What Wrestling is Really About

[Slyfox696]

The first thing I encourage all readers to do is read HBK-aholic's column, as it is the inspiration for this one. This column is the answer to her questions.

HBL-aholic: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=22720

Let's start at the beginning. Professional wrestling is, and has been since the beginning of time, about making money. There has NEVER been a successful wrestling promotion that was not-for-profit. Every successful wrestling promotion charges the most for its product that it can; it meets the laws of supply and demand at its highest point. At the end of the day, no matter what else happens, making money is the promotion's number one goal. It has to be, if it wants to survive.

With that in mind, let's examine why a professional wrestling organization hires wrestlers. Actually, before we do that, let's examine the term "wrestler". The term "wrestler" gets confused all the time by wrestling fans. "Wrestler" is a term to describe an actor, hired by a professional wrestling organization, to perform in the ring. So, when I use the term "wrestler" throughout this column, realize that I'm using it to describe a company employee, not as anything else.

Anyways, back to why a wrestling company hires a wrestler. It's the same reason that Taco Bell hires a cook, it's the same reason why a car dealership hires a salesman, and it's the same reason that a law firm hires a lawyer. In the end, the company hires the employee to fulfill the goals of the employer. In this case, a wrestling promotion hires a wrestler to fulfill the goal of making money. So, much like a car salesman is judged by his quality due to his ability to sell cars and make the dealership money, a wrestler is judged by his quality do to his ability to bring fans to a show and make those fans pay money to do so.

Now, I want each and every one of you to keep that in mind. Just tuck it a way in a corner of your mind, and forget about it for a moment. I'm going to shift gears, but I promise I'll tie it all together in the end.

Shifting gears...

Each and every fan of professional wrestling has their personal preference, an opinion if you prefer that term, on who they like, who they find entertaining, and who they will pay money for. I would pay money to watch Hulk Hogan and John Cena, HBK-aholic would pay money to watch Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair, and my sister would pay money to watch Randy Orton and Jeff Hardy. And so it goes, on down the line, with every fan having their own personal opinion on who they like. Now, WHY would a fan pay money to watch a wrestler? Simple. Because he/she entertains them. No one pays money for something they don't find entertaining, at least not on a repeated long-term basis. Thus, if a single person constantly is willing to pay time and money for a wrestler, they find that wrestler to be entertaining.

While each person's personal preference is the groundwork, in the end, it doesn't mean anything. What I like doesn't mean anything. The WWE has never come up to HBK-aholic and said whatever you like best, we're going to put on screen. So, SOMETHING else has to be used as the guide. Well, that's where we refer to "drawing power". So, let's examine what "drawing power" is.

What is drawing power? Well, we've already established that each person has their own preferences. Now, let's pretend we combine 5 million people together, and take a vote. Each one of those 5 million people can vote for their 3 top wrestlers, and, at the end of the voting, the wrestler with the top value, is the best draw. Thus, the top wrestler is the one with the most drawing power, or in other words, he's the one that the MOST fans find entertaining. A top draw in wrestling is the one that the MOST fans feel they are willing to spend their money on and come to the show to watch.

So, we've established what makes someone who has the most drawing power. It is the person who the most fans find the most entertaining. And, we already established earlier, that the person who is the most entertaining, is the person who fans are most willing to pay money for.

Now, let's pull that first part of this column out of the bag. Bring it to the fore front of your mind. And let's tie it all together.

We have now established our top draw. We've established that our top draw is the top draw because he is the most entertaining wrestler. We've shown that the most entertaining wrestler is the one who will make the most money. And, going back to our first part, we now understand that the wrestler who makes the company the most money, is the best wrestler in that promotion, because they do the best job of fulfilling the company's goals. Which answers HBK-aholics question of why top draw is the best wrestler.

But, that's not all she asks. She also asks why it is as a fan, we should care about who is the best draw. Now, we could talk about how the top draw helps the company stay in business, and about how the top draw/s are the ones who shape the future of the business and the direction it takes. But, I don't think that is the answer she is looking for, so I'll oblige her with the one she is.

Why should you care about a top draw? You shouldn't. No one has EVER said that you should find a top drawing wrestler to be entertaining because he's a top draw. I have never said that I like Hulk Hogan because he made the most money. Why? Because it's not true. There are a lot of reasons that an individual should use to define who they like and who they think is best, but money making is not one of them.

