Your Own Ratings

[Loss]

***** - Can reasonably be compared in quality to any match I've ever seen. The cream of the crop. This isn't reserved for best matches of the year or even decade so much as best matches I've ever seen.

 

****3/4 - This isn't something I see as quite as good as the very best matches I've ever seen, but it's at a minimum one of the best matches of the decade. Maybe the work itself is every bit as good as in some ***** matches, but the match isn't quite as transcendant. If I debate in my mind on whether a match is ***** or not, it's ****3/4.

 

****1/2 - MOTYC. One of the best matches I have seen during that time period. Represents its style, its performers, its company, its weight class, etc exceptionally well. While I think ****3/4 and ***** matches should have crossover appeal to any fan, whether they are normally a fan of that particular style or not, I don't think that's necessary for a ****1/2 match. A ****1/2 match can simply be the best of its kind, or among the best of its kind.

 

****1/4 - Fantastic match. Maybe a MOTYC in some years, but on the low end of the spectrum. This is usually a match I see as missing something to get to the MOTYC level more than it is a **** match that has something extra, for whatever that's worth. Maybe it has a weak finish, or questionable booking, or bland atmosphere, or one moment that works against what the match was aiming to achieve otherwise.

 

**** - Great match. Not MOTYC, but an exceptional match by either global standards or the standards of the company, performers, style, weight class, etc. A **** match is a match that I see as hitting every note that I hoped it would and that can be reasonably expected. It doesn't creep into higher territory, nor does it aim to creep into higher territory. However, if a match is overly bloated but contains a lot of really great work, I would probably give it ****. For example, if 30 minutes of a 45 minute match are exceptional and the other 15 are overkill, I'd probably land somewhere around here.

 

***3/4 - Excellent match bordering on great, usually not quite at that level because of either something like a weak finish or a few off moments that bring the match down. If I'd say "This would be a great match if not for ", ***3/4 is about right.

 

***1/2 - Very good match well worth seeing. I tend to rank a lot of matches ***1/2 that pull my heartstrings. What usually keeps them from going higher is that either they weren't given enough time, there were extenuating circumstances beyond their control or I admired what they were going for so much and they came close to pulling it off, but they didn't quite get there. When I think of a typical ***1/2 match in my mind, I think of a really hot 10-minute TV match.

 

***1/4 - The B-plus player of wrestling matches. A step above the average good match for sure, but only a step above. Maybe a solid match that has an outstanding finish or a really great singular moment in it would qualify.

 

*** - Good, solid match. Glad I saw it. Everything was done very well. Nothing world changing, but so what -- it was good while it lasted. Every wrestling card should have at least one of these to justify its existence.

 

My mind has trouble computing matches under ***, so I don't do ratings below that.

[ohtani's jacket]

But in these things honesty is most important. I can't pretend to unsee the flaws and things I dislike just to mesh with consensus. To do so is posturing. And that is what I oppose above all else. It would be dishonest to brush things you don't like under the carpet and it would be equally dishonest to act like consensus doesn't matter.

 

I'm not saying that you can't argue against a five star match. Wrestling forums have a long history of debating whether a match is truly five stars or not. I just think that to avoid overrating things it pays to step back and consider what it really means to declare a match five stars. It may be one of the best matches you've ever seen, and your star ratings may reflect that, but once you put your ratings out there they're no longer just for you. They create expectations in the people who read them, and like it or not, I can't imagine a person who reads about a five star rating and doesn't go into the match anticipating great things (unless, of course, they're skeptical.) Of course, this is true of any new match that gets rated five stars, but I think you have to be careful to remove the personal element from the equation and see if you're left with something that's really as good as matches that have been argued about ad nauseam but which still make most people's lists of the greatest matches of all-time.

 

Obviously, that's not happening when every year has a new slew of five star matches, but it's the cautious, conservative approach I'd take if I were handing out star ratings.

[Grimmas]

 

I'm going with a six star rating starting January 7th, just trying to figure it out. Will there be a ***** 1/2 or just 5s and 6s?

