Jump to content

"Hulk Hogan >>>>>> Then your favorite Wrestler!"


djthefunkchris

Recommended Posts

Ok, The title is a quote I took out of this article. I've tried saying similar things before here, but this article really takes the cake, and it takes the grief off of trying to say similar things without hurting someone's feeling (which is NEVER an intention of any post I ever make). This is NOT my opinions, although I feel strongly about some of it. I don't agree with everything, I just bring this here as I think it would be GREAT discussion material for us.

 

Original Post here:

 

http://www.prowrestlingpower.com/

 

A Post Just to Piss Off the IWC

June 1st, 2010 | Author: Jeff Mirro

This post will be just what the title says it is: A post, or rant should I say, to piss off the average Internet Wrestling Community know-it-all moron. Keep in mind, everything written here is truth, no matter how hard it is for you to accept. So let’s get right into the fun:

 

1. Hulk Hogan>Chris Benoit

 

Actually, let me do that over. Hulk Hogan>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Benoit

 

This one is not even disputable. You’re a moron if you think otherwise. This doesn’t even take into account that Chris Benoit was a sick, twisted, disgusting human being that killed his own family and himself. I’m just talking about the wrestler here. Hogan is infinitely better in all the areas that matter. Benoit had no charisma and is perhaps the most overrated wrestler in history.

 

2. Hulk Hogan>Your favorite wrestler

 

The only possible argument I’d take here is from Ric Flair fans. But arguing for anyone else is just being ridiculous. Stop weighing meaningless things like “workrate” and “technical ability” and start looking at things that matter like popularity, ability to draw and charisma. Whether you like it or not, these guys are actors in a fake sport, and it’s not how athletic they are or how good they are as legitimate amateur wrestlers, it’s how much they can capture the imagination of an audience. No one did that better than Hogan.

 

3. The end of Wrestlemania 20 was the worst ending to any wrestling event ever

 

To have a Wrestlemania go off the air with two WCW midget mid carders embracing as they held two world titles (which is asinine enough in its own right) is just down right pathetic. These guys should have opened the show or maybe been in some meaningless tag match as the third or fourth match on the card. Eddie Guererro and Chris Benoit were NEVER main event material. That’s right. Deal with it. Combine this terrible ending with the Brock Lesnar vs. Goldberg debacle and all the other things that went on at this show, and you have what I consider to be the most disappointing and underwhelming wrestling show in history. If I were to rank all of the Wrestlemanias, 20 would definitely be in my bottom five.

 

4. You can’t book for WWE or TNA

 

While you may have some good ideas from time to time, as this is bound to happen just by the sheer fact that you spend all day talking about this stuff, you are not writer or booker material. I’ve said it before in one of my posts, but if the IWC were to run the creative department of the WWE, it would be out of business in six months. Your only audience would be other 18-30 “technical wrestling” fans, or in other words Internet rumor mill fans, and that would mean the other 90% of wrestling fans would be turned away by a boring, terrible product. I’d rather have these awful TV writers or a 12 year old kid in the third row at a WWE event book the show than the 29 year old hardcore fan that thinks only cruiserweights and “mat technicians” should main event pay per views.

 

5. 1980′s and early 90′s WWF> Attitude Era

 

The attitude era was a cool time to be a fan. There was a lot of quality stuff going on. But I don’t care if you’re not old enough to remember the real golden age of wrestling, from 1984-1992, but it was much much better than any other era of wrestling in history, including 98-01. Speaking of eras in wrestling history…

 

6. The WWF new generation era (1993-1997) was freaking terrible

 

This is for guys like Scott Keith, who thinks that wrestling started to get good in the mid 90′s and like that was some golden era for the industry. The WWE almost died in mid 1997 for a reason. It’s because the previous five years SUCKED. Hulk Hogan left and it all went to hell until Steve Austin became very popular in late 1997. Hey don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and Undertaker, but outside of those three guys, the WWF had NOTHING. They were a joke, their storylines were crap, their talent roster by and large had no talent, and they were way behind the times. This was not a golden era. This was quite possibly the worst era in the history of pro wrestling, including the extremely dull and boring post attitude era that we’re currently in (2002-2010).

 

And don’t think I’m letting WCW off the hook for this time period either. They were just as bad if not worse. Actually, in the entire history of the company, the WCW’s only quality programming occurred from mid 1996 until mid 1998. Everything else was pretty much garbage. If you got hooked on wrestling somewhere between 1993 and 1997 and this is your personal golden era, I understand how nostalgic it is for you. But sorry, it was just plain terrible for everyone else.

 

7. Old wrestlers are awesome

 

They’re all we have left. These young athletic guys for the most part don’t know how to work an audience anymore or really entertain. They just go through matches from one spot to the next and they can’t really involve the fans or get them to suspend their disbelief. Stop trying to kick the 40+ guys out the door, because they are the only thing good about the wrestling industry anymore, with very few exceptions. They’re not athletic enough for you anymore you say? Too bad, they have name value and popularity, something these young athletic types can’t seem to achieve because they don’t know how to be professional wrestlers. This is why TNA’s roster is currently better than the WWE’s roster.