So, why does it come up? Because, in a disagreement, trying to say that one worker is a better wrestler than another, based upon one person's personal opinion does not work. If we allow an individual person's opinion to mean as much as the collective opinion of 5 million people, then we're throwing the whole legitimacy of the debate out the window. If HBK-aholic and I want to have a conversation about who we PREFER the best, then she can say anyone she wants, and I can say anyone I want. But if we're going to discuss who is the BEST wrestler, going by what we have now established and know, the only way to objectively determine a "best" is through the collective opinion of all wrestling fans. And if the collective opinion of all wrestling fans says that Hulk Hogan is more entertaining than Shawn Michaels, then it's a fact that Hulk Hogan is more entertaining than Shawn Michaels. Maybe not according HBK-aholic's personal preference, but objectively speaking, since Hogan was more entertaining and thus, made more money, he was the best wrestler.

Thank you for reading, and thank you to HBK-aholic for bringing up the question that so many fans have. And it was my pleasure to explain it, in detail.

If anyone who reads this has any questions, feel free to post them here. I'll be more than happy to clarify anything necessary.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Once again hun, you haven't quite grasped what my colomn was all about. What you explained, very well I might add, is exactly why Vince McMahon hires who he does. You explained all about the WWE being a business. Something I also did in my colomn. However, I feel the need to clarify something. My colomn wasn't questioning why McMahon does what he does. My colomn was simply explaining how I don't care, and why you shouldn't.

Let me continue. What does Vince McMahon care about Sports Entertainment doing? Making money for himself. What do I, a regular wrestling fan, care about sports entertainment doing? Entertaining me. Thus, even if a wrestler entertains others, it doesn't mean he has to entertain me. As a regular wrestling fan, who makes the most money shouldn't affect my decisions. Mr. McMahons accountancy is something which doesn't affect me.

Thank you for taking the time to write this colomn. You are very accurate in describing the business side. However, if I may, slightly ignorant to the being a fan side.

 

[Slyfox696]

Once again hun, you haven't quite grasped what my colomn was all about. What you explained, very well I might add, is exactly why Vince McMahon hires who he does. You explained all about the WWE being a business. Something I also did in my colomn. However, I feel the need to clarify something. My colomn wasn't questioning why McMahon does what he does. My colomn was simply explaining how I don't care, and why you shouldn't.

Let me continue. What does Vince McMahon care about Sports Entertainment doing? Making money for himself. What do I, a regular wrestling fan, care about sports entertainment doing? Entertaining me. Thus, even if a wrestler entertains others, it doesn't mean he has to entertain me. As a regular wrestling fan, who makes the most money shouldn't affect my decisions. Mr. McMahons accountancy is something which doesn't affect me.

Thank you for taking the time to write this colomn. You are very accurate in describing the business side. However, if I may, slightly ignorant to the being a fan side.

Umm, dear, you should actually read the WHOLE column before addressing it. Because if you had, you would see that I already discussed what you just addressed. Here, allow me to repeat myself, for your benefit.

But, that's not all she asks. She also asks why it is as a fan, we should care about who is the best draw. Now, we could talk about how the top draw helps the company stay in business, and about how the top draw/s are the ones who shape the future of the business and the direction it takes. But, I don't think that is the answer she is looking for, so I'll oblige her with the one she is.

Why should you care about a top draw? You shouldn't. No one has EVER said that you should find a top drawing wrestler to be entertaining because he's a top draw. I have never said that I like Hulk Hogan because he made the most money. Why? Because it's not true. There are a lot of reasons that an individual should use to define who they like and who they think is best, but money making is not one of them.

So, why does it come up? Because, in a disagreement, trying to say that one worker is a better wrestler than another, based upon one person's personal opinion does not work. If we allow an individual person's opinion to mean as much as the collective opinion of 5 million people, then we're throwing the whole legitimacy of the debate out the window. If HBK-aholic and I want to have a conversation about who we PREFER the best, then she can say anyone she wants, and I can say anyone I want. But if we're going to discuss who is the BEST wrestler, going by what we have now established and know, the only way to objectively determine a "best" is through the collective opinion of all wrestling fans. And if the collective opinion of all wrestling fans says that Hulk Hogan is more entertaining than Shawn Michaels, then it's a fact that Hulk Hogan is more entertaining than Shawn Michaels. Maybe not according HBK-aholic's personal preference, but objectively speaking, since Hogan was more entertaining and thus, made more money, he was the best wrestler.

See, if you had just read more carefully...and might I add, the whole second half of the column...you'd understand why it comes up, and whether or not you should care when it comes down to your personal opinion.

Thank you though, because some people might not be able to make it through the whole column. I suppose this give people a good break, and to see the different parts of the column. I know it's kind of long, and not everyone can make it through.

