Is it Fine for Someone to Develop an Opinion by Just Reading Results?

[Exposer]

After reading about this for a page and a half in the WWE thread with potshots included I thought I'd make a thread for it.

 

I read the Smackdown results every week. Sometimes, I'm unable to watch the show because I'm either out with friends, forget to tape it, or just don't get around to watching it or any of the pimped stuff from each show. With that, I do find myself forming an opinion on what I read. I'm able to ignore the jackasses who write these reviews and develop my own opinion on what I've read about the show.

 

I think it's fine for opinions to be established from reading about shows. The direction of the company, the storylines, and the angles are very easy to follow from just reading results and other people's reviews. However, I do think that watching the shows can help people draw better and stronger conclusions about those things. One can find specific evidence from watching the shows to back up their opinions.

 

On another note, I find it ridiculous that people establish opinions on matches by just reading results. A few years ago Drew McIntyre was having a really hot year of free tv matches and he had a match with Daniel Bryan on Superstars. After reading the results I thought "there's no way this won't be great." I watched the match and it was disappointing. Bryan just went through his spots and the match felt like they were just going through the motions. It's just a terrible trait to have to assume a match is going to be something by merely hearing about it or skimming through reviews and results.

 

Therefore, I think someone CAN have an opinion on the direction of a company, angle, or storyline by just reading the results although I believe stronger opinions are formed from watching the shows. However, I am soundly against opinions on matches that haven't even been watched.

 

Argue away.

[stomperspc]

You cannot develop an opinion on the quality of something without watching it.

 

I am sure everyone reads results form shows and decides whether it "reads" good enough to actually watch. Nobody has time to watch everything so we all discern what is worth our time to watch that way. I wouldn't really consider that forming an opinion as much as making an assumption. You are assuming based on what you read that won't like (or will like) a match. Someone who actually watches the match in question can develop an opinion as to the quality of the match. If two people are debating a match and one person hasn't seen it, he has absolutely zero ground to stand on. If you are going to pass a judgment on the quality of a match or angle, you have to have seen it.

[KrisZ]

Sure you can form an opinion from reading results and the like but to go on and on about it arguing about something with people that actually watched it is ridiculous unless you watch it yourself.

[Dylan Waco]

I've never hit Exposer in the face with a claw hammer. How do I know it's something I won't enjoy if I haven't done it? How can I form an opinion on it at all if I haven't experienced it?

[Loss]

I've never hit Exposer in the face with a claw hammer. How do I know it's something I won't enjoy if I haven't done it? How can I form an opinion on it at all if I haven't experienced it?

Similarly, we've never been in the ring, so how do we know who is and isn't a great worker? Sounds familiar, right?

 

I agree with the original point that it's dumb to criticize matches I haven't watched and I would never do that. But I think general direction and booking choices are fair game.

[Dylan Waco]

I agree obviously, but I"m in between Johnny's position and Matt's in the sense that I'm much more likely to listen to criticism from a regular viewer and/or take it seriously then I am by someone who occasionally skims results. On the other hand we all form opinions on whether or not products, events and choices are worth are time without watching, experiencing, doing them and it seems silly to argue that those who say "I read the results and this looks like I would hate it" are "wrong" to say that.

[Matt D]

It's like anything else. You have to admit and understand your bias and then use that as a gauge to how far you want to go with things. The more you know about a topic the more confident you might be in arguing the point. At the same time, you have to be wary about the fact that you might be wrong. Everyone on this board is capable of having a pretty legitimate opinion from reading spoilers, I think.

 

I can go "Hey, Will, do you think that Smackdown is going to be good based on the spoilers and how the shows have been over the last few months?" and I would respect his opinion. I could also ask. "So based on your years of watching wrestling, what do you think about that booking decision in the main event," and again, I'd be interested in what he would have to say. Would I take it as gospel? No, but I also wouldn't if he had seen it.

 

We're not arguing truth about this stuff. A booking decision can't be objectively good (unless, I guess, it draws? and even then). It's all opinion and I'm going to factor in what I know about the person and some of that is whether or not they've actually seen it or not. I also factor in that Johnny has been positive about every single thing over the last 9 months. Some of that i'm sure is to combat people have been negative about every single thing over the last nine months. It doesn't mean I discount him or accept him out of hand, but I keep it in mind.

[NintendoLogic]

There's also the fact that the company in question has a track record of delivering disappointing payoffs. It's perfectly reasonable for people to be apprehensive when they read something that sets off alarm bells.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Track record is a crutch to be a curmudgeon. The idea that you can judge something and then complain about it based on some yahoos report and preconceptions is flawed and highly illogical.

[Matt D]

You can take pre-existing information and extrapolate possibilities. I think you may actually use logic to do it. Sometimes you might even go "hey, this sounds great. I want to see it."

[JerryvonKramer]

On the one hand, we had years and years of people taking received opinions as gospel, of workers' reps riding on second-hand hearsay about matches literally a handful of people had actually seen. See Bruiser Brody thread for more. There is no substitute for actually watching stuff.

