Originally Posted by Nervosa
Thanks guys, this gave me a lot to chew on. I think I understand what you guys are saying a lot more.
So when analyzing matches with very little control, what makes any one better than another? Quality of spots, or flow, or what, exactly? You mentioned execution, which makes sense, but again I go back to Richards/Elgin which didnt seem to have execution problems but was universally panned. I honestly don't think I know how to analyze matches without control other than thinking to myself 'that was cool.' I was just curious how you guys do that.
Elgin/Davey was just terribly structured, imo. It was somewhat carried by a hot crowd and Nigel but it was pretty much the usual ROH 2012 style spotfest with them losing direction several times in the match. You could just put more emphasis on the transitions between those control segments as well. I had Ladder War IV at *** with the major reason being their lazy transitioning from Steen controling the match to Generico doing so and vice versa. In Dean Ambrose matches he'll come up with new, refreshing ways to play up to wrestling cliches and that'll certainly affect my enjoyment. SPOTS can be a major factor but so can something like matwork.....if you're watching a 1973 Billy Robison match. Selling, drama, crowd reaction, charachter work, if it matters to the quality of your enjoyment of a wrestling match it's eligible for crediting.
Now, onto watching Tanaka vs Ishii. Hoping for at least 1 table spot :P