Terminology of match quality

[TRMD]

What does more fun than good mean?

[ohtani's jacket]

What does more fun than good mean?

 

It means I thought the matches were fun but not that good.

[TRMD]

 

What does more fun than good mean?

 

It means I thought the matches were fun but not that good.

 

 

Aren't fun matches good and good matches fun? Isn't that the point?

[ohtani's jacket]

It's just a way of classifying matches.

 

Fun

Good

Very good

Great

Excellent

 

I suppose you could look at it as average with a more positive spin on it.

[NintendoLogic]

I would define a fun match as one that you enjoy while you're watching it but have no real desire to revisit after you're done.

[Johnny Sorrow]

So an excellent match isn't fun?

I can't imagine thinking a match was awesome if it wasn't fun to watch. "I thought that match was excellent but I didn't have a good time watching it.", said nobody ever.

[Matt D]

I hate doing it but : This should probably be it's own note.

[NintendoLogic]

All great matches are fun, but not all fun matches are great.

[shoe]

I hate doing it but : This should probably be it's own note.

I agree. It has it's own thread now. Have fun.

[Matt D]

Okay, but I can't promise it'll be good.

 

I'll tackle this tomorrow.

 

My initial post was going to start with "Well, Crank is a lot of fun, but..."

[ohtani's jacket]

I agree with OJ on the terminology there. That's how I always rank matches. That's basically the format I have in place of star ratings.

 

On a more relevant note, I've watched 50 Rey singles matches against 50 different opponents in the last few weeks. I'll post my reviews soon, but he's shown he can work well with a number of differnt opponents. The standout matches I watched were the Tajiri match from Sep 03, the Brock match from Dec 03, the Noble match from Velocity 04, the Finlay match from Nov 07, the Bourne match from Oct 08, the second Henry match from Jan 06, the Bastista match from Dec 09, the Swagger 2/3 Falls from July 10, an MVP match from Nov 07, and a Kidman match from Mar 99. I also want to point out that he had a great TV match with Mr. Kennedy of all people in Nov 07 the same month of the great Finlay and MVP matches. I also saw the Psicosis match from Bash at the Beach 96 which I think isn't as good this time around, but still a great showcase, a really good Del Rio match from 10, and a

 

Rey's an elite seller for sure. One of the greatest ever at it. In a number of the matches I watched he was able to build sympathy and liven up a crowd when at first they were disinterested or not that invested in the match. He has great offense and has an uncanny ability to find smart and creative ways to get on offense. Rey's always got a gameplan, if not he's thinking during the match to find ways to not only survive but to win. He's a tremendous wrestler and certainly still a top 10 candidate in my book.

 

This belongs back in the Rey thread.

[Zenjo]

I have been to fanboy forums where 'fun' is the catch all term that describes every match between * and *****. Not that they would rate matches in this way. The only analysis is deciding if something is either fun or not fun, with most matches from their chosen promotion/wrestlers falling firmly into the first category.

 

Elsewhere fun might mean that whilst entertaining it's too short to be a notable match. Or it lies somewhere between solid-good or between good-very good. It's hard to know where you stand on a one-off basis.

 

It is funny the use of differing terminology to describe match quality. When I first started posting on the Yearbook threads I was wondering if I was enjoying the matches as much as everyone else? It turns out I was, it's just that I use less effusive phrases to describe the same things. Anything solid level or above to me means it's well worth a watch and good is a hearty recommendation.

[shoe]

 

I agree with OJ on the terminology there. That's how I always rank matches. That's basically the format I have in place of star ratings.

 

On a more relevant note, I've watched 50 Rey singles matches against 50 different opponents in the last few weeks. I'll post my reviews soon, but he's shown he can work well with a number of differnt opponents. The standout matches I watched were the Tajiri match from Sep 03, the Brock match from Dec 03, the Noble match from Velocity 04, the Finlay match from Nov 07, the Bourne match from Oct 08, the second Henry match from Jan 06, the Bastista match from Dec 09, the Swagger 2/3 Falls from July 10, an MVP match from Nov 07, and a Kidman match from Mar 99. I also want to point out that he had a great TV match with Mr. Kennedy of all people in Nov 07 the same month of the great Finlay and MVP matches. I also saw the Psicosis match from Bash at the Beach 96 which I think isn't as good this time around, but still a great showcase, a really good Del Rio match from 10, and a

 

Rey's an elite seller for sure. One of the greatest ever at it. In a number of the matches I watched he was able to build sympathy and liven up a crowd when at first they were disinterested or not that invested in the match. He has great offense and has an uncanny ability to find smart and creative ways to get on offense. Rey's always got a gameplan, if not he's thinking during the match to find ways to not only survive but to win. He's a tremendous wrestler and certainly still a top 10 candidate in my book.

 

This belongs back in the Rey thread.

 

It belongs in both, Since it has more to do with Rey I moved it back.

[overbooked]

I think I'd use the term "fun" for something that is enjoyable, but ultimately throwaway. There might not be the in-depth storytelling or emotional engagement of an "excellent" match, but there is something in there that made it enjoyable anyway, perhaps a funky spot, some comedy, a neat little thread in the match etc. It is an enjoyable way to pass the time, rather than something that really affects me.

 

I guess "fun" matches are also those that are enjoyable despite limitations. The match might be short, and finish before it has the chance to be really great. It might be a tag match with two good workers and two awful ones, so only some of the match works. Or perhaps just a match without a compelling context, with two guys thrown together and making the most of it. It might just be better than expected, so while it is not excellent, it is a nice surprise. A lot of TV matches manage to be fun, but don't always have the support of time/storylines/whatever else to become truly great, for instance.