 

8. Wrestlemania 17 is overrated

 

It was a good show, but the not the perfect mecca of wrestling excellence that everyone claims it was. Seriously, why was it so great? Austin vs. Rock was a very good match, so was Undertaker vs. Triple H. Angle vs. Benoit was overrated. TLC II was a nice spectacle and a very good match, but the rest of the card was very average. Actually, some of the matches were below average, but I guess that’s to be expected on any card.

 

Wrestlemania 19 was much better. It was the best modern Wrestlemania and it even ranks alongside Wrestlemanias 1 through 9 as one of the best ever. For obvious reasons, the best Wrestlemanias ever were 1-9, 18-19 and 21 was decent too. In other words, all the Hogan Wrestlemanias. The other Wrestlemanias have a definite lack of Hogan in them. They are lacking Hoganness, and therefore they are not as good. Oh by the way, Wrestlemania 10 is overrated too.

 

9. Scott Steiner is awesome

 

Not all Internet fans dislike Steiner, and not all non-IWC fans like him obviously, but here’s my major issue with the criticism he receives. Those matches with Triple H at Royal Rumble and No Way Out 2003 really weren’t all that bad. He botched like one move in each match.

 

People started booing when he did a bunch of suplexes in a row. I don’t get it. Kurt Angle or Chris Benoit or Eddie Guerrero do 25 suplexes in a match and the IWC fans chant “This is awesome,” but when Scott Steiner does it he’s repetitive and boring. You’re a bunch of hypocrites. Sure he was past his prime and dealing with injuries in those matches and really from 2003 to the end of his career, but he wasn’t terrible in the ring, and he was freaking hilarious on the mic. Steiner was a quality entertainer and at one time really good in the ring, especially with the Steiner Brothers tag team. His look alone, along with the newfound heel persona in 1998, made him the best thing about WCW in its dying days. Steiner was awesome. Just deal with it. Oh, and he was better than Benoit too.

 

10. The NWA/territorial wrestling hasn’t been relevant since the early 80′s

 

Sorry, but the WWE was, is and always will be wrestling. Don’t get me wrong, the territories back in the day were important for the evolution of wrestling and the business never would have taken off if it wasn’t for them. And I do like some of what TNA is doing now, and WCW’s product from mid 96 to mid 98. But honestly, the WWE is all that matters.

 

I find it laughable that people think there was some type of WWF/NWA rivalry in the mid 80′s and early 90′s. The NWA was so insignificant when Hulkamania was running wild. As much as I like and respect Flair, there was no Hogan/Flair rivalry in the 80′s. It was all Hogan. It was all WWF. Don’t kid yourself. Heck I didn’t even know what the NWA/WCW was until the nWo formed. Seriously, I didn’t even know where Hogan went when I was like 10 years old in 1994. I never heard of the company and had never seen them on TV. My friend had a Sting action figure and I thought he was from some cartoon or something. That’s how irrelevant WCW was.

 

And it’s not just them, but every minor league territory from 1984 to the present. Sorry, they just don’t matter. Well, FCW kind of matters because it’s a developmental league for the WWE, and TNA has at least been on cable TV. But Ring of Honor? Sorry, I’ve never seen it. NWA? I just found out they still exist when I started updating this website in January of 2010. Everything else? Completely and totally insignificant.

 

Say what you want about Vince McMahon and the current WWE product, because I’ll agree with you that it’s not near what it could be, but it’s all that really matters in the world of wrestling, and it’s all that mattered since around 1984, with the exception of the year and half when WCW was beating them in the ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Benoit had no charisma and is perhaps the most overrated wrestler in history.

 

Lost me right there. Benoit didn't have typical charisma, but the dude had intensity to make up for it.

 

2. Hulk Hogan>Your favorite wrestler

 

The only possible argument I’d take here is from Ric Flair fans. But arguing for anyone else is just being ridiculous. Stop weighing meaningless things like “workrate” and “technical ability” and start looking at things that matter like popularity, ability to draw and charisma. Whether you like it or not, these guys are actors in a fake sport, and it’s not how athletic they are or how good they are as legitimate amateur wrestlers, it’s how much they can capture the imagination of an audience. No one did that better than Hogan.

 

We all rate the quality of wrestlers differently, based on our own personal likes and dislikes. I know my tastes are certainly different to a lot of people on this board. Which is totally fine. I don't like to weigh in on "Who is the best wrestler?" debates, because all I can say for certain is "Who entertains me most". I respond to 'technical ability' almost as much as 'charisma'. I enjoy watching high 'workrate' over guys who are 'popular'.

 

Hulk Hogan was awesome. I really enjoyed his run around 2002, teaming with Edge and such. Wonderful nostalgia. I was thoroughly entertained. However, there were dudes who entertained me more. So in terms of entertaining me (the only subject I can speak definitively on) Hogan wasn't the best of all time.

 

He did draw a lot of money though, and anyone who discounts Hogan as an important and worthy addition to wrestling is a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I agree with a LOT more of these that I thought I would.

 

1. Hulk Hogan>Chris Benoit

 

Actually, let me do that over. Hulk Hogan>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Benoit

 

This one is not even disputable. You’re a moron if you think otherwise. This doesn’t even take into account that Chris Benoit was a sick, twisted, disgusting human being that killed his own family and himself. I’m just talking about the wrestler here. Hogan is infinitely better in all the areas that matter. Benoit had no charisma and is perhaps the most overrated wrestler in history.

 

Even this one. Gotta admit, Hogan drew tons of money during his career, and was absolutely golden during the 1980s. At this point in time, I'm not sure I can even imagine a time it'd be more fun to be a fan than during the Hulkamania run, (WWF years). Sure, Benoit had the intensity, and that was cool, but that can do a lot more for a wrestler in Japan than in the States. So yes, Hogan > Benoit. There. I said it too.

 

4. You can’t book for WWE or TNA

 

I have to disagree with this one flat out. I CAN actually book for WWE or TNA. It's actually pretty easy. All I'd have to do is download a real world mod for TEW, and have at it. Presto, I'm booking for WWE or TNA. What? Nowhere in the guy's post did he say it had to be real!

 

5. 1980′s and early 90′s WWF> Attitude Era

 

The attitude era was a cool time to be a fan. There was a lot of quality stuff going on. But I don’t care if you’re not old enough to remember the real golden age of wrestling, from 1984-1992, but it was much much better than any other era of wrestling in history, including 98-01. Speaking of eras in wrestling history…

 

AMEN!!!!

 

PS: I hated the Attitude Era. I loved WCW during that era though, and ECW was cool too, so...

 

I find it laughable that people think there was some type of WWF/NWA rivalry in the mid 80′s and early 90′s. The NWA was so insignificant when Hulkamania was running wild. As much as I like and respect Flair, there was no Hogan/Flair rivalry in the 80′s. It was all Hogan. It was all WWF. Don’t kid yourself. Heck I didn’t even know what the NWA/WCW was until the nWo formed. Seriously, I didn’t even know where Hogan went when I was like 10 years old in 1994. I never heard of the company and had never seen them on TV. My friend had a Sting action figure and I thought he was from some cartoon or something. That’s how irrelevant WCW was.

 

When I was a kid in the 80s, I thought the NWA/JCP WAS wrestling, and didn't really know that much about the WWF until they held a show at a college football stadium in my neck of the woods in '86 or '87. I know that's the opposite of what he said, but I did grow up in the South, so I guess that explains that. I actually like the 1980's WWF A LOT better now than I ever did when it was actually happening.

 

Here's a witty line to finish up the post with, and an emoticon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from the hypocrisy of claiming those that consider the new generation the best, only do so as they grew up with it and then proudly exclaiming that the Hulkamania era (the generation he grew up with) was in fact the best, it is a fairly accurate article.

 

Point 7 is one my biggest qualms with the WWE right now. There's no characters and no excitement. The roster is full of generic, create a wrestler types. Part of the problem is the development system, the same 5 or 6 trainers are having to educate hundreds of wrestlers. This is in direct contrast to the territory system where one wrestler could travel the world and get 5 or 6 really close and varied mentors.

 

There are a few exceptions, guys like The Miz and Randy Orton, wrestlers who understand their character and understand the audience. Fact of the matter is unless you have a decent character and can engage the crowd the matches mean very little to anyone, regardless of how athletic or clean cut you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost me right there. Benoit didn't have typical charisma, but the dude had intensity to make up for it.

 

 

 

We all rate the quality of wrestlers differently, based on our own personal likes and dislikes. I know my tastes are certainly different to a lot of people on this board. Which is totally fine. I don't like to weigh in on "Who is the best wrestler?" debates, because all I can say for certain is "Who entertains me most". I respond to 'technical ability' almost as much as 'charisma'. I enjoy watching high 'workrate' over guys who are 'popular'.

 

Hulk Hogan was awesome. I really enjoyed his run around 2002, teaming with Edge and such. Wonderful nostalgia. I was thoroughly entertained. However, there were dudes who entertained me more. So in terms of entertaining me (the only subject I can speak definitively on) Hogan wasn't the best of all time.

 

He did draw a lot of money though, and anyone who discounts Hogan as an important and worthy addition to wrestling is a fool.

 

I believe this is what he is talking about above all else. When you have a guy that is known all over the world in every aspect of entertainment, and he is also your champion....

 

The only one I think had a chance to actually dominate Hogan far as this stuff goes, is The Rock... IF he had choose to stay wrestling at the same time he done the movies. He did not though, and as such, he is alot more popular "AFTER" his movie carreer, then before, even in wrestling. If he were to come back and be able to perform as well or better then before, he would probably be able to trump Hogan.

 

Austin is too hurt, but could have as well... if his movie carreer takes off. I still have people that say "You mean the Six Million Dollar Man?" when I talk about Steve 'Stone Cold' Austin. And I would put him up there as popular as anyone presently (outside of John Cena... Cena is pretty much the only person in wrestling with the Hogan calibre of popularity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. He's judging "Best Wrestler" by who draws the most money, and in that way Hogan is almost certainly number 1. I have my own way of determining who the "Best Wrestler" is, and in that way Hogan would not be number 1. Different strokes.

 

I actually didn't like Hogan during his biggest time period (1980's), as I was a Roddy Piper fan, and even a Paul Orndorf fan during that... But my favorite was Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka.

 

However, I cannot deny that he took wrestling to a level that was never achieved before, and has never been duplicated since.... unless he was involved.

 

He really isn't talking about people like us, that have our "favorite" wrestlers.. He's more or less talking about the people that swear they would have "insert favorite high flyer/cruiserweight/lucha libre wrestler here" as the main event title holder. For example, run a company like TNA or WWE as ROH runs.. or used to run. IF this was a way you could become really popular and hold fans, they would.... and ROH would have alot more fans then they do.

 

He's not really talking about "Well, I like Rey Mysterio because he's so nice to the kids!" or "I like John Morrison, because he's exciting to watch in the ring!"

 

Those are just favorite wrestlers, your not thinking John Morrison should be WWE Heavyweight Champion, and making Kane, Cena and Undertaker job out to him. You just like watching Morrison in match's he can shine in. That's not the same...

 

I've always thought you watch a program and have your own unique thoughts and what you liked, no matter what anyone else thinks. For example, you don't debate the Hogan was deserving of his Main Event status... which there is an unbelievable amount of people that weren't around for his build, that say they don't think he deserved anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9. Scott Steiner is awesome

 

Not all Internet fans dislike Steiner, and not all non-IWC fans like him obviously, but here’s my major issue with the criticism he receives. Those matches with Triple H at Royal Rumble and No Way Out 2003 really weren’t all that bad. He botched like one move in each match.

 

People started booing when he did a bunch of suplexes in a row. I don’t get it. Kurt Angle or Chris Benoit or Eddie Guerrero do 25 suplexes in a match and the IWC fans chant “This is awesome,” but when Scott Steiner does it he’s repetitive and boring. You’re a bunch of hypocrites. Sure he was past his prime and dealing with injuries in those matches and really from 2003 to the end of his career, but he wasn’t terrible in the ring, and he was freaking hilarious on the mic. Steiner was a quality entertainer and at one time really good in the ring, especially with the Steiner Brothers tag team. His look alone, along with the newfound heel persona in 1998, made him the best thing about WCW in its dying days. Steiner was awesome. Just deal with it. Oh, and he was better than Benoit too.

 

For the record I did NOT, I repeat, NOT, write this article.

 

But I totally agree with him regarding Scott Steiner... and about 85% of this article.

 

Benoit was overrated. Yes, he was a wrestling machine and his match with Angle at WM17 (part of what I disagree about, course I was there live and never experienced anything like that before or since) was epic. Strip everything from professional wrestling other than in-ring workrate and technical ability, and he was THE man.

 

But he was also PAINFULLY bland. Intensity?! OOHHHHHH he looks ANGRY when he locks in the crossface, because that makes up for that ear bleed inducing promo he cut earlier in the night, or the fact that he has about as much character as the blanket I'm currently using to keep warm. He was missing a tooth? Well, my blanket has a nice rip in it.

 

Hogan did the job better than Benoit. So the IWC can't appreciate his epic cage match with King Kong Bundy, big deal. He also made several people filthy, filthy rich with his ability to put asses in seats.

 

And guess what?

 

John Cena is a better pro wrestler than Benoit was. Again, John Cena draws. So he couldn't survive at the top of ROH, big deal. Guess he'll just have to settle for being at the top of the biggest wrestling company in the world and getting paid millions to do so. Mark my words: there are eight year olds now who will reminisce about how great his era was and how John Cena was a big freakin' hero to them all, just like we did with Hogan or Stone Cold or whoever was top dog when we grew up. He will go down in wrestling history as one of the greatest of all time, and no amount bitching about his "five moves of doom" will change that.

 

All this comes down to me agreeing that a lot of the younger guys don't know how to properly entertain. Don't get me wrong, there's entertainment value to be had in excellent matches. I watch ROH just as much as any IWC member, and I thoroughly enjoy it. But do you know what I enjoy more? Characters, freakin' larger than life characters. Wrestling is, to me, a comic book come to life. If they aren't likeable characters, then I might as well be watching MMA and get real fights with between a bunch of guys I don't care about instead of scripted ones with guys I don't care about.

 

 

Last, I disagree with this guy in one other part: I could totally book for WWE or TNA. Sure, it's mostly ego, but given a chance to sit back and learn how all the inner workings work beforehand... I honestly think I could do it. The IWC would hate me, at least a couple of oversized guys with non-awesome in-ring talent would end up at the top, and there would probably be storylines involving sea life. And that's why I could almost succeed: I'm more than happy to push John Cena instead of Brian Danielson. I think Danielson can have a very good career in WWE's midcard, maybe even get a shot at the top belt a few times... but, unfortunately, he should never be rhe face of the company.

