What makes a 5 star match?

[rchi84]

In light of the almost unanimous acclaim that the MITB main event has received, I watched the match for the 2nd time, to notice the "botches" that a lot of the IWC has been harping on.

I realised that I couldn't be bothered with them, because I was watching it with my sister, who used to idolise Bret and Austin in the late 90s and hasn't watched wrestling post 2004. Midway through the match, she told me, "Wow. Never realised that the crowds still get so involved in matches anymore."

And it's true. I can't think of a match, besides Taker/HBK, where the crowd popped for rest holds, small gestures like Punk pointing to himself and asking "Me?" when the "You can't wrestle" chant was going on and the crowd roaring like crazy in denial?

Sure it had botches, but the crowd involvement more than made up for the mid paced work rate. And I feel glad that Punk dropped that stupid notion of not playing to the gallery in attendance because it doesn't come off well on camera. That's something I never understood, because if anything, a stomping, clapping, cheering or booing audience makes a far greater impact for a viewer, than a wrestler ignoring them and only acting while looking into the hard cameras.

I think crowd involvement is a great sign of a 5 star match. The same reason why Rock/Hogan has to rank among the greatest matches ever, because it pulled the audience in, which is, at the end of the day, what every wrestler sets out to do.

Storytelling, work rate, chain wrestling are all nice to talk about, but it's more like art cinema. You need big matches get the crowd involved, giving you the electric atmosphere that only WWE can generate nowadays. I know I will get banned for this, but this is the reason why I hold Hogan above Steamboat in esteem (flame shields on).

A rowdy, involved crowd and the loudness of the pop or heat at the end of the match would me my criteria for a 5 star match.

[Deleted]

Crowd involvement separates good matches from great ones in my opinion, always has.

Like the Joe/Kobashi match. Without the great crowd would it have been great? It was a good match, but really looking at it it wasn't anything super special. Of course with the crowd it became a spectacle.

This could apply to Cena/Punk as well. Good match standalone, not a great one but decent...was actually quite a few botches that could have detracted from it. Yet the crowd atmosphere made it a great match regardless.

[Son of Abyss]

A hot crowd, lack of mainstream US attention, and a Japanese guy or two.

[jrcz]

2 signature moves, 2 finishers and putting opponent through announce table.

[rchi84]

Jul 19, 2011 4:44:53 GMT -5 @jrcz said:

2 signature moves, 2 finishers and putting opponent through announce table.

Are you talking about Orton vs Christian?

[jrcz]

Jul 19, 2011 4:50:35 GMT -5 rchi84 said:

Jul 19, 2011 4:44:53 GMT -5 @jrcz said:

2 signature moves, 2 finishers and putting opponent through announce table.

Are you talking about Orton vs Christian?

SvR reference

[salTy]

Everyone has different criteria. For instance, I prefer heavy psychology, drama, and storytelling. Others like technical spectacles. It's not something you can quantify because it is too heavily opinion based.

[Nuke is Good]

Jul 19, 2011 4:39:14 GMT -5 Son of Abyss said:

A hot crowd, lack of mainstream US attention, and a Japanese guy or two.

The Observer strikes again!

[lovingway]

ARMBARS...................Lots of Armbars

[nashbby4lyfe]

I think punk and joe worked out this question. A 60 min Drawwwwwwwww!

[DavidArquette]

A match that finds a balance between telling a story and showcasing technical skills, involves the crowd and has 2 or 3 memorable spots. But when I think of how much I enjoyed a match, I rarely think of star ratings.

[AdamAFL was sooooo wrong]

Anything from Danielson v McGuinness at Unified to a completely different match in Michaels v Undertaker at WM25. Both were five star matches in my opinion, and they were pretty much polar opposites in how they went about the match. I don't think Punk v Cena was 5 stars, it was damn close though.

[Deleted]

I never really put much stock in the star system whether it be movies, wrestling or whatever.

There's no frame of reference when reviewers (no matter how credible) give a star rating to something.

"Oh, it was a great match - 5 stars!"

They just make it up.

Its not like they were like, "Okay, well he did these series of moves - that's one star. Then the crowd was really hot for it - another star....BUT they didn't hit at least three finishers and a two kickouts, so they'll only get 4 stars."

Its all arbitrary.

[Bo Rida]

The feeling that I just watched something that was truly special.

Like adamafl said I can’t narrow it down further than that as many of the matches that I consider to be five star classics are so different to each other.
I’ve always hated the traditional five star system that many wrestling sites use though, largely as I don’t like quarter stars.

[Deleted]

I too, hate the star rating system, but I will say that I'd rather watch a good match in front of a really hot crowd, than a great match in front of a dead crowd.

[FHgrad99]

I think the crowd can add a lot to a particular match. If the crowd is hot for a match then chances are that the fans at home would be more interested in that match.

I think what makes a 5* match ultimately boils down to a matter of taste and what each indivudual person likes. An element of a match that I like comes down to the old saying "time flies when you're having fun." That means that you're watching a long match but it doesn't feel like it's a long match based on how entertaining the match is. That match wouldn't include stuff that would cause the match to drag on and on.

[Snaptastic]

Jul 19, 2011 10:02:09 GMT -5 @akeem said:

I too, hate the star rating system, but I will say that I'd rather watch a good match in front of a really hot crowd, than a great match in front of a dead crowd.

This completely

[r.]

For me a match that has a strong backstory going into it, an outcome with meaning, the match it'self should tell a story (Guy works other guys leg for the whole match for example) and it doesn't need to be an hour long, but it needs to have arespectable length to it.

Things that I think people too often attribute to great matches:

Finisher kickouts: If done correctly it's amazing (see triple h using takers tombstone) if not then it becomes predictable when it happens.

Near Falls: Same as above, having 15 of them isn't all that interesting, having 3 or or so after one guy is sure he has the win is

One match I can point to for 5 star status ( IMO ) is Micheals Vs Flair retirement match.

[Vice honcho room temperature]

Chicken or the egg on the crowd thing. Is the crowd that makes the match or does a 5 star match bring a crowd alive? I don't think the crowd has to be screaming and yelling from start to finish but if it boils to a nice volume at the end it can add to the match.

[FUNK_US/BRODUS]

Jul 19, 2011 4:44:53 GMT -5 @jrcz said:

2 signature moves, 2 finishers and putting opponent through announce table.

Magnificient. Well played sir.


To me, a great match needs an amazing crowd to put it over the edge. Listen to the crowds in the Kobashi/Misawa matches. Taker/Michaels WM 25, Punk/Cena, when you can invest a crowd THAT MUCH into your match, it elevates your match.