There is no such thing as a 100% accurate

[Resident Evil]

Statement: There is no such thing as a 100% accurate star rating or even anything that's a 70% accurate star rating for a wrestling match.

 

 

So do you agree or disagree?

 

 

 

Myself, I agree. Well actually for an indivudal person a star rating is accurate to him or her but to everyone? No way.

 

 

For example Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask 4/83 is signifigantly better than Misawa vs Kawada from 6/94. Notice how I didn't say it's my favourite but that it's actually better. That's a statement that gets attention but you know what? It's 100% true. True to me and a few other people anyway but for a lot of people they will state that in no way shape or form is that accurate. They will say Misawa vs Kawada is better and there is no denying their match. Intentionally or not, the problem is that they say it is a better match for everyone.

 

Well, they are right in a way. It is better for them and that's perfectly acceptable as long as they're being completely truthful but IT IS NOT better for say WP or whoever else digs in this example the DK vs Tiger match. For us, DK vs Tiger Mask is a higher star rating because of what it brings to the table and how it affects us in comparison to Misawa vs Kawada. That allows the viewer to give quite a bit of leeway in star ratings to either matches. If they want to give Misawa vs Kawada 4 stars than so be it. If they want to give Misawa vs Kawada 5 stars than so be it. The same goes for the Dynamite vs Tiger Mask match.

 

Really, this is why we often get different star ratings for matches. If there was some magical match equation for star ratings than everybody would be coming up with the same rating but they don't.

 

Bottom line is as long as someone's being truthful there is no such thing as a wrong star rating. Agree, disagree?

[Loss]

This, right here, is why Goodhelmet is so gung-ho on posters explaining themselves when discussing matches, and he's absolutely right. Star ratings are totally subjective. All of wrestling is, actually, and I do agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, an opinion that Hulk Hogan was a better worker than Ric Flair, or that AJPW was the worst promotion in the world in the 1990s, or some other example along the same lines, would be one I considered ridiculous, and I probably wouldn't take the person's word for much else. So yes, people are entitled to believe whatever they choose to believe, and there are no "right" or "wrong" star ratings, but there are People Whose Opinions I Respect and People Whose Opinions I Don't Take Under Consideration. I'd assume the same applies to everyone.

 

There's actually a movement in place to talk about the entire TM/DK series soon enough, WP. I'll reserve my more detailed thoughts for then, but I'm going to say now that I do not agree with your assertion. That doesn't mean you're "wrong", necessarily, but it does mean that I'm baffled at your conclusion.

[Al]

Anyone who thinks they have found the perfect formula for a 100% accurate star rating probably needs a dose of sunshine.

 

Star ratings are subjective, and can and SHOULD vary depending on a person's view of a match. Different people have different tastes. The same way some people like action flicks, some like dramas, and some like suspense.

 

Another problem with star ratings is that they often become the sole arbitrator of value in a wrestling match. Matches like Hogan/Andre (WM III), Snuka/Muraco (MSG Cage) and the like do not have gaudy star ratings, but they are historically important, and for some reason can still be more fun and satisfying to watch than matches with better workrate.

 

I try to ditch star ratings entirely when I discuss wrestling. I think it leads to better discussions, rather than slap fights between posters trying to fight over that final *.

[Resident Evil]

This, right here, is why Goodhelmet is so gung-ho on posters explaining themselves when discussing matches, and he's absolutely right. Star ratings are totally subjective. All of wrestling is, actually, and I do agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, an opinion that Hulk Hogan was a better worker than Ric Flair, or that AJPW was the worst promotion in the world in the 1990s, or some other example along the same lines, would be one I considered ridiculous, and I probably wouldn't take the person's word for much else. So yes, people are entitled to believe whatever they choose to believe, and there are no "right" or "wrong" star ratings, but there are People Whose Opinions I Respect and People Whose Opinions I Don't Take Under Consideration. I'd assume the same applies to everyone.

 

There's actually a movement in place to talk about the entire TM/DK series soon enough, WP. I'll reserve my more detailed thoughts for then, but I'm going to say now that I do not agree with your assertion. That doesn't mean you're "wrong", necessarily, but it does mean that I'm baffled at your conclusion.

