Comments that don't warrant a thread - Part 4

[joeg]

That’s an impressive crop. It seems every six months or so they keep bringing in these stud blue chip D1 athletes into the performance center. It seems like Gable and Strowman are the only two that have made it through to the main roster however. 

[Alucard]

3 hours ago, Laz said:

Isn't back left Deonna Purrazzo? I thought Nicole Matthews was reporting to the PC soon, but maybe she just got a tryout.

Nicole was announced for the Mae Young Classic. Last year she was in the dark match of the MYC tapings.

25 minutes ago, SomethingSavage said:

Is the "missed charge in the corner / shoulder to post" spot the only WWE transition anyone - agents & workers alike - use anymore? Sure seems like it.

I counted four matches at Extreme Rules that had it, and I'm pretty sure that's because I only saw 4 of those matches in full.

It is.

I know it seemed like one of Kurt Angle's favorites in his career where he seemed to throw himself as hard as possible at the post. It also seems to be the only way they think people can take over control against Braun as well. Very strange and overdone.

[9 Corpses Hang in the Mist]

16 hours ago, Johnny Sorrow said:

Yeah, we all do. We know they're all a bunch of unfuckable zeroes who do shit like appear on message boards and try and troll with fucking lame insults like "soy boy". Go fuck yourself. The boss JUST told you to lay off. Taking the bait from joeg tipped your hand. Get lost, stupid.

 

14 hours ago, joeg said:

https://tenor.com/es/ver/ron-swanson-iwant-to-punch-you-in-the-face-so-bad-right-now-gif-11018452

 

[Loss]

I tried. Wishing you the best in your future, suitably masculine protein-sourced endeavors.

[SomethingSavage]

38 minutes ago, Alucard said:

Nicole was announced for the Mae Young Classic. Last year she was in the dark match of the MYC tapings.

It is.

I know it seemed like one of Kurt Angle's favorites in his career where he seemed to throw himself as hard as possible at the post. It also seems to be the only way they think people can take over control against Braun as well. Very strange and overdone.

It's practically a staple in Nia *and* Braun matches. The ring post is their kryptonite.

[Robert S]

59 minutes ago, joeg said:

That’s an impressive crop. It seems every six months or so they keep bringing in these stud blue chip D1 athletes into the performance center. It seems like Gable and Strowman are the only two that have made it through to the main roster however. 

There are quite a lot of such guys on the roster, e.g. Corbin, Ziggler, Lesnar, Jordan, Mojo, both guys of AOP, Titus, ... (I know that most were before the performance center days, but they did not start scouting college athletes and similar only when they opened the performance center)

[GSR]

3 hours ago, superkix said:

Cool, a male gymnast. Perfect for 205 LIVE.

Here's a piece they did on him back in February when he had his try-out:

 

[joeg]

Most of the guys you listed are FCW, DSW, or OVW guys. That’s the thing The performance center doesn’t seem to be having the same track record so far  as either OVW or FCW was my point. Honestly I think this could start its own thread. They built the performance center with the goal of bringing in better quality of athletes and starting them from scratch. Yet the NXT / performance center model has proven less successful at doing this than its predecessors despite the significant investment and cost of the venture. There is no doubt that there are more elite athletes going into the developmental system now, yet fewer seem to be making it out to the main roster. The guys who do make it to the main roster now seem to be guys who weren’t necessarily elite athletes starting from scratch but guys with plenty of experience prior to being signed to WWE. 

[SomethingSavage]

Stone Cold always tells the story of Dutch Mantell informing him how he couldn't be called "Steve Williams" and eventually giving him the "Austin" name.

What I'd never heard before was the time in between though, when Austin was trying to come up with his own ring name.

Apparently, Stunning Steve Austin was almost "Samson Sinclair" instead.

[sek69]

On 7/18/2018 at 5:18 PM, joeg said:

Most of the guys you listed are FCW, DSW, or OVW guys. That’s the thing The performance center doesn’t seem to be having the same track record so far  as either OVW or FCW was my point. Honestly I think this could start its own thread. They built the performance center with the goal of bringing in better quality of athletes and starting them from scratch. Yet the NXT / performance center model has proven less successful at doing this than its predecessors despite the significant investment and cost of the venture. There is no doubt that there are more elite athletes going into the developmental system now, yet fewer seem to be making it out to the main roster. The guys who do make it to the main roster now seem to be guys who weren’t necessarily elite athletes starting from scratch but guys with plenty of experience prior to being signed to WWE. 

 

Good idea. 

[fakeplastictrees]

On 7/18/2018 at 4:26 PM, Charles (Loss) said:

I tried. Wishing you the best in your future, suitably masculine protein-sourced endeavors.

I want WWE and UFC to start using this.

[Edwin]

Not a knock on anyone, but jump into the match discussion threads on here and it sorta baffles me when I read: Although the match wasn't great... or something along that line and then it's rated at ****1/4.

How can something not be great, yet be rated that high?

[SPS]

2 hours ago, Edwin said:

Not a knock on anyone, but jump into the match discussion threads on here and it sorta baffles me when I read: Although the match wasn't great... or something along that line and then it's rated at ****1/4.

How can something not be great, yet be rated that high?

I think it comes with the problem of when the viewer really likes a talent or that talent has achieved some highly rated matches and is seen as someone who delivers them on a regular basis, then sometimes people watching feel to give them a low rating that is probably warranted for a mediocre or bland effort somehow makes them less great which is far from the truth.

Every great can have a bad night or a bland performance and it's just that, a bad night. If people weren't so caught up with star ratings being the main judgment in explaining how good a talent is then you probably would see less of this.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

I think people are way too generous with star ratings in general. To me, anything above 4 stars is an all-time great match. 