Anyways, anyone else who has any more questions, feel free to ask or otherwise comment.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Umm, dear, you should actually read the WHOLE column before addressing it. Because if you had, you would see that I already discussed what you just addressed. Here, allow me to repeat myself, for your benefit.



See, if you had just read more carefully...and might I add, the whole second half of the column...you'd understand why it comes up, and whether or not you should care when it comes down to your personal opinion.

Thank you though, because some people might not be able to make it through the whole column. I suppose this give people a good break, and to see the different parts of the column. I know it's kind of long, and not everyone can make it through.

Anyways, anyone else who has any more questions, feel free to ask or otherwise comment.

Babe, just because you say you don't use drawing to determine your favourite wrestler, other people do. Hence my colomn in the first place. When people begin to say "Huilk Hogan is my favourite wrestler ever because he drew the most", that's when a line has to be drawn. And I've heard people say this. When drawing ability begins to pop into your mind when you're watching Monday Night Raw, you know there's something wrong there.

You may only use drawing power to discover who more people liked, which is fine. However that's not the case for some people. And those are who my colomn was directed at.

Random question, who is your favourite wrestler? Without all the drawing ability stuff.

 

[Slyfox696]

Babe, just because you say you don't use drawing to determine your favourite wrestler, other people do. Hence my colomn in the first place. When people begin to say "Huilk Hogan is my favourite wrestler ever because he drew the most", that's when a line has to be drawn. And I've heard people say this. When drawing ability begins to pop into your mind when you're watching Monday Night Raw, you know there's something wrong there.

You may only use drawing power to discover who more people liked, which is fine. However that's not the case for some people. And those are who my colomn was directed at.

Random question, who is your favourite wrestler? Without all the drawing ability stuff.

You find me three people who have said that they like a wrestler because everyone else does, and then I'll take you seriously on that point. What they PROBABLY say is "Hulk Hogan is the best wrestler of all time", and then when that statement is debated, they then quote drawing ability. Or, someone will say that Hulk Hogan is their favorite, someone else will say that Hogan sucks, and then the first person will explain that Hogan doesn't suck and drawing ability proves it.

I've been a member of wrestling forums for years now, and I can honestly say I have NEVER seen anyone in the IWC say they are a fan of someone because everyone else is. In fact, usually, the IWC tries to do the exact opposite. That's why guys like Danielson are so popular, as IWC fans scramble amongst themselves to try and convince other fans they're not like all the rest. Which really is ironic, when you stop and think about it.

My favorite wrestler of all time is Sting. And my two favorite wrestlers right now are Sting and John Cena.

 

[MisterRob]

I have to agree with Slyfox here, and I believe I stated this in the other thread, I can't possibly believe that there is one person who likes a wrestler based solely on how well they draw... especially since very few wrestlers actually "draw" in the essence of the wrestling term which would mean that the options would be very limited. I'm not sure where HBK-aholic got that claim but I'm not buying it at all, debating that a wrestler "drew" and enjoying that wrestler just because he drew are two different things.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't think anyone picks their favorite wrestler based on who draws. People might determine who is BEST by who draws, but not their FAVORITE. The Dallas Cowboys are the BEST franchise in professional football because after all revenue and value are counted, the Cowboys win. However, I hate the Cowboys. I think that they are full of drug abusers, criminals, and social misfits (Irvin, Newton, Pacman, etc.). My favorite team is the Tennessee Titans because I grew up in Houston watching Eddie George and Steve McNair, and now they have Vince Young (Fuck stats, he's a winner.)

People on these forums may say that Cena is the best or HHH is at the top of the mountain, as draws, but not that they are their favorites, and that is a huge difference.

Good column Sly.

 

[Shocky]

Pretty much nailed it right on the head there Sly. I think that as a prerequisite to post or visit any wrestling forum, this should be the first thing they read. Sly puts things into words more elegantly then I could ever hope to. It's spelled out so nice and easy.

The point he is trying to make, everyone is entitle to their own opinion on what is a great wrestler. Wrestling is fake, it's a booked showed with predetermined outcomes and a script in which certain spots are hit on an almost nightly basis. Each guy gets their own part of the story to tell. As stated, I can think that Jim Duggan is the greatest wrestler alive, and no one could tell me otherwise.

The big difference is, I can't say that Jim Duggan is the best ever. Why, he maybe a personal favorite, but in reality, he's not much. When comparing say Shawn Michaels to Hulk Hogan, most people assume Michaels is better because "He Knows and does more Moves", obviously the most common argument there is. That's all subjective. The only way in professional wrestling to determine who is the best is by drawing ability, like it or not.

