Wrestlemanias ranked best to worst (by average match stars from Observer)

[Maikeru]

This is essentially the most scientific way I can think of to rank the Manias based on overall match quality (albeit as seen from Meltzer's point of view). Scores are averages out of 5 stars across all matches. For matches that received minus stars, I just counted them as zero stars as I've always taken the minus stuff to be a bit of a joke. All scores rounded to the nearest 0.1 

To be fair, I probably wouldn't change much of this based on my subjective opinion (perhaps 8 and 10 would rank a little higher), though some I haven't seen. Thoughts? 

Credit to www.profightdb.com for the breakdown of stars by match for each event. 

 

Wrestlemania 31		3.4
Wrestlemania 19		3.1
Wrestlemania 32		3.1
Wrestlemania 33		3
Wrestlemania 30		2.9
Wrestlemania 25		2.8
Wrestlemania 26		2.8
Wrestlemania 24		2.7
Wrestlemania 29		2.7
Wrestlemania 23		2.6
Wrestlemania 21		2.5
Wrestlemania 17		2.4
Wrestlemania 22		2.4
Wrestlemania 13		2.3
Wrestlemania 28		2.3
Wrestlemania 10		2.2
Wrestlemania 12		2.2
Wrestlemania 20		2.2
Wrestlemania 27		2.2
Wrestlemania 3		2
Wrestlemania 11		2
Wrestlemania 14		2
Wrestlemania 6		1.8
Wrestlemania 18		1.8
Wrestlemania 16		1.7
Wrestlemania 7		1.6
Wrestlemania 1		1.5
Wrestlemania 2		1.5
Wrestlemania 9		1.5
Wrestlemania 15		1.4
Wrestlemania 8		1.3
Wrestlemania 5		1.2
Wrestlemania 4		1

[Daaaaaad!]

It's a cold, joyless way of looking at things and nobody is really telling me that WM31, fine as it was, is better than 17. Hell, I was AT WM29 and objectively I can see it's not better than most of the shows following it.

Plus, Big Dave gave Hogan/Andre minus four stars, so his opinion means very little to me in terms of what I'd expect of a WrestleMania. 

[tiger_rick]

Interesting to compare it to your own perception. 8 is way too low. 6 is a one match show and is too high.

14 isn't a show to judge on match quality. It's a better event than a wrestling card and should be far higher.

10 is the best Mania. None of the filler drags down two absolute classics, Bret's moment and the Savage/Crush match I've always liked way more than anyone else does!

[The King of Old School]

It's a ridiculous way of looking at things.

Wrestlemania 8 third bottom? Wrestlemania 17 not in the top 10? Wrestlemania 32 & 33 in champions league places?! Both shows were a long, boring mess.

Do me a favour.

[Guest]

Match quality doesn't tell you show quality. An example woud be mania 4 was a set up for the man event, it needed all those matches, to make one really matter.

Rick I'm with you on savage vs crush, at the time had seen nothing like that before

[marc2j]

WrestleMania 30 is my all time fave. The Bryan stuff was amazing, The Undertaker match, whilst rubbish because of the early injury had the shocking WTF moment and the opening promo had me in bits. 

[Rosler28]

1 minute ago, marc2j said:

WrestleMania 30 is my all time fave. The Bryan stuff was amazing, The Undertaker match, whilst rubbish because of the early injury had the shocking WTF moment and the opening promo had me in bits. 

Deffo agree 30 was the best for dramatic purposes, the shock of Undertaker losing to Bryan winning was great. Matches werent too long except for the matches that mattered like wwe title, bryan v hhh and lesnar v taker. Wrestlemanias last fee years last too long. 4 hrs for everything is long enough. 17 should be higher. 31 id say is prouably deserving of being high up as that had quality matches and a suprise ending.

[ColinBollocks]

Purely on "work rate" match quality, it's probably bang on, but wrestling should never be just about that. I'm sure if you were to ask Meltzer to rank Wrestlemania shows as an overall spectacle the list would look much different from above - or at least I bloody hope so, because in no way is that accurate of the overall package.

[The King of Old School]

Just as a side question, has anybody enjoyed the last two Wrestlemania's?

For me, it's gone from the most anticipated event of the year, to "urgh it's going to take me a week to watch the damn thing" now.

In my mind, they have completely ruined it by making it close to 7 hours long including pre show, and there insistence of getting everybody on the card.

