andrew "the ref" coyne Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 As a 'casual' fan of anything would you pay $50/$60 in something that you could see for free the next day? I wouldn't. Â That's a very simplistic view with several presumptions. How do you define a casual fan? Are you presuming EVERYONE knows how and where to watch wrestlemania or clips of it the day after? Etc etc. Â Ultimately fans have been paying $50+ to "watch something they can watch for free the next day" for years, so clearly your more of a exception as opposed to the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JohnnyChimpo Posted February 24, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 I know you're going by the last match and technicality, but giving 18 to Triple H rather than Rock and Hogan? You sure bro? Well yeah I was giving 18 to Triple H v Jericho because it went on last. Cause I didnt judge it that way, then you get into a grey area of what was the actual main event on other shows too. Was Mania 19 really Lesnar v Angle? Even though the marquee match, with all the hype and the one that featured on the front cover of the DVD was really Hogan v McMahon? Or last year, Triple H v The Undertaker was the real main event on that show too. So should the buyrates from 19 and 27 be added to Hogan and Triple H's tallies respectively? Â BUT...... Â If you do want to take 18 off Triple H and give it to Rock v Hogan, then Triple H would be 4,729,000, while Hogan would jump to 4,104,000 and The Rock up to 3,554,000. So Triple H STILL kicks their candyasses even if you take one of his main events off of him. In fact that would look even better for Triple H that way, cause he and The Rock would both be after headlining 4 Wrestlemania's each, but The Rocks 4 would have come right at the peak of the boom (15-18) against other mega draws like Austin and Hogan, while Triple H's 4 came in the decline (20-22 and then 25) against people who were either unproven draws like Batista and Orton, or people who historically havnt drawn well at all, like Benoit and HBK. And he still has more than a million extra buys. Â DISCLAIMER: My initial post was a bit tongue in cheek. I dont ACTUALLY believe that Triple H is a bigger draw than Austin, Hogan or The Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 As a 'casual' fan of anything would you pay $50/$60 in something that you could see for free the next day? I wouldn't. Â That's a very simplistic view with several presumptions. How do you define a casual fan? Are you presuming EVERYONE knows how and where to watch wrestlemania or clips of it the day after? Etc etc. Â Ultimately fans have been paying $50+ to "watch something they can watch for free the next day" for years, so clearly your more of a exception as opposed to the rule. Â The opposite view is equally as simplistic. There are no guidelines to define a casual fan, are there? I brought up the point about watching Raw. If someone watches Raw nearly every week I wouldn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkship Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Just a quick correction: both Bret Hart and the Big Show are in both the longest and shortest match lists. Who'd've thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Up Chuck Posted February 25, 2012 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 Amended, cheers. Someone will have to edge Show out of the shortest list, there's no way 60+ seconds is surviving much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted February 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 26, 2012 Obviously these are subjective rather than pure stats, but just for the hell of it here are the matches that got rated more than **** in the Observer: Â Â WM10: Michaels vs Ramon ***** WM13: Hart vs Austin ***** Â WM10:: Hart vs Hart ****3/4 WM20: Benoit vs HHH vs Michaels ****3/4 WM17: Hardleys-Dudleys-Edge/Christian ****3/4 WM21: Michaels vs Angle ****3/4 WM25: Michaels vs Undertaker ****3/4 WM26: Michaels vs Undertaker ****3/4 Â WM3: Savage vs Steamboat ****1/2 WM17: Austin vs Rock ****1/2 WM21: TLC ****1/2 WM27: HHH vs Undertaker ****1/2 Â WM7: Savage vs Warrior ****1/4 WM8: Savage vs Flair ****1/4 WM12: Michaels vs Hart ****1/4 WM17: Angle vs Benoit ****1/4 WM19: Michaels vs Jericho ****1/4 WM19: Angle vs Lesnar ****1/4 WM22: TLC ****1/4 WM24: Edge vs Undertaker ****1/4 Â Â And those that got a negative rating: Â Â WM2: Piper vs T -***** Â WM5: Bushwhackers-Rougeus -**** Â WM5: Roberts-Andre -*** Â WM4: Rude vs Roberts -** WM1: Andre vs Studd -** WM8: Natural Disaster-Money Inc -** WM8: Hogan vs Sid -** WM15: Sable vs Tori -** Â WM14: Tag Battle Royale -*1/4 Â WM9: Ramon vs Backlund -* WM17: Chyna vs Ivory -* WM18: Jazz vs Lita vs Stratus -* WM16: Terri vs Kat -* WM22: Boogeyman vs T/Sharmell: -* WM23: Khali vs Kane -* Â WM4: Hercules vs Warrior -1/2* WM6: Bossman vs Akeem -1/2* WM7: Tenyru/Kitao vs Demoliton -1/2* WM7: Mountie-Santana -1/2* WM18: Spike Dudley vs Maven -1/2* WM16: T&A vs Head Cheese -1/4* Â Â (Notes: Andre-Hogan from WM3 originally got -****, but this was revised to a positive 1/4* in the following issue. I don't have full ratings handy for WM10 through 13, or 27. The only match that stands out as a likely negative rating there is Undertaker-Bundy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JohnnyChimpo Posted February 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 26, 2012 While I hate snowflake ratings in general, I would really love to hear why certain matches lost a 1/4 snowflake. Hart v Hart and Benoit v HBK v Triple H being the ones in particular I’m referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members CleetusVanDamme Posted February 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 26, 2012 I know it's just his personal opinion, but I'd hate to have a mindset where the WM19 main event is only a 1/4 off being as good as HHH/Taker. Angle/Lesnar looks completely out of place on that list. ****1/4? I can't see it, Dave. How high would you have gone if the crowd was actually reacting to the match? Or if they'd done something other than blindly suplex each other the whole time, *****? Â What did Michaels/Cena, the first HHH/Taker match and HHH/Cena get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 26, 2012 4/1/01 Triple H vs. Undertaker ***1/2 (WM 17) John Cena vs. Triple H ***3/4 (WM 22) John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels **** (WM23) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 While I hate snowflake ratings in general, I would really love to hear why certain matches lost a 1/4 snowflake. Hart v Hart and Benoit v HBK v Triple H being the ones in particular I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 What a cock he is. Piper v T got a massive reaction, and was as well played as you could expect given one of them wasn't a wrestler, and the match wasn't a wrestling match. Â I can just imagine him sucking his biro over whether Angle/Benoit gets that last 1/4 of a snowflake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Up Chuck Posted February 26, 2012 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 26, 2012 WM18: Spike Dudley vs Maven -1/2* Â Quite harsh to give a negative star rating to a match that didn't happen (Maven vs Goldust for the Hardcore title, ended when Spike ran in and pinned Maven). Â In fact, I give that rating -****7/8. Totally exposed the review business. Â On-topic, I'll probably include those ratings in next year's thread, as Observer reviews are considered notable whether people agree with them or not. In fact, to ease the contentiousness of including one guy's opinion, I'll have a look back through the awards results and have a list of UKFF Award-winning matches/individual performances/etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King of Old School Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Haha Meltz really is a cock isnt he? How the fuck you determine what gains or loses a quarter of a pigging star is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Up Chuck Posted February 26, 2012 Author Paid Members Share Posted February 26, 2012 I guess people just have different internal ways of judging these things. It might just be that his natural way of thinking about wrestling breaks match quality up into 20 positive-to-negative categories and 5 especially negative ones. Or, more likely, that's the easiest way he found to express his opinion when he decided to start reviewing matches. 5 stars is a universally understood scale, but fairly rigid when judging something like wrestling matches, where there are loads of them that have happened in loads of different styles with infinite different purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted February 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 26, 2012 Say what you want about Meltzer, but he does a rant on todays Wrestling Observer Radio which was just cracking, regarding the wrestlers who are bitter about the Rock being back. He says he was talking to a WWF legend/old timer who went out to dinner recently with some of the WWE roster after a house show and he asked them what the advance on the house was and what the gate was, and nobody had a clue. And bare in mind, the advance on the house and the gate is largly to do with your bonuses on top of your downside guarentee, and nobody knew it. It was based on the Rock's line on twitter saying "these wrestlers dont know the business part of wrestling" or something like that. Apparently this old timer asked the WWE lads how they judged how their quality of matches and how to improve and they replied "we look on the internet". Â The marks are now the wrestlers, as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.