All-Purpose News Thread Part II

[MAHJ71]

I was thinking the same thing, but for flights. The tourist destinations like Vegas and Orlando are way cheaper to fly to than Minnestoa for sure.

May want to actually look it up, because when you compare Vegas to Minnesota, Vegas is definitely more expensive.

 

[GKJ]

This is as catastrophic a miscommunication as you will ever see. Miraculously the woman who took this didn't end up suffer a serious injury.

Some context from the person posting the clip would’ve been helpful as this match took place last week and appears to be in one piece.

That’s Mio Momono, who provided her neck remains as a singular entity, I suspect will level up to Stardom (or Marigold) soon enough.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Omega seems of the opinion that Dave doesn't know what is and isn't good anymore since he (Omega) broke his 5-star scale

 

[GKJ]

Omega seems of the opinion that Dave doesn't know what is and isn't good anymore since he (Omega) broke his 5-star scale

The discourse has come up again, I don’t know where it came from. The first place I saw it was Seth shitting on it. It’s gotten to be a pain in the ass. I have been guilty of playing into it before, but time has also passed. The idea the system was never to have it be some kind of achieved award if you get a match rated 5-stars. Some have acknowledged it, but Dave himself has tried to shutter it when people complain that a certain match wasn’t 5 stars. He maintains that if he has a match 4 3/4 and you have it 5, then you both agree. His standard, according to him, at least at one point, is that when he rates a match 5 stars, he doesn’t think about it, he reacts to that instantaneously. And if he has to think for even a second, then it’s not. The problem is now it’s much easier to rewatch and dissect matches that that doesn’t make much sense to base it on an instant reaction. Why hold yourself to it. That’s likely where things got out of hand. He sees things again that anyone can miss the first time, and decides that it’s better.

Okada is really the one who broke it. The 7-star match should’ve been 6 1/4 if he thought it was the best match he’s ever seen, there’s too much in the middle. Ospreay made it unfixable. But the standard has clearly changed. It’s clear the crowd reactions influence a lot.

The stuff in France, we know the crowd was the star of the show. But if you’re truly having a great match, the crowd isn’t signing songs and taking over the match(es). I’ve seen enough very good matches in WWE come across not so good because the crowd is tired or refuses to react.

There should be so many elements that go into achieving such a high level of praise. When he rated the Tanahashi/Okada matches, he always said that if you just watch one match in that series, unaware to the full gravity of the build, you won’t see it as so great.

So then how the hell is a parking lot brawl thrown out on TV theoretically on the same level? It should never happen unless there’s some kind of unique situation, such as Danielson/Page going 60 minutes, or Danielson/Omega dream match scenario where the crowd is at a fever pitch.

Also, the idea of breaking the scale, is that these matches are must-see. Everything can’t be must-see, because you can’t see all of it. If everything is must-see, the reality is that nothing is.

 

[Jussi]

The discourse has come up again, I don’t know where it came from. The first place I saw it was Seth shitting on it. It’s gotten to be a pain in the ass. I have been guilty of playing into it before, but time has also passed. The idea the system was never to have it be some kind of achieved award if you get a match rated 5-stars. Some have acknowledged it, but Dave himself has tried to shutter it when people complain that a certain match wasn’t 5 stars. He maintains that if he has a match 4 3/4 and you have it 5, then you both agree. His standard, according to him, at least at one point, is that when he rates a match 5 stars, he doesn’t think about it, he reacts to that instantaneously. And if he has to think for even a second, then it’s not. The problem is now it’s much easier to rewatch and dissect matches that that doesn’t make much sense to base it on an instant reaction. Why hold yourself to it. That’s likely where things got out of hand. He sees things again that anyone can miss the first time, and decides that it’s better.

Okada is really the one who broke it. The 7-star match should’ve been 6 1/4 if he thought it was the best match he’s ever seen, there’s too much in the middle. Ospreay made it unfixable. But the standard has clearly changed. It’s clear the crowd reactions influence a lot.

The stuff in France, we know the crowd was the star of the show. But if you’re truly having a great match, the crowd isn’t signing songs and taking over the match(es). I’ve seen enough very good matches in WWE come across not so good because the crowd is tired or refuses to react.

