Match Ratings - Doing Away With the Meltzer * Formula

[Fantastic]

So, I used to blog wrestling a few years back, I'd review matches, cards, etc and then give them a rating. I've always hated the standard star rating system that Meltzer pioneered (which has subsequently become the standard used by pretty much everybody). That formula is good, because people take note of the ***** and the DUD's, but I find it quite limiting in places. Pretty much every good quality match is **** - **** 1/2. It's messy, but everybody else who blogged on the site (I won't give details because I was under my real name) used the Meltzer scale. I didn't like this, it limited me:

 

So, I rated matches on a scale of 1-10. I didn't just rate matches based on performance, I rated them on things like historical significance, how well they developed a feud, or how well these matches represented the product that a wrestling company was trying to promote. Some of my highest rated matches weren't GOAT contenders, but they were important for many reasons.

 

0: This is what I'd give to matches that had no business being a part of a professional wrestling product. Basically the equivalent to Meltz's DUD's. My philosophy about using this rating (or non-rating if you like) for match, usually implied that the match quality wasn't up to the standard of what anybody paying to watch a wrestling show should expect.

 

1-3: Typically awarded to low quality TV matches, Unaired PPV pre show matches, filler, etc.

 

5-7: Usually given to average to very good quality TV matches, or good quality matches on cards.

 

10: Matches of great significance, near perfect, or even perfect efforts (by my standards).

 

By expanding the ratings to give a greater scope, it allowed me to truly preserve the best of the best when I reviewed matches.

 

I find that people using Meltzer's system are too quick to award matches **** and above. Even Meltzer himself is guilty of this.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[Mad Dog]

On a scale of 0-10 I start thinking in the terms of a grading average. So a 5 is a failing grade and a 6 would be a D.

[Grimmas]

Unless you are using

 

DUD=0

1/4*=0.5

1/2*=1

3/4*=1.5

....

 

****1/2=9

****3/4=9.5

*****=10

 

Aren't you just renaming the system and calling it something new?

[WingedEagle]

I like Meltzer's system because I'm familiar with it. The best part of it is frankly how widespread it is. After seeing someone rate quite a number of matches, whether its Meltzer, Loss, Parv, Scott Keith, Alan, my aunt or anyone else, you develop a sense of what that rating means to that person. You'd have the same issue with any other rating system -- what does an 8 mean to Meltzer? What's it mean to Wade Keller or someone at the Torch? At the end of the day its a quick way to take the temperature of a match according. Just need to get a feel for that person and then you'll know whether to use their ratings to help you ID matches worth checking out.

[JerryvonKramer]

I essentally use a 15-point scale: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/20932-80s-catchup-thread/&do=findComment&comment=5558468

 

Although I mostly use my star-rating equivalents because people understand them more than a letter rating.

 

But it is the reason I don't use the ***1/4 and ****1/4 ratings.

[Matt D]

I use the word "Great" a lot.

[WingedEagle]

I use the word "Great" a lot.

 

Ha that's the other side of it. I love reading certain folks' detailed thoughts on a match. I haven't been able to use these write-ups as easily to determine if I want to check something out, but it definitely provides more fun reading material.

[El-P]

It's Cornette's formula anyway.

[El McKell]

If your gonna be semantic about it at least get it right Cornette would tell you it's Norm Dooley's formula

[pol]

I do think for most people the scale is kinda logarithmic. Like, is the difference in quality between ** and **1/2 really the same as the difference between ****1/2 and *****?

[Zenjo]

I use the star rating system, except every 1/4* is split into low, medium and high. Given that nobody else does I just keep my ratings to myself. They're only useful for ranking lists of matches, not as an accurate descriptor. I couldn't order 100's of matches without a numerical system.

 

Seeing other peoples star ratings generally makes my eyes either roll or glaze over. Unless the individual has hundreds of ratings listed you can't figure out how they use the system. And even then there's probably a subliminal thought entering my mind that involves Scott Keith. Which is a great reason to do away with it.

[GOTNW]

The stars are just an aesthetic. Whether you use them, numbers or percentages (like I do), it really doesn't matter as long as the system you are using makes it the easiest for you to differentiate between the quality of the matches.

 

I find that people using Meltzer's system are too quick to award matches **** and above. Even Meltzer himself is guilty of this.

I have a friend that watches everything. Literally everything. Except lucha. If he watched lucha he'd probably watch more wrestling than Dylan. And in 2015 he has given about three matches ****.

 

Personally, I'll look at something like my ratings for a random WWE PPV like this year's Payback(DUD, DUD, **, ***, *1/2, DUD, * , *3/4, **1/2) and conclude they perfectly represent how much I enjoyed any of those matches, and that suffices.

 

 

I do think for most people the scale is kinda logarithmic. Like, is the difference in quality between ** and **1/2 really the same as the difference between ****1/2 and *****?

For me, yes. A *** match is something I genuinely enjoyed. **1/2 is inoffensive and average-the qualities are either canceled out by the match's faults or it has neither qualities nor faults. ** is a tehnically fine match between two profesionally trained wrestlers that offers some things I like but is generally uninteresting. **** is a great match, ****1/2 is a fucking amazing match that could very well be a MOTY in some years, ***** means it's one of the greatest matches ever.

[Jaivl]

Depends on how you use the scale. This year I only have 2 matches rated above **** (haven't watched any Lucha yet, though).

Lesnar vs Reigns - ****3/4
Nakamura vs Ibushi - ****1/4

Also, first post and all of that.

[BillThompson]

Not to rain on your parade, but I see absolutely no difference between the star system and the 1-10 system.

[Laz]

It's not much different, just using one vernacular for another.

 

I tend to use the star ratings because most people understand them, but lately I've just been using terms like "solid," "fun," "entertaining," and so forth.

