Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
Sign in to follow this  
GOTNW

Your Own Ratings

Recommended Posts

I don't see why people get so caught up on numbers.

 

"This match is five stars" is substantially the same as Dylan saying "oh man, this was AWESOME, you owe it to yourself to see this Buddy Rose match."

 

Just expressed differently, but it's the same thing.

 

I don't know why people get so caught up over it, just semantics. Numericals attached to value judgements are still only value judgements expressed in a numerical way. I think a category confusion happens because people associate mathematics with abstract truth or something.

 

Saying a match is five stars is not substantially the same as Dylan saying a match is awesome. That's about as plain as the nose on your face. Are you really trying to tell me that you, Parv, do not place any sort of importance in five star ratings? The Parv that meticulously compiles star rating lists, used them for BIGLAV, once argued that Bob Dylan was the greatest musician to ever live because he had more five star albums than anyone else? I don't wanna start coming across as the Star Ratings Nazi since I hardly ever use the things. My point of view is from the perspective of people who use star ratings as a guide for what to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are of significant importance, for sure, but ultimately, they are still one person's opinion, and that's all they can be. Of course there should be a high personal standard (I'd say the highest possible standard) for giving the full five to a match, but it shouldn't be that lots of other people agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does everybody think of the occasional six star?

I think it means you have over used 5 stars, so they are not as meaningful as they should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a good moment to add that star ratings live and breathe, just like opinions on matches live and breathe. When we share something, we're sharing an opinion that is always subject to change. Thoughts on wrestling matches come in pencil, not pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't see why people get so caught up on numbers.

 

"This match is five stars" is substantially the same as Dylan saying "oh man, this was AWESOME, you owe it to yourself to see this Buddy Rose match."

 

Just expressed differently, but it's the same thing.

 

I don't know why people get so caught up over it, just semantics. Numericals attached to value judgements are still only value judgements expressed in a numerical way. I think a category confusion happens because people associate mathematics with abstract truth or something.

Saying a match is five stars is not substantially the same as Dylan saying a match is awesome. That's about as plain as the nose on your face. Are you really trying to tell me that you, Parv, do not place any sort of importance in five star ratings? The Parv that meticulously compiles star rating lists, used them for BIGLAV, once argued that Bob Dylan was the greatest musician to ever live because he had more five star albums than anyone else? I don't wanna start coming across as the Star Ratings Nazi since I hardly ever use the things. My point of view is from the perspective of people who use star ratings as a guide for what to watch.

 

Well what does it really mean to say that a match is five stars or that a Dylan album is five stars?

 

Steamboat vs. Flair is an awesome match, pretty much the best that a wrestling match could be and the absolute pinnacle of its style. (in case of doubt, I mean: Clash 6)

 

I've recorded enough material explaining why I think that, but it's all still shorthand for saying "I think this is one of the best ever things".

 

Some others prefer Chi-Town or Wrestlewar, which are also incredible.

 

It led to a great thread:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/33034-ranking-the-holy-trilogy/

 

You could do the same thing with Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisted, and Blonde on Blonde. I have no idea what the results would be on Expecting Rain, probably it's a thread that has been done loads of times.

 

But the 5 star rating is still a code for saying "this stuff is awesome and the most awesomest of awesomes"

 

You'd be saying exactly the same stuff without the star ratings involved too.

 

I only mentioned Dylan cos he doesn't use star ratings but still bangs the drum for stuff he thinks is "the most awesomest of awesomes". What difference does it really make?

 

Where I -- as a star ratings guy -- get frustrated occassionally is how noncommital and fluid language can be.

 

"This is great"

 

"This is awesome"

 

"This is fantastic"

 

These statements lack the precision of the star rating, so we don't quite know just how "great" or how "awesome" the person thinks it is.

 

I think its more economical to throw out the stars at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes, I think it's a commitment thing. Nailing one's colours to the mast. There's a stake to a star rating that isn't there with just the words.

 

The stars are subject to change with repeated viewings, but it's still a bigger gesture than just writing.

 

I think people who don't use star ratings like or take comfort in that greater amibguity. It feels less final, it feels more fluid, or definitive, or whatever. Which is just a personality thing, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What do my ratings mean?

 

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

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

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

 

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

***3/4 - very good match

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

 

*** - 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.

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

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

 

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

* - serious levels of suck now

DUD - total crap

 

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

-** - as above, squared

-*** - contender for worst match I've ever seen

 

I subscribe to this train of thought more than anyone else's. I have a 1/4 when I rate things, but to each their own.

 

The big thing with me is that there's a huge difference between ****1/2 and ****3/4. In modern wrestling, ****1/2 is tremendous, it's captivating, it rocks - but there's a strong chance that I won't even consider a ****1/2 for my top 10 at the end of the year. There's a huge difference in quality between the two, more so than ***1/2 to ***3/4 or even ****3/4 to *****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What do my ratings mean?

