Was anyone else really naive before joining the IWC?

[nwojeff]

I have to admit that I have a history of being naive about a lot of things in life, so it only makes sense that I was extremely naive about wrestling before I started checking out the online dirt sheets and forums around mid-1999. I sort of have this warped, sheltered view of many things to the point where I think that everyone probably thinks like I do and likes the same things as me. I know, that's pretty stupid, but I've come a long way in the past few years of waking up to the real world.

Here's just a few examples. It literally took me four or five years of seeing constant Hogan bashing and hatred to really believe that you guys (well most of you at least) were serious. Wow, you really don't like Hogan. I finally get it. I still can't believe it, but I get it. To me, he is the Michael Jordan of the sport, and I was blown away by all the negativity he gets from the IWC, and not just the fans on the forums and whatnot, but even from respected journalist like Dave Meltzer, Wade Keller, and pretty much every owner of every major wrestling website. It still makes me sick every time I see it, but at least now I understand it a little bit and I'm actually convinced that the IWC hates the man who pretty much made the sport what it is today.

Another example would be the whole idea of "technical wrestling" and an apparent disdain for power wrestling and "sports entertainment." You have to understand, for a 15 year old kid that's just checking out wrestling sites and therefore dirt sheets for the first time in 1999, it was kind of a shock to see Chris Benoit and Dean Malenko matches hailed as these perfect exhibitions of wrestling, and matches from guys I actually liked, such as Hogan, Savage, Scott Steiner, Goldberg, etc. get absolutely ripped apart.

Some more small examples of this "awakening" to what so many of you thought include your hatred of the conclusion of Wrestlemania 9, which me and all of my friends thought was the most surprising, best ending to any wrestling event we'd ever seen. Then there's all the praise that Wresltemanias 20-28 get (especially 20-23) and all the crap that's poured onto Wrestlemanias 1-9 which are my personal favorites. Finally, there's all the hatred and insults constantly thrown towards wrestlers who are over 40, and especially over 50, for hogging the spotlight and not letting the young guys progress. A big part of why I watch WWE or TNA right now is to see the veterans and legends in any capacity because they were awesome and they're who I grew up with. And this is a topic for another day, but Hogan and Flair should be allowed to be involved in wrestling in some form until they die.

There's so much more, but I'll leave it at that for specifics. I know I'm on the Internet talking about wrestling, therefore I'm part of the IWC by definition according to most of you, but am I really? I disagree with just about everything I read on a day-to-day basis on forums like this and have a completely different opinion on the industry than the majority of you, so I feel like there should be different classifications of the IWC. To this day, I'm still somewhat surprised at how the overwhelming majority feels about certain guys, certain angles, the WWE, TNA, wrestling history, etc.

But to get back to the original question, was anyone else really shocked by how naive they were to the wrestling world when they first came online? Were all your perceptions of the business shattered, and did the overall thought process of the IWC change the way you watch and enjoy wrestling?

 

[Rayne]

The IWC does not exist.

The only time people use "IWC" when discussing things on this board is when they wish to attach a group to an opinion they do not like. If one person says something stupid online, another person can repeat it later, call it an "IWC opinion", and then attack it. You will find that the opinions of the "IWC" are that they worship Vince McMahon while thinking he's the person that ruined wrestling, only watches ROH and Chikara despite being brainwashed by the WWE corporate machine, and kneels at the altar of technical wrestling while believing that promos are the only important tool to a show.

Don't let people on these boards fool you. Most of the vocal ones are still naive to the wrestling world, the only difference is that they're being sold a different set of goods and they think they're superior for it.

 

[nwojeff]

Interesting take on this Rayne. So you're saying that the IWC doesn't really exist as an entity but most of the wrestling fans you see ranting online are really confused as to who they are and what they want? I've never really looked at it like that, but I like your reasoning. It makes sense. Maybe my "awakening" to what I thought was the general consensus or my naivety is really just a matter of my having different but valid opinions and a lot of people online have them too but are trying to come off as something different, that being a holier than thou, technical wrestling expert. That's another thing, the way I'd rate just about every match on PPV or TV in the last 30 years according to star rating is usually much different than the way Scott Keith, Dave Meltzer, or the majority of Internet fans would.