There should be so many elements that go into achieving such a high level of praise. When he rated the Tanahashi/Okada matches, he always said that if you just watch one match in that series, unaware to the full gravity of the build, you won’t see it as so great.

So then how the hell is a parking lot brawl thrown out on TV theoretically on the same level? It should never happen unless there’s some kind of unique situation, such as Danielson/Page going 60 minutes, or Danielson/Omega dream match scenario where the crowd is at a fever pitch.

Also, the idea of breaking the scale, is that these matches are must-see. Everything can’t be must-see, because you can’t see all of it. If everything is must-see, the reality is that nothing is.

In Europe, if a match is good or the home team is playing well, that only makes the crowd more vocal/louder. The French crowd was that loud because they thought the match was good. That may be the cultural difference in attending sporting events. The same has happened in NXT/WWE matches in the UK. The more they enjoy the matches, the more likely you'll hear more singing.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Now we wait to see if either show moves off their day of the week.

Pretty sure USA has already announced the start date for Smackdown, and it's a Friday.

The discourse has come up again, I don’t know where it came from. The first place I saw it was Seth shitting on it. It’s gotten to be a pain in the ass. I have been guilty of playing into it before, but time has also passed. The idea the system was never to have it be some kind of achieved award if you get a match rated 5-stars. Some have acknowledged it, but Dave himself has tried to shutter it when people complain that a certain match wasn’t 5 stars. He maintains that if he has a match 4 3/4 and you have it 5, then you both agree. His standard, according to him, at least at one point, is that when he rates a match 5 stars, he doesn’t think about it, he reacts to that instantaneously. And if he has to think for even a second, then it’s not. The problem is now it’s much easier to rewatch and dissect matches that that doesn’t make much sense to base it on an instant reaction. Why hold yourself to it. That’s likely where things got out of hand. He sees things again that anyone can miss the first time, and decides that it’s better.

Okada is really the one who broke it. The 7-star match should’ve been 6 1/4 if he thought it was the best match he’s ever seen, there’s too much in the middle. Ospreay made it unfixable. But the standard has clearly changed. It’s clear the crowd reactions influence a lot.

The stuff in France, we know the crowd was the star of the show. But if you’re truly having a great match, the crowd isn’t signing songs and taking over the match(es). I’ve seen enough very good matches in WWE come across not so good because the crowd is tired or refuses to react.

There should be so many elements that go into achieving such a high level of praise. When he rated the Tanahashi/Okada matches, he always said that if you just watch one match in that series, unaware to the full gravity of the build, you won’t see it as so great.

So then how the hell is a parking lot brawl thrown out on TV theoretically on the same level? It should never happen unless there’s some kind of unique situation, such as Danielson/Page going 60 minutes, or Danielson/Omega dream match scenario where the crowd is at a fever pitch.

Also, the idea of breaking the scale, is that these matches are must-see. Everything can’t be must-see, because you can’t see all of it. If everything is must-see, the reality is that nothing is.

Actually, Kurt broke it worse than he broke his neck.

Dave never giving Angle a 5* match killed the credibility entirely.

 

[GKJ]

Pretty sure USA has already announced the start date for Smackdown, and it's a Friday.



Actually, Kurt broke it worse than he broke his neck.

Dave never giving Angle a 5* match killed the credibility entirely.

Well if you have his HBK or Benoit matches as 5, then you agree with him.

 

[sansabri]

good thing dave never did film reviews 'how is t2: judgment day 7 and a half stars but the terminator is 4 and a quarter???'

 

[GKJ]

good thing dave never did film reviews 'how is t2: judgment day 7 and a half stars but the terminator is 4 and a quarter???'

The rating system was already based on that. It started as a 4-star scale.

 

[CDJ]

At this point I don’t give the stars weight beyond “oh that’s a lot of stars I should probably try to watch the match”

 

[Bondurant]

Star ratings are fallible. As with a film review they are not to be taken as gospel or seriously. It's a subjective moment in time reaction to something.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Well if you have his HBK or Benoit matches as 5, then you agree with him.

Five stars is five stars, no matter how much he wants to claim "4.75 is five stars!" If he thought it was five stars, he'd have given it five stars.

Van Vliet exposed his ass badly on the entire ranking system.

 

[GKJ]

Five stars is five stars, no matter how much he wants to claim "4.75 is five stars!" If he thought it was five stars, he'd have given it five stars.

