If I Can Be Serious For A Moment 08.11.09: The Other Ratings War

Posted by Chris Lansdell on 08.11.2009

Is Hardy-Morrison 4 or 4 and a half stars? Was Flair-HBK really five stars? Why the answer to these questions shouldn't matter.

Welcome back to If I Could Be Serious for a Moment, your weekly dose of intelligent wrestling discourse with me, Chris Lansdell. Has anyone else noticed that it's been an incredibly hectic summer for wrestling? You've got Angle and Jarrett playing Pass the Partner, Raw running through B- and C-Listers as hosts, Smackdown being awesome, ECW preparing the next wave for Smackdown and RoH putting on incredible matches and strong shows. Not that I'm complaining of course. Just saying. Besides, I have a strong feeling that by the end of this column, there are going to be some people who aren't too happy with me. Nothing new there of course.

BANNER!



Let's delay the inevitable a little, shall we?

Serious Feedback

The whole guest host thing is like a cheap Saturday Night live thing. Alot of similiarities. Both shows are live. They have similiar names. And now that Monday Night Raw has guest hosts is just seems very cheesy. Well one thing is for sure. We wont have a i hate my boss storylines any time soon on raw.

Posted By: Brandon (Guest) on August 04, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I don't know, I think we've had an "I hate my boss" angle most weeks since the guest GM thing started, albeit one-week affairs. I think you're stretching it a bit on the similarities between Raw and SNL, but I get that for which you are going.

I think the biggest problem with the guests that haven't worked is that they had no kayfabe motivation. Batista and Million Dollar Man had obvious motivation because their characters already had built up relationships and rivalries with people on the show. Seth Green was goaded into a match and then had to heroically get over his fears of being absolutely clobbered by much bigger people.

And these were the three best hosts.

Give the hosts a character. Don't just have them come out with all this power to perform business as usual. It is boring and it makes it difficult to suspend disbelief.

Posted By: Troy (Guest) on August 04, 2009 at 01:44 PM

I enjoyed Shaq more than Seth Green. In fact, I would pay to see Shaq in that role full-time. I've been pulling for him vs Big Show since Mania 24, and now that it's finally happened (well, they had a confrontation anyway) I can't help but wonder why they never did this before. The problem with giving the hosts a character is that they would have to spend time telling us what that character is. It's very hard to introduce a new character and make people understand him in a few segments.

I doubt it will happen, but I'd love Bret Hart to show up.

Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on August 04, 2009 at 01:59 PM

They'd have to do it before the inevitable Shawn Michaels comeback. Frankly if they were going to do it, this past Raw would have been the time. The pop he would have received in Calgary might just have blown the roof off. As much as I like Bret, I don't think he'd be good in this role. He was never what you'd consider a good talker, and is now even less of one following the stroke.


The only snafu is that if Macho Man did show up as a guest host it would be crazy to make it a surprise. This guy hasn't been on WWE TV in over 15 years so advertising it a whole week (maybe 2) before is strongly suggested.

Other than that I love the ideas for guest hosts. Here are some of my own:

Brooke Hogan: This would be later down the line, she would be schilling a CD. Hey why not bring Ashley and Glenn! The Hogan divorce "angle" that was played out so publicly should be getting a much needed thank you for "Brook Know's Best's" popularity so many of those fans will make the move over to USA to see the Brooke even if they just know Hulkster as the "pro wrestling father" much less than they know of Brooke. If Hulk does plan on coming back for "one more match" Brooke's inclusion on Raw could help ease the Hulkster back in. This would probably happen sometime around the road to Wrestlemania.

Floyd Mayweather: This would be a match made in heaven. Money Mayweather is planning on coming out of retirement and is expected to get his first fight back under his belt in the next few months. What a better way to plug his big PPV bout that will draw millions. So much history to go back on here. Hell we could do Big Show-Floyd Mayweather II. Maybe even a sparring session for Floyd that gets crashed by the Big Show. Floyd Mayweather in WWE is intriguing television.

