Match Ratings - Doing Away With the Meltzer * Formula

[Matt D]

I admit that my lack of star ratings are a bit of a cop out, but I really don't watch matches to compare, most of the time. I'm in it for enjoyment, but mainly for understanding, not ranking. They're not mutually exclusive obviously, but I tend not to switch my mind into that other gear unless I have to.

[Ricky Jackson]

A few reasons why I don't do star ratings...

 

1.Star ratings symbolize for me the whole opinion that the only thing about wrestling that matters is watching "great" matches with a high volume of work rate. That's a generalization of course but there is a Cult of the Great Match that exists where lot of great pro wrestling is simply discounted because it's not a four star or higher match

 

2. I'm too lazy to think about it and come up with a criteria for ratings

 

And I don't love everything, but I do like to talk about wrestling I love and not wrestling I hate, so it may seem that way I guess

[dedhemingway]

A few reasons why I don't do star ratings...

 

1.Star ratings symbolize for me the whole opinion that the only thing about wrestling that matters is watching "great" matches with a high volume of work rate. That's a generalization of course but there is a Cult of the Great Match that exists where lot of great pro wrestling is simply discounted because it's not a four star or higher match

 

2. I'm too lazy to think about it and come up with a criteria for ratings

 

And I don't love everything, but I do like to talk about wrestling I love and not wrestling I hate, so it may seem that way I guess

I definitely agree with this to a point. I think that some parts of the fanbase can't see the forest because they're so busy analyzing individual trees. Not that there isn't a place for that, but I've seen so many people who seem to stop enjoying wrestling because of it.

 

Star ratings are mostly meaningless to me. I really only care whether I enjoyed a match or not, and the only person who can decide that is me. I'm interested in reading people's thoughts and analysis of things, but that takes a lot more than five snowflakes to get across.

[overbooked]

 

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

 

Structurally a typical review by me will be:

 

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

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

- Overall evaluation

- Star rating

 

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

 

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

 

 

I generally find with reviews that the assessment is the interesting bit. Play-by-play can be hard work at times, and if I haven't seen the match then I quite like it to remain vaguely unspoiled. It feels a little like a book review that just outlines the plot. However, I don't mind a little play-by-play if it is illustrating a wider point, just like how you might pull apart a passage in a book to see how an author achieved a particular affect, for instance.

 

I really think there is a lot of potential in writing about wrestling that has yet to be fully realised. I'm not sure there have been many great writers who have also been influential, so the quality remains variable. There are a lot of routes that haven't been fuly explored, but could be explored further - something a little academic, something kind of Gonzo journalism influenced, something more abstract, I dunno.

 

Star ratings perhaps stunt the growth of decent writing about wrestling, as it is easy for the writer to lean on them and easy for the reader to skip to them.

[Lee]

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

 

I think you're making a flawed argument here because whether you liked something or not doesn't necessarily make it "better". I could tell you that I liked Plan 9 From Outer Space more than Citizen Kane and you could probably see where I was coming from even if you didn't agree with me, given that it's a matter of taste, but you'd probably still think I was an idiot if I gave Plan 9 a higher rating. I know Kane is better. You know Kane is better. I know why it's regarded as a groundbreaking masterpiece. Doesn't mean I don't get a bigger personal kick out of Ed Wood and his nonsense.

[El McKell]

 

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

 

I think you're making a flawed argument here because whether you liked something or not doesn't necessarily make it "better". I could tell you that I liked Plan 9 From Outer Space more than Citizen Kane and you could probably see where I was coming from even if you didn't agree with me, given that it's a matter of taste, but you'd probably still think I was an idiot if I gave Plan 9 a higher rating. I know Kane is better. You know Kane is better. I know why it's regarded as a groundbreaking masterpiece. Doesn't mean I don't get a bigger personal kick out of Ed Wood and his nonsense.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this kind of argument. It sounds a lot like you're giving something a higher rating based on reputation. What could possibly make it better if you enjoy it less?
Imagine if Citizen Kane was identical except instead of being remembered as a classic it was almost completely forgotten and you watched it; would you be fine with giving it a lower rating than Plan 9 From Outer Space?

[Jimmy Redman]

To be honest, I can see where you're coming from but for me there is absolutely no difference between the match I liked more and the better match. By what other criteria am I judging a match on other than my personal enjoyment? Like, seriously. Unless you get into actually objective criteria like how much a match drew money or whatever, the only possible way I can see rating a match high for a reason other than how much you liked it is how much other people liked it, or how much you're 'supposed' to like it. To me that is insane, and again why I take issue with star ratings posing as objective ratings.

 

Like, I am asking a real question here. By what other criteria could you be judging the match other than personal enjoyment?

[Loss]

I'm with Lee. There are plenty of matches that I enjoy more than matches that I think are much better.

[Loss]

To be honest, I can see where you're coming from but for me there is absolutely no difference between the match I liked more and the better match. By what other criteria am I judging a match on other than my personal enjoyment? Like, seriously. Unless you get into actually objective criteria like how much a match drew money or whatever, the only possible way I can see rating a match high for a reason other than how much you liked it is how much other people liked it, or how much you're 'supposed' to like it. To me that is insane, and again why I take issue with star ratings posing as objective ratings.

 

Like, I am asking a real question here. By what other criteria could you be judging the match other than personal enjoyment?

 

If you find a match fundamentally flawed but really fun and find another match to have really good action and really good psychology but there's a personal disconnect for you, which do you think is the better match?

[Jimmy Redman]

The one I liked more.

 

Sorry I didn't see your post at first.

 

What is "flawed"? If the match is great then whatever they did clearly worked for me, how is that flawed? If a match is sound, physically or psychologically or however else, but it bores the pants off me, how far did being sound really get it? Is the goal of a match to tick boxes, or to entertain me and be a great match?

[Loss]

Internal continuity, quality of the action and working of the crowd (that's something different than involvement of the crowd, for the record) typically determine how good or bad a match is for me. Those are usually the things I'm looking for. There are exceptions, there always are, because in any type of performance art someone can intelligently break the rules and end up producing something really cool in the process just as much as they can follow the rules and produce something that just doesn't click. A match can also be so overwhelmingly good or bad in one of those categories that the other ones don't matter so much.

 

I don't think those three things are necessarily universal standards for what makes a match good or bad, but they are my standards for what makes a match good or bad, and I apply them to everything I watch, or at least I try. Others may differ in what they are looking for, and that's ok. Personal biases will always creep in, but when I'm reading a match review, I like to hope that type of thing isn't so strong that the person reviewing the match will overlook good work just because it didn't do much for him. Subjectivity through failed but unwavering attempts at objectivity is the way to go, I think.

[Grimmas]

That is why I would think that good is not objective.

 

Everybody can watch Citizen Kane and say it's a great movie, but how many people are going to say it's their favourite. You can recognize things as good even if you don't like them.

 

For example. WeeLC was not my match of the year last year, but it was probably my favourite.

[Loss]

The one I liked more.

 

Sorry I didn't see your post at first.

 

What is "flawed"? If the match is great then whatever they did clearly worked for me, how is that flawed? If a match is sound, physically or psychologically or however else, but it bores the pants off me, how far did being sound really get it? Is the goal of a match to tick boxes, or to entertain me and be a great match?

 

The goal is to entertain a lot of people, not just you.

 

If a match doesn't do much for me personally for *whatever* reason (I didn't sleep well the night before, I don't like one of the participants very much, there was some little inconsequential thing I couldn't get past because of my own hang-ups, etc), but I can see why people liked it AND that those reasons are more related to substance than style, then I'm probably going to rate it very highly. If I had enjoyed it, I would rank it higher, yes, but I don't want to trash a match too much for catching me on a bad day. Sometimes I do fall into that, but again, I *try* not to do that.

[Jimmy Redman]

 

The one I liked more.

 

Sorry I didn't see your post at first.

 

What is "flawed"? If the match is great then whatever they did clearly worked for me, how is that flawed? If a match is sound, physically or psychologically or however else, but it bores the pants off me, how far did being sound really get it? Is the goal of a match to tick boxes, or to entertain me and be a great match?

 

The goal is to entertain a lot of people, not just you.

 

If a match doesn't do much for me personally for *whatever* reason (I didn't sleep well the night before, I don't like one of the participants very much, there was some little inconsequential thing I couldn't get past because of my own hang-ups, etc), but I can see why people liked it AND that those reasons are more related to substance than style, then I'm probably going to rate it very highly. If I had enjoyed it, I would rank it higher, yes, but I don't want to trash a match too much for catching me on a bad day. Sometimes I do fall into that, but again, I *try* not to do that.

 

 

Why not?

 

I mean I understand being self-aware enough to recognise personal style biases or bad days or a whatever else, as well as acknowledging when a match works for the crowd in front of them or does it's job, but even accepting all of that, for want of a better question, how does that change the fact that you didn't like it?

 

I think the difference between us is that if we both watched a match that got over with the live crowd and was worked soundly, ticked all of the hypothetical boxes you listed above, but we didn't really enjoy it, I would say (if I used ratings) something like:

 

"This match may have got over with the crowd and was worked perfectly soundly, but I didn't enjoy it at all because of X, Y and Z, so I give it **."

 

Whereas you would say something like:

 

"This match got over with the crowd and was worked perfectly soundly, so I give it ****, even though I didn't enjoy it much at all because of X, Y and Z."

 

I'm using broadstrokes of course, but you get my point.

 

Basically my thing is, if you're the one rating the match, why is anyone else's opinion worth more than your own? Why is it more important to you to gauge what the crowd thought of it or what other people thought of it, and use that as a marker before what you yourself thought of it? How do you even gauge what other people thought of it? How is that any more objective, when really you're only substituting other people's opinions for your own? I mean when you make a value judgment about what is "substance over style", or what is "well worked" even if you were bored, you're putting your own personal subjectivity onto it anyway, just in a different way and couching it in different terms.

