Guest Choken One Report post Posted September 25, 2003 Star Ratings have RUINED the business. Among other things... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KTID 0 Report post Posted September 25, 2003 Who watches the WWE for the wrestling? I watch for the McMahons - they put the FUN in dysfunctional family. I watch for the compelling HHH world title reign which was full of ***** matches and entertaining storylines, and eagerly look forward to him embarking on another title chase which will be full of exciting twists and turns and lead to a fulfilling conclusion and hopefully another 11 month reign for the game, the cerebral assasin, the best in the business, cause he is that damn good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted September 25, 2003 (edited) In that case Ray (regarding Rumble '03), what about their Unforgiven match? Or the 2/3 falls match from Smackdown between Rey/Edge and Angle/Benoit. The unforgiven match didn't blow me away. Not seen it in a while, but I still wouldn't give it ****. I loved the 2/3 falls tag, but the finish of the second fall was so unbelievably stupid. I mean, it was beyond stupid. It's one of those things that makes me wonder if Angle (or whoever booked that fall) has a brain in his head. Here's a better quetion. What's more annoying? The people who look at a *** match and go OMG, best match ever! ***********! I would give it more, but the stupid scale says no! Or the "super smark' who feels the need to give every match he sees the lowest possible score? How about the person who's seen lots of superior wrestling? The person who's seen matches that KILL anything WWE has done in the last year, so he can't possibly give those WWE matches ****? Take Benoit vs Guerrero from Vengeance. Good match? Yeah. Well, I've seen Benoit and Guerrero have MUCH better matches with each other. So why would I give **** to an obviously inferior match? I find the people who underrate a match much more infuriating. The last WWF/WWE match to break THREE stars was Bret vs. Owen ? Give me a fucking break. I agree that the underraters are much more obnoxious. The idea that a match hasn't cleared **** since 1994 in North America is just absurd. He was joking. Edited September 26, 2003 by Ray Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2003 Shhhh, you can't say that there is wrestling beyond the WWE - then you're an elitist puro snob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dmann2000 Report post Posted September 26, 2003 Okay here's my theory, The whole idea of 'wrestling psychology', in my opinion, gets blown out of the water the moment someone whips their opponant into the ropes, or across the ring, why? Because, logically, no one should be able to run against their will, and if they're exhausted they should be dead weight and unable to pick up or propell. See this is where the arguement of 'willing suspension of disbelief' comes in. We're supposed to accept certain unrealities as far as a wrestling match goes. After all, several moves in wrestling wouldn't be able to be done unless the other guy was a willing participant. So, why criticize a match for certain points not being belivable if the whole mechanics of pro wrestling is inherantly unbelievable. I'm more concerned with what the story is going into a match, for example... Going into the Royal Rumble match, the story was Benoit finally winning the world title, against a man who he had both been a tag patrner with and an opponant. Neither man was carrying a nagging injury into the match which made it a factor. How many times have you watched a film, thouroughly enjoyed it, and when you thought about realized their were plotholes and inconsistancies that shouldn't have made the film work, and yet it did. That's how I look at a wrestling match. That's why I can watch Benoit/Angle and enjoy it from the story it was telling overall and overlook any in-ring consistancies, the performers got me hooked in the overall story. I suppose their are 2 schools of thought in this, story vs technique. But I reitterate that everyone's star rating is subjective, an opinion. One should be able to defend their opinions, but they shouldn't be dismissed because of them either. And for the record, here is my list of WWE matches I feel reach ***** on MY scale (I repeat, MY scale) Steamboat vs Savage, WrestleMania III 1992 Royal Rumble Hart vs Hart, WrestleMania X Michaels vs Ramon, WrestleMania X Hart vs Hart, SummerSlam 1994 Michaels vs Mankind, Mind Games Hart vs Austin, Survivor Series 1996 Hart vs Austin, WrestleMania X HHH vs Cactus Jack, Royal Rumble 2000 TLC 1, SummerSlam 2000 Austin vs Rock, WrestleMania XVII Austin vs Benoit, Smackdown 5/2001 Benoit vs Angle, Royal Rumble 2003 That's 13 matches after 15 YEARS as a fan, I doubt anyone would call that going overboard (well some will, but this is my scale, and if answers are wanted, I will provide if asked). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2003 I have to go with WGTT/Filthy Animals myself. I can't stand underraters either. Can you imagine Roger Ebert giving *** to The Godfather just because it wasn't as good as Citizen Kane? godfather was better than kane. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
