I’ve heard and read a lot of wrestling talk (and talk about wrestling, www.shiningwizards.com Son!) and there seems to be a general acceptance of not only Dave Meltzer’s opinions about wrestling (which is fine; different strokes and all), but also his vaunted Five-Star match rating system.
And frankly, that pisses me off.
First of all, it isn’t really a Five-Star system. Maybe it started out that way, I don’t know, but it’s now a Twenty-Star system thanks to the inclusion of 1/4 and 1/2 stars. What the fuck is 1/2 a star??
I’ll tell you what it is, it’s a cheap tool used by gutless people who don’t have the balls to call it like they see it.
Does Meltzer or anyone else who uses this bullshit system really expect us to believe that a wrestling match can be broken down to such minute detail that there is actually a difference of such significance between two matches that they must be separated by one-quater of a star? Are you fucking kidding me??
No, apparently they’re not kidding. Because everyone just swallows this garbage. You see it all the time. Keyboard jockeys like me posting their “reviews” on Twitter giving matches “3 and 1/4 stars” or taking the time to video record themselves for their YouTube channels so they can say with a straight face that this match “could’ve been a five-star classic, but I’m giving it four and a half.” How about giving yourself four and half? Years off from humanity, that is.
Secondly, the system is completely arbitrary. What’s the criteria of a “five-star classic”? And what can drop a five-star classic down to four and a half? Who the fuck knows? The criteria for judging under Meltzer’s system has never been clearly defined. Not even by Meltzer himself. But that hasn’t stopped people from using it. I doubt they even know why they give out the ratings that they do. All depends on whether they were having their fanboy period that day or not, I guess.
But I didn’t come here just to piss on what someone else has done without offering an alternative. And in all seriousness I would like to say that I hope my alternative catches on. Because frankly, who is Dave Meltzer? And why should we give two shits about what he has to say about anything? He’s just another guy with another opinion. His is no more valid than yours or mine. He has his preferences that sway his ratings just like we all do. So fuck him and his standard.
It’s time to establish a better grading criteria. And with that in mind I give you….
HANDSOME DAN’S FIVE-STAR SYSTEM
I know. Profound, right? But let’s face it, people use a star system to grade everything. I thought about going with something more unique but stars are easy and besides, the problem isn’t what you use, but how you use it. So let’s go.
No Star –
- A bad match. A botchfest. Something that robs the crowd of all it’s energy. Think CM Punk vs. Elijah Burke from WWECW. Not familiar with that match? Oh, you’re in for a treat. Here’s a just a taste.
One Star –
- The basic match you would see on Raw or Smackdown. Can’t honestly be called “bad” but nothing special either. If you saw Raw this week, all of those matches, with the exception of the six-man tag, were One Star matches.
Two Star –
- In Meltzer’s system, two stars is looked upon as mediocre. I disagree. Every star should above one should be an improvement upon mediocre. In my system, if a match isn’t bad (No Star), and it’s better than average (One Star), it’s what I like to call Textbook. That six-man tag team match last night, thanks in large part to Daniel Bryan’s ten-second flurry, was elevated from your basic, run-of-the-mill match, to something that truly captured the crowd’s imagination and got them emotionally invested. Lots of factors play a part in elevating a match to Two-Star status: perfect match length, plaement on the card, crowd response. It’s not just about what takes place inside the ring. A Two-Star match can contain botches as long as they aren’t so glaring that they distract from the overall experience. A Textbook match is your basic, fun wrestling match.
Three Star –
- A Textbook or Two-Star match that is elevated to a Three-Star match because of something memorable that occured: a significant title change (not just any title change; because these days they throw belts around like old women throw panties at a Tom Jones concert), a big name match-up, a major industry milestone. It should meet the criteria of a basic, fun wrestling match, but because of the significance of it, it’s more memorable. Which is why I’ve titled the Three-Star match, Memorable. The best example I can think of this is Hollywood Hogan vs. The Rock at WrestleMania X8. It wasn’t a technical classic, they didn’t push the boundaries of athleticism, but the atmosphere of that event was so electric, it has to be called more than just Textbook. It was Memorable.
