|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Oct 19, 2007 15:54:22 GMT -5
I've been wanting to know how a lot of people here rate matches (or promos, skits, whatever). You know, stars, grades, etc.
Since I don't like to stress realism too much, 90% of the time I rate by whether or not I want to see a match more than once. The other 10% of the time I do a thumb angle.
|
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Oct 19, 2007 15:58:26 GMT -5
I don't do it very often anymore, but for awhile I'd do reviews for shows with write ups and the star system. It really started taking away from the shows for me sitting there debating with myself whether I liked this match more than the other, and how a 1/4* difference would make them seem. Honestly, kind of dumb.
So now it's basically "that match kicked ass" .... "that match was OK"...."....well that just sucked".
|
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Oct 19, 2007 15:58:40 GMT -5
If i'm entertained by something, it's good. If i'm not, it's bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Oct 19, 2007 16:20:14 GMT -5
I usually rate based on how much I enjoyed it, but there are times when even though I enjoyed it I know it was a bad match. However, I can give Danielson/London 2/3 Falls from 03 *****, and by the same token give The Colony vs Los Tres Deliriosos **** or *****.
|
|
Mr. Mediocre
Hank Scorpio
Bert Early?... sorry, that's a typo. Butt. Ugly.
Much better since I was last here.
Posts: 6,249
|
Post by Mr. Mediocre on Oct 19, 2007 16:22:18 GMT -5
I don't put a whole lot of stock in match ratings. Usually, when giving a synopsis (i.e. texting results in to MGH), I'll usually put "MOTYC" or "awesome" or "very good" or "so-so" or "terrible" or some other qualifier in there. I usually go by how much I enjoy the match, which usually is dictated by how the story of the match plays out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shy Guy on Oct 19, 2007 16:22:47 GMT -5
amazing
awesome
good
better
bad
guh
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Oct 19, 2007 16:24:38 GMT -5
If i'm entertained by something, it's good. If i'm not, it's bad. Agreed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2007 16:33:28 GMT -5
Great, Good, Decent, Boring, Bad
A match can be technically good but still boring as hell which is why I make the difference
None of this 5 stars or etc. %
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Oct 19, 2007 16:35:25 GMT -5
amazing awesome good better bad guh I think I'm going to use "guh" more often. |
|
|
|
Post by VeggieOverlord on Oct 19, 2007 16:42:19 GMT -5
I use the Dead Von Erich system
|
|
|
|
Post by shiranui on Oct 19, 2007 16:43:46 GMT -5
Great
Good
Okay
Bad
S***load of f***
Snitsky
|
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Oct 19, 2007 17:37:26 GMT -5
it was entertaining or it wasn't. and for rare matches they are amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Oct 19, 2007 17:52:19 GMT -5
It's really either good, okay, or bad for me.
Most matches are 'okay', matches that aren't really worth watching but aren't painful to view. Bad matches are just that.
A 'good' match is one that I'd gladly watch more than once, or at least remember fondly.
Many ROH matches are 'good', though on various levels of good (I could watch 'em more than once, or they're some of my favorite of all time), because the wrestling is there along with the personality. Gotta have both, for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Oct 19, 2007 18:00:28 GMT -5
I use the 5 CHIKARA logo system when rating something from CHIKARA.
Sadly proboards will not let me post Kanji.
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Oct 20, 2007 8:51:58 GMT -5
Except for the 10 point system I used for my Raw Reviews last year, my system is "I liked that" and "I didn't like that"
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuke is Good on Oct 20, 2007 13:37:33 GMT -5
I watch it or I don't
With WWE I have to take a break from the promotion for now. TNA seems a bit better now with the 2 hours thankfully.
|
|
