Match Ratings - Doing Away With the Meltzer * Formula

[Johnny Sorrow]

Saying Prince can't find a note is just being a dummy. Saying "I don't dig it and it's not my bag" is what non insane people do.

This whole seeing things through absolutes that goes on is so weird and intellectually limited.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd argue that it is intellectually limited to try to make out like there are no objective standards when in fact there are some.

 

- How well can El Gigante bump?

- How well does El Gigante execute a suplex?

- What is El Giagante's knowledge of holds and counters?

- What is El Gigante's grasp of basic wrestling psychology?

 

Are these really questions that have no empirical answer?

 

I see the need to relativise things to the point where "everything is subjective" as a form of intellectual cowardice.

 

I mean, if nothing else, it simply isn't true that there aren't standards in any genre that one can't point to. There are.

 

Criteria exist even in fields that are "subjective".

 

I don't understand the drive to deny that.

[goodhelmet]

- How well can El Gigante bump?

- How well does El Gigante execute a suplex?

- What is El Giagante's knowledge of holds and counters?

- What is El Gigante's grasp of basic wrestling psychology?

These aren't good examples because all of these could be argued as subjective measures. Why would I want an 8 foot giant executing a suplex? Why should an 8 foot giant be able to bump like a 120 lb cruiserweight? What if I don't value holds and counters as something needed for a quality wrestling match? If an 8 foot monster no sold everything that is thrown at him and didn't sell for anyone, would that be good psychology?

[BillThompson]

I'd argue that it is intellectually limited to try to make out like there are no objective standards when in fact there are some.

 

- How well can El Gigante bump?

- How well does El Gigante execute a suplex?

- What is El Giagante's knowledge of holds and counters?

- What is El Gigante's grasp of basic wrestling psychology?

 

Are these really questions that have no empirical answer?

 

I see the need to relativise things to the point where "everything is subjective" as a form of intellectual cowardice.

 

I mean, if nothing else, it simply isn't true that there aren't standards in any genre that one can't point to. There are.

 

Criteria exist even in fields that are "subjective".

 

I don't understand the drive to deny that.

 

I don't understand your need for everything to fit into neat and tidy boxes.

 

--You may think Gigante is a terrible bumper, I may think he is a great bumper. We both have our reasons, and this mere difference of opinion is enough to show the fallacy of objectivity in art.

 

--Repeat the above for every bullet point you presented.

 

There aren't any criteria that exist for me, because the application of art is something I find to be very fluid. Bret Hart botching the Ringpost Figure Four Leglock and falling on his head may on the surface appear to be objectively bad. But, where does the match go from there? Are they then able to work that spot into the match in a way where it fits the narrative and becomes not a botch but a genuine part of the match? Or, look at matches that are rough around the edges. If you say there are objective criteria for how a Vertical Suplex must be executed then any deviation from that is a mark against the match. It's been my experience that slight deviations in the Vertical Suplex can add to the match, and what one views as a badly executed Vertical Suplex I can view as a moment that adds flavor to the match; or vice versa.

[Poneglyph]

I'd argue that it is intellectually limited to try to make out like there are no objective standards when in fact there are some.

 

- How well can El Gigante bump?

- How well does El Gigante execute a suplex?

- What is El Giagante's knowledge of holds and counters?

- What is El Gigante's grasp of basic wrestling psychology?

 

Are these really questions that have no empirical answer?

 

I see the need to relativise things to the point where "everything is subjective" as a form of intellectual cowardice.

 

I mean, if nothing else, it simply isn't true that there aren't standards in any genre that one can't point to. There are.

 

Criteria exist even in fields that are "subjective".

 

I don't understand the drive to deny that.

El Gigante's specific way of bumping or executing a suplex can work for a certain spectator in the context of a certain match, though. The same goes for the Lawler-Snowman feud where Snowman's execution enhances the worked shoot nature of the feud or last year's En Busca de un Ídolo final where a botch by Cavernario became a turning point in the match and created a new story for the wrestlers to tell. Likewise, my favourite match from 2014 is Charles Lucero vs. Silver Star and at some points in that match Lucero and Star can barely perform the holds they are attempting because they are old and broken down, yet they are trying to take the crowd to another time when their style was the norm and that disconnect between their intent and the limitation of their bodies is what makes that match work so well for me. I actually wrote something about this in which I compared the match to kintsugi - repairing broken objects with gold to recognise the beauty in their flaws.