Four Stars –
- A Textbook (Two-Star) match can leap-frog Memorable (Three-Star) status right up to Four-Star status simply because sometimes there are matches that take place that are so good as to almost be called great, but because of their placement on the card, the lack of reputation of the participants, the lack of notoriety of the promotion, they aren’t as memorable as say, Hogan vs. Rock. Now, there are some Four-Star matches that have gotten the recognition they deserve and have stood the test of time and almost always get mentioned in conversations of exceptional matches of the past. One example would be Ricky “The Dragon” Steamboat vs. “Macho Man” Randy Savage from WrestleMania III. Those two pushed the limits of athletic performance and storytelling to the degree that the match can truly be called exceptional. Which also happens to be what I’ve title the Four-Star match, Exceptional. A match enters this lofty company almost entirely based on what takes place inside the ring. The other factors do play a part as well, but to seriously be considered for Four-Star status, the wrestlers need to have pushed the limits to some extent. I’m not talking about extreme high spots, because those can take away from a good match just as easily as they can add to it, in my opinion. But pushing the limits of the ordinary Textbook match. Giving a little more. A recent example of this that I can think of would be the CM Punk vs. John Cena match from Raw, February 25th. It probably won’t be readily recalled by most fans in a few years because WWE isn’t going to constantly remind us of it the way they do the more “storied” match-ups of the past. But those two gave a little more than your standard Textbook match. They definitely pushed the limits of athleticism and entertainment. And the result was a truly Exceptional match and deserving of being called Four-Star quality.
Five Star –
- This is the rareified air reserved for those matches that can truly be called Great. I’m afraid we throw the term “great” around far too loosely. The proof?
- Great is a word that should be reserved for essentially what amounts to the perfect match. Like with the other ratings, what makes a match perfect doesn’t always depend upon what happens inside the ring. It can be the significance of the match at the time that it occurred that elevates it, something that is hard for fans watching retroactively to fully appreciate or even comprehend. But the bottom line is, the decision to declare a match a “Five-Star Classic” is not something that should be taken lightly. In my system, there’s no shame in Four-Star status. An Exceptional match is just that. But does it deserve to be called Great? I don’t think there should be a lot of Great matches. Even the one match that comes to mind that I would be tempted to award Five Stars, I hesitate on simply because I’m not sure if it truly deserves the honor. But just for shits and gigs, that would be Shawn Michaels vs. Kurt Angle at WrestleMania 21. The reason I consider this the perfect match is because there was the big stage (WrestleMania), the big names, the total absence of outside interfence, no gimmicks or special stipulations, it was the perfect length, and it had a clean finish (those last two almost make it sound dirty. See? You weren’t the only one who was thinking it!) To me, all of those factors are what elevate it above matches like Steamboat – Savage.
But the beauty of my system, is the final decision is up to you. We’re the only ones that really care in the long run. We do this simply for our enjoyment as fans. It’s fun to bring these things up for debate every now and then. Only now you no longer have to be frustrated at the criteria no longer being clearly defined. Instead of having to listen to Steve or Joe being able to insist upon Mankind vs. Undertaker being a Four-Star match “just because” and having no way to argue back, NOW you can say, “Listen asshole, according to Handsome Dan’s Five-Star System, that match was clearly a Three-Star Memorable so you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!”
Okay, you don’t have to mention my name. But it would be cool if you did. And maybe you agree with those assholes, Steve and Joe. And you think that Undertaker vs. Mankind really was a Four-Star Classic. Go nuts! That’s up to you. But let’s start making sense when we talk about the things that we love, like wrestling. And let’s stop paying homage to the critics who have come before by simply taking everything they did and running with it. There’s no harm in establishing our own standards. Especially if they’re better.
Is that it? Ohhhh no! This is only the beginning. I plan on posting match reviews right here on Wrestling Rambles. Because I’m going to drive this point home like it’s Super Bowl Sunday, my team won and my wife is drunk! Or something like that.
But for now, that is the Last Word. Don’t be shy. Tell me what you think about Handsome Dan’s Five-Star System and tell your friends about it and see if they don’t think it’s cool, and that you’re cool as a result for mentioning it to them. Until next time, you adorable wrestling fans…..discuss!
[Follow Handsome Dan Lopez on Twitter, @DansLastWord. And check out his personal wrestling blog, Handsome Dan’s Last Word.]
awesome, once again. Scott Keith actually set up his criteria as to the 5-star system he uses, but even has he has aged he has changed his opinions a bit. Which is the point, it’s anyone’s opinion, so long as they have some standards to go on.
LikeLike
It’s hard to say what’s a “bad” match or a “good” match, other than the obvious. My whole issue with the “star system” is it can get so technical, i.e. it must have “this” many spots, it must have “this” many counter, it must have “this” exact booking, etc.; that you forget why you got into wrestling in the first place: to watch a couple of sweaty guys, wearing tights and wrestling around for my enjoyment…ok, that didn’t come out right, but you know what I mean.