 

Alrighty, done rubbing my own ego... feel free to throw the hates at me.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and Scott Steiner IS awesome. Better promo man than probably every man in the WWE today, with the lone exception of perhaps Chris Jericho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually didn't like Hogan during his biggest time period (1980's), as I was a Roddy Piper fan, and even a Paul Orndorf fan during that... But my favorite was Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka.

 

/nod

 

But just because one person wasn't a huge fan doesn't change that the majority of the average folks were. Hell, I was a huge fan of Ken Shamrock during the Attitude Era, doesn't mean he was the best wrestler of that period. Doesn't change the fact that The Rock and Stone Cold spent every week battling for that title...

 

Hell, thinking about it...

 

King Kong Bundy w/ Bobby Heenan equaled a better heel than Randy Orton with anybody. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/nod

 

But just because one person wasn't a huge fan doesn't change that the majority of the average folks were. Hell, I was a huge fan of Ken Shamrock during the Attitude Era, doesn't mean he was the best wrestler of that period. Doesn't change the fact that The Rock and Stone Cold spent every week battling for that title...

 

Hell, thinking about it...

 

King Kong Bundy w/ Bobby Heenan equaled a better heel than Randy Orton with anybody. :p

 

I thought I was the only one :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/nod

 

But just because one person wasn't a huge fan doesn't change that the majority of the average folks were. Hell, I was a huge fan of Ken Shamrock during the Attitude Era, doesn't mean he was the best wrestler of that period. Doesn't change the fact that The Rock and Stone Cold spent every week battling for that title...

 

Hell, thinking about it...

 

King Kong Bundy w/ Bobby Heenan equaled a better heel than Randy Orton with anybody. :p

 

Yep. That's why I said I agreed with alot of what he said, but easier to let him say things, rather then me coming off the wrong way toward the wrong people (people I respect and enjoy conversing with).

 

I think the article is mainly aimed at the internet "smarks" rather then fans in general.... I find it funny that most people that consider themselves "smarks" don't get the overall purpose of Professional Wrestling... To entertain... not to show great technical fake match's. 90% of the wrestling fans they figure are "marks" understand wrestling is here to entertain us, not as a sport, the other 10% that are the "smarks" think wrestling should try and fool the other 90% into thinking it is real.

 

Sure, great match's are a good thing mixed with the right storyline, angles and interesting characters... however a match between two people I can't get into is just a match between two people that will never matter in the long run. I = 90% of the rest of the fans that actually realise wrestling is for entertainment, not to fool anyone.

 

EDIT: I was at WMIII and standing on the back of the chair (as was everyone), which although seemed dangerous, seemed to be ok at the time. Anyways, I was with my buddies (3 of us all together), and we boo'd like crazy for Hogan and Cheered for Piper. Was hard to do that and act like we didn't know who was doing it.... If you were at any of these deals when Hogan was at his height, you would understand that the crowd could litterally turn your way and crush you, lol. We were successfull though, no one could say for sure it was us (since we reversed whenever people started looking).

 

Something to realise though... the noise was litterally so loud in there, that I could barely here myself, let alone anyone else hearing me. I don't know if they are as loud as that anymore, but these events in the 80's with Hogan, everytime had so much noise, even though on TV it didn't seem like it... live you couldn't talk to anyone untill Hogan was done.. and I mean done. Posing and all for the fans, they would grow even louder. We had earmuffs and still couldn't here ourselves think. I've never been to a concert that the crowd was that loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking a good page out of Dr.D's book hehe.

 

Still this piece has some good criticisms about a big part of the IWC.

 

In very crude terms and percentages this is kind of how the wrestling fanbase breaks down.

 

1. Blind Marks = Think it's real, kids etc. 35%

 

2. Marks = Know it's pre determined watch it for entertainment 55%

 

3. Blind Smarks = The so called "IWC" blindly follow the sheets etc 9%

 

4. Educated Smarks = Realize that what 1 and 2 like is important, value all the different aspects that make wrestling be wrestling. 1%

 

He is mainly railing against group 3 here and while I do not agree with all his points I do think that they are very valid. I am just happy that around here we mainly have group 4 and that when 3 people show up they get either turned into 4 or leave.

 

Remember this is a very crude representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking a good page out of Dr.D's book hehe.

 

Still this piece has some good criticisms about a big part of the IWC.

 

In very crude terms and percentages this is kind of how the wrestling fanbase breaks down.

 

1. Blind Marks = Think it's real, kids etc. 35%

 

2. Marks = Know it's pre determined watch it for entertainment 55%

 

3. Blind Smarks = The so called "IWC" blindly follow the sheets etc 9%

 

4. Educated Smarks = Realize that what 1 and 2 like is important, value all the different aspects that make wrestling be wrestling. 1%

 

He is mainly railing against group 3 here and while I do not agree with all his points I do think that they are very valid. I am just happy that around here we mainly have group 4 and that when 3 people show up they get either turned into 4 or leave.

 

Remember this is a very crude representation.

 

If I were to take a guess, my numbers would be alot different then whereever you got those numbers from.

 

1. Blind Marks = Think it's real, kids etc. 5% Most kids have parents that let them know not to try it at home... Pluss that little announcement at the beginning of WWE shows "Although this is entertainment and not a sport, please don't try this at home." Pretty much tells any kid able to listen and comprehend, that it's not real.

