Steve Austin v Undertaker

[Guest Hunter's Torn Quad]

...

[Coffey]

You know, I'm usually not a big fan of reading match reviews. I would like to state, however, that it's a lot more entertaining to read reviews of bad matches that it is to read reviews of good matches. Well, at least it is to me.

 

I especially like how HTQ points out why each problematic part of the match didn't make sense. It was just a bunch of filler and that's just one of the reasons why the match was bad.

 

I swear, when I read a lot of reviews, I think that they start out with a certain score simply because of whom is involved in a match. If Benoit were to have a match against anyone and the match was nothing but botched spots and run-ins, I'm confident that it would still get at least two stars simply because Benoit was in the match.

 

That's why I don't like reading reviews from people like Scott Keith or anyone else on-line really. It's not possible to not be biased when writing up a review of a match. When one of your favorites is in that match forget about it.

 

I guess that's why you should read multiple opinions about each match though. If the general consensus is that something it bad, you might want to consider avoiding it. Or, on the other hand, you could seek it out on purpose to see how close to your opinion the general consensus is. The problem with that is that your overall opinion on what you're watching will be clouded because you'll be thinking about what you read.

 

I think you should watch something and then form an opinion on it. Then read all the reviews from multiple sources. Then rewatch it and see if your opinion has shifted a lot. Sometimes it does as you notice new things or if new things have been pointed out to you.

 

Of course, it's not easy to get that much time to do all that.