 

I forget who did it on 411/TSM forever ago, maybe the Paradise City Ninjas, but they'd rate matches with letter grades as if it were a school assignment. A+ was a great/classic, C was average, F was a dud, etc.

[RocketCrypt]

This is like the "These go to eleven" scene from Spinal Tap.

[dawho5]

I don't rate matches with stars or any system. I decide how much I enjoyed the match. I look at the structure and what they were trying to accomplish with the match and decide how well the workers did. I also think about the moments/spots that stood out to me and why. Putting a number of stars or a grade or a number of anything on it seems useless to me. I don't feel the need to rank and order wrestling matches. That feels like work. I just know what I like or don't and try to analyze matches to find out what causes those reactions. How may snowflakes anyone puts next to a given match means very little to me. Once I start seeing four or more I may put some thought into tracking said match down or rewatching, but I just don't care to describe matches in those terms.

[Mad Dog]

I use them for writing. A star rating is a good way to communicate where that match fits within a broader world of matches. U find a lot of times that guys that don't use them spend a lot of time talking about the pros and cons of a match but don't necessarily give you a perspective on how good the match actually is.

[overbooked]

The main problem I have with star ratings is I often find myself skipping someone's review and going straight to the snowflakes.

 

While I can see some value and fun to be had in rating matches (whether by stars, numbers, letters or whatever else), particularly for ranking stuff, I think the reviewing and analysis should be the important bit. Wrestling is completely subjective and it is more meaningful when people reflect that, rather than try to turn an artform into an equation. Arguing over 1/4* is far less fun and useful to me than genuinely engaging with a match, the story it tells and the emotion it produces.

 

I feel the same about book, film and music reviews. It seems really reductive.

[Jimmy Redman]

One thing I will never understand about star ratings is when people try to pretend that they have some basis in objectivity. I think using math makes things sound more scientific and thus people think they're judging things more objectively than if they just use their words...I don't know, but when I see people say things like "This match was **** but I liked it less than this match I only rated ***1/4..." I'm just like...what? Why didn't you rate the second match higher if it was better? By what kind of fucked up, bullshit, asshole criteria are you ranking matches with if it results in you ranking matches you liked less higher than matches you liked more?? That makes zero sense to me and never will.

[JerryvonKramer]

The main problem I have with star ratings is I often find myself skipping someone's review and going straight to the snowflakes.

 

While I can see some value and fun to be had in rating matches (whether by stars, numbers, letters or whatever else), particularly for ranking stuff, I think the reviewing and analysis should be the important bit. Wrestling is completely subjective and it is more meaningful when people reflect that rather that try and turn an artform into an equation. Arguing over 1/4* is far less fun and useful to me than genuinely engaging with a match, the story it tells and the emotion it produces.

 

I feel the same about book, film and music reviews. It seems really reductive.

Right but by the same token, I've been on shows where I'll be arguing about some tiny thing with Chad or Pete and it turns out that we're 1/4* away from each other anyway.

 

I also suspect that with a ton of my written reviews, people will skim the descriptive part where I'm running through the body of the match, until the final paragraph where I give an overall assessment and a star rating. That's fine I guess, people know the move-by-move breakdown is there if they want it.

 

Structurally a typical review by me will be:

 

- Opening remarks noting superficial things like the wrestler's appearance, entrances, commentary, incidental trivia notes, etc.

- Description of the body of the match including most of the moves. Some analysis in passing.

- Overall evaluation

- Star rating

 

Some others here -- Loss, in particular -- cut out the body of the match entirely in their reviews and only leave the assessment. I've toyed with that, but I find stream-of-consciousnes works better for my style, and sometimes there's things to mention in passing during the body. I also like typing shit like "Snapmare. Kneedrop. Cover."

 

When reading other people's reviews, I mostly want the star rating. Feels like a cop out to me when it's not there. When I'm on shows, I always have an easier time discussing matches with Chad, Pete or Steven because they give out the star ratings and we can directly compare -- than with guys like Johnny and Kelly who seem to just love everything and accept things for what they are. Not trying to knock Johnny but it sometimes feels like he just loves everything.

[JRH]

Scott Keith (yeah, i know) had an interesting way of rating matches back when he reviewed Coliseum videos. Basically he would rate the tapes on a "point" system, and if a match was worth watching he would give it a point. For example, if a tape had 7 matches and four of the matches were good, it would be rated 4 for 7. I always thought that was a unique system that could work.

[Grimmas]

Scott Keith (yeah, i know) had an interesting way of rating matches back when he reviewed Coliseum videos. Basically he would rate the tapes on a "point" system, and if a match was worth watching he would give it a point. For example, if a tape had 7 matches and four of the matches were good, it would be rated 4 for 7. I always thought that was a unique system that could work.

Similar to the Workrate reports where things were listed as working or not working.

[Loss]

I like that too, and I think there are cases where it works really well. If you want to quantify how good something is (rather than just that it *is* good), it doesn't quite hit the mark.

 

JvK, you mentioned how I write about matches. To be honest, I have done very little in those threads that I would consider "reviews" (at least the way that I would write a review if that specifically was my goal). So in the Match Discussion Archive, I usually just write my takeaway impressions because of the amount of wrestling I'm trying to watch, but also because I consider it an informal posting of my immediate thoughts. I usually have more to say about the match the second time around, and at that point I'm more interested in getting into specifics. It's just that my to-watch list has grown so exponentially that I haven't done a huge amount of rewatching in many years.

[BillThompson]

I keep a list of my star ratings for matches I've rated ****+, but I don't publish those online. When I write about a match I leave out play by play, because if people want that then they should watch the match. I break down why I liked the match, what worked, what didn't, etc. Hopefully I paint a picture of my general; feelings on a match, and I don't bother with the star rating because I feel my words should do the job instead.