Dave Meltzer stuff

[cm funk]

I agree that * ratings aren't the way to go (I'm not a huge fan of * ratings for anything really, wrestling, music, movies etc.....I'd NEVER hand out * ratings to a basketball or football game)...but there's merit to the general idea

 

Dave watches shows start to finish, prelims and all. A list at the end of his reviews with his top 5 on the card or best to worst could be useful. I don't watch every UFC show because there's just too many for me now, I watch the big ones and seek out the best reviewed/most pimped matches. When I don't see a show I pay attention to Dave's audio and WON reviews and that gives me an idea of what fights Dave thinks are worth seeking out, and his recommendations are generally spot on. I also check out sites like mmafighting and bloodyelbow and various forums and even some occasional MMA podcasts, and even keep tabs on non-UFC stuff worth seeing. so I'm informed even while not being an every show diehard......but not everyone has the time or inclination to do things like that.

[WingedEagle]

I just don't get the hatred for star ratings. You can debate a rating all you want, no one's suggesting there's anything definitive about it. But what about stars of the night in hockey? Assists in hockey/basketball? The aforementioned rankings of games / series / plays? Instapolls following political debates? (No, not going down that road, just highlighting a quick hit subjective rating of something ).

 

It just always struck me as odd that Dave would rate tons of wrestling matches -- even while offering commentary / analysis -- but leave that out of a fight review.

[Ryan Faulconer]

If the WON treats MMA the same as wrestling I think star ratings should absolutely be used to summarize the quality of fights. I don't think MMA and pro wrestling should be lumped together so star ratings shouldn't be used to describe the quality of fights. For those who do...go right ahead.

 

All fights (worked or "miscellanious") should of course be rated with Jushin Liger heads. It always looked so cool...even down to using 1/4 or 1/2 or 3/4 of a Liger head. Look it up.

 

This might be an outdated reference for younger or newer fans. Just look up the Quebrada or Mike Lorefice and check out the reviews of individual matches. Keep in mind that most of those matches were reviewed prior to 2005.

[Eduardo]

 

Thanks to Phillip Willis who sent me a hardcover book of all the 1992 Observers. I was out of town for a wedding yesterday and was reading back and it was quite amazing reading the stuff week-by-week. He was actually presenting me with the idea of doing either hardcover or soft-cover books covering the entire year of Observers, at least from 1992 on. Is there interest in such a book which would take up a lot less space and be far more cost effective to purchase than all the back issues separately?

 

I would love this.

 

I have a friend of mine who is working on a book anthology of her zine, and thought how great that was. It would be neat to see something like this done with the WON, covering every year. In the past, I've lost issues from time to time, so this would help me out a lot. Also, would be great to keep notes on certain issues. Anyone else interested in this?

[claw64]

Loved Meltzer's Billy Robinson write up but one thing annoyed me. Can anyone elaborate:

 

Although his heyday in the AWA was 1971 to 1975, he still had AWA title challenges to Bockwinkel as late as December 25, 1981, in St. Paul, before 17,000 fans, and April 1, 1984, in Chicago, before 14,250. His last real hurrah was in 1985, in Chicago, when he lost to Ric Flair in an NWA championship match, when for about 12 minutes, Flair’s work in doing a match completely different from his usual style, made it appear for one night that Robinson had just drank from the fountain of youth.

 

How did Flair approach the match?

 

I saw that match live at the Rosemont Horizon right before I went back to college. It was also the first time I saw Ric Flair wrestle in person. The NWA Title had not been defended in Chicago since Gene Kiniski did right after winning the title from Thesz in early 1966. My memories of the match are vague. Billy was past his prime. Flair carried Billy to a decent bout. I went to the card to see Flair. The other good match of the night if you can believe it was Sgt. Slaughter & Greg Gagne against Nick Bockwinkel & Ray Stevens. I think it was a boot camp match. Typical Chicago bloodbath. The Freebirds 6 man tag against Martel, Larry Hennig & Blackwell was fun too. Gordy was the standout performer in that match. Larry Zbyszko stalled for 7 minutes before finally hooking up with Curt Hennig. I absolutely hated that match.