Bret Hart: Here's a stretch for ya but I could see it for sure. One problem is he's vowed to never appear in a WWE ring or arena ever again. If he's changed his mind on those comments that would be great but I'm doubting that a little. Instead his promos and vignettes could be shot on location although that would be a huge let down for everyone. So if that was the case he could be a guest assistant to a guest host already scheduled and he books a match or 2.

Terrell Owens: His reality show is already out but I'm sure he won't be doing much in Buffalo once January rolls around so bring him aboard. If there happens to be a Raw scheduled in SanFran, Philly, or Dallas then even better. Owens could really be a strong heel and put a baby face over just on interactions alone.

Make-a-Wish: This would be a good thing for WWE to do even though they've already done this on Raw. Have a celeb who's into helping a good cause come out basically as a mouth piece for one or many Make-a-Wish kids who will be Raw guest hosts for the night. My choice celeb would be Lance Armstrong cause of his ties with LiveStrong. He may not be the most charismatic guy but people will care. It would be a great feel good thing to do and if it gets some pub then even better. Although nobody outside of wrestling would know that they go over and entertain the troops every December cuz the WWE is "full of big bad meanies"

Posted By: Justin (Guest) on August 04, 2009 at 02:05 PM

I agree that advertising Savage beforehand would do wonders for the rating, but for sheer shock value you have to admit that having Savage come out (even without Stephanie on his arm) would send the internet into a frenzy.

I never want to see Brooke Hogan on any WWE program, and I do not want to see another Hulk Hogan comeback match. Hulk as GM, OK. Nick as GM, sure. The interaction with Legacy alone would be priceless (pun intended), "Randy, Teddy, my dad used to beat up your dads for fun. Cody, your dad never even deserved a shot." I wouldn't mind Mayweather provided he keeps the talking to a minimum. His horrible promo before his match with Show (you know, where he made one or two mentions of breaking Show's jaw) almost killed the match before it had a chance. We addressed Bret above, and Make-a-Wish has been done, but I REALLY like the idea of TO. He's a freakish athlete, has a natural charisma and is the kind of person who could get physically involved and not look stupid doing it.

I'd love to see a guest host that is a serious(ly good) actor like Patrick Stewart or Kelsey Grammer and script them a promo (get Shawn Michaels and Chris Jericho to co-write it) that made them look like they knew what they were doing, and could actually get people emotionally invested in a young superstar, instead of just popping the rating.

Posted By: Loki (Guest) on August 05, 2009 at 07:56 AM

While I would love to see either of those gentlemen on Raw, especially Patrick Stewart who has added relevance due to his role on American Dad, let's face it: it's not going to happen. They just don't fit. Then again, neither does Bob Barker and he's rumoured to be on the list of potentials.

Right, on with the show!

Rating on my nerves

So you want to annoy some people? Want to start a sure-fire war in the comments section? There are a few ways to do it, but this week we're looking at one that has been discussed a lot recently: match ratings. Take a look at some examples:

From Dunn's review of Joe vs Punk II:

Well I'm convinced that we'll never see a five star review from you again. If this, Taker/Michaels, and Richards/KENTA don't warrant the full boat, then I don't know what does anymore.

Main event here is my favourite ROH match, but that changes from month to month.

Posted By: The REAL MP (Registered) on August 07, 2009 at 01:03 PM

I honestly think that JD Dunn is being nice giving the ratings he did for those matches. And KENTA vs Davey Richards was not even really close to being *****'s. If you want a true 5 star match, watch Steamboat vs Flair 2/3 falls, or Kawada vs Misawa 94....

