WWF/WWE's 5 Star Matches

[The Cum Doctor]

He gave Umaga/Cena at the RR 4*, while the non-stip match the same month got 3*. I'd say the latter rating is fair enough, but the Last Man Standing was, and is still a joy to watch.

 

He has over-rated of course. I'm looking down the 2007 list and I'm seeing..

 

6/3/2007 Matt Hardy/Jeff Hardy vs. Charlie Haas/Shelton Benjamin (Ladder) ****

6/3/2007 Bobby Lashley vs. Vince McMahon/Umaga/Shane McMahon (Street Fight) ***1/4

 

Whoa!!!

[The King Of Swing]

Fuck Meltzer if Savage Vs Flair from Wrestlemania VIII isn't a ***** match then nothing is.

 

Cunt.

[Big Benny HG]

I don't mind the star rating system - it is only a single person's opinion after all, and provides a good basis of comparison for other people's opinions. People will like different matches for different reasons. Meltzer isn't a bad starting point, but there are obviously some that I and many others will naturally have widely differing opinions on. The DG 6-man tag and Joe-Kobashi in ROH, for example, are not 5* matches.

 

I'll use the rating system myself on some rare occasions too, particularly on bouts that obviously set out to go looking for praise/review (some ROH or DGUSA bouts would be guilty of that), when trying to set a scene for a bout people might not have seen or when I'm interested in seeing what other people thought.

 

I have to agree with what a couple of others have said in this thread, though: a 5* match, by very definition, has to be one that could not have been better than it actually was in any possible way. Austin vs. Bret from WM13 is a clear 5* match - it had everything. For me, then, if something isn't as good as that match, it obviously isn't *****.

 

I would never try to rate TV matches or undercard matches on a PPV, though, since they are there to play a role on that show. I think only actual money-attracting, show-selling attraction bouts are really suitable for the system.

[Mikeymike83]

I have no problem with Meltzer using stars, it's his opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I'd agree some of the '*****' matches seem a bit randomly chosen/omitted but hey. My favourite WrestleMania is 22, most prefer 17, some like others. It's our opinion and nothing proves it more than the list i'm about to write. I've taken random '**' matches from as many WrestleMania's as possible, I know we're talking 5 star but there's not the variety to talk and gain anything from as their is lower down the star system spectrum...

 

WrestleMania - Brutus Beefcake v David Sammartino

WrestleMania II - 20 man Battle Royal

WrestleMania IV - Jake Roberts v Rick Rude

WrestleMania VI - Rick Martel v Koko B. Ware

WrestleMania VII - Ted Dibiase v Virgil

WrestleMania VIII - Shawn Michaels v El Matador

WrestleMania IX - Hogan/Beefcake v Money Inc

WrestleMania XI - Bam Bam Bigelow v Lawrence Taylor

WrestleMania XII - Steve Austin v Savio Vega

WrestleMania XVII - Chris Jericho v William Regal

WrestleMania XVIII - Rob Van Dam v William Regal

WrestleMania XXII - Mickie James v Trish Stratus

WrestleMania XXV - Chris Jericho v Steamboat/Piper/Snuka

 

Now all of those got two stars, are they all so similar that they warrant the same rating? In the case of timeframes, i'm not suggesting we compare WM's IV & XVIII for example, different eras equal different styles and what we accept as 'acceptable wrestling'. But was Bam Bam/LT and Austin/Vega so similar (set just 12 months apart from each other) in quality that we would all accept them as 2 stars each? No, of course not. It's subjective, if Meltzer was spouting this as the gospel according to Meltzer than quite rightly we could argue our case to try to debunk his but (to the best of my knowledge) he doesn't. His opinions alone, I don't agree but he doesn't agree with mine. Oh well.

 

That being said, what a tool! How can he emit so many that have been mentioned as true 5 star classics below some that he has?

[darkship]

Actually the Rude/Roberts horrorshow was -** rather than **. And rightly so, it's one of the most boring 15 minutes ever.

 

The matches you've listed, otherwise, are similar: they're mostly fairly short, quite distracting but not particularly outstanding. A mediocre, but not terrible, match which is mostly fun while it lasts but nothing memorable or special. I think that yeah, they're similar enough in format and purpose, if not execution, to get the same rating.

