Match Ratings - Doing Away With the Meltzer * Formula

[BillThompson]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The argument has been made, many times now. Art is subjective, therefore someone can easily think Good Charlotte is better. Every aspect of music is subjective and left up to the whims of the consumer. You can disagree, think such an opinion is crazy, but an argument has been made, and someone somewhere thinks they are better and they are not wrong for thinking that; no matter how much you want them to be so that your idea of what is better can be justified.

[stomperspc]

Shouldn’t additional credence be given to well-supported opinions held by a majority over dissenting opinions held by few?

 

Everyone is entitled to her own opinion but not all opinions hold the same weight. A weakly supported opinion means less than a very well supported and documented position. It seems arrogant or at best totally aloof to suggest that a dissenting, minority opinion has as much value as an opinion held by an informed majority.

 

I am sure I don’t always succeed in doing this, but I try to use “like” or “dislike” when my opinion differs from the majority on a match. With the Good Charlotte/Beatles example, someone saying that they like Good Charlotte more than the Beatles seems reasonable. Saying that Good Charlotte is a better band than The Beatles in the face of an overwhelmingly majority (and informed) opinion strikes me as aloof or downright arrogant.

 

An opinion might never be able to reach objective truth status but if it is widely held and well supported, I don’t see any issue with using language like “better” or “worse”.

[Matt D]

I see no problem with someone saying that "my criteria is the following. I value it because... And due to that criteria, I find Good Charlotte to be better than the Beatles. I understand that this is a minority position."

 

Now people might find your criteria ridiculous and that is their right but it's your right to feel as you do. The cost is just that people might not value your opinion in discussions. It doesn't make you inherently wrong. There is a social cost, one that is mitigated somewhat by you explaining yourself.

[Ricky Jackson]

Good Charlotte...I'd forgotten all about that crappy band until this godforsaken thread.

[Loss]

If not Good Charlotte, then who?

[Matt D]

If not Good Charlotte, then who?

 

No, the Who is pretty amazing.

[dawho5]

And an indirect influence on my internet handle. Now tell me, who are you?

[BillThompson]

Shouldn’t additional credence be given to well-supported opinions held by a majority over dissenting opinions held by few?

 

Everyone is entitled to her own opinion but not all opinions hold the same weight. A weakly supported opinion means less than a very well supported and documented position. It seems arrogant or at best totally aloof to suggest that a dissenting, minority opinion has as much value as an opinion held by an informed majority.

 

I am sure I don’t always succeed in doing this, but I try to use “like” or “dislike” when my opinion differs from the majority on a match. With the Good Charlotte/Beatles example, someone saying that they like Good Charlotte more than the Beatles seems reasonable. Saying that Good Charlotte is a better band than The Beatles in the face of an overwhelmingly majority (and informed) opinion strikes me as aloof or downright arrogant.

 

An opinion might never be able to reach objective truth status but if it is widely held and well supported, I don’t see any issue with using language like “better” or “worse”.

 

I agree with the supported part of what you're saying. I have some crazy opinions, but I always back them up with what I think is sound reasoning. I don't expect others to agree with me, and I honestly never pay attention to whether I am in the majority or minority, I just form my own opinions and go from there.

 

Where I would disagree is that an informed opinion that is in the minority holds less weight than an informed opinion that is in the majority. That's pretty close to acceptance of groupthink, which is something I think is damaging to art appreciation in all mediums. For me, an informed opinion is an informed opinion, and I accept it even if I disagree with it wholeheartedly. It's not something I find arrogant, but just a part of the critical thinking process.

[JerryvonKramer]

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is subjective" always do so in a way that suggests it is an objective truth. The irony is not lost.

[Steenalized]

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is subjective" always do so in a way that suggests it is an objective truth. The irony is not lost.

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is objective" always do so in a way that ignores their own subjective selection of criteria that they use to rate and rank. The irony and the arrogance are not lost.

[dawho5]

A person could also argue that there is a certain amount of both objectivity and subjectivity in the way most of us look at wrestling. What the standards for the objectivity or the bias behind the subjectivity are is what sets every person apart as a fan. Acting as if it has to be all one way or all the other seems a bit off.

[Loss]

I don't think my criteria has to be everyone else's too, and I'm glad it's not, because the differing opinions make for interesting conversation. At the same time, if I really thought my opinions were wrong, I'd simply have different ones that I thought were right.

