"You Get Nothing, You Lose, Good Day Sir: An Unbiased Look at the Star Ranking System"

The star-ranking system of rating pro wrestling matches often comes under fire for numerous reasons: first and foremost, the "ranking" or "rating" of a pre-determined event seems stupid at first, since what you're ranking is planned. Secondly, and almost as importantly, everyone's opinion is vastly different, meaning that the star ranking system is flawed from the very beginning, since there is no concrete definition of what makes a one-, two-, three-, four-, of five-star match. Finally, I've heard some say that the star-ranking system is just an easy way to get out of really expanding on what made the match in question good- as in the belief that anyone could slap a star ranking on any match as an excuse to not fully justify their reasons for giving it that ranking. There are numerous other arguments for and against the star-ranking system, so I've chosen to list a few in a Pro's and Con's format. I've been as unbiased as possible in choosing the list, though I've added my own personal comments, sometimes for, and sometimes against.

Pro: The star-ranking system provides an easily identifiable system of ranking pro wrestling matches.

This is true, for the most part. There's really nothing difficult with the star-ranking system: the lower, the worse, the higher, the better. Just about everyone who uses the method uses a five-point ranking system. It's simple, it's easy, and it's effective.

Con: Everyone's opinion is different. One person's ***** classic could be another's * bore.

This, of course, is also true, and represents one of the biggest flaws of the star-ranking system. Since everyone has a unique point of view, the entire structure of the ranking system can seem flawed. And with "big" shows or matches, the kind that many people have reviewed, it's difficult to stick with one ranking when many others exist. Even taking an "average" isn't exactly accurate.

Pro: The star-ranking system can be used to sum up a large review, which can occasionally save time and effort.

Length can always be a problem, in any review. Some readers hate long reviews, some don't want to spend a lot of time reading the review, and some simply want to skim-read to try and not spoil the event for themselves. With that said, the star-ranking system is an easy way to give an over-all value or quality to a match, a summary or generalization that can both help readers put the review in a better context and/or, as mentioned before, help speed-readers, skim-readers, or basically any reader that wants a quick synopsis rather than a complete dissection.

Con: Anybody could slap on a star rating and leave it at that.

This is also a big problem with the system, as many reviewers use the star-ranking system as something they fall back on. It's the "solution", not an "addition", and this can only represent a lack of effort. Simply slapping a star rating on a match without any commentary at all creates bad reviews. Without any rhyme or reason given, or even some play-by-play, a star-rating is meaningless.

Pro: The star ranking system can lend a certain degree of credibility to a review.

Since a star-rating system is widely used for many areas of entertainment (movies, hotels, etc) using a star system for reviews can add a bit of credibility to the review, in the eyes of both non-wrestling and wrestling fans.

Con: It's asinine to rate "fake" wrestling matches based on a star system.

This is, honestly, the biggest problem I have with those opposed to the star-ranking system. I believe rating a wrestling match, in whatever way, shape, or form, is perfectly viable. Though it is an analogy that is perhaps used too often, movies are just as "fake" as wrestling, and yet no one raises any qualm about rating movies with a star-ranking system. It's up to the people involved to make a memorable experience, regardless of whether something is predetermined or not. This goes for both wrestling and movies. There have been some notably horrible matches, and some that captivate an audience no matter how many times they've watched the match before. This isn't due to one match having a better preconceived finish…it's due to the wrestler's involved and their effort to create a memorable match. In that regard, I think it's perfectly fine to judge "fake" wrestling matches- the fact that it's not "real" and that the winner is decided before the match is even started should not effect the fact that it's up to the wrestler's involved to make or break a match.

There are many other pro's and con's, but I'll leave the list short and sweet, as I felt I was unbiased enough in the pro's and con's, and that I got my opinions on each said well enough to illustrate my view on the star-ranking system as a whole. As a first column, I'm not exactly firing on all cylinders, but I chose a subject close to heart, since I personally use and enjoy using the star-ranking system. While this column is basically a large overview, I feel it's a good start. On a personal note, I've provided my personal star ranking system, as I'm occasionally questioned about it. Increments are ¼, ½, ¾, and *. Meaning a score such as *¼, **½, ***¾, etc.

D.U.D.: A match so horrible that I feel the need to mentally repress it, either by simply never watching it again or by hitting my head multiple times. This is the very, very, very lowest score, as I don't do "negative star" reviews. This is the rarest of the rare: a truly horrible match that made me legitimately ashamed to be a fan of pro wrestling. This rating is very rarely handed out.

¼* to *: Gradually escalating levels of suck. Anything close to * is bordering on pretty bad. Anything under it is just plain horrible. This rating is also rarely given out, though it's more common than the dreaded D.U.D. Anything deserving of this ranking is either a true bore or just plain terrible.

*¼ to **: The first big break, as the rating increases from bad to very, very average. *¼ is still pretty bad, *½ to *¾ is bordering on decent, and ** is used for a match that was very bare-bones, boring at times, or anything else that makes an uneventful, though watchable, match. ** is still a bit of a negative mark, as it represents a match that's not average, but painfully average, something bordering on and being very close to bad.

**¼ to ***: The first real indicator of "good" matches, anything getting **¼ was either shaping up to be good but ended too soon, or was almost average but had too many flaws. **½ is the official "average match" score, as it represents a match that was decent, worth watching, and entertaining, but still not excellent. **¾ is a match that had some key aspects that helped it get a good score, but still had too many flaws to make it a "good" match. *** is the official start of the "good" ranking, as it represents a match that, despite its flaws, ended up entertaining to a respectable level, and is something I wouldn't mind watching more than once.

***¼ to ****: The pivotal ranking that separates "good" from "great. ***¼ represents a good match that had a lot going for it, but was missing a few key aspects that make a truly memorable experience. ***½ and ***¾ represent some truly fantastic bouts, the kind that make me proud to watch wrestling. **** is also a pivotal ranking, as it represents a truly fantastic match, one with almost no flaws whatsoever, and one that is worth watching time and time again.

****¼ to ****¾: This is a ranking that is given out almost as rarely as a D.U.D., and is used for what I believe is either one of the greatest matches I've personally ever watched, or one of the greatest matches of all time. These represent truly landmark, bench-setting matches. ****¼ represents a match that completely involved me, the type of match you'll remember in a second if someone asks you to think of your favorite matches. A rating of ****½ and ****¾ would represent a match that either changed the way I viewed wrestling, or changed the landscape of wrestling as a whole. To date, I haven't given out a single ****½ or ****¾.

*****: A rating I'll only ever give out once, as I consider the "five star" ranking something that can never be attained, only measured up against. This score represents not one of the greatest matches of all time, but the greatest match of all time. While I haven't "really" reviewed it, meaning I haven't written about it in one of my reviews, I consider Kenta Kobashi and Mitsuharu Misawa versus Toshiaki Kawada and Akira Taue from June 9, 1995 to be the greatest match of all time, and truly deserving of *****.

And so, there you have it. A short mini-essay on the star-ranking system, and my personal star system identified and explained. It's been fun thinking up the column, and hopefully more will follow. As I said before, it's not the greatest introduction, but it's an introduction nonetheless. As a start, I'm proud of it. Any and all comments are appreciated, as always, and thanks for reading.

PdW2kX