Dave Meltzer is like if a film critic said that the greatest film director of all time was Michael Bay, because his movies had the most explosions and jumpcuts; but because Meltzer does wrestling, it's high spots and "work rate".
Wrestling fans need to get out from under Meltzer's warped view. The following is 7 criteria to judge a wrestling match by, informed by established norms from the critical study of literature, theatre, and film.
>1. Gimmicks
By this I mean "characters". Their depth, their "gah-gah" (mannerisms), promo styles, ring attire, motivations
>2. Setting & Cinematography
Matches matter more in arenas than in bingo halls, and more in major PPVs like Wrestlemania than in weekly shows. Also the lighting, the sound, the stage design, and the cinematography. I can't tell you how many matches Kevin Dunn has made worse because of his camerawork.
>3. Angle
AKA the plot. Too many matches these days are just, "I hate you so fight me." What are the stakes? How original is the angle? Does it speak to a human glory or tell a story about the fallibility of man?
>4. In-ring Action
By this we mean the choreography, the moves. Meltzer is wrong: it's not the amount of moves that make a match great, it's the meaning of the moves. I look for things like accuracy, realism, variety, narrative.
>5. Crowd Reaction
Measured in heat for the heel and pops for the babyface. Wrestling is live theatre in the round, and a bad crowd can kill a match as much as a great crowd can elevate a great match to mythical status.
>6. Conflict & Resolution
How well was the story told? Did it set up a continuation, or did it resolve in a blow-off? Was there a turn? The final match of a feud should get more praise than a middle match of a best-of-three program.
>7. The Emotion
As measured subjectively by the reviewer. This is the human part of the equation. There are good comedy matches as well, not just drama. How well did this match illicit a response from you?
