Match Ratings - Doing Away With the Meltzer * Formula

[JerryvonKramer]

The main problem I find is what jdw mentioned before, which is the incline towards the ***3/4-****1/2 range matches.

 

I feel like I have tons and tons of matches in that range.

[WingedEagle]

I feel like 3.5-3.75 may see a disproportionate amount of traffic from me, and then again at 4 as my hesitation is to push anything into the elite territory unless I'm incredibly sure of it.

 

Parv, I need to rewatch a few things from this year before making my random and very incomplete addition to your 4.75+ thread.

[PhilTLL]

For the record, I just watched El Gigante perform a very competent vertical suplex on Black Blood on WCWSN 8/10/91. His striking was still embarrassing and the match (OMG/Blood vs Josh/Gigante) was a special kind of atrocious. But it cannot be said that he never performed any technique ever, ha.

 

I agree that 3.5-3.75 or what I also think of as "B+/A-" pops in my head a lot. Slash letter grading helps me differentiate between "almost-but-not-quite" and "great" when I'm doing purposed watching. A-/A is different than A/A- or just an unqualified A.

[JerryvonKramer]

For what it's worth, this also happens when grading essays.

 

In any batch of say 30 students, I'd expect most of the grades (16-17) to be in the 66-68 range, with a few 70+ (let's say 4-5 firsts) and a few in the low 60s (4-5) and 50 range (4-5) and maybe one in the 40s.

 

I'd be interested to see if such "bunching" occurs in other areas. I used to read a lot of music mags and A LOT of albums would get 4 stars. 4 stars is a safe "This was really good but we're not going over the top" sort of rating.

 

I used to read a lot of video game mags too. There 90+ was your classic 5-star, and you'd get an awful lot of games in the 80-89 bracket.

 

It happens everywhere I reckon. Things bunch in the "very good but not excellent" bracket.

[Coffey]

• Sucked // Forgettable // Meh // Boring

• Pretty Good // Fun // Alright

• Awesome // Recommendation Worthy // Re-Watchable

 

I find every match pretty much fits into one of those categories. Any in the first category, I won't watch a second time or probably even remember after a day or two. Any in the second category might spark some conversation online or whatever but all-in-all, they're usually just middle-of-the-road matches that don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Think a lot of 15-minute RAW matches with commercial breaks. Last category is for really good matches or Match of the Year candidates.

 

There's a lot of guys, like Dolph Ziggler or Sheamus, whom have made a career out of being in my second category pretty often.

[Badlittlekitten]

I might do away with the Meltzer quarter stars and use a simpler RYM style system. Something like

 

5 - GOAT

4.5 - Proper love

4 - Awesome!

3.5 - Very good

3 - Pretty decent

2.5 - Not so hot

2 - Lousy

1.5 - Tripe

1 - Dogshit

0.5 - Dead babies

 

Actually I only rate from 3.5 up. Where all the good stuff starts.

[overbooked]

I'd be interested to see if such "bunching" occurs in other areas. I used to read a lot of music mags and A LOT of albums would get 4 stars. 4 stars is a safe "This was really good but we're not going over the top" sort of rating.

 

I used to read a lot of video game mags too. There 90+ was your classic 5-star, and you'd get an awful lot of games in the 80-89 bracket.

 

It happens everywhere I reckon. Things bunch in the "very good but not excellent" bracket.

 

In terms of music/video game/etc reviews I've always figured there are a couple of factors:

 

1. Magazines are dependent on advertising money, plus co-operation from those in the industry for interviews and so on. So, they are unlikely to print anything that looks like a hatchet job, for fear of losing revenue and/or contacts. So, lots of broadly positive reviews.

 

2. An editor is far more likely to send a new album/game/whatever to someone who is likely to like it, or has past form for appreciating that genre, style, artist or similar.

 

In terms of wrestling, I imagine there is an unconscious bias not too far removed from point 2 above. We are more likely to hunt out stuff we might like, be it certain styles, promotions or workers, and mix with others who will recommend stuff we'll probably at least be receptive too. We won't always love what we watch, but are more likely to be predisposed to liking it. So, the bunching seems pretty logical in that context.

 

I'd say the only exception would be absolute completists who watch everything, everywhere. God help them.

[Fantastic]

Wow, this thread has blown up! Sorry I've been away and haven't had time to read it.

 

Adding to the discussion, and referencing something I mentioned earlier about giving a match with flaws a perfect rating based on historical significance, etc. Here are examples of matches I've given perfect 10 scores:

 

- (AJPW) Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Toshiaki Kawada: June 3rd 1994 (match quality)

 

- (WWE) The Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels: October 5th 1997 (historical significance, being the first ever HIAC match and possible the best of all HIAC matches in WWE history, it also introduced us to Kane, and was the foundation of two rivalries - Kane vs. Undertaker and Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels - which stretched well over a decade)

 

- (NJPW) Big Van Vader vs. Antonio Inoki: December 27th 1987 (historical significance, in his debut Vader goes over Antonio Inoki - the ace of NJPW and who was at the time considered "Japanese Professional Wrestling" personified - causing the audience in Sumo Hall to riot.

[The Man in Blak]

Super-delayed response here, so I apologize:

 

 

 

 

it's also $20 and extremely short for a video game (you can finish it in an hour or so), and there isn't a lot of "action" in the conventional sense (the entire game is looking at objects in a house to piece together the story).

Am I anti-art for thinking that sounds like a boring rip-off?

maybe, maybe not. you can't really tell just from one opinion!

 

what this *does* tell me, though, is that you aren't the intended audience for the game. i know plenty of queer people who have said this game hit them on a level that virtually no other video game, and few other creative works, ever have.

 

a lot of modern indie games are speaking to audiences that have been ignored for ages by popular media. gone home is actually *less* overt about this than some of the other notable games that it gets grouped with; look up dys4ia sometime and you should see what i mean.

 

BTW The Man In Blak, you aren't "a man in black" of anti-gater fame, right? anyway, great post - it's rad as heck to see someone in that field on here!

I think an important part of a critical (and, really, a consumer) mindset is acknowledging that there are aspects of whatever you're looking at -- pro wrestling, video games, whatever -- that are going to be in genres or flavors that you just plain don't like as much as others. It's not just okay to have preferences; it's unavoidable.

 

That's not to say that you absolutely have to wash your hands of any thoughtful analysis and just go with what you feel like, though. As a critic, I see these blindspots as opportunities to become more familiar with what I don't like; I try to understand why someone else might like it (and, often times, end up turning around and liking it myself anyway).

 

As a consumer, I come at it from the other side: I recognize that not everything, even critically acclaimed works, are going to be things that I automatically love or appreciate. (Though, if a critic's doing their job well, their recommendations should either have a better shot than most.) And I recognize that I'm not obligated to always consume culturally meaningful stuff.

 

This isn't being objective as much as it's being "fair" (as Loss said earlier) or, from a critic's standpoint, being rigorous. If I like or don't like something, I want to think really hard about why that's the case. And, as a critic, my "job" is to expose and elaborate on that process so that consumers might be able to understand if they would like or not like something as well.

 

For me, the rating (while still useful) is far less important than:

 

1) how you arrive at that rating (the process)

2) an acknowledgment that being rigorous and thoughtful in your analysis doesn't mean you're objective or even authoritative. Presumption is an easy hole to fall into as a critic.

 

(Also, no, I'm not A Man in Black, but we've chatted a few times on Twitter; he's good people. This is just an old wrestling forum nickname/handle that's probably long overdue for retirement.)