 

Did not go to Super Clash the next month as I was away at college.

[shakla]

 

 

Thanks to Phillip Willis who sent me a hardcover book of all the 1992 Observers. I was out of town for a wedding yesterday and was reading back and it was quite amazing reading the stuff week-by-week. He was actually presenting me with the idea of doing either hardcover or soft-cover books covering the entire year of Observers, at least from 1992 on. Is there interest in such a book which would take up a lot less space and be far more cost effective to purchase than all the back issues separately?

 

I would love this.

 

I have a friend of mine who is working on a book anthology of her zine, and thought how great that was. It would be neat to see something like this done with the WON, covering every year. In the past, I've lost issues from time to time, so this would help me out a lot. Also, would be great to keep notes on certain issues. Anyone else interested in this?

 

 

I would like something of the sort. Granted there would be other years available that aren't already on the site (being 1991-1996 at this point). I assume he has the "at least from 1992 on" line since those are the issues saved on computer?

[Petey]

I'd be interested in yearly anthologies, but not necessarily for stuff from 91-96 since they're digitally archived on the site and they put up a new issue every week. But pre-91, since it seems like those will only ever be available by purchasing single issues, would be awesome.

[jdw]

 

 

 

Thanks to Phillip Willis who sent me a hardcover book of all the 1992 Observers. I was out of town for a wedding yesterday and was reading back and it was quite amazing reading the stuff week-by-week. He was actually presenting me with the idea of doing either hardcover or soft-cover books covering the entire year of Observers, at least from 1992 on. Is there interest in such a book which would take up a lot less space and be far more cost effective to purchase than all the back issues separately?

 

I would love this.

 

I have a friend of mine who is working on a book anthology of her zine, and thought how great that was. It would be neat to see something like this done with the WON, covering every year. In the past, I've lost issues from time to time, so this would help me out a lot. Also, would be great to keep notes on certain issues. Anyone else interested in this?

 

 

I would like something of the sort. Granted there would be other years available that aren't already on the site (being 1991-1996 at this point). I assume he has the "at least from 1992 on" line since those are the issues saved on computer?

 

 

1992 was the first all-PC year.

 

Most of 1991 was on computer. Kinda of a sign of how, after 20 years, Dave still isn't very computer knowledgeable. It would take very little effort to simply scan in the non-PC issues from 1991, and only moderate effort to OCR Scan & Clean up those issues. The first would be an easy way to include in a "hardcover"/"softcover". The second really wouldn't be that hard given the number of techy Observer fans with a scanner & OCR who would volunteer to help.

 

Earlier years would take more work as they all would need to be cleaned up and that would be a lot of work with the columns and the screwed up letter (was it an O?). But even a simply scan rather than OCR, and turning them into a "book" wouldn't be hard. The issues were shorter back in 1990 and earlier, and two-issues-a-week pretty much never happened. My binders for 1986-90 aren't overstuffed at all.

[TravJ1979]

I hope this becomes a reality myself, but until then, does anyone know of an easy way to download the WON's for F4Wonline subscribers to PDF format for offline viewing?

[Dooley]

On some level, I do wish that he tossed star ratings at MMA matches. It would have more value at this point than the wrestling ones: when I get my Mom the UFC box set each Christmas, I try to remember which quality matches from TV (largely PPV Prelimes, but also the Fuel shows she misses) were hot fights to put the dvd in. I guess I should keep a running list during the year... but star ratings would be useful.

 

Star ratings for fights are ridiculous because it's not something prepared ahead of time like a meal, a movie, or a wrestling match. If someone lands a massive KO in the first 30 seconds, is that plus stars for the finish or minus stars for lack of length? Do grappling exchanges count for more stars or striking exchanges? Are two guys exhausted in the third round but still "swinging away" rewarded for "showing heart" or docked for being too exhausted to fight technically? Is a fight with clinical precision rewarded more than something like Frye-Takayama?

