Match Ratings - Doing Away With the Meltzer * Formula

[funkdoc]

 

 

(2) I think what people are saying is that they would rather watch Tenta's good match than someone else's great one, which has nothing to do with quality and far more to do with personal mood and watchability.

 

how do you think you can objectively define "quality"? this is the issue people like jimmy redman and myself have.

 

i flat-out don't think it's possible. the issue is that seeing merit in anything requires you to buy into a surrounding value system that prizes the qualities you think are "objectively" important. and that value system itself may not necessarily have any objective arguments in its favor, or have strong arguments against it.

 

for instance, i could easily picture someone not rating any 90s AJPW ***+ because of the long-term effects of the style. they would basically be saying "celebrating these matches is implicitly celebrating brain damage, and that's such an important issue to me that it overrides anything the matches themselves have to offer". and i think that would be a perfectly reasonable viewpoint as long as it's applied to other culpable wrestling out there. i don't see any concrete case for "the art and the personal are separate" being inherently more valid than "the art and the personal are linked".

 

or imagine someone who doesn't get much out of even the most celebrated wrestling stories, like magnum-tully. this person has also been desensitized to highspot wrestling. so they end up seeing the corniness/weirdness as the creative heart & soul of wrestling, and could consider a lot of 80s WWF straight-up better than the stuff i've mentioned in this post. if they can explain why they've ended up turning the smart-fan value system on its head, how can you say their opinion is any less relevant than anyone else's?

[funkdoc]

 

it's also $20 and extremely short for a video game (you can finish it in an hour or so), and there isn't a lot of "action" in the conventional sense (the entire game is looking at objects in a house to piece together the story).

Am I anti-art for thinking that sounds like a boring rip-off?

 

 

maybe, maybe not. you can't really tell just from one opinion!

 

what this *does* tell me, though, is that you aren't the intended audience for the game. i know plenty of queer people who have said this game hit them on a level that virtually no other video game, and few other creative works, ever have.

 

a lot of modern indie games are speaking to audiences that have been ignored for ages by popular media. gone home is actually *less* overt about this than some of the other notable games that it gets grouped with; look up dys4ia sometime and you should see what i mean.

 

 

BTW The Man In Blak, you aren't "a man in black" of anti-gater fame, right? anyway, great post - it's rad as heck to see someone in that field on here!

[Johnny Sorrow]

It's a difficult one though.

 

Chief Jay Strongbow vs. Mr. Fuji at MSG has an electric crowd, it's electric. Every single move counts. The psychology is absolutely spot on for that crowd at that time. You can't fault either guy for not doing more than they had to. You can't fault their timing either. I still thought the match was absolutely horrible.

 

Who is right? Me or the crowd?

If you're gonna limit it to just that, which is insane, than the crowd . But it's not as simple as that while being incredibly simple. Fuji and Strongbow gave THEIR AUDIENCE what they wanted to see. You can look at it and say "But it stunk!". And that's completely irrelevant. It was never meant to be something looked back at. It existed within its time and place with the only goal being engaging the live audience they were performing in front of.

[Loss]

 

 

 

(2) I think what people are saying is that they would rather watch Tenta's good match than someone else's great one, which has nothing to do with quality and far more to do with personal mood and watchability.

 

how do you think you can objectively define "quality"? this is the issue people like jimmy redman and myself have.

 

i flat-out don't think it's possible. the issue is that seeing merit in anything requires you to buy into a surrounding value system that prizes the qualities you think are "objectively" important. and that value system itself may not necessarily have any objective arguments in its favor, or have strong arguments against it.

 

for instance, i could easily picture someone not rating any 90s AJPW ***+ because of the long-term effects of the style. they would basically be saying "celebrating these matches is implicitly celebrating brain damage, and that's such an important issue to me that it overrides anything the matches themselves have to offer". and i think that would be a perfectly reasonable viewpoint as long as it's applied to other culpable wrestling out there. i don't see any concrete case for "the art and the personal are separate" being inherently more valid than "the art and the personal are linked".

