Jump to content


Photo

Is Dave right?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#41 BrianB

BrianB
  • Members
  • 199 posts

Posted 08 November 2016 - 01:04 AM

In this age of hyper awareness in which everyone is more self-aware than everyone else, in which all discourse is always-already framed for an implied audience, the ultimate irony is that no one is watching, and that people have never before lacked self-awareness on such a grand scale.

 

If only this were true. Props for using irony correctly. I guess that's to be expected given your line of work, however. :)

 

 

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

 
I can definitely see this POV and its value. I usually look first at a review or two, and then look at the match. I like to think I'm usually unbiased and single-minded enough to make up my own mind, but sometimes I'm sure other reviews have impacted my ratings. I think usually because they "stick" on what I've actually watched, but sometimes, of course, that can be a bad thing. I still like Flair-Race from Starrcade 1983 a lot, and that's one where I probably benefited from watching it cold and not read as much about Kiniski guest reffing, which is hard to un-see now, even if lots of older matches have bad refs (though usually in a different, less intrusive way.)
 
Usually I'm more likely to seek out some reviews if I'm visiting a feud or territory or setting I'm unfamiliar with, so I can get some context to what I am seeing (as the audience might have) and understanding how it's worked in light of that. 

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

 


#42 CapitalTTruth

CapitalTTruth
  • Members
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markout Mountain

Posted 25 November 2016 - 05:34 PM

I didn't read his posts as much a commentary on context and how it affects match quality (or more accurately match analysis/critique) as much as he is saying he NJPW is miles better than America right now. The context part is that he seems to be saying he gives WWE matches a break and maybe does give them a boost because they are in America rather than in japan, where standards are higher. I guess it is all context, but I am just reading the function of context a little differently.

 

I love doing my own star ratings and watching and analyzing, but it is such a personal thing. They are really for me to organize my thoughts and my watching and no one else. Dave Meltzer's ratings have become far too influential, or at least foregrounded in online wrestling communities. And good for him for getting there, but its so clear he steers the conversation in some circles, even unintentionally. Even people who generally don't align with him or really think his analysis holds too much weight are in some ways required to address his ratings and his presence in the world of analyzing and discussing wrestling. I value surfing the 4.75 and 5* thread and the match reviews here much more because there is such a diversity of voices.  I don't like reading reviews before I watch a match and I don't really like seeing what others have a match at before I rate it myself, but i do like looking at what other people see once I have watched a rated a match.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users