The "Official TSM Rating Scale"

[Guest Coffey]

We were discussing this towards the end of page two here

 

So, I came up with a formula. Obviously the formula can be altered, which it should be as more things could be taken into account. However, this was a first attempt just to see what the response is. The system won't be perfect no matter how we do it, yet it would put us all on the same scale so we would know where each person was coming from when they rate matches. Also, it might require some people to think more when determining how they felt about a certain match.

 

Keep in mind that this might not be too well written since it was just me thinking aloud in wordpad:

 

Psychology/Selling 25%

Crowd Reaction 10%

Drama/Storytelling 25%

Sloppiness/Blown Spots/Ref Bumps/Run-ins 40%

 

1-5 scale

 

 

So, if a match has good psychology but poor selling, that would be 12.5% If a match had ok selling and ok psychology, that would be 12.5% If a match is great in both, 25%. If a match lacks both, 0%. Percentage changes accordingly to opinion of how you felt each area was.

 

So, let's take an example match.

 

Kurt Angle Vs. Chris Benoit @ Royal Rumble 03

 

Psychology was decent. Not perfect. Benoit is good at psychology, however a lot of the moves Angle use don't fit in. Selling was perfect. So, perfect selling is 12.5% by itself. Exactly 1/2 of the possible 25%. Of the other 12.5%, it wasn't perfect, but was above average. I'd say around 9%. Total = 21.5%

 

The crowd response was good. They built up as the match built up. The standing ovation for Benoit at the end was the icing on the cake. It wasn't Hogan/Rock level of crowd  participation, but they were still hot. 8%

 

The drama was there. The storytelling was there. The false finishes kept coming, Benoit never wanted to quit, and Angle wouldn't lose the title. Not perfect, but nothing can be. 22%

 

The match wasn't sloppy at all (IIRC) and I don't remember any blown spots. There were not ref bumps or run-ins. 36%

 

Add up all the totals: 87.5/100%

 

Now, put that on a 5 star scale. Which means each star represents 20% and each half star represents 10%.

 

80% = ****

5% = 1/2 *

Extra 2.5 % is minuscule enough to not affect the final ratings when using a 1/4 star minimum.

 

Benoit/Angle @ RR = Four & One/Half stars. ****1/2

 

So, let's see if we can alter this to make it something that everyone can agree on.

[Guest ManKinnd]

I think it should be a different rating system for each type of match. I mean, how would a TLC rate in one of these? You have to look at each match specifically.

[Guest Coffey]

That's the point of this thread. Start throwing out ideas.

[bob_barron 0]

Why does there need to be one scale in rating matches?

 

Everyone looks at a match differently and an 'Official scale' is just insulting.

 

I'm definetly not feeling this

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I am. I think anyone who slaps on a *-rating should be able to back it up with some sort of reasoning - if they can't, then that rating is meaningless. "Official Scale" or not, there should be a general method of analysis, a common ground of sorts, that should at least be acknowledged.

 

I've been toying around with a figure skating-esque system of technical and artistic merit. As some matches (Benoit vs. Angle) are high on technical merit, but rather low on artistic. The degree of difficulty between the two is harder to incorporate and adjust accordingly. Like I said, I've been toying around with it, put I'll put it out there as a suggestion.

[Guest TheGame2705]

I like the system. However, I don't like star ratings. I just usually just go by if I liked the match or not and if someone questions it, I explain why.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

I have two ratings:

 

I'd like to see that match again.

I wouldn't like to see that match again.

 

If I see a match of the former sort enough times, it can move into the latter group.

[Austin3164life 0]

It basically comes down to what kind of expectations you have for a match. I read a lot of people's ratings for the Brock/Taker match at No Mercy, and I saw some people rating it ****. I'm not trying to knock their opinions, but in NO WAY is it in the same league as Benoit/Eddy from Vengeance (which is around ****, imo). I like to generally clear all of the rediculous storytelling before the match and then watch it. For instance, Angle/Cena had a HORRIBLE build up to their match, yet the match itself was very good, with both guys working hard and telling a nice story in the ring (and the crowd eating everything up).