LikeLike
I don’t like it when people refuse to make a match five stars because of minor things. Like refusing to give five stars to Cena-Brock because Cena won or refusing to give five stars to Punk-Cena because some of the moves were botchy or refusing to give five stars to Lesnar-Angle because Lesnar botched the shooting star press (real excuses by people explaining why they didn’t rate those matches higher). I would never say, “I was going to give this match five stars but that DQ finish ruined it so four and a half stars.”
LikeLike
I give “stars” based on my enjoyment.
LikeLike
I’m too generous with my system compared to yours. I start at one star…that’s the lowest I will go. To me, no stars means nothing happened in the match. The way I see it, every time a wrestler enters the ring, they are putting their health at risk so it’s really insulting to give them no stars. I guess I could give a match no stars but the match would have to be so bad that anyone could have done that match with or without training.
Here’s how I see it:
One aka poor: A terrible match. I feel like I wasted my time watching that garbage. See 90% of Divas matches.
Two aka fair: A match that isn’t bad, but it’s not good either. It’s okay or average. See a R-Truth vs. Wade Barrett match.
Three aka good: Better than average. A match I liked. I might not see it again, but it was worth seeing once. See a Dolph Ziggler vs. Kofi Kingston match.
Four aka very good: A match I would want to see more than once. I had a lot of fun watching it and would recommend it to others. See a Daniel Bryan vs. Dolph Ziggler match.
Five aka excellent: A match that is unique and is not similar to other matches. People could try to recreate the match, but it wouldn’t quite be as good because it would be impossible to recreate some of the moments that happened during the match. Matches that will be forever remembered and never forgotten. See Taker-Mankind HIAC, Punk-Cena MitB, Rock-Austin WM17.
LikeLike
Good points brought up by everyone.
To address what Kegger said, you’re actually more lenient in your distribution of stars, but I think I end up being more lenient with my definitions. As in your case, a three or four star match might be something seen on weekly tv often and easily forgotten as opposed to something more memorable like Hogan-Rock or Steamboat-Savage.
I think the beauty of having well-defined criteria, whether you tailor it to suit your tastes or just accept mine, is you’re able to have better discussions about either classic matches or what you saw on Raw just last week.
It really becomes more applicable to when you start comparing the best matches in debates over which was better. Perhaps that’s not something you’re even into. But some fans really enjoy having those conversations.
LikeLike
“As in your case, a three or four star match might be something seen on weekly tv often”
I would say a three star match happens on weekly TV about a few times each month and a four star match happens on weekly TV about a few times every 6 months.
LikeLike
Also for Kegger, I’ve read enough testimonies from wrestlers themselves who are honest about knowing when they stunk out the joint. Giving a match a No Star rating has nothing to do with a lack of respect for the risks these guys take. It’s all meant in fun. Even the example I gave of Punk and Burke, that match is probably worthy of more rewatches than most “good” simply for sheer comedic value.
Bottom line, I never take myself too seriously as a wrestling “critic”. Which was the chief motivation for why I wrote the piece. People like Meltzer have become so revered but all he’s doing is commenting on wrestling. Like, seriously? Get over it, people!
LikeLike
If someone like Bret Hart gives a match no stars, it’s okay, but I don’t think they would like hearing it from fans with no wrestling experience.
LikeLike
Bret gives most matches a 4/10…
LikeLike
I honestly don’t think they care. The ones who do care are usually derided as being marks for themselves.
I’m opposed to the notion that fans can’t judge what they’re watching. If something isn’t entertaining me, I should be able to say so. No one has a problem with a paying customer saying, “That movie sucked.” They don’t say, “Well, you’re not an actor so you can’t criticize.” The idea that a fan can’t judge the quality of a match is bullshit. It’s not a lack of respect. I have the utmost respect for wrestlers and wrestling. I think in it’s highest form (and I don’t just mean in the ring) wrestling is the greatest form of sport or entertainment in the world. But as a paying customer who has watched, read, and listened to countless matches and insider opinions from wrestlers, managers, trainers, etc. I have at least enough insight to say whether or not a match was good or bad.
LikeLike
The only issue with a “This movie sucks!” thing is too many people say it as fact, not opinion. It’s never a “I didn’t care for it.” or “Not my thing.” type that you hear.
LikeLike
Nice rant my man! haha.
Firstly, I agree…his 5 star system is pointless. The thing is, he built up a reputation of giving very few matches 5-stars so it was a big deal back then when a match got rated 5 stars. And it annoys me that he’s a big deal to peoples’ opinions but a lot of websites were created because of people like him. I guess some people inspired by him to do so. I started this website because I loved how TJR and InfamousJcity were done. That inspired me.
Your system seems great and I love how Tony’s is done too. I rarely disagree with how he rates matches.
Awesome work!