 

The annoying part is going into my database and fixing all my old ratings.

 

Why on Earth would you do this? You are really going to take this all the way because dave wanted to emphasize how good he thought one singular match was?

 

You are cutting off your nose to spite your face here. Stand down, my man.

 

I thought it would be fun.

 

Although hearing Dave's explanation, I am going to keep the old rating scale, but make a select few matches six stars. Just trying to decide what the cut off is going to be.

[Mattsdmf]

I have a scale of 10. I use the standard 5* method everyone else uses but also the Netflix style of 5* in how much I enjoyed it. I do add 1/2* to the latter. The reason is that I've given matches 5* before without actually enjoying them and it seemed wrong.

[Dylan Waco]

 

Now let me talk about why I don't use star ratings even though I admit that I find them useful.

 

For starters It is my experience as a reader that I am far less likely to read a full review with a star rating than I am to read one without a star rating. I admit I may be in the minority here. That said if I know a star is there I will almost always scroll down and look at that and often times won't bother reading the review itself. Of course that speaks more to my failings than the star rating system,but it's not really my biggest issue with them.

 

My bigger issue with them is that I feel that they aren't really a suitable way for judging matches on the terms that matches are usually presented.

 

A good example of this is the Joey Lynch v. Gunner Miller from the SCI. The match was a show opener, and featured a local babyface who had gotten over huge with the live crowd the night before v. another local babyface who was set to win the tournament, but had bombed badly in his first round match. The guys went out and had an extremely exciting sprint, that gave Gunner Miller an edge and the credibility he needed as a killer after the performance the night before. Lynch's performance was especially impressive as he took a couple of insanely dangerous bumps early to set the table for his working under neath without hurting his value, while also getting over Gunner as a beast. It was a match with very high stakes for the booking of the tournament, with almost no room for error. It worked both as an incredibly hot opener, but also as a match that put Miller back on the right path without hurting Lynch who was the champion of the top local group running in the area at the time. It's hard to imagine what they could have done better given the time, card placement, needs of the show, et. But I'd be willing to be that even if people agreed with all of that, almost no one would even think to rank it 4 1/2 stars, let alone 5.

 

This is the dilemma I have - what do I do with matches like under a star rating system? I don't know, so I essentially don't use it.

I am curious, what is the harm or issue with giving that match 4.5 or even 5 if you thought that is what it deserves and then outlining the reasons you just presented? Is it an issue that that diverges from the general conceptualization of "great" matches or is it an issue of not knowing how to sort it all for yourself?

 

I think there are lots of ways to have a great match and context always changes my ratings. When I find out more about a match I will sometimes go back and re-rate it. There are plenty of matches I have at 4 -4.5, maybe even some 4.75s that I think probably don't get that in a vacuum or by popular opinion, but I think they deserve it for whatever reason. It is just my own take on the quality of the match, no more and no less; the stakes are relatively low and there is always space to explain if need be. I am always interested when someone has a match rated highly that I never thought of as great.

 

 

I wanted to think about this some before I answered it, but I've only confused myself even more. The truth is that I don't know if there is an issue with it or not.

 

Part of the problem I have is that to me it is effectively a perfect match for what it set out to accomplish. I suppose you could say "but what it set out to accomplish wasn't that impressive or important," but in the context of that show it's just not true. If that match doesn't happen that way the main event likely fails. Joey Lynch doesn't start getting booked in bigger places without that match either, though I'm not sure it's fair to judge a match based on something like that.

 

A couple of other matches that illustrate my struggle with this would be the Dirty Daddy v. Cain Justice opener from CWF's BattleCade which was pretty much a perfect showing in that spot from two rookies and Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi from last nights Style Battle debut.