Now does it mean someone is wrong for liking HBK more then Hogan, nope. In fact, both are in my all time top five. In the world of professional wrestling where every thing is measured by subjectivity, the only objective thing that exist is drawing ability.

 

[RabidChihuahua]

In the world of professional wrestling where every thing is measured by subjectivity, the only objective thing that exist is drawing ability.

However, it would get really boring, and I think that is part of the problem for the IWC as a whole, to be continually comparing box office numbers to determine the "best" wrestlers. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. IF, and I stress IF, anyone watching wrestling, other than the promoters/owners etc., is worrying about who's putting the most butts in the seats, then they're really rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as it's worthless for fans to do so.

Subjectivity is what makes the wrestling world so much fun. Think how boring it would be if everyone loved wrestler X and hated wrestler Y.

Sly, as usual, you put things succinctly. Well done.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Interesting column on an often-discussed topic, the debate around which is a never-ending one.

I think a very good point was made with drawing a distinct line between an (objective) "top draw" and a "subjectively entertaining" wrestler - my point in this, though, is that the one factor can still influence the other.

Now while it would make no sense to claim things like "I now like Hulk Hogan, because he is a top draw and has tons of fans" instead of "I like Hogan because I find him entertaining"; the ability of one certain wrestler to draw many fans to him can also give him an edge in my subjective standing.

As an example, let's just assume we're watching a wrestling show, that somewhere in the mid-card has a really decent contest in terms of wrestling ability, technical moves, spots etc. - but which is performed by two undercard wrestlers, and the crowd remains dead silent all the time.

Now I can still say "Alright, even if they are not "top draws", I still like them because they put on a good match" - and this would be just the subjective element of "entertaining" that Sly pointed out, I believe - I choose to like these two wrestlers even though not so many others seem to (judging from the crowd reaction).

On the other hand, though, I daresay that a crowd reaction alone, which is nothing but a manifestation of the "drawing" quality of the competing wrestlers in question, can still have an effect on my subjective perception of who I find entertaining:

Take as example Rock vs Hogan, WM18. Agreed, I (and many of us) had known both Rock and Hogan for a very long time already at that point, and many of us had embraced one or the other (or both) as "favorites" at some point.

But even if WM18 was my first WM to see, and the aforementioned "midcard good techincal wrestling match" and Hogan/Rock on the same card - I believe I could instantly relate to both the Hogan and Rock characters just as good, if not better, as to the "techincal midcard wrestlers", and consider them subjectively entertaining, although they will not put on the same great technical match as the midcard did - and I think I would almost instantly like Hogan and Rock, not only because they were able to elicit such a HUGE reaction from the fans in the arena, but because it was this huge reaction that instantly got me a lot more involved into their encounter - and this would be the moment were the ability of someone being a "top draw" (as in "someone who is liked by many") alone could also affect my own subjective perception of who my favorite wrestler could be, because the huge fan reaction in my given example could definitely be a factor of this "entertainment potential" to me (which then of course is also a very subjective element; in which the objective one would play a central role though ).

But as said - very good column, very interesting discussion... I just wanted to point out that I think not everything - especially in the world of pro wrestling - is ever really black and white.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Dragon, I want to take you logic out for a bit of a ride, and see where I end up.

the ability of one certain wrestler to draw many fans to him can also give him an edge in my subjective standing.

There is a difference between drawing and crowd reaction as well. Jeff hardy sells merchandise, and gets a huge reaction, perhaps the biggest positive reaction in the business. He is, however, untested as a draw. I'm not saying he isn't a draw, as his two main events have had attractions attached to them (Royal Rumble and Elimination Chamber) to blur how much he drew as opposed to the attraction itself. And while he did perform admirably in both of those events, I don't think anyone feels safe putting him at the top of the card and seeing where it ends up, not yet anyway.

Now, his pop upon entering might "draw" you to him, and add to the emotional investment. It's the plight of the dodo. You're going to get excited to see what everyone else is excited about, but the WWE is wondering whether or not you'll jump off the cliff, and if you do, or don't how many others will or won't.

The articles (Becca's too) state that that is the WWE's business, but should not determine who your favorite is. So you're right in that other's excitement "draws" you to entertainers, however the amount of money one draws is not your concern.

If you could spend excitement, then Jeff Hardy would be the King of Sports Entertainment. However, you can't spend excitement on ring aprons and TV time, so HHH, who people pay to see, gets top billing, as Jeff Hardy (who gets large bonus checks and many opportunities based on HHH's ability to draw money) gets to fight MVP in the matches that the hardcore, IWC fans, care far more about as far as entertainment value goes.