With that in mind, I'd like to call out a few thousand people or so on their b.s. I hear all the time "I always hated Hogan" or "I always hated this or loved that" etc. Um... no you didn't. I'm pretty sure you didn't appreciate five star "mat classics" when you were six years old. The only way I can see hating Hulk Hogan or the Ultimate Warrior in the mid to late 80s and early 90s is if you were past a certain age at that point, let's say 10. I'll just say this, if you were 4-9 years old in that time frame, hated Hogan, Warrior, Hacksaw Jim Duggan, etc. and only marked out for 4 star plus matches while criticizing everything else, you were one messed up, jaded little kid, and you probably have some serious issues to this day.

After thinking all of this through, I think it's preferable to be a so called mark. You enjoy the product more that way.

 

[Rayne]

Meh, not quite. Most of the fans ranting online are looking for a target to rant against; otherwise, instead of engaging an idea, they're just ranting into empty space. (That happens a lot too.) They're looking for someone to best in an argument. So, they say that "the IWC says", and list any old opinion that they're looking to attack.

It's never a term used to identify a particular group of people with a consistent set of beliefs; it is a term that can change meanings based on who's using it and who they're using it against. If someone is of the persuasion that Vince McMahon is a creative genius, then they can say that "the IWC thinks Vince is killing wrestling".

At its most accurate, "IWC" is exactly what it means. People who use the internet to discuss professional wrestling. The wrestling organizations caught onto this long, long ago. The more intrepid of their fans who might have created fan magazines in the '80s make dirt sheet websites today, with outrageous stories of questionable truth designed to get you to click a link and view more advertising. It's not that fans are any more or less naive on the internet, it's that there's another set of goods being sold online that is unfamiliar to people who are just familiar with the television product.

There are some people online who do really know their shit. There are also quite a lot of people who want to sound like they're in on something that the rest of the audience isn't. Take what you hear around these parts with a grain of salt.

 

[HBsam31]

I don't think so. I had a pretty good idea of how things worked before the internet. There will always be critics and naysayers no matter what outlet you use to get your info. Before the internet I had many friends who were down on wrestling and laughed at me for liking it or didn't think they were real athlete or whatever. The IWC is pretty much a modern day equivalent of a bunch of kids on the playground.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

The IWC does not exist.

The only time people use "IWC" when discussing things on this board is when they wish to attach a group to an opinion they do not like. If one person says something stupid online, another person can repeat it later, call it an "IWC opinion", and then attack it. You will find that the opinions of the "IWC" are that they worship Vince McMahon while thinking he's the person that ruined wrestling, only watches ROH and Chikara despite being brainwashed by the WWE corporate machine, and kneels at the altar of technical wrestling while believing that promos are the only important tool to a show.

Don't let people on these boards fool you. Most of the vocal ones are still naive to the wrestling world, the only difference is that they're being sold a different set of goods and they think they're superior for it.

Interesting perspective. I actually agree with all of it. I hear the term IWC whenever certain performers or backstage personalitles are taken to task for their actions and decisions. Say anything about backsatge politics in WWE and you hear the "that's just a lie spread by the IWC'. What are you gonna do ? BTW, if there was a IWC, aren't people who run wrestling based (or themed) websites a part of it ?

Back to the question....
I wasn't naive, but I wasn't the most knowledgeable. I got onto sites like this one, when I was in my late 20's early thirties, so by that time, I had been a fan of wrestling for quite some time. If I didn't join a site, you could see interviews on tv, or Yt among others.

 

[Danger Burger]

I think my awakening was caused through being a complete mark, if that makes sense!! Atleast in terms of your examples...

My first experience of Hogan was in the NWO and i hated the guy!! Because of that i convinced myself that he sucked and that he was stupid and etc etc!! It kind of stuck from there, even when he was face i couldnt grow past what he'd done before!!

Benoit was a long time favourite of mine for the simple reason that i was the runt of the family, with big brothers who liked psycho sid and guys like that, but i liked little benoit who was still tough enough to take it to the big guys!! I used to tell my brothers he could tie their favourites up in knots, though i'm not sure if i was aware of technical wrestling, i just liked the short tough guy!!

I never had the internet when i was growing up so an IWC (i'll get to that in a minute...) was never a problem... My friends however were always online as we grew older, and they told me what i didnt know! I only joined forums like this within the last year, but it hasnt changed many of my ideas... especially as the basis for my opinions had matured alot by the time i got here and i had witnessed things like ROH and Hogan being an idiot!!

