Meltzer's No Mercy star ratings

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Sometimes people all are saying the same things because it's true. Most of the time the things that are repeated around here are the ones that have been pretty much proven true.

 

If not it usually gets called out and will die out shortly. Like stupid rumors and stuff.

[Damaramu 0]

Why would people be afraid to be shunned on the internet? I can see someone saying something that pisses you off...but afraid that they won't talk to you? That's not cool....we don't actually know each other....

[Guest Coffey]

Well I'm here to post and discuss wrestling. I don't think the same thing is said over and over again.

But you said you do....so then you could actually just come one day...read it all and not have to come back for about 2 weeks....because the same thing is being said.

That's pretty much true. This week is about Steph/HHH marriage.

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=ST&f=1&t=43676

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=ST&f=1&t=43523

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...=ST&f=1&t=43664

 

Velocity thread? "on HHH/Stephs Wedding day"

[Guest Coffey]

Why would people be afraid to be shunned on the internet? I can see someone saying something that pisses you off...but afraid that they won't talk to you? That's not cool....we don't actually know each other....

I think it's more along the lines of being ignored so that they have no reason to post.

[Guest Coffey]

Sometimes people all are saying the same things because it's true. Most of the time the things that are repeated around here are the ones that have been pretty much proven true.

 

If not it usually gets called out and will die out shortly. Like stupid rumors and stuff.

Right, I totally understand that. However, after awhile it's beating a dead horse too. You know?

[Damaramu 0]

Yes I think we are all equally tired of the HHH/Steph wedding stuff.....of course until we hear how much shrimp The Big Show ate at the reception.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Sometimes people all are saying the same things because it's true.  Most of the time the things that are repeated around here are the ones that have been pretty much proven true.

 

If not it usually gets called out and will die out shortly.  Like stupid rumors and stuff.

Right, I totally understand that. However, after awhile it's beating a dead horse too. You know?

I think it's a bad habit that a lot of us tend to have in which we like to overstate the obvious so that we sound like we're "with it" or that we're informed.

[Guest Coffey]

Sometimes people all are saying the same things because it's true.  Most of the time the things that are repeated around here are the ones that have been pretty much proven true.

 

If not it usually gets called out and will die out shortly.  Like stupid rumors and stuff.

Right, I totally understand that. However, after awhile it's beating a dead horse too. You know?

I think it's a bad habit that a lot of us tend to have in which we like to overstate the obvious so that we sound like we're "with it" or that we're informed.

Which is the problem. At least part of it. Especially as it pertains to the new people. The people that want to prove they are "with it." So, instead we just get recycled thoughts/ideas.

 

See what I'm talking about now?

[J. Hungerford Smith 0]

I'm not going to quote everything I want to respond to, because it would be a lot of quoting. I'm going to generalize it real nicely though:

 

Ratings are opinions. Just because Meltzer or Keith or whoever said that it's so many stars doesn't mean jack shit. Who cares what they think? You guys are acting like the guy's an idiot just because he liked the match. Well you know what? I liked that match. I don't care if you think I'm an idiot, I agree with Dave. It was better than most of the other garbage on the card. It was entertaining. I wasn't expecting any wrestling. The match did what it was supposed to. It told an excellent story, and Vince got an insane amount of heel heat. If you came into this match expecting some sort of **** classic, then you're a bigger idiot than you claim Dave to be. Because that's not going to happen at all. I sincerely doubt any of you thought that it would be any good, so why complain about it? It was your typical Vince match. It was no better or worse than any of his encounters with Flair, Hogan, HHH or Austin.

 

It was funny too, because I had about fallen asleep during Big Show and Eddie, but when this came on, my eyes were glued to the TV. So yes, in my opinion, Vince vs. Steph was a better match than a lot of the stuff on the card. Of course, Rey/Tajiri was my MOTN.

 

But the real point I'm trying to make is, there's no reason to harass someone just because he has a different opinion of a match. People are going to like it for their reasons, and people will dislike it for their reasons. It's not like it's an official rating or anything. I'm sure Dave doesn't care about your rating, so why should you care about his?

[Damaramu 0]

Sometimes people all are saying the same things because it's true.  Most of the time the things that are repeated around here are the ones that have been pretty much proven true.

 

If not it usually gets called out and will die out shortly.  Like stupid rumors and stuff.

Right, I totally understand that. However, after awhile it's beating a dead horse too. You know?

I think it's a bad habit that a lot of us tend to have in which we like to overstate the obvious so that we sound like we're "with it" or that we're informed.

