Observer & Figure Four Wrestlemania Ratings

[X]

Figured I'd post these since Wrestlemania seems to be the one show people like to see match ratings for. These are from Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer and Bryan Alvarez of Figure Four, who were both live in attendance for the entire show.

WrestleMania XXVII
Edge vs. Alberto Del Rio ***1/2
Cody Rhodes vs. Rey Mysterio **1/2
The Big Show, Kane, Kofi Kingston & Santino Marella vs. Wade Barrett, Ezekiel Jackson, Heath Slater & Justin Gabriel 1/2*
Randy Orton vs. CM Punk ***
Michael Cole vs. Jerry Lawler *
The Undertaker vs. Triple H (No Holds Barred Match) ****1/2
John Morrison, Trish Stratus & Snooki vs. Dolph Ziggler, Layla & Michelle McCool *
The Miz vs. John Cena *1/4

WrestleMania XXVII
Sheamus vs. Daniel Bryan (Lumberjack Match)/Battle Royal *1/2
Edge vs. Alberto Del Rio ***3/4
Rey Mysterio vs. Cody Rhodes ***1/4
The Big Show, Kane, Santio Marella & Kofi Kingston vs. Wade Barrett, Justin Gabriel, Ezekiel Jackson, Heath Slater NR
CM Punk vs. Randy Orton ***1/4
Michael Cole vs. Jerry Lawler 1/2*
The Undertaker vs. Triple H (No Holds Barred Match) ****3/4
Dolph Ziggler, Layla & Michelle McCool vs. John Morrison, Trish Stratus & Snooki *3/4
The Miz vs. John Cena 1/2*

Thoughts on the ratings? Agree, disagree? I'm sure their ratings for the Taker/Triple H match are sure to cause some controversy.

I'm absolutely shocked by the ratings for Cena vs. Miz though. I clearly need to re-watch that match because everyone seems to think it was absolute dogshit while I thought they both worked hard for a good 15 minutes and it was an enjoyable contest until the bullshit finish. They both seemed to overrate the Edge/Del Rio match as well IMO, *** is as high as I'd go.

 

[Renegade]

I really enjoyed Miz vs Cena.

 

[Shocky]

I thought Miz and Cena was an awful match. Probably more of an issue of ti
Ing then anything. That was the match I was looking at the time for, which is never good.

I know I'm in the minority, but I absolutely agreed with the Triple H vs. Undertaker rating. I'm in love with that match even more after watching it again.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Both of them really underrated Rey/Cody, which I thought was the second best match of the night.

I don't like either wrestler too much by the way, no bias here.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

I would go

ADR vs Edge- ***
Rey vs Cody- ***1/2
8 Man Tag- NR
Punk vs Orton- ***1/2
Lawler vs Cole- 1/2*
Taker vs Trips- ****
6 Man Tag- *
Miz vs Cena- *1/2

 

[shattered dreams]

What did Alvarez rate the first HBK-Taker match X?

 

[X]

What did Alvarez rate the first HBK-Taker match X?

I'm not entirely sure SD, from what I can gather from a quick search he agreed with Meltzer's rating of ****3/4 for the first HBK-Taker match, but he said he'd have to watch it a second time to be sure. Not sure if he ever did re-watch or re-rate it.


So I'm going to watch HHH-Taker and Miz-Cena again tonight. I rewatched the first half of the event and bumped Edge-Del Rio up from **3/4 in my review to ***, may end up tweaking my ratings for a few other matches, not sure yet.

 

[Slyfox696]

As usual, these ratings are ridiculous. Taker and HHH was 4 and 3/4 stars and Miz vs. Cena was just a half star?

Bunch of dumbass marks.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I couldn't get into that HHH/Taker match after watching it again. I thought the first half of the card was much better than the second half.

 

[Slyfox696]

Figured I'd post these since Wrestlemania seems to be the one show people like to see match ratings for. These are from Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer and Bryan Alvarez of Figure Four, who were both live in attendance for the entire show.







Thoughts on the ratings? Agree, disagree? I'm sure their ratings for the Taker/Triple H match are sure to cause some controversy.

I'm absolutely shocked by the ratings for Cena vs. Miz though. I clearly need to re-watch that match because everyone seems to think it was absolute dogshit while I thought they both worked hard for a good 15 minutes and it was an enjoyable contest until the bullshit finish. They both seemed to overrate the Edge/Del Rio match as well IMO, *** is as high as I'd go.

It's amazing...I think I agree with basically everything you said here. First time ever?

 

[shattered dreams]

I'm not entirely sure SD, from what I can gather from a quick search he agreed with Meltzer's rating of ****3/4 for the first HBK-Taker match, but he said he'd have to watch it a second time to be sure. Not sure if he ever did re-watch or re-rate it.

I suspected he rated it ****3/4 but wasn't sure if he was one that went to *****. Rating those two matches the same would be quite weird in my book.

Plenty of oddities about Miz-Cena but not sure how that match goes below min **1/2.

 

[klunderbunker]

I really enjoyed Miz vs Cena.

Yeah well you're an alt so we don't care.

 

[klunderbunker]

Cena vs. Miz is better than that for the kickout on that AA alone. I was stunned when Miz kicked out.