LikeLike
I think there needs to be an official 5 star system for everyone to follow. Too often, a match I thought was really good gets two and a half stars. And a match I thought was good, but not great gets five stars. John Canton is someone who gives out five stars too often. He has given five stars to at least two WWE matches this year! I think the amount of five star matches in WWE should be counted on no more than two hands.
LikeLike
But the main issue is what determines the quality equation? If you have a “formula”, then you have to take time to go down the check list. I’ve tried this with movies and and it ruins the vibe.
LikeLike
That would be me.
LikeLike
I’ve never heard of John Canton. But I agree. 5 star matches, especially in today’s environment, should be rare. But for the love of Joey Styles, PLEASE no matter 1/2 and 1/4 stars!!! The match either gets a star or it doesn’t.
LikeLike
How have you never heard of John Canton? He’s becoming the biggest wrestling writer not named Dave Meltzer.
And I like 1/2 and 1/4 stars. Not all four star matches are the same. I like giving 1/4 to matches that were a little bit better than a 4* match, 1/2 to matches that weren’t 5* good but they were better than 4* good and 3/4 to matches that I came *this* close to giving five stars but I just couldn’t do it…so close but not quite.
LikeLike
Ugh. That’s your prerogative I suppose. I just don’t think wrestling matches are so unique that they need to be separated to that degree. When it gets to the point that you’re awarding 1/2 & 1/4 stars I think it’s now a matter of PREFERENCE, not actual QUALITY. For instance, some would call it sacrilegious to consider John Cena vs CM Punk from the February 25th Raw on the same level as Steamboat vs Savage from WrestleMania III. But in my opinion, they were both Exceptional matches, and both deserving of 4 stars. I may PREFER one over the other, but as far as actual match QUALITY, they’re on the same level.
Some might disagree and rate one higher than the other. If that’s the case I would say, give one of them another star or take away a star from the other.
The way I see it, if you’re going to split hairs to that degree, call it a 20-star system instead since that’s basically what it is. 4 1/2 stars = 18 stars. Same difference.
LikeLike
The problem is that if you give four stars to CM Punk vs. Undertaker (wrestlemania) and four stars to Big Show vs. Alberto Del Rio (Smackdown Last Man Standing), people will think you are on drugs or something. I can’t give five stars to Punk-Taker, but it’s a better match than Del Rio-Show.
LikeLike
I don’t remember Show-ADR well enough to say whether it deserved four stars or not. I think Punk-Taker certainly did. I do know that Show-ADR wasn’t as good, so I would give it 2 stars. There’s no shame in a 2 star rating. I definitely recall Big Show vs Sheamus from last year (Survivor Series maybe?) and I would not hesitate to give that match 4 stars and say it was in the same league as Punk-Taker.
LikeLike
John Canton is the start of why I’m here. He had this chatbox and a couple people were on it. I acted like I was in a sex chatroom, pretending to be in the wrong place. Canton stopped after a while. One of the guys (named JCity) started his own site with a comment section. Ray showed up one day(as well as Tony Kegger), then started this very site. I followed.
LikeLike
One more thing…I think a problem with the five star system is that the person reviewing the match is usually biased. A guy who likes Shawn Michaels and doesn’t like Hulk Hogan will overrate Shawn’s matches and underrate Hogan’s matches. And a guy who likes John Cena and doesn’t like Bret Hart will do the same. The matches that are among my highest rated matches are also among my favorite matches and feature my favorite superstars.
Almost everyone considers HBK-Taker a five star classic. The match had moments that I would consider being worthy of calling it a five star classic, but the most I would give it is 4.25 stars. Should someone rate matches based on how much that person enjoyed it or based on how other people enjoyed it? That’s a hard question to answer because I don’t want to give four stars to a match I didn’t like, but I don’t want people to think the match is bad just because I didn’t like it as much as other people did. I think when reading someone’s review, you gotta know what style of wrestling they enjoy because a four star match to them may not be a four star match to you and you may not enjoy that match as much as they did.
LikeLike
Speaking of Meltzer, NY Times wrote a story about him.
LikeLike
Well I know how hard it is to make money from a wrestling website so I respect him for that, that he’s able to make a living out of it. I think WON has about 1000 subscribers paying like 11 dollars a month. So he does decent I think.
LikeLike
“I definitely recall Big Show vs Sheamus from last year (Survivor Series maybe?) and I would not hesitate to give that match 4 stars and say it was in the same league as Punk-Taker.”
I think many people would not agree with that.
LikeLike
I think all the same elements of what makes a match good were there. You could argue the moment was bigger for Punk-Taker, but I remember feeling the exact same enthusiasm for Big Show-Sheamus and just consciously thinking what a good match it was and how those two really went all out.
LikeLike