Definition of the IWC?

[Toroc102]

Lately on comment boards, mostly wrestlezone of course, I've noticed a lot of people outright bashing other comments and associating the poster with the IWC, "The IWC's dream fight of the Wyatt Family vs the Shield didn't get high ratings?"(sarcasm).

I think IWC is a very outdated term. In general around 5 or 6 years ago IWC was a term used to describe wrestling fans that liked to interact on the internet. Because, in 2007 the number of people that were commenting on the internet was so much smaller we had a lot of common interests.

In this day an age the quote I mentioned above is incorrect. EVERYONE is on the internet now, and the IWC can not be pigeonholed. When the poster says the Wyatt Family VS The Shield is the "IWC" dream what do they mean? When they say Daniel Bryan is the "IWC's" guy what do they mean? Why wouldn't WWE want to push Daniel Bryan? It not like the crowds at the shows don't LOVE him. I don't watch too much but Daniel Bryan is more over than anyone has been a long time. Its not like you have to go to your computer to see Daniel Bryan's praises, you can see it right on tv.

In my mind the IWC would be anyone that likes to interact online about wrestling. But it seems like newer fans see the IWC as that community that existed 6 years ago. They associate IWC with words like, "Ring of Honor", "Bryan Danielson", "AJ Styles", "complaining"(as if the entire internet isn't where people go to bitch).

How do you guys define the IWC? Are you a part of it? As I define it anyone than answers is a part of it.

 

[Bernkastel]

The IWC has changed. 7 or 8 years ago the internet wasn't nearly as mobile and as versatile as it is now. Looking at WWE's website now compared to then, and comparing it from then to say 5 years prior to that, there's been significant changes. Defining the "Internet Wrestling Community" has to go beyond the scope of just "forums." Websites like Skype, Facebook, Twitter have become such an integrated part of the wrestling community and fanbase, that it's probably safe to assume that even most casuals [especially kids] are likely using apps and whatnot to get highlights on whatever they missed and discuss the results with their friends. And on Youtube episodes of RAW, and even sometimes PPV matches, will surface mere days or even hours after they've aired.

I don't think it can accurately be measured, but the "IWC" should be allot larger now than just 10% or so like it was 7/8 years ago. It might still be the minority, but it certainly has a bigger presence.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

As my buddy Rayne wrote much better than I (paraphrased), "The IWC aren't a real group, just an internal conglomoration of the people who say things you don't like."

It's certainly a dated term, but based on what you gave as evidence in defining it, what you are referring to isn't the emotionless, non-charged definition of a group of people, rather a straw man tactic used in arguing with another whereby you can assign that person, or persons, to a group who cannot actually speak for themselves. "The IWC are idiots for thinking this", for example, is not actually an indictment of anyone. It's an indictment on a nonexistent group of people who have no collective voice so as to give you a stronger platform to stand on by appearance. Conversely, "IDR is an idiot for thinking this" (and yes, I'm an idiot for thinking quite a few of the things that run through my brain) is actually assigning a line of thinking to an individual who can actually respond to that charge.

 

[Matty~!]

There are so many facets to the IWC, I am a member on various forums, that have members that wouldn't be seen dead on a fourm like this. Likewise I'm sure there are members here that wouldn't been seen dead on other forums I post on.

I've seen the term used from puro fans bashing american indy fans, puro fans and american indy fans bashing WWE fans. But mainly in retaliation from people who are unwilling, or unable to move outside of the WWE and TNA bubble.

For as long as I've been on wrestling forums around the internet in the past 11 or 12 years I've always frequented boards that are more streamlined to old school wrestling, independent wrestling or Japanese wrestling. I have a very specific values on what makes great wrestling, despite enjoying a variety of styles.


When I express these opinions and at the end of the day that's what they are. I have been labelled smark, elitist and god knows what else over the years.

To me that is the worse part about the broader spectrum of the IWC, members of WWE and TNA heavy forums that are stuck in the rut of contemporary wrestling that don't look for something different, on top of which they belittle people who find other tastes, whilst also feeling to deride 'internet darlings' or 'faceless japanese' wrestlers.

I still watch WWE and whilst there are points of the show that 5 or 10 years ago would have me keyboard bashing the hell out of the shows, I've learnt to embrace the things that I do love about the WWE product. So whilst the booking of Daniel Bryan has been dire, I still get to watch one of the best wrestlers in the world perform on a weekly basis.

There is so much forcing of opinion and ill informed opinion around the internet on wrestling, I find it easiest to collect factually correct information and then make an informed opinion on what I know. Long are the days I willingly get caught up in multipage threads arguing over something we're meant to enjoy, not argue over.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I consider it a simple generalization of the people who write about professional wrestling on the internet that tend to have the most overwhelming opinions. It consists of the dirt sheet writers, their commenters, and forums for discussion like this. I am a member but when it gets used in context it seems to mostly mean the folks who stand out with strong (not necessarily well thought out) or maybe different opinions. The opinions themselves may not even be with a majority of the total IWC membership but they just feel that way to the person using the term and become the "opinion of the IWC". It's lazy but I'm sure I'm guilty of using it in discussion as well.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

The IWC is the loudest opinion heard online. That's pretty much it. Start a thread bashing Daniel Bryan. The majority will disagree with the topic's subject. THAT's what the IWC truly is- just a collection of opinions with one side being very vocal.

 

[Rayne]

Maybe showing my age here, but there was a pattern of jokes by black comics (later co-opted by just about every racial comic out there) which went "white people do _____ like _______, but black people do ______ like ______." The setup of the joke was that the white person was doing something nerdly and straightlaced, while the black person was cool and relaxed.

That's what the IWC is. It's every poster's impersonation of a '90s black comic. You will never see a post that says "the IWC thinks ______, and I agree with them." What the IWC thinks is always insane, foolish, and against the grain of proper logic, whereas the poster talking about the IWC is meant to appear sane, wisened, and logical by comparison.

If you have to use the term "IWC" in an argument, you're using a crutch for your argument. You're either screaming at walls, or hoping to promote a really crappy idea by comparing it to an even crappier one which you've made up on the spot. There's a lot of that here.

 

[#tamale]

There are certain forums where members do have great opinions and tremendous ideas. Using the entire IWC as your example of fans who have terrible opinions is no longer applicable. However, you can see where in certain areas of the IWC where the blind lead the blind. Go to a comment section of youtube, bleacher report or wrestlezone to see an example of that.

I do think that there is no group of fans that are as negative about what they love than wrestling fans. Maybe it's prevalent because of the negative opinions fed by the columns, news, and opinions by the websites we frequent. They found a formula for success which is used by major news networks that is the more negative the headline, the more clicks that headline will get and it will drive more discussion. It's like many feel like they can't form their opinion so they let others help form their opinion and continue feeding that to other areas.

Or maybe it's because I'm a positive person and tend to focus on that aspect of wrestling instead of pure negativity.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

Urban dictionary has a great definition of IWC that I happen to agree in general with:

"Otherwise known as the Internet Wrestling Community. A group of people, who tend to criticize the favorable Pro Wrestling product, and favor the minority Pro Wrestling product such as FIP, or ROH. Tend to have a different look on the ring work. Seem to enjoy Pro Wrestlers with little to no personality that can put on meaningless 50 plus minute matches of 80% Gymnastic spot fests, and 20% actual wrestling that neither tell a story about either wrestler nor showcase the selling of any maneuvers longer than 30 seconds."

That's what the "IWC" is to me. I guess I use it interchangeably with "smark" but I view it as dorks that only care about "Indy" wrestlers and not guys who can talk on the mic or who have "the look" of a wrestler. If a guy had Indy success, wrestling in a gym, then he "deserves" a shot at the WWE title, in the eyes of the IWC. The business and entertainment angle of Pro Wrestling doesn't matter to IWC members. Furthermore, they always complain and blame "Creative" and "poor booking" when their guy (who can't talk whatsoever but was champion of some podunk wrestling federation) doesn't get pushed.

 

[BaconBits]

The IWC is popular opinion on pro wrestling forums from folks who have no clue how the professional wrestling business works.

Or at least that's how most folks view it.

 

[Sweettre15]

This from Urban Dictionary is how I view this whole "IWC" nonsense:

1. Internet Wrestling Community

Internet Wrestling Community (IWC for short). One of the biggest cop out phrases in all of wrestling. Newsflash, if you are online and looking at this definition and are a wrestling fan, even if you only watch WWE, YOU ARE THE IWC. This is not 1997 where less than 20 percent of wrestling fans have internet access, this is the 2010's where 99 percent of fans have access online. So if you are a wrestling fan, have online access, talk about wrestling at all on any website forum or YouTube, guess what, YOU ARE THE INTERNET WRESTLING COMMUNITY.

And even then not all smarks have one whole opinion because everyone has different tastes on the Internet. So that term is used to over generalize people you don't agree with. Akin to the way the casual hip-hop fans diss people who enjoy a lot of underground rap by calling them "backpackers".

