the same way that comic books are.
or star wars.
or star trek.
etc.


i went to toys r us the other day with a friend to pick up a limited edition WWE action figure. My friend is a huge movie buff, a bonafide Star Wars nerd, and an overall badass geeky motherfucker. And he pointed out to me that wrestling is treated not necessarily with disrespect, but its more or less ignored as a proper subculture within geek society.

I never got into Star Wars or RPG's or comic books (aside from my childhood fascination with Batman). But I've always been a huge wrestling fan. In my mind, there is nothing quite like it in all of American pop culture. And I feel like its slighted by many people.

Case in point. Next semester my current English professor will be teaching a class on comic books. There's also a film studies class that focuses on science fiction as art. This is fine and dandy, but it got me wondering why you dont see the same respects paid to wrestling.

I mean, it exists in its own universe that is completely original. Its not quite sport, not quite drama. Not quite comedy, not quite theatre. Its an amalgamation of all those things. Its the last pure variety show in American culture. It has elements of myth, elements of sport, elements of burlesque, and its totally performance based.

It has its own self-sustaining rules and guidelines. Its merchandising is also very interesting. Everything from action figures to magazines to video games to bed sheets to books and films...

To me, it often makes very real, if unintentional, statements about society. It speaks to masculinity, violence, heroism, etc.

Its also a billion dollar industry.


I didn't quite know where to post this, because I figured sports would ignore it, GD would snark it, and maybe PTP will condemn it.
But I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on it as a legitimate artform. Maybe, if you are/were a fan, your favorite wrestler(s), favorite gimmicks, moves, etc.

Wrestling fans are looked down upon in a similar way to Star wars fans, but it is a differnt type of person.

Wrestling fans are kind of viewed as nerdy, geeky but they are much more views as lower class, trashy, stupid

Kind of the opposite of the star wars fans

And if you frequent the OKS wreslting thread you'll see I'm a huge wrestling fan and I accept this view even if it doesnt describe me
------------------------------
To answer the most popular question on the board
<----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay_Laren

i know what you mean.
in the south, especially here in the south, real deal wrestling fans can be a rather scary bunch.

if anyone doubts this, i suggest they go to an indy show at a fairgrounds in Georgia, or an armory in Tennessee. You'll see people there that really question your belief in intelligent design.

it doesnt bother me that i'm lumped in the same category as those people though. cause honestly, most of the real folky types that ive met at wrestling shows are some of the nicest, realest, if often very uneducated, people i've ever met. i kinda like to wear it like a badge of honor, to tell the truth.

But I understand where I am being lumped in by people when I say it.

It is indeed 'sism
------------------------------
To answer the most popular question on the board
<----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay_Laren

>i know what you mean.
>in the south, especially here in the south, real deal
>wrestling fans can be a rather scary bunch.
>
>if anyone doubts this, i suggest they go to an indy show at a
>fairgrounds in Georgia, or an armory in Tennessee. You'll see
>people there that really question your belief in intelligent
>design.

heh, or you can watch an old ep of world class championship wrestling.

because they're TERRIBLE. That's like asking why grown ups aren't watching Hannah Montana and High School Musical.

Without that it's just fake sports and empty chauvinism.

I guess wrestling fans share the same tier as metal heads. Fake music and empty chauvinism.

most wrestling geek would tell you that the stories are ridiculous. at least in the WWE. but they havent always been like that, and in other promotions, much less popular promotions, the stories are actually good.
Hell, there are some instances in the WWE were the stories are good. But, i can only speak for myself, i see WWE more as camp. The stories are overblown and the acting is generally terrible, but that isnt necessarily a bad thing.

Its fake the same way that play is fake, and that empty chauvinism you speak of is part of its appeal.

i dont know why the hell your bashing metalheads. Those dudes are some of the most dedicated, serious music fans out there.

These are artless forms of entertainment meant for children!

They have nothing to do with reality.

no joy for you!

To paraphrase Herb Kunze, who I believe was a math professor at a university in Canada and helmed one of the earliest pro-wrestling Web sites for a number of years before growing disillusioned with the product in North America: "The problem with pro-wrestling is not all pro-wrestling is created equal." Meaning, at its worst, wrestling is a ridiculous, unathletic soap opera, while at its best it is athletic, dramatic, and actually quite believable.

Unfortunately, the version that's popularly recognized in America by the culture at large is the former -- the kind that is laughably fake and driven by stupid storylines. But even within that product, there are performers who understand how to do it right. And when pro-wrestling is executed correctly (which is admittedly increasingly rare these days) it has the power to be as entertaining and dramatic and credible as any other popular form of entertainment. I'd never refer to it as a sport, because there is no actual athletic competition happening (but you better believe it's still a competitive, cutthroat business), but most of the participants ARE legitimately athletic and talented and can do things few other people on the planet can do. The problem is, only the "geeks" (or whatever you want to call them) actually know this.

And it is NOT artless. Wrestling has a history and science behind it to rival any other entertainment medium. To get an entire arena, who by now all know the product is fixed, to react to near-falls, to boo heels and cheer faces, sometimes completely organically, takes a level of artistry on par with making someone in a movie theater care about a fictional character that doesn't even exist in the flesh. Again, the problem is, it doesn't happen all the time. And as for the chauvinist charge, yeah, I shake my head at the T&A shit that exists in the American product, but you should see women's wrestling in Japan if you're trying to paint the whole sport as sexist. It's some of the best examples of GOOD pro-wrestling you can find.

Personally, I haven't followed or really watched wrestling for years, but I periodically feel the need to defend it. Besides, I don't think a comic book fan has the right to tell ANYONE to grow up.

>Besides,
>I don't think a comic book fan has the right to tell ANYONE to
>grow up.

and there's craft there, like there is in wrestling, not art.


I'll give the Jonas Brothers a bit of edge over wrestlers seeing as they aren't greased up and juiced up creeps.


Kids like wrestling because their hormones are repressed or going nuts. Adults reject it because it's vapid, homoerotic, sexist and creepy.

>and there's craft there, like there is in wrestling, not
>art.

First of all, you're getting into a circular conversation about the "meaning" of art. I've long believed that is in the eye of beholder, but feel free to give me your personal definition as well.

>I'll give the Jonas Brothers a bit of edge over wrestlers
>seeing as they aren't greased up and juiced up creeps.

Again, not all wrestling is created equal. In America, particularly in the WWE, the majority of the guys ARE "greased up and juiced up creeps," but the head creep, Vince McMahon, has had a fetish for big, roided-out monsters who can barely move in the ring but look menacing. It's very difficult to get in the boss's good graces and get a push if you're not huge and lumbering, so guys shoot steroids into their ass until they have a heart attack and/or go crazy and murder their families. There are a LOT of things wrong with the industry in North America, but we're talking about the overall "artistry" here, not the business. If you look at wrestling in Japan and Mexico, the performers are often not "juiced up" and rarely "oiled up." And neither are the guys in some of the smaller domestic promotions. Their physiques aren't much different from swimmers or gymnasts or football players. So you can't judge the entire profession off WWE, even though it has more or less monopolized the market in the United States.

>Kids like wrestling because their hormones are repressed or
>going nuts. Adults reject it because it's vapid, homoerotic,
>sexist and creepy.