 

I agree that criteria exist, but criteria come from the imposition of some subjectivities. I don't think a "classical match" with the Four Pillars is inherently better than an El Gigante squash, even if we have learned to "read" wrestling in a way that makes us feel that. Anyway, criticism shouldn't be about analysing how well a wrestling match meets a certain set of criteria - like how a suplex must be executed - but trying to understand how it works, the things it makes you feel and where they come, the discourses that go throught it.

 

I'm not sure how you can do that, though

[JerryvonKramer]

Sorry, I won't allow for any argument that allows "El Gigante is a great worker" as one of its possible conclusions, because something in that argument must be wrong.

[Poneglyph]

What about "El Gigante is a worker who will provoke specific feelings and interpretatios of the match he is in and which wouldn't be provoked if other worker was inserted in his role"?

[JerryvonKramer]

Sure fine, I can roll with that statement. It's so empty and limp as a statement though that I don't know why anyone would ever bother to say it.

[Grimmas]

Sorry, I won't allow for any argument that allows "El Gigante is a great worker" as one of its possible conclusions, because something in that argument must be wrong.

This.

 

It's all well and good to say all art is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder. However, going with that leads it possible to say El Gigante is a better wrestler than Ric Flair which is just plain wrong.

 

Obviously it gets more difficult when discussing Jumbo vs Flair, but that doesn't mean there is not a correct answer.

[Grimmas]

Hmmm....

 

my wife just pointed out that we have to distinguish between craft and art. The Hendrix example may beak down because Hendrix is clearly better at the craft of playing guitar then me, but does that make him a better artist?

 

I need to think more about this.

[Jimmy Redman]

 

Sorry, I won't allow for any argument that allows "El Gigante is a great worker" as one of its possible conclusions, because something in that argument must be wrong.

This.

 

It's all well and good to say all art is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder. However, going with that leads it possible to say El Gigante is a better wrestler than Ric Flair which is just plain wrong.

 

Obviously it gets more difficult when discussing Jumbo vs Flair, but that doesn't mean there is not a correct answer.

 

 

Where do you draw the line though? Where is the middle ground between Gigante and Flair where the argument for them goes from being "wrong" to merely "subjective opinion"? Who falls out of the realm of being able to be called objectively good? Who decides where that line is drawn? Is there a meeting? How do they decide?

 

As insane as it sounds, someone having the opinion that Gigante is a great wrestler is not factually incorrect. It's not a question of facts. That's not to say it's a particularly credible or trustworthy or popular or defensible opinion to have, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

[Grimmas]

 

 

Sorry, I won't allow for any argument that allows "El Gigante is a great worker" as one of its possible conclusions, because something in that argument must be wrong.

This.

 

It's all well and good to say all art is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder. However, going with that leads it possible to say El Gigante is a better wrestler than Ric Flair which is just plain wrong.

 

Obviously it gets more difficult when discussing Jumbo vs Flair, but that doesn't mean there is not a correct answer.

 

 

Where do you draw the line though? Where is the middle ground between Gigante and Flair where the argument for them goes from being "wrong" to merely "subjective opinion"? Who falls out of the realm of being able to be called objectively good? Who decides where that line is drawn? Is there a meeting? How do they decide?

 

As insane as it sounds, someone having the opinion that Gigante is a great wrestler is not factually incorrect. It's not a question of facts. That's not to say it's a particularly credible or trustworthy or defensible opinion to have, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

 

Can opinions ever be wrong?

[Jimmy Redman]

When they contradict facts or logic or reality, sure. But "this wrestling match is better than this wrestling match" doesn't really come under those conditions. It's entertainment and we like what we like, and we value what we value. Individually and subjectively.

[Grimmas]

When they contradict facts or logic or reality, sure. But "this wrestling match is better than this wrestling match" doesn't really come under those conditions. It's entertainment and we like what we like, and we value what we value. Individually and subjectively.

 

So, I can say Good Charlotte is better than The Beatles and there is nothing wrong with that statement? It's my opinion, so it's all cool?

[Poneglyph]

Can a El Gigante match be better at being a Gigante match than a Flair match a being a Flair match?

[Grimmas]

Can a El Gigante match be better at being a Gigante match than a Flair match a being a Flair match?

What possible point are you trying to reach? That Gigante is better at doing a shitty Gigante match than Flair is at doing a shitty Gigante match and that some how means you can argue Gigante is better than Flair?

[ohtani's jacket]

Can't an El Gigante fan say "I know he sucks but I like him anyway"?

[Grimmas]

Can't an El Gigante fan say "I know he sucks but I like him anyway"?

