Skip to main content

The "Nonratable" Match Rating I think needs to be implemented

Good afternoon Mr. Keith, all this Mankind/UT HIAC talk and the earlier post of the Iron Man Match, have you ever thought its time to officially break out a whole new rating, beyond the Stars?  

"Match Rating: Unable to Rate due to both historical significance and No Current Consensus by the IWC of its proper star rating, w
h​
ether it would be underated, or overated, by many.  But still, NEEDS to be
​​
seen by all!"

While someone disagreed about Savage/Steamboat earlier, that opinion I feel is such a minority I don't think it warrants inclusion in this subject.  Matches I do however have forever divided match raters since they took place, are:

Hogan/Andre
Bret/Michaels Iron Man
UT/Mankind HITC
Bash at The Beach 96 Main Event
Hogan/The Rock
And you might even be able to throw in the WM20 Main Event, at what was considered one of the greatest matches of all time followed by one of the greatest moments of all time with Benoit & Eddie standing tall, it has forever become one of the most polarizing matches to look back on.

Thoughts?  Keep up the good work

​That's a pretty wishy-washy way to deal with the issue.  I'd rather just throw my star ratings out there and let people debate it on their own.  Unless it's a midget match or a battle royale, because FUCK THEM.  ​

Comments

  1. I don't remember one thing about the Montreal Screwjob outside the finish and aftermath.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's got to be a midget battle royal for Scott to review somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That seems like a pretty unworkable system. One person's all time classic is going to be another person's 'meh' match. I've never really heard a debate on the Hogan/Andre match, I'd be interested to hear the debate there. What's missing out of this premise is heat, regardless of historical significance. All of the matches mentioned here had a great amount of heat which has to factor into a match rating. Heat is quantifiable, I don't know if historical significance really is. For instance, people who were born after the Hogan/Andre match may not grasp or care about its historical significance, but no one can really deny that the crowd in that match was going nuts. And something like the WM 20 main event may not be as historically relevant now as it was then, but you can't really deny that that crowd was ecstatic when Benoit won. I definitely think there are matches that someone should have as required viewing for their historic significance for someone just getting into pro wrestling, but I don't know if you can factor that into a rating.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From a technical standpoint, Rock/Hogan isn't five stars, but factoring in the storytelling and a nuclear crowd makes it far more memorable and rewatchable than some ***** classics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Unless it's a midget match or a battle royale, because FUCK THEM" ​



    How dare you talk that way about Rey Mysterio.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Virgil's Gimmick TableOctober 26, 2014 at 1:07 AM

    It was actually shaping up to be a really good match before the end. It was a wild brawl with a big match feel. I think if it had gone all the way to a legit end, we'd be talking about it as one of the greatest matches ever to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thought it pretty much sucked. If it has a no contest or any other "regular" wrestling finish it is easily forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Scott without snowflakes might be worse then Abeyance.

    The biggest problem about the idea is that 95% of the matches take years before you realize it was a really historical moment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How dare Scott disrespect WeeLC, the greatest midget gimmick match of all time.

    I don't think ratings should be based on historical significance or that people are divided on it. I loved Taker/HHH at WM27 but can see why someone else would not. I watched Hogan/Andre a milion times as a kid but that doesn't mean the match doesn't suck. Everyone won't agree on everything and that's not a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Virgil's Gimmick TableOctober 26, 2014 at 3:33 AM

    I was just watching Nitro from 10/2/95. Eddie and Malenko are tearing it up in the ring. Then it cuts to the back - and I don't mean it just goes to split screen, it cuts ENTIRELY AWAY FROM THE MATCH - to show Hogan showing up at the arena. I refuse to rate shit like that because it's not fair to judge the performance of the wrestlers in the ring with a low star rating when the company is actively trying to deemphasize its importance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree. I also like seeing different ratings on matches(and along with star rating WHY they gave the match said rating) because it may cause me to reconsider the match or rewatch it. And if not, I at least hear out a different point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, doesn't the match take into consideration the booking/agents/production? The wrestlers aren't to blame, but the match isn't a pleasant experience.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah, all it takes for midgets to get over is to have six heavyweights bump their asses off for them!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Brock vs. Cena at SummerSlam kinda falls into this category.

    It's so fucking great, but there was no real workrate in it... well, except for Cena landing on his head on the Germans. Yet, I could have that played on a loop.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I still love to this day how people cream their pants over WM20 and Benoit/Eddie!

