A discussion on the * rating system...

[Guest Downhome]

I go around from board to board and I see a lot of talk about this match was **, this match was ***1/2, and this match was a RARE *****. Well, I want all of your opinions on what this actually means to you. What makes this match *, and that match *****?

 

It is my view that there is no actual * rating system. Instead, it just varies from one person to another. One mans ***** is another mans *, that is just the way it is. I don't think anyone is right or wrong, it's just what they prefer.

 

So what do you make of this system? What constitutes giving whatever rating to a certain match, on YOUR scale?

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest WrestlingDeacon]

That's the same for any rating system, it's just one man's opinion. Leonard Maltin might really like a movie, Roger Ebert might not. The rating system is just a general guide line. Although people who have experience, training and respect by others in the field might know more of what they are saying. I'm more likely to jive with the opinion of Ebert than say a critic in my local paper. The trick is to be able to explain why a movie or match was given the rating it was. Too often people on websites and boards like this just throw out an arbitrary star rating for a match. When I watch a match I ask myself how well it does certain things. Is there psychology, an effective story, good spots, nice chain wrestling, effective use of restholds, are the wrestlers working well together. Bottom line: did you enjoy watching the match and were the basics well done.

[Guest Jack Tunney]

I usually think SK's are pretty accurate.But I do disagree with him on the Mankind/UT Hell In The Cell match.He gave it *.I say it deserved at least ***,but oh well.

[Guest bob_barron]

I think Bob Barron's star ratings rule!

 

Oh wait...

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

When I buy a tape, or get a comp made, I try to look to at least 3 sources in order to get a somewhat general opinion on a match/event. Some matches I enjoy more than they did (Tanaka/Ballz HH2k is at least **** IMO) and some I don't (Kawada/Mutoh was just no good jimmy)

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

It's based on whether it entertains me. It could be a technical masterpiece, but those often put me to sleep. Often the only staple of a ***** matc as deemed by others that I enjoy is people suplexing the shit out of each other. If the technical stuff interests me, sure, it gets a high rating.

 

As a result, I give stuff high ratings usually in my own mind.

 

It all comes down to entertaining me.

 

Fo sheez,

Kotzenjunge

[Guest I Fear Hogans Air Guitair]

It's based on whether it entertains me.

You said it brother.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I don't really know how my system works. I watch a match and type the PBP. After that I just know what rating to give it. There is no real scale or reasons for each level.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

Hate to open this can of worms again, but hey, that's what I'm here for:

 

It's my belief that there's a such thing as "favorite" and "best" existing in the same plain of existence as seperate entities. I don't they have to be the same. My favorite match isn't neccesarilly what I believe to be the best, it's just that, for whatever reason, I like it more.

 

I also believe that when it's all said and done, if someone forgets all personal bias and just watches the match objectively, it's easy to see what works, what doesn't, and generally how good the match is. Of course, this rarely happens and most of the time someone will confuse "favorite" with "best" and rate a match highly, even if it doesn't deserve. However, I don't think opinion is the only factor that comes to rating wrestling.

[Guest goodhelmet]

I agree wholeheartedly Ricky! I was very entertained by the Showster skit match at backlash 2000. I also am entertained when Hogan gets the shit kicked out of him. That doesn't mean the matches deserve high star ratings.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Agreed, there are so many 'other' motivating factors in what makes a certain match a 'favourite' or 'entertaining'. If you were there live it would, of course have a different meaning. Say you were having sex while 'taker/bundy' was on, you would call it a sentimental favourite..cough... Of course it you are able to be sexually aroused during that match, star ratings are the least of your problems

 

It is impossible to be totally objective to a match, but on the other hand, it is possible to get a well-decided *-rating for matches but using some objectivity.

[Guest pete]

It is opinion. For me I look at first if I enjoy the match. I like all styles some I prefer, but for the most part all styles have some appeal to me. Second I look for a story being told/psychology. If the selling isn't there then the match gets knocked down a bit. I like my matches to be like connecting the dots A leads to B B leads to C etc. having good crowd heat helps a match but I try not let it influence me, I won't take away from a match but it could help a match. The finish of the match is important. Have it seem realistic. False finishes are good to have if they help the match. Sometimes they can hurt but for the most part they help.But the bottom line is that I must be entertained.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Rating systems are necessary in order to determine people's opinions about a particular thing (movies, games, matches, etc.) such that all the readers will understand what it means. 'Good' could mean anything, but '***' tells you how good the reviewer thinks it is.

[Guest dreamer420]

When I watch a match I don't really like giving it a * rating after only one viewing. Scott Keith is so out of touch these days and not all reviewers are up to the quality that he once had but lost.