Wow, quite the analysis there. So adults reject wrestling because because "it's vapid, homoerotic, sexist and creepy?" That's painting with quite a big brush. I will admit that the increase in those elements is what drove me away to stop following wrestling in my early 20s, but it's inaccurate to suggest the adult fans who still watch have some sort of psychological problem. Check out deathvalleydriver.com. These guys are like the ultimate wrestling geeks, but they all have families, watch "real" sports, listen to cool music and seem perfectly well-adjusted. They just enjoy watching wrestling. Or Scott Keith, a longtime Internet figure who is sort of like the Chuck Klosterman of wrestling, over at rswpfaq.com. He has written several books on wrestling, and is a pretty intelligent guy. Bob Mould, leader of Husker Du, one of the most important bands in the history of US indie rock, worked as a writer for WCW. AND he's gay.

The point is, lumping all adult wrestling fans into some weirdo category is the same as doing it to the hardcore fans of anything, be it the "Stars Wars," Dungeons & Dragons, the NFL, whatever. Again, there are some people who'd probably lift an eyebrow at an adult who still collects comic books -- I'm not one of them, I'm just using this as an example -- and lodge the exact same complaints of vapidity, homoeroticism, sexism and general creepiness toward the comic book industry. I mean, aren't the women in North American wrestling basically comic book heroines come to life?

etherous

as for comics, there are titles pitched to teenagers, I avoid those. They also have stories and characters, not silly feuds about ring managers and catchphrases.

I watched Stampede Wrestling as a kid. Not too much steroids and it was more wholesome. But it was still insipid, simple and childish.

It really just depends on the individual geek, not the object of obsession.

But I just find it funny that you're trying to act as if comics and wrestling aren't the least bit comparable. Granted, I probably know as much about comics as you appear to know about wrestling, so maybe we shouldn't even be debating each other, but the argument that wrestling doesn't have "stories and characters?"

First of all, wrestling DOES have stories. Some are "insipid" and poorly written, others are engaging and logical. The best wrestling stories -- or "angles" -- are "simple": Wrestler A wants Wrestler B's title, Wrestler A used to team with Wrestler B before Wrestler A turned on Wrestler B because Wrestler A wanted to go solo, etc. The more convoluted an angle gets, the worse it usually ends up. And the best wrestling characters can be just as complex as any comic hero. Guys like Shawn Michaels and Mick Foley have spent literally decades building their personalities, to the point where people identify with them and know what to expect of them. When the writers decide to deviate from those personalities and have them do something that weakens the character or makes no sense for them, fans react negatively.

for real.

its a shame that he probably won't hear you though.


really, i think it boils down to more of a taste thing. Some people don't believe that hardboiled fiction has any place in academia, and i generally consider those people to be elitists. Dr. No tends to be true to his name, and could be considered a geek elite.

I don't care if this dude ends up liking or even halfway respecting pro-wrestling. Hell, I don't even follow it anymore myself (I do very occasionally bust out old tapes or look matches up on YouTube, though). But I consider myself a mildly intelligent person, and yet I watched wrestling WAY longer than some people on this board obviously consider socially acceptable and have always been more into it than anyone I've ever known. At some point I wondered why that is, and when you look at it, it's as valuable an art form -- yes, an ART FORM -- as anything else. I even credit it for spurring my creativity as a kid and pushing me early on in my life toward being a writer for a living. People understandably don't get that (most FANS don't even get that), and I like to take the opportunity to maybe make them see my point. It's one of the few subjects I feel qualified to pontificate on, anyway.

But "My elbow drop is better than your flip kick and I want your title!*Insert homophobic innuendo catchphrase here*." That, doesn't strike me as compelling as Elmore Leonard.

I am familiar with wrestling. I watched it as a kid. But it's terrible.

but they're shitty ones that a chimp could develop.


Is Sean Michaels still cocky? Does he still sport a giant heart on his groin?

Is Mick Foley still that crazy guy who likes pain?


Like Buckshot has asked: Where are the Alan Moores and Art Spieglemans of Wrestling? Even overlooking the whole "it's fake" argument, what's left is junk.

They don't need to be any more complex than something a chimp could write to be effective. All they need to do is build toward the eventual match to the point where the audience feels there is something truly at stake there (even though they know there really isn't, but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in), and if the participants are talented enough, people in the crowd will completely forget they are watching something where the outcome is already determined and start to legitimately CARE about who comes out on top. There's no need for elaborate twists, turns and a whole bunch of exposition. If you can just convince a crowd that two characters simply hate each other's guts, that's good enough.

You watched Stampede, so I'm assuming you're Canadian. You must know who Bret Hart is, right? Two of my favorite angles ever involve him: He came from one of the more famous wrestling families and was clearly the most talented and successful of the bunch. A little while after he won his first World Title in the then-WWF, his younger brother, Owen, came into the promotion and started to whine and complain about having to live in his sibling's shadow. But Bret refused to fight his own blood, and instead the two teamed up and went after the tag titles. In the match where they challenged for the championship, Bret, despite having his leg all but destroyed in the course of the bout, didn't trust his brother enough to win without him and refused to tag out, and ended up losing the match for both of them. Enraged at having lost in his first shot at a major championship, Owen kicks Bret in his injured leg as he attempts to stand after the match, effectively severing ties from his family and its favorite son. When the two eventually meet in the opener at WM10 a few months later -- with Bret still begrudgingly accepting his brother's challenge -- Owen pulls off an upset in a tremendously hard-fought contest, freeing himself from the shadow of his brother, who would go on to recapture the World Title later that night. That is some shit anyone who grew up with the black sheep to an overachieving sibling can relate to.

My other favorite angle involving Bret happened a couple years later, as his status as the most popular wrestler in the WWF was challenged by Steve Austin, a guy who is his exact opposite: He swears, guzzles beer, wears black, and doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks of him. Just a few years before, somebody like that would have been loathed by the fans. Yet, he's being cheered by an increasing faction of the audience. This starts to annoy Bret, who made his name by adhering to a traditional moral code (a love of family, for instance, established years before when he refused for a long time to fight his brother) that was the direct antithesis of everything Austin represented. Bret started launching into whiny, long-winded rants about the declining American value system. The crowds, tired of being preached to for a decade by the likes of Hulk Hogan ("Say your prayers, eat your vitamins," etc.), revolted against him -- except in Canada, where he was cheered as even greater hero. The climax came when Bret and Austin met at WM13. That match gave us the iconic image of Austin, screaming with blood streaming down his face, trapped in Hart's signature hold, the Sharpshooter. He passed out from the pain and the ref stopped the match, but Bret, for the first time in his career, kept the hold on after the bell rang -- a clear violation of his own moral code. He , like all heavy-handed moralizers, turned out to be a hyprocrite. The crowd fully turned on him in the instant and began chanting Austin's name. Sure, he might drink, swear and revel in being an unabashed loner, but at least he told the damn truth. And in one fell swoop, you have a new hero and a new villain.

So, there are two stories covering several themes: sibling rivalry, the supposed sanctity of family, fake piety vs. depraved honesty, and the changing landscape of American morality in the late 20th century. Yeah, the stories are simple, but there is clear, nuanced character development involved, and they cover a lot of ground ... and, not to mention, made a lot of money.

but your posts have still given me a new perspective on things. great posting!!!

i don't feel it would be right for me to post about wrestling without expressing my inner geek, so i'll just correct you and say that wasn't the first time bret held on to the sharpshooter *after* the bell.

