Your Own Ratings

[Cap]

 

 

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.

This is exactly why you share star ratings, to encourage people. Why else do we say anything on here. This is my point about the grammar of a star rating having this weird undercurrent of objectivity that just falls apart the moment you recognize there are lots of ways to have great matches and there are lots of valid perspectives on wrestling (NOT that EVERY perspective is created equal, but that there is more than one way to skin a cat). How is telling people its the greatest thing you have ever seen and giving it five to implicitly encourage someone to check it out substantially different. The only real difference is if we treat star ratings as something more objective than they even are in practice or debate. Meltzer's rating of Okada/Omega is indeed a perfect example. People take Meltzer's ratings way too seriously and him giving that match 6 ruined the watching experience for a lot of people and has sparked a disproportionate amount of conversation. It is precisely because people treat the star rating as something it isn't and can't be.

 

I simply vouch for ratings as a way of quantifying ones own standards and analysis. My point isn't that standards should be thrown out the window, but rather that standards should be carefully considered, outlined, and subsequently considered when reading ratings. My point has always been that people should rate matches responsibly, but they shouldn't hold back on giving something 5 or 4 or whatever because it isn't conventional wisdom. At the same time they shouldn't ape everyone who throws five at something just because they throw five. Your ratings should mean something first and foremost to you if you do them. Not something sentimental, but they should have some purpose if you are going to bother doing them. The most important thing remains the relationship between your justification and your rating; you should be able to analyze why you think something is 5 and then let someone else decide.

 

 

I agree with what you're saying here, but let's pretend there's match that is generally considered five stars -- like Ms-1 vs. Sangre Chicana, for argument's sake. And I come along and I want to say that Tony Salazar vs. Herodes is also five stars. It doesn't matter what I write about Salazar.Herodes or how true it is; people are going to watch that match and think: "well, that wasn't five stars. What was he thinking?" I'd gain much more traction if I said, "here's a four star lucha match" or "here's a great match from the 80s." For starters it's more realistic, and if people really like it they're going to boost the star rating up anyway. As soon as you say it's five stars, people have MS-1/Chicana in the back of their minds.

 

It's extremely difficult to escape the baggage of star ratings. They've been around for nearly four decades now, and if you're from my generation, you were raised to believe that a five star match was the pinnacle of wrestling. That's why I don't think **** is substantially the same as saying something is great. Saying something is the greatest thing you've ever seen can be more readily taken as a personal statement, but as soon as you affix those star ratings you create something that is meant to be as good, or better, than the best matches the viewer has seen. It would have to be a pretty tight knit community for folks to think, "oh, that's one of Jimmy Redman's five star matches or that's one of those matches Parv rated five stars" as though star ratings are merely personal reflections of each person's viewing habits.

 

As for taking Meltzer's star ratings seriously, I don't have a problem with people taking them seriously as I don't have a problem with people taking Ebert seriously or Robert Christgau. I don't see what's wrong with taking star ratings seriously. I don't RYM ratings seriously, as well as All Movie Guide; why should wrestling be any different just because it's wrestling?

 

I get this and to some extent I agree. I think wherever we differ we probably just differ and perhaps it is a generational thing, perhaps not. Perhaps it is as simple as where we place the emphasis of the conversation, perhaps not. However, I want to flesh out a potential distinction and in turn my point just a touch more through the example you used. I can only speak for myself and my ratings through this example, so I don't mean to harp so much on personal example, but here we go. So I agree Sangre Chicana vs MS1 is an absolute ***** match. If I made a top match list it would be at least top 3 and maybe #1. I also have Eddie Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) at ***** and I don't know a lot of people who do, but I stand by it. Now people may watch that match and say "that isn't five stars", but I still maintain that that match is special. Without launching into a full review, it is one of the absolute best instances of wrestling as theater/drama. It accomplishes something that I have seen so few matches really accomplish. It blurs the lines in a way you just can't fake or buy. It was a gutsy performance and provided incredible visuals. Art imitated life in a powerful way that could not have been planned. It plays out race and class politics through violence in a way that is is moving and visceral. It is - for my money - one of the most impressive, careful, detailed, and then ultimately passionate individual performances I have ever seen when I watch Eddie curtain to curtain. It is the best example of a face DQ lose creating a meaningful distinction between moral victory and "official" victory. I actually just watched it again right before Christmas and felt justified in my rating. I believe it is a truly elite match and will defend that. Now, I have seen that match get as low as *** I think (at least in the 3s) and I assume it gets lower elsewhere. Would I rate it above Sangre Chicana vs MS-1? no. Do I think it is as good a match? no. Do I expect people to like it as well? no.

