What factors make a five star match? - Page 2

**Juan** · 01-11-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeritron

RVD vs Jerry Lynn matches

**Fox** · 01-11-2009, 08:41 PM

Christopher Daniels vs. AJ Styles vs. Samoa Joe - X Title - Unbreakable 2005
HHH vs. HBM vs. Benoit - World Title - WM 20
HBM vs. Jericho - WMXIX
Rock vs. Austin - WM17
Mysterio Jr. vs. Eddie Guerrero - Halloween Havoc 1997

**Darc** · 01-12-2009, 01:25 AM

When I think of a five star match, I think of a match that is virtually flawless. There is nothing either man could have accomplished to make the match better than it was. There are some guys who are capable of putting on a great match regardless of who may be in the opposite corner and most of the time, when you can get 2 or more of those individuals in the same ring for a match the potential for a 5 star match is there. While there are a lot of matches I consider to be great, I don't consider a lot of matches to be five stars worthy. 3 stars is good, 4 stars is great, 5 stars in classic, must see material.

This is my criteria for a 5 star match:

Great Pacing: Let the story unfold at a meaningful, realistic pace, build up to the big moves, and then close it down with a memorable finish.

Strong Psychology: Convince me that these guys either hate each other or they get along, but at that moment, care more about winning than each other. Show me moves that make sense within the context of the match. ex: Target/Protect a body part, Don't go for the big move until you know you can hit it, Surprise us with something new, show you've learned from past matches whether they be yours or someone else's. Sell the big moves as actually being dangerous. Use moves that play on the gimmick of the match.

Time: I think anyone capable of keeping the audience captivated for at least 30 minutes deserves a lot of credit, but I do have a few exceptions for matches around the 20 minute mark.

I usually downgrade matches that involve outside interference. To me, the best matches are mano a mano and the audience should only focus on the parties directly involved

**DaVe** · 01-12-2009, 07:05 AM

I tend to believe people rate stuff too hard. People seem to almost never give out a 5-star rating to a match. I just rate them on how much I enjoy it. A match that you enjoyed to no end is a 5 star match in my mind. These long criterion (e.g. above post) addressing how to rate a match as being good just shows that things are taken too seriously. How hard can it be to explain whether you think a match is amazing or not?

**wwe2222** · 01-12-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anybody Thrilla

Shawn's first Intercontinental title win, btw.

I just watched this match yesterday. Always one of my favs. I can still remember watching it live.

01-11-2009, 08:41 PM	#42
Fox "Ask him!" Posts: 10,075	Christopher Daniels vs. AJ Styles vs. Samoa Joe - X Title - Unbreakable 2005 HHH vs. HBM vs. Benoit - World Title - WM 20 HBM vs. Jericho - WMXIX Rock vs. Austin - WM17 Mysterio Jr. vs. Eddie Guerrero - Halloween Havoc 1997

01-12-2009, 01:25 AM	#43
Darc Junior Member Posts: 41	When I think of a five star match, I think of a match that is virtually flawless. There is nothing either man could have accomplished to make the match better than it was. There are some guys who are capable of putting on a great match regardless of who may be in the opposite corner and most of the time, when you can get 2 or more of those individuals in the same ring for a match the potential for a 5 star match is there. While there are a lot of matches I consider to be great, I don't consider a lot of matches to be five stars worthy. 3 stars is good, 4 stars is great, 5 stars in classic, must see material. This is my criteria for a 5 star match: Great Pacing: Let the story unfold at a meaningful, realistic pace, build up to the big moves, and then close it down with a memorable finish. Strong Psychology: Convince me that these guys either hate each other or they get along, but at that moment, care more about winning than each other. Show me moves that make sense within the context of the match. ex: Target/Protect a body part, Don't go for the big move until you know you can hit it, Surprise us with something new, show you've learned from past matches whether they be yours or someone else's. Sell the big moves as actually being dangerous. Use moves that play on the gimmick of the match. Time: I think anyone capable of keeping the audience captivated for at least 30 minutes deserves a lot of credit, but I do have a few exceptions for matches around the 20 minute mark. I usually downgrade matches that involve outside interference. To me, the best matches are mano a mano and the audience should only focus on the parties directly involved

01-12-2009, 07:05 AM	#44
DaVe yeah nah good mate Posts: 1,499	I tend to believe people rate stuff too hard. People seem to almost never give out a 5-star rating to a match. I just rate them on how much I enjoy it. A match that you enjoyed to no end is a 5 star match in my mind. These long criterion (e.g. above post) addressing how to rate a match as being good just shows that things are taken too seriously. How hard can it be to explain whether you think a match is amazing or not?