I've got a lot of controversial thoughts on matches because of the way I look at them. My brain works in funny ways. Some of the stuff I've gone through in life has also effected the way I look at matches.

 

DK vs Tiger is overflowing with life and probably a match best viewed live.

 

Misawa vs Kawada I'm a big fan of as well.

[goodhelmet]

Yeah, there isn't much for me to add that until you break the match down and defend the rating.. it is simply that, a rating. Take Tim cooke's dissection of SK's review of JBL-Eddy from Judgment Day. Tim didn't rate it. He didn't give it a star rating, but by the end of his point, I felt more confident in his explanation of the match than SK's.

 

If you use star ratings, you can always say that a match is ***** or DUD or *** or whatever. The main thing is what criteria are you using when giving star ratings? At one time, SK clearly said that his star ratings are based on the criteria est. by Jim Cornette. Unfortuantley, the hack rarely ever defends his ratings OR explains the strengths and weaknesses of the matches. His ratings, in effect, are meaningless. When Loss writes a beautiful write-up on JBL-Eddy and gives it a star rating, even using the same criteria SK uses, his star rating has more weight because he has defended his position better.

 

Personally, I prefer not to use star ratings when reviewing a match (see my thread in the What Are You Watching thread for explanation). But, I can argue when a match deserves more than ** (JBL-Eddy) or is not ***** (Owen-Bret) even though someone said those were the ratings for those matches.

 

Also, look at threads on any given board after a PPV. Common posts have titles like "What was the rating for the matches on the show?" or "My ratings for this show". There is hardly ever any analysis or support to the things they say. That is meaningless. It is the justification behind the rating that holds weight, not the stars.

 

Also, I am very interested in your thoughts on DK-Tm when we start the Tiger Mask-Dynamite Kid thread because I have never heard anyone who has seen Kawada-Misawa and the Dk-TM series ever say that the latter was better. You better have good explanation!!!!!

[Guest Some Guy]

I don't use star ratings either. I look through SK's rants and check what he gives certain matches. I've seen enough og the matches that he's reviewed to get a general idea of what he likes vs. what I like. ALthough with him you have to look past his blind hatred or blind love for certain workers.

 

Match ratings are too subjective. GH pimped Eddy/JBL and gave me enough reason to want that match, no star rating needed, just a good description of why it was good.

[Guest Dazed]

Because I should be working, here's a dissection of Scott's last Raw review:

 

- Edge v. Chris Benoit. Geez, bringing out the heavy artillery already. Benoit attacks to start and goes for the german suplex, getting ther rolling version very early on. The crowd is more into chanting "You screwed Matt" as Benoit gets five of them and then releases. Benoit quickly heads up for the diving headbutt, but misses and hurts the arm again. Edge-O-Matic gets two and we hit the chinlock. Benoit escapes and throws some chops, then takes Edge down with the crossface. He quickly makes the ropes. They brawl outside and Edge gets sent into the railing, as they head into the crowd and do some passionless brawling. They head backstage and it's a sportz entertainment finish at 5:00 or so, as the refs break it up. Not much of a match there. *

 

 

Without the play by play?

 

- Edge v. Chris Benoit.

Geez, bringing out the heavy artillery already.

The crowd is more into chanting "You screwed Matt".

They head into the crowd and do some passionless brawling.

Not much of a match there. *

 

What does that tell me? He mentions Benoit's "hurt arm", but then there's no discussion of the significance in the match. Does it affect when Benoit throws chops? How about the Crossface? How does Edge "quickly" make the ropes? Is this because of Benoit's weakened arm? How did Benoit miss the headbutt after 5 Germans? Did this make him look weak, or was it again because of the arm? Did Edge look smart for getting out of the way of the headbutt? What was "passionless" about the brawling? Why did the referees break it up? What were Benoit & Edge's reactions to having the match broken up when they still wanted to fight?

 

Ugh, I'm so sick of this *already* that I'm going to actually do some work. How this hack got anywhere is unbelievable.

