This essay is the second of three about the issue of determining quality wrestling performances. It is my belief that the contemporary way wrestling journalists grade wrestling matches is broken, antiquated, and never really worked in the first place. Over the next three articles, I’m going to explain my case.
The first article, The Theory of Quality Wrestling, discussed how I believe a wrestling match should be judged in theory. The second article, The ratings system is broken, details why I believe just that.
***
For as long as I can remember, wrestling matches have been subjectively rated by reviewers using a five star rating system. I do not know when people began using it. I do not know who started it. I don’t particularly believe the reasons behind it to be important But it was here before I showed up, and if I don’t do something, I fear it’ll be here long after I’m gone.
First off, why do we rate matches at all? I think we rate matches because, at the end of the day, we all understand that quality is an important factor in wrestling. Unlike sports, where the quality of a contest is utterly coincidental, we know that wrestling is scripted, and because it is scripted we know the participants can choose which moves to use, beats to utilize, and facial and body actions to express. We also know that these skilled professionals know the difference between a good match and a bad one (certainly, there are no wrestlers who have had only good matches). A basketball player also knows the difference between a good basketball match and a bad one, but we all understand that the quality of a basketball match is pretty much out of his hands. Unquestionably, the quality of a rigged contest is much easier to control than a legitimate one. And because wrestlers know that we know this, they are conscious that we are grading them on performance quality and not just winning and losing (though who is chosen as the victor is often tallied in the score as a decision made by the creators of the contest).
It wasn’t always this way. Up until the 80s, it was polite to go along with the ruse that wrestling was legitimate. Wrestling was considered more entertaining than most sports not because we thought the two players were attempting a piece of performance art but because two men were trying to kill each other. I don’t think it’s too much of a wretch to suggest that ratings weren’t used as much back then because wrestling was still reported on as sport: winners and losers announced, major stories analyzed, and move on to the next thing.
One could suggest that a rating system is absurd for wrestling, that an essay with opinions and reports should be enough. Though I’m in no way a fan of play by play (could you imagine the same thing done with football or curling?), even that is more useful to the reader than most ratings are. I believe much thought (or, at least, many hours) are poured into wrestling reports, but only a tiny percentage into the rating at the end. I don’t believe any reviewer has ever counted up all their good points against their bad ones and came to a self consensus. I fully believe the number is dashed out at the end, thought of a tenth as much as the title of the report. And while that’s impossible to prove, that’s how I feel.
Why do I not like the five star rating system? Subjectivity is one thing. It would be impossible for me to ask everyone to agree on the quality of any wrestling match. Everyone looks for different things and appreciates different things. On top of the critique of a single wrestling match, there are disparities on how we are even to think of pro wrestling. How do we judge something so loosely defined by it’s own audience? For more on this, Razor has an essay in the quarterly on how WWE could brand itself by the multitude of entertainment-types it innately provides. But reviewers of other forms of pop culture utilize star ratings, percentages, etc., to determine a summary of worth, and that system appears to work. So why don’t I feel it works in wrestling? Well, let’s break this down.
Take a movie review. A five star review is generally rare, meant to signify the absolute best in film. Four star reviews are considered an enjoyable movie to the majority of the audience (according to a reviewer). Every star below that indicates more severe criticisms and a smaller chance the general audience would enjoy the film. Of course, that idea of star meanings is subjective in and of itself. A four-star rating may mean something to the reviewer, the reader, the indexer, and the curator. Stars, like many metaphors, add a layer of chrome to the proceedings that is nice, comfortable, and unfortunately useless.
When was the last time an incredibly popular match was given five stars by a trusted wrestling critic? When was the last time a -3 star match was actually pretty enjoyable? (For those new to this argument, the 5-star rating system has been appended with minus stars, just to add needless complexity). Most importantly, and I cannot stress this enough: when was the last time a rating of any kind properly communicated a summary of information that you understood in the way the reviewer wanted you to understand? Popularity vs quality is just one argument void we find ourselves in this discussion, but my point here isn’t to suggest one is more important than the other at all. My gripe is that although we’re using a system that we all agree on, we mean different things when we use it, and when that happens the information is lost. I do want to suggest that ratings can be helpful, and I’d prefer a match to have a rating than not in general. But I would a) like the rating to better reflect the copy it follows, and b) like the rating to better relate to other ratings by other writers. I don’t believe the current system does a very good job of either.
K Sawyer Paul is an author and publisher living in Toronto. He tweets and tumbls. In the wrestling world he is known for This is Sports Entertainment and Aggressive Art.
Edited by TH