Posted By: ajpwandnwa4life (Guest) on August 07, 2009 at 01:53 PM

From my Smackdown (July 31) review:

i dont understand why the jeff vs morrison is the best match you have seen this year morrison carried jeff during the match jeff didnt sell and he botched a couple of moves the match was good but not great nothing i would die to see i gave the match 3.5 stars there are alot more of better matches like taker vs shawn

Posted By: Ryden (Guest) on July 31, 2009 at 10:35 PM

If I had hours, I could find numerous examples of being called various things because of a rating I have given a match, and I wouldn't be alone there either. What I'm aiming to do here is to look at how matches are rated. Not just by me but by some other prominent (and some prolific!) 411 writers, somewhat in the vein of the Wrestler of the Week Supplemental column. We'll also take a look at why arguing over ratings really makes no sense whatsoever. Let's dive in!

The "average need not apply" approach

We'll start with the under-appreciated Mike Campbell, who reviews mainly NWA and Japanese shows as well as local promotion 2CW. Campbell is reputed to be one of the tougher reviewers on the site. Not only is he tough, but his system is unique.

My ratings are determined on how good I think the match was, not necesarilly how much I enjoyed it. I've enjoyed plenty of matches that I'd probably not rate very highly. I also don't bother with rating matches that I feel are under ***. I choose to rate that way because it's generally accepted that *** would put something in the "good" range. I don't personally see why it's necessary to debate the merits of something being ** or **1/2 since they're both subpar. Other people rate on the full * - ***** scale, and that's cool, it's just not my thing.

I look for the following things while I'm reviewing:

Storytelling: My favorite aspect of wrestling. In short, it's the reason why wrestler A does a certain move or spot to wrestler B. Whether it's body part work, like Randy Orton softening up HHH's neck for the RKO, or Umaga attacking John Cena's previously injured ribs. Storytelling can also show up in other ways though, such as Kenta Kobashi using extended headlocks to slowly wear down Minoru Suzuki. Another one that I really like is playing off previous matches or angles. Great Muta attacked Lex Luger from behind and blew the mist in his face, so when Muta tries again, Lex ducks or covers his eyes to avoid it. If they do something for a clear and concise reason, then it's good.
Believability: I know it's a work, but I don't want it made clearly obvious. I don't mean believable like UFC, but when they stuff they do makes sense. Big Show tossing around Rey Mysterio like a lawn dart and then getting pinned with a small package isn't believable. Little Guido trying to do a Northern Lights suplex that wouldn't touch the chair he just set up in the ring, only for Super Crazy to DDT him onto the chair doesn't look believable. Yuji Nagata countering Masato Tanaka's Sliding D into an arm bar looks very believable (and awesome).
Selling: It's the same as believability to a degree. If Randy Orton spends ten minutes singling out HHH's back, then HHH shouldn't just forget about it because he's on offense. He doesn't need to be crippled or anything, but at least make the effort to recognize that it happened.
Execution: This is another extension of believability, the actual wrestling needs to look good. Don't throw punches like you're trying to not break a nail and that look like you're knocking on a door. There's times that ugly offense can be forgivable. If Rey Mysterio gives Big Show a rana, it probably shouldn't look as crisp as if he was giving it to Juvi, but that's the exception and not the rule.
I determine a rating by weighing the value (or lack of value) of the aforementioned criteria against other things that I've seen. If I think it's worth three or more, then it's assigned the rating. If not, then no rating.

It's tough to disagree with any of these criteria, so I won't. I'll save my thought process for the end of this section, but there are a couple of minor differences between mine and Mike's that can make a large difference in the final snowflake count.

The "it just felt like one" approach"

The next reviewer needs no introduction: he is Dunn. The most prolific reviewer on the site quite possibly, and one with his own unique style: Dunn's match reviews rarely go over a short paragraph. Contrast this to, say, mine, which are REALLY long. His reviews focus on the highlights of the match and what made him take notice. It's little surprise then that his marking system is similarly focused:

A lot of people are pretty scientific with their ratings, but I just think of them as a visual representation of the quality of the match. I think too many people read too much into the ratings. When I read reviews, usually I just skim to see if anything stands out - either with a high rating or with someone I'm interested in reading about. I think most people probably read the same way. Star ratings just give a good in-point to catch the reader's attention.