 

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

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

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

 

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

***3/4 - very good match

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

 

*** - 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.

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

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

 

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

* - serious levels of suck now

DUD - total crap

 

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

-** - as above, squared

-*** - contender for worst match I've ever seen

 

I subscribe to this train of thought more than anyone else's. I have a 1/4 when I rate things, but to each their own.

 

The big thing with me is that there's a huge difference between ****1/2 and ****3/4. In modern wrestling, ****1/2 is tremendous, it's captivating, it rocks - but there's a strong chance that I won't even consider a ****1/2 for my top 10 at the end of the year. There's a huge difference in quality between the two, more so than ***1/2 to ***3/4 or even ****3/4 to *****.

 

For my top ten matches, I have to dive into my **** 1/2s for about the last 5 spots, usually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does everybody think of the occasional six star?

 

I think it means you have over used 5 stars, so they are not as meaningful as they should be.

I don't mean any offense to anyone that wants to say 6 stars, because it would be your own scale that makes more sense to you ... so, of course that's fine... but... for me personally ... it reminds me of Spinal Tap... "you see mine goes up to 11"

 

I can just see Meltzer in his basement next to a stack of papers (with match rankings and lists on them) wearing an Okada T-shirt saying ... "You see, but mine goes up to 6".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Probably a good moment to add that star ratings live and breathe, just like opinions on matches live and breathe. When we share something, we're sharing an opinion that is always subject to change. Thoughts on wrestling matches come in pencil, not pen.

This is vital. I actually went back and tagged a few matches that I have at five for rewatch after getting into this thread. I haven't changed anything yet, but I its part of that taking responsibility for your ratings thing. The second I think maybe I was too liberal with this or that match, I try to make time to check. Worst case scenario, I watch a great match... ouch.

 

 

What does everybody think of the occasional six star?

 

I think it means you have over used 5 stars, so they are not as meaningful as they should be.

Yeah, I think if I were really compelled by this I would just reevaluate what 5 stars meant to me. It is a slippery slope because then I would go to thinking about 5.5 or even 5.75 and then I would just be chasing my tail. There are a hand full of five star matches that stand out I suppose, but I can break that down if/when I ever make a top 100 list or something like that. I just don't have time for adding to a glorified tier system. I am more or less convinced Meltzer was trolling the internet anyway, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does everybody think of the occasional six star?

 

I think it means you have over used 5 stars, so they are not as meaningful as they should be.

I don't have a problem with Dave doing it because it's HIS thing, his stars, and his system. It's not something I will be implementing anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think six stars is not to be taken literally. It is a way of describing his enthusiasm for the match as a figure of speech and nothing more. It's a five-star match that he wanted to distinguish from other five-star matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think six stars is not to be taken literally. It is a way of describing his enthusiasm for the match as a figure of speech and nothing more. It's a five-star match that he wanted to distinguish from other five-star matches.

That's what I thought, but he explained it's six stars and he's given a few other matches six stars, maybe like one every 15 years. It's odd, why not just give less matches five stars, so the five stars ones are special?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ratings are fine as a way to quickly say 'I liked this match more than this match', but assigning them more value than that is taking it strangely too far. I may be really stoned and on a radicalism kick, but it's almost a tribalism, you're planting your fandom flag in the ground depending on who's ratings you agree on.

 

As far as a 6th star goes, if a match does something unique, that you never considered in your system, then sure, but paradigm shifts are pretty rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hate to sound so belligerent over this, but this topic ruffles my feathers, as you can see. It drives me up the wall every time when I see someone say something like "I rated this match ***1/4, but to be honest I preferred it over that other match that I rated ****" ...like, if that's so, why the fuck did you rate them that way? What is your rating if not an honest representation of your opinion? You just sound like you're rating things what they're "supposed" to be rated, what you think other people will accept them to be rated as. So it's bullshit, in other words.

 

 

 

I get what you are saying but it's probably for the same reason most people's GWE rankings weren't just an ordered list of their favorites. The "Even though I would much rather watch Wrestler A, Wrestler B had a better career and etc." principle translates to matches as well "Even though Match A was more fun to watch, Match B had better pacing/transitions/psychology etc. etc and so I gave it the higher rating.".

 

Trying to maintain some sort of objectivity I guess. Even though objectivity in wrestling is an extremely blurry concept because what people consider great varies a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think we should define what objectivity means in the confines of this thread, one, because we probably all have different takes on it, and two, because I would like for Jimmy Redman's feathers to be unruffled if that's possible. I don't think (hope) that anyone thinks it means there are factually good and factually bad matches. I think it's more about keeping ourselves in check and attempting to say things about matches that come from both the head and the heart. I think swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction and turning wrestling watching into an entirely intellectual exercise is probably worse than just going on gut feeling, but I'm sure each person's take on that is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivity, to me, means being able to watch, analyze, criticize, etc. with an open mind.