 

or imagine someone who doesn't get much out of even the most celebrated wrestling stories, like magnum-tully. this person has also been desensitized to highspot wrestling. so they end up seeing the corniness/weirdness as the creative heart & soul of wrestling, and could consider a lot of 80s WWF straight-up better than the stuff i've mentioned in this post. if they can explain why they've ended up turning the smart-fan value system on its head, how can you say their opinion is any less relevant than anyone else's?

 

 

I have never said objectivity can be achieved. In fact, I'll say for the third time in this thread that knowing that, I still think it's worth striving for, knowing we'll fail all the while. It's not about liking what you like. Everyone should like what they like. But "I liked it" and "It was good" are mutually exclusive.

 

As one example, I liked Angle-Show at Backlash 2000. It wasn't a great match. That's not me establishing that I'm objective, that's me making an attempt to be objective. An attempt.

 

If people have different takeaways, that's fine. It's up to everyone to figure out how they are going to rate, watch and talk about wrestling. But where people lose me is when two wrestlers do the exact same thing and one gets criticized for it while the other gets praised for it. That's the kind of objectivity I like to see at least attempted in match reviews - not factually correct opinions (that idea is laughable), but not trashing matches solely because of predisposition against the wrestlers, or the fans of the wrestlers, or the promotion it happens in, or some other environmental factor.

 

It's not about objectivity for me. It's about consistency. And really, "fair" is a better word than objective here. It bugs me when I think people aren't giving something a fair chance. If they are, whatever takeaways they have aren't going to get too many objections from me, even if they are drastically different from my opinions.

[Loss]

I also want to add that I cannot objectively define quality. But I can have an idea in my head of what quality is and hold everything to that single standard. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

It's a difficult one though.

Chief Jay Strongbow vs. Mr. Fuji at MSG has an electric crowd, it's electric. Every single move counts. The psychology is absolutely spot on for that crowd at that time. You can't fault either guy for not doing more than they had to. You can't fault their timing either. I still thought the match was absolutely horrible.

Who is right? Me or the crowd?

If you're gonna limit it to just that, which is insane, than the crowd . But it's not as simple as that while being incredibly simple. Fuji and Strongbow gave THEIR AUDIENCE what they wanted to see. You can look at it and say "But it stunk!". And that's completely irrelevant. It was never meant to be something looked back at. It existed within its time and place with the only goal being engaging the live audience they were performing in front of.

I honestly think you're not just anti-criticism (as in being critical of whatever), you are actually against the critical process of assessment and evaluation.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) I think what people are saying is that they would rather watch Tenta's good match than someone else's great one, which has nothing to do with quality and far more to do with personal mood and watchability.

how do you think you can objectively define "quality"? this is the issue people like jimmy redman and myself have.

 

i flat-out don't think it's possible. the issue is that seeing merit in anything requires you to buy into a surrounding value system that prizes the qualities you think are "objectively" important. and that value system itself may not necessarily have any objective arguments in its favor, or have strong arguments against it.

 

for instance, i could easily picture someone not rating any 90s AJPW ***+ because of the long-term effects of the style. they would basically be saying "celebrating these matches is implicitly celebrating brain damage, and that's such an important issue to me that it overrides anything the matches themselves have to offer". and i think that would be a perfectly reasonable viewpoint as long as it's applied to other culpable wrestling out there. i don't see any concrete case for "the art and the personal are separate" being inherently more valid than "the art and the personal are linked".

 

or imagine someone who doesn't get much out of even the most celebrated wrestling stories, like magnum-tully. this person has also been desensitized to highspot wrestling. so they end up seeing the corniness/weirdness as the creative heart & soul of wrestling, and could consider a lot of 80s WWF straight-up better than the stuff i've mentioned in this post. if they can explain why they've ended up turning the smart-fan value system on its head, how can you say their opinion is any less relevant than anyone else's?

I have never said objectivity can be achieved. In fact, I'll say for the third time in this thread that knowing that, I still think it's worth striving for, knowing we'll fail all the while. It's not about liking what you like. Everyone should like what they like. But "I liked it" and "It was good" are mutually exclusive.

 

As one example, I liked Angle-Show at Backlash 2000. It wasn't a great match. That's not me establishing that I'm objective, that's me making an attempt to be objective. An attempt.

 

If people have different takeaways, that's fine. It's up to everyone to figure out how they are going to rate, watch and talk about wrestling. But where people lose me is when two wrestlers do the exact same thing and one gets criticized for it while the other gets praised for it. That's the kind of objectivity I like to see at least attempted in match reviews - not factually correct opinions (that idea is laughable), but not trashing matches solely because of predisposition against the wrestlers, or the fans of the wrestlers, or the promotion it happens in, or some other environmental factor.

 

It's not about objectivity for me. It's about consistency. And really, "fair" is a better word than objective here. It bugs me when I think people aren't giving something a fair chance. If they are, whatever takeaways they have aren't going to get too many objections from me, even if they are drastically different from my opinions.

Just because we can't be completely objective does not mean there is not an objective basis for good art.

[BillThompson]

 

 

 

 

 

(2) I think what people are saying is that they would rather watch Tenta's good match than someone else's great one, which has nothing to do with quality and far more to do with personal mood and watchability.

how do you think you can objectively define "quality"? this is the issue people like jimmy redman and myself have.

 

i flat-out don't think it's possible. the issue is that seeing merit in anything requires you to buy into a surrounding value system that prizes the qualities you think are "objectively" important. and that value system itself may not necessarily have any objective arguments in its favor, or have strong arguments against it.

 

for instance, i could easily picture someone not rating any 90s AJPW ***+ because of the long-term effects of the style. they would basically be saying "celebrating these matches is implicitly celebrating brain damage, and that's such an important issue to me that it overrides anything the matches themselves have to offer". and i think that would be a perfectly reasonable viewpoint as long as it's applied to other culpable wrestling out there. i don't see any concrete case for "the art and the personal are separate" being inherently more valid than "the art and the personal are linked".

 

or imagine someone who doesn't get much out of even the most celebrated wrestling stories, like magnum-tully. this person has also been desensitized to highspot wrestling. so they end up seeing the corniness/weirdness as the creative heart & soul of wrestling, and could consider a lot of 80s WWF straight-up better than the stuff i've mentioned in this post. if they can explain why they've ended up turning the smart-fan value system on its head, how can you say their opinion is any less relevant than anyone else's?

I have never said objectivity can be achieved. In fact, I'll say for the third time in this thread that knowing that, I still think it's worth striving for, knowing we'll fail all the while. It's not about liking what you like. Everyone should like what they like. But "I liked it" and "It was good" are mutually exclusive.

 

As one example, I liked Angle-Show at Backlash 2000. It wasn't a great match. That's not me establishing that I'm objective, that's me making an attempt to be objective. An attempt.

 

If people have different takeaways, that's fine. It's up to everyone to figure out how they are going to rate, watch and talk about wrestling. But where people lose me is when two wrestlers do the exact same thing and one gets criticized for it while the other gets praised for it. That's the kind of objectivity I like to see at least attempted in match reviews - not factually correct opinions (that idea is laughable), but not trashing matches solely because of predisposition against the wrestlers, or the fans of the wrestlers, or the promotion it happens in, or some other environmental factor.

 

It's not about objectivity for me. It's about consistency. And really, "fair" is a better word than objective here. It bugs me when I think people aren't giving something a fair chance. If they are, whatever takeaways they have aren't going to get too many objections from me, even if they are drastically different from my opinions.

Just because we can't be completely objective does not mean there is not an objective basis for good art.

 

 

Yes, it does. There isn't a single aspect of art that is objective. Even down to the tiniest level quality is open for interpretation. That's why one person can say they love the way Cesaro hits the Big Swing; that it is technically sound, has ample rotations, etc. Someone else can say that the exact same Big Swing doesn't have enough spin, that he over-rotates, etc. There is no objective standard for art, only subjective interpretation.

[Badlittlekitten]

 

 

 

Yes, it does. There isn't a single aspect of art that is objective. Even down to the tiniest level quality is open for inter. There is no objective standard for art, only subjective interpretation.

 

Spot on. That's the whole fucking point in art.

[Loss]

Has anyone said anything to the contrary, really? The way the word "objectivity" is being used here, it's not about forming an opinion that is factually correct, it's about making comparisons that are as fair as possible.

[Grimmas]

I think it's possible that good art is good art and bad art is bad art regardless of the viewer/listener/reader.

[BillThompson]

I think it's possible that good art is good art and bad art is bad art regardless of the viewer/listener/reader.

 

That's not art though, that's ascribing standards which do not exist in the medium. Because if that's the case, then you say, "Pineapple Express is great, the way that they filmed the intro was pure class," and I can't say anything in return because you can't argue an objective standard.

[Grimmas]

 

I think it's possible that good art is good art and bad art is bad art regardless of the viewer/listener/reader.

 

That's not art though, that's ascribing standards which do not exist in the medium. Because if that's the case, then you say, "Pineapple Express is great, the way that they filmed the intro was pure class," and I can't say anything in return because you can't argue an objective standard.

 

I'm not saying we can't argue. I'm not using it to shut down arguments and I also don't have much evidence for it. It just seems fishy to me that the more someone gets into an art the more their views change and a lot of people's views converge.

[BillThompson]

 

 

I think it's possible that good art is good art and bad art is bad art regardless of the viewer/listener/reader.

 

That's not art though, that's ascribing standards which do not exist in the medium. Because if that's the case, then you say, "Pineapple Express is great, the way that they filmed the intro was pure class," and I can't say anything in return because you can't argue an objective standard.

 

I'm not saying we can't argue. I'm not using it to shut down arguments and I also don't have much evidence for it. It just seems fishy to me that the more someone gets into an art the more their views change and a lot of people's views converge.

 

 

I think the opposite happens actually. The more people explore art the more they realize it's okay to think differently. You need not accept Citizen Kane as a classic, or even think it's a well made film. Or, you don't have to bash Michael Bay just because everyone else does, you may discover facets of his filmmaking that you feel are worthy of the highest merit. The subjectivity of art breeds difference of opinion and difference of interest. It's why we all can like so many different things, or some of the same tings, or nothing at all.

[JerryvonKramer]

Absolute nonsense. If someone made a film that is literally inept it would be worse than a film that is competent. As in, there are portions where they accidentally left the cap on the camera lens. Where the audio isn't quite synced up to the images. Where the continuity editing is off. Where the script makes no sense and just loops back round incoherently. etc. etc. Not in any deliberate surreal or absurdist way, just in a way that is inept.

 

Similarly there are standards in wrestling. El Gigante couldn't fucking throw a punch or bump or feed or sell or do anything, he was inept. He was an appalling wrestler. There's no valid opinion that can get around to saying that El Gigante was better than Bret Hart. He simply wasn't.

 

The idea that "everything is subjective" therefore "all opinions are on the table and valid" is fucking stupid.

 

There is such a thing as skill. There is such a thing as competence and incompetence. There is such a thing as minimum standards.

 

Don't pretend there isn't. I don't see the point in pretending that.

 

Jimi Hendrix was a better guitarist than ... a man who can't play a guitar. It's as simple as that.

[Grimmas]

Parv and I on the same side, everybody back off!

[Loss]

I would also add that "it's all subjective" should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end.

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

 

It's a difficult one though.

Chief Jay Strongbow vs. Mr. Fuji at MSG has an electric crowd, it's electric. Every single move counts. The psychology is absolutely spot on for that crowd at that time. You can't fault either guy for not doing more than they had to. You can't fault their timing either. I still thought the match was absolutely horrible.

Who is right? Me or the crowd?

If you're gonna limit it to just that, which is insane, than the crowd . But it's not as simple as that while being incredibly simple. Fuji and Strongbow gave THEIR AUDIENCE what they wanted to see. You can look at it and say "But it stunk!". And that's completely irrelevant. It was never meant to be something looked back at. It existed within its time and place with the only goal being engaging the live audience they were performing in front of.

I honestly think you're not just anti-criticism (as in being critical of whatever), you are actually against the critical process of assessment and evaluation.

I say that lots of things stink, in my opinion. I just hate the implied feeling that "the crowd" here "was wrong". Cause that's fucking insane. The people at the wrestling show, who are invested in these two characters, are super into the performance they are giving, are "wrong"? If someone who was there that night told a story about how he was there and the Garden was going crazy for Fuji fighting Strongbow, and how awesome it was, then it was awesome and a great match. Because those memories are far more important than anything else.