 

Saying all that, maybe a really excellent match is one that manages to be brilliant despite all those limitations, as there isn't the help from time/storyline/whatever else.

[JerryvonKramer]

I generally don't use "fun" in the same way that some others do here, if I ever use it at all. But for what it's worth ...

 

A* = ***** - one of the best matches I've ever seen, all-time classic

A = ****3/4 - superlative match but not quite all-time best level for whatever reason

A- = ****1/2 - excellent match that you could point to as an example of "great" for any of the workers involved

 

B+ = **** - very very good match but with some reservations or otherwise something is missing to stop it being truly "great"

B = ***3/4 - very good match

B- = ***1/2 - solid stuff but with some flaws or issues

 

C+ = *** - solid but not setting the world on fire, a lot of "fun" stuff will find its way to this rating. Generally anything of C+ and up is something I liked.

C = **1/2 - solid but with serious flaws that significantly undermine it

C- = ** - getting into territory here where I really didn't like the match

 

D+= *1/2 - I didn't like the match and think it actively sucked

D =* - serious levels of suck now

D-=DUD - total crap

 

E+= -* - total crap that caused me to actually get angry at how bad it was

E= -** - as above, squared

 

F = Contender for worst match I've ever seen

[PhilTLL]

What does "high-end" typically mean? I feel like I've seen it used a few different ways, but maybe I'm making these up. Does it mean just a really good match? Matches with work, storytelling, or length that is particularly ambitious or high degree of difficulty, so a match could be "high-end" but not necessarily great? On the "high end" of a guy's body of work vs. the "low end"?

[Matt D]

This is easier than fun to me. I consider high-end as a descriptor for a certain element of a match, not the match itself. High-end matwork, for instance, would be matwork that was, out of all the matches I've seen, in the top 15% or so. That's more of a general number, and usually it's context specific. If I'm watching a primera caida of a lucha trios match, high end matwork would be up against all the other matwork in that specific scenario. Other people may use it differently though.

[PhilTLL]

Right, I should have said something like "match or element." That makes sense, though.

[anarchistxx]

Fun is something enjoyable that perhaps isn't objectively amazing. It maybe has less substance and gravitas than a truly 'great match', but could be a great little sprint, or a garbage brawl with some innovative spots or just a match with comedy that makes you smile. An analogy would be a song like 'Octopuses Garden' - nobody is going to provide it with the same acclaim and analysis of 'Strawberry Fields Forever' or Allegri's 'Miserere', but it is still a fun listen.

 

Paul London vs Akio on Velocity is a fun match whereas Eddie vs Rey at Halloween Havoc is a great match in the same sort of style. Jack Evans might not be in a lot of great matches, but he has certainly had a lot of fun matches with his innovative spots, insane bumping style, breathneck pace and arrogant skinny white boy personality.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Octopuses Garden is a great song because it's fun, Strawberry Fields is a great song because it's fun as well. Revolution #9 stinks because it's no fucking fun at all.

Point being, if you are enjoying something...it's fun and great. It's like the term "guilty pleasure". That's fucking bullshit, there's no such thing. If you enjoy something there's nothing to feel guilty about.

[Loss]

Now I feel guilty about having guilty pleasures.

[PhilTLL]

It's harder to apply to wrestling because fun is almost the entire name of the game, but other forms can be good without being fun, so much that you might not want to repeat them. Think Schindler's List, though certainly many movies, books, and music pieces fit. One match I can think of like that is Rock/Foley I Quit. It was a remarkable piece of gruesome drama, but I don't really ever want to see it again at this point in my life.

 

"Guilty pleasure" to me isn't an actual feeling of guilt, it's an acknowledgement that whatever you're enjoying lacks a certain heft. Romance novels aren't great literature. I do think it's not all that useful a term for wrestling, where if you're in for a penny of silliness, you ought to be in for a pound, but I get what people mean by it. Something like Hogan/Kamala as opposed to Misawa/Kobashi.

[anarchistxx]

 

 

Point being, if you are enjoying something...it's fun and great.

 

The film analogy is better. Project X and American Pie are fun films - that doesn't make them great films. Similarly, Requiem For A Dream is a great film which isn't fun in the slightest. Fun and great aren't mutually exclusive adjectives, but they don't equate to the same thing either.

 

'Fun' in this context isn't referring to a recreational activity that is enjoyable: watching films can be described as a 'fun' thing to do but that doesn't make Requiem For A Dream fun as a work of art by default. Similarly, I don't have to think of TLC II as a great match just because I enjoy it - it is a 'fun' match that is prevented from being great because of issues of selling, structure and various other criteria that we use to judge the wrestling match as a work of art. Similarly, watching Flair & Jumbo go an hour can be enjoyable, but that doesn't make it great and fun.

 

Fun refers to a specific type of match, one with possible issues in terms of selling, pacing, execution but that makes up for it in sheer watchability.

[goodhelmet]

Now I feel guilty about having guilty pleasures.

 

I am guilty of feeling pleasured.

[MikeCampbell]

Wow. I'm late to the party!

 

I think OJ nailed it. Fun is simply one of the first rungs on the proverbial ladder when giving an overall positive assessment of match quality. To me, it's like saying that all boxers are dogs, but all dogs are not boxers. All great matches are fun, but all fun matches are not great.