This is a discussion on The Star System within the General Pro Wrestling : Classic & General forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; So I was reading the last couple pages of the HBK vs. Taker thread in the ppv forum, and apparently ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
So I was reading the last couple pages of the HBK vs. Taker thread in the ppv forum, and apparently some people just reallllllly loathe the star system. So I thought this could be a good debate on its own.
My personal view is that the star system is great. Some will argue that wrestling is subjective and shouldn't be on a star system, but I will say that that is why we use the star system. Because the quality of a match is subjective, the star systems allows us to use a numerical value to give to a match. The star system gives us something solid, saying the match was great is very open ended.
And generally good critics can generally agree on the match quality. Just about 90% of the time I will see ratings between two critics +/- a half of a star.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I dont do star rating but i like when other people do them provided they do a proper review before hand and dont just give the star rating with no explanation. I think that may be part of the reason why so many dislike it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I don't mind it. I never use it either but I don't get all pissed/annoyed when others do it. It's just their way of saying what they thought the match was overall. Like Daren said, it does get a bit annoying when that's all they do without explanation, but meh.
__________________
Deuce's Knockout of the Week
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
11/23/09
To view other knockouts of the week, click To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
*Note: I do not own, nor created any of the gifs you see*
I think it's stupid. Just like movie critics "stars" or TV or music or anything else where the quality is 100% entirely subjective. You know how you know if something is good? General consensus. MOST people rave about the match, so who the fuck gives a shit if it's 4 stars to one person and 5 to another?
Any 8 year old can sit here and say "i give it four starz! zomgs. it wass awsum!" Well, shit. Color me convinced then!! Critics usually rave about shit the general masses never go see. How many people ever see any movie that's up for an Oscar? How many people go see The Dark Knight or Ironman? Like I said, the overwhelming vast majority of people loved Undertaker vs HBK. I say it was one of the best ever, Lord Stevie comes along and say "pfft...people are dumb if they say it was 5 stars. I give it 4" and the shit hits the fan. WHO. CARES. 4 or 5. What's the damn difference? Either it was good or it wasn't. Pretty soon the whole degenerates into the star system instead of the match itself.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think star systems are complete faggotry. They are way too inconsistent and that's the problem. Meltzer, for example, shaved .25 of a star off the Undertaker/HBK match which is nit-picky as fuck but you think he would have done the same if the exact same match had happened in Japan? No, that match would have gotten the full five because Dave is blatantly biased.
I don't put much thought into the system at all. A great match is a great match. Fuck over-analyzing the shit. Also, most wrestling fans on the net these days are sheep and will only like what other people tell them they should like. I like what I like.
I don't mind them with some sort of reasoning. Its just when some people shove their star ratings down your throat with no justification, and force you to accept them.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think star systems are complete faggotry. They are way too inconsistent and that's the problem. Meltzer, for example, shaved .25 of a star off the Undertaker/HBK match which is nit-picky as fuck but you think he would have done the same if the exact same match had happened in Japan? No, that match would have gotten the full five because Dave is blatantly biased.
I don't put much thought into the system at all. A great match is a great match. Fuck over-analyzing the shit. Also, most wrestling fans on the net these days are sheep and will only like what other people tell them they should like. I like what I like.
Yeah but Meltzer is a mark for sprint/spotfest matches and big moves and doesn't care about stuff like selling or match structure. It should also be noted he has an obvious bias in favour of HBK.
They can be a good way of putting things into perspective. If you have two matches and someone says "match 1 is good, match 2 is good", that isn't as informative as saying one is better than the other. Granted you don't need snowflakes to say that, but it's an easy way to present your opinion. Some people really go overboard to fuck with it.... and rate every single match, which is quite petty. I've seen people get into debates over "half a star" which is pathetic as it's all subjective. Likewise a rating on it's own is useless. But then again simply saying you "liked a match" is also kind of useless. It's the explanation and the insight into your opinion, snowflakes or not, that is informative and helpful. I don't mind tossing a rating on a match, but I won't get bogged down into the schematics of "**** or ****1/4???", but I prefer to ust give my thoughts on what I thought was good about the match and was not good.
So yeah, blanket statements are useless, details are good.
EDIT -
Quote:
I think it's stupid. Just like movie critics "stars" or TV or music or anything else where the quality is 100% entirely subjective. You know how you know if something is good? General consensus. MOST people rave about the match, so who the fuck gives a shit if it's 4 stars to one person and 5 to another?
What kind of retard logic suggests that popularity = quality?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think it's stupid. Just like movie critics "stars" or TV or music or anything else where the quality is 100% entirely subjective. You know how you know if something is good? General consensus. MOST people rave about the match, so who the fuck gives a shit if it's 4 stars to one person and 5 to another?
Any 8 year old can sit here and say "i give it four starz! zomgs. it wass awsum!" Well, shit. Color me convinced then!! Critics usually rave about shit the general masses never go see. How many people ever see any movie that's up for an Oscar? How many people go see The Dark Knight or Ironman? Like I said, the overwhelming vast majority of people loved Undertaker vs HBK. I say it was one of the best ever, Lord Stevie comes along and say "pfft...people are dumb if they say it was 5 stars. I give it 4" and the shit hits the fan. WHO. CARES. 4 or 5. What's the damn difference? Either it was good or it wasn't. Pretty soon the whole degenerates into the star system instead of the match itself.
What I'm getting from you is that you don't like the star system not because of what it is, but how people use them. I will agree that people that have little to no knowledge in what makes a good match have no buisness using the star system.
And yes, there is a difference between 4 and 5 stars if you use it correctly. This is how I break things down.
DUD-*3/4 horrible to Almost unwatchable
**-**3/4 Watchable to decent
***-***3/4 Good to Very good
****-****1/2 Great
****3/4-***** Legendary
When viewing someone else's stars, yes you should take it with a grain of salt because it is their opinion. But if I'm reading a review I want to see the star system because it gives a quick, solid value of what the person thinks of this match.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A big positive to the star system is if you generally agree with someone, then their ratings can usually reflect yours or even if you haven't seen it persuade you to watch something you may not have previously.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Star ratings are fine as proper reasoning is given that supports the snowflakes, that's what I'll say. Some people are just different and will give an average match ****, while some will probably never give a match 5*.
Catalyst seems to be talking as if every single critic or reviewer in the world for any subject believes their opinion = fact. The point of star ratings is opinion and they know that, even Meltzer. The only reason people turn to Meltzer is because he's the most well-known wrestling journalist and he has more influence, even if he is just a fan like us and a lot of others would disagree. Hell, even I'm interested in Meltzer's snowflakes, I compare them to my own and I compare my reasons with his.
Snowflakes always come in very good use to me, especially when buying a DVD. If the quality of the show looks so good judging by the results, I'll get it. Others, with matches that don't look as good but have been raved about, I'll check others thoughts and ratings.
Like what rpd did, here's my system:
DUD - Squash
* - Terrible, not worth watching
** - Bad
*** - Good, enjoyable
**** - Great, worth watching but not absolutely necessary
****1/2 - MOTYC, must be seen
***** - Classic, can be watched over and over and not get bored, practically perfect
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