 

The only objectivity is in consistency when comparing matches -- whatever criteria one has just needs to be relatively consistent. The idea of objective opinions is not at all what I was trying to say in my argument. As I said before, fairness is a better word.

[dawho5]

I actually liked Charles' idea that we are doing what we can to be objective despite knowing that it will ultimately fail and our subjective opinions of the match will color any objective thoughts we may have about it. That seems very close to how I watch wrestling. There's a reason I am stalled going forward on All Japan right before a MVC match, even against the newly formed Holy Demon Army. Williams and Gordy have proven time and again that no matter how much I know that on a certain level they have some things right, I very much do not like watching them wrestle as a team and have not since re-watching their 1991 and 1992 footage. They certainly improve in 1992, but that doesn't mean they are better than watching a different pairing of opponents. And another part of the objectivity I look for is how much that match is going to show me where Taue and Kawada are a team at that time. It is a huge measuring stick for them and I want to look at the match as something important and consequential. But then once it gets going if certain things that turn me off to watching the MVCs wrestle I may very easily lose interest. So it's a constant battle to retain the objectivity enough and not just say "fuck this" on a match as it starts making me not want to watch it.

[ohtani's jacket]

That sounds a whole lot like forcing yourself to eat your greens. I can't think of many things worse than watching something I hate so that I can form an objective opinion on it. Having said that, the more I watch a guy I don't like the more I tend to soften on him and in some cases come around on them. I just watched a decent batch of Danny Boy Collins, which amazed me. You do lose that possibility if you succumb to your frustration.

[dawho5]

Yeah. Thankfully there are only a few more MVC matches in 1993 even worth watching for historical reasons. I don't hate 1993 MVC as much as 1991 MVC though. They did learn to give their opponents enough offense to make a match watchable by then. Like you said, it ends up softening your stance on workers you originally had a much worse take on. I could say the same about Sheamus in the WWE. Watching his early work when he was breaking in and being pushed was painful. Watching him in 2013 and 2014 was a highlight.

[cm funk]

Unless you are using

 

DUD=0

1/4*=0.5

1/2*=1

3/4*=1.5

....

 

****1/2=9

****3/4=9.5

*****=10

 

Aren't you just renaming the system and calling it something new?

 

Yeah, there's no real difference between a * scale, 1-10, letter grades......it's all the same thing in different clothes

 

I don't do star ratings. If I feel the need to comment on a match I'll explain what I liked/disliked and use some superlatives (fun, great, loved it, MOTY candidate etc.). If I did star ratings I don't even think I would be consistent with my own ratings and would constantly be revising them on re-watches

 

I agree with whoever said * ratings are a useful reference sometimes, but everybody rates matches differently and unless you know their tastes and familiar with how they rate matches they're essentially useless. Meltzer's ratings of current stuff are pretty much meaningless to me after seeing all the matches he rates highly which dont' rate with me at all

[JerryvonKramer]

 

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is subjective" always do so in a way that suggests it is an objective truth. The irony is not lost.

 

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is objective" always do so in a way that ignores their own subjective selection of criteria that they use to rate and rank. The irony and the arrogance are not lost.

Yeah, nice try, only read the thread and you'll doscover that the "everything is objective" side doesn't actually exist. Not a single person has argued that.

[Steenalized]

I'm not at Bill's level of 'all subjective values are equally valid.' If I think El Gigante is a better wrestler than Flair because he's taller and scarier looking, than clearly my subjective value: (1) ranks him above Flair and (2) is so unique to me that it's a waste to discuss why he's "better" than Flair. What I'd be looking for in a wrestler is so far removed from what you value that we aren't even using the same terms even if I use the same word to assign an ordinal rank. Like Loss said earlier, 'it's subjective' is the start of a conversation, not the end of it. But that conversation didn't need to include a smug potshot at anyone who openly acknowledges that no two people have the same criteria.

[JerryvonKramer]

My problem with this is that the argument put forward isn't nuanced enough. I've been trying to put my finger on why, and I think I've got it. It's because:

 

the argument follows the logic that because there is "some subjectivity" when assessing a given criteria, THEREFORE the whole thing is "entirely subjective".

 

And this, it seems to me, misses something in what actually happens in any critical process.

 

---

 

I am going to make an analogy now. For this entire month so far, I've been bogged down with the business of marking undergraduate essays. My discipline is English Literature. This is not a discipline like mathematics where answers can be "right" or "wrong", and it seldom deals in absolutes. Accordingly, there is some subjectivity in marking undergraduate essays in English.