LOL, sorry, i'll go now

<Af-1 skulks away>

great posts again though!!!

.

Agreed, the Bret Hart '97 run was arguably his finest WWF moment. He not only delivered in the ring, but was phenomenal on the mic...
________________________________________________________________________
all I wanna do
*gunshot**gunshot**gunshot**gunshot*
and
*cocks gun*
*KA-CHING!*
and take your money

That aspect (which they never followed up on) legitimately shocked me back in the day. I still have no idea how they got away with that part.

And the Austin/Bret double turn was a thing of beauty.

As said above, wrestling fans are stereotyped as unintelligent and low class. However, the wrestling fans and the wrestling geeks are very different. The ones throwing back beers while cheering on Stone Cold are not the same as the ones on the message boards talking about who's over, who's next in line for a push and who has the most power backstage. Those dudes are geeks.

im talking more along the lines of fans like me.

Unlike the best science fiction or comic books, wrestling is completely inane. So it can't certainly be studied as a pop cultural phenomenon (why are people interested in this), and I'm sure it is, as are soap operas, which are roughly culturally (and artistically) equivalent.

its not like i need validation or anything. its just a curiosity to me.

i wouldnt write off wrestling as being inane. its an escapist form of entertainment, and it does have redeeming qualities. also, comparing it to a soap opera is very simplistic. There are so many things at play in any given match (improvisation, athleticism, storytelling through the actual match itself, etc) that its much more than a soap opera.

if anything, wrestling has credence as spectacle. People dont seem to be so critical of other forms of spectacle, such as variety shows, or something like Cirque du Soleil.

... as a reflection of American society at any given point in history. If I could find it I'd post it here. But it can absolutely be studied as a pop-culture phenomenon, and there are deep social implications connected to it as entertainment. People who make these broad and, frankly, elitist generalizations about wrestling haven't watched enough of it to truly judge.

>People who make these broad and, frankly, elitist
>generalizations about wrestling haven't watched enough of it
>to truly judge.


what's to love about it?
what would you say to those people?

Well, as the original poster mentions elsewhere, it's pretty futile trying to convert someone into a wrestling fan, but there are definitely matches and moments I could show someone to say, "You may not LIKE this, but I think you'll respect these guys a bit more after watching it."

In terms of what it offers, I like to focus more on what happens in the ring than the extracurricular storylines that are used to build to the matches. But there are, on occasion, well-constructed plots which are more comparable to, say, the trajectory of an action film than a soap opera. I think it was Jim Cornette who has said there are only seven storylines (or "angles") in wrestling that are constantly recycled, and they are really just classic story arcs focusing on themes of betrayal, revenge, jealousy, etc. I could point out a few in detail, but don't really have the time.

In regards to the action act of wrestling, I don't liken the in-ring action to a soap opera; it's more like physical theater. These guys are telling a story with their bodies. And it is interesting to see how they build that story over the course of 20-30 minutes, choosing what holds to use, what moves to do at what point, to maximize crowd reaction and get the audience to suspend disbelief and start reacting as if these guys are actually locked in a real battle. There really is as much strategy as there is in any "sport," except it's not directed at beating an opponent, but rather two to however many guys working together to entertain a crowd. And a lot of it is improvised (some are plotted move-for-move -- see most of Hulk Hogan's matches -- but a lot of the better matches in history are made up as the match goes along, and if you've seen some of the complex sequences of moves more talented wrestlers can string together, that's pretty incredible).

And there are moments of genuine, unabashed human emotion. They don't happen often, but they are as powerful as any emotional moment in "real" sports, such as when Ric Flair -- a guy who has basically been the face of pro-wrestling for close to three decades, generally considered the greatest who ever did it and who did everything the "right" way -- recently retired. Or when Chris Benoit and Eddy Guerrero, two guys who worked their asses off for years and were always clearly the best wrestlers in whatever promotion they were involved with but were never allowed to advance to the next level because they were deemed "too small," embraced in the middle of the ring at the end of Wrestlemania XX, having both finally won World Titles on the biggest stage in the business. The tragedy of both those guys' lives -- two examples of everything that's WRONG with wrestling -- has spoiled the moment forever, but ignoring what happened afterward, it was every bit as emotional as, say, KG finally winning a ring this year. Granted, it's not the SAME thing -- Mick Foley compares winning the World Title more to winning an Oscar than a Super Bowl; the people who make those decisions are basically saying, "We have enough faith in you for you to be THE representative of this company" -- but in terms of the symbolism, it's just as important to a wrestler's career and legacy.

i remember showing my girlfriend the Mankind/Undertaker Hell in a Cell match as an example of what these guys put themselves through.

After she saw that, she started to warm up to it. Now, even if she's not a fan, she can at least understand why I am, and appreciate it.

...because of that match.

The total dedication to his craft, the commitment to putting on an incredible show, the beating he took in that match...unreal.

At the same time, it made me queasy seeing Beyond The Mat a few years later and finding out how much of a toll that took on his family. The way his kids were just terrified for their father broke my heart.

------------------------------------------------------------------
17

and Foley wrote in one of his books that him seeing that footage is what made him decide to give up wrestling on a full time basis.

I haven't watched Wrestling since I was about 14.

at LEAST back then there was more wrestling and less silly shit like Vince McMahon being in the ring at 287 years old.

Sure, they'd talk shit between matches, but not all the "backstage drama" like now.

Wrestling was built on the *winkwink* notion of being fake, but now it's just ridiculous.

Basically, Wrestling Fans are fans in spite of themselves. They KNOW they get clowned, and that's a hard sell for ANY subculture.


Somebody bought up the fact that they're no different than any other Geeky fanbase, but at the end of the day, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Comic Geeks have Science, technology, and philosophy on their side.


Wrestling fans have big sweaty guys in tights and musclebound chicks with fake tits throwing each other around. You can't really defend that to a non-fan.

this bothers me a lot when people pretend that wrestling used to be so much more believable. kids have always marked out to it, but i cant believe that grown men back in the 80s really thought that the characters they saw were real.

we're not getting clowned. the product itself acknowledges the fact that its not sport. thats part of the appeal. its more than sport, its more than drama.
in its best form, it becomes something that is completely unique and organic.


wrestling fans have all that shit on there side too. they also have the classic hero dramas, burlesque, and a rich tradition of improvisational performance.

also, as for the defending it to a non fan. its mighty hard to defend most aspects of Star Trek to a non fan. And too, if you dont like it, you probably arent going to start based on the arguments of fans.

lets be real. star wars fans didnt come to star wars because they saw the mythology in it. and wrestling fans arent coming to wrestling because they see the rich history of performance.
they both come because its a form of escapism and its fun.
that other shit is icing on the cake.

>
>
>this bothers me a lot when people pretend that wrestling used
>to be so much more believable. kids have always marked out to
>it, but i cant believe that grown men back in the 80s really
>thought that the characters they saw were real.


not that we thought it was "real", but in the old 80's day of the WWF, you tuned in to a match, and you'd get a match, not silly ass interviews of backstage fakery and 15 minutes of pre-match hype. King Kong Bundy would wrestle Hulk Hogan, and then on to the next match. Nowadays you got all this bullshit in between matches and it takes up half the telecast.