 

On the other, it's usually possible to tell from a 30-second trailer if a film is any good or not. But then again most people will decide not to see the film and not to read more about the film and then write about why they think the film likely isn't very good on a message board. People are also generally not in the habit of moaning about TV shows they don't actually watch, what makes wrestling fans any different? I don't see it as a special case. My view is: if you're out, you're out. No reading recaps, commenting on stories, etc. If you're not watching, that's it: do something else.

[Johnny Sorrow]

You can take pre-existing information and extrapolate possibilities. I think you may actually use logic to do it. Sometimes you might even go "hey, this sounds great. I want to see it."

And you then may be disappointed. Make your own educated opinions based on the data provided. It's what Tuvok would do and he's a black Vulcan. Double cool.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

There's nothing wrong with bashing modern-day wrestling based only on show reviews or booking decisions. Nothing at all. Most people who do it have probably seen enough modern-day wrestling to know that they don't like it, so it's not like they're just pulling opinions out of their ass.

 

I'm not going to buy the next Nickelback album, but I'll still say it sucks. I've never eaten a McWrap/burger thingy from McDonald's, but I'll still tell you it tastes terrible. Why? Because I've heard enough Nickelback and eaten enough McDonald's to know that both things are god-awful.

 

That said, if people who are into the modern wrestling product are having a discussion about it on a forum, don't be a troll and butt in just to say how much it sucks if you don't watch it. I'm not going to log into a Nickelback or McDonald's forum just to proclaim how terrible their music/food is.

[BrickHithouse]

I'm not going to buy the next Nickelback album, but I'll still say it sucks.

Amen, brother. AMEN

[Loss]

Track record is a crutch to be a curmudgeon.

Or it's a good indicator of what to expect. It's like a relationship. If trust is broken, it can be earned back. It's just not easy and takes time.

[JerryvonKramer]

Track record is a crutch to be a curmudgeon.

Or it's a good indicator of what to expect. It's like a relationship. If trust is broken, it can be earned back. It's just not easy and takes time.

 

I don't think so for those of us who just have no interest in current WWE. Wrestling now and the wrestling that brought me to the dance are completely different. I still have a deep interest in the the latter, I have virtually none in current WWE. Current WWE will never go back to being the wrestling I am interested in. And even if it did -- it actually looks like it's on the road to recovery right now -- the presentational elements like the nu-metal music, Michael Cole, The Miz's face, HASHTAG HASHTAG and so on are just too far removed from anything I care about to get invested again. I will never ever be into Current WWE beyond giving it a cursory glance, even if it's actually good.

 

But how many times can I say that? That's why I think the less asshole-y position is to say "I'm out, the reasons are known" and that's it. There's no reason to keep on bashing the product after you've listed your reasons. I actually agree with Johnny about "negative nellyism".

[Johnny Sorrow]

Track record is a crutch to be a curmudgeon.

Or it's a good indicator of what to expect. It's like a relationship. If trust is broken, it can be earned back. It's just not easy and takes time.

 

But it's wrestling. An entertainment that constantly changes. Nickel back may do a good song and McDonalds may make a good sandwhich. You never know, and taking pre emptive strikes on anything is again, highly illogical.

[goodhelmet]

Ultimately, I think it depends on the source and trusting that source. I know Johnny is high on WWE (no pun intended). When I read his opinions on a show, I take that into consideration. I know there are posters here who make judgments without watching the product and continue to make negative comments without seeing it. I know not to take their opinions into account because I don't care what their opinion is (see Summerslam Thread for examples). I give credit to Dylan for watching the shows even though he is really down on the product right now. I enjoy it more than he does so I take his criticisms into account but don't countit as gospel.

 

I am more interested in checking out things that people recommend than I am reading about somebody shitting on something. Loss doesn't watch current WWE so I don't look to him for opinions on modern wrestling. However, I trust his opinion enough that if he recommends a match, I am going to check it out. Phil Schneider and I disagree on wrestling but our opinions align 90% of the time. If Phil recommends a match, I am going to watch it or take his opinion seriously. On the AWA wrestling podcasts, Kris Z, Johnny and I agreed most of the time (consensus) even though we all had matches we disagree on. Hell, Dylan, Kris and I agreed on 90% of the matches appearing on the set. I trust these guys with divergent opinions because I have a history with them.

 

The more interesting fascination I have is with a guy like Matt D. Matt's current obsession with Buddy Rose makes me think we have found something we can agree on. If Matt recommends a Buddy Rose match, I am going to watch it. If he recommends a Demolition match, I am bailing because I think Barry Darsow is one of a handful of worst wrestlers from the eighties and Matt's previous recommendations did nothing to change that. Having said that, at least he watches the matches!!! Now we need to work on the way he looks at lucha.

[Matt D]

Track record is a crutch to be a curmudgeon.

Or it's a good indicator of what to expect. It's like a relationship. If trust is broken, it can be earned back. It's just not easy and takes time.

 

But it's wrestling. An entertainment that constantly changes. Nickel back may do a good song and McDonalds may make a good sandwhich. You never know, and taking pre emptive strikes on anything is again, highly illogical.