Van Vliet exposed his ass badly on the entire ranking system.

But his point is that it’s not worth the argument.

I saw Mayu Iwatani vs. Sareee a couple weeks ago, he has 4.75, if I’ve decided it’s one of the three best matches I’ve seen this year, we would have nothing to argue about.

 

[EpochLink]

Two-face marble mouth rotten raisin of a man.
I wish this douchebag of a human would go away from the media entirely.

Some people still turn to this scumbag for his "unbiased legendary" opinions on wrestlers.

Go away, drunk old slimy man.

The problem with Flair and some of the older wrestlers whom have their glory days, some can't escape the spotlight and couldn't find anything outside of wrestling they are good at.

 

[BruinDust]

The problem with Flair and some of the older wrestlers whom have their glory days, some can't escape the spotlight and couldn't find anything outside of wrestling they are good at.

So it's the older wrestler's fault that they have wrestling conventions all over the country where people still want to hand over money to meet their favorite performers from the past?

It's the older wrestlers fault that their are platforms like Youtube where they can make money doing podcasts?

Outside of the very few who didn't spend their money poorly, these guys are trying to make a living same as anyone else. Why the &&^%& should they "escape the spotlight" if their are still able to make money off of it. I'd say Flair has made more money off appearances the past 10 years than he did his first 10 years in the business wrestling 300+ days a year. Steve Austin has made more money off his podcast than his combined career earnings before he began the Stone Cold gimmick. You should probably let him know so he gives up that Podcast crap so he can escape the spotlight and find something else he's good at. While your at it, tell Flair to stop accepting paycheques from pro sports teams that want him to appear and just stay home.

 

[sabremike]

 

[EpochLink]

So it's the older wrestler's fault that they have wrestling conventions all over the country where people still want to hand over money to meet their favorite performers from the past?

It's the older wrestlers fault that their are platforms like Youtube where they can make money doing podcasts?

Outside of the very few who didn't spend their money poorly, these guys are trying to make a living same as anyone else. Why the &&^%& should they "escape the spotlight" if their are still able to make money off of it. I'd say Flair has made more money off appearances the past 10 years than he did his first 10 years in the business wrestling 300+ days a year. Steve Austin has made more money off his podcast than his combined career earnings before he began the Stone Cold gimmick. You should probably let him know so he gives up that Podcast crap so he can escape the spotlight and find something else he's good at. While your at it, tell Flair to stop accepting paycheques from pro sports teams that want him to appear and just stay home.

Stop making a fool out of themselves, but Flair can’t help it. Man wants to be the centre of attention.

 

[BruinDust]

Stop making a fool out of themselves, but Flair can’t help it. Man wants to be the centre of attention.

Well, seems to me there are plenty of people out there who still want to make Flair the center of attention and are willing to put money in his pocket to do so. Sounds to me like you got something against a man making a living off the brand he's built over 40 years.

 

[EpochLink]

Well, seems to me there are plenty of people out there who still want to make Flair the center of attention and are willing to put money in his pocket to do so. Sounds to me like you got something against a man making a living off the brand he's built over 40 years.

And every divorce / debt he’s been in too.
Mans a man of the people.

 

[BruinDust]

And every divorce / debt he’s been in too.
Mans a man of the people.

There is no doubt that Flair made his own bed financially with all the divorces.

 

[EpochLink]

There is no doubt that Flair made his own bed financially with all the divorces.

And countless times WWE has bailed him out.
There was no way he was gonna pay those debts off if it wasn’t for them.

 

[BruinDust]

And countless times WWE has bailed him out.
There was no way he was gonna pay those debts off if it wasn’t for them.

It's basically the only reason he ever worked a match with TNA/Impact. He needed the money.

 

[JackSlater]

The discourse has come up again, I don’t know where it came from. The first place I saw it was Seth shitting on it. It’s gotten to be a pain in the ass. I have been guilty of playing into it before, but time has also passed. The idea the system was never to have it be some kind of achieved award if you get a match rated 5-stars. Some have acknowledged it, but Dave himself has tried to shutter it when people complain that a certain match wasn’t 5 stars. He maintains that if he has a match 4 3/4 and you have it 5, then you both agree. His standard, according to him, at least at one point, is that when he rates a match 5 stars, he doesn’t think about it, he reacts to that instantaneously. And if he has to think for even a second, then it’s not. The problem is now it’s much easier to rewatch and dissect matches that that doesn’t make much sense to base it on an instant reaction. Why hold yourself to it. That’s likely where things got out of hand. He sees things again that anyone can miss the first time, and decides that it’s better.

