Star ratings and stuff
Back to a topic I’ve covered in the past, but I still get asked about it a lot, so let’s trod there again, shall we?
“While I’m holding a conversation with you I was wanting to also ask you
about you rate the matches. I mean, how do you know the difference between a
*** match between a **** match. Or better yet a *** to a ***1/4 match. What
are the key differences and what gives one match a 1/4* between another?”
Well, here’s the thing. I’ve seen a LOT of wrestling. Like, into what must be thousands of matches by now. Generally I know when I’m watching a ** match or a *** match or whatever, because there’s certain tells. For instance, generally a 10-20 minute match with no resting where I kind of know that I’m watching a good match but don’t get emotionally invested in it is going to be a *** match. That’s like your house show opening Hardy Boyz v. a couple of stiffs. Like, say, Chris Masters & Johnny Nitro. Whoever, it doesn’t matter. In fact, the Hardyz are a perfect example because they don’t do restholds much, but they also don’t much else than work the tag team formula and generally bore the shit out of me. That’s ***. If I’m watching and they’re about to make the hot tag, but then something neat happens and alters the match in a way I don’t expect and nothing else out of the ordinary happens, that’s probably ***1/4. And so on. Basically, the more invested I can become in the match, the higher the rating is going to be. Other than that, there’s no scientific method, I just rate matches on pure instinct and I can “feel” the difference between ** and *** or **** and ****1/2 or what have you. And I know my system works because 9 times out of 10 when I go back and re-watch a show from 10 years ago where I can’t remember the ratings for the life of me, I’ll be able to recreate all the match ratings within 1/2*. In fact, I generally get worried if a match is more than 1/2* off my original rating, because that probably means something was out of wack in the first place.
Some people don’t even believe in 1/4* gradiations. Some people even round up or down to whole numbers. Whatever works for you, works for you.
“And, so I can fit it all in one e-mail, I know the endings are booked and
that some moves are called during the match, but I’ve always been curious to
know how they determine the overall flow of a match. “They” being the
performers in the match. How does one know how to take over in a match,
reverse a sequence, or to continue to be dominated during the match?”
Well, see, that’s another area that can affect ratings for a match. As a fan, I (and others around me) instinctively “know” when it’s time for the babyface to stop getting beat up and make the comeback. John Cena is particularly good at it. The trick, which comes with time as a peformer, is being in sync with the audience and knowing when to start the comeback. Too soon and you don’t build up enough sympathy to maintain the heat. Too late and you lose the crowd. The absolute master is Shawn Michaels — he can take a shitkicking for like 20 minutes and keep the crowd in it by doing “hope spots”, where you give the crowd hope that the babyface will be able to rally.
If you want to look at it from the most clinical POV, watch a lot of Hulk Hogan matches. Hogan’s matches in the 80s were the very definition of formula. It goes like this:
1) Heel attacks Hogan (Generally lasts about a minute)
2) Hogan overpowers them and dominates, usually gets shots at the manager, and the crowd is revved up and thinks he’ll quickly finish the challenger (Generally lasts about 2 minutes)
3) Manager interferes, heel hits Hogan from behind and methodically wears him down. (Lasts about 3-5 minutes)
4) Vital step: Hogan fights out of a resthold and makes a BRIEF comeback, enough to maintain the sympathy from the beating while building hope for a comeback, but his best efforts fail and the heel gains the advantage again. (Lasts less than a minute)
5) Heel attempts to finish Hogan with deadly finishing move, but Hogan kicks out, makes the final comeback, and wins (Lasts less than a minute).
Into the 90s, he changed that formula up and worked more standard main event formula matches, but basically up until then you could plug most of his matches into that formula and it would match up. They weren’t GOOD matches, but Hogan knew exactly when to make that comeback because he was a genius at reading the crowd. A lot of wrestlers are much more elitist about it, maintaining that the wrestlers should dictate the match, regardless of the crowd’s reactions to it. Either way, that’s why WWE’s developmental system was such a disaster for so many years (and still is in a lot of ways) — the WWE is a TV-based organization and there was a long stretch where guys just couldn’t get the experience of doing long matches night after night like they did in the 80s and 90s, and thus couldn’t learn those instincts themselves. Witness what happened in the Russo era as proof of that.
Raven’s pretty good at babyface comebacks, too. It’s a shame he damn near always works heel.
To piggy-back on your comment, the tapes Raven did with ROH discussing how to be a babyface are something every worker should watch.
