Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Invincible
That's a huge wrong you wrote there. Star ratings DO NOT reflect the work rate in a match, perhaps for the purest of wrestling fans it may. But the reason that ratings differ from person to person is because of opinions on entertainment. The rating is not given to the wrestlers that do moves to get reaction. It is given to the match that entertains.
|
The original purpose of star-ratings was to judge the work rate of a match. Yes, later on it evolved as a tool to indicate personal liking of a match. These are subjective and obviously, disagreements aren't any issue here.
Quote:
|
Well pardon the man for not living up to the standard. It's not a very hard concept to understand - different wrestlers wrestle different styles. Angle was not Bret. He didn't wrestle the style that Bret did. In the Rumble match alone, how many Angle slams fell in vain to Benoit's endurance that Angle had to resort to the Ankle Lock. Providing room for exhaustion (i) in kayfabe is done perfectly fine by Angle (ii) non-kayfabe is pulling out restholds, which never add to a match. Unless the booking calls for a slow spot, like in Taker|Shawn, then there's no need to endorse it
|
Restholds are wrestling moves/holds. They are what you would call 'rasslin. It's true that wrestlers of the yore used it to rest and slow down, but if it serves a purpose, then it's all good. If somebody busts it out of nowhere, then you could call it irrelevant or whatever, but if it fits the story, then it's all good. After all, restholds are wrestling moves.
Now, you think Angle portrays exhaustion well enough in kayfabe terms, ummm, well; I really don't have anything to say after that. You do know what exhaustion is, right?
Quote:
|
Watch Shawn's match against Hunter from Armageddon. Probably the worst psychology ever.
|
Agreed it was bad. Not the worst ever, but bad.
Quote:
|
Perhaps a little like Edge's Edgecution ? Or Benoit's Headbutt ? Or where all those degrading to the wrestlers too ? Your logic is non-existent
|
Chris Benoit used to the Diving Headbutt to setup the Crippler Crossface. The Diving Headbutt directly connects on his opponent's arm. It sets up the Crossface perfectly.
I don't know what you mean by "non-existent." Kurt's 100 suplexes in a row certain is portrays non-existing psychology.
Quote:
|
Everybody has a formula. You don't enjoy this wrestler's formula --> You call him bad. Simple.
|
I don't consider Angle bad. Never did. Never will. He's a great pure wrestler, and as I said, the best chain wrestler since Chris Benoit. Just he lacks storytelling abilities, and I'm afraid, that's the main part of wrestling.
I kinda predicted that you would say this, if you were keen enough to reply, which you did.
There is a difference in disagreeing on wrestling strategies and disagreeing on elements that doesn’t define matches. Storytelling and psychology isn't really perception, but throwing a tantrum in the ring could be taken either way. You loved it, I didn't, and there is no point arguing over it. However, that is not the same as selling or storytelling now is it?
Quote:
|
Black tie ball and chain...
|
You don't like pasta. Good enough, but that doesn't mean it's not GREAT!
Quote:
|
None of the other matches you mentioned are in the same league as Cena|Shawn I. It's possible that it's been a long time since you've seen it. I once held it at that level too but there's absolutely nothing there to criticize. They told a perfect story in the ring and the pacing was some of the best I've ever seen (On Chi-Town Rumble levels). The complaint about Cena's lack of selling is easily explained in the match itself just as long as you stay on and watch Cena's side when they show the split screen replay of Shawn busting himself open. I have never not enjoyed watching this match.
|
You mean Benoit/Hunter/Michaels, Michaels/Hart, and Austin/Rock? Yeah, sure they aren't on that level. They are higher. As I said, Cena/Michaels was great, but not THAT great. The ChiTown Rumble match is one of the greatest of all time. Cena/Michaels.... Not so much.
That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy match. I loved it. You know what, this is the only place where I have seen people talk so highly about this match, and that's shocking to me because I've never considered it more than ****. For me, it's the same as Cena/Hunter from WrestleMania 22.
