There is no such thing as a 100% acurrate

[Guest wildpegasus]

Statement: There is no such thing as a 100% accurate star rating or even anything that's a 70% accurate star rating for a wrestling match.

 

 

So do you agree or disagree?

 

 

 

Myself, I agree. Well actually for an indivudal person a star rating is accurate to him or her but to everyone? No way.

 

 

For example Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask 4/83 is signifigantly better than Misawa vs Kawada from 6/94. Notice how I didn't say it's my favourite but that it's actually better. That's a statement that gets attention but you know what? It's 100% true. True to me and a few other people anyway but for a lot of people they will state that in no way shape or form is that accurate. They will say Misawa vs Kawada is better and there is no denying their match. Intentionally or not, the problem is that they say it is a better match for everyone.

 

Well, they are right in a way. It is better for them and that's perfectly acceptable as long as they're being completely truthful but IT IS NOT better for say WP or whoever else digs in this example the DK vs Tiger match. For us, DK vs Tiger Mask is a higher star rating because of what it brings to the table and how it affects us in comparison to Misawa vs Kawada. That allows the viewer to give quite a bit of leeway in star ratings to either matches. If they want to give Misawa vs Kawada 4 stars than so be it. If they want to give Misawa vs Kawada 5 stars than so be it. The same goes for the Dynamite vs Tiger Mask match.

 

Really, this is why we often get different star ratings for matches. If there was some magical match equation for star ratings than everybody would be coming up with the same rating but they don't.

 

Bottom line is as long as someone's being truthful there is no such thing as a wrong star rating. Agree, disagree?

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I hate star ratings. People will debate how many stars a match deserves forever. Forget the stars, explain why you hated/liked the match and leave it to that. Stars mean nothing to me.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

No opinion can be 100% accurate.

 

That's my opinion.

 

...

 

(cough)

 

I think there is a right and wrong opinion in some, but not all, instances. To steal a JDW analogy, if someone said that Sid was a better wrestler than Chris Benoit, they'd be wrong. If someone said that Trish/Bubba vs. Jackie/Bradshaw RAW was a worse match than Piper/Hart WM 8, they'd be 100% right. An actual rating would be arbitrary, but the point would remain.

 

I think a lot of the time people just don't like to be told they're a dumbass for thinking something, so they act indignant and hide behind "well that's my opinion" rather than actually putting some thought and actually looking at an analysing the match. I think there is a time when "well that's my opinion" can come into play, but that's after the analysis as been done. On a discussion board this distinction becomes particularly important, because I'm not going to take seriously or even read Jackoff3:1666's post if he/she can't formulate a sound argument or discussion point.

[Guest JebusNassedar]

Fuck star ratings. You and your 0-24 scales can bite me.

 

Especially when people whine on and on about "misrated matches" or whatever the fuck. Please. If you liked it, good for you. If you didnt, well, good for you as well.

 

Then there's the big thing on everyone going nuts for the NOAH Tokyo Dome show just because Meltz gave it high ratings. Fuck that. That show was such an epic letdown you wouldn't believe it. I was only barely entertained by Kendo/Suigira Vs. KENTA/Marufuji.

 

How bad is it that Kendo KaShin and Takashi Suigira are part of the best match on the card?

 

so, yeah. Star ratings blow. All ratings blow. Just say why you liked the fucking match.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

Ratings don't really do much for me. I just want to hear what someone lked about something and what they disliked about something. I can pretty much take it from there because what might mean alot to them might mean alot less to me.

[tbondrage99 0]

Na its never acurrate. It all depends on peoples tastes and different people obviously have different tastes. I have a friend who think that Chris Master might just be the second coming of Hulk Hogan. Sure hes an idiot but it still serves my point.

 

The only time I use the star ratings is when Im talking to someone who likes the same type of matches as myself. Otherwise its pointless.

[Jingus 0]

Then there's the big thing on everyone going nuts for the NOAH Tokyo Dome show just because Meltz gave it high ratings. Fuck that. That show was such an epic letdown you wouldn't believe it. I was only barely entertained by Kendo/Suigira Vs. KENTA/Marufuji.

 

How bad is it that Kendo KaShin and Takashi Suigira are part of the best match on the card?

Well damn, you had some pretty high expectations for that card then. Liger/Kanemura and the main were pretty damn good in my opinion.

 

No, there is no such thing as a universally accurate star rating. Such things don't exist.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Na its never acurrate. It all depends on peoples tastes and different people obviously have different tastes. I have a friend who think that Chris Master might just be the second coming of Hulk Hogan. Sure hes an idiot but it still serves my point.

And some people have bad taste.

[genius33 0]

i think star ratings are very valuable for being able to easily show how you feel about a match compared to others. its much easier to explain to someone such and such was a 3 star match rather than write a ten page thesis on why you feel that way. of course they arent perfect, but i think the star system is as close to perfect as opinion based match rating can get. thats why it has survived over 10 years in the IWC

[iggymcfly 0]

For all Scott Keith's failings, it's extremely rare that I disagree with his ratings by more than one star. Sure, people won't agree with you exactly, but I think if someone knows wrestling, you can get a good ballpark figure for just how good a match was.

[Dark Age 0]

But one star is a lot. There's a big difference between a *** match and a **** match, a ** match and a *** match, a **** match and a ***** match.

[Jingus 0]

I don't agree with a lot of Keith's ratings. (Five stars for a TLC spotfest? come on), but it is handy to be familiar with a fairly consistent recapper like Keith because, once you know their particular tendencies and biases, it becomes pretty easy to look at their review of a match and figure out whether you'll like it or not based on how closely you historically agree with that reviewer's ratings. Like, I don't always agree with Roger Ebert's reviews, but I can read them and usually tell if I want to see that movie or not.

[Ace309 0]

Star ratings are opinions based on fact. However, this nonsense about every opinion being equally valid is bullshit. Some opinions will be better-informed, more defensible and, yes, more "right" than others.

 

The problem is, as RRR mentioned above, people don't like to admit that their opinions are indefensible and roughly as accurate as beliefs arrived at by studying the patterns made by bird shit under an overpass. Everyone likes to think they know something. The problem is that 90% of them don't.

 

Jingus also makes an excellent point. For a lot of the internet columnists, star ratings are shorthand for reminding people what they like. Under that formulation, they're "accurate" but useless.

 

All in all, everyone should accept my taste. It would be much easier that way.

[tbondrage99 0]

Na its never acurrate. It all depends on peoples tastes and different people obviously have different tastes. I have a friend who think that Chris Master might just be the second coming of Hulk Hogan. Sure hes an idiot but it still serves my point.

And some people have bad taste.

Yeah your telling me.