 

In the case of Daddy v. Justice the goal was not to outshine what happened on the rest of the card, but to introduce Justice's new character, warm up the crowd, and do an effective title switch for their rookie belt. The work was pretty much perfect as you had a nice mix of crazy spots, good selling, body part work that paid off, and an effective finish. I'm not sure the match went 6 minutes, but I also can't think of a single thing that could have been done to improve on it. There are 25 minute ppv matches have more cool spots, are in bigger buildings, have a more dramatic string of near falls, et. but also have portions of them that I think don't quite work or don't have the sort of consistent quality exhibited here. That said I would personally feel weird given Justice v. Daddy five stars, or even four stars, where the hypothetical ppv main event would have a shot I might cut more slack. Length, scope, card positioning might be the factors at play here, but not exclusively so because I can think of other scenarios where I might pull the trigger on something higher in a similar situation.

 

Should a matches ambition factor matter? If so I think I could make a case that Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi should be five stars. I admit that I'm biased for personal reasons, and I also admit that there were things about the match that weren't to my tastes. But in the bigger sense I thought the match was kind of a genius piece of work by Yehi, and as physically demanding and impressive a match as we are likely to see in 2017. A very hard hitting and strong temp'ed match that wasn't excessive for the most part, worked outside in 40 degree weather, where you get over that draws can happen in the promotion, and sort of make your opponent in the process, is really more than anyone should reasonably expect on a show worked in front of maybe 60 paying fans. And yet while this one got lots of praise in real time, and I think the context clearly makes it something exemplary, I can't see going five stars.

 

I'm not sure what the point is really other than to say that in all three of those cases the context makes me feel like those matches were pretty much perfect or damn close to it. And yet none of them are 5 stars in my eyes, and the one that I'd probably give the highest star rating to (Henry v. Yehi) is also the one that I think has the most visible flaws divorced from context. I'm not sure I really agree with OJ's point exactly, but I do think that there is definitely great rhetorical weight if nothing else to that designation and it makes me wary of trotting it out for things, and contributes to all sorts of inconsistency with how I apply the star concept in my head and what I actually think is strong/ideal wrestling in practice.

[dedhemingway]

Not to disparage those who are more inclined towards ranking matches, but I've always felt it held little value to me personally. I either enjoy a match, or I don't. Trying to distill an art down into numbers is the antithesis of my entire view on it.

[Cap]

 

 

Now let me talk about why I don't use star ratings even though I admit that I find them useful.

 

For starters It is my experience as a reader that I am far less likely to read a full review with a star rating than I am to read one without a star rating. I admit I may be in the minority here. That said if I know a star is there I will almost always scroll down and look at that and often times won't bother reading the review itself. Of course that speaks more to my failings than the star rating system,but it's not really my biggest issue with them.

 

My bigger issue with them is that I feel that they aren't really a suitable way for judging matches on the terms that matches are usually presented.

 

A good example of this is the Joey Lynch v. Gunner Miller from the SCI. The match was a show opener, and featured a local babyface who had gotten over huge with the live crowd the night before v. another local babyface who was set to win the tournament, but had bombed badly in his first round match. The guys went out and had an extremely exciting sprint, that gave Gunner Miller an edge and the credibility he needed as a killer after the performance the night before. Lynch's performance was especially impressive as he took a couple of insanely dangerous bumps early to set the table for his working under neath without hurting his value, while also getting over Gunner as a beast. It was a match with very high stakes for the booking of the tournament, with almost no room for error. It worked both as an incredibly hot opener, but also as a match that put Miller back on the right path without hurting Lynch who was the champion of the top local group running in the area at the time. It's hard to imagine what they could have done better given the time, card placement, needs of the show, et. But I'd be willing to be that even if people agreed with all of that, almost no one would even think to rank it 4 1/2 stars, let alone 5.

 

This is the dilemma I have - what do I do with matches like under a star rating system? I don't know, so I essentially don't use it.

I am curious, what is the harm or issue with giving that match 4.5 or even 5 if you thought that is what it deserves and then outlining the reasons you just presented? Is it an issue that that diverges from the general conceptualization of "great" matches or is it an issue of not knowing how to sort it all for yourself?

 

I think there are lots of ways to have a great match and context always changes my ratings. When I find out more about a match I will sometimes go back and re-rate it. There are plenty of matches I have at 4 -4.5, maybe even some 4.75s that I think probably don't get that in a vacuum or by popular opinion, but I think they deserve it for whatever reason. It is just my own take on the quality of the match, no more and no less; the stakes are relatively low and there is always space to explain if need be. I am always interested when someone has a match rated highly that I never thought of as great.