It should be close to 4 hours (forget the pre show) and just have 8/9 of the biggest matches available to them.

[JNLister]

Bear in mind 31's ratings likely had something of a bump because Meltzer was there live. The night of the show he was talking like it was one of the best Manias ever, but when he rewatched it on TV (complete with the Sting-HHH commentary) he cooled off on that a bit.

The problem with averages is that sometimes shows stand out by contrast. WrestleMania 8 and 10 both stand out among the early shows, but they're each literally two great matches, plus a memorable moment at 8. It's not that Tatanka-Rick Martel or Earthquake-Adam Bomb were making the shows better, more that they made the top matches stand out. These days if you don't get at least three **** matches on a Mania you can rightly feel disappointed, but they don't stand out as much.

[BomberPat]

Yeah, it doesn't reflect much to say "this show had a higher overall match quality", because so much of the structure of a show is in managing that ebb and flow of emotion from one match to another, all the way through, so you take the crowd on that emotional journey. And then there's "moments" and spectacle - Meltzer rated Hogan/Andre really badly, and it obviously isn't a "good wrestling match", but to say that Wrestlemania 3 is a poor show because of it is ridiculous, it's exactly the sort of thing you should be doing at 'Mania.

A lot of it probably depends on my age at the time of watching, but I could probably have a decent stab at naming every match on the Wrestlemania 17 card, but I'd struggle to give you the main event of most of them from Wrestlemania 25 onwards, never mind the entire card. I do think part of that is that 17 was better paced, and had the right mix of everything - the "three ring circus" philosophy - whereas recent Wrestlemanias all feel like they've loaded up the top end with big part-timer matches, and then just thrown everyone else on the card wherever they'll fit. It's hard to get invested. I'll take a Gimmick Battle Royal over a "throw all the midcarders in a ladder match" Intercontinental Title clusterfuck any day of the week.

 

52 minutes ago, The King of Old School said:

Just as a side question, has anybody enjoyed the last two Wrestlemania's?

For me, it's gone from the most anticipated event of the year, to "urgh it's going to take me a week to watch the damn thing" now.

In my mind, they have completely ruined it by making it close to 7 hours long including pre show, and there insistence of getting everybody on the card.

It should be close to 4 hours (forget the pre show) and just have 8/9 of the biggest matches available to them.

100% agree with this. The last couple it's felt like a chore to sit through. I'm pretty sure The Rock is still cutting his promo from Wrestlemania 32.

While Wrestlemania was always about spectacle, it feels like in the last couple of years they gave up on booking a coherent show, or a point to bring long-running storylines to a logical, satisfying conclusion, and just started booking a highlight package - and usually a highlight package to appeal to lapsed Attitude Era fans.

[Ambulance Chaser]

Load of shit that, I judge a Wrestling show on what I think of it a year, 5 years or 10 years down the line, the impact it left on me and also it had on the business overall. I don't care if Shelton Benjamin did a flip off a ladder that got 5 stars from Meltzer, I care about seeing Steve Austin and Mike Tyson in the same ring, at the same time.

[Really Big Shoe]

Its very much skewed in favour of newer WrestleManias with their being a leap forward in match quality. Im surprised WM III is rated so lowly. Steamboat/Savage is a 5 star classic IMO plus factor in the build up. Piper/Adonis is memorable and the start of Brutus barber gimmick. The mixed tag with Bundy and Studd, the full nelson match between Herc vs Billy Jack, Jake with Alice Cooper in his corner and Hulk vs Andre to top it off. Its one of my favorite Manias ever and it was a real spectacle back then. Work rate and false finishes are all well and good but with Mania III you had a bit of everything and it was entertaining too. I think WM has started to regain its importance again with the sets and big Stadiums but for a time it just felt like another PPV. Ideally it has to be their high point of the year and stand out from the rest of their programming and events.

[Bukamania]

To be fair, WrestleMania 4 is a horrible show.

[westlondonmist]

I look and see some of the first 10 wrestlemanias being really low. In all fairness some are bad. In the first 4 there are only a hand full of matches I would rewatch. Since I only started getting into watching wrestling in 90 may be why I show little interest in them. Although 8 had some bad matches it had 2  fantastic matches which make it a top notch mania, no idea why that is so low. 6 gets the okay from me purely based on the main event. Some will crap on 7, but I love the Warrior vs Macho Man, one of my favourite matches ever, the opener is good and if you were around at the time the blindfold match was fun.