>
>
>wrestling fans have all that shit on there side too. they also
>have the classic hero dramas, burlesque, and a rich tradition
>of improvisational performance.

how can it be improvisational if it's choreographed?


>
>also, as for the defending it to a non fan. its mighty hard to
>defend most aspects of Star Trek to a non fan. And too, if you
>dont like it, you probably arent going to start based on the
>arguments of fans.


I'm not saying "I don't like it so therefore I must shit on it" ( for the record, I don't). I'm just stating why the fanbase is viewed the way it is.


>
>lets be real. star wars fans didnt come to star wars because
>they saw the mythology in it.

actually some do. Philosophy and religious college instructors have used Jedi Mythology as a parallel for some ancient Eastern religions.

and wrestling fans arent coming
>to wrestling because they see the rich history of performance.

fair enough.


>
>they both come because its a form of escapism and its fun.
>that other shit is icing on the cake.

agreed.

>
>not that we thought it was "real", but in the old 80's day of
>the WWF, you tuned in to a match, and you'd get a match, not
>silly ass interviews of backstage fakery and 15 minutes of
>pre-match hype. King Kong Bundy would wrestle Hulk Hogan, and
>then on to the next match. Nowadays you got all this bullshit
>in between matches and it takes up half the telecast.

i see what youre saying. but the WWF/E has always been prone to ridiculousness.



>
>how can it be improvisational if it's choreographed?
>

not all of it is choreographed. in fact, most of it is improvisational. the outcome is predetermined, and certain big spots (or moves where there is a high risk of danger) are planned at certain times, but its more like jazz (as stupid as that sounds) in that there is a general game plan, but there's also a lot more room to move, depending on how the crowd is reacting, time limits, injury, etc.


>Philosophy and religious college instructors
>have used Jedi Mythology as a parallel for some ancient
>Eastern religions.

yeah, but very few people become Star Wars fans solely based on that.

the main event was stone cold vs the undertaker.

i was kinda shocked at the level of dedication from these fans over a fake sport. i mean, i'm a raider fan and i've been to games, and this crowd made the oakland colosseum seem sophisticated. everyone was holding up signs, screaming their heads off, and rushing the ring every time the match was over. there was this kid next to us about ten years old with his mom crying because the undertaker lost. the whole thing was pretty fascinating.

i mean, i was deep into wrestling when i was around twelve but i can't fathom how someone could take it seriously as an adult.

so while it's probably insulting to geeks to coin this a geek thing, it's DEFINITELY a pop culture phenomenon, and could be studied as such.

its true, but its not needed.

the fact that these wrestlers can occasionally cause such a reaction from the fans is proof of its uniqueness, not of its faults.

movies can take you anywhere, and anytime. including places and times that don't even exist.

wrestling exists only in the ring as a fake sport with some soap opera dramatics thrown in for effect.

personally i found it more interesting and fun when they were still pretending it was real.

like i said it IS a pop culture phenomenon. it's just a retarded one.

i was making the point that you shouldnt call it "fake", because you wouldnt call a play "fake". wrestling cannot take you to the future, or to middle earth, this is true. but within its confines, which are entirely self-created and self-sustaining, wrestling has the same kind of limits that movies have, in that it can explore certain emotions, ideas, beliefs, etc.



>like i said it IS a pop culture phenomenon. it's just a
>retarded one.


i appreciate your willingness to participate in this discussion, but please dont call it retarded. i mean, if you must, its not hurting my feelings or anything. its just rather ignorant and narrow-minded of you to label it as such. and it doesnt really add anything to the discussion.

>i was making the point that you shouldnt call it "fake",
>because you wouldnt call a play "fake". wrestling cannot take
>you to the future, or to middle earth, this is true. but
>within its confines, which are entirely self-created and
>self-sustaining, wrestling has the same kind of limits that
>movies have, in that it can explore certain emotions, ideas,
>beliefs, etc.

you're ignoring the fact that for decades wwf, wcw, etc.. pretended to be real. i'm not denying that there's plenty of skill involved, professional wrestling of this kind will always be considered a fake sport me.

>>like i said it IS a pop culture phenomenon. it's just a
>>retarded one.
>
>
>i appreciate your willingness to participate in this
>discussion, but please dont call it retarded. i mean, if you
>must, its not hurting my feelings or anything. its just rather
>ignorant and narrow-minded of you to label it as such. and it
>doesnt really add anything to the discussion.

lol dude this isn't an insult to you, it's just my opinion of it's popularity based on what i've seen. many of my non-sports friends think it's retarded for me to be into a Laker or a Raider game... it aint that deep.

i was just saying that i wasnt comparing wrestling to star wars, in so much as i was comparing their fans.



>you're ignoring the fact that for decades wwf, wcw, etc..
>pretended to be real. i'm not denying that there's plenty of
>skill involved, professional wrestling of this kind will
>always be considered a fake sport me.

wrestling being presented as real is part of the appeal. movies are known to be "fake", but the audience's suspension of disbelief adds to their appeal. the in ring product is still presented to be "real", same way that Die Hard is presented to be real. But McMahon acknowledged the "fakeness" of it when he took over the product from his dad in the late 70s/early 80s, and changed the classification of it to "sports entertainment".



i know it aint that deep. but for the sake of this discussion, im pretending that it is. lol.

>i was just saying that i wasnt comparing wrestling to star
>wars, in so much as i was comparing their fans.

gotcha, fair enough

>But McMahon acknowledged the "fakeness"
>of it when he took over the product from his dad in the late
>70s/early 80s, and changed the classification of it to "sports
>entertainment".

that's where it really fell off imo. granted i was hardly watching anymore at this point but every now and then i'd tune in to see who was still around, what good guy turned bad, etc.. but by the time it was renamed wwe, it was painful to even sit through two minutes of it.

>i know it aint that deep. but for the sake of this discussion,
>im pretending that it is. lol.

aiight cool lol.

Though I used to be a smark, so that's why.

I think your Star Wars comparison is just plain weird. But it's not uncommon to see pro wrestlers doing signings at comic book conventions, so I'm thinking there must be *some* overlap there, and I'm wondering if your assertion that wrestling has no geek subculture is even true to begin with.


But I like a lot of geeky shit that the mainstream traditionally looks down on so I'm not gonna throw stones here. My personal belief is that you can be a 'geek' about literally anything, because I tend to define geekdom by the act of geeking and not the object being geeked over. It's just something you're very knowledgeable of and passionate about.Although society might view a guy who memorizes batting averages differently than a guy who memorizes Star Trek episodes.

>I think your Star Wars comparison is just plain weird. But
>it's not uncommon to see pro wrestlers doing signings at comic
>book conventions, so I'm thinking there must be *some* overlap
>there, and I'm wondering if your assertion that wrestling has
>no geek subculture is even true to begin with.
>

i'm not saying that the culture doesnt exist, cause obviously im a part of it. im just calling to attention the fact that it is generally looked down upon moreso than other subcultures within fandom/geekland/dorkworld, etc.




>
>But I like a lot of geeky shit that the mainstream
>traditionally looks down on so I'm not gonna throw stones
>here. My personal belief is that you can be a 'geek' about
>literally anything, because I tend to define geekdom by the
>act of geeking and not the object being geeked over. It's just
>something you're very knowledgeable of and passionate
>about.Although society might view a guy who memorizes batting
>averages differently than a guy who memorizes Star Trek
>episodes.


this is interesting to me. I love sports just as much as any other red blooded male. but i wonder sometimes what the real redeeming quality of sports is. I mean, i dont really think any of this (wrestling, comics, sports, etc) need any academic justification, its just odd that we put more value on certain things than others. Essentially, when we boil all of this down to its most basic level, none of this shit really matters. But then, it matters quite a bit to so many people.

