|
Post by tetsujin on May 15, 2019 10:24:29 GMT -5
I'm extremely demanding with my ratings. I think that there hundreds if very good workers in pro wrestling history and for very good workers, having great matches is kinda easy, so there's a lot of great matches... And just by being great you're not necesarily a top 100 material. So, I consider a great match something I would give 4*. 4'25* are matches that I think are great, but they're coming close to something more than that, something special. ****1/2 are matches that I think are special and the best from a style and/or promotion. That's the note I would give to matches with any flaws, but I do not consider them GOAT contenders. Those are something even more special. 4'75* and of course 5* are those 'better than the best' matches, the masterpieces of pro wrestling. The difference between 4'75* and the full five is that 4'75* matches have one little flaw, maybe a poor booked finish lr a huge botch that took me out of the match, but if that flaw didn't exist it would've been 5*.
So because of all that, my 5* list is kinda short. I even surprise myself having matches like 3/6/94 or 9/6/95 out of the 5* rating. Right now, I have only this matches rated *****:
-Toyota/Yamada vs Ozaki/Kansai, DreamRush -Taue/Misawa, Champion Carnival 95 finals -Naito/Omega, G1 Climax 26
But I REALLY need todo rewatch dozens of classics, so obviously the list will grow.
|
|
|
Post by Cap on May 15, 2019 16:57:50 GMT -5
Yes, you and Elliott both seem to really enjoy blood. I saw a lot of bloody matches nominated by Elliott. I used to be like you. Now, blood itself doesn't reach me. I still like the bloody matches between Abby/Sheik and the Funks because of the use of the fork. But I don't care if two wrestlers bleed because they throw lots of punches. haha... I mean, I don't actually think blood itself is the catalyst to me liking a match. I joke about being a vampire and I like lots of matches that have blood in them, but its part of a much larger approach to wrestling. I think blood can accent and elevate great wrestling, but I can't make a match great on its own. In fact, when it is done poorly I think it can really bring a match down.
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Aug 26, 2020 7:05:57 GMT -5
I was just reminded of how generous I am with stars I guess. Looking at people's completed lists and poking around here a bit this morning, I think I throw stars around a bit more. I have just over 100 5 star matches. I am not actually sure the number right now because I just took notes of some things to move up and down after my homestretch rewatches, but yea... right around there.
I always feel like that isn't a lot at all. It is probably .005% of all the wrestling I have watched at best. Then I see some of you stingy mother fuckers haha. It doesn't really matter in a project like this. Your top 100 is your top 100, so our lists are comparing apples to apples regardless of where we draw the line between snowflakes.
|
|
|
Post by Kadaveri on Aug 26, 2020 7:24:01 GMT -5
This is just my geeky criteria, to me a 5 Star Match has to tick 2 boxes (alongside being absolutely amazing of course). 1. It needs to have 0 moments that take me out of the match e.g. a botch or a section which dragged on too long and 2. It needs to have some unique quality that no other match has. You know how PhDs are supposed to be "original contributions to knowledge"? Well a 5 Star Match should be an original contribution to wrestling.
I've got loads of absolutely amazing matches at 4.75 which I have at that level because they don't meet those two conditions (usually the 2nd is rarer). For example Kota Ibushi vs. Shinsuke Nakamura 01/04/15 is an awesome display of offense with the 'coming of age' story of a wrestler proving his worth against a veteran, but it doesn't really have anything truly unique about it. Bayley vs. Sasha Banks 08/22/15 does contribute something unique with the character dynamics and the historical significance, but there's a couple of awkward moments mechanically which knock it down.
|
|
|
Post by tetsujin on Aug 26, 2020 7:37:58 GMT -5
Those two are very strong points and I try to look for both of them when thinking about the GOATCs, but there's something with the botch thing. I can tolerate a botch the same way I can tolerate strikes not connecting in a real fight, and it's even better when workers took advantage of their botches (Liger/Sasuke or the Battleground Zayn/Owens match being excellent examples). But botches that "expose the bussines" and show that the match is obviously a colaboration between the wrestlers, those I can' stand them.
|
|
|
Post by Kadaveri on Aug 26, 2020 8:01:00 GMT -5
Yeah that kind of thing is why I define it as "moments that take me out of the match." For example a botch where someone sells a punch that blatantly didn't land comes under that category. A "botch" like Liger/Sasuke totally isn't. There probably isn't a match in history that doesn't have some kind of mishap, but if how they're reacted to maintains the integrity of the match then it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Aug 26, 2020 9:21:03 GMT -5
I generally agree with these standards. I've been trying to sort through a more specific way of outlining what makes a 5 star match and a 4.75 etc... and I always sort of end up unsatisfied. Roughly, a 5 star match meets three of the five criteria listed below (listed in order of importance to me), or maybe two if it knocks #1 or #2 out of the park. 1) Is a completely engulfing match I lose myself in, find genuinely special and unique in its quality and its ability to connect emotionally, specifically if it can do this in a vacuum. 2) Is completely organic and singular. This one is sort of tough - the match feels like it is completely unique sum of all the parts - wrestlers, layout, environment, stip, fans, etc - that could only have emerged in that moment and with those wrestlers. 3)Is the epitome of greatness in its genre. The absolute top tier of a style/era of match I have seen. Doesn't have to be #1, but has to strike me the best of a genre in a given way. 4)Is a perfectly executed and organized match that tells a captivating story. 5) Lacks any flaw. No moments that take me out of it. No Botches. No awkwardness. Doesn't feel contrived
Edit: I just thought of another not quite criteria, but maybe a characteristic that is associated with #1 and #2 to me. I heard a podcaster bring this up a few years back and I think it was someone who posts over at PWO, so if it is one of you all or if whoever it was sees this... take credit. Many 5 star matches produce the feeling that whoever loses is going to lose something of themselves. They are putting so much into the match emotionally that they wont come out the same. I think It is one of the strengths of Kobashi (and the other pillars to an extent) and why he winds up on my list so much. He just excels at criteria 1 and 2 to me in part because it feels like he puts everything into his big matches in a way that makes me invest like few others. Lots of other people have that ability to, but he feels like the most obvious example to me.