 

Am I wrong to give that match *****? I am not being facetious with that question. I am curious if you think I am too liberal with the stars in that example?

 

I think we are generally in agreement that ratings shouldn't be thrown around flippantly and that the 5 means something. I mentioned earlier that I am revisiting a few of my fives based on this conversation. I think that is important because I agree that I am putting my stamp on something when I say it is *****. Whatever my stamp is worth or not worth is partially articulated through that. It is like I tell my students, I don't care about their opinions. I care about their beliefs and there is a very important distinction there. Opinions are easy and free. Beliefs have a price and that price is time, energy, thought, rigor, so on. Star ratings - to me - should be about beliefs, not opinions. The baggage of the stars is hard to shake and in a way there should be some social pressure involved in beliefs, but it should be a check to make sure whatever your standards are they aren't flippant. Sometimes the result of that may feel like its out of left field. There are just too many variables for much else to hold water in practice for me anymore, so I think star ratings to the extent that they are used should reflect a dynamic interplay of and animate conversations about rigorously developed beliefs more than anything.

 

Obviously, at this point I am talking through my own stuff as much more more than I am offering a counterpoint. Again, not sure we are THAT far apart on this as much as we are focusing on different things.

 

As for Meltzer, yeah, I agree he should be taken seriously as a critic. I am not saying he isn't a valid critic. I am not saying people should ignore him. I just think the fallout of him giving 6 was a bit excessive and people's responses to his ratings are somewhat indicative of the objectivity problem. By "objective" I just mean that people sometimes treat star ratings as if they are stagnant and definitive, and in turn position them in conversations, arguments, and debates as such. It may not really be a problem here; I haven't followed the convo that closely on PWO.

[WingedEagle]

 

 

 

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.

This is exactly why you share star ratings, to encourage people. Why else do we say anything on here. This is my point about the grammar of a star rating having this weird undercurrent of objectivity that just falls apart the moment you recognize there are lots of ways to have great matches and there are lots of valid perspectives on wrestling (NOT that EVERY perspective is created equal, but that there is more than one way to skin a cat). How is telling people its the greatest thing you have ever seen and giving it five to implicitly encourage someone to check it out substantially different. The only real difference is if we treat star ratings as something more objective than they even are in practice or debate. Meltzer's rating of Okada/Omega is indeed a perfect example. People take Meltzer's ratings way too seriously and him giving that match 6 ruined the watching experience for a lot of people and has sparked a disproportionate amount of conversation. It is precisely because people treat the star rating as something it isn't and can't be.

 

I simply vouch for ratings as a way of quantifying ones own standards and analysis. My point isn't that standards should be thrown out the window, but rather that standards should be carefully considered, outlined, and subsequently considered when reading ratings. My point has always been that people should rate matches responsibly, but they shouldn't hold back on giving something 5 or 4 or whatever because it isn't conventional wisdom. At the same time they shouldn't ape everyone who throws five at something just because they throw five. Your ratings should mean something first and foremost to you if you do them. Not something sentimental, but they should have some purpose if you are going to bother doing them. The most important thing remains the relationship between your justification and your rating; you should be able to analyze why you think something is 5 and then let someone else decide.

 

 

I agree with what you're saying here, but let's pretend there's match that is generally considered five stars -- like Ms-1 vs. Sangre Chicana, for argument's sake. And I come along and I want to say that Tony Salazar vs. Herodes is also five stars. It doesn't matter what I write about Salazar.Herodes or how true it is; people are going to watch that match and think: "well, that wasn't five stars. What was he thinking?" I'd gain much more traction if I said, "here's a four star lucha match" or "here's a great match from the 80s." For starters it's more realistic, and if people really like it they're going to boost the star rating up anyway. As soon as you say it's five stars, people have MS-1/Chicana in the back of their minds.

 

It's extremely difficult to escape the baggage of star ratings. They've been around for nearly four decades now, and if you're from my generation, you were raised to believe that a five star match was the pinnacle of wrestling. That's why I don't think **** is substantially the same as saying something is great. Saying something is the greatest thing you've ever seen can be more readily taken as a personal statement, but as soon as you affix those star ratings you create something that is meant to be as good, or better, than the best matches the viewer has seen. It would have to be a pretty tight knit community for folks to think, "oh, that's one of Jimmy Redman's five star matches or that's one of those matches Parv rated five stars" as though star ratings are merely personal reflections of each person's viewing habits.