Which is the problem. At least part of it. Especially as it pertains to the new people. The people that want to prove they are "with it." So, instead we just get recycled thoughts/ideas.

 

See what I'm talking about now?

Yes I get what you're saying.

This is just a generalization...but it is generally true.

10 people register.

7 of them posts like this on there first post "HHH sux! Did you know he's doing steph!? Kane is the fake diesel!"

1 of them posts like this "God...look at all you sheep! Benoit sucks! Get off of his cock!"

and 2 of them turn out to be good posters that will hang around and add content.

[Guest Coffey]

For the record, I wasn't talking about the actual star ratings that were posted in this thread, I was talking about star ratings in general. I think that's how this whole discussion began.

 

It lead to good workers are expected to be good and bad workers are expected to be bad. They way I see it, they aren't good and bad, they are all professional. Some are just more appealing than other to different people.

[Damaramu 0]

For the record, I wasn't talking about the actual star ratings that were posted in this thread, I was talking about star ratings in general. I think that's how this whole discussion began.

 

It lead to good workers are expected to be good and bad workers are expected to be bad. They way I see it, they aren't good and bad, they are all professional. Some are just more appealing than other to different people.

No there is good and bad.

It's like I've said before. The things that go into making a wrestling match a good math are not subjective. It is a set standard for every match.

Now a match can be entertaining...yes...and that depends on the person watching.

But how technically good a match is does not depend on the person watching. That's generally how people rate matches...by looking at those things.

It's like Scott Keith said..."If every match was rated on how entertaining it was then Big Show/Angle from Backlash 00 would be *****."

[Guest Coffey]

Yes I get what you're saying.

This is just a generalization...but it is generally true.

10 people register.

7 of them posts like this on there first post "HHH sux! Did you know he's doing steph!? Kane is the fake diesel!"

1 of them posts like this "God...look at all you sheep! Benoit sucks! Get off of his cock!"

and 2 of them turn out to be good posters that will hang around and add content.

That sounds about right. What we need to attempt to do is raise the averages. I mean, it couldn't hurt to have a more productive message forum, right?

 

What can be done though? You can't get a whole bunch of people to do something that they don't want to do. We need the original content to start flowing. Raw threads, Smackdown threads, etc. they vary week after week because of what happens. During the other days however, like the weekend, nothing happens.

 

Perhaps we could get a word filter put on HHH.

 

^ That was a joke.

Edited October 26, 2003 by Coffey

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Which is the problem. At least part of it. Especially as it pertains to the new people. The people that want to prove they are "with it." So, instead we just get recycled thoughts/ideas.

 

See what I'm talking about now?

I see what you mean. There are a few newbies whose posts just annoy me, a lot of it due to their usernames. You can probably guess who.

 

But I see you're painting each and every person with the same brush which really isn't fair.

 

But the real point I'm trying to make is, there's no reason to harass someone just because he has a different opinion of a match. People are going to like it for their reasons, and people will dislike it for their reasons. It's not like it's an official rating or anything. I'm sure Dave doesn't care about your rating, so why should you care about his?

 

This relates to a personal opinion - people should only rate matches, especially with stars, if they can explain at the drop of a hat why they gave the rating, and what their measuring stick is to rate matches in general, which has to go beyond "it entertained me", because that's a crap justification. It means to me that every match is either ***** or a DUD with no middle ground, because either you're entertained or you're not. There's too much useless star-throwing, and some people should just rate the particular crowd at hand because it seems that it's the biggest or only criterion.

[Damaramu 0]

I see what you mean. There are a few newbies whose posts just annoy me, a lot of it due to their usernames. You can probably guess who.

 

But I see you're painting each and every person with the same brush which really isn't fair.

RVDMARK1516161 and Y2JHHH7080808. Those people?

[Guest Coffey]

No there is good and bad.

It's like I've said before. The things that go into making a wrestling match a good math are not subjective. It is a set standard for every match.

Now a match can be entertaining...yes...and that depends on the person watching.

But how technically good a match is does not depend on the person watching. That's generally how people rate matches...by looking at those things.

It's like Scott Keith said..."If every match was rated on how entertaining it was then Big Show/Angle from Backlash 00 would be *****."

See, I disagree. My dad's favorite wrestler is Rick Steiner. Is Rick Steiner a "technical wrestler" to you or me? Probably not. He could be to my dad though. "He has an amatuer wrestling backround, you can't get more technical than that!"

 

So, in his eyes, Rick Steiner would be "good." In my eyes, he would be "a professional" and I'm sure in other people's eyes he would be "bad."

