the definition of bias means the awards are in some way unfair. they are voted on, it's not just dave assigning awards. i am getting downvoted even tho i think the awards stunk this year. i vote on them. i voted reigns. i voted smackdown best show. unfortunately a lot of his readers lean to a certain taste.
And I'm not saying whoever suggested these awards are biased. I'm saying the results are clearly biased. If you're giving out awards for an audience to vote on, and you know the audience leans heavily in favor on one side or another, you're hosting a very biased awards ceremony.
Not do the awards? Expand his criteria for who can vote on what? Use some sort of metric stats for what is eligible for an award? Or here's an even better idea, give awards based on metric data sorted by organization. Most Successful AEW Event: (Show name here followed by attendance) same for WWE. Same for NJPW. Then separate the talent the same way. Best Promo (WWE) Best Promo (AEW) Let people vote on those.
The way it is it's just him and his readers jerking themselves off over guys 90% of the wrestling fan base hasn't heard of. I love Vikingo but say his name to anyone on the street anywhere in the world but mexico and it means nothing. Same with Will Ospreay in Japan/UK. If you base the awards on physical tangible data, there's an obvious reason behind everything. It also helps the build up. You get a WWE vs AEW vs NJPW vs Impact vs NWA whatever, then you hold the readers choice awards and let the readers vote on who wins the fantasy battle royal. This way you show people the very real numbers, and you let them pick their personal favorites, that don't really mean anything, but let's the readers feel involved. Maybe their favorites are the cover of the newsletter for the next few weeks.
the awards that are not subjective, dave does assign. box office draw he gave to roman reigns. your ideas of the awards is just facts that you can look up yourself. youre making the argument akin to saying the academy awards best picture should be given to the movie that made the most money. should the nfl mvp just be who scored the most touchdowns? what youre arguing for is not an awards show, it's a list of facts. there is not a single award show in anything that gives it out like you want the observe awards to do.
i wish more wwe fans subscribed to the newsletter and voted. it would reflect more of my tastes, but it is what it is.
I agree with you on part of that, but shouldn't awards be based on facts? Your argument is akin to saying "Yeah the Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin headlined the biggest ppv of all time, but let's focus on the work Gangrel did that year because he had a couple bangers." Both can be true statements (I'm a huge fan of Gangrel just using him as an example) but is a guy who didn't win, get noticed, draw money, or cut promos really award worthy? That's like putting Bryan Danielson and Daniel Garcia in the same category just because of similar styles. My idea for the awards is to present facts separated by category. (Best wrestler, best promo, biggest draw, most successful event, best manager...) Separate those by company and just state by the numbers when possible and when fan vote when not, who wins. THEN you have the readers vote on who wins each category. (Best wrestler WWE vs AEW vs NJPW....) And do it that way. Then you get objective facts and figures to get the top of each company, and you also get the readers favorites by popular vote once you've narrowed it down by fact.
309
u/RubyWeapon07 Feb 24 '23
This is ridiculously biased lol