 

It's one thing if you're saying "I had fun watching the fight" or did not, much like other sporting events. But if you assign stars to it, it turns into "eh, i would have liked to have seen a little more ground work before the big KO", which I think most of us can agree is beyond ludicrous.

[fxnj]

 

On some level, I do wish that he tossed star ratings at MMA matches. It would have more value at this point than the wrestling ones: when I get my Mom the UFC box set each Christmas, I try to remember which quality matches from TV (largely PPV Prelimes, but also the Fuel shows she misses) were hot fights to put the dvd in. I guess I should keep a running list during the year... but star ratings would be useful.

 

Star ratings for fights are ridiculous because it's not something prepared ahead of time like a meal, a movie, or a wrestling match. If someone lands a massive KO in the first 30 seconds, is that plus stars for the finish or minus stars for lack of length? Do grappling exchanges count for more stars or striking exchanges? Are two guys exhausted in the third round but still "swinging away" rewarded for "showing heart" or docked for being too exhausted to fight technically? Is a fight with clinical precision rewarded more than something like Frye-Takayama?

 

It's one thing if you're saying "I had fun watching the fight" or did not, much like other sporting events. But if you assign stars to it, it turns into "eh, i would have liked to have seen a little more ground work before the big KO", which I think most of us can agree is beyond ludicrous.

 

You could just rate based off entertaining the overall experience is. You know, like we already do for wrestling matches. I don't see your point in saying "fights" aren't prepared ahead of time, because they definitely are with guys spending months training and coming up with a game plan. Also, I don't follow UFC but at least in boxing there is an immense pressure for guys to migrate towards a brawling style so they can get big money fights, even if it's at the partial expense of high-level competition. The result is you see a boxer like Timothy Bradley going with the strategically absurd plan of trying to knock out Manny Pacquiao because he knows fans want to see a war. Meanwhile, one of the best boxers out there in Guillermo Rigondeaux has a very difficult time finding network interest because his style doesn't entertain the fans and he refuses to change it.

 

I'm also not getting your second point. People definitely do say "That was a great fight except the early stoppage," or "That was pretty entertaining, but fighter X was an idiot for not doing X when he had the chance." I have no problem with star ratings as a more precise method than what we're already doing when we talk about "good fights" or complain about shows being shitty. "Ludicrous" is to pretend sports exist as somehow above wrestling as something beyond just entertainment.

[Sidebottom]

 

 

I always wanted Dave to give star ratings to fights. Never really understood why not. If you can score rounds and provide a qualitative analysis, why not stick a rating on there as well?

 

Sorry, but the idea of rating an actual sporting contest is stupid. If somebody won via a KO in ten seconds, does that make it a zero star fight?

 

 

You're not actually being series, right?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/30453/the-10-greatest-world-series-games

 

http://www.mensfitness.com/life/sports/10-most-memorable-mlb-world-series-wins

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-10-23/greatest-world-series-yankees-dodgers-reds-red-sox-mets-braves-twins

 

I could literally post another 100 links to people rating the Greatest WS Games of All-Time... without putting much effort into finding those 100.

 

We could do the same with most every major sporting event. In fact, people in the first *two days* of this season's NBA were talking about how many really good games there were.

 

People do it all the time. I'm 100% confident that you "rate" sporting events as well on some level.

 

 

Of course I do. An exciting football match is easy to spot over a boring match. Basketball, baseball etc. But "excitement" doesn't always correlate to skill. So are we basing on excitement or skill? What is one star and what is five? I'm into chess for example. I can watch a chess match between two great players working each other into a stalemate where nothing of consequence happens, but where both are so good at their game they don't move an inch. Is that good or bad play from the players in terms of being rated?