[leo]

15 minutes ago, Yo-Yo's Roomie said:

I think people are way too generous with star ratings in general. To me, anything above 4 stars is an all-time great match. 

I think we can at least partly attribute this phenomenon to Meltzer losing any semblance of structure in his match ratings, and his growing fanbase duly following suit (since giving a match 5+ stars nowadays seems to be the "cool" thing, and especially as NJPW continues to grow at the rate it is, I don't see this trend dying down)

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

No doubt. I think it's pretty much prevalent everywhere though. I guess if people are consistent then that's all you can ask for, but it seems some people just go way over the top. And I am probably a bit tight with my ratings too, which I can acknowledge. But I'd rather err on the conservative side then just start throwing 4+ star ratings out willy-nilly. What's that saying?, if everything is great, nothing is great.

I think it hit me when people were throwing out ratings in the 4 1/2 star range for Ronda's WrestleMania match. While I thought the match was very good, it did leave me wondering whether people really thought the match was only 1/2 star away from virtual perfection, which I assume is what 5 stars signifies.

[superkix]

Matches are one of the following:

- bad

- okay

- good

- great

- flawless

[Richeyedwards]

I guess it comes down to what each individual sees as what each rating point entails, and for some the 'standard' for the lack of a better word is higher for some than others or they just look for different things. I have always seen it as:

Minus stars actively offensive to me something incredibly racist, homophobic etc such as the Christopher street connection vs da hit squad from era of honor begins.

dud shit match with no redeemable aspects such as elgin vs omega from last years g1

1 star bad but their might be something passable in there like a good crowd or one or two things are done competently

2 star decent match if a simple tv match but, much longer matches that are trying to be big main events can be here if done badly but i think a simple basic tv match would be more fun to watch because it is way shorter.

3-3.25 star good fun

3.5-3.75 very good match worth watching

4-4.25 great match go out of your way to see it

4.5 moty level

4.75 very truly exceptional with only maybe one or two things that could have been done better

5 pretty much perfect or close to perfect.

For me I think the last match I thought was 5 stars was Brock vs Cena at extreme rules. That is so long ago compared to some who have given something like 10 5 star (or higher) matches so far this year. That seems absurd to me. I guess it comes down to with the individual thinks but I do question it at times I guess all we can ask is for consistency.

 

[G. Badger]

8 hours ago, SPS said:

I think it comes with the problem of when the viewer really likes a talent or that talent has achieved some highly rated matches and is seen as someone who delivers them on a regular basis, then sometimes people watching feel to give them a low rating that is probably warranted for a mediocre or bland effort somehow makes them less great which is far from the truth.

Every great can have a bad night or a bland performance and it's just that, a bad night. If people weren't so caught up with star ratings being the main judgment in explaining how good a talent is then you probably would see less of this.

The last sentence of your post is exactly the conclusion that I came to a few years ago. My 5 star match may be another person's 4.5 but, we would both agree that the match is a must see. Frankly, even if my 5 is a person's 4, we'd both recommend the heck outta it. But, the details are really where someone would be able to tell that I liked it more and why.

As long as folks are putting an explanation behind their stars/numbers then, I'm OK with it. I can then go, "Ah, their 4 3/4 is like a 3 3/4 to me."

I think some discrepancies may be from folks not going back and seeing the classics from the 80s & 90s. There seems to be less talk of these matches nowadays. Plus, if there's a "4 1/2 - 5 star" match coming out every month, why take the time to go back and watch that stuff? 

[sek69]

I t

hink some discrepancies may be from folks not going back and seeing the classics from the 80s & 90s. There seems to be less talk of these matches nowadays. Plus, if there's a "4 1/2 - 5 star" match coming out every month, why take the time to go back and watch that stuff?

Funny you should say that as I find myself far more engrossed watching 1984 Mid South on the Network than almost anything currently taking place.

[G. Badger]

11 hours ago, sek69 said:

 

 

Funny you should say that as I find myself far more engrossed watching 1984 Mid South on the Network than almost anything currently taking place.

All of those promotions available on the WWE network are the best part.

Unfortunately, I never had the discipline to focus on a single promotion or year when I had the service. I just pinballed all over the place until my free month ran out. If you or anyone knows offhand, how far back does their their AWA footage go?

[khawk20]

The AWA stuff and what they have is a bit of a mystery. They haven't used or put up too much of it so far but seem to have the odd gem pop up in wrestler-themed drops. Problem with the tv is the interview reels were circulated separately and if they have them piecing them together is or would be a nightmare. AWA tv itself are squashes usually not conducive to holding a non hardcore sense attention for any length of time.

they have shows going back to at least 1970 and matches from the 60s have appeared too. Plenty of newer material (80s stuff I mean) too.

 

so what they have and will eventually release is up in the air.

[Log]

I have a binary match rating system. 

Do I feel like my time was wasted by watching this match? Yes or no. 

[WingedEagle]

On 7/27/2018 at 3:51 PM, Richeyedwards said:

4.5 moty level

4.75 very truly exceptional with only maybe one or two things that could have been done better

5 pretty much perfect or close to perfect.

For me I think the last match I thought was 5 stars was Brock vs Cena at extreme rules. That is so long ago compared to some who have given something like 10 5 star (or higher) matches so far this year. That seems absurd to me. I guess it comes down to with the individual thinks but I do question it at times I guess all we can ask is for consistency.

 

This is basically my approach to ratings as well. Off the top of my head I've got around 6-8 5 star matches this decade.  Some may think that's too picky, but are all-time great matches actually happening on a monthly or better basis?  

[Al]

I always appreciated Roger Ebert's approach to star ratings.

https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/you-give-out-too-many-stars

If i did match reviews regularly i would be inclined to avoid them. Readers put too much stock in them and ignore the balance of the review. For a good reviewer that's frustrating.