Is Dave right?

[overbooked]

Doesn't all this just show that:

 

1. Star ratings, while a handy short-hand, really aren't a great way of articulating how good a match is.

2. The ranking culture to which star ratings are so linked leads to a really reductive way of critiquing wrestling, as ordered lists, MOTYs etc are valued more than genuine analysis and insight.

3. Dave is a great reporter and historian, but not so great as a wrestling "critic".

[JerryvonKramer]

I always feel kinda frustrated when wrestling reviews lack ratings, dunno just feels like a cop out. If people beeline to the ratings and don't read the words, that's on them.

 

I think stars carry a certain weight. On wtbbp recently we looked at the Jan 93 Tokyo Dome show co-promoted by WCW. We both gave Dustin / Norton vs Saito / Hash 3.75 and also came across Scott Keith tearing the match to pieces and giving it 1/2*

 

After the show dropped several listeners went and watched that match themselves. I think the disparity in star ratings between us and Keith was a factor. Not just what we said and what he said, but the ratings. Of course another factor is that it's Hash and Dustin and fucking Mr Saito all in the same match, with Scott Norton working as a lost Steiner Brother.

 

I think it's easy to throw out words like "reductive" but in practice I see that ratings have a genuine function in the community from day to day. Although here I think people are are generally good at explaining why they give certain ratings. The first thing I think when I see a Meltzer rating I'm puzzled by is "hmm, why did he give this that rating, what was he thinking?" It is fair to say that Dave is not a great critic.

[Loss]

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

[Matt D]

I only give wrestler star ratings, not match star ratings. Terry Funk is a 5* wrestler. Hercules Hernandez is a 2 1/4* wrestler.

[JerryvonKramer]

I only give wrestler star ratings, not match star ratings. Terry Funk is a 5* wrestler. Hercules Hernandez is a 2.25* wrestler.

I'd have thought the example of Scott Keith's reviews would discourage this line of thought.

 

In the right circumstances even the Mighty Hercules could have a great match (theoretically), and Funker can (and did) have off days.

[Matt D]

Parv has only a 1.5* ability to register sarcasm. He also drops his selling on offense. Some speculate that is because he hangs out too much backstage with Rob Van Dam, Matt Sydal, and Johnny Sorrow.

[JerryvonKramer]

People need to start doing [/sarcasm] on their non-serious posts. I can no longer tell.

[El McKell]

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

So much this, reading reviews/discussion on matches before I see them affects the way I think about the match too much and I end up thinking about reviews while I'm watching which kills a lot of the enjoyment for me. But at the same time star ratings are a great help for knowing what is and isn't worth my time.

[goc]

Parv has only a 1.5* ability to register sarcasm. He also drops his selling on offense. Some speculate that is because he hangs out too much backstage with Rob Van Dam, Matt Sydal, and Johnny Sorrow.

5* post. I think this board needs to add the ability to give star ratings to individual posts and not just threads.

[JerryvonKramer]

Goc, you should bring more of your A-material to the board. Five days letting everyone know Jimmy Golden invented the Ganso bomb is wasted on the twitter plebs. Show us how it's done.

[goc]

People don't respond to things I post in the animated gif thread. Pretty much this board has become the plebs and twitter is the audience worth my time now. People think they're too good to look at animated gifs of the professional wrestling? Well I now think I am too good for YOU!

[JerryvonKramer]

In this age of hyper awareness in which everyone is more self-aware than everyone else, in which all discourse is always-already framed for an implied audience, the ultimate irony is that no one is watching, and that people have never before lacked self-awareness on such a grand scale.

[goc]

In this age of hyper awareness in which everyone is more self-aware than everyone else, in which all discourse is always-already framed for an implied audience, the ultimate irony is that no one is watching, and that people have never before lacked self-awareness on such a grand scale.

DUD

[JerryvonKramer]

Back to twitter then I guess.

[smfk24]

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

This pretty much how I do it as well. Star ratings help in telling the reader what matches are must-see,what were absolute disasters and everything in between.

[BrianB]

In this age of hyper awareness in which everyone is more self-aware than everyone else, in which all discourse is always-already framed for an implied audience, the ultimate irony is that no one is watching, and that people have never before lacked self-awareness on such a grand scale.

 

If only this were true. Props for using irony correctly. I guess that's to be expected given your line of work, however.

 

 

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

I can definitely see this POV and its value. I usually look first at a review or two, and then look at the match. I like to think I'm usually unbiased and single-minded enough to make up my own mind, but sometimes I'm sure other reviews have impacted my ratings. I think usually because they "stick" on what I've actually watched, but sometimes, of course, that can be a bad thing. I still like Flair-Race from Starrcade 1983 a lot, and that's one where I probably benefited from watching it cold and not read as much about Kiniski guest reffing, which is hard to un-see now, even if lots of older matches have bad refs (though usually in a different, less intrusive way.)

Usually I'm more likely to seek out some reviews if I'm visiting a feud or territory or setting I'm unfamiliar with, so I can get some context to what I am seeing (as the audience might have) and understanding how it's worked in light of that.

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

[Cap]

I didn't read his posts as much a commentary on context and how it affects match quality (or more accurately match analysis/critique) as much as he is saying he NJPW is miles better than America right now. The context part is that he seems to be saying he gives WWE matches a break and maybe does give them a boost because they are in America rather than in japan, where standards are higher. I guess it is all context, but I am just reading the function of context a little differently.

 

I love doing my own star ratings and watching and analyzing, but it is such a personal thing. They are really for me to organize my thoughts and my watching and no one else. Dave Meltzer's ratings have become far too influential, or at least foregrounded in online wrestling communities. And good for him for getting there, but its so clear he steers the conversation in some circles, even unintentionally. Even people who generally don't align with him or really think his analysis holds too much weight are in some ways required to address his ratings and his presence in the world of analyzing and discussing wrestling. I value surfing the 4.75 and 5* thread and the match reviews here much more because there is such a diversity of voices. I don't like reading reviews before I watch a match and I don't really like seeing what others have a match at before I rate it myself, but i do like looking at what other people see once I have watched a rated a match.