Dave Meltzer 5 star matches

[Sphinx]

The star system is a joke, especially when it's split into quarters. I struggle to believe people take it so seriously and sometimes close to gospel. I'm fine with events being rated (though still not with the stars being quartered : what the fuck is the difference between a quarter of a stat and half a star?) but it doesn't work so well with matches.

[Au]

The same idiot has also convinced himself that the thing that got him into wrestling was how much he respected the great technical work of Bret Hart and Mr Perfect at SummerSlam '91. When he was five.

1990-91 was exactly when I was getting into wrestling, and I was 8-9. I absolutely loved that Bret v Perfect match, even as a kid. Looking on back on it now, I don't think it was the technical side of it that grabbed me at that age, it was that it told a great story. Bret tearing off Perfects singlet at the end of the match and wearing it as a trophy was a fantastic visual too, I just remember thinking that it showed just how soundly Bret had beaten him.

 

It might not have been the match that got me into wrestling, per se, but it's the first match that really, really drew me into it and that I classed as my favourite match for years afterwards.

 

In discussions about match length, I think it all comes down to context. Wrestling is absolutely down to how well a match is constructed and the story it tells. It can be done in 5 minutes and it can take an hour but needs to feel like the winner and loser had played their part for it to reach a decisive conclusion.

[Vamp]

To be honest long matches put me off straight away. It's like when people got all excited about the Punk vs Joe hour long matches and I just thought "fuck am I sitting there for an hour knowing it ends in a draw at the end of that hour". If I'd be watching it not knowing and it'd gone an hour that might have been different.

 

YouTube's bad for that. I was watching Stan Hansen matches the other day, who I absolutely love, and them I started getting to matches and seeing they went on for over half an hour and I couldn't be arsed. And I'm sure they were actually great because they had Stan in them.

 

Obviously there's a lot of good matches that go long, but I'm rarely in the mood to sit down and watch matches that go 45mins or whatever. If you go 15 or less I'm more likely to give it a gander.

[Mr Tibbs]

In discussions about match length, I think it all comes down to context. Wrestling is absolutely down to how well a match is constructed and the story it tells. It can be done in 5 minutes and it can take an hour but needs to feel like the winner and loser had played their part for it to reach a decisive conclusion.

 

I totally agree with you there. Alot of matches can suffer (some ROH matches involving Richards and Steen stand out) from being too long. I've read quite a few reports were the comment was "this match would have been great if the cut 5/10 minutes out and tried to do less". Some wrestlers try and get as much stuff in as possible, not realising that if you did half as much, in a shorter time period, it would have left a better impression on the fan watching.

[AshC]

123 Kid vs Owen Hart, King of the Ring 1994. I can name no more than a handful of high-flying style matches better than that, and it went, what, 4 minutes?

[air_raid]

"this match would have been great if the cut 5/10 minutes out and tried to do less"

 

I've seen some matches where it's nearer 20 minutes that I would have rather seen cut, even before you take into consideration there was a lot of nonsense. I've sat there feeling knackered from watching a good ten minutes before the end, and then when the end comes, it's a ludicrous overblown sequence of kicking out of finishers, where the ending features five heavy moves in a row in an attempt to create that feeling of "OMG! Look what it took to keep one of these guys down!" and make you think you've watched an epic, but it's artificial. Everything that came before that stupidly overblown finishing sequence is made to look inconsequential and instead of thinking "that was an epic contest" after a 40-45 minute sit that ends with a torrent of head drops and hard kicks to the skull, you actually think "Wow, I really don't want to watch wrestling again for ages now." A match shouldn't suffer simultaneously from having too much time AND trying to cram too much shit in, it just shouldn't be possible. Unless you're dealing with a specially stipulated (i.e. iron man) match where you incorporate different psychology, I question why you can't tell whatever story you want to tell in 30 minutes or less. Unless the specific story you're looking for is "that was a long match" which as noted... does not always equate to "a good match."

 

Yes, I'm talking about the Davey Richards vs Eddie Edwards matches.

[King Pitcos]

If you go 15 or less I'm more likely to give it a gander.

I think fifteen is too long for most TV matches. Fifteen is midcard pay-per-view. Building a fifteen-minute Sheamus vs Cesaro PPV match with a load of fifteen-minute TV matches just dilutes the whole thing into nothingness. In general, I think 90% of matches that go longer than about ten minutes should have a decent storyline behind them. Occasionally throw in a fifteen-minute match with no build just as a surprise when most should go a handful of minutes. Of course, that leads to the whole TV/PPV logic problem where someone can get beaten in three minutes on Mondays but on Sunday nights they've got loads more staying power. But I'd rather Sheamus (/Ziggler/Del Rio/Orton/whoever) just have vastly more stamina on big occasions instead of boring the fanny off me for ages every single week.

[tiger_rick]

If you go 15 or less I'm more likely to give it a gander.

I think fifteen is too long for most TV matches. Fifteen is midcard pay-per-view. Building a fifteen-minute Sheamus vs Cesaro PPV match with a load of fifteen-minute TV matches just dilutes the whole thing into nothingness. In general, I think 90% of matches that go longer than about ten minutes should have a decent storyline behind them. Occasionally throw in a fifteen-minute match with no build just as a surprise when most should go a handful of minutes. Of course, that leads to the whole TV/PPV logic problem where someone can get beaten in three minutes on Mondays but on Sunday nights they've got loads more staying power. But I'd rather Sheamus (/Ziggler/Del Rio/Orton/whoever) just have vastly more stamina on big occasions instead of boring the fanny off me for ages every single week.

Agree on both points. Don't see any reason why it has to be an issue though. Either book uncompetitive matches on TV or book screwy finishes. Unfortunately that would probably lead to twice as many shitty skits per week.

 

The previously mentioned Owen/123 Kid match is probably the only match I've ever watched and thought "I wish that had more time".

[Vamp]

You're right fifteen being too long for most tv matches.

 

Did we used to have a thread for the best matches under ten minutes, or something like that anyway? Possible I'm thinking of somewhere else.