 

You keep using that word....

 

One uses logic to derive patterns from preexisting information in order to make decisions in life when it comes how to spend your time, money, etc. That's how we interface and understand the world around us.

 

Moreover, it's insane to continue to do the same thing and somehow expect different results.

 

The more interesting fascination I have is with a guy like Matt D. Matt's current obsession with Buddy Rose makes me think we have found something we can agree on. If Matt recommends a Buddy Rose match, I am going to watch it. If he recommends a Demolition match, I am bailing because I think Barry Darsow is one of a handful of worst wrestlers from the eighties and Matt's previous recommendations did nothing to change that. Having said that, at least he watches the matches!!! Now we need to work on the way he looks at lucha.

I always try to explain why i like or don't like something though! I spend lots of time doing that. I'm generally consistent too. Sometimes we like things for the same reasons, I think. Sometimes we like or dislike them for different reasons. That's a testament to Buddy, by the way. If there's something we find common ground on, whether it's Buddy or Bock or what, it has to be pretty damn good.

[Death From Above]

Shortest answer I can give: depends on the quality of the write up.

 

I followed TNA this way for a couple years.

[Chess Knight]

I remember when Brodus Clay first became the Funkasaurus (and I had only read about it), and I was annoyed because I wanted another PHAT monster heel that I thought I was getting. Then I actually watched the debut of the Funkasaurus and it blew my friggin mind out of my head.

[Dylan Waco]

I would note that I am actually a pretty big fan of a lot of the things the WWE does and I am far from angry about the direction of the Bryan storyline, I just don't like the way some of it has been executed.

[Jimmy Redman]

I think it's fine for people to read spoilers and come to their own conclusions about how the show looks, but I also think that in the grand scale of wrestling opinions, that one isn't as valid as the one from someone who has actually watched the show. You can make an informed guess as to what the show probably looked like, and whether you would have liked it or not, but you won't know for sure until you actually watch it.

 

There are too many times where I and other people have read spoilers and thought "that sounds awesome/awful" and then got to the show and ended up thinking "wow, that wasn't so bad/that was disappointing", or any variation therein. Some things read better than they are. Some things read worse. Sometimes spoilers are wrong or incomplete or leave out a crucial piece of information. And they certainly can't communicate things like crowd heat, facial expressions, verbal delivery, match quality, and so on.

 

Just look at the Observer this week. At KOTR 1996 Steve Austin "cut a strong post-match promo" on Jake Roberts. If you had read the Observer report without watching the show, I mean that is a completely 100% accurate description of what happened, but if you didn't see the promo you wouldn't really understand just what that means. And that goes for everything, good, bad or indifferent.

 

Again I have no objection to people reading spoilers and making their judgments. I do it all the time with TNA, and have my opinions about that. But I admit that it doesn't make me as informed as someone who watches every Impact.

 

I think the only issue arises when you have such a discrepancy in opinions, where one guy says "that sounds like shit" and another one says "well I actually watched it and it was fine" and nobody being able to budge. The watcher feels it is unfair for the reader to judge something that ended up fine, and the reader doesn't want to sit through something that sounds like shit.

[cm funk]

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at spoilers/results and purely analyzing the booking. Having opinions like, "that guy shouldn't lose a match to that guy right now" or "that angle looks like it sucks, why would they do that" or even "I don't like Orton standing over Bryan being the end of seven straight shows!" I generally get a pretty good idea of if I want to watch a show or not from spoilers, and my initial impressions on the booking generally tend to stay the same.

 

I know that's what this thread stems from, Johnny Sorrow's one man crusade to defend WWE over at DVDVR. I wish everyone would just stop sniping and calling out people for having opinions about things, it made this week's RAW thread over there practically unreadable. The guy who doesn't watch the show (or WWE at all for that matter) and still comments on it as if he did, he deserves to get called out. The guy who goes, "THAT'S IT! I'M DONE! I'VE WATCHED FOR 13 YEARS BUT THIS IS THE LAST STRAW!" needs to seriously get called out. But a lot of people were getting called out for simply having opinions against WWE booking, or lack of faith in WWE booking. Johnny Sorrow, hate to call you out, but you were just as bad and annoying as anyone in that thread.

 

I also saw a comment Johnny made where he said commentary, production, stuff added post that wasn't in the spoilers adds to show, and you don't get the actual experience of a show without watching it. Which is absolutely true. But that stuff doesn't change the bare bones booking. It can enhance it, but that's all the gaga stuff that we know WWE is good at. But I'd also add that WWE commentary rarely adds anything of great value to a show in my opinion. Rarely does it raise a match from bad to good or good to great. It's mostly just background noise to me, though the different teams do have their moments. I've also been a diehard WWE watcher for a long time, so the production and all that, I already know it's going to be well done and add to the show, but it's rarely going to surprise me.

[goc]

I think it's ok to talk about booking decisions for something you've only read results for, even though you have to accept that your opinion counts less than people who actually watched the show. It IS pretty asinine however to argue match quality of matches you only read results of.