Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«129 »
  • Post
  • Reply
TriffTshngo
Mar 28, 2010



So do people just not know about Misawa/Kawada from 1994 or do they ignore it on purpose or what cause the scale's been "broken" for 24 years, but people only started complaining about it last year

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Your Parents
Jul 19, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 13 hours!


Gumball Gumption posted:

I wish he would just change his system or ditch the stars. What wrestling is has changed so much from when he started rating them that it really doesn't make sense to compare.

There were six star and other 5+ star matches in the 80s. I'm tired of hearing this uninformed take.

Your Parents
Jul 19, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 13 hours!


TriffTshngo posted:

So do people just not know about Misawa/Kawada from 1994 or do they ignore it on purpose or what cause the scale's been "broken" for 24 years, but people only started complaining about it last year

The flair steamboat house show match got six stars but people don't care because it's not on tape.

TriffTshngo
Mar 28, 2010



Your Parents posted:

The flair steamboat house show match got six stars but people don't care because it's not on tape.

I mean if you can't see a match it's a fair take to not care about it tbh

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012



Your Parents posted:

There were six star and other 5+ star matches in the 80s. I'm tired of hearing this uninformed take.

Yeah, I know. Doesn't really change my point. I think he's rated 8 matches in the last year and a half 5+. The number of matches getting that rating has gone up recently and it makes me wonder why bothering doing stars. As a ranking system or a recommendation system it becomes even more arbitrary then it already is to go "Oh, that match got 5.5 but that one got 6.0 so the 6.0 has to be better" when both matches are at the top of the craft. Arbitrary numerical ranking systems suck because if you use the same one for this long you eventually run into a problem where you run into something that you consider better then that last match which broke your system and then you keep watching matches that are even better then that. Dave should just drop the stars and tell people if he likes something or not.

All matches will be either "Oh I thought it was great", "It was good but like, uh, I mean, I've seen better matches. It certainly wasn't the best I've seen.", "I mean, uh, what can you say? It wasn't good I can tell you that. "

Your Parents
Jul 19, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 13 hours!


It's gone up recently because the last few years have produced arguably the greatest wrestling in history.

forkboy84
Jun 13, 2012

I am above your criticism.
I do Disney characters for the claps.
Clap me. Claps for me.
Recognise my ability and show me that you love me.
Show me.
SHOW ME.
Upppfh.
Oh yeah.
Hit me with your inferior munter.
I am FORK BOY (84)
Upfh.. Oh yeaaah.


Maybe the rating system has always been out of 10 and Dave just doesn't like wrestling all that much?

remusclaw
Dec 8, 2009



Numbers and stars in reviews have always been a shorthand for attracting word challenged people. Numbers =/= science.

Strawberry Panda
Nov 4, 2007

Breakfast Defecting, Slow Dick Touching, Root Beer Barreling SwagVP


remusclaw posted:

Numbers and stars in reviews have always been a shorthand for attracting word challenged people. Numbers =/= science.

I rate albums in a spreadsheet and my ratings are in colors.

Procrastinator
Aug 16, 2009

this but unironically

Benne posted:

The star ratings are fine you dorks

The bullet club is star ratings.

Captain Magic
Apr 3, 2005

Yes, we have feathers--but the muscles of men.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Yeah, I know. Doesn't really change my point. I think he's rated 8 matches in the last year and a half 5+. The number of matches getting that rating has gone up recently and it makes me wonder why bothering doing stars. As a ranking system or a recommendation system it becomes even more arbitrary then it already is to go "Oh, that match got 5.5 but that one got 6.0 so the 6.0 has to be better" when both matches are at the top of the craft. Arbitrary numerical ranking systems suck because if you use the same one for this long you eventually run into a problem where you run into something that you consider better then that last match which broke your system and then you keep watching matches that are even better then that. Dave should just drop the stars and tell people if he likes something or not.

All matches will be either "Oh I thought it was great", "It was good but like, uh, I mean, I've seen better matches. It certainly wasn't the best I've seen.", "I mean, uh, what can you say? It wasn't good I can tell you that. "

NJPW is really loving good man

Jerusalem
May 20, 2004

Would you be my new best friends?


Your Parents posted:

It's gone up recently because the last few years have produced arguably the greatest wrestling in history.

Seriously, the wrestling now is the best I've seen since those Misawa/Kawada matches in the 90s or the Flair/Steamboat matches in the 80s, both of which also coincidentally "broke" the rating system.

Plus, as others keep mentioning, he doesn't just give a rating without context, he writes lengthy explanations of why the match was great/terrible.

coconono
Aug 11, 2004

I bet against K-1


Jerusalem posted:

Seriously, the wrestling now is the best I've seen since those Misawa/Kawada matches in the 90s or the Flair/Steamboat matches in the 80s, both of which also coincidentally "broke" the rating system.

Plus, as others keep mentioning, he doesn't just give a rating without context, he writes lengthy explanations of why the match was great/terrible.

most nonsubscribers see is the stars. So its easy for people that don't have access to think he's just Leonard Maltin-ing it.

rare Magic card l00k
Jan 3, 2011

Me uni a la Revolucion #RXT


el sabe ...


Dave himself has said he only still does star ratings because other people really, really care about them.

TheCool69
Sep 23, 2011


coconono posted:

most nonsubscribers see is the stars. So its easy for people that don't have access to think he's just Leonard Maltin-ing it.

Well.. if you dont want to pay for the whole review, it's pretty lovely get upset about the rating without context..

But i guess that is the story of Meltzers life

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012



rare Magic card l00k posted:

Dave himself has said he only still does star ratings because other people really, really care about them.

That actually makes a lot of sense and I get it a bit better. I still think stars are stupid but it gives a good way for Dave to stay relevant with people who don't subscribe.

Super No Vacancy
Jul 26, 2012

yahallo


dave is a superficial critic and basically writes move recaps and occasionally characterizes spots somewhere between 'good' and 'excellent'. like his star ratings are a fine resource given how much wrestling he's seen but the matches where he has insightful analysis are few and far between. he'll say stuff like 'oh the timing was so good' which may be true but he does not have the verbiage to explain what that means or why it was apparent

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jerusalem
May 20, 2004

Would you be my new best friends?


I loved this thread but I think it's run its course now and New Japan chat can shift back to the main thread.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«129 »