>i'm not saying that the culture doesnt exist, cause obviously
>im a part of it. im just calling to attention the fact that it
>is generally looked down upon moreso than other subcultures
>within fandom/geekland/dorkworld, etc.

Hmm... I think typically it isn't looked down upon *moreso*, but just in a different way. We're going thru kind of a 'geek chic' phenomenon right now where being a trekkie has sort of an ironic coolness to it, so that kind of confuses the issue.

But with the sci-fi shit, there's an element of intellect to it. With the comics, there's an element of literature to it (even the low brow superhero stuff which you seem to be referencing here as comparison)... with wrestling, I like many others just have trouble seeing the 'art' or redeeming value of it.

I get that its elements of 'sport' and 'drama', but I still see it as less than the sum of its parts. And I get that it has a rich tradition to it, but not all traditions are necessarily good and not all things build on their traditions in a positive way. And I also get that many smart and talented people watch pro wrestling. Many smart and talented people also eat at Burger King, it doesn't change the nutritional value of the product.

There's probably an element of classism to it as well, yes. When I was in gradeschool, Hulkamania didn't discriminate. But by the time I got into high school wrestling was strictly for the rednecks. Not necessarily rednecks within a particular income bracket, but rednecks nonetheless.

I mean, you do bring up some interesting points I suppose, but in the end all that means is I'm more interested in reading about wrestling than actually watching it. Wrestling is the least interesting aspect of this entire post to me.

But I say all that knowing full well that I haven't seen nearly enough wrestling to speak with any authority either way. I'm the equivalent of a guy who read a couple Incredible Hulk issues in grade school and now thinks of comics as being kid stuff.

So who are the Alan Moore's and Art Spiegelman's of Professional Wrestling? Where's the *good* stuff that nobody here seems to know about?

>this is interesting to me. I love sports just as much as any
>other red blooded male. but i wonder sometimes what the real
>redeeming quality of sports is. I mean, i dont really think
>any of this (wrestling, comics, sports, etc) need any academic
>justification, its just odd that we put more value on certain
>things than others.

Well, some things have more value than others.

>Essentially, when we boil all of this down
>to its most basic level, none of this shit really matters. But
>then, it matters quite a bit to so many people.

Yeah, I mean, let's not get too nihilistic about things, but I see your point.

>
>But with the sci-fi shit, there's an element of intellect to
>it. With the comics, there's an element of literature to it
>(even the low brow superhero stuff which you seem to be
>referencing here as comparison)... with wrestling, I like many
>others just have trouble seeing the 'art' or redeeming value
>of it.

my only frame of reference in regards to comic books is the superhero stuff. and i really only have passing knowledge of that. But I am aware of graphic novels and mangas. But still, i am at fault for comparing wrestling to these things because they really are two different types of entertainment.


>
>I get that its elements of 'sport' and 'drama', but I still
>see it as less than the sum of its parts. And I get that it
>has a rich tradition to it, but not all traditions are
>necessarily good and not all things build on their traditions
>in a positive way. And I also get that many smart and talented
>people watch pro wrestling. Many smart and talented people
>also eat at Burger King, it doesn't change the nutritional
>value of the product.

well, i see the analogy, but food is enjoyed the same way by everyone, whereas wrestling is consumed differently by different types of fans.



>I mean, you do bring up some interesting points I suppose, but
>in the end all that means is I'm more interested in reading
>about wrestling than actually watching it. Wrestling is the
>least interesting aspect of this entire post to me.
>

likewise if someone were to feel compelled to post about the acceptance of manga, i would be more interested in reading about manga than actually reading manga. If its not your thing, its not your thing. I dont necessarily believe you can argue someone into becoming a fan of something. You'll probably never start watching wrestling, and I can almost guarantee that I'll never read any comic books aside from an occasional Batman.


>
>So who are the Alan Moore's and Art Spiegelman's of
>Professional Wrestling? Where's the *good* stuff that nobody
>here seems to know about?
>

Im not familiar with Moore or Spiegelman, but Im assuming that they make alternative, artistic comics? either way, wrestling has to be judged differently than other artforms. Without going into too much history, I'll try to answer the question.
You know wrestling is made up of different promotions. Of course, WWE is the biggest promotion, and a very distant second would be TNA, and third would be Ring Of Honor. There are hundreds of small regional promotions, some international promotions (Japan, Mexico). Each of these promotions have their own style of wrestling that is prominent, and within each promotion you have individual wrestlers who practice their own style of wrestling. WWE is a publicly traded company, so their main concern is attracting the most viewers and the highest PPV buy rate, therefore their style is aimed at attracting the widest audience. As such, it is generally considered to be the most base of wrestling promotions. But even within WWE, you have certain performers, certain types of matches, certain gimmicks and storylines that excel in spite of the company from which they were created.

TNA uses an 8 sided ring. I dont too much fuck with TNA enough to speak on it, but it tends to be much more athletic and quick than WWE, the wrestlers are smaller for the most part, and the matches showcase some pretty amazing maneuvers. However, overall, their product isnt polished as much as WWE's, and in my opinion, is kinda boring.
Ring of Honor has a RABID fan base, and the shows can only be ordered on ppv or on dvd. Most of the storytelling is done in ring, through incredible athleticism. Right now, amongst smart fans, ROH seems to be the most respected. But most every wrestling fan, no matter how much they complain, will watch RAW every week. Its like, I might fashion myself a Doom fan, but since I am a hip hop fan first, I will check the new 50 Cent when it comes out.

Also, there are certain performers who will always make a bad match good, or a good match great. Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Randy Savage (back in the day), Bret Hart, Ric Flair, etc. But the problem is that most of the guys who can work very well are trying to get to the WWE, if they are not already there. WWE is like MTV.

i could go on and on. so im just gonna stop with that.



>
>Well, some things have more value than others.
>

that statement is obviously true, if we were talking about life and death things. but in regards to this type of stuff, i disagree. wrestling, comics, basketball, football.... ultimately its all entertainment. of course there are varying degrees of skill, but it more or less comes down to how entertaining it is.

\

>well, i see the analogy, but food is enjoyed the same way by
>everyone, whereas wrestling is consumed differently by
>different types of fans.

Nah, I think the same thing happens with food. Music, Sports, Food, Literature... if it can be consumed, trust that people are gonna find a way to get their snob on.


And I appreciate you taking the time to make us all aware of some of that other stuff... My 'Who are the Alan Moore's of wrestling?' wasn't intended as a jab, I was just wondering if there were certain performers/athletes out there who were really bringing the 'art' of wrestling to a higher level, or certain types of wrestling that were regarded as superior to others in the wrestling community, etc. I guess in a way I'm also asking if there's such a thing as a wrestling snob.

And does Sumo fit into your equation? I don't think people look down on sumo wrestling.