[sek69]

Not that I ever thought I'd be defending SK, but there was a time where he did go into detail about each match and actually offer some justification for his ratings. You didn't always agree, but it was there. Now that he's a net "celebrity" he's become lazy, and clearly only continues to review PPVs because he needs to keep the base that buys his books happy. It's so obvious that his PPV reviews are as much planned in advance as the matches themselves. The Eddy-JBL fiasco was only the most blatant example. The problem is that he's burned out on the WWE product (he doesn't even watch Smackdown anymore) so he doesn't put any effort into it anymore.

 

Arguing over star ratings in general is silly, because it's only the opinon of that reviewer. Most people agree if a match is generally good or bad, arguing if a match is *** 1/2 or *** 3/4 is grounds for a kick in the balls.

[Guest Dazed]

Not that I ever thought I'd be defending SK, but there was a time where he did go into detail about each match and actually offer some justification for his ratings. You didn't always agree, but it was there. Now that he's a net "celebrity" he's become lazy, and clearly only continues to review PPVs because he needs to keep the base that buys his books happy.

Sorry, how's that defending him? You're saying he's capable but chooses not to? That's worse than not being able to, but trying anyway.

[Strummer]

Scott clearly doesn't care that much about wrestling anymore, but I think he's afraid to leave the scene because it will hurt his "writing" career. This guy used to have rants up like 20 minutes after the show ended, now it's usually a couple of days or weeks (for PPVs)

[Guest Hunter's Torn Quad]

Clearly, all of Scott's time and engergy is devoted to maintaining that slick haircut of his.

 

Outside of this or any other thread with examples of his work, I don't think I've ever intentionally read anything that SK has ever done.

[Loss]

He was overrated to begin with, just because there was no one else who had covered so much material. Quick, name another reviewer that has covered every single WCW pay-per-view, written history columns (no matter how many falsehoods were therein) on WWF and WCW and covered tons of RAW episodes, Thunders and Smackdowns; almost every WWF PPV; and scattered Coliseum Videos, ECW cards and shoot interviews as well. Exactly. All he ever has been is a source of convenience, and if someone else out there had covered as much US stuff as he has, they'd be equally valuable.

 

The only people who've covered more "big two" stuff than Scott Keith are Dave Meltzer and Wade Keller, and sadly, their work isn't online and free.

[goodhelmet]

He is now Knockin' da boots.

 

Who cares about wrestling?

[sek69]

Not that I ever thought I'd be defending SK, but there was a time where he did go into detail about each match and actually offer some justification for his ratings. You didn't always agree, but it was there. Now that he's a net "celebrity" he's become lazy, and clearly only continues to review PPVs because he needs to keep the base that buys his books happy.

Sorry, how's that defending him? You're saying he's capable but chooses not to? That's worse than not being able to, but trying anyway.

It's defending him in the sense that he isn't a talentless hack, as his early work clearly showed potential, but he's continuing to write about something he has no interest in anymore.

 

He's spending all his time with his new wife (can't you picture that?) and his budding career in eletcronic retail.

[goodhelmet]

LOL, click the link Sek. click the link

[Strummer]

Not that I ever thought I'd be defending SK, but there was a time where he did go into detail about each match and actually offer some justification for his ratings. You didn't always agree, but it was there. Now that he's a net "celebrity" he's become lazy, and clearly only continues to review PPVs because he needs to keep the base that buys his books happy.

Sorry, how's that defending him? You're saying he's capable but chooses not to? That's worse than not being able to, but trying anyway.

It's defending him in the sense that he isn't a talentless hack, as his early work clearly showed potential, but he's continuing to write about something he has no interest in anymore.

 

He's spending all his time with his new wife (can't you picture that?) and his budding career in eletcronic retail.

I will admit to liking Scott's early work, the 1993 WCW rant, the King Lear Rant, and The Lazurus rant. I even enjoyed the fall of the AWA rant. There were obvious historical mistakes in them, but the themes of the rants were interesting and they were written very well. I think the main criticism of Scott is in his reviews of wrestling matches and not necessarily the quality of writing.

[sek69]

LOL, click the link Sek. click the link

Oh Jesus, it's pretty much exactly what I pictured. piggy face with the Lisa Loeb-esque glasses.

 

She must do something right if he moved to Satan's Icebox (Saskatchewan) for her...