    ReplyDelete
  16. It was two wrestlers, who
    overcame a ton of adversity and busted their ass for years, receiving their
    full appreciation at the biggest stage of them all. Disregarding what happened
    later on, what is there not to love?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Because it's a fake sport? I have loved wrestling since 1983, but I am an adult now. Vince said they got to win that day.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nah. Vince McMahon wanted them to lose, but they refused to follow the script.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I just think its the most overblown moment in the history of wrestling, largely because of the small but vocal minority of people who idolized them. I felt that way at the time too, not just because of their subsequent deaths

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

    ReplyDelete
  21. People do cream their pants over this two.
    I wish the old horn would have blown and a returning Big Daddy Cool Diesel jackknifed them both and took the titles.
    Do you like the current product?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The sport is fake. The business is real.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes I am an idiot because I found Benoit and Eddie winning the titles to be stupid then and stupid now. I should have wept tears of joy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hogan vs. Andre is a ***** five star match. Andre looks in moveable and evil the first time you watch it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Two amazing wrestlers get held back for years.
    They both overcome the odds to win the belts in great matches.
    People are happy.

    This really isn't a difficult concept to understand. Did you stand up at the end of Return of the Jedi and yell HEY DID YOU GUYS KNOW IT'S ALL FAKE, RIGHT? THERE ISN'T EVEN AN ACTUAL DEATH STAR! LUKE SKYWALER DOESN'T EXIST! HE ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE GEORGE LUCAS SAID HE DOES!


    You're basically being insulted over the idea of basic storytelling.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Y'all niggas postin' in a troll thread.

    Take it from the master.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A matches star rating which are given by an individual doing a review should should not be affected by no current consensus IWC. That's the outright silliest thing I've ever heard and whoever sent this email should be banned from the blog for their promotion of hive mind mentalities. Truly, truly makes me sick. This person should be ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Who the fuck cares about IWC concensus when rating a match? Matches are subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No Scott, you don't understand: How will i KNOW what to think about something, unless the opinion i'm reading absolutely defines what I should be thinking?

    Think of the children.

    ReplyDelete
  30. But Scott and everyone else are rating based on their opinions of the match, not searching the internet for what everyone else thought and basing it on that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Actually, the majority are honkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ah come on. The midget TLC match was better than anything else on the show.

    ReplyDelete
  33. That's a shoot, brotha!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Fun fact - I lived next door to a group of midget hardcore wrestlers. Glass, staple guns etc. I still have my 'I support midget violence' shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Early morning football kinda reminds me of Breakfast with Wimbledon... Except less aces and more 300 lbs linemen.

    Also, strawberries and cream doesn't sound like a great idea with football.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sadly, A LOT of people.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree with Scott. If you're a critic, not rating something is the coward's way out.

    ReplyDelete
  38. YankeesHoganTripleHFanOctober 26, 2014 at 8:22 AM

    Wow...what a great post. Kudos to who ever wrote it. (And for the record Hogan vs Andre and Hogan vs Rock ruled the world. I am glad that no one died at Undertaker vs Mankind in cell and Bash at the beach, and the Iron Man Match still sucks)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey, anyone playing Yahoo fantasy football and not seeing your points update with the early game?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I HATE it when that happens. How else will I know that I'm better at fantasy football than everyone else? That's fucked up, man. I'm so sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yahoo fantasy football sucks. I hate all the leagues I'm in that use Yahoo.


    ESPN is so much better.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment is why we need downvotes.

    ReplyDelete
  43. So...Scott. please rate all the midget battle royales in order of significance.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It was a pretty descent technical brawl, as I recall. Probably just under ****.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think the only time you have problems with match ratings are when the ones "assigning" them aren't clear what they are factoring into it; and those who subsequently read it take it too seriously. Widely seen matches do ultimately earn a consensus reputation--even if the consensus is there is no consensus. Beyond that, evaluating the rating for a match you've perhaps never seen, it tells you about the rater as much as the match itself. Ultimately everything is debatable, and which side of the debate you take speaks about who you are and what you look to take away from wrestling. Both ends of the debate spectrum are probably wrong, in that they both disregard the usefulness of match ratings as an informational tool (the extremes here being Workrate Nazis versus Vince "They Rate Fake Matches!" Russo-types). Look for that middle ground, fibd the consensus, and a match rating can be useful and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I feel like you're mocking me.

    ReplyDelete
  47. i don't remember anyone so upset that the ewoks were being held back because they were so small though. Arguing with you people over this is fruitless and always has been.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I Don't really understand this email

    How exactly is the WM20 main "hard to rate"?? It's pretty much a consensus ****-***** match by any fan that watches it

    ReplyDelete
  49. Just my opinion:

    Hogan/Andre- *1/2 even though I LOVE this match and the ending is great.

    Bret/Michaels Iron Man- *** because it's technically proficient but boring as shit and I hate this match.

    UT/Mankind HITC- ****1/4 amazing spectacle, historical match, inadvertently led Mick to become a main-eventer and world champion.

    Bash at The Beach 96 Main Event- ***1/2 fun match, booked perfectly, historical, shocking ending, revitalized the industry. Any more cliches I can throw out?

