How did you learn to interpret matches?

[Guest KempoMRK]

I'm just wondering how everyone learnt to properly interpret matches and be able to give accurate star ratings etc. While I can interpret matches reasonably well by picking up on the psychology and things like that, I couldn't give star ratings on matches unless I have seen someone elses and I can work off that. Anywho, as the thread title says.

[Corey_Lazarus]

However much it entertains me. Of course, the things that entertained me changed over the years. First, I just looked for heated matches that weren't pure shit. Then, I looked at pure workrate, which was in 2000, and since then I've been looking for things such as psychology, selling, storytelling (either through the match or from the feud), workrate, and flow of the match.

 

I know a lot of people rate Raven/Chris Harris from earlier this year in the ***1/2 range because of the psychology, but I hated that match. Is was boring, plodding, and made little to no sense, as the same arm that was injured earlier in the night and worked over the whole match, Harris' left arm, was used in the finish. The match really was crap.

 

Also, if a match is a spotfest, but a GOOD spotfest? I'll usually rate in the ***-**** range.

[The Mandarin]

I don't really analyze matches, one would assume that from my Match Reviews I did on the site.

 

In Bryan Alvarez terms, I like the cake and you wouldn't listen to me if I told you I did, so I won't go and analyze this cake because I've already formed an opinion without having to think very much about this cake.

 

Now I want some cake.

[Guest wildpegasus]

I learnt how to interpert matches by myself which is the only proper way to do so. When you've watched "5 million" over a lifetime it just becomes natural. The one thing that the interenet has done for me is give me names for stuff in matches that makes it easier to quickly describe something. Control segment, face beatdown, revenge spots and so on.

[MikeJordan23]

I'm not great with match ratings. I just know if I like a match and if I don't. I'll usually say the match was either "Terrible, Below Average, Average, Decent, Good, Very good, Great, excellent, Classic"

[Guest LooneyTune]

If a match is good, but relies on lots of wrestling, it will probably be in the **-ish zone.

 

If its a spotfest with minimal blown spots that keeps me entertained for 10 minutes, anywhere between ***-****.

 

A slow, boring, punchy-kicky match that goes on 20 minutes: Negative Stars. It's all a matter of taste really.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh]

I disagree with anyone that can instantly call something a "Classic". Baseball game, football game, anything.

 

If it's boring or insulting to watch: DUD.

 

If it's boring but they tried, only 1 to none blown mistakes, but effort and an attempt to tell a story was made: *

 

If it's a little sloppy but has some exciting action, tells a decent story: **

 

If it's pretty average, nothing boring, but nothing remotely crazy, tells a good story, accomplishes what it was meant to do, and keeps my interest: ***

 

If it's very exciting, I am into it, the crowd cares (this is my scale mind you), it tells a wonderful story, has no blown spots, great effort, and is just missing something (a few moves, a terrible finish, maybe some length), it gets ****

 

If I feel thoroughly entertained and feel the match I have just viewed took me on a journey...it makes me want to instantly get up and show a friend the match. There's nothing to be changed, no little flaws, nada. Perfection. *****

 

IMO, there's been very, very, very few ***** matches since the 80's.

[JST]

Being in the business, it's always fun to point out instances like missed moves, visible and audible spot calling, and other fun things us "insiders" know about.

 

For example, when you see Sylvain Grenier come out with a crummy mood, that means either he or his team is losing that night.

[Si82]

I just look for a match to entertain me for me to give it a high rating. A match can be fine as far as the wrestling goes but I might find it boring so it would get a lower rating. I suppose I'm trying to say that it all depends on personal tastes. You can find an example of mine in my sig.