cheapshot Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 KarlPG and I were talking earlier on twitter regarding match ratings, and an interesting point came up: I've been at shows live and rated a match quite highly (lets say ****1/2) for example, I've then re-watched the match when it's been released on VOD/DVD and rated the match at ***3/4. Which rating is more valid? The one where I am in the building, feeling the heat and being caught up in the emotion; or the one where I am at home, being more clinical in my evaluation of the match? Like to hear others opinions on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 KarlPG and I were talking earlier on twitter regarding match ratings, and an interesting point came up: I've been at shows live and rated a match quite highly (lets say ****1/2) for example, I've then re-watched the match when it's been released on VOD/DVD and rated the match at ***3/4. Which rating is more valid? The one where I am in the building, feeling the heat and being caught up in the emotion; or the one where I am at home, being more clinical in my evaluation of the match? Like to hear others opinions on this. The re-watch is a more valid assessment, because you have time to reflect and being there live always makes things feel way better or way worse (depending). Then again, according to Meltzer, only the initial reaction counts and you can not re-evaluate things. Thinking about it though, you could ask the same question about watching a live ppv and then re-watching the match 10 years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El McKell Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 I would say the re-watch one is more valid, most wrestling matches are obviously going to be more fun live and you're going to rate the matches better than on tape, but because you watch most stuff on tape that is what your scale is geared towards, if you could see every match you've ever seen on tape live you probably wouldn't be giving the match ****1/2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 I think the word "valid" is maybe not the best. What I'll say instead is this: for a rewatch, you're having a shared experience with the rest of us. We can more easily talk about the same thing. That makes for a better level of middle ground and better conversation. In that regard it's more "useful." I don't know about valid, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Firmly believe that both are relevant and could make a case for going with either. You can't replicate the suspense of not knowing a finish the first time around and popping for false finishes when the outcome is truly in doubt. Nor should it be held against a match that this isn't as big an asset on rewatch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Both have their pluses and negatives. I tend to lean more towards caring about the rewatch as it appeals to my critical sensibilities. But, the live experience can't be discarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotJayTabb Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 On my blog, I do an annual top 10 of the best matches I've reviewed that year, and last year I decided to do two separate lists for matches watched live and those watched at home, as it was looking like 3 years in a row of a live match coming at #1. I think they are totally different experiences - I very rarely leap out of my seat at home at the end of the match, no matter how great it was - and thus I treat them as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Firmly believe that both are relevant and could make a case for going with either. You can't replicate the suspense of not knowing a finish the first time around and popping for false finishes when the outcome is truly in doubt. Nor should it be held against a match that this isn't as big an asset on rewatch. I agree with this. However, bad booking in a match can be held against a match on initial viewing but not mean as much on rewatch, giving you more enjoyment the second time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 I find star ratings very fluid to me over time. My star ratings usually hover around the same, but it's easy for them to change by 1/4 or 1/2 a star or even more. The more my wrestling viewing grows things I value in a match might change. Thus my star ratings are fluid. Mostly I use them just for my notes. If it's a rainy Saturday I can look in my notes and pop in a match I liked at some time. I watch it and if it changes I reassign it and go on with my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 I find star ratings very fluid to me over time. My star ratings usually hover around the same, but it's easy for them to change by 1/4 or 1/2 a star or even more. The more my wrestling viewing grows things I value in a match might change. Thus my star ratings are fluid. Mostly I use them just for my notes. If it's a rainy Saturday I can look in my notes and pop in a match I liked at some time. I watch it and if it changes I reassign it and go on with my life. Agree with this. Neither is more valid but an ever developing thought on a match at a given point in time. I do think once you reach a certain point, wild changes in a star rating should be aberrations and not the norm to increase the consistency of your overall rankings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Firmly believe that both are relevant and could make a case for going with either. You can't replicate the suspense of not knowing a finish the first time around and popping for false finishes when the outcome is truly in doubt. Nor should it be held against a match that this isn't as big an asset on rewatch. I agree with this. However, bad booking in a match can be held against a match on initial viewing but not mean as much on rewatch, giving you more enjoyment the second time around. Definitely, one thing a rewatch can do is separate you from bad booking, weeks or months of horrendous TV and let you enjoy a match on its own. I'm sure I'll find that when I go back to watch some TNA that looks great in hindsight but must've been a chore to sit through for the regulars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 I agree with pretty much everything in this thread. There is value in both, but I'd be more likely to stand by my thoughts on a match in hindsight. I overrate live stuff, sometimes ridiculously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overbooked Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 In theory, I would say watching live is more valid (or insert similar term here). I see wrestling primarily as a live medium, with the work geared towards the immediate, live audience. However, in practice I think with live matches it is far easier to either over-rate, as I'm caught in the moment, or under-rate because it is an annoying crowd etc. Re-watching can be great, but I think it is important to not lose the sense or feel of surprise the match was aiming at. Getting all analytic in a re-watch there is the risk of underappreciating the more emotional elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Overbooked, 100% agree. Could very well aregue they're 2 entirely different watches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted July 6, 2015 Report Share Posted July 6, 2015 Yeah, "valid" is entirely the wrong word to use I think. They're both valid perspectives, just different ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 From the 5/25/98 WON: ALL JAPAN: After watching the Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Toshiaki Kawada Tokyo Dome match a second time, I totally underrated the match in last week's issue. Watching it a second time, it was clearly the match of the year thus far due to the drama and crowd reactions to the finish and flawless execution. It's also a unique match in that you pick up a lot of subtleties after multiple viewings and each time the match gets better. One can argue that isn't important because matches aren't done to be viewed five times so new things continually kept picked up, but I guess it was like a great movie as compared to a thrilling movie. The thrilling movie loses something the second time you see it because you know the spots but a truly great movie gets better the second and third time you watch it. It didn't have as many moves as some of their previous matches and I was probably guilty of judging it by the standard of their previous bouts rather than the standard you'd judge a match with any two other wrestlers by, so it was closer to ****3/4, still not their best match I don't believe 2015 Dave believes this as much as 1998 Dave did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Tim, one point that bears consideration there is that 1998 Dave wasn't watching Japanese wrestling live. He was always catching it on tape knowing the results and finishes in detail whereas he's going into today's NJPW shows live the same way he would Raw or a WWE PPV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 That's a good point about the immediacy of today's wrestling versus the viewing landscape in 1998. I'm still not sure why his 1998 way of thinking wouldn't apply in 2015 though - it's always good to give an initial opinion but the best stuff in life (whether it's TV, movies, books, food, etc) tend to hold up well when judged in the context of its time, at least in the eyes of the beholder. I get why 1983 Dave flipped out for TM/Dynamite Kid. But the 2001 version of me appreciated the flying but also saw it didn't stand the test of time as well as some other matches from that period (ex. the TM/Kobyashi New Japan series is generally as good if not better). It's interesting seeing his week by week recaps of the rise of Steve Austin. In Yearbook form, it's almost all above average to great but in the latest 1998 back issue, you can sense Dave is starting to tire a little bit from it (which makes sense when watching the full shows in a weekly context). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.