[Loss]

Actually, strummer, the quality of writing in those rants was an issue too. A lot of the facts he told (Austin being scheduled to win the title at Final Four, Vince changing the Foley/HBK finish mid-match) were incorrect.

[sek69]

He actually copped to having several things wrong on his blog a while back.

[goodhelmet]

It's defending him in the sense that he isn't a talentless hack, as his early work clearly showed potential, but he's continuing to write about something he has no interest in anymore.

Sadly, almost any "writer" you see on the net has potential. Loss nailed it right on the head. If you have nothing more to do with your time than review every single match from every single U.S. PPV, you are going to get some pub and undeserved credit. Also, if you look at his earliest writing, from 96-98... it was some of the worst written stuff i had ever seen on the net. I'm talking Bob Barron bad.

 

There were obvious historical mistakes in them,

Being historically inaccurate is worse than being a shitty writer.

 

There were obvious historical mistakes in them, but the themes of the rants were interesting and they were written very well. I think the main criticism of Scott is in his reviews of wrestling matches and not necessarily the quality of writing.

See above. Also, see Loss's posts.

 

There is a reason peopel shit on SK and it isn't just the haircut. For someone who is new to the net, he can be a valuable but misleading resource. for someone who searches around for a bit, you will find much better writers, much better historians and people with better haircuts and better looking wives.

[Guest Dazed]

This is from one of Scott's '97 "rants". Of course, he could have written it later...

 

http://411mania.com/wrestling/videos/artic...p?videos_id=467

 

- Opening match: Yuji Nagata v. Ultimo Dragon. Remember a few years ago some video game company releasing a bio-feedback bodysuit for fighting games? That's what Nagata's outfit looked like. This was probably one of the dumbest choices for a feud in 1997, because Nagata is a heavyweight and Dragon is a cruiserweight. A knee used to block the handspring elbow is a nice touch from Nagata. Nasty kicks, too. Nagata works on the shoulder, then applies a sort of figure four to further the damage. Oy vay. Hey, Yuji, the arm is ATTACHED TO THE SHOULDER. Just thought you might like to know. Finally, he hits the Herb Kunze armbar for the tap out at 9;47, which is a pretty bad ending and didn't fit with the flow of the match. Still, good match otherwise. ***1/2

Can you find me anythign redeeming about that review? Without the time and the *s at the end, I think I'd have a completely different impression of the match.

[Strummer]

Actually, strummer, the quality of writing in those rants was an issue too. A lot of the facts he told (Austin being scheduled to win the title at Final Four, Vince changing the Foley/HBK finish mid-match) were incorrect.

yes, there were. What I meant was that Scott's style of writing used to be good from a technical standpoint IMO. The way he structured his pieces and was able to build suspense in his early rants (I'm not talking about the PPV rants or TV rants, the essay type ones I mentioned earlier). When I first got on the net, I will admit to buying into Scott's supposed claims on WWF/WCW history (such as Austin winning at FF, Mankind scheduled to go over at Mind Games, Benoit supposedly being scheduled to win the Main Event of Uncensored 97) I started e-mailing Meltzer and obviously I know the real deal now. I haven't been a fan of Scott since about 2000, when he basically told me to "Fuck off" after I started questioning his claims and opinions

[Loss]

Yeah, he also seems to talk about plans for this heel group of Benoit, Guerrero, Regal and Malenko called The Apocalypse that no one else ever knew anything about. According to him, Hogan squashed it because it scared him. Uh huh.

[Loss]

Oh, and the biggest fabrication of all that people who should know better still believe. He said that Ric Flair asked to drop the title to any babyface so he could win it back at Thanksgiving, and the only one dumb enough to agree to it was Ron Garvin. Flair had nothing to do with that decision whatsoever, and that story was made up out of thin air. Dusty and Crockett felt that Flair was out of babyface opponents and that they needed to do something special to make sure Starrcade would draw with Flair having a weak opponent, so they had him drop the title to Garvin and win it back at the event.

[Strummer]

he also claimed that Warrior was supposed to turn heel at Summerslam 92 but that Hellwig vetoed it because he knew he would have to do clean jobs in the role. That was proven to be a total lie.