 

In MMA, if we saw an amazing looking KO due to somebody's incompetence or lack of concentration does that get five stars? But if the athlete were more skilled to avoid contact, or to give the knowledge to the opponent that the strike would not be effective in the same scenario and therefore would not attempt the blow (resulting in a more "boring" fight despite there being an increased skill level by both), would that garner one star?

 

I think written word is the true friend of sports, not numbers.

[Eduardo]

From today's WOR.

While The Rock was shooting a film, he was watching Memphis wrestling, and he emailed Dave Meltzer, apparently asking, "Who the fuck is Austin Idol? Who is this guy? He's one of the best promos I've ever seen."

[WingedEagle]

Of course I do. An exciting football match is easy to spot over a boring match. Basketball, baseball etc. But "excitement" doesn't always correlate to skill. So are we basing on excitement or skill? What is one star and what is five? I'm into chess for example. I can watch a chess match between two great players working each other into a stalemate where nothing of consequence happens, but where both are so good at their game they don't move an inch. Is that good or bad play from the players in terms of being rated?

 

In MMA, if we saw an amazing looking KO due to somebody's incompetence or lack of concentration does that get five stars? But if the athlete were more skilled to avoid contact, or to give the knowledge to the opponent that the strike would not be effective in the same scenario and therefore would not attempt the blow (resulting in a more "boring" fight despite there being an increased skill level by both), would that garner one star?

 

I think written word is the true friend of sports, not numbers.

 

 

What's excitement and skill in wrestling? This isn't batting average or field goal percentage. No one's suggesting there's an objective standard.

[Sidebottom]

Excitement and skill in wrestling: wrestlers putting on a good show. I wasn't suggesting cries of an objective standard.

 

There is a huge difference between rating entertainment and sport.

[Tim Cooke]

Meltzer watches everything UFC and most of the other big US fights. Even if you don't agree with his opinions, it's usually easy to read between the lines and see if such and such fight/match is worth going out of your way to see. A star list would at least gather the info into one place and then *you* personally decide what's good and what's not good. Being an MMA fan but having been over saturated by UFC, a list like this would be helpful.

 

I keep a running list of my favorite all time favorite Oriole games, both live and non-live. It might not gel with other fans opinions but it may make someone who likes the O's seek out a certain game. JDW's AJPW, NJPW, and WCW lists are not infallible, but they are amazing resources. Same thing for Jon Snowden's MMA lists. And Bihari's lucha lists. Hell, even Green Latern Fan and his time keeping of early ROH cards proved to be a handy resource.

[fxnj]

 

 

 

I always wanted Dave to give star ratings to fights. Never really understood why not. If you can score rounds and provide a qualitative analysis, why not stick a rating on there as well?

 

Sorry, but the idea of rating an actual sporting contest is stupid. If somebody won via a KO in ten seconds, does that make it a zero star fight?

 

 

You're not actually being series, right?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/30453/the-10-greatest-world-series-games

 

http://www.mensfitness.com/life/sports/10-most-memorable-mlb-world-series-wins

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-10-23/greatest-world-series-yankees-dodgers-reds-red-sox-mets-braves-twins

 

I could literally post another 100 links to people rating the Greatest WS Games of All-Time... without putting much effort into finding those 100.

 

We could do the same with most every major sporting event. In fact, people in the first *two days* of this season's NBA were talking about how many really good games there were.

 

People do it all the time. I'm 100% confident that you "rate" sporting events as well on some level.

 

 

Of course I do. An exciting football match is easy to spot over a boring match. Basketball, baseball etc. But "excitement" doesn't always correlate to skill. So are we basing on excitement or skill? What is one star and what is five? I'm into chess for example. I can watch a chess match between two great players working each other into a stalemate where nothing of consequence happens, but where both are so good at their game they don't move an inch. Is that good or bad play from the players in terms of being rated?

 

In MMA, if we saw an amazing looking KO due to somebody's incompetence or lack of concentration does that get five stars? But if the athlete were more skilled to avoid contact, or to give the knowledge to the opponent that the strike would not be effective in the same scenario and therefore would not attempt the blow (resulting in a more "boring" fight despite there being an increased skill level by both), would that garner one star?