The IWC... Does anyone really care? Real or not is an irrelevant question to put forward, its simply a term meant to represent the majority opinion of us here on websites like this. I couldnt be bothered protesting the term because it doesnt affect anyones opinions in any way. It is often used as a deligitimising term though, just as mark or fanboy are elsewhere, people say oh youre just a typical IWC member, when they dont agree with your opinion. The use is childish, the term is meaningless... Does it exist? Yes, we are it, we are a community, online, who talk about wrestling... Does that mean anything... No.

 

[B.Ware]

Love this thread. Very well written opener from the OP with a great deal of honesty. Takes a lot to admit to being naive and a mark on here which is why I don't post much. I'm around the same as as the OP so we probably got into wrestling around the same time. I think every young pro wrestling fan is and should be naive. They shouldn't need to know what goes on backstage or who has better indy credentials etc. I certainly didn't know anything other than who the guys were on my screen and who I did and didn't like until I started to read Power Slam magazine in 2000 which would have made me about 12/13. Sometimes when watching WWE/TNA/ROH I wish I didn't know so much about the business. Very rarely now can I sit back and enjoy the product as an armchair fan. Damn the internet and my thirst for knowledge!

 

[berlinbrawler]

Well, I didn't pay much attention to the Internet news and stuff until the mid 2000s. My first "inside look" at how wrestling really works and what goes on behind the curtain came with Mick Foley's first book.

Prior to that I had some pretty good guesses about how things worked - some of it very close to the truth, some of it utter rubbish.

Prior to that I was a kid. A kid whose older brother constantly taunted him that all that wrestling stuff was totally fake and that anyone could do it. So if nothing else I had early on accepted that the matches are predetermined (I still hate my brother for that. It's as if he had ruined Santa Claus for me). But while I could accept that the matches were fake, no one had said anyhting about the CHARACTERS being fake. No way that guy was not being the Undertaker 24/7. I remember wondering how Kamala went through day to day life. After all, this ******ed cannibal was so stupid he couldn't figure out the difference between pinning a guy on his back or on his belly. Also he ate people - he was dangerous. Did they lock him up between shows? Where did they find this guy??

But OK, after reaching the age of reason I realized a couple of things. It was all a work, the wrestling , the characters, everything - even the snake biting the Macho Man was scripted - but I also accepted that this was very dangerous stuntman work and that not "everybody" could do this. Then along came Foley's book and whatever hadn't made sense about wrestling before, made more now. Only years and several other books later did I decide to start listening to the online wrestling gossip.

 

[mrppv420]

The IWC does not exist.

That is correct....... its just like Santa or the Easter Pig, purely myth.

 

[Paralyzer Z]

Considering Rayne's actually mind opening perspective, I have to say that I agree with there not being any IWC. The term (or name) is a result of the desire to conveniently having a name or identification for an ideology you want to attack or stereotype.

Back to the OP's question. Before finding out the more inner workings of wrestling through dirt sheets or other internet user ideology was I naive? Not essentially, naive about spoilers, backstage hear, storyline planning, and surprisingly the art of storytelling yes. However I was not completely ingenuous about all the aspects of professional wrestling. From day one I was always told it was fake and I knew that these guys were not like this in real life (well some I guess). That in itself is pretty much basic knowledge for most wrestling fans unless of course you are really young. I was more of a trivia nerd, knowing most of the results for every PPV post 2000 (unfortunately I didn't retain the memory of most PPV results). When I started getting into news sites like Wrestlezone I thought I knew more than I actually did. It was only when reading into what makes a wrestling match captivating (as in storytelling, selling, and emotion) did I truly feel that I had gained something.

 

[DANIELBRYANrealwrestler]

I agree with B.Ware wrestling is more fun when u dont know its fake but even when i didnt know cena was always boring which makes me lmao. then when i found out basically i lmao every time edge pwned him. then the worst part was learning the difference between wwe nd pro wrestling nd kinda makes me hate wwe for not showing the world who the real top players are idc how hard cena works im sure he aint the only one with heart for his job. idc face or heel i like a good wrestler like Punk,Y2J,Cody,Ziggler(idk if he jobbs hes better than the whole roster) and ofcourse the ultimate YES-MAN