Outside of that little philosophical rule, I pretty much eyeball it. A lot of things go into a great match - hard work, great booking, crowd heat, etc.. One of the most important things that seems to be a dying art is creativity. Most of the matches you see are between two guys who come up with a list of spots they like to do and they just run through the list until it's time for the finish. That's why guys like Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho, Austin Aries and Davey Richards have had standout years. Where you expect them to go through the motions, they completely change things up. It may not
seem like a big deal, but eventually even the most awe-inspiring spots become cliché.

I love that last line because it's so true. There was a time when watching someone go through a table from the top rope would have made me lose it. Now it's almost not enough to elicit a gasp.

The "start at 5 and come down" approach

Given that he writes very rarely for the site these days and gives ratings even more rarely, the inclusion of Ryan Byers in this column might seem strange. However he's another tough reviewer, but in a different way from Campbell. He also has a different take on ratings from almost anyone else I know.

First of all, I should probably note that I don't take match ratings all too seriously. In some ways I hate giving them out, because my thought has always been that if I'm doing a writeup on a match and the reader cannot tell how much I enjoyed it based on reading my writeup, either I'm not doing my job or the reader is too lazy to pay attention. The other reason that I am not the biggest fan of star ratings is the fact that, at least in my mind, the purpose of the rating is to indicate how good a particular match was in terms of its pure "workrate," e.g. how technically proficient the wrestlers involved were in putting together an in-ring performance with little to no consideration of other factors. In that regard, the star rating does not always paint an accurate picture of how much I enjoyed a particular match.

For example, I can be immensely entertained if I am watching a Kikutaro comedy match, even though I do not feel comfortable giving it a high star rating because it does not fit within the standard confines of what one would normally call an entertaining in-ring performance. Similarly, I can watch a match featuring a wrestler like Davey Richards or Shelton Benjamin and recognize that the match is highly athletic and perhaps even contains "good psychology," but I will still be utterly bored due to the performers' lack of gripping personalities. In that instance, I will feel compelled to give a high rating due to the technical quality of the performance, even though I would probably never want to watch the match again.

With that huge disclaimer out of the way, rating matches is sort of a comparative process for me. I generally start by thinking about the greatest matches that I have ever seen. Those, of course, are the ***** matches. The question that I then ask myself is, "Well, how did the match that I just saw compare to the greatest matches of all time?" If it is close, it gets to be in the **** range. If it is almost there but missing one fairly major thing or several smaller things, it can go in the *** range. If it is average, it will net **1/2, with those matches slightly above average and slightly below average occupying other points in the ** range. Anything under ** is a fair deal below average. I generally do not bust out the dreaded negative stars or the DUD rating unless a match completely fails to be what it is trying to be or unless it is so insulting to my intelligence that I actually get angry. Basically, I start my thought process at the ***** level and then make an appropriate downward adjustment so that the rating matches up with what I have just watched.

I should probably also point out that I know some people who, in rating matches, will take in to consideration the type of show on which a match is occurring. For example, some people will rate a five minute free television match more highly when it occurs on an episode of Monday Night Raw than they would if the exact same match was on a pay per view, with the reasoning being that wrestlers will never get the same opportunities to perform on free TV that they do on a bigger stage. I do not do that. In my mind, all matches from the same time period are rated against the same standards regardless of who is involved or where they are taking place. That is why I will rarely give an typical undercard match on free television in 2009 more than ** . . . the wrestlers just aren't given the chance to perform at a higher level most of the time.

It's a shame that anyone feels they have to review a match a certain way. The key to Byers' ratings scale is that he considers many things to be major things. He has a very analytical mind and can quickly assess what he's seen from multiple angles, thinking of things that just wouldn't occur to most people. I reckon he'd make an excellent lawyer.