 

 

I wanted to think about this some before I answered it, but I've only confused myself even more. The truth is that I don't know if there is an issue with it or not.

 

Part of the problem I have is that to me it is effectively a perfect match for what it set out to accomplish. I suppose you could say "but what it set out to accomplish wasn't that impressive or important," but in the context of that show it's just not true. If that match doesn't happen that way the main event likely fails. Joey Lynch doesn't start getting booked in bigger places without that match either, though I'm not sure it's fair to judge a match based on something like that.

 

A couple of other matches that illustrate my struggle with this would be the Dirty Daddy v. Cain Justice opener from CWF's BattleCade which was pretty much a perfect showing in that spot from two rookies and Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi from last nights Style Battle debut.

 

In the case of Daddy v. Justice the goal was not to outshine what happened on the rest of the card, but to introduce Justice's new character, warm up the crowd, and do an effective title switch for their rookie belt. The work was pretty much perfect as you had a nice mix of crazy spots, good selling, body part work that paid off, and an effective finish. I'm not sure the match went 6 minutes, but I also can't think of a single thing that could have been done to improve on it. There are 25 minute ppv matches have more cool spots, are in bigger buildings, have a more dramatic string of near falls, et. but also have portions of them that I think don't quite work or don't have the sort of consistent quality exhibited here. That said I would personally feel weird given Justice v. Daddy five stars, or even four stars, where the hypothetical ppv main event would have a shot I might cut more slack. Length, scope, card positioning might be the factors at play here, but not exclusively so because I can think of other scenarios where I might pull the trigger on something higher in a similar situation.

 

Should a matches ambition factor matter? If so I think I could make a case that Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi should be five stars. I admit that I'm biased for personal reasons, and I also admit that there were things about the match that weren't to my tastes. But in the bigger sense I thought the match was kind of a genius piece of work by Yehi, and as physically demanding and impressive a match as we are likely to see in 2017. A very hard hitting and strong temp'ed match that wasn't excessive for the most part, worked outside in 40 degree weather, where you get over that draws can happen in the promotion, and sort of make your opponent in the process, is really more than anyone should reasonably expect on a show worked in front of maybe 60 paying fans. And yet while this one got lots of praise in real time, and I think the context clearly makes it something exemplary, I can't see going five stars.

 

I'm not sure what the point is really other than to say that in all three of those cases the context makes me feel like those matches were pretty much perfect or damn close to it. And yet none of them are 5 stars in my eyes, and the one that I'd probably give the highest star rating to (Henry v. Yehi) is also the one that I think has the most visible flaws divorced from context. I'm not sure I really agree with OJ's point exactly, but I do think that there is definitely great rhetorical weight if nothing else to that designation and it makes me wary of trotting it out for things, and contributes to all sorts of inconsistency with how I apply the star concept in my head and what I actually think is strong/ideal wrestling in practice.

 

Makes sense.

 

I think I generally feel similarly about rating matches in terms judging their context and the varied other ways a match can be "great" without being "classic". I tend to use the ***3/4 and **** for those matches that I think were great for what they were doing, but didn't hit any of the notes that I think make a match (as one - but not the only - unit of wrestling) memorable and all time great/next level stuff, which is my standard for a 5 star match.

 

Ultimately, this is all old hat debates about context vs vacuum, universal standards vs personal taste stuff in yet another package. There is certainly a subtle tension between objective and subjective the moment someone voices their ratings, and there are myriad contributing factors. Certainly one is creating expectations the moment they toss 5 flakes a matche's way in public, but to me the key is one's willingness to stand by and provide rationale for that rating. I am not as much interested in the preferable way to rate or championing either liberal or conservative leanings as much as I am knowing how people rate so I can be versed in reading their analysis/reviews. I am certainly not in favor of a favorites = classics model or the standardless throwing around of 4.75 and 5 yard ratings. At the same time I have time for any rating that someone has put some thought into and is willing to stand behind. I can maybe learn something from that.