 

What goes into making a match "good" is very, very subjective. It varies from person to person, just like the little snowflakes do. To some people crowd reaction matters a helluva lot more than it would matter to someone else.

 

I mean, how would someone, for example at a sports bar, think Austin was technically? "How is Austin technical? Well, technically speaking, he'd stomp a mudhole!!!"

 

Even the term technical varies.

[Guest Ray]

Eh...I didn't buy the PPV, but I strongly doubt there was a ****1/4 match on it.

[Guest Coffey]

I see what you mean. There are a few newbies whose posts just annoy me, a lot of it due to their usernames. You can probably guess who.

 

But I see you're painting each and every person with the same brush which really isn't fair.

I'm not just talking about the "newbies" though. There are people that have been here for months that are the exact same way.

 

As far as painting each person with a brush, well, I've tried to stay pretty general when typing....

[J. Hungerford Smith 0]

But the real point I'm trying to make is, there's no reason to harass someone just because he has a different opinion of a match. People are going to like it for their reasons, and people will dislike it for their reasons. It's not like it's an official rating or anything. I'm sure Dave doesn't care about your rating, so why should you care about his?

 

This relates to a personal opinion - people should only rate matches, especially with stars, if they can explain at the drop of a hat why they gave the rating, and what their measuring stick is to rate matches in general, which has to go beyond "it entertained me", because that's a crap justification. It means to me that every match is either ***** or a DUD with no middle ground, because either you're entertained or you're not. There's too much useless star-throwing, and some people should just rate the particular crowd at hand because it seems that it's the biggest or only criterion.

I agree. That part was just directed towards those earlier in the thread who were just like "Dave sucks at reviewing" or whatever. I remember reading it and Dave did justify why he thought the match was good, I mean I guess from a wrestling standpoint that didn't matter. But it wasn't an awful match. I think people got better than what they expected.

 

And yeah, people do overrate the crowd. Obviously it's an important part in the match, because if the crowd's not being entertained then chances are the person watching on TV isn't going to be entertained either. But I think it makes it much more interesting when there's a rush of excitement going on with the people in the audience, but that's just me.

 

Which reminds me of something else I want to bitch about: the Bashams are awful and no one cares about them. I'd at least rather get the old X-Pac/RTC heat than NO heat at all. There's no need for them to have the tag belts.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I've found that doing a RAW Recap has basically forced me to see things in a different light. In order for me to properly rank each match I have to look at it on a whole and I've found that I'm being more objective because of it.

[Damaramu 0]

I'm not referring to the match having to have a technical wrestler in it to be good. Pay attention the way I'm using the world. For the match to be GOOD it has to fufill certain criteria. It doesn't matter what styles are being used in the match....be it technical, brawling, whatever....it still has to fufill those criteria.

You know psychology, crowd reaction, telling a story, making sense, workrate, blah blah blah. People generally judge a match on these merits. If you judge the match on the merit of how well you were entertained...well then....you have no business rating matches.

[Downhome 0]

I call um as I see um.

 

If Test and Mark Henry had a good match, I'd praise it. I'd also shit a brick, but that's another story.

 

If I watch a match, and I'm entertained and I enjoy it, then I'll give it the marks it deserves. If I see a match and it's shit, I'll be the first to say so.

 

I don't even like the mystical star ratings, they rub me the wrong way. I'm ok with people using it to let everyone know what they think of a match, I do that myself. Howeve, when we get to the point where we have twats going around saying stuff like "that match WAS *****, it's not opinion it's fact" and stuff like "that match was a *, nothing more period, once again it's not opinion, it's FACT and that's where the match ranks on the * scale".

 

Some people seem to forget that there isn't some crazy ass OFFICIAL star rating scale out there, other than in the land of insanity. It's all opinion, and when you present it as such, then everything is cool.

 

The reason that most people instantly think that a Benoit or Angle match is at least good, and a Test or Henry match is shit, is because most of the time that's just how it ends up. You can't blame people for thinking like that.

 

However, anyone who just gives a match a certain rating just because of who is in it, well that's just fucked and insane.

 

Still though, I suppose they can do whatever they want, once again, it's all just a matter of opinion.

[Guest Coffey]

You know, that's actually what sparked my light too. I wrote a couple of Raw reviews on my own rinky dink scumbag of a website.

 

I applied for the Raw Reviewer opening here about three days ago, but I've yet to hear anything from Dames about it.

 

I'd like to think that I have the talent/experience.

 

ANSWER YOUR PM'S DAMES!