Snobbery is essentially the dividing line between "casual fans" and "geeks," the common terminology being "marks" and "smarts" (or "smarks," as in "smart marks") respectively. A "smart" is the guy who is somewhat knowledgeable about how the business works, someone who reads the "dirt sheets" and the insider Web sites and is interested in what goes on behind the scenes. The nerds, basically. "Marks" are everyone else. And both of these groups watch the product differently. Smarts are obsessed with what's called "workrate" -- essentially, the actual in-ring talent of the wrestlers. Generally speaking, marks don't care all that much about that ability. They are more interested in the stuff that happens outside the ring: the soap operatic storylines, the interviews, the T&A. These elements are secondary to the "smart" fan, who most of all wants to see good matches (and what makes a "good" match is highly subjective, of course). But being that fame is not necessarily directly proportional to talent in North American wrestling, and that all the extracurricular stuff is often given greater prominence in WWE, the "high quality" workers are not always the ones that get most of the shine.

For example: Hulk Hogan is probably the most famous wrestler of the modern era, but most smarts will tell you he is a horrible worker. He got pushed because he had a marketable look and a lot of charisma, but from a workrate persective, most of his matches -- other than the ones that are meticulously planned move-for-move (see: v. Ultimate Warrior, an even WORSE worker, at WM6) -- are terrible. Marks still love him, smarts hate him. The classic example of the reverse situation is Chris Benoit. He was a guy most "smart" fans championed early on in his career, and over time grew to be considered perhaps the best pro-wrestler in North America, if not the world. But because he was deemed "too small" by wrestling's powers that be, and because he never gave good interviews, he was never given opportunities to be the face of a company until the latter stages of his career, when he managed to get over by sheer force of will. Smarts loved him (up until, well, y'know), marks were sorta "eh" toward him.

So yeah, there are figures I and most "smart" wrestling fans would hold up as examples of quality. The problem is, a lot of those guys never enter mainstream consciousness. The situation is different in Japan, however, where wrestling is covered by the media almost as a legitimate sport, and the emphasis is put almost entirely on workrate, so the biggest stars are generally also the best workers.

> My personal belief is that you can be a 'geek' about
>literally anything, because I tend to define geekdom by the
>act of geeking and not the object being geeked over. It's just
>something you're very knowledgeable of and passionate
>about.

Baseball is not inherently geeky. But there are many, many people who are complete geeks about baseball. And I don't mean "man, that guy sure LOVES baseball," I mean people who are straight up nerds about it. But instead of nerding out over Kirk vs. Picard, they nerd out over numbers and instead of creating awful fan fiction they create impossible to understand statistical formulas.

The appeal was lost to me. It seemed so trivial once I found out it was fake. Every now and then I'll peep it, but I'm not interested.

That's interesting. I never knew anyone thought it was all real. Personally, the more I found out about what really goes down (backstage stuff, how the business works, stuff like that) I became MORE interested. I stopped caring for other reasons.

>Personally, the more I found out about what really goes
>down (backstage stuff, how the business works, stuff like
>that) I became MORE interested. I stopped caring for other
>reasons.

I got into wrestling when I was six, and was on the way toward growing out of it around age 12 when I got the Internet back in the early 1990s and started to get "smart," and once I found out how it all works (and how the style differs all over the planet, and if I'm being honest, just how fucked up of a business it is behind the scenes), I got sucked in for another 10 or so years. That's one thing about wrestling: I think being a "smark" allows you to appreciate it more. If you're a casual viewer, or someone who hates it, it's easy to disregard it. The more you know, however, the more you can respect it. It's not all visible on the surface.

when i was ten, just about every other kid i knew knew it was fake.

But I started watching it with my father from practically the moment I came out of the womb. I figured it out around the time I was 10, about a year after the NWO formed. I'm actually glad I didn't know before that, because Hogan turning wouldn't have been such a big thing had I know it was fake.

Although I appreciate wrestling for different reasons now. I don't watch the WWE so much any more, but I watch ROH for the athleticism and skill involved and I'm a complete geek over it.

it still would have been a big deal.

cept you would have looked at it differently. then it would have been seen as the greatest babyface of all time turning heel in what will probably go down as one of the greatest all time moments in professional wrestling.

My dad knew all along, but he never told me until I came and asked him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI

THIS NEEDED TO BE SAID.

.

it's either a retarded soap opera, or a complicated ballet performed by steroid freaks, or some combination.

there is nothing good in that mix


FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It sorta reminds me of a Chuck Klosterman essay (OK, showing my hipsterdom there) I read about country music. A lot of people who aren't really into country sorta look down upon mainstream country music cause it's so "Walmart" or associated with a "lower class" of people or whatever. Yet mainstream country is probably the most profitable and strongest part of the music industry today. Conversely you got a lot of alt country acts who are held up higher by outside critics and most outsiders but really, a lot of these acts are struggling to get by in comparison to your Dixie Chicks or whatever. Mainstream country pretty much exists in its own universe and speaks directly to its audience without much care about the outside world, sorta like wrestling.

I don't think I've met anyone who's really into wrestling (granted, I don't know that many people truly into WWE, but I do know a few) who really cares that it's "fake" or believes that it isn't staged. They are smart enough to know that. Yet the devotion to it is real, their devotion to it is just as real as mine is to my favorite football team or to music. And when you think about it, it all serves to entertain you. I care a lot about what happens to my favorite football team, but at the end of the day, do I draw some greater meaning from it because it's a real competition? Not really. But I still put a lot of time and thought to it. Who am I to look down upon wrestling fans just because their entertainment has a preordained conclusion?

I'd argue that wrestling fans may be the biggest geeks of us all. They exist in a world that has almost no regard for mainstream culture, is looked down upon by almost everyone else, and still show a high level of devotion. I mean I've watched wrestling, half of this shit would never fly on any sort of mainstream channel. I mean imagine if sitcom characters had the sort of gimmicks that wrestlers do, that sitcom would never get past the censors or be seen as politically correct. It is a fascinating subculture to me because it is so insular to to outside world.

he's actually one of my favorite writers. But he was right. And if you apply that to wrestling, which you have done in a very good way, it fits perfectly.

I thought that essay was about how "Wal Mart" country is looked down at as being artificial and fake, as opposed to the "realness" of alt country, even though Wal Mart country is far more "real" than alt country (people singing about their everyday lives vs. people born in the 70's/80's fetishizing the Great Depression.)

I was referencing the essay about the modern country and wrestling both reach their audience in similar ways, which was sort of a subpoint in that essay.

I think one of the main arguments about wrestling is that it is "fake" and tries to pass itself off as "real", at least to a lot of outsiders, when most of the target audience realizes its not real but sucks it up anyway. My argument is that just cause it isn't "real" doesn't make less valid as a phenomenon. It clearly reaches and entertains their audience. There is definitely a craft behind wrestling. It takes a certain amount of athleticism and a certain about of charisma and showmanship to be a good wrestler. And if people want to get really into studying that, what is necessarily wrong with that?

I mean with the amount of cheating going on in sports, it is really better to pass yourself off as a true competition and have certain players or teams or whole leagues cheating behind the scenes, or for wrestling to pass itself off as "sport", when everyone knows its not real, and simply do their best to entertain their audience?

Back in high school a lot of us were wrestling fans, and none of it was because we believed it was real. We liked talking about the backstage stuff, the who's signing where stuff all of that. Nobody believed it was real and we were fine with it.

if you really want to get geeky on, say, star wars, you're digging into some well of intellect about which folks can be somewhat elitist. you buy into the science stuff (even though it's science fiction), and you can write that off as a kind of scholarly pursuit. you see something that other folks don't see when they watch it.

wrestling doesn't give you that ability, for the most part, although i'd argue that the "smarks" or even the "smarts" who are part of the IWC are as big and proud and unabashed geeks as anybody else. within the internet wrestling community, there is certainly cache to be had for breaking down workrate and the like.

for me, pro wrestling is the single most american art form there is, eclipsed only (maybe) by musical theater. it's also the most complicated storytelling form we have right now, although it's really maximized as product even, let alone as art (c) what is that, Mo Betta' Blues?

i like to tell people the randy savage/elizabeth story when they don't get wrestling, because, if savage had actually retired after the warrior beat him at wrestlemania, that would have been the greatest storyline in wrestling history, i think. but pro wrestling gives you the chances to do what great television does, what great sports does, what great theater does, what great stand-up does, what great film does, even what great music does--all during the same show.

i can go deeper with this if we want to have this discussion, but the basic point is this: if a wrestling company had the WWE's resources and then hired really strong writers on top of that (and i'd say a playwright with a knack for story structure, an experienced show runner, and some quality dialogue writers), and they weren't afraid of moving behind lowest common denominator stuff, they could create some of the most complete art in the country.

yes, art.

if wwe were to invest in really truly talented writers

> pro wrestling gives you the chances to do what
>great television does, what great sports does, what great
>theater does, what great stand-up does, what great film does,
>even what great music does--all during the same show.
>


and therein lies the problem. It's ALWAYS the same shit. There's twists, sure "Heel becomes Babyface for a couple weeks" and Vice Versa, or "Evil manager gets his comeuppance at ringside", or "Pretty girl leaves Heel and joins up with Babyface".

It's essentially the same subplots over and over.


>i can go deeper with this if we want to have this discussion,
>but the basic point is this: if a wrestling company had the
>WWE's resources and then hired really strong writers on top of
>that (and i'd say a playwright with a knack for story
>structure, an experienced show runner, and some quality
>dialogue writers), and they weren't afraid of moving behind
>lowest common denominator stuff, they could create some of the
>most complete art in the country.
>

it wouldn't be HIGH Art (IMO), but it might lend it self to a bit more credibility. I won't say it's NOT art, though. And to be fair, I've always maintained that Pro Wrestling is HIGHLY Athletic.

if not, like I said, it'll continue to be seen as "Big guys throwing each other around in front of 5,000 Hillbillies".

it's with the execution of the form.
vince mcmahon's company has set the model, and has set it poorly.
but companies like ROH have been able to more fully capitalize on the form's potential.

it's missing the fundamental aspect of entertaining sports.

it's some guys acting out a script.

that's it.

so all that's left after that is if you find it interesting or not.


how is that in any way like sports? it's like sports like initial D or friday night lights is like sports


FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

but there are two parts to what i mean here.

1) it's an athletic endeavor. now, it's an athletic endeavor the way dancing or gymnastics are (less about direct competition and more about performance that stretches the physical limits of what people can do), but it's still athletic. more importantly...

2) when wrestling is doing what it does really well, it is showing a sports world where the drama is always built in. because it's scripted, you can always ensure that your storyline has the most possible drama built into it. in real sports, sometimes you'll have amazing build-up, and then you'll have a let down final moment (like this year's finals--while i enjoyed the hell out of the celtic beatdown in the clincher, the maximum dramatic effect wasn't there). in wrestling, it should never be that way.

i think one of the big mistakes the WWE makes is not making a bigger deal out of the sports side of their programming. if they had top tens and rankings and more technical breakdowns of what is happening in the ring, they could encourage people to suspend their disbelief more often and buy into the competition part of things.

and you're right--there never is quite that same thing that sports have, where you know you're watching two teams go at it with no sense of the outcome in advance. but to an audience, even though it's scripted, you're still waiting to see what's going to happen, and when it's done well, it can mimic those great moments in sports very effectively.

and I think you're dead on about the fact that, what the hell is going on in terms of belts, etc. need to be more transparent to people who aren't hardcore fans of it.



FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

to go to the wwe website for example, and see won-loss records, histories against other opponents, "strategy" breakdowns, etc.

i mean, MMA is stepping the game up, and wrestling should be following along those lines.

people aren't going to believe it's a sport, of course, and they shouldn't completely. it's something different.

but the element of sport is what makes this different than an average TV show.

...I went through a geekdom phase where I kinda knew everything was scripted, but didn't wanna believe it. "Damn dawg, did Papa Shango really make that shit come outta Warrior's head? Aww damn he made him puke too!" LMBAO.

The when I was in college the Attitude era hit. Shit was bananas. It's funny because a lot of people who hadn't watched wrestling since the late 80's always made it out to be a "redneck thing" when any mention of it surfaced. But when I went to live RAW tapings in SF, Oakland and San Jose, it was anything but that. Still, I think that's where the stigma lies, in that folks on the outside view it as low class, whereas comic books and Star Wars are painted as nerdy/geeky.

I've been out of the country for several months now, so I haven't had a chance to watch whatever McMahon's producing these days. But everything I read and youtube spells crap. Now, as a man in my early 30's, even if I was watching wrestling religiously every Monday night, it's still not favorable to bring it up if a chick who I'm digging asks me what I like to watch. You know what I'm saying?

Wrestling was...was...a big a part of pop culture as anything. The big names were endless. Go watch Royal Rumble from '89 and '90. Almost every guy in it was a main eventer, with a story to tell that made you want to tune in. Definitely a subculture of geekdom. Hell, even Arsenio Hall had wrestlers on his show. But today's a different game. I got no problem with John Cena (or Triple H), but he's basically Vince's vehicle for selling merchandise and movies. There's no substance to his persona.

But then again, the gimmicks of yesteryear wouldn't really work with today's audiences. It would come off as corny.

Anyway, great post.

>...I went through a geekdom phase where I kinda knew
>everything was scripted, but didn't wanna believe it. "Damn
>dawg, did Papa Shango really make that shit come outta
>Warrior's head? Aww damn he made him puke too!" LMBAO.

this is when i wanted to believe wrestling was real.

Nothing to add.

Props for Mole's advocacy.

Didn't think everyone would stand up for Pro Wrestling, but I guess I didn't think so many PTP folks would come out against it, either. I used to make fun of pro wrestling really hard, especially during the Hulk/Ultimate Warrior years, when all of my peers were going apeshit for it.

But my senior year in high school some of my friends got into it and despite how much I made fun of them, I eventually started having fun watching it, too. It was always a social thing, and really I was only somewhat engaged with the sport for about a year or so. But I had fun. The live events are a trip, and yeah, a lot of that comes from watching the fans with you jaw on the floor, but they do put on a good show, even if it is definitely aimed at the lowest common denominator. But when I catch any of it on TV nowadays, I still am entertained by it, even if a lot of it is pretty despicable.

If I had to compare it to something, I'd compare it to the way that I'll find myself watching bad stand-up. I'm not laughing, which is the primary directive of the medium, but something about the process is interesting to me. In fact, knowing its fake (wrestling, I mean) enhances that. I wonder what's improvised and what's planned. I wonder what they're whispering to each other. I see mistakes and how they compensate for them. All of that is enough that I'll watch for a few minutes before I move onto something else.

