can i start talking about undrafteds nows

Sometimes matches are about more than how many consecutive submission holds you can chain together in 30 seconds or less. Not that there's anything wrong with those either.

As would anyone else who was alive and watching at the time.

....i agree. but this match from a work rate perspective was nothing more than an above average match for them and not really a good match. i also agree with everything LKJ said

But soon.

This says more about how terrible a rating system based in 5 stars is more than it does what that match was like.

But you cant deny it was a terrible match. You can try and justify it as having a huge atmosphere or whatever but it wasnt even a good match. That 3.5-4 stars it got for a main event of WM that drew as much as it did is terrible given the vast majority of that is just given to a hot crowd. Its why CM Punk vs Cena is a 5 star match whilst Bryan Danielson has never gotten a 5 star rating from Meltzer - which alone proves how terrible it is to consider him a voice of authority.

Umm yes you can deny that it was a terrible match. When a match has absolutely everything in spades except for the workrate - and that the workrate itself wasn't even too bad - I don't even know how it can be asserted to be a terrible match, let alone set at a place of terribleness beyond deniability.

+1

Workrate is only one variable that affects match quality. Like it or not, there's more to wrestling than stringing together a bunch of moves. I honestly don't believe a match can be perfect unless it has everything from atmosphere to workrate. Cena/Punk is perfect because it has all of these things and Warrior/Hogan reaches the level of very good to excellent for the reasons stated above by LKJ.

Well, that you would state it like that sort of proves why it'd be terrible to consider you a voice of authority.

Talking about the workrate just ignores how ridiculously sloppy it was start to finish and that terrible sell job Hogan did where midway through he suddenly forgot he was unable to walk properly due to the bump to the outside.

Like i say you can discuss atmosphere all you want to take it from the 1 star to the 3.5 stars it was rated at but it certainly is a bad match and that 1 star is all it deserves on that front.

Holonaminnit playas, we gon' have a hand-cap match up in hurr tinight. It'll be littlkeed and LKJ and DWetzel takin' on da likes of [Phill]. holla holla playas.

This is pretty funny, because at the time of Warrior/Hogan, the main knock on Meltzer was pretty much the opposite: he would rate technical workrate matches without much atmosphere well, but when it came to matches which were much more pleasing to the crowd in general then many of the matches he rated highly, but lacked in technical skill, he would give them terrible ratings.

I literally dont see how Punk vs Cena got that quarter star more than Dragon vs McGuinness in Unified as just the easiest example for me to draw. Again the Unified match was clearly better than MITB but it also had a hot crowd, sure you can make the argument it wasnt as hot as MITB had but i personally think the match there was as good as Joe vs Punk that got 5 stars and the crowd was equal imo*.

http://pwalmanac.blogspot.com/2011/0...and-above.html

*opinion is opinion, subjective is subjective etc ldo.

Of course the take away is its clear that Punk vs Cena isnt a 5 star match and its clear that having a single measure of quality out of 20 isnt wide enough in scope.

My final pick:

I don't care what anyone says. The Rock was a much better heel, and this segment proves it.

Nah you're good, that was a different one. And this was a great segment you picked.

Great pick.

Maybe he can prove it again when he turns heel. He should have lots of time. He did tell us that he was never leaving again.

I can't wait until someone drafts UNDRAFTED performing at Summerslam '11. It's alright.

A real problem with Ginger's pick is that Rock had a full head of hair in Rock/Hogan, and was a babyface (albeit one that the crowd turned on) where he was a full-fledged heel here. Having those two segments on the same show presents real problems.

BUT THAT OTHER STUFF LIKE ATMOSPHERE IS PART OF THE MATCH, GOOD GAWD ALMIGHTY

Please skip me. I don't know my next pick, I'm about to sleep and I don't want to hold you guys up for 6 hours for nothing.

Keed, it's on you.

I don't disagree with a ton of what you say. I'd say that having a really hot 1,700 seat crowd (Unified) isn't nearly as good as having a really hot 14,815 seat crowd (MITB), and that in turn is not nearly as good as a really hot 67,678 seat crowd (WM6).

A really hot 1,700 seat crowd is nice, and it's better clearly than having 1,700 really hot fans in a crowd of 14,000 (and 12,300 idiots who interrupt their silence every few minutes to yell "what?"), but in the same way that you can't overlook less than perfect ringwork from Hogan/Warrior (I'd also argue that expectation matters some here, which isn't entirely fair to the better technical guys -- but it's true in the same sense that if Kofi Kingston suddenly cut a really stellar promo, it would be "better" than Punk doing the same thing), we also can't overlook the other things that don't quite measure up on those "better" technical matches.

I'd argue that Cena/Punk hits most of the sweet spots on this, which makes it somewhat superior -- it was not only a very very good wrestling match, but a better wrestling match than expected, and everything about the match was just right. Hogan/Warrior was not as good a technical match as that, obviously, but it was farther above expectations (because lol Hogan and lol Warrior), and everything else was just as good, albeit in a different way, than Cena/Punk.

Part of the problem, unfair as it may be, for Unified (and for all these other really great technical matches that are being pulled out of the woodwork) is that unless you're already a ridiculous connoisseur of tinier promotions or Japanese wrestling or whatever, some of the "atmosphere" attendant to the match (expectations, storylines, etc) just gets lost in translation. That's not entirely "right" from an objective perspective, but it's just that

This reminds me of a comparison between the Rolling Stones and an indy band or some really talented local jazz musician. In some technical understanding of better, there are a lot of people who are better musicians. But people want to see the Rolling Stones, and they want to see the Rolling Stones perform Rolling Stones songs, not perform some jazz guitar work.

Hogan/Warrior was like a really good Stones concert; they did the kinds of things that made millions of people enjoy them, and did it well. Personally I'd never see a Stones concert, but that doesn't mean that the Stones never put on an amazing performance.