 

As for taking Meltzer's star ratings seriously, I don't have a problem with people taking them seriously as I don't have a problem with people taking Ebert seriously or Robert Christgau. I don't see what's wrong with taking star ratings seriously. I don't RYM ratings seriously, as well as All Movie Guide; why should wrestling be any different just because it's wrestling?

 

I get this and to some extent I agree. I think wherever we differ we probably just differ and perhaps it is a generational thing, perhaps not. Perhaps it is as simple as where we place the emphasis of the conversation, perhaps not. However, I want to flesh out a potential distinction and in turn my point just a touch more through the example you used. I can only speak for myself and my ratings through this example, so I don't mean to harp so much on personal example, but here we go. So I agree Sangre Chicana vs MS1 is an absolute ***** match. If I made a top match list it would be at least top 3 and maybe #1. I also have Eddie Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) at ***** and I don't know a lot of people who do, but I stand by it. Now people may watch that match and say "that isn't five stars", but I still maintain that that match is special. Without launching into a full review, it is one of the absolute best instances of wrestling as theater/drama. It accomplishes something that I have seen so few matches really accomplish. It blurs the lines in a way you just can't fake or buy. It was a gutsy performance and provided incredible visuals. Art imitated life in a powerful way that could not have been planned. It plays out race and class politics through violence in a way that is is moving and visceral. It is - for my money - one of the most impressive, careful, detailed, and then ultimately passionate individual performances I have ever seen when I watch Eddie curtain to curtain. It is the best example of a face DQ lose creating a meaningful distinction between moral victory and "official" victory. I actually just watched it again right before Christmas and felt justified in my rating. I believe it is a truly elite match and will defend that. Now, I have seen that match get as low as *** I think (at least in the 3s) and I assume it gets lower elsewhere. Would I rate it above Sangre Chicana vs MS-1? no. Do I think it is as good a match? no. Do I expect people to like it as well? no.

 

Am I wrong to give that match *****? I am not being facetious with that question. I am curious if you think I am too liberal with the stars in that example?

 

 

 

If its objectively better than every ****1/2 or ****3/4 match in your eyes, then that's a legit 5 star affair for you, regardless of what anyone else thinks. If you said it was a *** match but still among your all time favorites, that's cool too. There are always a ton of those kinds of matches that I absolutely love that are beyond rewatchable, even in comparison with what I may think is a 5 star affair. But at least for me that doesn't mean its one of the very best matches I've ever seen. But its your list -- as long as you can personally understand and appreciate the distinction, that's great.

[ohtani's jacket]

I wouldn't say you were being too liberal giving Eddie/JBL that rating, especially if you were to mount an impassioned argument for it. But if people weren't really agreeing with you then it would be hard for me to see it as a five star match. I used to argue that Bret vs. Owen from SummerSlam '94 was a five star match, which fell mostly on deaf ears. Every now and again there would be a person who'd agree with me, but many people considered it the least deserving match to ever be awarded five stars in the Wrestling Observer. So, I know what it's like to be on the other side of the fence. Somewhere along the way I gave up and accepted that five star matches are what people say they are and acknowledge them as such. I've never rated a Tanahashi/Okada match five stars. but in this era a lot of their matches get rated five stars similar to Misawa vs. Kobashi and Misawa vs. Kawada in the 90s and I can accept the consensus rule. Just as I can respect that Eddie/JBL is a five star match for you personally. I suppose you could say I've divorced my feelings from the entire process.

[JerryvonKramer]

Making me think I went too low on JBL vs. Eddie: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/31793-jvk-reviews-pimped-matches-from-late-90s-10s/&do=findComment&comment=5695791

[Cap]

I wouldn't say you were being too liberal giving Eddie/JBL that rating, especially if you were to mount an impassioned argument for it. But if people weren't really agreeing with you then it would be hard for me to see it as a five star match. I used to argue that Bret vs. Owen from SummerSlam '94 was a five star match, which fell mostly on deaf ears. Every now and again there would be a person who'd agree with me, but many people considered it the least deserving match to ever be awarded five stars in the Wrestling Observer. So, I know what it's like to be on the other side of the fence. Somewhere along the way I gave up and accepted that five star matches are what people say they are and acknowledge them as such. I've never rated a Tanahashi/Okada match five stars. but in this era a lot of their matches get rated five stars similar to Misawa vs. Kobashi and Misawa vs. Kawada in the 90s and I can accept the consensus rule. Just as I can respect that Eddie/JBL is a five star match for you personally. I suppose you could say I've divorced my feelings from the entire process.