The "perfection is attainable" method

Hubbard can write. Once he stopped preaching, I was actually able to read his columns and dude's not bad. That being said, you need at least a bachelor's degree to figure out how he rates what. That, or this handy-dandy guide!

First, I think I should point out that my stars system is a little different than most. A **1/2 match is NOT half as good as a ***** match; it's just an average match. I'm also more willing to give a match ***** than most people: if I think the match is a classic, I give it the full boat. However, I also use the *****+ rating for the truly perfect matches, and I've only given it to four matches. Some people might not like that, as some would rather those matches be the only ones I rate *****, but I rate for myself, not others.

Here is my priority:

1) Storytelling: I will not give five stars to a match without a story. This doesn't necessarily have to mean that there has to be "body part psychology", just that there is a story being told by the competitors. It doesn't have to be "Citizen Kane" either. A four star match with a well told simple story can be ***** (see: Unbreakable Three-Way). More importantly, storytelling covers up a multitude of ineptitude. Matches like Hogan-Andre or Warrior-Savage aren't great matches if judged by workrate or innovation, but they have great stories. I also hate when matches have long segments or big spots that don't contribute to the story or don't make sense (see: Jericho-HBK, ladder match). The moves need to mean something and be important.

2) Execution: I am very unforgiving of botched moves. I didn't give Taker-HBK five stars because the tornado DDT was TERRIBLE. This is one of those rare instances where bad execution can break a match, but great execution can't really make a classic. Occasionally, I'll forgive a botch if the wrestler's cover well. For instance, Benoit once hit a catapult on Eddie Guerrero, but Guerrero didn't go far enough and hit the turnbuckle with an elbow, but both wrestlers covered nicely by making the arm a focus of the match. In general, I won't even bring this up unless there were terrible botches, but if there are botches, it's one of the first things I bring up.



3) Selling: This is pretty straight-forward. This is more in regards to injuries and "working over a body part" as opposed to selling every move. If a certain move is not sold for the sake of a story (fighting spirit, disrespect), I'm cool with it. But if Flair puts someone in a figure-four for five minutes after working the leg for ten, the other guy better limp for the next half-hour at least. Also, if a wrestler goes above and beyond to sell a body part (i.e. Low Ki hitting kawada kicks, hurting his injured leg and switching to headbutts), I will definitely take note of it. Adequate selling doesn't help a match, but excellent selling certainly can.

4) Intangibles: This is a little harder to explain. If a match has something special about it that's not so much a part of the ring work (like a raucous crowd), I'll reward the match for it. I'm a firm believer that bad crowds don't take away from matches, but great crowds can ADD to a match. This also takes into account booking. If a match is outstandingly booked (like the 2004 Royal Rumble), I'll reward it, but if it's poorly booked, that can detract from the match. This also takes into account historical value and relevance, whether to wrestling as a whole (Austin-Bret), a promotion (Joe-Kobashi) or even a style of wrestling (HHH vs. Cactus Jack). This is also where things like innovation and great finishes are weighed in. Basically, anything that can't be described by the first three is here.

5) Personal Bias: Hey, at least I'm honest. In general, my favourites are picked because they are great storytellers, have great execution, sell well, and have the it factor. So you could say the way I rate matches leads directly to my biases. But eventually, those biases will affect my match ratings. Like I said, I don't rate matches for other people, I rate them for ME. So fair warning: I'm going to enjoy Eddie Guerrero, Undertaker, Misawa, Flair, Castagnoli and Danielson matches more than the average person. Also, if a match has a (well executed) Dragon Suplex, it gets an extra 1/2* on principal. Not literally, but I tend to enjoy matches that have my favourite moves more than ones I don't.

The Undertaker sells well? I guess it depends who you are. Still, you can count me in the camp of people who don't think a five plus is necessary. We'll get to why...now.

