SixMovesOfDoom
Occasional Pre-Show
Okay, let me try this one more time.
Weeks back I pitched the idea that there should be a fact-checking website for professional wrestling. The scope of the focus of said site would be largely based on World Wrestling Entertainment but could also include Total Nonstop Action programming and maybe even ROH.
Basically the purpose of the site would be to fact-check the statements of wrestlers, onscreen characters, and especially the commentary team, who makes the bulk of claims of fact during a typical broadcast, be it Raw, Smackdown, or Impact. Off screen events like house shows and dark matches would be exempted, since they were never meant to be contiguous with the TV programs' storylines.
The inspiration for this idea came from my growing annoyance with some of the blatantly false or questionable claims stated as unchallenged fact on WWE content. As I mentioned before, this included the following major claims made by commentators and wrestlers:
1. That at WrestleMania XXVIII, Sheamus beat Daniel Bryan for the world title in a "record" 18 seconds. While technically true, this claim omitted mention of faster WrestleMania matches and faster world title matches at non-WrestleMania venues.
2. Months ago when John Cena and CM Punk kept claiming that the former had never beaten the latter leading up to their number 1 contender's match for The Rock's title. This was untrue even before they had their epic match on Raw to determine the number one contender since Cena had beaten Punk a year or so ago while Punk was still in the mid-card.
3. And, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, there was the claim last month that on Smackdown the Shield had "finally" lost a six man tag match. Even if one understandably omits dark matches, the Shield had already lost a six man tag match on Raw in May to John Cena and Team Hell No.
Since I made my first post about this, one could also add the Raw commentary team's claim that they had never seen the Shield run away as they did from Mark Henry and the Usos (when they have done so to the likes of John Cena and Team Hell No) or the drama over Cena being unable to lift Mark Henry during their title match at Money in the Bank (even though Cena has lifted plenty of heavier wrestlers for the AA such as the Great Khali and the Big Show).
So again I propose the creation of a fact-checking website. The format I thought of was the review of a Raw, Smackdown, and Impact program, complete with a list of noted claims that were questionable or even just plain false. There would also be the occasional feedback entry if certain people asked about certain claims made by commentators a la snopes.com. Finally there would be the occasional essay entry noting a certain claim or constantly repeated claim; maybe this section would focus more on claims that predate the website's existence.
I even know what the home page could have as a banner quote: "Watch your tapes, know your history" --CM Punk
The last time I posted this suggestion, I got some positive feedback about how such a site could garner many views, be popular among the IWC, etc. But I also got strong criticism, which I would like to address now.
The lead issue some had was that such a site would be strange because "wrestling is fake and unimportant." Apparently the poster was unaware that even movies and television shows, also fake and sometimes unimportant, have webpages or sites dedicated to pointing out their goofs or errors. Internet Movie Database provides a good example of that. Just because something is scripted, does not mean it is beyond investigation.
Another said it would be "smarky", which I assume is a bad thing and that the distortions are part of kayfabe. Some would say lying is part of politics; does that mean entities like factcheck.org should not be in operation?
All in all, I sincerely think it would be an interesting and even useful tool for marks and smarks alike. I believe committed wrestling fans or even casual watchers would be intrigued to see if what was being said was true.
Anyway, I would like to know what others think, if they or even the WZ higher-ups would be interested in starting up such a site, etc.
Please be civil! That is not asking for much.
Weeks back I pitched the idea that there should be a fact-checking website for professional wrestling. The scope of the focus of said site would be largely based on World Wrestling Entertainment but could also include Total Nonstop Action programming and maybe even ROH.
Basically the purpose of the site would be to fact-check the statements of wrestlers, onscreen characters, and especially the commentary team, who makes the bulk of claims of fact during a typical broadcast, be it Raw, Smackdown, or Impact. Off screen events like house shows and dark matches would be exempted, since they were never meant to be contiguous with the TV programs' storylines.
The inspiration for this idea came from my growing annoyance with some of the blatantly false or questionable claims stated as unchallenged fact on WWE content. As I mentioned before, this included the following major claims made by commentators and wrestlers:
1. That at WrestleMania XXVIII, Sheamus beat Daniel Bryan for the world title in a "record" 18 seconds. While technically true, this claim omitted mention of faster WrestleMania matches and faster world title matches at non-WrestleMania venues.
2. Months ago when John Cena and CM Punk kept claiming that the former had never beaten the latter leading up to their number 1 contender's match for The Rock's title. This was untrue even before they had their epic match on Raw to determine the number one contender since Cena had beaten Punk a year or so ago while Punk was still in the mid-card.
3. And, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, there was the claim last month that on Smackdown the Shield had "finally" lost a six man tag match. Even if one understandably omits dark matches, the Shield had already lost a six man tag match on Raw in May to John Cena and Team Hell No.
Since I made my first post about this, one could also add the Raw commentary team's claim that they had never seen the Shield run away as they did from Mark Henry and the Usos (when they have done so to the likes of John Cena and Team Hell No) or the drama over Cena being unable to lift Mark Henry during their title match at Money in the Bank (even though Cena has lifted plenty of heavier wrestlers for the AA such as the Great Khali and the Big Show).
So again I propose the creation of a fact-checking website. The format I thought of was the review of a Raw, Smackdown, and Impact program, complete with a list of noted claims that were questionable or even just plain false. There would also be the occasional feedback entry if certain people asked about certain claims made by commentators a la snopes.com. Finally there would be the occasional essay entry noting a certain claim or constantly repeated claim; maybe this section would focus more on claims that predate the website's existence.
I even know what the home page could have as a banner quote: "Watch your tapes, know your history" --CM Punk
The last time I posted this suggestion, I got some positive feedback about how such a site could garner many views, be popular among the IWC, etc. But I also got strong criticism, which I would like to address now.
The lead issue some had was that such a site would be strange because "wrestling is fake and unimportant." Apparently the poster was unaware that even movies and television shows, also fake and sometimes unimportant, have webpages or sites dedicated to pointing out their goofs or errors. Internet Movie Database provides a good example of that. Just because something is scripted, does not mean it is beyond investigation.
Another said it would be "smarky", which I assume is a bad thing and that the distortions are part of kayfabe. Some would say lying is part of politics; does that mean entities like factcheck.org should not be in operation?
All in all, I sincerely think it would be an interesting and even useful tool for marks and smarks alike. I believe committed wrestling fans or even casual watchers would be intrigued to see if what was being said was true.
Anyway, I would like to know what others think, if they or even the WZ higher-ups would be interested in starting up such a site, etc.
Please be civil! That is not asking for much.
