I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
To be fair, this rule was added because the Seth and Jinder Match got absolutely destroyed in the ratings but they had a lot of AEW and Tony Khan commentary in the comments.
That had everythin to do with the subject at hand. You keep taking swipes at wrestling fans and then acting like you didn’t and then inventing stuff you think we said. Just stop.
Also, your shtick that you’re not a wrestling nerd is probably the stupidest gimmick I’ve ever seen on the internet. You’re on a wrestling forum every day. You’re no different than the rest of us.
I never personally cared for ratings because a lot of my favorite movies and even matches are rated terrible by critics, and I never got the whole point of accepting a critics rating on a match or a whole show.
Hopefully, this new rule will help alleviate the issue.
Agreed on the ratings. I enjoy what I enjoy, but I will say I take audience ratings at more face value than a single critic or say the critics ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. If the audience score is a 86 and the critics a 52, I trust the audience more. So for that, I did like cage a little more than Dave’s.
fwiw i don't even care about actual cagematch ratings any more than I do Dave's - but it was a lot more fun when ppl didn't go brigading to downvote stuff from wwe and aew, or just as bad, brigade nxt ppvs and rate them full 10s lol. It used to be you would know anything joshi was rated too high because the niche ppl that would do it there, but that was an acceptable thing - just like you can add up to a .5 to most dave ratings to any wwe or womens wrestling match - but it's gotten way out of hand and that's not even talking the heinous comment ppl leave now.
we used to just laugh at stuff like bray seth and all agreed it was bad - now we can't even admit when a match is good or bad , sucks lol
Hopefully, this new rule will help alleviate the issue.
Agreed on the ratings. I enjoy what I enjoy, but I will say I take audience ratings at more face value than a single critic or say the critics ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. If the audience score is a 86 and the critics a 52, I trust the audience more. So for that, I did like cage a little more than Dave’s.
First off Internet Wrestling community. You’re online.
Secondly, I don’t care if you want to use that acronym or not, but you can’t separate yourself from wrestling nerds if you’re the fifth highest poster on a wrestling forum.
To be fair, this rule was added because the Seth and Jinder Match got absolutely destroyed in the ratings but they had a lot of AEW and Tony Khan commentary in the comments.
First off Internet Wrestling community. You’re online.
Secondly, I don’t care if you want to use that acronym or not, but you can’t separate yourself from wrestling nerds if you’re the fifth highest poster on a wrestling forum.
fwiw i don't even care about actual cagematch ratings any more than I do Dave's - but it was a lot more fun when ppl didn't go brigading to downvote stuff from wwe and aew, or just as bad, brigade nxt ppvs and rate them full 10s lol. It used to be you would know anything joshi was rated too high because the niche ppl that would do it there, but that was an acceptable thing - just like you can add up to a .5 to most dave ratings to any wwe or womens wrestling match - but it's gotten way out of hand and that's not even talking the heinous comment ppl leave now.
we used to just laugh at stuff like bray seth and all agreed it was bad - now we can't even admit when a match is good or bad , sucks lol
Ideally, I think when it comes to match ratings for say, Cagematch or Dave Meltzer, treat it like a movie review. Maybe you go, for example, "Huh, I hear this Mayu Iwatani woman in Japan had a match with Syuri which was hard hitting. I like GUNTHER stuff, will it work for me?" So maybe you go to cage match to see "Maybe I'll give it a try. People who watched it liked it." But it's no guarantee. It's one person's opinions and maybe if you have similar tastes you might use him as a benchmark or whatever, but it isn't gospel and you might disagree.
Examples: Obviously Dave didn't rate Taker vs HBK at Mania 25 five stars, but it to me will always remain as close to a perfect match as it can be. I remember once he rated I believe Johnny Gargano vs Adam Cole five stars for their rematch from Takeover NY but I honestly thought it was a step down from the previous match and the ending felt a touch hollow. Then someone here may like Baron Corbin, I may not. There's room for different opinions.
Except for people years later pretending that Jinder's WWE title reign was amazing simply because they hate TK, that's bull. We all hated it. It was bad. Though I didn't watch Raw so I can't say if he did better than before, so I won't pretend it was some terrible match because I didn't watch it.
Unironically, I was reminded of this video by Dunkey, particularly starting from 0:30 - if you can't establish a consistent critical voice for a source, you can't really use it for recommendations or otherwise