 

But there are many factors that help to mediate the "subjectivity" of any individual marker. The process is pretty robust:

 

- Marker marks essay, writes feedback, awards grade

- Moderator reads essay, looks at feedback, looks at grade and decides if it is fair or whether they want to mark it up or down

- Marker and moderator fill in a "dialogue sheet" to note any differences in grading and their reasons

- Whole thing is sent to an external examiner who then looks over the work, the marking and the dialogue sheet at ratifies that the whole process has been fair

 

This all works because everyone in the department, and broadly speaking across the discpline, agree on the criteria for assessing an undergraduate essay. We have descriptions of what an excellent essay looks like, a very good one, a good one, an average one, a poor one and an outright fail, etc.

 

The criteria includes:

- Written style (must be lucid, clear, adhere to correct grammar and punctuation etc.)

- Structure and coherence of argument

- Research

- Quality of analysis

- Originality of argument

 

Now, as a marker, I have certain tendencies and biases. I tend to come down heavy on a lack of research and I tend to reward originality -- I can forgive a few errant commas if the essay has really good ideas informed by diligent research. A colleague of mine wants all the grammar and punctuation perfect and comes down harder on the written style than I do. Another colleague really wants to see evidence of good close reading in the analysis. Both of those colleagues are less stringent than I am on research. So we all have slightly different approaches. And yet, we are all broadly agreed that an excellent essay will likely excel in all five of the above areas.

 

For dissertations, all work is double marked, so we'd both mark something independently and then arrive at two scores separately. Occassionlly the scores are off as far as 6 or 7. As in, I'd give something 67 where my colleague has said 73. We probably meet in the middle at 70. But A LOT of the time the gap is within 1-2 marks and with a lot of regularity.

 

And so yes, "it's subjective", but is it fair to say that it is "ENTIRELY subjective"? It isn't, the criteria sets parameters and within those parameters there are things you can point to that are "objective". Easy ones are the grammar, punctuation, and quantity of research. You can see if someone is not using commas correctly, or incorrectly formatting a citation, or if they've only got 2 articles in their bibliography. It's measurable. A bit more room for interpretation with some of the other criteria, but there are still tangible things to look for. Great analysis is textually specific with trenchant and original insights, whereas poor analysis is more vague and general failing to support its claims with textual evidence. And so on and so forth.

 

----

 

Now here's the thing:

 

I don't think the process of analysing and reviewing matches is all that different. Many of us on this site have reviewed 100s of matches. I remember watching the first disc of the lucha set and writing my reviews and grades and being within 1/2* of Chad on virtually every match -- I hadn't read or seen his stuff on it either. Yes, you occassionally get times when the gap is wider. But most of the time you find agreement.

 

It is simply not true that every person has THEIR OWN unique criteria. It just isn't true. It's much more like the group of academics described above where everyone is looking for the same stuff but people put emphasis in different places.

 

Will like good punches, Joe from VoW values workrate, Pete likes limbwork, Matt D wants "logical coherence", and pretty much everyone values storytelling and psychology.

 

So what's the point in making out like everyone has unique criteria? They don't. Everyone might have their own specific tweaks, but there is enough in common between each person that as a community there is something approaching "standards".

 

I don't expect those standards to be as robust as a university awarding degrees to students. That's work and has the weight of people's actual lives behind it. Whereas this is fun, for enjoyment and for the love of wrestling. We are relieved of the burden of formalising criteria and meeting up to agree on marks, we'll never have to do that ... but there is still "a standard" set by a community with a shared set of criteria. Your El Gigante fan doesn't exist -- I know he doesn't because I made him up myself as a flippant straw man -- and if he does, he doesn't post here.

 

I hope to have shown by this post that even though there is "subjectivity" in assessing matches its extent is really overstated when people say things like "it is entirely subjective". Thanks.

[Steenalized]

Generally, I agree with all that you just said. But I do take issue with "It's simply not true that every person has THEIR OWN unique criteria." They very clearly do, you just admitted it in your next point. If we were to somehow Venn diagram every wrestling fan that posted here, there'd be tons of overlap in the middle, but everyone will stick out somewhere that others don't. I agree that when there is such a major overlap for people, most people, that it's a pretty impotent argument to say everyone has a completely different view. They don't, there are obvious trends and common views. But everyone does weigh everything differently, value certain things that others hardly care about. That is clear subjectivity. Wrestling fans also do not have a robust, formalized process for grading matches the way you do in your academic setting. Well, perhaps a few do, but I trust you'll agree that the vast, vast majority don't. It's a far more informal process, subject to the whims of the viewer, like Will pointed out recently. You can change your rating of a match a day later whether on rewatch or contemplation because you realized you were tired before and something bugged you more than it should have, or any infinite number of variables.