 

I think written word is the true friend of sports, not numbers.

 

I like how you no-sold my previous point about boxing. I'm not sure why it is so hard for you to grasp that there is no law that says "skill" needs to be factored into ratings given that this doesn't board generally go nuts for matches just because they draw well, feature lots of impressive moves, or conform to whatever definition of

"skill" you could throw out there. The entire experience is rated. "But," you say "I sometimes find the skill side of sports enjoyable." "Enjoyable" is the key word there. "Excitement" and "skill" aren't 2 diametrically opposed concepts, but simply different ways that a match can be entertaining. It all goes back to the entertainment value. If sports weren't a form of entertainment, you would need to explain why shit like bass fishing doesn't get the same level of spectator interest as boxing or MMA. Either fans are arbitrary in what they watch or it's all a form of entertainment.

 

What you don't seem to realize is that if we pushed your argument to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't even be describing sports in terms like "good" and "shitty" since those are basically a form of a rating system in themselves and as you say, sports simply can't be discussed in the same terms as entertainment. Numbers are every bit as part of the written word as those other terms, BTW. Here, let me translate that last bit for you:

 

I think pointlessly vague phrases is the true friend of sports, not something that's actually precise and infinitely more meaningful.

[Dooley]

 

I don't see your point in saying "fights" aren't prepared ahead of time, because they definitely are with guys spending months training and coming up with a game plan.

 

As opposed to wrestling matches or movies or books. You can't look at a fight and say "well, i'd have given it 5 stars but the narrative in the second round wasn't working for me".

 

 

Also, I don't follow UFC but at least in boxing there is an immense pressure for guys to migrate towards a brawling style so they can get big money fights, even if it's at the partial expense of high-level competition. The result is you see a boxer like Timothy Bradley going with the strategically absurd plan of trying to knock out Manny Pacquiao because he knows fans want to see a war. Meanwhile, one of the best boxers out there in Guillermo Rigondeaux has a very difficult time finding network interest because his style doesn't entertain the fans and he refuses to change it.

 

Floyd Mayweather is the biggest PPV draw in the sport and his style is completely antithetical to the style you say people are pressured to go towards. Bradley wanted to brawl against Pac because no one thought he won the first fight outside of two people who unfortunately happened to be judging the fight. Either way, no one scores boxing matches on a star system so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

 

 

I'm also not getting your second point. People definitely do say "That was a great fight except the early stoppage," or "That was pretty entertaining, but fighter X was an idiot for not doing X when he had the chance." I have no problem with star ratings as a more precise method than what we're already doing when we talk about "good fights" or complain about shows being shitty.

 

It's not more precise because there's no criteria to base the ratings on. So does an early stoppage warrant a star deduction? Does it not apply to star ratings because it was a referee decision and had nothing to do with the fighters? Does "fighter X not doing X when he had the chance" warrant a star deduction even if he went on to win the fight convincingly? Do we deduct a star for a missed head kick? A foul? Stalling? Too much ground work? Too much sloppy striking? A spilled bag of ice? Not "getting in all his moves" before going to the "finish"?

 

There's a reason no other sport is graded on a star system.

 

 

 

"Ludicrous" is to pretend sports exist as somehow above wrestling as something beyond just entertainment.

 

Lulz.

[dawho5]

So the thread derailed a little bit, yes?

[jdw]

 

On some level, I do wish that he tossed star ratings at MMA matches. It would have more value at this point than the wrestling ones: when I get my Mom the UFC box set each Christmas, I try to remember which quality matches from TV (largely PPV Prelimes, but also the Fuel shows she misses) were hot fights to put the dvd in. I guess I should keep a running list during the year... but star ratings would be useful.

 

Star ratings for fights are ridiculous because it's not something prepared ahead of time like a meal, a movie, or a wrestling match.