[ColinBollocks]

I don't mind the star rating system - it is only a single person's opinion after all,

Spot on. It's just the same as Mark Kermode ranting, it's just a blokes opinion. You don't have to take it as anything other than that.

 

Personally I think Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart and Kurt Angle have at least a dozen ***** matches between them, some have been mentioned here.

 

I quite like Meltzer myself. But maybe that has to do with Bryan Alvarez making anybody he is talking with seem less annoying. On an Alvarez note, a few Observer shows back he did this big exaggerated "HAHA", when Meltzer said something about TNA learning their lesson (or something like that). That high pitched "HAHA" is still ringing in my brain, days later - truely an awful moment in my life hearing that.

[Mikeymike83]

Re. Rude/Roberts, my bad. My eyes are deceiving me. I too thought it was utter cack which is why I included it.

 

Onto your point, I can't agree that they all follow a tried and tested formula. Bam Bam/LT was main event and must have had decent time, Mickie/Trish got longer than a good percentage of other women's matches and some of the mens scraps too. There's a Battle Royal listed amongst them, Dibiase/Virgil captured wrestling imo, underdog fighting former mentor/master in a good v bad morality struggle etc. The two Regal matches were a bit awkward in places.

 

What I would agree on is none are particularly good, even average but the point I was trying to make was... you can tell me that you agree all of those matches are 2 stars, no higher and no lower? I don't think they are and i'd be shocked if the majority of people do. It's easier to have an idea about what makes a great wrestling match 4 stars and higher (and equally a match a 'dud') but how do you differentiate bland? What makes those matches I listed and (random) Steamboat/Valentine at WM IV a quarter star better, or Raven/Big Show/Kane at WM XVII a quarter star lower? Subjectivity. We can all make our own star systems but they will ultimately be relevant to ourselves only. So through Meltzers eyes he is 100% correct. Problem is at some point you're going to contradict yourself and realise two matches you've classed as 2 1/2 stars, you actually realise you like one more than the other, so you sit and revise your list again. And again, and again. Cos eventually you're gonna come across a similar situation. I simply prefer my method. Matches are either bad, average or good. Cuts the bullshit and saves you deliberating whether to press forward/next chapter on your dvd remote.

[The King Of Swing]

Never really liked that * system to be honest I also stick with the "good, average, bad" grading system.

 

As for ***** matchs in general I have always believed that the Ozaki/Kansai vs Toyota/Yamada match from Dream Rush 1992 was better then both their DreamSlam II and St. Final matchs.

[MichaelScarn]

What is everyone's opinion on the atmosphere in which you watch a match, and how that effects a rating.

 

Can being sat in the crowd uplift a match from ****3/4 to *****? On the flip side, does hearing what the announcers are saying give you more of a benefit?

 

I'd say the best matches I have seen on DVD would never get above **** 1/2 possibly 3/4. For it to be a perfect 5* it would have to be a perfect match in combination with me being there live, to soak in the atmosphere of the crowd.

 

Or do you think you can have just the same emotional experience, sitting on your own at home?

 

For an example, I wish I had been at WM26. If I was, i'm sure I would have enjoyed the HBK/Taker match more without the awful commentary team. Apart from at face value me thinking WM25's effort was better, being at 25 is a small factor of it being a higher 'rating' and also my preffered choice to watch.

[HarmonicGenerator]

What is everyone's opinion on the atmosphere in which you watch a match, and how that effects a rating.

 

Can being sat in the crowd uplift a match from ****3/4 to *****? On the flip side, does hearing what the announcers are saying give you more of a benefit?

 

I'd say the best matches I have seen on DVD would never get above **** 1/2 possibly 3/4. For it to be a perfect 5* it would have to be a perfect match in combination with me being there live, to soak in the atmosphere of the crowd.

 

Or do you think you can have just the same emotional experience, sitting on your own at home?

 

For an example, I wish I had been at WM26. If I was, i'm sure I would have enjoyed the HBK/Taker match more without the awful commentary team. Apart from at face value me thinking WM25's effort was better, being at 25 is a small factor of it being a higher 'rating' and also my preffered choice to watch.

 

But on the flipside of that, how much would the Taker-Mankind HIAC match have lost without Jim Ross' commentary? I'm not saying it's a 5* match, but without "with god is my witness, he's broken in half" and those other great calls, it's not half the match it's perceived to be.

