What are the attributes of a good match?

I was thinking of doing a scorecard of sorts so we can keep track of and rate matches at PPVs, WWEs in particular as they are the ones that get the predictions league and probably more regular views.

As I thought about this, I wondered what exactly the categories are that go into a "good match."

Rather than just "I liked it" or a random star rating like Meltzy Boyz, what are the different things you rate within a match?

I could think of:

Chemistry
Story
Flow
Intensity
Spots
Pace
Finish
Concentration/Attention/Interest (ie did it hold the attention or did I/you lose focus?)

I am not sure what else to put in, though I'm sure a few things I thought of in the days prior have slipped from my memory. 

I was thinking of doing this as a board from Takeover NY onward, but whether 8 is so many categories that it'll become a chore to do each match, I don't know. 

Feel free to discuss both this idea and the thread question itself. I feel like House might be the only person who replies

I like the idea. You could maybe argue that Flow and Pace are pretty much the same thing, and I would maybe nix Attention etc because if a match has all the others then that ones a gimme.

I would say 8 is maybe too much to rank out of 5 or 10 or whatever, but if each one was a simple plus or minus, then it would be easy to define “star ratings” - 8 minuses is a dud and 8 pluses is perfection.

Its a good idea either way. Even if only 2-3 adopt it.

I like the thought of doing it out of 10, then once we average anyone's scores, we half it for a star rating like we're wee little Observers. 

Agree on pace and flow, and I would guess you're right on the latter. I feel like moves, moments, drama and entertainment (which I feel is aside of all those, because I guess you can appreciate many of those things without it gripping you) but then moments are spots, I guess, rather than all spots being "spotfest" spots? Drama is story? So maybe "ringwork" is a better catchall term than chemistry? Or is it too broad, cos it's all in and around the ring?

As long as i will be able to disagree on everything you say, i'm happy with your choices.

Beer wrote:As long as i will be able to disagree on everything you say, i'm happy with your choices.

You’ve never been happy in your life. Neither have I. Hold me

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Beer wrote:As long as i will be able to disagree on everything you say, i'm happy with your choices.

You’ve never been happy in your life. Neither have I. Hold me

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:So maybe "ringwork" is a better catchall term than chemistry? Or is it too broad, cos it's all in and around the ring?

I would say ringwork applies to an individual while chemistry applies to everyone in the match.

I honestly don’t know if this is possible to do, the reason wrestling is so brilliant is that matches can be enjoyable for a multitude of reasons

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:I honestly don’t know if this is possible to do, the reason wrestling is so brilliant is that matches can be enjoyable for a multitude of reasons

I called for you and you delivered no help. This is the worst April ever.

So you're not up for giving it a go?

I lean way more towards good drama than technical ability. The technical stuff I would often prefer to see as a highlight package.

I think the Jericho Shawn feud is the greatest I've seen because it had everything

With regards to quantifying matches I don't think we can really. Just stick to uncle Dave's system

It’s not so much because I think there is a format that would change the way we view matches.

I just thought it’d be interesting to do so we can have a ranking list of what we’re the best wwe ppv matches across a year.

Applaud the attempt

I haven't followed closely enough this year. Which matches at WM or NXT NY are you hopeful for?

I think it's a good idea for seeing how people view matches. One man 'good' can often be someone elses 'terrible'.

I'm in Dolph.

How about

Chemistry (out of 10, divide the points equally among the wrestlers or teams, one tag team could score 5 for being epic, another could be 2 for being a bit average giving a total score of 7)

Story (out of 10 for the lead up and the conclusion of the match - even if its a cliff hanger leaving you thinking what’s next0

Intensity (out of 10 - Added attention/focus into this as it’s the intestacy that keeps you hooked.

Finish (out of 10 - Scored on how it ended. Did it leave you cheering or going "why did they do that" especially if after 40 mins someone just runs out of steam, so they get themselves DQd

Jaw dropper bonus round (up to 10 extra points for something that made you remember the match. Think Big show and Braun destroying the ring, or Stone cold running out and giving someone a stunner or 2 superstars going mad at each other for an hour without rest)

5 categories for scoring, keeps it simple but with enough room for varying scores.

Think I’d add pace over the bonus, cos the bonus bit is in the story.

Pace
Story (Finish?)
Chemistry
Intensity
Spots

?

Then all out of 10? Well, Beer is in, I’m in. Anyone else?

We then score along with the WWE matches we watch. I’ll definitely do Takeover and Mania, but if you’re not an NXT watcher then that’s probably one to skip.

I think Kofi lacks physical intensity which will let the Bryan match down. None of his moves seem like they hurt, and he is such an athlete it often looks like he floats about the ring

I expect a good story, obviously high class technical work and a couple interesting high spots

Im in Dolph

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:I honestly don’t know if this is possible to do, the reason wrestling is so brilliant is that matches can be enjoyable for a multitude of reasons

I called for you and you delivered no help. This is the worst April ever.

So you're not up for giving it a go?

If someone devises a formula I’ll give it a go, I’m not watching WWE though

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:I honestly don’t know if this is possible to do, the reason wrestling is so brilliant is that matches can be enjoyable for a multitude of reasons

I called for you and you delivered no help. This is the worst April ever.

So you're not up for giving it a go?

If someone devises a formula I’ll give it a go, I’m not watching WWE though

Not even this weekend? It's the weekend to watch WWE. Not select matches?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DECiLIrBSFzxm1oLniquK1wfpsfknUisK1le7d8duCY/edit?usp=sharing

That's what I've got, so I can then copy more and more if people do it. Not sure that's the best way, you could easily just score them yourself and send/post it, but just trying to make it somewhat easier.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:I honestly don’t know if this is possible to do, the reason wrestling is so brilliant is that matches can be enjoyable for a multitude of reasons

I called for you and you delivered no help. This is the worst April ever.

So you're not up for giving it a go?

If someone devises a formula I’ll give it a go, I’m not watching WWE though

Not even this weekend? It's the weekend to watch WWE. Not select matches?

I have 4 days of non WWE shows and the champions carnival to catch up on, I will watch Takeover & maybe mania depending on what takes my fancy, I have about 1-2 hours a day to devote to wrestling though so it’d take me nearly a week to watch it all

Oh mate, if you don’t watch wwe then I can’t imagine enjoying it all! But reckon there might be a few noteworthy ones that even if they aren’t good, will be worth seeing to see why it doesn’t work.

I’m two matches into Takeover. Anyone who’s done this, how have you found it? I’m tempted to say we’d be better doing just Meltz-style ratings.