is that ratings for WWE are ultimately meaningless now because they get zero revenue from the commerical advertising. The only way they can use ratings is to hope that increased ratings will mean increased house attendance.

Well, here is one buyer right here. Now, if in 3-4 months, the direction is to keep JJ strong at the expense of Monty Brown (who I know nothing about) and Samoa Joe then they will turn away viewers faster than they make them.

What happened?

My God, Loiseau F***ed that dude up!!!! Too bad UFC isn't going to get the ratings they deserve because the little bit I saw tonight was really entertaining.