>>5730305>You don't just throw stars at randomHoly autism, do you not understand the subjectivity of critique at all? It's not 'random'. It's MY TASTE. You're rating matches according to YOUR TASTE which I just so happen to think is SHIT. Understand?
I'm not going to read the rest of your autism paragraph, pal. Go burn some calories, you sound like you need it.
>>5730310Your post reads like a Cornette talking point. Surely you're not so stupid as to be taken in by his hyperbolic hucksterism, right? Because he's just a feckless shock-jock spouting generic contrarian opinions to pander to an audience and protect his revenue stream.
Anyway, I also have a bias for good, credible wrestling. I think AEW has good, credible wrestling somewhat consistently -- at least 2-3 good matches a month. Is it as consistent as NJPW, or even NOAH, or DDT? No. But that doesn't mean it's without merit or bad, either.
>>5730321The work does demand a subjective critique. How does rating wrestling matches differ from rating a film exactly? Do films have no technical aspects which might be judged on a more objective scale? Does that somehow make film criticism OBJECTIVE? If you've read any sort of review of a movie or even been to Rotten Tomatoes on the past 10 years, you understand how subjective film criticism is.
I appreciate the attempt at arguing semantics but once your argument is recognized for what it is, it's easily dismissed. You know what I'm talking about -- there are no /facts/ in the criticism of art. Wrestling is art, like a film, etc, and the opinion of even the most learned of critics (ie Meltzer in this case) is ultimately just an opinion.
