Originally Posted by Spartanlax
Better Than Our Best
4th Anniversary Show
That's the order you should make, and it's a damn fine order.
If he's supposed to be reviewing a match and is actually working for a semi-well known site that does reviews, don't you think he should pay a bit more attention? It's not like it's hard to miss: the arm was worked over, and it led to submissions, anyone with two eyes could tell you that. As for saying the comment is out of line, first off I never ment it to be an insult to the person, just his review was way of, actually I made that quite clear in my original post. But, yes, if I was insulting him, you'd be very well entitled to saying I'm out of line.
His review was wrong. There's no opinion involved with that, his literal comments about the arm work leading nowhere was flat out wrong. Now, as for the rating, there ARE such thing as facts involved with rating matches. Sure it's mostly opinion, but it's an opinion to a point. Wrestling needs: selling, heat, story, psychology, etc to be good. I know some of those are very similar, but whatever. If someone called Khali/Funaki *****, they'd be wrong. I don't care who it is, they're wrong. Some people may not agree with that, but whatever. That's why I give an 'arguable rating' in my reviews, for example, Joe/Danielson from FOTC I gave an arguable rating of ****-*****, because that's what it deserved, no lower and no higher, because it had the makings of a great match. If someone had given it a higher/lower grade, I'd think they're crazy, and they either know a HELLUVA lot more than me about wrestling, or a HELLUVA lot less. I mean, I found McGuinness/Danielson boring from Generation Now, most likely never watching it again except for those sick headbutts, but I rated it **** (might lower to ***3/4 if I ever watch it again), because it deserved it. I disliked the match, but rated it highly, because the workrate and everything were there, and no one can deny that.
Yes, they have been used against you. Hell, they've happened right in this very wrestling section. If I had the time/patience, I could go look through and show you the list of insults used against you for giving poor, poor, poooooor ratings to amazing matches, and then using even poorer reasons for giving those ratings. And, once again, I never insulted him as a person, only insulted his ability to review.
I never insulted the dude, I insulted his ability to review a match. "He needs to have his head examined", because apparently reviewing a match, not just the rating, but actually saying what happened, is a struggle for him, and he was factually wrong in his comments of 'the arm work went nowhere'. Just because I didn't write out 'he needs to have his head examined, and I mean this about his ability to review' doesn't mean I was insulting him, I don't even know the guy, so who am I to insult him? I've seen you do the same exact thing to the guys at 411 with your comments, and even though I agree with you about those comments, you're a bit hypocritical to start saying I insult reviewers, aren't you?
Yeah, I'm not gonna argue, you beat me again.
BUT 2 things:
1. I've never been personally insulted for my "poor" match ratings. Maybe my review ability has been insulted, but I personally have not.
2. on Nigel/Dragon from Generation Now, I thought the match wasn't very good, as the mat work didn't lead too much, all Nigel's armwork had a fairly poor payoff, and it felt most things outside the headbutts and lariats were filler.