[SamoaRowe 0]

Why does there need to be one scale in rating matches?

 

Everyone looks at a match differently and an 'Official scale' is just insulting.

 

I'm definetly not feeling this

I judge a match ONLY by how much I enjoyed it. It doesn't have to be a technical masterpiece or the crowd doesn't have to be Hogan/Rock excited about it, none of that matters to me. I judge soley on how much entertainment I got out of it.

 

This makes my judging fair for all matches. Billy and Chuck vs 3MW at Unforgiven 2002 is an extremely entertaining five minute match. I give it *** because I enjoyed it. The Benoit/Angle match on that same show got ***1/2 from me. Only half a star more? Why? Because I only enjoyed it half a star more (it was a good little match, but they've had better).

[bob_barron 0]

People were giving Brock v. Taker ****?

 

That's crazy. I don't know if I was watching a different match but that match blew.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

We were discussing this towards the end of page two here

 

So, I came up with a formula. Obviously the formula can be altered, which it should be as more things could be taken into account. However, this was a first attempt just to see what the response is. The system won't be perfect no matter how we do it, yet it would put us all on the same scale so we would know where each person was coming from when they rate matches. Also, it might require some people to think more when determining how they felt about a certain match.

 

Keep in mind that this might not be too well written since it was just me thinking aloud in wordpad:

 

Psychology/Selling 25%

Crowd Reaction 10%

Drama/Storytelling 25%

Sloppiness/Blown Spots/Ref Bumps/Run-ins 40%

 

1-5 scale

 

 

So, if a match has good psychology but poor selling, that would be 12.5% If a match had ok selling and ok psychology, that would be 12.5% If a match is great in both, 25%. If a match lacks both, 0%. Percentage changes accordingly to opinion of how you felt each area was.

 

So, let's take an example match.

 

Kurt Angle Vs. Chris Benoit @ Royal Rumble 03

 

Psychology was decent. Not perfect. Benoit is good at psychology, however a lot of the moves Angle use don't fit in. Selling was perfect. So, perfect selling is 12.5% by itself. Exactly 1/2 of the possible 25%. Of the other 12.5%, it wasn't perfect, but was above average. I'd say around 9%. Total = 21.5%

 

The crowd response was good. They built up as the match built up. The standing ovation for Benoit at the end was the icing on the cake. It wasn't Hogan/Rock level of crowd   participation, but they were still hot. 8%

 

The drama was there. The storytelling was there. The false finishes kept coming, Benoit never wanted to quit, and Angle wouldn't lose the title. Not perfect, but nothing can be. 22%

 

The match wasn't sloppy at all (IIRC) and I don't remember any blown spots. There were not ref bumps or run-ins. 36%

 

Add up all the totals: 87.5/100%

 

Now, put that on a 5 star scale. Which means each star represents 20% and each half star represents 10%.

 

80% = ****

5% = 1/2 *

Extra 2.5 % is minuscule enough to not affect the final ratings when using a 1/4 star minimum.

 

Benoit/Angle @ RR = Four & One/Half stars. ****1/2

 

So, let's see if we can alter this to make it something that everyone can agree on.

Dude, I give you mad credit for the system thing.....but I'd rather not figure out how to rate a match with a friggin calculator.....

[Guest Loss]

I'm all for match analysis and backing up opinions, but I think using a formula takes the fun out of being a wrestling fan.

 

I think as long as the same person ranking multiple matches uses the same criteria every time out, then whatever system is established is fine. The whole is often greater than the sum of the parts, which is the problem with using a formula.

 

If a match has pedestrian offense, but the selling and emotion is out of this world, then it overcompensates the elementary moves.

 

I can handle blown spots as long as they don't ruin the match while some would consider a match pretty bad if one spot goes awry. But if I'm consistent and you're consistent, then we're fine.

 

This is the difference between an opinion and a reason. I don't particularly hate opinions, but I am annoyed when they go unexplained.