 

[The Man They Call WMD]

I thought the Mysterio Rhodes match was the best match based on in ring performance. Rhodes current character is hysterical. I loved the titan tron change from dashing to gruesome.

 

[JGlass]

I'm with you X, Cena vs. Miz was bad, but it wasn't THAT bad. They make it out to be, like, the worst Mania main event ever. Doesn't 9 win that dubious title?

I'm mostly surprised about the difference of opinions regarding Rhodes/Mysterio. I figured Meltzer would like that one, but apparently no. I thought it's definitely worthy of at least three and a half stars.

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

HHH/Taker was way too high, **** is about right.

 

[Gelgarin]

The expectation of these ratings to be anything beyond a joke is more interesting than anything else. Meltzar's ratings have never had any level of credibility and have always been governed by nothing more than his at the time infatuations. 30 seconds with the list of matches he has deemed five star will instantly show the inconsistency of his scale. Between 1990 and 1995 there were thirty five five star matches (eight of which were women's matches). Over the past five years there have been exactly one match that has achieved the same rating. Either wrestling has magically gotten worse or Metlzar's ratings have no credibility.

Rating matches in general is a pretty dumb concept since it's trying to crowbar some kind of consistent standard onto a medium that really doesn't have one. Trying to judge Ring of Honor's most recent arm drag exhibition by the same standards of something like Hogan/Warrior is so mind numbingly flawed that it truly amazes me that even the internet hasn't caught on yet.

Personally I don't like to see anything rated with grades or stars simply because any worth while opinion is far to complex to be represented numerically. That holds true for films, books, games or anything else. Add to this the complete failure of 90% of people (both inside and outside the industry of hopelessly giving numbers to things) to grasp how a ratings system should actually work. Ask people to rate things out of ten and ratings will always mean around seven, which is completely illogical.

So on topic, I have very little time for somebody trying to assign an indication of quality to a wholly subjective medium. I have even less time when that person tried to do it through a dumb, illogical and overly simplistic star rating system. I have absolutely no time when both these things are done by an irrelevant and inconsistent industry joke with credibility somewhere south of sea level.

 

[klunderbunker]

The expectation of these ratings to be anything beyond a joke is more interesting than anything else. Meltzar's ratings have never had any level of credibility and have always been governed by nothing more than his at the time infatuations. 30 seconds with the list of matches he has deemed five star will instantly show the inconsistency of his scale. Between 1990 and 1995 there were thirty five five star matches (eight of which were women's matches). Over the past five years there have been exactly one match that has achieved the same rating. Either wrestling has magically gotten worse or Metlzar's ratings have no credibility.

Rating matches in general is a pretty dumb concept since it's trying to crowbar some kind of consistent standard onto a medium that really doesn't have one. Trying to judge Ring of Honor's most recent arm drag exhibition by the same standards of something like Hogan/Warrior is so mind numbingly flawed that it truly amazes me that even the internet hasn't caught on yet.

Personally I don't like to see anything rated with grades or stars simply because any worth while opinion is far to complex to be represented numerically. That holds true for films, books, games or anything else. Add to this the complete failure of 90% of people (both inside and outside the industry of hopelessly giving numbers to things) to grasp how a ratings system should actually work. Ask people to rate things out of ten and ratings will always mean around seven, which is completely illogical.

So on topic, I have very little time for somebody trying to assign an indication of quality to a wholly subjective medium. I have even less time when that person tried to do it through a dumb, illogical and overly simplistic star rating system. I have absolutely no time when both these things are done by an irrelevant and inconsistent industry joke with credibility somewhere south of sea level.

While I'm not exactly one to talk given what you've said regarding people that rate matches, it's very true that you can't have the same scale for every match. A squash that lasts a minute and sees a jobber get in zero offense could be argued as perfect as the point is to make the star look strong, which being perfect certainly would do. Yet in most Meltzer grading systems I've seen, that ranks as a dud. It doesn't make sense when you think about it.

 

[Gelgarin]

Actually one could argue the typical squash ultimately fails in its goal due to the complete absence of credibility of the squashed individual. A truly perfect squash would have to involve the outright destruction of a Hogan-esqu character.

Of the top of my head Kevin Nash verses Bob Backlund and Bruno Sammartino versus Buddy Rogers are the "five star" squash matches.

^^^ Totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, but since the subject at hand is Dave Metlzar I'm not going to lose any sleep over diverting it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Possibly but I'm not sure how much you could argue about Backlund's credibility in 94.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

They make it out to be, like, the worst Mania main event ever. Doesn't 9 win that dubious title?

By worse, do you mean Hogan taking the title was worse than Rock getting involved? If yes, I agree. But the actual wrestling in Hart vs. Yoko wasn't anywhere near the worst in Mania history. I would say the main events at 2, 8, 11, and 13 were all worse.

 

[Nate DaMac]

What about 25?

 

[The Bearded One]

What about 25?

I'm thinking about going back and watching HHH vs Orton as a stand alone match and see if it is any better that way. It might have just been burn out by that point, so it might come off better just watching it by itself.

Or it could just be a shit match.

 

[Shocky]

Wrestlemania 25 was far worse then this.

 

[The Bearded One]

I kind of liked 25. The only thing that was awful was the Divas Battle Royal, but other than that it was solid stuff. Not the best WM of course, but it's far from one of the worst.