 

I don't care for Yoshinobu Kanemaru in the least. But, if I'm watching one of his matches, I don't automatically think that it'll be a bad match, or he'll be the reason that it's a bad match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think we should define what objectivity means in the confines of this thread, one, because we probably all have different takes on it, and two, because I would like for Jimmy Redman's feathers to be unruffled if that's possible. I don't think (hope) that anyone thinks it means there are factually good and factually bad matches. I think it's more about keeping ourselves in check and attempting to say things about matches that come from both the head and the heart. I think swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction and turning wrestling watching into an entirely intellectual exercise is probably worse than just going on gut feeling, but I'm sure each person's take on that is different.

 

I'm perfectly fine with being ruffled on this. We've been around the objectivity merry-go-round many times and it's usually a fruitless exercise. I remember clashing with you a lot over it because you find it arrogant to believe that your own view of a match is the only one that matters, whereas I find it arrogant to believe that you can achieve any measure of objectivity beyond your own view of a match. I don't know that we're ever going to reconcile on that.

 

But it's fine, I mean, ruffled as I am I don't really begrudge anyone their methods. In many ways I admire the ambition in the pursuit of objectivity, of fairness, of completeness. I just don't share it, nor do I really believe in it.

 

 

 

I hate to sound so belligerent over this, but this topic ruffles my feathers, as you can see. It drives me up the wall every time when I see someone say something like "I rated this match ***1/4, but to be honest I preferred it over that other match that I rated ****" ...like, if that's so, why the fuck did you rate them that way? What is your rating if not an honest representation of your opinion? You just sound like you're rating things what they're "supposed" to be rated, what you think other people will accept them to be rated as. So it's bullshit, in other words.

 

 

 

I get what you are saying but it's probably for the same reason most people's GWE rankings weren't just an ordered list of their favorites. The "Even though I would much rather watch Wrestler A, Wrestler B had a better career and etc." principle translates to matches as well "Even though Match A was more fun to watch, Match B had better pacing/transitions/psychology etc. etc and so I gave it the higher rating.".

 

Trying to maintain some sort of objectivity I guess. Even though objectivity in wrestling is an extremely blurry concept because what people consider great varies a lot.

 

 

I get that, and I was the same through GWE to a certain extent, but more than anything else this is why I find ranking wrestlers objectively (or at least soberly) easier than ranking matches like that.

 

I need an example. Like, I saw last week some comment about hypothetically rating Great Khali over Bret Hart. I wouldn't, even though in my life I've undoubtedly got more enjoyment from Khali than Bret as wrestlers, but that's more a generational thing since I never watched Bret week to week. But Bret has had much better matches and is capable of much more.

 

BUT, if I watched Bret vs X and Khali vs Y and enjoyed the Khali match more, I'd have no hesitation in rating the Khali match higher. No matter if the Khali match was a 3 minute squash and Bret's was a 20 minute main event. No matter if Bret's was mechanically better, or had more crowd heat, or appealed to more people, or had less botches, or better moves, or whatever. No matter if a technically masterful main event looks more like a ****+ match than a 3 minute squash with a monster who can barely move. Literally all I care about when rating a match is how much I liked it.

 

So if we were to theoretically do a GME project, my ballot would absolutely just be an ordered list of my favourites. I could send it in today. I wouldn't give a single damn about what is supposed to be on there, and I wouldn't have a single thought of putting a match higher than another match I enjoyed more. I'd be the guy who put Scott Steiner #1, is what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy did you see Joe Lanza's post in the WK11 thread? I thought it might be interesting for you to see:

 

When it comes to breaking down matches, picture a Venn diagram with the following components of what people value when reviewing a match:

 

1. Detailed critical analysis of execution, including close attention to psychology (i.e. everything "means something", a clear story being told, etc), snug work or perception of stiffness in holds and moves, logic, escalation, selling, etc. Almost purely intellectual, with little or no use for what Group 3 looks for in a match.

 

2. Emotional investment in the characters, promotion, story, booking, or all of the above (or at minimum, an intellectual understanding of these things). pol referred to this a few pages back as the "melodrama" of a match, which I thought was perfect, as it speaks to an emotional investment often beyond just that of which is being created in the course of the match with the work. Visceral enjoyment.

 

3. Drama, "hot moves", excitement, dangerous spots, etc, pure visual stimulation. Little or no use for what Group 1 is looking for.

 

I don't think any of the three groups are the "wrong" way to enjoy or break down a match. To each his own, you do you, etc.