That makes sense. What you are getting at is much clearer to me now.

 

 

Making me think I went too low on JBL vs. Eddie: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/31793-jvk-reviews-pimped-matches-from-late-90s-10s/&do=findComment&comment=5695791

haha. I think i read that a while back. I understand your analysis of it I think that is generally how most people see the match. Maybe I will sit down and write out a full review for it sometime since I am thinking about it, but I wont derail this conversation with much more talk of it.

[Microstatistics]

@OJ - I do think that's what people do though.

 

For example, Jimmy Redman's top 10 matches of all time, as of April 2016:

 

10. John Cena vs Brock Lesnar - WWE Extreme Rules 2012

9. Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker - WWE Wrestlemania 26

8. Triple H vs Undertaker - WWE Wrestlemania 28 (Hell in a Cell)

7. Triple H vs Undertaker - WWE Wrestlemania 27

6. Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker - WWE Wrestlemania 25

5. Trish Stratus vs Lita - WWE Unforgiven 2006

4. Trish Stratus vs Mickie James - WWE Wrestlemania 22

3. John Cena vs Shawn Michaels - WWE Raw 23rd April 2007

2. Team Austin vs Team Bischoff - WWE Survivor Series 2003

1. John Cena vs Umaga - WWE Royal Rumble 2007 (Last Man Standing)

 

My top 10 matches of all time, as of October 2015:

 

10. Ric Flair vs. Ricky Steamboat, 2/20/89 Chi-Town Rumble, JCP/NWA/WCW

9. Mitsuharu Misawa and Kenta Kobashi vs. Akira Taue and Toshiaki Kawada, 12/3/93, AJPW

8. Wargames, 5/17/92 Wrestlewar, JCP/NWA/WCW

7. Mitsuharu Misawa, Kenta Kobashi, and Toshiaki Kawada vs. Jumbo Tsuruta, Akira Taue, and Masa Fuchi, 4/20/91, AJPW

6. Jumbo Tsuruta and Genichiro Tenryu vs. Riki Choshu and Yoshiaki Yatsu, 1/28/86, AJPW

5. Dory Funk Jr. and Terry Funk vs. The Sheik and Abdullah the Butcher, 9/19/78, AJPW

4. Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Toshiaki Kawada, 6/3/94, AJPW

3. Magnum T.A. vs. Tully Blanchard, 11/28/85 Starrcade I Quit Cage Match, JCP/NWA/WCW

2. Jumbo Tsuruta vs. Genichiro Tenryu, 6/5/89, AJPW

1. Ric Flair vs. Ricky Steamboat, 4/2/89 Clash of the Champions VI, JCP/NWA/WCW

 

Since these are our top 10 matches, you can be sure that we think all 10 are "5 star" affairs.

 

There's no two ways around saying that my list reflects my values and Jimmy's reflect her values.

 

There are matches on her top 10 I know for sure that I wouldn't rate 5 stars. It's possible there are matches on mine she wouldn't rate 5 stars.

 

I mean, it used to be the case that people would just have no problem saying "well, it's clear Parv's is the better list", but we live in different times now. If GWE proved nothing else, it proved that.

 

On PWO maybe but not necessarily in other circles. If you posted that list on reddit or something, where the vast majority only watch WWE, it wouldn't look that aberrant. Only the Trish matches would raise a few eyebrows.

[G. Badger]

I'm more likely to use ratings like OK, Fun, recommended, highly recommended, great, and classic for my own notes or giving suggestions or reviews.

 

Those are a little more interpretative than the star ratings in what most people would say is the 3.5-4.25 plus range. Sometimes people will shy away from 3.5 type matches by just going on rating alone...and they may be missing something that they might end up loving.

 

I think that's why certain people or matches have been rediscovered in the past few years... Someone online may have shit on Fujiwara 15 years ago and panned his matches with **1/2,***, or the like so, I wouldn't go near his stuff on that alone. My mistake because no one has an aura of violence like Fujiwara...

 

But, in conversation, if someones using stars I'll join in...its a good starting point...

[Loss]

I'm glad you brought that up. To me, anything I see rated *** and above is worth making an effort to see. I don't really care to watch a lot of bad or uneventful matches, but I don't really want to limit myself to just sprawling MOTYCs either. Even matches below ***, if they have a gimmick, are for a title or are otherwise notable, if I'm following the promotion closely, I will probably check out. That's the compass we are using for PWO2K even. I don't need a match to be great to be worth my time -- it just needs to demonstrate something affirmatively in a positive sense, even if that's just "look how over these guys are" or "this isn't very good, but check this out to see how far this guy has come since then" or "look how great of a job they were doing building this match before it completely fell apart".