    Hogan/The Rock- I like this match better than most, I'd go ***1/4 without reservation although the crowd brings it up that much more.
    WM20- What's to debate? It was ***** then, it's ***** now. Benoit is most likely suffering eternal torment of some kind, so I doubt he's going to yell "Ye GODS, how DARE the IWC rate all my matches as DUD's to SPITE me!!!!!" I don't think he would give a shit.
    I saw it mentioned below, SS '97 is a **** match and with an ending would be *****. IMO, the best match Shawn and Bret had (though SS '92 is damn good too, except with a slow beginning). I LOVE the Montreal Screwjob match, still fun to watch even without the historical impact.

    Just my 2 cents, though my opinion and $1 will get you a McDonald's sweet tea.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This is the correct answer.


    Unless you're Michael Cole, then Cena vs. Orton tonight will be an unable to be rated dream match of historical importance.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It's fun to argue about.

    ReplyDelete
  52. a five star five star match?

    ReplyDelete
  53. well, the same could be said for dozens of other workers.

    ReplyDelete
  54. question for the blog: what were those matches/moment were even at that point you realized that "this is HUGE"? to me, it was Hulk Hogan turning heel. it just felt like such a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  55. absolutely agree on the Survivor Series match. the real life feelings between them were (arguebly) so in line with the on screen story that it works perfectly: watching that match I truely believed that these two hated each other.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This email is beta as fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  57. ratings from me:
    Hogan/Andre 1 star
    Bret/Shawn 4 stars
    UT/Mankind 3 stars
    Bash at Beach 2 stars
    Hogan/Rock 1 star
    WM 20 5 stars


    Andre was virtually unwatchable by 87. And I say this as someone who's favorite show of all time is probably WM3 just for the fond memories of being 13 and loving EVERYTHING WWF was doing then.
    Don't find Bret/Shawn that boring. UT/Mankind has some nice moves and spectacle can be graded highly
    Bash at the Beach has very little quality wrestling. Mostly just a beat down of the faces and a Holy Shit moment. Stars are basically for the Hogan turn
    Hogan/Rock? Personally because I despised Hogan so much by 2002 for all the political shit in WCW and his mind numbing interviews with Bischoff (not to mention an awful, awful face turn) the crowd reactions didn't get me into the match, but rather pissed me off and had me wondering WTF the fans saw in a broken down has been who helped build two companies and then played a big part in tearing one of them down with his own selfishness. But I understand those who loved the crowd reactions because there are matches where a fun crowd can add to the value of the match.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I think some were taking him seriously but then he went to far with the diesel comment and exposed himself to the world for those that hadn't already got a glimpse of his troll tendencies.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Well the obvious ones were WM1, Hogan/Andre, Warrior/Hogan, Hogan heel turn, Rock/Hogan, Lesnar beating UT. That's off the top of my head.

    ReplyDelete
  60. YankeesHoganTripleHFanOctober 26, 2014 at 11:06 AM

    I have a sudden urge to go watch Hogan/Andre. Thanks to whoever posted this!!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hogan/Andre, PERIOD. There was no doubting that moment.



    Problem is, they turn everyone heel eventually. Even the Goldberg heel disaster was a "huge moment". But it's only historic if the angle works, and Bash at the Beach delivered one of the biggest angles in history.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I think the realization the opinions are subjective also lead to the horrible way of discussion using "facts" instead. like "who is a bigger draw?" etc.

    (I mentioned that before, but another example might be the difference between how rap music is being discussed today and how it was (mainly) discussed in the past. back then it was "that mc is dope, his lyrics are great" while nowadays it seems more like "that mc is dope, he sold tons millions")

    ReplyDelete
  63. one could argue that quarter star ratings are, too.

    ReplyDelete
  64. but would you say it's a "great match"? probably not, right?

    ReplyDelete
  65. This is sort of stupid. Snowflakes are a personal thing, lots of people disagree on all sorts of matches.


    No one's star rating is a bible, not even skeith.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Disagree TOTALLY.....if for no other reason than people will disagree about every match that comes on TV. No matter the historical significance.

    My ratings:
    Hogan-Andre * (but still needs to be seen for Historical Significance....see what I just did there?)
    Bret-HBK Iron Man ****1/4 (NOT *****)
    Bash at the beach 96 Main Event ***3/4
    Hogan-Rock ***3/4
    Wrestlemania 20 Main Event ***** (regardless of what Benoit did, easily a Top 5 all-time match)

    ReplyDelete
  67. I didnt see it with the London game until about the 3rd quarter. Not sure why

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Yep Mode" Abeyance Brown ©October 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM

    It was a surprisingly fun match.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Glad boxing is not like that......can you imagine "lets just not have a winner because people cant agree that Mayweather is an asshole".....though he beat the brakes off a dude for 12 rounds.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Yep Mode" Abeyance Brown ©October 26, 2014 at 1:17 PM

    After the second comment, I knew he was trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I remember a battle royale on Raw in 2004 (anyone have a link?) which I would have rated ***3/4. I fully believe battle royales should be rated because when done right (like the one at this year's WM), they can be very exciting.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment