Jump to content


Photo

Your Own Ratings


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 CapitalTTruth

CapitalTTruth
  • Members
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markout Mountain

Posted 07 January 2017 - 06:00 PM

I tend to agree that personal favorites don't necessarily mean five star classics, but I am not looking for anything like consensus in today's wrestling community. Opinions ebb and flow for the most part far too much. I like surfing around and seeing other people's reviews and engaging sometimes to hone my own analysis and criteria, but consensus means very little to me. Most of my five star matches are fairly well hyped, at least by folk who are into that style, but if someone has standards and think critically about what made a match great and is willing to defend the rating has some merit. There is a match or two that I have at 5 that I haven't seen many others have, and I used to think about that a lot, but I have gone over it bunch and have strong feelings about why the matches I have at 5 are really truly all time classic matches.  

 

The point is taken though, personal favorite should not automatically equal 5 star classic.

 

My biggest problem is giving a match five stars that hasn't existed for about 5 years.  I have matches from the last 5 years at 5 stars, but I don't have a ton of confidence in them until they get some time behind them and I can watch them again, see if they hold up. 



#22 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11316 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 January 2017 - 06:09 PM

I agree with OJ's point about consensus but disagree with the idea that ratings can be anything other than personal.

If I give something five stars that's my take.

If five other guys also give it five stars, that's looking more like a consensus, if the number gets bigger than say 15 or so, in the world of PWO that's probably enough critical mass for it to start looking like a lock.

Consensuses are important and I've always thought so. It's the moment of being able to look beyond your personal views and recognising that good and bad aren't and can't be defined by just you.

Sometimes in whatever field there are things which have consensus approval that for whatever reason I just don't rate highly myself. One such case is the Nicholas Roeg film Don't Look Now which I have disliked for at least twenty years now. But I accept that "probably I'm wrong". I am wrong on Dandy vs Angel Azteca too. In those cases, I always feel like it is me who has failed in some way.

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.

#23 CapitalTTruth

CapitalTTruth
  • Members
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markout Mountain

Posted 07 January 2017 - 06:58 PM

Consensus in that way makes sense, as long as it isn't pressuring folks to rate or not rate something the way they see it.



#24 W2BTD

W2BTD
  • Members
  • 852 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 10:04 PM

I haven't used star ratings in god knows how long.  On twitter I'll often affix them to things for the purposes of distinguishing things or discussion, but never in a concrete way.  

 

That said in my mind I've always viewed them this way:

 

5 stars - all time classic, flawless or near flawless, one of the best matches I've ever seen and/or of the style it was wrestled in.

 

4 3/4 stars - Tremendous match, likely to be in the upper echelon of MOTY discussion at worst.  Perhaps not the absolute best of a style or type, but in the discussion and something where criticisms of it feel minor or incidental. 

 

4 1/2 stars - Excellent match, in most years at least a fringe MOTYC.  Criticisms might be more substantial than above, but nothing in the match that meaningfully undermines the story being told.

 

4 1/4 stars - Great match, maybe a hair below MOTYC level. I often feel that matches which go a bit too long or too short fall in this range fwiw.

 

4 stars - Great match, but a match where at no point during it did I feel I was watching one of the top matches of the year.  Kind of a generic rating for a demonstrably very strong showing that lacks the meaning, impact, drama, or precision of the above.

 

3 3/4 stars - Very good match, bordering on great, that perhaps suffers from some ill timed spots, awkward execution in bad moments, lazy selling at a critical moment, et. 

 

3 1/2 stars - Very good match, more than just "well worked," but lacking a single or collective performance that reaches the next level. 

 

3 1/4 stars - Good match, brushes up against being more than that but never gets fully over the hump.

 

3 stars - Good match.  I see thousands of these every year.  Well worked, strong effort, things click pretty well, simple/effective story told but nothing that will last with you on its own.

 

2 3/4 stars - Sold match, slightly above average, but doesn't have the cohesive elements I would ideally want to call something good.  

 

2 1/2 stars - Average match.  Two professionals doing what they do, filling a slight on the card effectively enough, but doing nothing to stand out and nothing exemplary.  

 

2 1/4 stars - Slightly below average.  Often times a decent match that goes off the rails at a few points or has a terrible finish.  

 

2 stars - Mediocre match.  Usually nothing really terrible, but an uninspired performance, lazy performance. 

 

1 3/4 stars - Poor match.  Weak effort, bad storytelling, and now we are getting into the territory of performers who look like they aren't on the same page for chunks of the match. 

 

1 1/2 stars - A safely bad match.  Perhaps some competency is shown in moments, but that's the best you can say about it, and the worst moments are utter trash.

 

1 1/4 stars - Very bad match.  At this level we are looking at matches where all parties in the match sucked pretty consistently from beginning to end.

 

1 star match - Awful match.  Little to nothing goes right or what they are doing is so bad in design that it can't be redeemed by good execution alone.  

 

3/4 star match - Trash.  At this level we are talking about something so bad that it shouldn't have been booked and you finish it literally feeling like you have wasted your time.

 

1/2 star match - All of what I said about the previous entry, but now you are also reconsidering your wrestling fandom.  Usually reserve this tier in my head for things that make me legit embarrassed to be a fan.  Can be distinguished from the previous entry in part based on length or the degree to which something is actually morally offensive (rape spots for example).  

 

1/4 star match - Absolute disaster, shit show.  Almost certainly the worst wrestling related thing you see in a given year.  Tons of blown spots, poor communication, et. combined with being horrifying and/or embarrassing on some level.   

 

DUD - I don't really think in these terms but this would be something I would consider one of the worst things I've ever seen in life, let alone pro wrestling.  

 

I agree with every single word of this, to the point I almost think you may hive ripped it from one of my old posts somewhere as a rib. Terrifying. 

 

I rarely go below **1/2 or so for "major league" wrestling. I think for the most part, most major league wrestling these days produces average matches at minimum. I rarely think I see anything terrible like we would see in the 80's or 90's.



#25 W2BTD

W2BTD
  • Members
  • 852 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 10:05 PM

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.



#26 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43385 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 January 2017 - 11:53 PM

***** - 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 <x>", ***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.



#27 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5676 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 03:19 AM

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. 



#28 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 January 2017 - 10:40 AM

 

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.



#29 Mattsdmf

Mattsdmf
  • Members
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2017 - 01:36 PM

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.



#30 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10164 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2017 - 01:50 PM

 

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. 



#31 dedhemingway

dedhemingway
  • Members
  • 186 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Pedro, CA

Posted 08 January 2017 - 02:58 PM

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.

#32 CapitalTTruth

CapitalTTruth
  • Members
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markout Mountain

Posted 08 January 2017 - 05:06 PM

 

 

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.



#33 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11316 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2017 - 07:41 PM

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.

#34 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 January 2017 - 07:51 PM

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.



#35 CapitalTTruth

CapitalTTruth
  • Members
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markout Mountain

Posted 08 January 2017 - 08:54 PM

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.



#36 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10164 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2017 - 10:17 PM

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. 



#37 Wahoos Leg

Wahoos Leg
  • Members
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2017 - 10:24 PM

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



#38 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10163 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2017 - 10:34 PM

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. 



#39 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11316 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 04:23 AM

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.

#40 CapitalTTruth

CapitalTTruth
  • Members
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markout Mountain

Posted 09 January 2017 - 07:09 AM

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.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users