Quote:
|
Ever seen Eddie|Malenko 2/3 Falls match by any chance. That once trounces this on so many levels that it's not even funny.
|
I didn't say it was better than this or that. You don't like it, and that's okay. Maybe you don't prefer the hold they used early on - the snail's pace, and lack of movement in the first 30 - 35 minutes. That's fine. But, the remaining 25 - 30 minutes is fire.
People, especially on the Internet, deliberately snap this match down. In fact, it's like one of the major requirements to seem cool in the IWC - underestimate this Iron Man match.
Isn't it contradictory that Michaels considers this his best match and Bret Hart calls this one of his favorite matches ever? Many modern day wrestlers including Angle considers this the greatest WrestleMania match. There must be something.
Okay, it didn't have 100 suplexes in a row, and Angle's intensity, but that doesn't stop it from being a great match.
Quote:
|
Btw, I'm not ready for a huge quote war.
|
LOL. You go word for word, and after that, you write this. Not fair.... Not fair!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy3000
How is it "ludicrous" or "immature" to downgrade a triple threat match when the person doing the downgrading doesn't like that type of match? People can be as objective as possible when "rating" a wrestling match, but the whole star rating system is subjective when you get right down to it, so obviously what one does and doesn't like will play into the eventual rating. If one person is a huge fan of triple threat matches, then that'll be reflected in the way they rate it. If they don't like triple threat matches, that'll also be reflected.
|
Personally, I won't call myself a Triple Threat mark either, but that WrestleMania XX match and the Final Encounter at Backlash are two instances where my lack of interest towards Triple Threat matches didn't hinder my liking and appreciation towards the match. I’ve said it before, there has never been a better Triple Threat match than that and never will be. WrestleMania XX main event told a story and it had everything - from storytelling, drama, non-stop action, psychology, and a perfect ending. It's everything a fan could ask for.
Quote:
|
The main thing I personally don't like about triple threats is that there's always one person being forced to sell extensively on the floor or some place outside of what's going on and it's a trend that becomes repetetive and predictable, especially when the offence they're selling extensively in the first place wouldn't require selling to such an extent in any other situation. It's not something I hate, and it's not even something I terribly dislike - I make allowances for it since thats what that type of match requires the participants to do.
|
Yeah, that bothers me too, but like you said, you can't have 3 men fighting each other nonstop. That would look insane, and that's the reason why none of the other Triple Threat matches made it that big, except for WrestleMania XX and Backlash 2004.
Quote:
|
The Wrestlemania 20 main event is really, really great, but I definitely don't agree with the notion that it's perfect. If people think it is, then that's fair enough.
|
Okay, tell me something, what didn't you like about the match? What flaws can you find?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ownage™
I agree wholeheartedly and yet I don't think it's 5 stars. For me the most important thing in giving a match the full rating is the feel I get from it. I don't know if you understand what I mean but I didn't get that feel last time I watched HHH/HBK/Benoit (I had it at ***** since it happened until a month ago). It is flawlessly worked and the intangibles are there so who knows, maybe I'll change my mind next time I watch it but without that feel I'm not gonna give it the maximum. Same applies to Angle/Benoit and HBK/Razor.
|
I don't know why, but I think the whole Benoit revisionist theory is coming into play. At that point and even up until what Benoit did, many people including me considered/consider it to be the greatest WrestleMania main event ever and a 5-star gem. In fact, it's the last 5-star classic held in WWE soil, as of now.
Angle/Benoit is a spectacular match, and is one match that I wish I could give 5-stars, but for reasons I stated on the thread earlier, I can't give it the full monty.
As for Ramon/Michaels, well, I loved the WrestleMania X Ladder match, but I haven't watched in a long time now, so I can't comment much. As for the SummerSlam 1995 one, meh - I don't think highly of it.
By the way, I lost most of these and had to type it all over again because somebody abruptly closed the other thread.
Official Match/Show/DVD Discussion Thread - SNOWFLAKES~
Official Match/Show/DVD Discussion Thread - SNOWFLAKES~
.
. Got Danielson on the brain because I was writing out his name when labelling my Danielson Vs McGuinness discs 
(new site now!)