 

The whole thing sort of gets organically regulated individually and communally anyway. There are people here who's star ratings hold a lot of rhetorical weight on the whole and people who's don't. That is just the natural product of credibility cultivated over time. At the same time its pretty easy to navigate the terrain individually. You can tell who's taste's are going to resonate with you and who's wont, who's lists you trust and who's just aren't as helpful for you. If someone has David Arquette vs Tank Abbott (5/1/2000) at 5 stars (AS GOD INTENDED) I can pretty easily pass because we live on different wrestling planets. Similarly, there are plenty of people who don't see what I see in Joshi or Lucha or Memphis so their rating of those types of matches just aren't helpful when I am looking for perspective or to see what is hyped in a given era (or whatever other reason I am looking at ratings).

Until someone decides to spearhead the dystopian hellscape that could be a Greatest Match Ever project, the stakes are relatively low to me. Its all personal responsibility and (to ape parv) honesty.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd be really up for. Greatest Match Ever project one day and think it would be a lot more fun than GWE because of the nature of matches.

 

That would be a group-wide version of working out the wrestling equivalent of those Halliwells ratings I was talking about.

 

Which is to say that it doesn't feel like all five star matches are created equal. It would take some real thinking about how it would all work though.

[Grimmas]

I'd be really up for. Greatest Match Ever project one day and think it would be a lot more fun than GWE because of the nature of matches.

 

That would be a group-wide version of working out the wrestling equivalent of those Halliwells ratings I was talking about.

 

Which is to say that it doesn't feel like all five star matches are created equal. It would take some real thinking about how it would all work though.

I prefer the wrestling match hall of fame idea.

[Cap]

I was only kidding (mostly) about a GME project becoming a dystopian hellscape. The prospect is interesting for sure. I think it is much more manageable undertaking at least.

[Dylan Waco]

I got a message from someone earlier saying that posts in this thread sum up the reasons why they prefer ranking wrestlers to matches and while I wasn't thinking that way when I wrote what I did I have to agree. Would possibly be interested in some of the discussion surrounding a matches poll, but whereas a year ago I probably would have felt compelled to participate in it, I can't imagine doing it now. Doing my Voices of Wrestling MOTY poll ballot is brutal enough.

[Wahoos Leg]

Now let me talk about why I don't use star ratings even though I admit that I find them useful.

 

For starters It is my experience as a reader that I am far less likely to read a full review with a star rating than I am to read one without a star rating. I admit I may be in the minority here. That said if I know a star is there I will almost always scroll down and look at that and often times won't bother reading the review itself. Of course that speaks more to my failings than the star rating system,but it's not really my biggest issue with them.

 

My bigger issue with them is that I feel that they aren't really a suitable way for judging matches on the terms that matches are usually presented.

 

A good example of this is the Joey Lynch v. Gunner Miller from the SCI. The match was a show opener, and featured a local babyface who had gotten over huge with the live crowd the night before v. another local babyface who was set to win the tournament, but had bombed badly in his first round match. The guys went out and had an extremely exciting sprint, that gave Gunner Miller an edge and the credibility he needed as a killer after the performance the night before. Lynch's performance was especially impressive as he took a couple of insanely dangerous bumps early to set the table for his working under neath without hurting his value, while also getting over Gunner as a beast. It was a match with very high stakes for the booking of the tournament, with almost no room for error. It worked both as an incredibly hot opener, but also as a match that put Miller back on the right path without hurting Lynch who was the champion of the top local group running in the area at the time. It's hard to imagine what they could have done better given the time, card placement, needs of the show, et. But I'd be willing to be that even if people agreed with all of that, almost no one would even think to rank it 4 1/2 stars, let alone 5.

 

This is the dilemma I have - what do I do with matches like under a star rating system? I don't know, so I essentially don't use it.