Both are weak labels to discredit someone.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I was gonna start a similar thread, but slightly different. So if this goes at a bit of a tangent I can always start a new thread.

Part of it comes down to what the IWC is but more to the point is wrestling unique in having this particular phenomenon, I think it is to an extent.

First what is the IWC? Today it is a derogatory term for people who talk about wrestling. Just as Smark and Snark began to be used, we now see IWC treated the same way. WWE tried to make it all encompassing with regular fans and call it a "universe".

Other forms of sport have similar, fans of a club are particularly tribal but also other forms of entertainment such as movies, tv and books.

So what makes the Wrestling unique to other forms of say Star Wars groups? or Liverpool fans or Team Edward or Team Jacob or Gleeks?

Most of the above are finite things, Star Wars is a series of movies that were initially made 35 years ago. It was fascinating to see on one of the movie sites recently that some of the original Newsboard postings on Empire and Return are still out there. People were doing what we do about Star Wars in 84 and 85 online. But the movies were made, it was a final thing - those people couldn't actually input into Star Wars as it was a closed thing at that point, so fan fiction developed and once Lucas caught wind of it he was smart (or stupid) enough to allow some fanfic writers to write an "extended universe" through books. Once the fledgling internet went more mainstream in the mid 90's (you remember those days? "You Got Mail?" being the first thing you heard after the modem screech of your 28k or 33.6k modem got you to AOL?) and Wrestlezone was a new site. Right as that happened, the first schism of wrestling happened...the Montreal Screwjob. People were talking about wrestling in a here and now sense, this wasn't a finite thing - it was every week, had been for years and once knowledge that guys like Meltzer had "gotten in" then it seemed possible anyone could through the net.

Is liking a wrestler different to liking your team? Absolutely, I'm a Liverpool fan and always will be, but that is a team playing a sport rather than an actor in a TV show. They can influence their results by better play, training harder and also fate can play a part. To people who hate Liverpool or Football I always point to 2005 and them coming from behind at half time to win the European Cup. That game was special, there was a buzz that begun at the break and built, for days after I could wear my shirt and even the most ardent hater would say "what a game"? Some would be as passionate about how reading or watching Twilight or Glee made them feel and being part of it "before it went global".

Inherently that can't happen in wrestling because its falls between two stools, it's pre-determined so any moment that occurs with in it is to an extent planned. You wouldn't get a casual to watch wrestling in the same way as football and get them caught up it it the same way as they know it's a fixed outcome.

Every TV show is "fake" but wrestling is almost on a hiding to nothing because it isn't "sport" or entertainment. In reality it is a male oriented soap opera, where a portion of the "action" takes place in stage fights but then it's also a live event where you can buy tickets go and see it live. Some shows like Glee did this but they don't tour endlessly like WWE do. You can't go and see Twilight live or Duck Dynasty in Vegas.

So those of us who DO talk about wrestling are instantly met with resistance whenever we try to talk about it to anyone except other wrestling fans. We get the "it's phoney", "you do realise it's fake" and even derision for liking it. Whenever I get this I ask "do you watch Hollyoaks? or Eastenders (UK soaps) and if they say yes I love it then WWE or TNA is MY soap and most people then get it but it's not really what it is, it simply ends the HA HA aspect of the conversation.

Wrestling has a unique problem, in that so few of us who talk about it have laced boots , put money into a show or even know personally anyone who has worked in the "business". It's not the guy down the pub saying "I had a trial at West Ham" when I was a teen or "I did Grease at school" cos to an extent sport, acting are things we all have done at least once in school or by the age of 5 playing make believe. Anyone can play a sport, albiet not all to a professional standard and anyone can join an amateur dramatic club - the fattest guy can throw a football or hit a baseball, just as he might be a closet De Niro or DeVito when he walks on stage in the high school play.

Wrestling isn't something everyone has done, or can do. Those of us who have trained haven't necessarily trained the same way as those who make the money doing it do, or even "know" anything other than what someone who learned from a bad teacher did but suddenly we're able to open a school and train others. XeroxXeroxxeroxerox... things go wrong the further down the chain you are. It's not something you can say to someone "I used to wrestle" and they can relate to unless they'd done it. I had someone say "you walk like an old man" and I said, that's cos every time I took a bump it was like being hit at 30 in a car." they say "what's a bump?" but anyone who remotely has watched wrestling and would like to can vicariously sieze on that. Cos they did it, you did it and you know how it feels. It's kinda like the "warm apple pie" line that caused such hilarity for Jim in the movie. It's not your CAREER in the way it is for the guys you see on NXT or ROH.