|
|
|
Post by nintendologic on Oct 26, 2020 15:17:13 GMT -5
It's been said that a great movie is three great scenes and no bad ones. That's basically how I approach matches. To reach all-time status in my eyes, a match should have at least three, lets call them five-star moments and nothing that takes me out of the match or causes me to lose interest.
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Nov 1, 2020 15:34:58 GMT -5
I finally got to update and organize all my dork nonsnese. There was quite a bit of movement (both on and off) on my list in the last few months leading up to submission for 2020 and then right after as I watched some things that caught my eye on the rollout. I updated my list to reflect my most up to date list of 5 star matches. Just over 100 matches (I know I know), but there are a few more I want to rewatch that could get bumped down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2020 23:33:38 GMT -5
I think 6/9/95 is my only five-star match. I feel it's as close to perfection as wrestling will get. Of course, star ratings are a subjective choice but I feel where things get silly is Meltzer handing them out like sweets nowadays compared to back in the day, in (my opinion) a pretty transparent attempt to be down wiv da kidz.
Take the Best Friends v Santana/Ortiz Car Park Brawl. I think it's one of AEW's best matches, no arguments from me there. But if it had happened in 96, the same year as Finlay v Regal I doubt he would have dropped five stars on either match (dunno what rating he gave Fit v Steve but it sure wasn't five).
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Nov 2, 2020 8:34:13 GMT -5
I won't belabor the point too much because I have discussed it elsewhere, but yeah, it is all about what you think a 5 star match is defined by and what the line of distinction is. For me, it doesn't need to be perfect (I'm not even sure how I would judge that). I have had right around 100 for some time now. I've been rating matches since 2014 (I think) and only recently cracked 100 full-marks matches. I'm definitely on the more generous end of the spectrum, but 100 still feels relatively conservative to me. I feel pretty safe in saying I have seen over 10,000 matches in my life. I'm not sure if I have seen 100,000, but it wouldn't SHOCK me (no way of knowing). That puts my 5 star matches somewhere < 1% of all of the matches I have seen (hell, if you added all my 4.75 matches - about 17 - you'd probably still be below 1%). I'm ok with that ratio. That feels rigorous to me. There are tiers to my 100 list so if I really wanted to I could draw a new line in the sand and just bump everything below that line down a quarter star, but naw.... this fits my personality of loving almost every great match. haha I agree on Meltzer. I sort of think Meltzer uses stars a marketing/branding tool anymore. It has helped him remain as relevant as he has in the hot take wrestling culture. I actually wrote a lenthy post on PWO years ago about it that more or less still captures what I think of Meltzer and his star rating: forums.prowrestlingonly.com/topic/9754-dave-meltzer-stuff/?do=findComment&comment=5811044 I see everyone's star ratings (including big Dave) as 1) a reflection of their taste and 2) a list of their most highly recommended matches based on that taste. I think its fun. I like rating, seeing other people's ratings, and finding stuff I haven't seen. Edit: That is totally spot on about that street fight too. My go-to podcast is whatculture and one of their dudes was singing its praises as a potential 5 star match, so maybe it isn't JUST Dave, but where I think he (and others) tend to be generous to the contemporary product, I try to be somewhat conservative till a match is at least 3-5 years old. I've given things the full five quickly (just see my list), but more often than not I cap a lot of matches just under that and if I continue to return to them and think they actually get better with a little space between me and the match, I'll bump it (Super Dragon v Necro, Bryan v HHH, Bryan v Brock for example.
|
|
|
Post by [Darren] on Oct 6, 2021 21:42:38 GMT -5
I am not a fan of a quarter star system. . I use the typical stars but I think of it more in terms of the grade letter scale and half stars denote on the high end.
***** = S Tier
**** = A
***= B
**= C
* = D
I haven’t officially rated any match yet. So, we’ll see how well that works.
I like to think most matches in general fall in the 2-3 star range snd 5’s are extremely rare and feel easily identifiable. Whereas a 4 star match is just simply great without necessarily being transcendent. I can’t remember where I read it but I liked someone saying that a 5 star match should be like a Ph.D. It should contribute something unique to the world of professional wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by Grimmas on Nov 21, 2021 20:45:48 GMT -5
I rank out of 10. I have 15 matches that hit that 10 level. You have to be essentially perfect to make that.
|
|