FACEBOOK TWITTER RSS APP PODCAST About Us MMATORCH FIGHT STAR RATINGS: What they mean and why we do them

Dec 13, 2008 - 4:22:00 PM

We have created a star rating system for use at MMATorch.com as a courtesy for readers looking for a quick reference to decide which DVDs to rent or purchase, and as a subject for discussion among MMA followers.

THE CASE FOR RATING FIGHTS WITH STARS

Our star rating system is not judging the performance of fighters, whose primary job it is to win their match, not entertain. If a fighter can win in a few seconds, he's doing his job as he should, yet the match would not receive a high star rating because it wasn't substantial enough to be considered a "must see" or "go out of your way to see" match.

There are some MMA fans who strongly object to star ratings, likely for two reasons. One, a win is a win, they argue. They are right, and a boring win shouldn't mean less than an exciting win. But for a fan looking through our past show reports or DVD reviews shopping for something to rent on NetFlix or buy at Best Buy, the star ratings act as a quick glance guide to whether the reviewer's personal opinion was that the fights on the show were exciting. Star ratings are just a shortcut for a lot of adjectives ("Great fight!" "Must see!" "FOTY Candidate!" "Boring!" "Sleep Inducing" "Nothing Special." "You missed nothing.") We also describe the fight with words in our reports, of course, but the star-rating is a way to convey a general level of fight excitement and quality of execution.

Fans, fighters, and promoters judge the excitement level of fights all the time. Dana White, on the Ultimate Fighter season in Fall of 2008, described the Ryan Bader vs. Eliot Marshall fight as "not up for fight of the year or anything like that; not the most exciting fight you'll ever see." Clearly, fight quality is constantly acknowledged and talked about. In fact, the excitement level of fights often dictate someone moving ahead of someone else nearly their equal in the rankings and into a title shot. UFC is a business and exciting fights sell, exciting fighters sell. Star ratings, over time, would tend to indicate whether a fighter is typically exciting or has a style that might appeal to hardcore technical fight fans, but not to the masses that UFC or any MMA group needs to survive and thrive. Rules have already been designed to enhance excitement of fights. Joe Rogan often laments stand-ups because he appreciates the ground game (when fighters are maneuvering actively for an advantage) and doesn't like casual fans who only like stand-up being catered to as much as they are.

Frank Mir aknowledged this on the Dec. 3, 2008 World Extreme Cagefighting event. He said regarding Wagnney Fabiano: "This is MMA. He needs to open it up a little more... He needs to go for armbar attempts earlier on and rein down some punishment if he wants to be more exciting. Bottom line, this is also a spectator sport. He can be as dominant as he wants and play it safe and win fights, but if the fans don't want to see you fight, you're a very poor and lonely guy." He later added: "Sometimes you see two guys who really know their craft and you can make for a spectacular fight, but if you get two excellent wrestlers - I've seen Olympic wrestling or the NCAAs and you get a boring one-point match because both guys nullify each other."

Another criticism of star-ratings is that they have been used in pro wrestling for years to grade the excitement level and quality of execution of the staged matches, so some MMA fans see that as besmirching the purity or real fights by applying ratings to MMA contests. Pro wrestling star ratings are more akin to a star rating for a movie, TV show, or CD since the judgment is based on the "art" of the performance. Star ratings for MMA fights, again, are akin to rankings of the greatest NBA Finals of all time or rankings of the greatest World Series games of all time. It's shorthand and an attempt to provide a convenient overview of the collective quality of fight cards on DVD (or PPV replays).

A BREAKDOWN OF OUR SCALE

We have a basic five-star rating system, with no quarter or half stars, but instead a plus (+) or minus (-) to indicate whether it was a strong or weak version of two-star or four-star match, etc.

The criteria is based primarily on "drama" or "entertainment value" - the primary reason anybody watches any sport, but with a healthy dose of consideration (20 percent) on strong technique being shown by fighters and a final dose of consideration (10-20 percent) on whether the fight is "significant" in the sense of history (a dream match between known fighters, an upset by a newcomer over an established fighter), or changing the title picture. In other words, a **+ match might become a ***- because it has major ramifications or a surprising finish. A * match might move to **- because the technique of the submission or knockout was noteworthy.

ONE STAR: Every fight gets one star for merely taking place, so a *- would indicate the least entertaining fight possible (Severn-Shamrock draw debacle, a sloppy one minute submission). A *+ rating would go to a match that was forgettable and perhaps mostly boring, but with a redeemly quality, such as a few good punches, reversals, or a submission of note.

TWO STARS: This is your typical average MMA fight that you might forget about within minutes, if not for one or two decent rounds or a memorable knockout or submission or historical significance. (Sylvia vs. Arlovski III as an example might be considered **- because the title being at stake added drama, but otherwise it was a *+ propped up only by a solid first round; Liddell vs. Sobral would be probably ranked only two-stars because it was so short, but I'd add a plus because it was a Liddell title match and Sobral had a strong winning streak and a title was at stake, adding elements of drama to it going in and ramifications afterward.)

THREE STARS: This is good fight, where if there were three of them on an event, it'd make it an event worth seeing with some good technique, although not superior. (Hughes vs. Gracie might arguably reach three-stars because of the stature of the fight, the drama of the armbar, and historical significance, although I'd be tempted to have it **+ because it was so short.)

FOUR STARS: This is an elite fight, where it can carry a show on its own or come close to it, or a good match between two name fighters. If it's one dimensional with no ground fighting, or all ground fighting with no stand-up, that can work against it, unless the stand-up or ground fighting is compelling throughout (as was the stand-up for Griffin-Bonnar II).

FIVE STARS: This happens maybe twice a year, and would be up for MMA Fight of the Year. It could be an awesome undercard match between two up-and-comers, but more often will be a match with something at stake, high interest going into the fight to add drama, and a match that exceeds expectations and goes at least two rounds. (Griffin-Bonner easily would be five-stars as it fits much of the criteria perfectly, only falling short in not being a showcase for any ground fighting - but that's a small factor.)

We will track on MMATorch.com a list of four-star and five-star matches during the year, as graded by our official contributors reviewing live events, TV shows, and DVDs. We will also compile over time a list of top rated match from past years, as they are reviewed for MMATorch.com by our contributors, and a note of their availability on DVD.

ALERT: Every Tuesday night, listen to the MMATorch Livecast from 9-10:30 p.m. ET or listen now to the most recent shows by clicking here. Listen live this coming Tuesday as Jamie Penick, Rich Hansen, and Matt Pelkey discuss the latest MMA happenings. Online listen at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mmatorch or call into the show at 646-716-8090 to either just listen or participate.