|
Post by muhammond on Sept 8, 2009 21:27:21 GMT -6
Best commentary EVER during the main event where Portia basically breaks character and her and Dave get into a giggle fest about Melissa almost kicking Del Rey's head in and then Portia begging Dave to keep repeating the instant replay. Classic. That was genuinely great. Portia is incredible on commentary. She's fun but also remarkably insightful. She's actually quite the student of the game. The Ninjas promos have also been awesome of late. They've been stepping up their game in and out of the ring.
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Sept 9, 2009 14:32:26 GMT -6
One more thing about 24: to my surprise I found myself supporting Jennifer Blake like never before in her match with Amber O'Neal. God bless her, how Jennifer managed to remain professional is beyond me because Amber was a f*cking disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by MC LevaMark on Sept 9, 2009 22:30:21 GMT -6
I'm waiting to purchase mine as soon as I have some expendible income. I feel really compelled to watch the Amber O'Neal matches because I don't recall her being out and out horrible when I saw the show live. Perhaps, I will be able to see what everyone else saw once I watch the DVD's.
|
|
|
Post by Hail Sabin on Sept 9, 2009 22:31:56 GMT -6
Huh, I watched Vol. 24 and I didn't see anything you are talking about. I was sleepy, so give me an idea of what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Woo on Sept 10, 2009 15:49:51 GMT -6
I have watchd that Amber match twice and don't get the heat either. Yes her top came undone and the ending was odd- it should have been made clear that she fell off the turnbuckles- but it wasn't terrible. I much preferred her match than the Tenille/Rayna Fire tag match with Lexie and Malia.
|
|
mc411
A Piece of You
Posts: 10
|
Post by mc411 on Sept 11, 2009 17:10:44 GMT -6
My review was supposed to hit 411 today, but I got bumped in favor of Dunn's SD 10th Anniversary, so it goes up tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by haysihawk on Sept 12, 2009 14:46:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Sept 12, 2009 15:07:58 GMT -6
I don't generally "do" ratings myself but most of the *s given out in that review are either outrageously low (LuFisto/Wesna, the main event) or ridiculously high (IHWC/Ariel & Nikki). I mean, seriously: three and a quarter snowflakes for the latter? Come on...
|
|
mc411
A Piece of You
Posts: 10
|
Post by mc411 on Sept 12, 2009 15:42:14 GMT -6
Arguing about snowflakes is pointless without context. Come on dude, *Why* do you think Wesna/Lufisto is so underrated? *Why* do you think IHWC/PB is overrated?
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Sept 12, 2009 16:07:19 GMT -6
Snowflakes are pointless, period.
|
|
|
Post by Woo on Sept 12, 2009 18:19:27 GMT -6
But if reading a review and you see a star being given * you know it's bad and ***** you know it's good. Surely that's on plus for the snowflake system?
What I hate is **** 1/2..... if you are going to give halves then why not just do marks out of 10? And even worse *** 3/4, ugh.
That said I didn't enjoy the Wesna/Lufisto match as much as you Stevie. I'd give it about a 7/10, probably the same for the main event too. The aforementioned tag match would be around the 5-6/10 region.
|
|
|
Post by profchaos on Sept 12, 2009 18:37:02 GMT -6
I get the feeling people do asterik ratings in wrestling to be like Meltzer and his all hallowed five star ratings, as well as films of course. I personally don't think it allows enough variation, as Woo said a lot of times people put halves so it should just be out of 10. A per centage might be a bit too much.
Also just because it's a review published somewhere, doesn't make it clandestine. You might not agree with their star ratings at all but there is a point to them as it gives you a quick guide but as with everything subjective it goes in context. If you find yourself agreeing with the majority of the ratings then chances are most of the time you will continue to, but if you don't then you know not to take any notice of them. Or maybe you can seek out views you specifically disagree with so you can challenge yourself by looking at what star ratings you disagree with, and reading the paragraph beforehand to see if maybe they saw something you didn't or you saw something they didn't, both bad and good.
|
|
|
Post by haysihawk on Sept 12, 2009 18:48:47 GMT -6
Star ratings for wrestling matches are pointless. For example, if the purpose of a five minute opening match is to have a five minute match that sets the table for a card to build, then if it does its job of being a great little five minute opener, shouldn't that get 5 stars for being perfect for its role on the card? No, it gets two stars and labeled as "too short."
|
|
|
Post by Woo on Sept 12, 2009 19:09:38 GMT -6
Fair point. I hate "reviews" where people describe every single move, but don't offer any sene of opinion on it. How is that even a review?!
|
|
|
Post by profchaos on Sept 12, 2009 21:07:37 GMT -6
Star ratings for wrestling matches are pointless. For example, if the purpose of a five minute opening match is to have a five minute match that sets the table for a card to build, then if it does its job of being a great little five minute opener, shouldn't that get 5 stars for being perfect for its role on the card? No, it gets two stars and labeled as "too short." Well again you need context and rationality. If a curtain jerker is perfect but given two stars and called "too short" then you know to take the reviewer with a pinch of salt, but most reviews I've read would rate it two stars and say "a good opener, got the mood going" which implies they rate the matches against a rough uniform standard but the verbage qualifies it. If a reviewer gave it five stars then you know he's reviewing an event as a whole not match by match.
|
|