KB, it's a Zema Ion thread.

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

It's not really a Zema Ion thread. I just read your review of Hardcore Justice, as I'm putting the finishing touches on mine and I generally like to see how we stack up against each other. In a semi-unrelated note, I will say I tend to enjoy your reviews more when its about something older you've seen before; when you have to watch something live and review it at the same time I think it gets a bit dull at times because you have no real time to breath. Not to discount you or anything, just food for thought.

Anyways, my review goes up tomorrow - maybe late tonight - if you care to read it. We seem to be parallel on most things, except as per usual I'm a bit more lenient in the scoring department. Which is odd, because I always thought myself strict when it came to that sort of thing.

The only thing we are on opposite ends on is the X-Division match. Hence the thread. You scored it a D+ (I think) and basically the only review you gave it was that Zema Ion is really boring and shouldn't have won because he got outclassed. I'll admit, Zema isn't that excited. But there's something about a simple heel that doesn't try to be a tweener that I really enjoy. CM Punk does it well; Aries just looks like he's trying too hard half the time. Zema is just annoying as fuck, knows it, and I think he plays that part well. I think it's refreshing to just have a straight up heel character on the roster, and I don't mind him at all. I don't know, King might be the better wrestler, but he's got a lot of work to do in the promo department before I'll take him seriously. And that's coming from a big A|N|X fan...

I'm probably giving that match a 4, to a 4.5 out of 5. It was technically great, and reminded me a LOT of the X-Division matches of old. I tend to review based on the quality of a match, and then talk abou the story afterwards. But yeah, not a huge deal, I just wanted to figure out why the hell you graded that match so low!

 

[JGlass]

CM Punk is doing an awful job at being a non-tweener heel. I still like him because he's entertaining, but I don't think he's ready to be the completely unlikable heel that we saw out of Jericho and Edge in 2008. Maybe the WWE is just slow building to that, but as of right now Punk is most certainly not playing the simple heel that doesn't try to be a tweener.

And 4.5/5 means you think that match was almost perfect. Like, it was almost on the same level as Cena vs. Punk or Unbreakable 05 Triple Threat. I haven't seen the match, but do you really think it was THAT close to a perfect match?

I don't always agree with KB's ratings, but he's certainly not guilty of the biggest crime in wrestling reviewers which is unabashedly grading matches 3 or 4 stars. A 4 star match means that it will be remembered as one of the best matches all year, and I've seen far too many reviewers give 3 stars to a match that they themselves describe as average.

 

[Gelgarin]

A 4 star match means that it will be remembered as one of the best matches all year, and I've seen far too many reviewers give 3 stars to a match that they themselves describe as average.

Maybe that's because three stars out of five basically is average.

 

[JGlass]

Maybe that's because three stars out of five basically is average.

I think that's what 2.5 stars is for. I realize that on a scale of 1-5 that 3 is the middle ground, but I still think that 3+ should be reserved for matches that are at least "good."

 

[Gelgarin]

Because that makes such a lot more sense than the alternative.

 

[JGlass]

Because that makes such a lot more sense than the alternative.

I know it's not logical, but it's how I feel.

 

[klunderbunker]

Actually when you break it down to a percentage, 3/5 stars would be 60% which would be a failing grade most of the time.

 

[Gelgarin]

Except the grading system is calibrated to achieve certain results, whilst quote unquote "reviews" are simply supposed to present an indication of quality.

This thread does neatly encapsulate reason number five of "why rating matches is an exercise in futility" though.

 

[shattered dreams]

Any scale beyond liked or disliked is flawed. I could maybe be persuaded to include a third option of awesome.

 

[klunderbunker]

Any scale beyond liked or disliked is flawed. I could maybe be persuaded to include a third option of awesome.

I remember years and years ago Sly talking about how he had a five point checklist of what makes a match great. I said something along the lines of "I usually go with either thumbs up or the finger."

 

[shattered dreams]

I might read your reviews if they went back to that system.

 

[klunderbunker]

Eh too boring and I can't fill in space that way, since we all know that the amount of space you fill in is what defines quality.

 

[Gelgarin]

You could always do more play by play.

 

[klunderbunker]

You could always do more play by play.

I have been lately and I'm not fond of it.

 

[Gelgarin]

I wasn't aware there was a point in time where your reviews weren't almost all play-by-play. That was the essence of the scathing witticism.

 

[klunderbunker]

The earlier ones had very little play by play. The live ones tend to have a lot more of it.

 

[shattered dreams]

I think you should take it to the next level KB. Start doing audio companion commentary pieces for people to play when they watch these shows.

 

[klunderbunker]

I've actually thought of that before. I'm considering selling PDF's of the reviews for Kindle. Like $3 for all of the Survivor Series or something like that.

 

[Gelgarin]

I'd hypothesise that there's more money to be made giving it away for free.

 

[klunderbunker]

There probably is, but I have PDFs of everything already so if I make anything off of them, so be it.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Ratings systems are so...frustrating. Everyone has their own ideas of what should mean what; the majority can rarely decide on anything. What's more frustrating is when you give a match a 3/5, because you were pleasantly surprised, and a higher profile match a 3/5 because it was a big let down...people freak the fuck out. "Hey, you said good things about this match, but gave it the same rating as this match you tore into!"

It's a totally subjective hobby, really. I'm a subscriber to Sight & Sound, which is widely considered one of the most respected film magazines in the world. And they don't even allow their reviewers to include a score. And you know what? Reading the review is ALWAYS a better idea than looking at a number that could mean one of a hundred different things.

I've done letter grades. I've tried a /10 system, and /5 system and even at one point an /100 system with movies. I've tried having complex algorithms and just keeping it simple. Nothing is better or worse, in my experience.

I don't think a 4/5 signifies a near-perfect match, and I don't think a 4.5 means it's one of the best of all time. I think a 4.5 is near perfect, and 5 IS perfect. I think 4/5 (statistically an 80% or low B-) means it was very good, above the average, but still lacking in epicness.

 

[klunderbunker]

I tend to go with the theory of if people can't figure out what I mean when I write a paragraph about the match, that's their problem and not my rating.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

That's a solid theory.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

It's a totally subjective hobby, really. I'm a subscriber to Sight & Sound, which is widely considered one of the most respected film magazines in the world. And they don't even allow their reviewers to include a score. And you know what? Reading the review is ALWAYS a better idea than looking at a number that could mean one of a hundred different things.

When reading reviews for anything, I prefer to read a review with no score.

I do wonder if it would be harder to have that concept for a wrestling match or show though. With a wrestling match review, you almost need a play by play, where you don't with a review of a video game, where you can just discuss what the developers did right, and what they did wrong if that makes sense.

 

[shattered dreams]

I've actually thought of that before.

Full disclaimer my interest was purely for the sake of unintentional comedy although I imagine you correctly assumed that.