 

2. Marks = Know it's pre determined watch it for entertainment 50% Most everyone does know it's pre-determined, but Marks is not really what that is supposed to mean.. Marks means that it's people that have no clue how the industry works, including the pre-determined match outcomes... I live in the South, and will tell you some people no matter what they read of are told will believe it's "REAL" to the end, lol. It's a very, very small percent (ussually weed smokers, lol), that think everyone thinks like them. Don't have internet capabilities, other then to play "Pokerstars", lol.

 

3. Blind Smarks = The so called "IWC" blindly follow the sheets etc 5% If it's even that much. It's such a small percent it seems.... They are what I like to call the Loud Minority. The more vocal posting 10 times more then a normal poster would on the matter.

 

4. Educated Smarks = Realize that what 1 and 2 like is important, value all the different aspects that make wrestling be wrestling. 40% This is where "Smarks" think they are actually. The problem is that people don't realise that there is a rather large bit of the population that's known these things.

 

I can't help but to look at your scores and think to myself... That would be reasonable around 1915. However, this is 2010, 90 years since Wrestling was found to be pre-determined. Frank Gotch might have been able to win alot of "shoot" match's, and did so even after retirement (never lost and offered 2k to anyone that could win), but he was in PLENTY of pre-determined match's as well.

 

My whole thing is that people need to realise even when the territories existed, there were plenty of people around (better then 55%) that realised that wrestling was pre-determined, and yes... would tell their kids as well. Kids just wouldn't listen back then. I mean, I seen him hit him! That was REAL, even if the other one wasn't! LOL

 

That's the important thing to remember in my mind though, is that you have to think of things as if everyone realises the same things you do. So you can therefore go from there in your feelings on Wrestling as a whole, or just your favorite promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe knew I should not have been so crude in my definitions lolz. Still think you are over estimating the size of 4. And you think with 3 I only mean the trollz, haters etc but I mean a wider group then that. And I know I redefined marks in my post or what it is "supposed" to mean. You could also call them casual smarks if that fits your terminology better.

 

But you do get my point that the OP you quoted was railing against group 3 and not so much 4 and that the casual smarks and marks make up the largest group of the fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He really isn't talking about people like us, that have our "favorite" wrestlers.. He's more or less talking about the people that swear they would have "insert favorite high flyer/cruiserweight/lucha libre wrestler here" as the main event title holder. For example, run a company like TNA or WWE as ROH runs.. or used to run. IF this was a way you could become really popular and hold fans, they would.... and ROH would have alot more fans then they do.

 

He's not really talking about "Well, I like Rey Mysterio because he's so nice to the kids!" or "I like John Morrison, because he's exciting to watch in the ring!"

 

Those are just favorite wrestlers, your not thinking John Morrison should be WWE Heavyweight Champion, and making Kane, Cena and Undertaker job out to him. You just like watching Morrison in match's he can shine in. That's not the same...

 

I've always thought you watch a program and have your own unique thoughts and what you liked, no matter what anyone else thinks. For example, you don't debate the Hogan was deserving of his Main Event status... which there is an unbelievable amount of people that weren't around for his build, that say they don't think he deserved anything.

 

I'm very aware that what entertains me isn't necessarily the same as what entertains everyone else. Were I booking WWE or TNA (which I totally could do) I'd take that into account. As should anyone trying to make money in the entertainment industry.

 

Your example of John Morrison though... I actually would consider pushing him to the top, and I'd be willing to sacrifice Undertaker, Kane and John Cena to the cause. Not 'job them out' but have them put JoMo over in meaningful programs. Undertaker in particular I feel is too old to be believable on top (and looks it) He still has a place on the card as a special attraction, but not a top guy. Hell, I'd let Morrison take the streak.

 

However, there are a lot of guys I really enjoy watching, but wouldn't dream of pushing to the top. Zack Ryder I think is a fantastic midcard comedy act, but I wouldn't feed him Randy Orton. Orton may not thrill me, but he's far more valuable than the Long Island Iced Z.

 

While I'd be tempted to hire a bunch of indy guys, they certainly wouldn't be headlining. I watched an AWESOME Kyle O'Reilly match earlier, but I don't see a future headliner there. I doubt most people will be as impressed with his butterfly suplexes as I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very aware that what entertains me isn't necessarily the same as what entertains everyone else. Were I booking WWE or TNA (which I totally could do) I'd take that into account. As should anyone trying to make money in the entertainment industry.

 

Your example of John Morrison though... I actually would consider pushing him to the top, and I'd be willing to sacrifice Undertaker, Kane and John Cena to the cause. Not 'job them out' but have them put JoMo over in meaningful programs. Undertaker in particular I feel is too old to be believable on top (and looks it) He still has a place on the card as a special attraction, but not a top guy. Hell, I'd let Morrison take the streak.

 

However, there are a lot of guys I really enjoy watching, but wouldn't dream of pushing to the top. Zack Ryder I think is a fantastic midcard comedy act, but I wouldn't feed him Randy Orton. Orton may not thrill me, but he's far more valuable than the Long Island Iced Z.