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

You know, that's actually what sparked my light too. I wrote a couple of Raw reviews on my own rinky dink scumbag of a website.

 

I applied for the Raw Reviewer opening here about three days ago, but I've yet to hear anything from Dames about it.

 

I'd like to think that I have the talent/experience.

 

ANSWER YOUR PM'S DAMES!

Hey I applied for the RAW Recapping spot too. I'm beginning to wonder when Dames is gonna pick the new recapper already?

 

He doesn't have to wait for the other positions to be applied for!!

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

I've found that doing a RAW Recap has basically forced me to see things in a different light. In order for me to properly rank each match I have to look at it on a whole and I've found that I'm being more objective because of it.

And that's another thing - you got some people putting all matches into two groups: entertaining and non-entertaining. And if anyone makes any attempt at looking at the matches any deeper, they're "nitpicking" or "not appreciating the match for what it is", which is so babyish it makes me want to mail them a pacifier. There has to be a means of separation. It goes with so many other things as well - like TESTS.

 

I mean, if you don't want to and rather not think about matches at all, then why even join a discussion board?

[Guest Coffey]

I call um as I see um.

 

If Test and Mark Henry had a good match, I'd praise it. I'd also shit a brick, but that's another story. 

 

If I watch a match, and I'm entertained and I enjoy it, then I'll give it the marks it deserves. If I see a match and it's shit, I'll be the first to say so.

 

I don't even like the mystical star ratings, they rub me the wrong way. I'm ok with people using it to let everyone know what they think of a match, I do that myself. Howeve, when we get to the point where we have twats going around saying stuff like "that match WAS *****, it's not opinion it's fact" and stuff like "that match was a *, nothing more period, once again it's not opinion, it's FACT and that's where the match ranks on the * scale".

 

Some people seem to forget that there isn't some crazy ass OFFICIAL star rating scale out there, other than in the land of insanity. It's all opinion, and when you present it as such, then everything is cool.

 

The reason that most people instantly think that a Benoit or Angle match is at least good, and a Test or Henry match is shit, is because most of the time that's just how it ends up. You can't blame people for thinking like that.

 

However, anyone who just gives a match a certain rating just because of who is in it, well that's just fucked and insane.

 

Still though, I suppose they can do whatever they want, once again, it's all just a matter of opinion.

You know what, this may be far fetched, but perhaps we could establish a TSM rating scale?

 

We could start a thread, get it stickied, and take various replies/thoughts into account. Then, compile the replies, etc. and come up with an actual formula. Percentages even.

 

We could have an actual mathematic equation as to how to rank a match. Between zero and five. Add in different factors, each with a varying percentage, and base our ratings off of that.

 

At least then we could argue the different ratings because we would all be on the same page.

 

Good idea?

[Guest Coffey]

You know, that's actually what sparked my light too. I wrote a couple of Raw reviews on my own rinky dink scumbag of a website.

 

I applied for the Raw Reviewer opening here about three days ago, but I've yet to hear anything from Dames about it.

 

I'd like to think that I have the talent/experience. 

 

ANSWER YOUR PM'S DAMES!

Hey I applied for the RAW Recapping spot too. I'm beginning to wonder when Dames is gonna pick the new recapper already?

 

He doesn't have to wait for the other positions to be applied for!!

Good luck.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

You know, that's actually what sparked my light too. I wrote a couple of Raw reviews on my own rinky dink scumbag of a website.

 

I applied for the Raw Reviewer opening here about three days ago, but I've yet to hear anything from Dames about it.

 

I'd like to think that I have the talent/experience. 

 

ANSWER YOUR PM'S DAMES!

Hey I applied for the RAW Recapping spot too. I'm beginning to wonder when Dames is gonna pick the new recapper already?

 

He doesn't have to wait for the other positions to be applied for!!

Good luck.

Thanks. You too.

[Damaramu 0]

I've found that doing a RAW Recap has basically forced me to see things in a different light.  In order for me to properly rank each match I have to look at it on a whole and I've found that I'm being more objective because of it.

And that's another thing - you got some people putting all matches into two groups: entertaining and non-entertaining. And if anyone makes any attempt at looking at the matches any deeper, they're "nitpicking" or "not appreciating the match for what it is", which is so babyish it makes me want to mail them a pacifier. There has to be a means of separation. It goes with so many other things as well - like TESTS.

 

I mean, if you don't want to and rather not think about matches at all, then why even join a discussion board?

PREACH IT BROTHER HEAT!!!!

[Guest Coffey]

I really like my idea on the rating scale....

 

*opens wordpad*