In one of the comic book analogies, I think buckshot asked where are the Alan Moores, etc. And while its true there probably isn't an equivalent (at least on the scripting side) I think most comic book fans would agree that they enjoy reading bad comics sometimes. Good wrestling = bad comic books.

So I guess I do feel Wrestling is an inferior form of geekdom, in that it requires you to get into the process more than other forms of geekdom. You guys don't post about the pens (or whatever they draw with) that your favorite comic book artist uses, because there's more interesting stuff to talk about. With wrestling, you need to care about the pens, so to speak, to satisfy the intelligent side of your geekdom. It's not like Star Wars where the false world presented to you is enough for intelligent fans to get lost inside. The Wrestling geeks tend to be really into the business side and the behind the scenes stuff, and they consider that part of the whole package, not peripheral to it. Because otherwise, there isn't enough to obsess over. (I'm just talking about the wresling geeks I know, maybe I'm off base with the larger contigent.)

Oh, and just because I can be entertained by it doesn't mean I think it's a positive thing. It could go away forever and I'd be okay, except that I know it would just be replaced by something worse.

players

Every now and then, "the zeitgeist" will decide that it's cool to shamelessly dig it, but then something happens to "put it back in its place"

With the mid-80's/early 90's boom, it was the Vince steroids trial/Donahue sexual harrassment scandal

With the Attitude era boom, it was Owen's in-ring death

With the new era, it was Benoit

And of course, it's marketed to children, so those children watch for a few good years then eventually grow up and move on to the next thing

I think those are a couple of reasons why it will never be accepted on as *consistent* a level as a Star Wars or anything of that nature...

BTW, this won't be a defense of me liking or watching pro wrestling... it is what it is, and I have my reasons for liking/disliking the product
________________________________________________________________________
all I wanna do
*gunshot**gunshot**gunshot**gunshot*
and
*cocks gun*
*KA-CHING!*
and take your money

lol.


i feel like wrestling is one of the things that is slighted the most by intelligent people because of the reason you just mentioned.

I remember right after the Benoit tragedy, people in a Biology class i was taking were talking about wrestling, and I was the only dissenting voice in the room who was trying to explain its merits and value. The teacher, who I always thought to be an open minded person, was even giving me shit for it. And the biggest argument of all was that it is fake. That really pisses me off more than any other argument against it, because I dont understand why people even bring that up. Like, who are you telling? What great secret are you trying to expose?

Its funny that you mention that Donahue thing, because on that episode, when they went to audience (always great on Donahue, btw) there's this lady who decides she will dead the whole discussion by proclaiming that "wrestling is fake anyway. why would anyone want anything to do with it? its fake!" I'm watchin it on youtube, shaking my head.

Predictably, it went the way I thought it would (and I'm sure there are more haters waiting in the weeds)

Anyway, yeah, the whole "it's fake" attack is irritating... I guess when you hear someone say that, you're supposed to go, "Yeah, you're right, I'ma stop watching it now..."

It's supposed to be some kind of peer pressure attack that doesn't hold water, especially in the face of movies and TV shows...

And like I said, there are times when "the zeitgeist" deems it okay to get into wrestling, to view it ironically as camp... you know, to not have any respect for it in any way, shape or form...
________________________________________________________________________
all I wanna do
*gunshot**gunshot**gunshot**gunshot*
and
*cocks gun*
*KA-CHING!*
and take your money

it's not just rigged, it's planned, right?

so...it's a script like the ones you write.

if you find it entertaining, what's there to defend? but why even bring up whether it's fake or not? where's the question?

FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And assumes that one of the reasons why I like it is that I believe that it's unscripted/unplanned

That's not true

And people usually bring the "it's fake"/"it's scripted" argument to us, not the other way around
________________________________________________________________________
all I wanna do
*gunshot**gunshot**gunshot**gunshot*
and
*cocks gun*
*KA-CHING!*
and take your money

it's not an attack, it's what it is.

FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And the pain is undoubtedly real -- ask Dynamite Kid, who is in a fucking wheelchair now.

The industry term is "worked," FYI.

but I don't understand how people can say its at all like sports, when it isn't. there's no competition

FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i mean, obviously it is. but you like it in spite of that. I like it in spite of that. There would be no reason to say that it is fake. Otherwise, people wouldnt watch anything but documentaries.

"Fake" isnt necessarily an attack, no. But it is usually meant in that manner.

While they might be on opposite sides of the same polyhedral die, they are still opposites. Wrestling, as fantastical as it may be, doesn't seem to have much regard for the fantasy-wielding geek. And the last thing that geeks are likely to invite into their fold is a group of muscle-bound jocks. Will not happen.

And really, what do wrestling and mainstream geekdom have in common?
Certainly, wrestling has its quotables, but who bothers to memorize the script to Wrestlemania MMIXVI like they would The Princess Bride ("you warthog faced buffoon")?
Throughout geekdom runs a strain of literateness that is lacking from pro-wrestling. Not meaning that wrestling is dumb, but there's not much in there to ponder when you're all alone or riding the bus plugged into your iPod. It's great to yell to your friends about, or practice on your younger sibling, but that isn't geekdom. Because as communal as geekdom might be, it's based on the identity people share as loners and outcasts. Wresting fans come from a different ilk.

This isn't to say that I don't think McMahon isn't missing golden marketing opportunity here, and I'm stunned he doesn't do it. I mean, Pro-wrestling conventions? Where you can get the autographs of Hacksaw Jim Duggan and the Iron Sheik on that 25 year-old poster from your basement. They may not be able to wrestle anymore, but they can still bring in the bucks. And some sort of pro-wrestling version of the Renaissance Faire, a Wrestlesance Faire (sorry, too lazy to come up with something more clever at the moment). I still don't think the Pro-wrestling RPG will fly though, too much reading. If only there were a way to copyright and sell a drinking game.

box

I know you have excellent performers in TNA (Samoa Joe, etc etc) but I'll randomly throw on Raw and its like "eh"


<------ Boho Model Madness Continues: Man Fuck Yall, chocolate again.

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://www.myspace.com/shinobishaw
http://www.myspace.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.last.fm/user/ShinoShaw

I'm not even a fan of wrestling, but shit.

check the Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker match from Wrestlemania 25 this past sunday.

its about as good a match as ive ever seen in WWE.

no hyperbole.


sorry to up this old ass post, but this match was the shit.

til right now. dammit, how did i miss this. lol.

________________________________________________________________________
He is stupid
But he KNOWS that he is stupid
And that almost makes him smart
Let's listen

thanks for upping it for the simple reason i'd forgotten about that clip lol.

Makes the match a bazillion times more impressive imo.

and I stopped watching wrestling at age 11/12 or so (back in the WWF/Saturday Night's Main Event days)......but this post was a lot of fun to read, one of the best threads I've read in a minute.

for not catching this. i would have been all over this post but dammit if mole didn't already son everyone.

to sing the Praises of Chikara Pro Wrestling

THey're a Indy group out of Philadelphia, and my favorite



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScHUX1ojyF8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Its7mk40d1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo8mEY05-A4

one of the old hosts, and the creator (i think) Wiggly, does a video podcast for Chikara called Chikara Podcast-a-go-go.
I used to watch every ep they put out.

definitely a promotion more geared towards the "smarter" geekier audience.

its really cool, actually.