You've said you don't understand the difference between a ****1/4 and a ****1/2 match before. I said that not because of anything you've said in a post that has made me come to that conclusion, but because you yourself have said it.
I dont think that fine of a line can be drawn. However, I can clearly say I enjoy match X more than I enjoy match Y. However, when you rate them with stars, it makes it easier to see what match you like best. We did it in a previous thread with 12/6/96 and 6/9/95. We argued what was the better ***** match. NO star ratings needed.
If you're not willing to put your own rating out there, I don't think you *should* debate star ratings. It's not a matter of whether or not you have the right to. I hate to use this term because it sounds harsher than I mean it ... but I think it's intellectually dishonest to point to flaws in something someone else says without explaining how you came to your own conclusion.
I'm not arguing your star ratings except to compare them to your other star ratings, or in the above mentioned example, your ranking. I have several match reviews in the match review folder that I think put over the merits of a match without having to resort to star ratings. Nothing intellectually dishonest about it. You can tell by my words which matches I think are great or have problems and it would be easy for me to list them from top to bottom without using star ratings.
How did you get from Point A to Point B there? I sure don't understand it. How much of a gap between **** and ***** do you think there is?
Really, after watching hundreds of NWA squashes, it makes you appreciate the really good matches that much more. However, if you define a **** match as a great match then you should be critical of what gets labelled as a GREAT match. Why have a match at ***3/4? Probably because it is lacking a particular element that makes it great.
I asked you to name some matches you consider around **** and you didn't, so what am I supposed to do?
I must have overlooked this.
Again, you're comparing Misawa/Kawada to Hogan/Savage. That's YOU making that comparison, not me. I never put them on the same level. I didn't call Hogan/Savage *****
I DID NOT GIVE THIS MATCH *****. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. I AM NOT COMPARING HOGAN VERSUS SAVAGE TO MISAWA VERSUS KAWADA.
No, you gave both of them star ratings and labelled them as great matches. Of course, with the star rating, you are comparing the two. I never ever said you thought they were equal or that you gave them both *****, only that you put both in high standing. I question the Warrior-Savage even more so because I think that is an absolutely dreadful match but you hold it in high esteem. Once again, with the star ratings, it makes it easier for me to dispute you by referring to your own ratings compared to other ratings you have made, not with my own particular star rating.
The rating is a footnote, not an explanation. I only use them because they're a good quick reference. You choose not to use them. That's why I don't understand why you're quick to criticize others who do.
I addressed this above.
Why are you involving Misawa, Kawada and Kobashi in this when I haven't mentioned them? Yes, I see the point you're making, but even then, there are great US matches that are better than some M/K/K matches. I think Savage/Warrior from Wrestlemania VII smokes Misawa/Kawada from 10/21/92. It's hard to debate this with you when you're throwing out names and not matches.
I'll give youdates next time. You see the point I was making but it's hard to debate? I'll admit I was generalizing but I thought you knew me well enough to understand what I was saying. I'll be more clear next time.
And when you do throw out matches, you repeatedly only name matches you think are ***** and thus at the top of the heap. Again, I feel like it's back to square one, where I don't know where you find middle ground between Matches That Are All-Time Classics and Matches That Suck. There are matches in between. Thousands of them. Hogan/Savage happens to be one of them.
Ok, Eddy-JBL, Duggan-DiBiase, Slaughter-Sheik, MX vs. Fans 3-26-88.
I would venture to say all of these are around the **** range for me. You chose to rate them higher but we both agree they are great matches. The only real objection or voice of discontent is on three matches where are views are widespread.... Stemaboat-Savage, Hogan-Savage, Warrior-Savage. That's it. However, I would rank two of those matches closer to matches that suck, for shits and giggles ** tops, and you have them hovering around ****. It's no different than you calling JBL-Eddie ****1/2 and SK calling it ** or whatever he said it was. The big difference is that I continually question SK's or Meltzer's "wacky" ratings yet I have only questioned 3 of yours. And once upon a time, we had a big Warrior-Savage debate thread that is lost and I don't want to relive it.
I've never denied that. But you're making it about the *'s instead of refuting specific points I made about both matches. That's silly.
Not really. Only because if their is something you see as completely out-of-whack then you are going to question it. In this case, it is the Savage matches. I agree with you that the first 20 matches on your list are great matches. Then I keep chugging along and see some "abnormalities" that don't jive with my opinion or are in the same ballpark. Of course I am going to question the star rating.
Agreed. The fact that you're disagreeing is not the issue here. The fact that you're disagreeing and not making proper analogies is where I take issue.
I guess this is talking about Hogan-Savage to Misawa-Kawada which I already covered above.
I can admit publicly that you know what you're talking about. I'll do so right now. I don't disagree that a bunch of snowflakes are meaningless without some explanation attached.
I never said it was mandatory. I just said that if you're going to criticize others for theirs, you should be willing to come back with your own. That's an ethical thing. If you were disagreeing with my words, I wouldn't even be bringing up the star ratings. But you're not. You're disagreeing with the snowflakes only, and when you won't provide your own, that's simply unfair.
Once again, it was only a comparison of one of your star ratings compared to another one of your star ratings.
Why are you so anxious to call me out every time you think something I say doesn't fall in line with something you believe?
Maybe you haven't noticed but this isn't exactly a busy forum and you and I just happen to be the most active participants. If it seems like I am "anxious" to call you out, it might be because there isn't too much debate going on. If you are talking about some other matters, please enlighten me.
Again, you're making it about the stars, not me. I never said the star is what's important. You're the one who did that when you said you were not disagreeing with my thoughts on Hogan/Savage, but rather only the star rating.
In relation to your other star ratings, yes.
Pay attention to your own words. That's the only reason I even mentioned it.
I guess this has to do with me claiming I don't know what makes the difference between a ****1/4 and ****1/2 match. Once again, it was only a comparison of your star rating in relation to your other star ratings... of which you have 200+. It's really easy for me to see JBL-Eddie at the same level as Warrior-Savage and want to question it. Or see Baba-Destroyer above the 6-3-94 and raise an eyebrow because no one has ever made tthat assertion before.