 

While I'd be tempted to hire a bunch of indy guys, they certainly wouldn't be headlining. I watched an AWESOME Kyle O'Reilly match earlier, but I don't see a future headliner there. I doubt most people will be as impressed with his butterfly suplexes as I am.

 

/nod. I feel the same way as you do on alot of topics.

 

The only thing I don't agree with is Taker. He obviously is a HUGE draw still, and I wouldn't let JoMo do what you said, except maybe Kane after this run with Taker. Let me put it a different way... if the numbers showed that Morrison was a for sure fire thing, I would... but what if your looking at this..

 

Undertaker merchandise sells : 145k

John Morrison merchandise sells : 45k

John Cena Merchandise sells : 320k

Kane Merchandise sells : 55k

 

Taker headlining: sell out tickets

Cena headlining: Sell out tickets

Kane Headlining: Ticket sells down 400

John Morrison Headlining: Ticket sells down 2k

 

Then would you still want to do that?

 

I do agree there is a point where you really SHOULD push John Morrison, as I have warmed up to him alot this year alone. When I say push, I mean Title's and all. Just wouldn't do it the way you put it right this moment.

 

and...

 

I would never end the Taker's streak at WM. It's his legacy and I wouldn't do that. There is nothing anyone can't get from beating him in a regular PPV (that's not Wrestlemania), that they can get from killing the streak... Fact is, I think it might hurt someone at this point to do it... Meaning, they might spend a few years getting nothing but told to "Go Home" from the crowd that genuinely doesn't want to see him (no matter who it is), at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is if JoMO is selling more then the other guys getting the same amount of push he could be a good target to try and push to the next level and see if after having them there for a sustained time he pulls the same or equal numbers as the other ME guys.

 

As its a two way street between push and skill. Its getting the right amount of push compared to skill which will maximize your money that is the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is if JoMO is selling more then the other guys getting the same amount of push he could be a good target to try and push to the next level and see if after having them there for a sustained time he pulls the same or equal numbers as the other ME guys.

 

As its a two way street between push and skill. Its getting the right amount of push compared to skill which will maximize your money that is the goal.

 

Bassically, that's along the same lines as my thoughts... "IF" is a small word with a big meaning though.

 

I think what people should realise is that there is a reason people are in the card position they are in, unless there is some politics going on backstage that is "holding" someone back/down. I really doubt at this period in wrestling if that's going to happen, at least in WWE right now. John has more then proven himself it would seem, and I have no doubts if the conditions were right they would "Push" him.

 

Now... I've also heard that storylines are worked very far ahead of schedule, and that's why they so often don't take advantage of what they already have, at times as well. My biggest example, and one of the two things I think they failed to do in a BIG way, was when Hardcore Holly had that bought with RVD that lasted a GOOD while, and had been cut down the back by that table. When he come back, that crowd was VERY HOT for him. "IF" they had turned Holly into a good guy, or even better an "Anti-Hero" good guy, I think they would have been able to move him up the card quite a bit. ON that same subject, I think Joey Mercury could have broke out with a better promo, after he was hit with the ladder. He had that crowd in the palm of his hand, then started pouting about the Hardy's, which of course turned the crowd against him.... in a negative way. IF he had come out there and said, "You know what, I'm going to heal up a bit, and then I will return. When I return, WATCH OUT!" IF they wanted to keep him a Heel, he could have done something like that, and talked about how he was going to get Jeff or Matt back at a later date... even act as though he is willing to go right then and there. Bassically the freakin' wining act didn't go over at all, and he ended up leaving without any momentum what so ever... Just a few words different and it could have gone the other way though.

 

However, you can't forsee that. An experienced person might have been able to I don't know, but in both cases the recaps that were shown, had the crowd's full support if they both would have just reacted in a more positive way. Holly, just... I don't know how they missed the boat on that one as they had really talked highly of him going on with the fight during the whole thing... and it was a long match.

 

In those kinds of situations I believe a little "Why didn't you do ...." is in order. But as far as pushing someone like John Morrison when even after all this time, I believe the MIZ (who's been around less) has more going for him... It's so hard for me to get fully behind Morrison because he is missing something that I for the life of me haven't been able to pinpoint in a few years now. I like him, I want him to succeed, but there is definately something that makes me think "Midcarder for life" whenever I see him or here him (especially when I here him). However, I do think he is improving, just not as fast as I would like him to.

 

EDIT: Here is the Joey Mercury thing:

The crowd actually gets louder. They are shocked he showed up, and are applauding that fact..... but then he starts almost crying about the Hardy's, and the moment is gone.

 

The second part of the match RVD vs Holly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t-VakW1cQw&feature=related You will see that the crowd at different points starts chanting "HOLLY, HOLLY!" Taz really talks about that wound for almost the whole match (was like a 15 minute match). The Next episode, Holly returns and the fans go crazy, but then he talks....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with nearly everything the original post said except that I think the guy that made it may have been trolling on some site the way he goes out of his way to say that if Hogan wasn't involved then it was a crap Wrestlemania which I think is pretty absurd.