 

If you picture a Venn diagram, I think you'll see a lot of crossover between 1 & 2, and a lot of crossover between 2 & 3. The tiniest crossover will be 1, 2, & 3 together. You'll see almost zero crossover between 1 & 3 independent of 2. The more crossover you have, the more thorough and useful the review is going to inherently be. The fewer the groups involved, the less valuable to review is going to be, because all of these things have some contributing value (even if your mileage will vary on each) to the quality of a match

 

When parachuting in on wrestlers or a promotion that you know little or nothing about (or even don't actively follow), #2 is completely eliminated. You are either going to be a #1 or a #3. You are either going to use strict analytical analysis, or come to be entertained by the visuals, maybe a little of both, and then move along and never think about it again. I believe this is where you see some disconnect with the Omega/Okada match. Group 3 is going to love it, and then move on to their WWE watching or whatever and never watch NJPW again until next 1/4. Some of Group 1 is going to have some level of issues with it, but for the most part, think it's good at minimum, while others (Phil Schneider or rzombie come to mind) are going to actively think it's shit.

 

I think everyone strongly values one of the three groups over the others, and most have varying levels of crossover. But I also think we adjust how we approach matches on a case by case basis.

 

#2 is the most interesting one to me, because that group drives analysis in either direction more than anyone probably wants to admit. I am thoroughly invested in NJPW, watch almost everything that makes tape, understand all of the nuance, have emotional investment in the characters and stories, callbacks almost never go over my head, etc etc etc. Anyone who has read or listened to my reviews know that I spend the most amount of time talking about #2, about how a match makes me feel, what it means to the bigger picture, those sorts of things, and while I factor in the other two groups, I find them less interesting to talk about. Phil's review was almost strictly #1.

 

Dylan Hales's thoughts were a lot of #1 with a tiny bit of the other groups. If I dropped into some indie that he follows day to day that I know little or nothing about, say CWF Mid Atlantic, I would break down those matches much differently than I do NJPW, and so would Dylan. Our approaches would be reversed.

 

You have to know your reviewer. I could have told you Phil wasn't going to like the match before I even read his review because I read his reviews and know what he values and how he was going to approach wrestlers/a promotion he doesn't care about. Anybody familiar with me knew I was going to love it, it was just a matter of how much.

 

It's important to understand how much of a role #2 is playing in a review before you decide how valuable it is to you personally.

What do you make of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't typically throw out star ratings anymore, but I also don't do too many wrestling reviews anymore, either. When I wrote for TSM I was super liberal with the snowflakes but I'm finding that maturity brings scrutiny, or at least lurking 'round here has made me look for things I typically didn't care too much for in the past. Lately I've been trying to grade based on 5 sets of core criteria when I do talk match quality, which I've found less likely to devolve into the typical "WHY NO FIVE STARS?!?!" slogging. I break each category into denominations of 4, so a 5-star for me fulfills each one of these fully and a DUD gets none of them.

 

1. Entertainment

Did it get the crowd into it? Did it get me into it? Was I bored? Did the crowd pop?

e.g. "Sure, Joker vs. Chris Cash was a pure spotfest, but at least the crowd wasn't sitting on their hands."

 

2. Psychology and Selling

Did the guy who's looking for an armbar submission target the arm? Are they working to win versus working to outshine? Is the "Hulk Up/fighting spirit/kip up" spot aiding the narrative or a detriment?

e.g. "YAMATO worked on Shingo's arm that entire match, so it made sense that Shingo's lariats became less and less effective."

 

3. Workrate: Quality or Quantity

Are the talents making the most of their time? Does it look like they're actually trying to put on something good or just going through the motions?

e.g. "Punk grabbing the chinlock after that sprint lets him gain some wind back and shows that Joe may have the power advantage but Punk knows how to negate it"

 

4. Context

How does this match relate to other matches involving the talents? How does it relate to the rest of the card? Does this sequence mean something different here than it does elsewhere? Is this an exhibition, a feud-ender, a middle chapter, etc.?

e.g. "Even with the few botched spots, HBK/Taker from WM25 still resonates as it showed Taker was growing more and more vulnerable with his age."

 

5. Personal Enjoyment

Is there an extra oomph to it because of how I view the talents? Is there something there which stands out to me even if others overlook it?

e.g. "This was sloppy, but that's the charm of prime Sabu: he's a rabid animal let loose, and the results aren't pretty."

 

There's obvious bleeding between each set of criteria and countering arguments, as sound psychology may not always be entertaining and my personal enjoyment doesn't necessarily trump a match's actual context, but that's generally what I go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think six stars is not to be taken literally. It is a way of describing his enthusiasm for the match as a figure of speech and nothing more. It's a five-star match that he wanted to distinguish from other five-star matches.

 

This is how I took it. I didn't take it as some scale breaking/altering thing. He wanted to convey how great he thought it was, and that's how he did so.

 

I've given something like 10 matches ever 5-stars, I could probably rank them if I had to. He thought it was better than just about any match he'd ever seen, and that's how he conveyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×