 

I don't see a star rating as some kind of mathematical rating that holds any more objectivity than using words to say "This was great". So when people use them as anything other than a marker for how much they liked or disliked the match, that's where you lose me, because I have no earthly idea what you're trying to base it on.

[Loss]

Well, I explained what I'm trying to base it on. And yes, I am putting my personal subjectivity in, no doubt about it. It's impossible not to do that. To answer the question you asked about why anyone else's opinion is worth more than my own, it's because wrestling matches aren't worked for an audience of one. They are worked for the many. I get enjoyment out of seeing excited people watching wrestling, especially when I can pinpoint what the people in the ring did to generate that reaction. It's not objective. It's an attempt to be objective where I know I will fail because it's impossible, but try anyway. That's an important distinction.

[JerryvonKramer]

It's a difficult one though.

 

Chief Jay Strongbow vs. Mr. Fuji at MSG has an electric crowd, it's electric. Every single move counts. The psychology is absolutely spot on for that crowd at that time. You can't fault either guy for not doing more than they had to. You can't fault their timing either. I still thought the match was absolutely horrible.

 

Who is right? Me or the crowd?

[Loss]

Not all good crowds result in good matches but most good matches have good crowds.

[Grimmas]

It's a difficult one though.

 

Chief Jay Strongbow vs. Mr. Fuji at MSG has an electric crowd, it's electric. Every single move counts. The psychology is absolutely spot on for that crowd at that time. You can't fault either guy for not doing more than they had to. You can't fault their timing either. I still thought the match was absolutely horrible.

 

Who is right? Me or the crowd?

I went to a Transformers movie once and it was insanely awful, yet the crowd was hugely into it and it made a huge amount of money. Does that make it a good movie?

[JerryvonKramer]

 

It's a difficult one though.

 

Chief Jay Strongbow vs. Mr. Fuji at MSG has an electric crowd, it's electric. Every single move counts. The psychology is absolutely spot on for that crowd at that time. You can't fault either guy for not doing more than they had to. You can't fault their timing either. I still thought the match was absolutely horrible.

 

Who is right? Me or the crowd?

I went to a Transformers movie once and it was insanely awful, yet the crowd was hugely into it and it made a huge amount of money. Does that make it a good movie?

 

I don't think the movie analogy is very helpful to be honest. What's the equivalent of "art house" wrestling?

 

The art forms are too different to be meaningful.

[Matt D]

There's not a right answer here.

 

Match A can be good in one aspect.

Match B can be good in another.

Match C can be great in one way but not another.

 

Listmaking and comparisons are great, but if you can go into a match and point out the ways it hits, the ways it misses, your overall feeling of it, the crowd's feeling, if it accomplishes what it's set out to do (which sometimes has nothing to do with traditional metrics of quality), etc. To me that's the most interesting thing in a review.

 

1. Are you taking a 360 look at the match. 2. How do you feel about it taking all that in. Just admit your biases as best you can.

[El McKell]

It's a difficult one though.

Chief Jay Strongbow vs. Mr. Fuji at MSG has an electric crowd, it's electric. Every single move counts. The psychology is absolutely spot on for that crowd at that time. You can't fault either guy for not doing more than they had to. You can't fault their timing either. I still thought the match was absolutely horrible.

Who is right? Me or the crowd?

Nobody's right. I would say there's no objective good match, everybody is gonna think something different about a match and nobody is right or wrong

 

If you take the view that the wrestlers were out there to work for that crowd, then the crowd is obviously right.

If you take the bizarre view that you appreciate wrestling in a deeper way than that crowd does, then you could say you're right

[JerryvonKramer]

I used to be more on the side of looking for objective criteria, but as time wears on, I think increasingly that there's no way around the subjectivity argument or relativity.

 

Look at Angel Azteca vs. El Dandy. Several people here think it's an all time classic. I really didn't enjoy it. I stated reasons too. I was told to stop comparing the matwork to 70s US / Japanese matwork, that wrestling isn't a personality contest, that I need to be able to speak Spanish to get it. That the context matters. That in Lucha these tropes which look so fake to me are standard and I have to accept them, etc. etc.

 

Look at Funks vs. Abby/ Sheik '78 or Patterson vs. Slaughter, which are two matches I have nailed on as 5 star because I love them. No one else seems to like them as much as that.

 

Those are both examples where I seem to be an outlier, but there's no other way to reason it through than to say "yeah, it's all subjective".

 

The phrase bothers me and always has. I may write a book about it one day, because there are things I can never reconcile, but I'd rather not get bogged down in it all here.

[ohtani's jacket]

Only one person said anything about your views on Dandy/Azteca and that was me. Subjectivity isn't an excuse for unfounded criticisms.

[JerryvonKramer]

Do you really like that arm work where Azteca is tugging on Dandy's arm in the lamest possible way imaginable? I don't see what makes it "unfounded"? It's not a very good piece of business.

[Loss]

Where can I read your thoughts on Azteca-Dandy?