 

 

And this is why I don't do star ratings. My system, though admittedly a bit simplistic, is as follows

 

1) All time classics

 

2) Cream of the crop (MOTYCs, essentially)

 

3) Rewatches (matches that are worth a second look, or good enough to watch a second time either, more of a temporary category in theory but it helps me identify stuff that's a cut above the rest)

 

4) Good matches (is it a match I would recommend to others? If the answer is yes, it falls in this category)

 

5) Worth watching (could be a match I found well worked but not particularly engaging, or has some sort of significance or historic value... or an entertaining if imperfect match)

 

6) Everything else

[Matt D]

I got a message from someone earlier saying that posts in this thread sum up the reasons why they prefer ranking wrestlers to matches and while I wasn't thinking that way when I wrote what I did I have to agree. Would possibly be interested in some of the discussion surrounding a matches poll, but whereas a year ago I probably would have felt compelled to participate in it, I can't imagine doing it now. Doing my Voices of Wrestling MOTY poll ballot is brutal enough.

 

Since he brought it up, full disclosure in that was me. I didn't want to derail things here or bring in too much negativity but I thought Dylan had made a good post that spoke to the "purpose" element that I was playing with quite a bit during GWE, especially as a specific counter to "number of Great Matches." So I sent him a message to that point. I think that any sort of GME project would have to really define just what was being compared, and if such a project took place here, I'd certainly write up matches for it. Whether I'd do a final ballot? Not sure. I'm not even sure I'm going to do one for the PR set and I'm definitely going through all those matches and writing up every single one. That said, it's a right brain/left brain thing. Lots of people here are more comfortable with matches than wrestlers for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure Dylan would agree in that we'd both want people to move forward with such a thing if they'd enjoy it.

 

In some ways it'd actually be fun (albeit disruptive if everyone else wants to walk orderly in a circle around the pool) to play with that same "purpose" argument from the perspective of greatest matches instead of greatest wrestlers.

 

Anyway, I'd say that even past all that, a curated Match HOF has even more value in my mind because it could serve as a great resource for younger fans or ones trying to get into one new style or another.

[JerryvonKramer]

I was thinking about this and it seems more daunting because there are obviously lots more matches than workers, but in actuality I think it is a lot more management since in practice it wouldn't really require one to have seen every match ever but simply a good chunk of the highly pimped matches.

 

More to the point, as a community we have had some pretty rigourous ways of sorting said matches and the wider wrestling community also:

 

- DVDR 80s set final rankings

- Loss's top 500 of the 90s

- Ditch's matches of the 2000s project

- Will's old MOTYC sets

- ***** and ****3/4 thread

- SC "epic" rated matches

- Meltzer five star rated matches

- WON MOTY winners

 

Through all of that you are also only really talking about absolute cream.

 

There would still be a lot of cream, but I wonder if the number of matches you'd be left with would actually be less than the number of workers who had threads in GWE.

 

Having seen enough matches of 100s of workers to be able to make a list is actually a much more Herculean task than having seen all of the highly rated matches ever.

[Cap]

A match HOF would certainly be compelling, getting at that consensus thing discussed earlier in a structured, almost institutionalized way.

 

I find either and both projects interesting.

[Grimmas]

I'm with Matt D, a yearly Match HOF is so much better than a GME poll. I know Chad has talked about match HOF too, but if he's too busy with PWO2K, then I'd be willing to spear head the HOF with some help.

[Jimmy Redman]

On the topic, I don't mean this to sound negative or to pour cold water on anyone, but literally everything said in this thread is exactly why I don't use star ratings or think in star ratings.

 

All these ideas about some semblance of objectivity, a match rating meaning "more" than just how much you liked a match, ***** matches being decided by consensus, a match being perfect and everything you wanted but you can't even rate it as high as ****1/2 because reasons...all of this is just nonsense to me. Again, I don't want that to sound as dismissive as it probably does, it's just that I come at this from a whole different place. I mean, I've watched more hours, written more words and taken wrestling as seriously as anyone in my time, but at the same time, I clearly don't take it as seriously as some of you do. To me the idea that the star rating I give a match has some kind of higher purpose or deeper meaning than "Here's how fucking great this match was on a scale of no stars to five stars" is completely ludicrous. It's literally just saying "this match was fucking great" in shorthand. With a number. Well, technically a symbol representing a numerical value. And the very idea that you can review a match with words and say it was fucking great in so many ways, and then at the end assign it a numerical value that doesn't reflect those thoughts...I don't know what to do with that. I have no idea why anyone would feel the need to do that.

