Austin Aries made an interesting tweet the other day:
To which Brandon Stroud of With Leather responded:
To which Aries retaliated:
This was an interesting exchange to me, because it revealed some interesting viewpoints on both sides of the fence. Not that I mean to project Aries's apparent viewpoints onto all wrestlers, but one can certainly imagine he's not the only person in wrestling with the idea that writers (and, by extension, fans) are uninformed and therefore unjustified in their attempt to criticize wrestling.
The argument that Aries is making is founded on one of the most infuriating and annoying arguments that gets made - because someone has never done something, they have no credibility in their attempt to criticize them. We hear this argument in other arenas. Sometimes when a journalist criticizes a football player's performance, they might respond by arguing that the journalist has never played football. If someone hears someone sing poorly and criticizes them, they are sometimes childishly asked to "do better", with the implication being that if you can't sing, you can't criticize anyone else for poor singing. This is an argument that I think most are familiar with.
The attitude espoused by Austin Aries in this exchange reveals a disconnect between some wrestlers and their fans, which is to say, there is an attitude on one side of the fence that does not feel the other has intellectual equality because they've never taken a bump. But is this opinion valid? Do we, that have never engaged in the art of wrestling, have a right to criticize those that do?
I say yes, yes we do, but not unilaterally. The only quality that one must possess to criticize anything is an understanding of it. I would argue that understanding of wrestling can come from many different places. Just as an understanding of football can come from either playing about it, or watching it, examining it, learning about it, and writing about it, one can learn about and understand wrestling by either doing it, or watching it, reading the work of those that are informed, and growing familiar with it from the outside. The perspective of the writer - or the fan - is no less valid than the perspective of the wrestler, so long as they are not, in actuality, uninformed. The argument that Aries would like to make, it seems, is that one who does not wrestle cannot be informed about wrestling, which is what I fundamentally take exception to here. There are a number of excellent wrestling journalists who are quite well informed on their topic, and they did so without ever lacing up the boots. Watching, learning, reading, and writing are avenues by which understanding can be gained, and that understanding can be just as valid, if not more so, than the understanding gained by wrestling itself.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the unwashed masses who've never stepped between the ropes can never hope to understand wrestling and therefore can never gain any credibility to criticize it. Perhaps we are indeed no more than uninformed, arrogant, and ignorant mouthbreathers, our shouts full of sound and fury, but without meaning. I don't believe that is so, but by all means, attempt to prove me wrong.
Austin Aries said:
To which Brandon Stroud of With Leather responded:
Brandon Stroud said:
To which Aries retaliated:
Austin Aries said:
This was an interesting exchange to me, because it revealed some interesting viewpoints on both sides of the fence. Not that I mean to project Aries's apparent viewpoints onto all wrestlers, but one can certainly imagine he's not the only person in wrestling with the idea that writers (and, by extension, fans) are uninformed and therefore unjustified in their attempt to criticize wrestling.
The argument that Aries is making is founded on one of the most infuriating and annoying arguments that gets made - because someone has never done something, they have no credibility in their attempt to criticize them. We hear this argument in other arenas. Sometimes when a journalist criticizes a football player's performance, they might respond by arguing that the journalist has never played football. If someone hears someone sing poorly and criticizes them, they are sometimes childishly asked to "do better", with the implication being that if you can't sing, you can't criticize anyone else for poor singing. This is an argument that I think most are familiar with.
The attitude espoused by Austin Aries in this exchange reveals a disconnect between some wrestlers and their fans, which is to say, there is an attitude on one side of the fence that does not feel the other has intellectual equality because they've never taken a bump. But is this opinion valid? Do we, that have never engaged in the art of wrestling, have a right to criticize those that do?
I say yes, yes we do, but not unilaterally. The only quality that one must possess to criticize anything is an understanding of it. I would argue that understanding of wrestling can come from many different places. Just as an understanding of football can come from either playing about it, or watching it, examining it, learning about it, and writing about it, one can learn about and understand wrestling by either doing it, or watching it, reading the work of those that are informed, and growing familiar with it from the outside. The perspective of the writer - or the fan - is no less valid than the perspective of the wrestler, so long as they are not, in actuality, uninformed. The argument that Aries would like to make, it seems, is that one who does not wrestle cannot be informed about wrestling, which is what I fundamentally take exception to here. There are a number of excellent wrestling journalists who are quite well informed on their topic, and they did so without ever lacing up the boots. Watching, learning, reading, and writing are avenues by which understanding can be gained, and that understanding can be just as valid, if not more so, than the understanding gained by wrestling itself.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the unwashed masses who've never stepped between the ropes can never hope to understand wrestling and therefore can never gain any credibility to criticize it. Perhaps we are indeed no more than uninformed, arrogant, and ignorant mouthbreathers, our shouts full of sound and fury, but without meaning. I don't believe that is so, but by all means, attempt to prove me wrong.