 

It depends whether you'd consider wrestling a live performance art or a televised one. Historically speaking, it's obviously the live part that's important - how many great matches will we never see because we weren't there? - and on the smaller scale even now it's all about the audience and actually being there. in that respect, a match is clearly going to be perceived as better when you saw it in person (a lot of great matches I've seen live would be rubbish watching on dvd).

 

But for modern day WWE (and TNA too I suppose), more often than not it doesn't even matter that the crowd is there. The matches are tailored to the TV production, they're all part of the broadcast. Messed something up? Let's re-shoot the finish. Crowd not as loud as you want? Pipe in some noise. For these promotions, every aspect is supposed to be consumed on screen, in HD, with commentary, close-ups, dramatic replays, and so on.

 

Close-ups alone have revolutionised how we'd see matches. I can't remember whose book it was in, but one wrestler-author talks about Ricky Steamboat's facial expressions, and how during his heyday the cameras barely if ever picked them up, so nobody who wasn't there at the time even knows how great he was at them.

 

PPVs like WrestleMania walk a line in this regard. They're fully live: you can't re-shoot, you can't pipe in noise, it's live. But still, it's a media presentation - it's not primarily for the people who've attended, it's for the people who've bought the show on TV. Are the wrestlers playing for the people in the balconies of the stadium or for the people at home, or can they do both?

 

And then as audience members it's hard to compare the two objectively. You can be there live for a match like HBK/Taker or you can watch it live (or as live) on TV. Either way, you might think it's the best match you've ever seen, but they're two different experiences... which one's the 'right' one?

[Big Rob]

For what it's worth, if I were to rate or compare a match, I wouldn't do that from memory of a live event, I'd do it from the available footage. For example, this year was the best time I've ever had from watching a WrestleMania. Of course, I was there live for the first time, so that's kind of a given. But I could hardly say with a straight face that it was the best ever.

[The Gaffer]

I don't think you can say that more often than not it doesn't even matter the crowd are there but then go on to list production nuances that are used as tools to get a match over on TV. Are the live audience not the biggest tool of them all? Watching a match on TV with dead air in the arena isin't much fun at all and honestly artificial crowd noise is a non factor for me. We are still pretty far off from the day sound samples that sound like they are ripped straight from WWF Attitude provide a viable alternative to people in the crowd. Especially when the companies biggest output is the live show. And the WWE do such a good job of lighting up their paying audience anyway that the sound of cheering is more than offset by the sight of a few thousand people sitting on their hands or phoning their mate whilst looking at the titantron so they can see themselves on TV when their mate can also see them on TV and tell them that they can indeed see them on TV.

 

I think live and television in the case of televised events are inseparable. They both need each other to work well and that fusion - combined - is the modern end product of pro wrestling. I do think obviously the capacity to enjoy an event is far greater when you are actually there. Raw Tour Of Defiance, Dublin 2004 leaves WrestleMania X-Seven for dead .

[Vamp]

My ratign system tends to go; that was boring, didn't really liek that, what the hell was that, that was quite fun, that was a blast, oh yeah that was freaking awesome (but would have been awesomer if he held onto the side headlock for another 2.5 seconds). I think the trouble is that when you get into stars and any other rating system you're over thinking pro wrestling. Like many simple forms of entertainment, wrestling doesn't stand up to too much thinking. You could be having great sex with a woman and having the time of your life, but then suddenly you start wondering if you'd rather a serious relationship, than the feelign of having great sex is gone. Its just empty sex.

 

So when it coems to a debate about whether or not a match should have another half a snowflake, or whether you can fairly and adequately judge a match live or whether you have to disect it on DVD so you can be impartial I start wondering whether people are actually enjoying watching or are just addicted? Wrestling's about a couple of hours of distraction and the minute you think abotu it too much the illusion's gone. For me anyway. Everyone enjoys different things, of course, but I can't see the point of these debates. The whole 'I was there live, it was awesome, but on dvd I'd probably knock off half a tiny flake' is pointless. The question is, when you were there live did you enjoy it? Did it feel great? If it did it was great.

[The King of Old School]

I don't mind the star ratings really, even if they are a little geeky.

 

To give any match minus stars though is just stupid.

[Gladstones Bitch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yvnLCxo-m8