I do rate things on Cagematch and it's hard to maintain a consistent methodology. Like you'll give something a 7 and then notice that you only gave a 6 to something you absolutely think was better
I follow the Ebert view of things: you mostly judge things against what they are seemingly trying to be, and whether or not they succeed at that, not on some continuum of everything ever on the same plane.
So, like, you give 5/5* to Bulldog-Warlord from WMVII and Nakamura/Ibushi from WK9, because they are perfect versions of two very different styles of match instead of saying “Bulldog-Warlord is a 5 star and Ibushi-Nakamura is a 3.5 because the former is an overall more ‘enjoyable’ match.”
I keep wondering and think is it better to see him as more of a historian nowadays rather than a proper journalist? Might just be me, his hit and miss record as of late kinda makes me look at him that way instead.
Oh, totally! He got his start/credibility “with the boys” by calling the venues to confirm the actual gate/audience numbers. He’s not some kind of Great Man without whom the business would still be in the dark ages. He’s just a guy who did basic journalism when no one else did.
Comments