 

Also Benoit was my favorite wrestler in the world by far from 1995-2007 that being said he shouldn't have been a world champion ever. By that same token Eddie Guerrero did deserve something. Eddie in 2005 was the man, although he was roided out beyond belief his charisma was off the charts. That Rey promo where he's in the ring with his mask during their program was amazing. If Eddie in 2005 didn't deserve to be World Champion they shouldn't have had the championship period because nobody else deserved it.

 

Last but not least John Morrison looks like a star, does moves like a star but he's not a star. The guy is HORRIBLE on the mic, seriously the guy has almost zero promo skills. He's a good looking guy, great body, cool finisher, and even a neat gimmick. That being said the guy cannot sell out arenas with his words, he can't invoke the emotion needed. Its clear at this point that The Miz who peopled clowned on for years is the real star of that group and I've felt that way since day one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way he could've really pissed off the IWC is by arguing Taker's streak should end, lol.

 

I agree with some of his points. I really don't mind the over-protection of veterans, because a lot of the new guys just don't cut it. If there were just a small pack of more hardworking workers like The Miz(which ironically I dislike him, just for the cut of his jib) the future would probably look a better sight

 

On the subject of Benoit... he was simply one of the best in his department. I know at the end of the day, what really matters is how many asses you put into seats, and that's a definite. But you just have to look at what the IWC valued. There's a reason we're rightfully seen as not being able to book WWE or TNA correctly, and it's understandable. But regardless, one thing the IWC values(or should I say valued, I'll touch upon that soon) is technical ability in the ring. And Benoit oozed off it.

 

So how overrated are we really talking here? No one ever said he could speak on the mic, or that he could entertain millions flawlessly. We just said he could put on a hell of a show in the ring. Under THAT criteria, even though it's not the biggest one, Benoit sure deserves his props. But if anyone labels him as best "entertainer", yeah those are grounds for overratedness all over the ballpark.

 

In a way, the IWC has evolved over the past few years. In the middle of the 00s, a good portion of Internet folks didn't care as much about the selling point, how many tickets one could sell, etc. It was a lot more about working your butt off in the ring. The "he has 4 moves in the ring!" argument was tenfold prevalent, directed at Triple H, Steiner, Big Show, etc. If anything, it looks like it took John Cena to turn all of that around. Because of his goldmine status, more IWCers started realizing that it's not all about making it work inside the ropes. We were pampered in the past upon the main-event scene, Taker/Lesnar/Angle/Eddie/Austin/Jericho were all relatively solid workers who were entertaining to watch. I left out The Rock not because he wasn't one, but because IWCers also used the "4 moves" argument on him too. And again, the ascension of Cena to being the company's cream of the crop made many realize Rock wasn't so bad either in hindsight(along with the fact he was uber flashy/flexible in the ring).

 

Point is, a lot of us are returning back to basics. If Goldberg wrestled today, disregarding his age factor he definitely wouldn't get as much flack today. All that I feel is in conjunction with the workrate of today's WWE. A lot of the matches aren't as flashy anymore, the superstars take less risks, they jump off the top rope less often, etc. It's been very gradual but it shows now. So now, it's 5x easier to say Hogan is better than Benoit, which is technically true. Just that if you said this five years ago... that article writer would indeed get the troll reaction he's looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with nearly everything the original post said except that I think the guy that made it may have been trolling on some site the way he goes out of his way to say that if Hogan wasn't involved then it was a crap Wrestlemania which I think is pretty absurd.

 

Also Benoit was my favorite wrestler in the world by far from 1995-2007 that being said he shouldn't have been a world champion ever. By that same token Eddie Guerrero did deserve something. Eddie in 2005 was the man, although he was roided out beyond belief his charisma was off the charts. That Rey promo where he's in the ring with his mask during their program was amazing. If Eddie in 2005 didn't deserve to be World Champion they shouldn't have had the championship period because nobody else deserved it.

 

Last but not least John Morrison looks like a star, does moves like a star but he's not a star. The guy is HORRIBLE on the mic, seriously the guy has almost zero promo skills. He's a good looking guy, great body, cool finisher, and even a neat gimmick. That being said the guy cannot sell out arenas with his words, he can't invoke the emotion needed. Its clear at this point that The Miz who peopled clowned on for years is the real star of that group and I've felt that way since day one.

 

 

Morrison is a perfect candidate for a 80's style manager, or even 90's female manager. I mean Just think if he was a heel and Sunny was his manager (back when she was hot of course). That is the perfect tandem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I don't know about all that Hogan love. He hurt the industry a bit back in the late 90s too. Or are we all using our rose-tinted glasses?

 

Well, the years he was absent were sure "boring" during that time. Or are you talking about all the stuff around WCW?

 

Do you think WCW would have been competing with WWE if not for Hogan?

 

How did he ever "hurt" the wrestling industry. When he went up against McMahan in court? I just want to understand where your coming from.

 

However, I picked a sentence out of the article to just get the curiosity rolling. The article isn't really about Hogan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...