So this comes back to the IWC.

The IWC, the negative connotation are the people who haven't been a part of the wrestling business other than as a consumer. Being a "reporter" doesn't qualify in the same way being a food critic doesn't instantly qualify you as being a chef. If you've wrestled one match for money, then yes you can say you have knowledge. If you ran a backyard show and someone other than your folks and those in the show came along cos you made a poster. Yes to can say you promoted a show once but that doesn't make you a McMahon yet... but so many haven't even done that and that is what the IWC gains the most negativity from and quite often why people who really do know the business laugh at.

I had a post in another thread where I disagreed that HBK was solely responsible for his matches, that calling him Mr. Wrestlemania was not a foregone thing cos Shawn said so... got neg repped and a little PM acting like a 12 year old... The stupid thing is he may well have BEEN 12 for all I know and I rose to it... my opinion and analysis had been challenged (he hadn't even read the thing properly by the way) and now even by mentioning it I am illustrating my point while being an IWC dick.

I don't consider myself "better or worse" than anyone who writes a thought out, balanced argument cos that's what I aim to do myself. For a time it was good enough to be a main site writer and while I hate that guys like Le Bar can plug his newspaper columns and Madden now get those slots ahead of me - having run a website I GET IT. IT'S BUSINESS! I'm not in the wrestling business anymore, I was for a very brief period of my life in the scheme it it, I got paid the grand total of about £1000 for it, not even a months full time wage. For a time I wrote about it but I wanted music to be my career, not wrestling journalism and guess what I get paid far more to sing than I ever did wrestling or writing about it, even if I do it part time. My favourite thing here is writing "what if" and talking about the old days of wrestling, here I can do that with people who listen, respond and in general respect my opinions as I do theirs. I even ran E-feds for a time and was involved in the early stages of planning for WZ's. I enjoyed writing matches and booking in my head...and more than once ideas eerily close to what my fed put out appeared on WWE TV soon after... We had Poser pics that I created in 2000/200! and my god, they're still there! Crap by todays standards but for the time it was just a way I could make the guys who played my game feel like wrestlers themselves... which is what the IWC pretty much all think at some point.

http://archive.is/4jq7M


but that doesn't make me a booker or mean I could walk into WWE and do it better but if one of my ideas did sneak into Vince's head via telepathy or even one of his guys reading the forums I ain't gonna cry about it cos it means that the GOOD side of being in this IWC is you can be involved in something you care about without having to risk life and limb or sleep in cars or have Randy Orton shit in your bag while high. You can just be a fan enjoying talking about your passion and thats what it should be about... nothing else...


So am I crazy? What do you think?

 

[wrestlingfan]

The IWC is anyone who discusses wrestling on online forums. Doesn't necessarily have to be someone associated with the negative conotation, the word is usually known for.

 

[jameyt2003]

I believe the IWC is a conglomerate of wrestling fans ranging from casual to militant. Most of us land in the middle where our opinions are there to uphold the standards and the "dignity" of pro wrestling. This is a heavily fantastical spectacle that conjures many emotions. Remember that "it's real to me dammit!" guy? I hold a bit of that same feeling in me. I think that the critical thinking sometimes leans towards the negative too much. I'm a huge WWE fan but I love to read the insight from fans of differing opinions. In closing, ORTON SUCKS!

 

[Kidpolean]

A bunch of idiots that believe that because they have spent the majority of their life *********ing to wrestling matches that they know know more about wrestling than Vince Mcmahon. Also, people that glorify vanilla midgets and spot monkeys. A bunch of non athletic virgin geeks that bash everything that isnt centered around CM Punk or Daniel Bryan. Crybaby punks that want everybody in the WORLD to end the streak. People with absolutely no life and no sense of how to run a business.

This is the reputation that the term IWC has. I know it sounds bad but this is how it is. I dont believe most of this but you have to admit that some of it is true lol. There are exceptions, but this is pretty much it.

And yes I am a part of the IWC, im a part of the exception to the rule lol.

But seriously alot of people in the IWC verbally attacks anybody that say anything bad about the IWC and this shows that the IWC is full of insecure people with serious self esteem issues. If the IWC was confident in who they are maybe this wouldnt be our reputation. It took me a long time to be comfortable in who I am as a wrestling fan. Wrestling is not popular and is really nerdy but this is who we are. I love wrestling and have my whole life and someday I hope I get a chance to wrestle for ROH,TNA, or WWE. NERDS UNITE!!!!