A NOTE ON RATINGS

During the G1 Climax 2014 I started to wring my hands a little about rating matches using my version of the Meltzer star system. It still prods at the back of my mind. On Day 2 of said event, I wrote this addendum to try and clarify my take on ratings.

A word about my ratings: I tend to start at a ** base point. I'll add about a quarter of a star for every couple of minutes that pass by without breaking my attention or taking me outside the bubble of what I'm trying to enjoy.

That doesn't mean that simply working an entertaining 24 minute match will accrue enough quarter stars to get you to a ***** classic (I have very few of those) because there are also intangible factors such as importance, storyline and even personal like and dislike.

There are some inconsistencies to my methodology, I'll admit. Moments matter. Sometimes I'll add for something out of the ordinary or subtract if something really annoys me. I also favour intensely-contested and well-constructed brevity (10-12 mins) where possible, which is why sometimes I appear generous on shorter matches that deliver compared to longer ones with lulls. I try not to be overly-critical where possible because I recognise what a tough job people are doing.

Largely I still agree. This site isn't trying to be a ratings guide, rather I'm much more keen to offer interpretations and impressions of what happened. Ratings are just a shorthand for the casual reader who wants to correlate their own thoughts with the critical interpretation of them. 

If you disagree, then that is fine. If you want to let me know about it, then use the comment box or hit me up on Twitter. As of now I have never come under any serious fire and this article is being written to hopefully insulate me from any angry fans or even workers who think I under- or overrate people they know or love.