Jump to content
TSM Forums
  • entries
    20
  • comments
    146
  • views
    10720

Some Vengeance Thoughts

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Entry posted by Guest ·

427 views

Welp, I saw Angle vs. HBK from Vengeance. It started fairly well, with some decent looking and logical mat work. The match just kind of meandered along until the horribly contrived german suplex on the table spot. That lead to an awful Angle control segment, which illustrates another reason why Angle is overrated. Chin locks and punches, how creative. Great way to fill the time there. The corner powerbomb was neat, but they followed it up with..more chin locks. Who's idea was it to have a 90 second chinlock, 20 minutes into a ~28 minute match? Yea, Angle's a great worker alright. Then there's a desperate attemp to interject some sort of drama into the match by having HBK "injured" and require road agents to attend to him. What it really did was kill the match for no good reason. Followed by, of course, the expected and masturbatory "escape the anke lock" sequence. Followed by HBK hitting sweet chin music. Except someone decided it'd be logical if Angle got up before HBK and went to the top rope (for no good reason mind you), which setup the finish in which HBK hit SCM on Angle as he was coming off the top rope. I bet no one saw that one coming. This match was a joke. Two guys trying to force out a classic instead of letting it just happen. Their WMXXI match was very good, maybe the WWE MOTY. This match was just a piece of masturbatory crap. **3/4

 

On a slightly related topic, why is it that the people who are always throwing around ridiculous * ratings are the ones who never provide intelligent analysis to back those ratings up? There's guy's like Meltzer and Keller who simply don't post any analysis at all, then there's random clowns on wrestling forums who either do the same thing, or they post a bunch of bullshit that is completely unapplicable or erroneous. The point is, don't use * ratings unless you're willing to backup your rating with legitimate analysis. Just an observation I've made.

 

Finally, I'd like to add that quoting partial statements while leaving out key information isn't cool. Especially when the point that's trying to be made by the response is addressed by the excluded part of the statement.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

4 Comments

Recommended Comments

Hunter's Torn Quad
On a slightly related topic, why is it that the people who are always throwing around ridiculous * ratings are the ones who never provide intelligent analysis to back those ratings up?

Because they can't provide anything intelligent.

 

There's guy's like Meltzer and Keller who simply don't post any analysis at all,

When it comes to putting it down in their respective newsletters, there is a space issue to consider, but I admit it would be nice to see in-depth analysing from either man.

 

then there's random clowns on wrestling forums who either do the same thing, or they post a bunch of bullshit that is completely unapplicable or erroneous.

 

You'd love most of the posters in the WWE Folder.

 

The point is, don't use * ratings unless you're willing to backup your rating with legitimate analysis. Just an observation I've made.

 

I agree to a point. Analysis is good, but I hate reading overly long analysis. When it takes longer to read the analysis of a match than the match itself, that's going a little too far.

 

Finally, I'd like to add that quoting partial statements while leaving out key information isn't cool. Especially when the point that's trying to be made by the response is addressed by the excluded part of the statement.

 

How else do you expect most people here to make themselves look good?

Share this comment

Link to comment
World's Worst Man
The point is, don't use * ratings unless you're willing to backup your rating with legitimate analysis. Just an observation I've made.

 

I agree to a point. Analysis is good, but I hate reading overly long analysis. When it takes longer to read the analysis of a match than the match itself, that's going a little too far.

 

This is a good point. When the analysis gets to a point where it's doubtful that the wrestlers even meant certain things to be taken that way, it's too much. Then there's the 10 page (not literally) match reviews that certain people have been known for.

Share this comment

Link to comment
×