The Lansdell Approach

I base my entire rating system on something I once read in a video games magazine in the UK. They said that a game receiving a perfect score (5/5 in their case) was not necessarily a perfect game, it was just a very very good one. If you rate, say, Halo 2 or Savage-Steamboat from Mania 3 as ***** and say it was the perfect game/match, what do you do when something better comes along a few years later? If a match gets the full boat from me, it's because it transported me, excited me, suspended my belief and engrossed me. Unlike many of my colleagues, a match that does all these things can overcome things like botches or inconsistent selling to earn the five. For me a five-star match doesn't have to be the greatest match ever, it just has to do something for me. A match that is just average is automatically **½.

I can't really rate one criterion over another. I want the guys (or girls) in the ring to tell a story, but I also want excitement. For example, Ultimate Warrior vs Randy Savage at WrestleMania VII told a great story of two guys working on a body part all match long. Ric Flair vs Shawn Michaels told an even better story of Flair going DEEP into the playbook and the "intestinal fortitude" (God bless you Gorilla) to keep his career alive against one of his biggest fans. On the other hand, if your story is "Randy Orton really likes chinlocks", then I'm not going to enjoy it so much.



I want an intelligent progression of moves, but I do need something in the match that makes me sit bolt upright. That's not necessarily someone getting dropped on their head, just something crisp, impactful, smooth, different or innovative. John Morrison breaking out moves he hadn't used in a while in an effort to get the biggest win of his career is an example of that.
On the other hand, pretty much every Jack Evans match is the opposite: spots for the sake of spots. While these matches will often rate above average due to the excitement, you'll never see a spotfest break **** in my books.

A match needs to draw me in, and the best way to do that is near falls. I know it's clichéd but the excitement level of a close pin or a guy barely making the ropes adds a lot to the match for me. I like to see a variety of moves. The use of "rest holds" won't bother me if they vary them. It's really not hard to use a chinlock, a chancery, a neck vise, a Buffalo sleeper and then a dragon sleeper instead of chinlock...chinlock...chinlock...chinlock.

The term"psychology" is overused by internet pundits, but when I say I want good psychology I mean that the match needs to do sensible things. Like Campbell said, if a chair is set up then the person who set it should make an effort to use it. If a guy goes into a match with a bad back, then his opponent should not spend the match working the arm. Picking up on cues during the match and being able to call audibles. Using everything available to tell your story in the ring.

Although I'm a bit more liberal with stars than some (probably due to my lack of willingness to let go of my early fandom), I'm not as quick to give out five-spots as Hubbard. Once a match falls short of drawing me in totally, it doesn't take long to shed the flakes. A match that just falls short of captivating me is getting in the four range, yet I think I've given more fives than four and three-quarters. There's very little I can think of that would cause a match to lose just a quarter star.

Just to give you some perspective: I haven't seen a five-star match yet this year. In fact, I've rated nothing above four and a half yet, and that was Morrison-Hardy. That doesn't mean I haven't loved some of the matches, it just means they haven't done what I needed them to do. It should be mentioned that I missed a lot of Smackdown and haven't seen any of the standout RoH matches of the year yet, except Black-Danielson III which was horribly overrated. Good match yes. Great match, maybe.

So what does it all mean?

So in case you hadn't guessed, the whole point of this column was to point out the futility of arguing over match ratings. We each of us rate matches according to different criteria, and with so many subjective elements, that it all boils down to an opinion. Sure you might see me, Dunn, Slimmer and Csonka rate a match within a quarter star of each other, but we will have different reasons for doing so. It's an opinion, basically. Disagree if you must, state your opinion and your reasoning, and encourage some healthy conversation. That's why we have a Comments section.

Moment over. Twitter!

Lansdell on Twitter, for great justice!
http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma

And that, my friends, is that. Next week we're taking a look at TNA's new direction, followed by a threat to RoH that is in the works.

Stay Cool, Rock Hard. Lansdellicious – Out.