 

So yes, I agree that there are 'common standards' to rating wrestling. But those standards are (1) subjective (obviously) and (2) subject to change both within individuals and within groups, particularly over time. The differences, the places where our Venn diagrams of opinion are not overlapping, that's where the debate comes in. All in all, "wrestling is subjective" is a bland, largely uninformative statement, but it's still more accurate than "wrestling is objective except it's not but I'll use that as a shorthand."

 

EDIT: And FWIW, your El Gigante fan may have once existed, but it likely was a child holding that opinion.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd be more interested in seeing those Venn diagrams than in continuing this discussion any further. I think it's reached a nice conclusion with the last two posts.

[WingedEagle]

I have a question about consistency in ratings no matter how you do it -- stars, letters, words, cryptography or anything else that works for you. How consistent do you try to be when rating matches and how much do you think you succeed? The thought occurred to me when looking over JVK's ****3/4 stars+ thread. Many of the matches I've rated near the top of that scale are as you might imagine those I consider all time classics, and a great deal of them are from the 90s All Japan era.

 

When I watch something today -- whether its an outrageous spotfest or Brock/Reigns -- and its time to drop a rating I find myself asking how I'd compare it with some from that era. If its not on the same level I'll ding 1/4 or 1/4 star just so that its not on that same level when I refer back to my own otherwise silly rankings. Some days I'm glad I do that, others I think its silly to make that comparison. I don't have a strong opinion as to what's right or wrong here but am curious how others consider this kind of "big picture" perspective when throwing snowflakes or their personal equivalent.

[Loss]

Here's the best way I know to describe how I tend to think of star ratings in my head. I've never tried putting this in words before and this is being done quickly, but at first thought, this is how I'd describe my view.

 

***** - As good as any match ever; can reasonably be compared to any match in wrestling history

****3/4 - Just below the level of the greatest matches ever, but an all-time classic nonetheless

****1/2 - One of the best matches of its time; MOTYC if not quite an all-timer

****1/4 - Just below the best matches of its time, but great all the same

**** - Great match, better than most matches during its era, but not an all-time classic

***3/4 - Borderline great match that has some minor flaw keeping me from putting it over the top

***1/2 - Very good match well worth seeking out - not one of the best matches of its time, but excellent all the same

***1/4 - Good match better than most good wrestling happening at the time, if only barely

*** - Solid, better than average, has good qualities, but nothing remarkable - still worth seeing

 

I don't bother going below ***.

[WingedEagle]

That's generally where I am, at least at the top.

 

5 = Legit Greatest Match of All Time Candidate

4.75 = Slightly less but immediately feels like a top MOTY at worst.

4.5 = What I'd call a MOTY nominee but for whatever reason feels like it could be moved from the top of a year's list.

 

Its around that 4.5 and below level where things get murky, especially comparing across eras, much less years. There may be a random AJ tag from '93 that I put at 4.25 which if I'm being honest is better than a crazy Young Bucks spotfest from today, but my gut there may also be to go 4.25 when watching through 2015 goggles. On the one hand Its all kind of irrelevant at the end of the day, but on the other I wish I had some better way of tracking what I thought about a couple matches from different eras when I look back at those ratings.

[JerryvonKramer]

A* = ***** - one of the best matches I've ever seen, all-time classic

A = ****3/4 - superlative match but not quite all-time best level for whatever reason

A- = ****1/2 - excellent match that you could point to as an example of "great" for any of the workers involved

 

B+ = **** - very very good match but with some reservations or otherwise something is missing to stop it being truly "great"

B = ***3/4 - very good match

B- = ***1/2 - solid stuff but with some flaws or issues

 

C+ = *** - 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.

C = **1/2 - solid but with serious flaws that significantly undermine it

C- = ** - getting into territory here where I really didn't like the match

 

D+= *1/2 - I didn't like the match and think it actively sucked

D =* - serious levels of suck now

D-=DUD - total crap

 

E+= -* - total crap that caused me to actually get angry at how bad it was

E= -** - as above, squared

 

F = Contender for worst match I've ever seen