Jump to content


Photo

Your Own Ratings


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 January 2017 - 07:10 AM

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.



#42 Jimmy Redman

Jimmy Redman
  • Members
  • 2338 posts

Posted 09 January 2017 - 07:58 AM

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.



#43 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43472 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 08:33 AM

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.



#44 CapitalTTruth

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

Posted 09 January 2017 - 08:59 AM

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.



#45 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:08 AM

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. 



#46 JKWebb

JKWebb
  • Members
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:08 AM

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.



#47 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:10 AM

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



#48 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:31 AM

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.

#49 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43472 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:38 AM

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.



#50 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:44 AM

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.

#51 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:46 AM

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.

 

Saying a match is five stars is not substantially the same as Dylan saying a match is awesome. That's about as plain as the nose on your face. Are you really trying to tell me that you, Parv, do not place any sort of importance in five star ratings? The Parv that meticulously compiles star rating lists, used them for BIGLAV, once argued that Bob Dylan was the greatest musician to ever live because he had more five star albums than anyone else? I don't wanna start coming across as the Star Ratings Nazi since I hardly ever use the things. My point of view is from the perspective of people who use star ratings as a guide for what to watch. 



#52 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43472 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:52 AM

They are of significant importance, for sure, but ultimately, they are still one person's opinion, and that's all they can be. Of course there should be a high personal standard (I'd say the highest possible standard) for giving the full five to a match, but it shouldn't be that lots of other people agree with you. 



#53 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:57 AM

What does everybody think of the occasional six star? 

I think it means you have over used 5 stars, so they are not as meaningful as they should be. 



#54 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43472 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:17 AM

Probably a good moment to add that star ratings live and breathe, just like opinions on matches live and breathe. When we share something, we're sharing an opinion that is always subject to change. Thoughts on wrestling matches come in pencil, not pen.



#55 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:18 AM

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.

 
Saying a match is five stars is not substantially the same as Dylan saying a match is awesome. That's about as plain as the nose on your face. Are you really trying to tell me that you, Parv, do not place any sort of importance in five star ratings? The Parv that meticulously compiles star rating lists, used them for BIGLAV, once argued that Bob Dylan was the greatest musician to ever live because he had more five star albums than anyone else? I don't wanna start coming across as the Star Ratings Nazi since I hardly ever use the things. My point of view is from the perspective of people who use star ratings as a guide for what to watch.


Well what does it really mean to say that a match is five stars or that a Dylan album is five stars?

Steamboat vs. Flair is an awesome match, pretty much the best that a wrestling match could be and the absolute pinnacle of its style. (in case of doubt, I mean: Clash 6)

I've recorded enough material explaining why I think that, but it's all still shorthand for saying "I think this is one of the best ever things".

Some others prefer Chi-Town or Wrestlewar, which are also incredible.

It led to a great thread:

http://prowrestlingo...e-holy-trilogy/

You could do the same thing with Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisted, and Blonde on Blonde. I have no idea what the results would be on Expecting Rain, probably it's a thread that has been done loads of times.

But the 5 star rating is still a code for saying "this stuff is awesome and the most awesomest of awesomes"

You'd be saying exactly the same stuff without the star ratings involved too.

I only mentioned Dylan cos he doesn't use star ratings but still bangs the drum for stuff he thinks is "the most awesomest of awesomes". What difference does it really make?

Where I -- as a star ratings guy -- get frustrated occassionally is how noncommital and fluid language can be.

"This is great"

"This is awesome"

"This is fantastic"

These statements lack the precision of the star rating, so we don't quite know just how "great" or how "awesome" the person thinks it is.

I think its more economical to throw out the stars at the end.

#56 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:21 AM

Sometimes, I think it's a commitment thing. Nailing one's colours to the mast. There's a stake to a star rating that isn't there with just the words.

The stars are subject to change with repeated viewings, but it's still a bigger gesture than just writing.

I think people who don't use star ratings like or take comfort in that greater amibguity. It feels less final, it feels more fluid, or definitive, or whatever. Which is just a personality thing, I think.

#57 InYourCase

InYourCase
  • Members
  • 451 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:27 AM

 


What do my ratings mean?

***** - one of the best matches I've ever seen, all-time classic
****3/4 - superlative match but not quite all-time best level for whatever reason
****1/2 - excellent match that you could point to as an example of "great" for any of the workers involved

**** - very very good match but with some reservations or otherwise something is missing to stop it being truly "great"
***3/4 - very good match
***1/2 - solid stuff but with some flaws or issues

*** - solid but not setting the world on fire, a lot of "fun" stuff will find its way to this rating. Generally anything of C+ and up is something I liked.
**1/2 - solid but with serious flaws that significantly undermine it
** - getting into territory here where I really didn't like the match

*1/2 - I didn't like the match and think it actively sucked
* - serious levels of suck now
DUD - total crap

-* - total crap that caused me to actually get angry at how bad it was
-** - as above, squared
-*** - contender for worst match I've ever seen

 

I subscribe to this train of thought more than anyone else's. I have a 1/4 when I rate things, but to each their own. 

 

The big thing with me is that there's a huge difference between ****1/2 and ****3/4. In modern wrestling, ****1/2 is tremendous, it's captivating, it rocks - but there's a strong chance that I won't even consider a ****1/2 for my top 10 at the end of the year. There's a huge difference in quality between the two, more so than ***1/2 to ***3/4 or even ****3/4 to *****. 



#58 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:33 AM

My only star rating is for Houston and it is "I think Pete will give this 4*s"

 

Only for that too. Not 3.5*. Not 4.5*



#59 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:36 AM

 

 


What do my ratings mean?

***** - one of the best matches I've ever seen, all-time classic
****3/4 - superlative match but not quite all-time best level for whatever reason
****1/2 - excellent match that you could point to as an example of "great" for any of the workers involved

**** - very very good match but with some reservations or otherwise something is missing to stop it being truly "great"
***3/4 - very good match
***1/2 - solid stuff but with some flaws or issues

*** - solid but not setting the world on fire, a lot of "fun" stuff will find its way to this rating. Generally anything of C+ and up is something I liked.
**1/2 - solid but with serious flaws that significantly undermine it
** - getting into territory here where I really didn't like the match

*1/2 - I didn't like the match and think it actively sucked
* - serious levels of suck now
DUD - total crap

-* - total crap that caused me to actually get angry at how bad it was
-** - as above, squared
-*** - contender for worst match I've ever seen

 

I subscribe to this train of thought more than anyone else's. I have a 1/4 when I rate things, but to each their own. 

 

The big thing with me is that there's a huge difference between ****1/2 and ****3/4. In modern wrestling, ****1/2 is tremendous, it's captivating, it rocks - but there's a strong chance that I won't even consider a ****1/2 for my top 10 at the end of the year. There's a huge difference in quality between the two, more so than ***1/2 to ***3/4 or even ****3/4 to *****. 

 

For my top ten matches, I have to dive into my **** 1/2s for about the last 5 spots, usually.



#60 JKWebb

JKWebb
  • Members
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 11:08 AM

What does everybody think of the occasional six star? 

I think it means you have over used 5 stars, so they are not as meaningful as they should be. 


I don't mean any offense to anyone that wants to say 6 stars, because it would be your own scale that makes more sense to you ... so, of course that's fine... but... for me personally ... it reminds me of Spinal Tap... "you see mine goes up to 11"

I can just see Meltzer in his basement next to a stack of papers (with match rankings and lists on them) wearing an Okada T-shirt saying ... "You see, but mine goes up to 6".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users