[Bubz]

Originally Posted by TaylorFitz

I still like Davey but it does make me wonder when I hear that he didn't have a great match against a challenging El Generico. The guy is amazing when he's the underdog and the challenger. I've watched matches from 2008 in 2011 where I knew Generico wasn't winning the title yet still got sucked into the match starting rooting for Generico.

The Nigel match I'm guessing? If so it's awesome stuff. Nigel was/is in another league from anyone on the indy's these days though imo, truly one of the best in the world, especially during his title reign.

[Caponex75]

Man, this news of 2012 Richards is depressing me. The guy was legitimately the best guy out there in 2011 for the first 8 or so months but turned bad over night. I'll check out the match still but you guys have been horrible lately on the Richards stuff.

[Seabs]

Sounds like Generico didn't get to play the underdog challenger working from behind which just fucking blows. "We're equals" matches very rarely work out well unless both of the wrestlers are really fucking fantastic and have incredible chemistry. Nobody on the Indy scene right now should be working a "We're equals" match.

[jawbreaker]

Originally Posted by RawIsWar1991

Richards vs Edwards is a pure ***** from me.

which
because depending on that, you're either dumb and have no taste, or you're crazy or just trolling.

also, Seabs, I pretty much entirely agree but Hero and Claudio did it magnificently at Eight. I guess they're not "on the indy scene" any more though.

[RawIsWar1991]

Originally Posted by jawbreaker

which
because depending on that, you're either dumb and have no taste, or you're crazy or just trolling.

also, Seabs, I pretty much entirely agree but Hero and Claudio did it magnificently at Eight. I guess they're not "on the indy scene" any more though.

You really don't have to sound like an elitist douchebag if you don't agree with me. The match had some epic sequences, was hard-as-hell and the ending was a feel-good moment. You could say a Great Khali match was ***** and I wouldn't judge because at the end of the day, we're all different. I don't know how hard that is to understand.

[Legend]

Originally Posted by RawIsWar1991

You really don't have to sound like an elitist douchebag if you don't agree with me. The match had some epic sequences, was hard-as-hell and the ending was a feel-good moment. You could say a Great Khali match was ***** and I wouldn't judge because at the end of the day, we're all different. I don't know how hard that is to understand.

This is the Other Wrestling section. Subjectivity doesn't exist here.

[jawbreaker]

Originally Posted by RawIsWar1991

You really don't have to sound like an elitist douchebag if you don't agree with me. The match had some epic sequences, was hard-as-hell and the ending was a feel-good moment. You could say a Great Khali match was ***** and I wouldn't judge because at the end of the day, we're all different. I don't know how hard that is to understand.

I'm assuming you mean the BITW match, and the only way that was five stars is if you rate out of 20.

seriously, eight posts before you come in saying it was "a pure *****" I explained fairly succinctly why the match wasn't good. I've gone far more in depth earlier in this thread, and while you're obviously new and I can't expect you to read back to June and July, you should at least read back to yesterday, and maybe try making an argument that responds to mine instead of just asserting your opinion with no support.

Originally Posted by Legend

This is the Other Wrestling section. Subjectivity doesn't exist here.

there's actually much less room for subjectivity in critical analysis than most people suspect. I guess technically everything is subjective, but there are conventions that are conventions for a reason, and it's very easy to make accurate objective statements given those conventions.

[RawIsWar1991]

Originally Posted by jawbreaker

I'm assuming you mean the BITW match, and the only way that was five stars is if you rate out of 20.

seriously, eight posts before you come in saying it was "a pure *****" I explained fairly succinctly why the match wasn't good. I've gone far more in depth earlier in this thread, and while you're obviously new and I can't expect you to read back to June and July, you should at least read back to yesterday, and maybe try making an argument that responds to mine instead of just asserting your opinion with no support.



there's actually much less room for subjectivity in critical analysis than most people suspect. I guess technically everything is subjective, but there are conventions that are conventions for a reason, and it's very easy to make accurate objective statements given those conventions.

You explained why you didn't like it. That doesn't mean no-one else can think of it highly. I explained why I liked it and you explained why you didn't. I think it's a classic. You don't. None of our opinions are fact. It's subjective, you know.

[JoeRulz]

Originally Posted by jawbreaker

there's actually much less room for subjectivity in critical analysis than most people suspect. I guess technically everything is subjective, but there are conventions that are conventions for a reason, and it's very easy to make accurate objective statements given those conventions.

Oh, gimme a break...

[The Corre]

Originally Posted by jawbreaker

which
because depending on that, you're either dumb and have no taste, or you're crazy or just trolling.

Hey now, there's no need for that.
Personally I'd rate Davey Richards vs Eddie Edwards from BITW as a 5 star match too. It's one of very few matches that went 30+ minutes that kept my attention all the way through.
It's just my taste in wrestling as I said 1 or 2 pages back..