 

 

I don't tend to hand out start ratings for sports, but then again... I've long since stopped doing it in wrestling or movies. Back when I was, I did a long write up of this futbol match at the time it happened and called it a ****3/4 classic... and I don't recall anyone complaining about a star rating being attached to the end of the write up:

 

 

So...

 

If someone lands a massive KO in the first 30 seconds, is that plus stars for the finish or minus stars for lack of length? Do grappling exchanges count for more stars or striking exchanges? Are two guys exhausted in the third round but still "swinging away" rewarded for "showing heart" or docked for being too exhausted to fight technically? Is a fight with clinical precision rewarded more than something like Frye-Takayama?

 

 

It's up to the reviewer. Similar as it is to movie reviewers, album reviewers, wrestling reviewers, etc.

 

Did you agree with Roger Ebert on all his reviews? Are you even able to sum up how Roger handed out snowflakes and what his criteria were? I've got a slew of Ebert books at home, read his reviews covering 30+ years, probably read him on occasion explain his thinking behind rating movies... but I couldn't explain it if my life depended on it.

 

Same thing with rating fights. A lot of folks think Frye-Takayama is a great slobberknocker slugfest and an all-time classic. If a reviewer only rates a ****1/2+ pier six brawls, and never goes that high on something that's got multiple layers of drama to it (say Hughes vs Trigg 2 which is about as good of a one round fight as there's ever been), then it's up to the viewer to wonder if theer's any value to the reviewer.

 

If Dave was giving ****1/2 to a bunch of 30 second knockouts, then we scratch out heads. But *** for a great 30 second knockout? I don't think any of us would really care.

 

It's one thing if you're saying "I had fun watching the fight" or did not, much like other sporting events. But if you assign stars to it, it turns into "eh, i would have liked to have seen a little more ground work before the big KO", which I think most of us can agree is beyond ludicrous.

 

 

No one ever says, "I had fun watching that fight!"

 

What they say is:

 

"That was a GREAT~! fight."

 

"That was a helluva fight!"

 

"This was a good back fight."

 

"It was really technical, but a good fight."

 

Etc.

 

John

[jdw]

So the thread derailed a little bit, yes?

 

Not at all. We go off on tangents like this that start off as Dave-related. It's 4400 posts long.

[jdw]

 

 

 

I always wanted Dave to give star ratings to fights. Never really understood why not. If you can score rounds and provide a qualitative analysis, why not stick a rating on there as well?

 

Sorry, but the idea of rating an actual sporting contest is stupid. If somebody won via a KO in ten seconds, does that make it a zero star fight?

 

 

You're not actually being series, right?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/30453/the-10-greatest-world-series-games

 

http://www.mensfitness.com/life/sports/10-most-memorable-mlb-world-series-wins

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-10-23/greatest-world-series-yankees-dodgers-reds-red-sox-mets-braves-twins

 

I could literally post another 100 links to people rating the Greatest WS Games of All-Time... without putting much effort into finding those 100.

 

We could do the same with most every major sporting event. In fact, people in the first *two days* of this season's NBA were talking about how many really good games there were.

 

People do it all the time. I'm 100% confident that you "rate" sporting events as well on some level.

 

 

Of course I do. An exciting football match is easy to spot over a boring match. Basketball, baseball etc. But "excitement" doesn't always correlate to skill. So are we basing on excitement or skill? What is one star and what is five? I'm into chess for example. I can watch a chess match between two great players working each other into a stalemate where nothing of consequence happens, but where both are so good at their game they don't move an inch. Is that good or bad play from the players in terms of being rated?

 

 

Again, it's up to the reviewer. Do major mainstream reviewers only hand out high snowflakes for movies that are technically exceptional, or do they also give them to ones that are fun to watch?