Okada is really the one who broke it. The 7-star match should’ve been 6 1/4 if he thought it was the best match he’s ever seen, there’s too much in the middle. Ospreay made it unfixable. But the standard has clearly changed. It’s clear the crowd reactions influence a lot.

The stuff in France, we know the crowd was the star of the show. But if you’re truly having a great match, the crowd isn’t signing songs and taking over the match(es). I’ve seen enough very good matches in WWE come across not so good because the crowd is tired or refuses to react.

There should be so many elements that go into achieving such a high level of praise. When he rated the Tanahashi/Okada matches, he always said that if you just watch one match in that series, unaware to the full gravity of the build, you won’t see it as so great.

So then how the hell is a parking lot brawl thrown out on TV theoretically on the same level? It should never happen unless there’s some kind of unique situation, such as Danielson/Page going 60 minutes, or Danielson/Omega dream match scenario where the crowd is at a fever pitch.

Also, the idea of breaking the scale, is that these matches are must-see. Everything can’t be must-see, because you can’t see all of it. If everything is must-see, the reality is that nothing is.

I think the fans are the problem with WON star ratings, not Meltzer. Of course he's inconsistent and the scale isn't perfect - he's human. There are some obvious inconsistencies in his justifications (claiming that five was never a limit at all when just by distribution you can see he clearly held off on 5s.... until he went nuts for recent stuff and blew past 5s, or that working for the audience matters, except when it is Ultimate Warrior or something) but who cares? It's just one reporter's opinion. Meltzer has been a good reporter for decades. As a critic he's not great but people treat those ratings as the gospel truth. Meltzer's right that minor differences between ratings don't matter, but he also clearly has an agenda sometimes with promoting what he wants wrestling to be. Which is to be expected as long as people don't pretend the numbers are divinely inspired.

Outside of knowing that a highly rated match is probably good and a low rated match probably sucks who cares? It's the fans who work themselves up over it. Well some of the wrestlers too.

 

[GKJ]

I think the fans are the problem with WON star ratings, not Meltzer. Of course he's inconsistent and the scale isn't perfect - he's human. There are some obvious inconsistencies in his justifications (claiming that five was never a limit at all when just by distribution you can see he clearly held off on 5s.... until he went nuts for recent stuff and blew past 5s, or that working for the audience matters, except when it is Ultimate Warrior or something) but who cares? It's just one reporter's opinion. Meltzer has been a good reporter for decades. As a critic he's not great but people treat those ratings as the gospel truth. Meltzer's right that minor differences between ratings don't matter, but he also clearly has an agenda sometimes with promoting what he wants wrestling to be. Which is to be expected as long as people don't pretend the numbers are divinely inspired.

Outside of knowing that a highly rated match is probably good and a low rated match probably sucks who cares? It's the fans who work themselves up over it. Well some of the wrestlers too.

I agree with all of this I think. I think his ratings were supposed to be taken as a level of recommendation, and not an award. He does (subscriber-voted) actual year-end awards, too.

When movie critics have their reviews and ratings, they do it before anyone sees it. It’s not exact but similar here in how it started, but now by the time he rates the match, almost anyone has seen it, or people are talking about it, and sometimes he does get caught in that hype. And also people, especially those who see them live, when they see something they think is among the best things they’ve ever seen, border on tribal vindication, especially now when people can see and comment on others’ instant reactions.

I do think he’s changed some of the standards though and that if he could go back, he’d change or adjust his mind on some things comparatively to today, but if he did he’d be expected to do that for everything. He also knows now that the first thing some Observer readers are doing are scrolling right to the match ratings before reading anything.

 

[boredmale]

I do think he’s changed some of the standards though and that if he could go back, he’d change or adjust his mind on some things comparatively to today, but if he did he’d be expected to do that for everything.

The problem with Dave's ratings is once you set a standard for decades it's 5 stars, it makes 0 sense to start giving out 6 and 7 stars

His new star system reminds me of