Yes and what is wrong with that!

[dawho5]

To further illustrate Poneglyph's point I will go this route.

 

There are All Japan tag matches and six mans that are 3.5 stars in a lot of people's eyes. There are more select tags and six mans that are 4.5 and 5 from the same promotion. Are those 3.5 star matches now "bad" because you look at them in relation to those other tag matches? Does that affect how they are looked at in relation to an American match from the same time?

 

So yes, there is the chance that an El Gigante match can be "good" in comparison to a worse El Gigante match. And from a certain standpoint it could be said that a particularly "good" El Gigante match may be comparatively better than his average and therefore preferable in a sense to a "bad" Flair match that is just as "bad" in relation to an average Flair match.

 

Having said that I think it's a wrong way of looking at anything. However, that is my opinion and I'm sure there are those who may take that tack and I will not say they are not allowed to do so.

 

I would also agree with OJ as well. Like what you want to like.

[Jimmy Redman]

 

When they contradict facts or logic or reality, sure. But "this wrestling match is better than this wrestling match" doesn't really come under those conditions. It's entertainment and we like what we like, and we value what we value. Individually and subjectively.

 

So, I can say Good Charlotte is better than The Beatles and there is nothing wrong with that statement? It's my opinion, so it's all cool?

 

 

Well...yes?

 

I mean I personally would disagree with you, as I imagine a lot of people would. But that doesn't make either of us right or wrong. You're perfectly entitled to think that.

[Poneglyph]

We all have a set of personal criteria we use tu judge matches, that is always changing, conditioned by pretty much everything in life but specifically what we watch, what we don't, the institutions and agents in the wrestling field, etc. Let's say that we all have an ideal wrestling match - or a couple of them.

 

My point is that a Ric Flair match is not inherently closer to that ideal than a Gigante match. Most people here and most wrestling fans everywhere have developed an ideal wrestling match that is closer to a Ric Flair match, but there might be others that have developed one closer to a Gigante match. If someone gives five stars to a Gigante match, they would need to explain it more than if they give them to a Ric Flair match because it's uncommon, but I think it's possible. I wouldn't agree, but it isn't wrong.

[Grimmas]

 

 

When they contradict facts or logic or reality, sure. But "this wrestling match is better than this wrestling match" doesn't really come under those conditions. It's entertainment and we like what we like, and we value what we value. Individually and subjectively.

 

So, I can say Good Charlotte is better than The Beatles and there is nothing wrong with that statement? It's my opinion, so it's all cool?

 

 

Well...yes?

 

I mean I personally would disagree with you, as I imagine a lot of people would. But that doesn't make either of us right or wrong. You're perfectly entitled to think that.

 

You can think anything you want, doesn't make it right. There is no argument you can make for this being the case. You can enjoy Good Charlotte more all you want, but doesn't mean they are better.

[dawho5]

I would say that a Ric Flair match is closer to most people's ideals than an El Gigante match. But to those who prefer El Gigante I would not feel the need to tell them they are wrong. I also think that there is a reason there are garbage wrestling promotions, shootstyle promotions, lucharesu promotions, Japan-influenced indy promotions, lucha libre promotions, womens promotions, you name it. Because everyone likes different aspects of wrestling and there is at the very least a small amount of interest in seeing these varied types of wrestling matches. Just because Parv, Grimmas Poneglyph,Will, Loss or whomever might be watching wrestling does not think that a style or worker is worth their time that the style or worker should be dismissed as a "good wrestler". All of it exists because there is at least a small niche of fans who love it. To put forth the idea that it cannot possibly have value seems very shortsighted.

[Grimmas]

Have value? Yes. Enjoyable? Yes. More fun? Yes.

Better? Absolutely not.

 

There is lots of things I love, not all of them are great or even good.

[dawho5]

I am in agreement with you Steven, but there is a point to be made here. Let's take two matches and compare them. Something deemed as a high end garbage match from the ECW heyday or Japan or wherever (I'm not into this style of wrestling) up against Giant Baba vs. the Destroyer 2/3 falls. I'd say we're in one of the few places where the Baba match is "better" on the internet according to more people than the other way around. Are we right? Are the majority of the rest of the internet who would pick the high end garbage match because it isn't "boring" right? I agree that the El Gigante example is far easier to decide for most. But there are a lot of areas where those value judgments we apply to things are very easily questioned outside of this immediate bubble. So I have a hard time with being totally dismissive of anything, despite some of my earlier remarks concerning Kobashi and some of the 2000s Japan matches I watched.