Guest Retro Rob Report post Posted July 30, 2003 While I wouldn't expect everyone to like a column, I can't believe people are complaining that it didn't have star ratings or was reviewed in the traditional recap style, yet people complain about SK and his writing non-stop. You see, what Loss provided here was FRESH and something different than the typical reviews you usually see. I got tired of seeing a million and one SK wannabe reviews, so something like this that actually discusses storylines and their faults or good points is nice to see as opposed to simple star ratings and saying, this match was good because blah blah blah. If you actually had trouble reading the column, something's wrong with you, because for the first time in a while, I found myself reading every single sentence, instead of just skimming it over, which is what I usually do for SK's rants, since most of it's just play-by-play. Good job Loss and don't let those who can't think outside the box keep you from doing what you're doing with these RAW pieces. I agree. The way that most writers use star ratings renders them meaningless. Take Scott Keith for instance. He'll just slap a rating on a match with no explanation as to what worked and what didn't. Sometimes he'll add a one liner about the match being bland and that's that. After reading a review of his, you don't know why he liked or didn't like a match (unless he is being blatantly partial). Plus, reviewing a TV show is different than a comp tape, PPV, or DVD because the point of a TV show is not to deliver ***** matches, but to further angles and storylines that would ultimately be blown off in an important PPV match. This why I think it is more important to discuss booking when it comes to Raw and SmackDown than the quality of the matches. Good job Loss. My only constructive criticism, I may be in the minority but I like a little bit more HTML in there. Just some bolding to break up the text every now and then. Besides that though, it was great. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Of course that's a RAW I missed. I was there for HHH v. Kane- The match didn't really pick up after the commercial break. They did nothing the first part of the match and the crowd was getting pissed. Luckily they figured it out and just did all their big moves when they come back from the break so the match became a good near fall pop match Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 One thing I noticed, most of the paragraphs either started with "Next, ..." or "Now, ...", which breaks up the flow of the piece. It's still a good column though. Personally, I like the main re-cap to have match ratings. The reason I first started coming to this site was J Hawk's Raw reviews. I saw them on annother site (back in the days before I could afford cable and wanted to find out results and stuff) and liked them so much that I just started visiting this site instead. A fair proportion of people on the net don't watch Raw on Mondays, either because they can't or just forget. Having a more "traditional" review alongside this column would probably stop people from going elsewhere for it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss4Words Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Maybe if I learn HTML, I'll be able to use it. There would be many cases where I probably would too. I do think shorter paragraphs would make a huge difference and that's the first self-criticism I had. As for "next" and "now", I agree, it's just that there are so few transitional words. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CanadianChris Report post Posted July 30, 2003 The way that most writers use star ratings renders them meaningless. Take Scott Keith for instance. He'll just slap a rating on a match with no explanation as to what worked and what didn't. Sometimes he'll add a one liner about the match being bland and that's that. Exactly. From the reviews of both the UT/Cena and the Vince/Z matches, you'd never in a million years guess that they'd get ***1/2 ("Extremely good") and **1/2 ("Better than average, but nothing special") respectively. You can't stick a star rating on something without thinking about it for more than about 2 minutes. That's why I don't use them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Retro Rob Report post Posted July 30, 2003 HTML Cheatsheet For your purposes, I wouldn't concern myself with any complicated tags. Just some simple ones to break up the column like bold, underline, italics. Maybe some color, but just remember that the background of the TV recaps is dark red, so it may be tough to find a color that would be easy on the eyes. Eh, it's your decision, but I don't see any reason to go all out with it. Just some subtle accents. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Retro Rob Report post Posted July 30, 2003 The way that most writers use star ratings renders them meaningless. Take Scott Keith for instance. He'll just slap a rating on a match with no explanation as to what worked and what didn't. Sometimes he'll add a one liner about the match being bland and that's that. Exactly. From the reviews of both the UT/Cena and the Vince/Z matches, you'd never in a million years guess that they'd get ***1/2 ("Extremely good") and **1/2 ("Better than average, but nothing special") respectively. You can't stick a star rating on something without thinking about it for more than about 2 minutes. That's why I don't use them. I stopped using them because I have come to notice that using words to express how I feel about the match is much more effective and thought provoking than just saying "Decent match. **1/2". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 The only reason why I use stars is to try and give the viewers something to compare it to in terms of quality. I'd say that 90% of the time, I usually give a reason for my stars, especially since I tend to be harsh with them. I was VERY pleased with Vengeance. That was probably the most stars I've ever given out in a single event. I absolutely ADORE the fact that there is real discussion going on in this folder. I think...I'm going to cry... Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ingram Paladin Report post Posted July 30, 2003 L4W owns all of you. Just deal with it, and don't complain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Retro Rob Report post Posted July 30, 2003 The only reason why I use stars is to try and give the viewers something to compare it to in terms of quality. I'd say that 90% of the time, I usually give a reason for my stars, especially since I tend to be harsh with them. I was VERY pleased with Vengeance. That was probably the most stars I've ever given out in a single event. I absolutely ADORE the fact that there is real discussion going on in this folder. I think...I'm going to cry... Dames I agree that you supplement your ratings with explanations. It's the people who just give two words and a quick star rating that piss me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss4Words Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Agreed. I like reading Dames' reviews because of the explanations given for said ratings. Scott Keith will spend eons reviewing a match, then giving a star rating with a quick opinion. Often times, it seems that for a guy who has a reputation as a writer who is so outspoken, he sure doesn't say much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vyce Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Loss apparently agrees with my opinion that the Shane / Kane segment KILLS Kane's momentum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Since Ring of Honor usually causes me to throw out the star ratings like candy- I try my best to explain my star ratings for each and every match or else it would look stupid giving **** to everything w/o explanation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 I wouldn't totally agree with that statement, Vyce. While Shane was able to knock Kane off the stage, Kane did get up and laugh it off... The main reason why Shane vs. Kane doesn't bother me much at all is because it's pretty fair to say that Kane is going to go over and hopefully, in convincing fashion. AngleSault is pissed because he's taking away a wrestler's paycheck, but whoever would be facing Kane (RVD) would just be a sacrificial lamb....and will most likely make his way onto the show anyway. Let's face it. Shane is VERY over, dare I say more over than RVD and tends to have unkillable heat. So, let Kane destroy Shane... Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kingpk Report post Posted July 30, 2003 You're welcome, guys. Geez, no respect for the guy that brought you two together. Ok, I'm done. I, for one, enjoy this alternative to a SK recap. I agree that the lack of PBP will take a little getting used to, but I am fairly sure that with a little fine tuning, this will become a very popular piece whose format I will steal for future writings of my own. You know, if I ever actually WRITE anything. Damn Caboose and his contagious lazyness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss4Words Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Is Shane the best option CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPANY BEING UNABLE TO CREATE NEW STARS? Yes, provided it's a 5-minute squash and he's dismembered. Is Shane the best option? NO! Had Spike Dudley not been so grossly misused over the past two years, he'd be the best choice here, but once again, considering the circumstances, no way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Is Shane the best option CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPANY BEING UNABLE TO CREATE NEW STARS? Yes, provided it's a 5-minute squash and he's dismembered. I agree that Shane isn't the best option. But considering this is all being done to make Kane a bigger star, I don't mind. Any legit wrestler who would get destroyed by Kane at SummerSlam would have a lot of rebuilding to do afterwards, where Shane can just leave TV for about 8 months and come back fresh and still with mega heat. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss4Words Report post Posted July 30, 2003 I think RVD doing several jobs until he finally figures out what he's doing wrong and outsmarts Kane to beat him would make him a star. It's all about presentation and planning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 I disagree entirely with the idea that it's better for KAne to go over Shane than RVD. I'd rather he squash RVD in 2 minutes flat with RVD getting zero offense. Why? Because at least RVD is an active wrestler. Shane might be super over...but a month from now when he's gone for another year that win by Kane will mean NOTHING, wheras killing an actual competitor will always mean something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry Blossom Viscount 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 This whole Kane storyline should not be resolved in a month or so with RVD going over. The way Kane is being built up, the storyline should at least go into the next year. If RVD is going to go over Kane, he should do it at next years WM after Kane has left a trail of destruction of both rosters and retiring the Undertaker. Here's how it shoud go..... August - Shane Killed September - Orton October - HHH November - Angle December - Benoit January - Undertaker Febuary - The Rock March - Jobs to RVD in brutal Hell in a Cell Match That's how you get the most out of the Kane storyline. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 30, 2003 This whole Kane storyline should not be resolved in a month or so with RVD going over. The way Kane is being built up, the storyline should at least go into the next year. If RVD is going to go over Kane, he should do it at next years WM after Kane has left a trail of destruction of both rosters and retiring the Undertaker. Here's how it shoud go..... August - Shane Killed September - Orton October - HHH November - Angle December - Benoit January - Undertaker Febuary - The Rock March - Jobs to RVD in brutal Hell in a Cell Match That's how you get the most out of the Kane storyline. Wait a minute. Why are Angle and Benoit being sacificed for the Big Red Retard? Keep him Raw and don't destroy the nice Angle/Brock Mania groove we've got going. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EI Cubano Report post Posted July 30, 2003 LOSSSSSSSSSS, great to see you back writing again. Quality Raw review, I liked the style too, it was a little different than most of the other peanutheads out there like to use which was a breathe of fresh air. Looking forward to seeing many more editions in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Good to have you back, L4W. I look forward to your next column. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 I think RVD doing several jobs until he finally figures out what he's doing wrong and outsmarts Kane to beat him would make him a star. It's all about presentation and planning. True...but when was the last time they EVER made RVD look that good? The way they'd end up booking it, RVD would end just end up looking really bad. Guys...for the record, I'm not saying that I WANT Shane over RVD. But with the mentality that the WWE bookers and upper management have, RVD wouldn't come out looking so great, while it doesn't matter if Shane does or not. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry Blossom Viscount 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 This whole Kane storyline should not be resolved in a month or so with RVD going over. The way Kane is being built up, the storyline should at least go into the next year. If RVD is going to go over Kane, he should do it at next years WM after Kane has left a trail of destruction of both rosters and retiring the Undertaker. Here's how it shoud go..... August - Shane Killed September - Orton October - HHH November - Angle December - Benoit January - Undertaker Febuary - The Rock March - Jobs to RVD in brutal Hell in a Cell Match That's how you get the most out of the Kane storyline. Wait a minute. Why are Angle and Benoit being sacificed for the Big Red Retard? Keep him Raw and don't destroy the nice Angle/Brock Mania groove we've got going. But what does Benoit have to do with Angle/Brock? Angle could be spared, but certainly Benoit might as well be sacrificed to Kane. And we can replace Angle with Zach Gowen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chaosrage 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 This whole Kane storyline should not be resolved in a month or so with RVD going over. The way Kane is being built up, the storyline should at least go into the next year. Exactly. I don't how people can want RVD to be squashed at SS. That makes no sense. Rvd should be all the way at the end of the line, not at the beginning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted July 30, 2003 New "Complaint" The title... RAW RIPPED APART Not big on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted July 30, 2003 New "Complaint" The title... RAW RIPPED APART Not big on it. Did you even read the article, Choken? He said the title is going to change every week. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted July 30, 2003 Must have forgot that part...It was what? 4 hours ago... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye Report post Posted July 30, 2003 I'm pretty interested in this new recap style, this kind of 'fluid' from week to week nature. Great recap of course, I would expect nothing less. A blessing on TSM he is. *takes hand off of keyboard so I can use 2 hands in swinging on L4W's nuts* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