 

Here's a selection of movies that Ebert gave *** to in 1986:

 

Lightweight comedy:

 

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/back-to-school-1986

 

Slightly higher concept comedy, and quite a bit more complex technically:

 

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ferris-buellers-day-off-1986

 

Dumb ass action movie:

 

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-delta-force-1986

 

Lightweight action movie that at least tries to be more character driven:

 

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/heartbreak-ridge-1986

 

Something entirely different:

 

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/my-beautiful-laundrette-1986

 

Five movies, and you tend to get a typical spectrum of Roger. For the life of me, I have no idea how he thought Delta Force was actually a *** movie and had totally blotted it out from my memory.

 

Anyway... that you can apply *** to Comedy, Action, Drama, lightweight or concept, character driven or mindless... it's really not a stretch that one could apply *** to technical fight, stand up fight, grappling contest, strategic/tactical encounter and brawl.

 

 

In MMA, if we saw an amazing looking KO due to somebody's incompetence or lack of concentration does that get five stars?

 

 

I wouldn't rate it ***** unless the rest of the fight was *****. Chael-Silva I had a ***** finish, and certain had a sense of drama across the rounds lead up to it given the ease with which Sonnen was controlling the fight. But would I go ***** for the fight as a whole? Probably not. I also wouldn't be bent if someone did. As a whole, it was something of a spectacle, was dramatic in sensing the Silva's reign was about to go down, and then that finish coming out of left field...

 

"Wait... what just happened? Rewind that!" -Mom

 

 

But if the athlete were more skilled to avoid contact, or to give the knowledge to the opponent that the strike would not be effective in the same scenario and therefore would not attempt the blow (resulting in a more "boring" fight despite there being an increased skill level by both), would that garner one star?

 

 

Again, it's up to the reviewer.

 

Take the Liverpool-Chelsea game this weekend. It was a stinkfest in the first half because Chelsea parked the bus. Worse, they were stalling and trying to kill the clock from the start which *never* happens at the level the two teams play at (i.e. top contenders in one of the 3-4 best leagues in the sport). Then out of nowhere, Pool screws up right before half, Chelsea scores... and it was rather amazing. Chelsea goes back to parking the bus in the second half, it's largely boring as Pool gets more and more desperate. Pool gets some chances late... and Chelsea busts off another goal at the death. 2-0, and Liverpool's title hopes take a massive knocks.

 

Great match? No. Important? Sure. Drama? Yes. Boring & Disappointing for much of it? Yes.

 

Where would I rate it?

 

Probably **1/2. Above average. I've seen worse games in the season, including among good teams. Ones that didn't have the drama or importance of this, or likely the memorable moment that will be talked about for years of Pool fails to win the title (Stevie G's epic screw up). There was some good quality play here and there... actually more than one would think for a match that was generally "boring", just people not getting on the end of some good plays. I found it a far more intersting match to watch than United's 4-0 win the day before... and I'm a United Fan. So... above average, * for a lot of it, but ****+ for drama and tension and the one truly epic moment. Plus... Mou is a great monster heel.

 

I think written word is the true friend of sports, not numbers.

 

 

Actually, written words are more the friend of Entertainment, Art and Performance than they are of Sports. I don't really need written words to tell me that this guy is one of the greatest players in baseball history:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mayswi01.shtml

 

It's all there in things that can be reduced numbers.

 

I can't really reduce what I think of 12 Years A Slave to "numbers". It's something you need to write, or discuss, or ponder.

 

Yet... people do reduce that movie to a "number" at the end of their review.

[Dooley]

As much as I respect John's opinion on wrestling, his responses are exactly why there shouldn't be star ratings in MMA.

[Matt D]

 

So the thread derailed a little bit, yes?

 

Not at all. We go off on tangents like this that start off as Dave-related. It's 4400 posts long.

 

I started all this and I really didn't even have a horse in this race. I just thought it was weird that you'd start professional coverage of a sporting event with a Thumbs Up/Down poll from your readers.

[jdw]

As much as I respect John's opinion on wrestling, his responses are exactly why there shouldn't be star ratings in MMA.

 

Because a reviewer would offer up his opinion on the quality of a fight in a short hand fashion.

 

Yep... that would be bad.