[Microstatistics]

My current classifications -

 

*****: A transcendent piece of pro wrestling. Would be a lock for an all time Top 50 list, likely make the Top 25.

 

**** 3/4: An absolute all time classic that ranges from strong MOTYC to MOTD. Would be a lock for an all time Top 100 list, probably make the Top 50.

 

**** 1/2: A superb, outstanding match that is a solid MOTYC in most years. The higher end matches in this category have an extremely good chance of finishing in a Top 100 list.

 

**** 1/4: A fantastic match that could range from low end MOTYC level to a strong MOTYC level, depending on how loaded the year is. Wouldn't make a Top 100 but is worth watching many, many times.

 

****: The threshold for a match to truly be considered great.

 

*** 3/4: A really good match that borders on the great.

 

*** 1/2: A very good match. Anything at or above this level is truly high quality stuff.

 

*** 1/4: A good match that executes what it aimed to achieve quite well. I often give this rating to highly pimped matches that I found very disappointing but still enjoyed quite a bit.

 

***: A decent/pretty good match that is worth watching.

[G. Badger]

I am totally on board with this star rating layout. Its like *** matches have something neat like a good sequence, a crazy dive, a heated moment or finish, or something that makes you get excited like snug matwork. If you have the time, watch the match! If you miss it or don't care for the wrestlers don't beat yourself up.

 

A primo three star example to me is Stan Hansen in AWA when he was champ going up "Baby Bull" Leon White. Better than the infamous 'eye' match...

[bradhindsight]

Yeah I think Microstatistics summed up the scale I use myself perfectly.

[gordi]

I'm glad you brought that up. To me, anything I see rated *** and above is worth making an effort to see. I don't really care to watch a lot of bad or uneventful matches, but I don't really want to limit myself to just sprawling MOTYCs either. Even matches below ***, if they have a gimmick, are for a title or are otherwise notable, if I'm following the promotion closely, I will probably check out. That's the compass we are using for PWO2K even. I don't need a match to be great to be worth my time -- it just needs to demonstrate something affirmatively in a positive sense, even if that's just "look how over these guys are" or "this isn't very good, but check this out to see how far this guy has come since then" or "look how great of a job they were doing building this match before it completely fell apart".

 

This may sound insane, but I am actually Quite tired of watching consensus ***** matches. This is particularly the case with recent many-snowflake bouts, as I am growing sick to death with what El-P calls "Self Concious Epic" match structure and in-ring work. I hated, hated, hated the man event of New Japan's recent Dome Show. It just felt like those guys were - very self-consciously - trying to earn a high ranking, whatever it took, rather than organically expressing themselves/telling the right story in the ring. I think of it as "HHH Syndrome" based on my (possibly false) impression that HHH was always trying to show everyone that he was "As Good As Flair" rather than just being HHH.

 

The stuff I have enjoyed the most, by far, in the PWO2K project has been the stuff where guys (and ladies) have seemed content to go in there and work a good match in their particular style. The stuff that has bored or frustrated me has been the stuff where they seem to be trying to inflate things to Epic status.

 

So, in a way, and particularly when it comes to matches wrestled after, say, 1995, a ***** rating is a useful red flag for me, letting me know that I probably will end up frustrated by the match in question. Three and a half stars matches often sound way more inviting to me, recently.

[Boss Rock]

I use star ratings because they're an easy way for me to critique a match and determine how much I enjoyed it. Like a great match but not necessarily a MOTYC? Most likely I'll give it a 4.25. 4.5 is when you possibly might have a MOTY argument, 4.75 is a surefire MOTYC, and 5 is a classic even if it isn't necessarily flawless.

[Victator]

I abandoned star ratings over a decade ago. I can see their value for other people, but for me it became muddled, probably because of ECW.

I was watching November to Remember 97 and I really enjoyed the four team tag title match. I'm sitting there trying to rate it and I can't because it did a bunch of stuff that went against my own logical values of what I think wrestling should be. So if I go by that, its maybe two stars.

Or something from a TNA Weekly PPV like New Church vs ECW guys. It was stupid and violent but I loved it. I can't lie to myself and try to say something I like is bad. If I am being emotionally honest, I think it is good.

So from that point forward my ratings became pass/fail, if anyone needs more detail, I'm happy to discuss it.