I'm not saying, "Don't criticize " but always look at the big picture of what pro wrestling is. And why it's so great.

[Matt Farmer]

It's Cornette's formula anyway.

It's actually a Norm Dooley formula. Norm wrote a great newsletter in the early 80's called Weasels World of Wrestling. He was buddies with Cornette and they often went to cards together. And Norm started doing a 1 - 4 stars, then they saw a Lawler/Terry Funk match and gave it five stars.

[BillThompson]

Absolute nonsense. If someone made a film that is literally inept it would be worse than a film that is competent. As in, there are portions where they accidentally left the cap on the camera lens. Where the audio isn't quite synced up to the images. Where the continuity editing is off. Where the script makes no sense and just loops back round incoherently. etc. etc. Not in any deliberate surreal or absurdist way, just in a way that is inept.

 

Similarly there are standards in wrestling. El Gigante couldn't fucking throw a punch or bump or feed or sell or do anything, he was inept. He was an appalling wrestler. There's no valid opinion that can get around to saying that El Gigante was better than Bret Hart. He simply wasn't.

 

The idea that "everything is subjective" therefore "all opinions are on the table and valid" is fucking stupid.

 

There is such a thing as skill. There is such a thing as competence and incompetence. There is such a thing as minimum standards.

 

Don't pretend there isn't. I don't see the point in pretending that.

 

Jimi Hendrix was a better guitarist than ... a man who can't play a guitar. It's as simple as that.

 

You and I are of completely different minds. Art is, and always has been, in the eye of the beholder. One person's trash is another person's treasure. You can sit here and tell me that The Departed is a master class in filmmaking and I'll tell you that I found the film to be incredibly inept. I can tell you that Prince is a horrible musician who couldn't find a note to save his life, and you can tell me that he's the most pitch perfect singer you've ever heard. Art is subjective, it is up to the individual, and there is no objective standard by which to judge art.

 

What you are seeking are absolutes, clear lines of demarcation. Those are the death of art because they inhibit art, appreciation of art, exploration of art, and discussion of art. Any piece of art can be great, just as any piece of art can be terrible, and any piece of art can be two very different things to two different people. Arguing otherwise is, in my mind, missing the very spirit of art and trying to mold it to a worldview that it simply does not fit.

 

And Parv, no one is pretending. People can disagree with you and think your take on something is incredibly stupid (which I wouldn't say about your take on art, it's more limiting than it is stupid) without pretending. It's condescending of you to repeatedly bring out that argument when people disagree with you. Take a chill pill and relax, it's okay to disagree without accusing others of pretending.

[JerryvonKramer]

So you're saying it's possible to argue that a man who can't play the guitar is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix? I don't get it.

[goodhelmet]

It's possible that playing the guitar in itself isn't an artistic exercise. It's more of a scientific exercise. What is created with the guitar is the art.

[BillThompson]

So you're saying it's possible to argue that a man who can't play the guitar is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix? I don't get it.

 

Sure it is, the art is found both in the artist and in the person consuming the art. If someone were to listen to Jimi and the Gent play and provide reasoning for why they thought the Gent was better I would accept their opinion on the subjective topic. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their opinion, but I can accept an opinion without agreeing with it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah, fine. Not all opinions are created equal though. So the opinion that The Gent is better at guitar than Hendrix is ... not very well informed about guitars, just as the opinion that El Gigante is a better worker than Flair is ... absolutely fucking clueless and doesn't actually know what to look for when assessing wrestling.

 

If you are agreed on that, then there's no point in continuing to discuss this is there? If you aren't agreed on it and wish to staunchly defend the guy who sincerely believes that El Gigante is better than Flair .... then go for it, whatever, someone else can continute with it or not. I get that you can't prove it as an objective fact, but for all practical purposes it is an objective fact to anyone who has a clue about the thing itself, and that's enough for discussing wrestling on a message board.

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't get that Prince example. It's possible to tell whether Prince can find a note if you have musical knowledge. If Primce can tecnically speaking find a note then the person is just talking shit because they don't like Prince's music, which is what people are doing half the time behind the veneer of subjectivity.