 

So if there's some 3 minute undercard match with stalling and botches and no finish and no heat and it was somehow the most awesome, incredible match I'd ever seen in my life, I sure as shit would drop ***** on it without a pause. I wouldn't give a shit if it didn't "look like" a ***** match or if anyone else gave it ***** or whatever. Why would you care? Why would you let outside influences override what you personally got out of the match? I simply don't understand. I watched the match, this is how great it was. End of story. Again, I hate to sound like an asshole but I find it kind of...self-aggrandising that someone would think their star ratings have some sort of magical objective quality beyond that.

 

I hate to sound so belligerent over this, but this topic ruffles my feathers, as you can see. It drives me up the wall every time when I see someone say something like "I rated this match ***1/4, but to be honest I preferred it over that other match that I rated ****" ...like, if that's so, why the fuck did you rate them that way? What is your rating if not an honest representation of your opinion? You just sound like you're rating things what they're "supposed" to be rated, what you think other people will accept them to be rated as. So it's bullshit, in other words.

 

Having said that, I love lists. Absolutely love a good list. I prefer things like MOTYC lists, a Top 100 matches of all time, ranking the matches of an 80s set, Loss' Top 500 of the 90s...things like that. I find ranking matches against one another is more useful than assigning star ratings individually because like, lots of matches are ****1/4, and not all ****1/4 are equally as good as each other, but then to distinguish them you're trying to split quarter stars into even more minuscule fractions and it's all a bit ridiculous. I don't know what star rating I would give Revival vs DIY, but I do know it was my 3rd best match of 2016. That allows me to compare it to the other top matches of 2016, as well as the Top 3 matches of other years, or other tag matches that I've put high on a MOTY list, and gauge where it stands in the grand scheme of things much more easily.

[Loss]

I use star ratings but agree with every word of that post otherwise. I don't think consensus is needed to give a match any rating, and I think the best match should simply get the best rating. The only caveat I would add is that there are some ***1/2 matches that speak to my heart more than some ****1/2 matches. Doesn't mean they are better. It just means they hold more sentimental value with me for whatever tangential reason.

[Cap]

That is all why I didn't do it for so long and why now I am now fairly indifferent to how my list stacks up to others now. I find the grammar of the star rating is just misleading. Anytime you quantify something as fluid, multifaceted, and rooted in artistic articulations of meaning as wrestling you are going to create and deal with those problems of standards, expectations, and so on. It is tempting to get bogged down in that before you ever start and of course too many conversations get trapped under the weight of "how could you give that match (insert star rating), are you crazy" accusation, rather than a comparison of what people are looking for or at. I found star ratings just really a good personal exercise, helping me sort through what I liked and what I didn't, and more importantly WHY?! I need some structure and organization to attack and grapple with something analytically in a meaningful way. Its a product of my job and the way my brain has always worked. I am terrible with dates and other details so ratings were just an easy way to give form to the unwieldy beast that is ALL THE WRESTLING WE HAVE TAPE OF.

 

That is one of the reasons I am interested in those matches that people "rate" highly that don't really match the "conventions" of a great match. There is room for the orthodox understanding of star ratings and what constitutes elite matches to be finessed and articulated differently, if not outright challenged in a way. This isn't to say people should do star ratings if they don't feel compelled. Quite the opposite, I just think people should approach wrestling in whatever way is best for them and star ratings aren't any more than one way of thinking and organizing thoughts. Granted it is a way that has gained some weight and meaning for a variety of reasons, but put in proper perspective it is relatively harmless.