Whoever asked Scott the question, you should also check them out as he also goes a lot into the proper flow of a match.
Scott - do you still go by Meltzer’s old star system, as described here?
***** - Match of the year candidate
****1/2 - An almost-perfect match
**** - Excellent
***1/2 - Extremely good
*** - Good
**1/2 - Better than average but nothing special
** - Average
*1/2 - Below average but not atrocious
* - Pretty bad, but at least some action
1/2* - Terrible, but at least a high spot in there somewhere
DUD - Of no value
-stars - Not only terrible, but completely offensive to the ticket-buying public
Hey Scott, here’s an idea for a discussion topic I got while flipping through some archives. What show’s have had the biggest divergence in quality between two consecutive matches. I think of Rumble ‘03 with Steiner/HHH followed by Benoit/Angle, or Summerslam ‘94 with Undertaker/Underfaker right after Bret/Owen. There’s probably some from recent years with a diva match stuck inbetween the co-main events, but I’m talking about two matches that were both meant to be big deals, one ****+ and the other deep into negative stars.
To me, the star ratings have always been the big draw for your reviews. I used to read just to see how you rated the matches.
I agree with your views. It’s all about opinion, and the more wrestling you watch, the easier it is to rate them correctly.
I actually don’t find star ratings to be relevent anymore. It’s still fun to give star ratings to matches, though, and it clearly shows what you think of the match.
As far as flow… yeah, it’s just a natural thing. A match needs a good flow to be enjoyable, but as far as how good the match was, I prefer to look at how much the wrestlers showed me during the entire match.
Newjack, Why do you think star ratings aren’t relevant anymore? Im not criticising, just interested. I was reading your post and was about to give it ***. I was expecting the hot tag but then you said ‘I actually don’t find star ratings to be relevent anymore’ which was neat and kinda unexpected so ill give it ***1/4.
Ha.
Truth be told, I’d say they’re not essential.
Calling them irrelevent was probably a mistake, but atleast it supplied entertainment value, right? Thanks for the 1/4*
I don’t read any review that doesn’t have star ratings. If you can’t form a concrete opinion of a match or determine its value your review isn’t worth my time or anybody else’s.
that is unless you’ve seen the match and want to read someone else’s opinion beyond a couple of snowflakes. I mean, you can tell me that Curt Schilling pitched a ****3/4 game tonight, but if you don’t know that he gave up one hit in the 9th innning and almost had the first red sox no hitter in 5 years, does it give you the same feeling? Not to mention if you’re a little slow like me, you might miss something and read about it later, go back, and appreciate little nuances a bit more, thus enhancing your overall enjoyment of the product, maybe. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying throwing down snowflakes isn’t important, but its a piece of the recipe, not the whole cake, but ymmv on that one.
Star ratings may be essential for someone like Scott, who tends to keep the match description recap-oriented, but on the whole I disagree. In fact, more often than not, they are useless. Scott and Meltzer are exceptions because they both have long, consistent histories of reviewing matches that makes their ratings meaningful. If you or I was to start reviewing matches, our written feelings would be much more valuable than some star-rating with no point of reference.
I know I tend to agree with scott’s opinion. I use his ratings to determine if I want to check something out or is it not worth my time. Especially the 24/7 stuff now. If scott liked I probably will too
I do the exact same thing when it comes to whether or not I am going to check out a certain thing on 24/7, especially when it comes to the monday night wars stuff. Hey Scott, do you plan on reviewing any of the ECW Hardcore TV shows on 24/7?
Sheesh, the horrible grammar. I must’ve been in a hurry when typing that out because that’s just plain awful.
And thanks for the answers. Although I still don’t understand how they can dictate the tempo in a “see-saw” matchup or when the crowd is completely apathetic, I do have some kind of an understanding of how a match is worked.
I hate to admit this, but I still enjoy the Hogan formula — only few can use it good though, but Hogan did use varied versions of the formula.
Example #1: Paul Orndorff vs. Hulk Hogan from August 28, 1986: Booking idea referee and Orndorff jaw at each other during the entire match. Usual formula, as Scott said, but this little booking changed the formula a little bit. Hogan does the big comeback, but Orndorff is jawing with the ref — Hogan blind sides Paul — but Paul tries to keep his balence — and pushes the referee down thanks to Hogan’s momentum. Hogan beats on Paul, but Heenan bashed Hogan in the head and Paul would of had the match won — but the referee saw Paul shove him down and its a DQ. Well booked match that made Orndorff stay strong for the long feud, in spite of losing the match.