[ohtani's jacket]

If your star ratings only matter to you personally then why share them with other people? If you think some random ass match is the greatest thing you've ever seen just tell people it's the greatest thing you've ever seen. Anybody who's been around wrestling forums for any length of time will know that if something gets a five star rating people are going to check it out. You only have to look at that Omega/Okada match from the other day. There are people watching that match who know they're not going to like it simply on the basis of the five and six star ratings it's getting. If someone says Lupus vs. Trauma is five stars it means a hell of a lot more than saying "oh this was a great match. I gave it four stars." We know this.

 

Personally, I think it's a bit weird if a person enjoys *** 1/4 matches more than matches they rate *****, but I can certainly see why they might have been in the mood for that *** 1\4 match or really loved it. But God knows how someone can't be comfortable saying this was a really great *** star bout but I know it's not really a ***** bout. Just pimp the fuck out of it being a really great *** match. If people did that more often it would avoid a ton of backlash.

[JKWebb]

I would say that I went in to star ratings with the same type of thinking or rating scale as Dylan (and still use that when I rate). I've gotten into a lot of different types or styles and eras of wrestling over the last few years. As I've gotten older, what I look for in my wrestling viewing has changed too. I don't like to think about star ratings when I'm watching something, because I really just want to sink my teeth into it and enjoy. When I reflect on my experience, that's when I start thinking about the rating itself. I only wanted to assign ratings for comparison purposes. I wanted a way to distinguish that I thought this match was great, but this match is an all-time classic. I know I can say that with words, but sometimes there are different degrees, and I enjoy distinguishing between those degrees of enjoyment for me. So if a match is great, it's ****, but if it's really great it gets bumped up a 1/4 or maybe It reaches MOTYC territory at ****1/2. Anyway, I've also thought about never rating matches again. I go back and forth. Sometimes, I don't want to give a match a star rating. For example, I've been following along with the PTBN guys watching all the old WWF shows in the 80s. When I watched the main event of WrestleMania this time around, I was glued to the set having a truly great marking out wrestling experience. I think watching all the shows in order for the first time really sucked me into the moment and the heat the heels were getting and crowd behind Hogan/T etc... Anyway... Most people, including myself, wouldn't necessarily have that "rated" as a "great" match or all-timer. But, didn't it do exactly what it set out to do? Wasn't it as entertaining as all get out? You bet it was. So, I thought to myself... maybe I'll just give up this whole ratings thing... a day later I rated a match from All Japan at ****1/2... because I wanted to make the statement (with my review) that it is a classic... ha, so who knows... I guess I'm a part-timer. I do love to read reviews, and I get recommendations from that, but also, I loved going through the ****3/4/***** thread on the board and grabbing some viewing from there. So, I think whatever works for you is great, and the best part is we all get to tell each other about great stuff to check out, and then express our own experience in some way to the community. I do think the HOF idea could be really fun.

[Grimmas]

I generally don't think about a rating until the match is over.. it's rare when I do.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't see why people get so caught up on numbers.

 

"This match is five stars" is substantially the same as Dylan saying "oh man, this was AWESOME, you owe it to yourself to see this Buddy Rose match."

 

Just expressed differently, but it's the same thing.

 

I don't know why people get so caught up over it, just semantics. Numericals attached to value judgements are still only value judgements expressed in a numerical way. I think a category confusion happens because people associate mathematics with abstract truth or something.

[Loss]

The star rating is shorthand. It's basically a way of saying, "If all these words don't matter to you and you just want to know if this is good and if so, how good, then this cuts to the chase" without forcing the user to read multiple paragraphs to figure it out. If the reader wants to read all that, it's there. If they don't, they don't have to.

[JerryvonKramer]

I mean, I would rather people read the words rather than the rating.

 

I sometimes see on twitter a comment like "Parv gave it 5 stars".

 

I've never seen "Parv said this match is 'Like snorting pure adrenaline through a straw up your nose.'"

 

It's just the nature of the fandom.

 

We ask each other "where did you go on it?" in the first instance, and then usually there'll be some elaboration on why. I see that conversation all the time.

 

We never ask each other in the first instance "what words did you use to describe it?".

 

Just the way it is.