TheHitMark-SirJoseOle
A Fan Of Wrestling Not Backstage BS
Over the years, I've posted on these forums, probably about four to be exact. My reasons for posting were for the following:
In my view, a professional wrestler is someone who's trained in a performance art that simulates a fight and to connect with the audience watching them. That doesn't by any means imply that what they do of course isn't an athletic endeavor, and that it doesn't take hard work to make this performance art happen. This last part might seem superflous because I don't think I need to really define this to people on a professional wrestling forum. But as we all know, people who hate professional wrestling will always hang onto the fact that it's "fake". All the while, many of these people will likely watch or DVR to watch at a later time, such shining examples of televisual art like "Nanny 911", "Jersey Shore", "American Idol", and so on. I'd say when it comes to countering those with anti-pro wrestling sentiments, we are all pretty much on the same page.
However, it's when we talk about the artform amongst each other, is when another set of arguments happen. Often times, we harp on things like work rate and move sets to determine who's good and isn't good in the wrestling business. Don't get me wrong, athleticism is a key element to making oneself a commodity in the wrestling business. I don't argue with that, and I also won't dare question that there are wrestlers who might not be as successful but are better athletes than other wrestlers who are at a higher level starpower wise. But I feel that some of us here in the IWC sometimes overlook the fact that at the end of the day, professional wrestling is a performance art, it isn't a contested endeavor like mixed martial arts, boxing, or baseball. That by no means demeans the athletic prowess of it, as I said earlier.
But often times, as a whole, many of us wrestling fans put far too much emphasis on treating wrestling like an actual sport. In that mindset is where we miss the point that it's an exhibition that relies greatly on Broadway-esque approach. Bottom line though, every successful performer in that business via one way or another is trained in this art form, they are trained to simulate a fighting situation and to not hurt someone seriously while creating said illusion. All the while, providing entertainment in the grand scheme of it all. Whether you're Hulk Hogan or Daniel Bryan, if you've managed to know how to do such a thing, which obviously both have, or they would not be where they are at in the annals of professional wrestling, then you're a professional wrestler. At least in my view.
Often though, I'll notice how people will vehemently rip into showmen or power move based wrestlers and give them no credit for what they do in the ring. But again, this harkens back to my notion of how we all know this is a predetermined exhibition. As long as this person is playing their part, and playing it well, then they are accomplishing their job as a professional wrestler. The one thing that I want to have those who read this post take away, is that there are several types of professional wrestler. Just because one might not like a certain individual in the business, because they don't fit their standards of what "work rate" is, doesn't make them any less a performer. Especially, since many of these opinions are based on such notions from a fan's perspective. I'm confident enough to say that the ratio of fans who haven't trained to be pro wrestlers woefully outnumbers those who have. I'll cite myself as an example here, I've never been a Rey Mysterio fan, the lucha libre style though is no less amazing or impressive. And its place as a style in professional wrestling history is no doubt important. I've always felt he's a fine athlete and I give him the credit for what he's done in the business. For those who have a more extreme opinion of how they classify professional wrestlers, they might not even consider Rey Mysterio a wrestler because he jumps around the ring like a character from a comic book. But it's a necessary part of his character to rely on such attributes, since going from his later WCW days to most of his WWE run, he's been against such bigger opponents. Despite not being a part of his fan base, I understand his underdog appeal and laud him for how he accomplishes that role despite my indifference towards him. This might come off as a snarky and know it all sentiment, but I often find myself communicating with some fans on here that don't share that same impartial approach to performers they might not like. I would say that's more likely than not my problem, because I should take more initiative to seek out posters that I can debate with on a civil level rather than just outright argue with.
In closing, I stand my ground that within the definition of professional wrestler there are several different types, no one is better or worse than the other. As long as they successfully do what they're trained to, and that is as I said earlier, manage not to severely injure someone in the ring and connect with the fans. Then they're doing their jobs correctly. Now it's the turn of any other posters reading this thread to contribute your own opinions on this matter.
- I wanted to see if my interest in the artform of professional wrestling could be resurrected, I do occasionally chime in on some stuff when I make the time to watch WWE or TNA, which is very rarely. However, I've definitely lost my mojo for constantly watching the product.
- And of course, I love to go the nostalgic route, and discuss the happenings of wrestling in yesteryear. I'm a guy that grew up when there was the AWA, Jim Crockett Promotions and of course the World Wrestling Federation. The latter being my all-time favorite due to legendary stars such as The Undertaker, Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Curt Hennig, Rick Rude and so on.
In my view, a professional wrestler is someone who's trained in a performance art that simulates a fight and to connect with the audience watching them. That doesn't by any means imply that what they do of course isn't an athletic endeavor, and that it doesn't take hard work to make this performance art happen. This last part might seem superflous because I don't think I need to really define this to people on a professional wrestling forum. But as we all know, people who hate professional wrestling will always hang onto the fact that it's "fake". All the while, many of these people will likely watch or DVR to watch at a later time, such shining examples of televisual art like "Nanny 911", "Jersey Shore", "American Idol", and so on. I'd say when it comes to countering those with anti-pro wrestling sentiments, we are all pretty much on the same page.
However, it's when we talk about the artform amongst each other, is when another set of arguments happen. Often times, we harp on things like work rate and move sets to determine who's good and isn't good in the wrestling business. Don't get me wrong, athleticism is a key element to making oneself a commodity in the wrestling business. I don't argue with that, and I also won't dare question that there are wrestlers who might not be as successful but are better athletes than other wrestlers who are at a higher level starpower wise. But I feel that some of us here in the IWC sometimes overlook the fact that at the end of the day, professional wrestling is a performance art, it isn't a contested endeavor like mixed martial arts, boxing, or baseball. That by no means demeans the athletic prowess of it, as I said earlier.
But often times, as a whole, many of us wrestling fans put far too much emphasis on treating wrestling like an actual sport. In that mindset is where we miss the point that it's an exhibition that relies greatly on Broadway-esque approach. Bottom line though, every successful performer in that business via one way or another is trained in this art form, they are trained to simulate a fighting situation and to not hurt someone seriously while creating said illusion. All the while, providing entertainment in the grand scheme of it all. Whether you're Hulk Hogan or Daniel Bryan, if you've managed to know how to do such a thing, which obviously both have, or they would not be where they are at in the annals of professional wrestling, then you're a professional wrestler. At least in my view.
Often though, I'll notice how people will vehemently rip into showmen or power move based wrestlers and give them no credit for what they do in the ring. But again, this harkens back to my notion of how we all know this is a predetermined exhibition. As long as this person is playing their part, and playing it well, then they are accomplishing their job as a professional wrestler. The one thing that I want to have those who read this post take away, is that there are several types of professional wrestler. Just because one might not like a certain individual in the business, because they don't fit their standards of what "work rate" is, doesn't make them any less a performer. Especially, since many of these opinions are based on such notions from a fan's perspective. I'm confident enough to say that the ratio of fans who haven't trained to be pro wrestlers woefully outnumbers those who have. I'll cite myself as an example here, I've never been a Rey Mysterio fan, the lucha libre style though is no less amazing or impressive. And its place as a style in professional wrestling history is no doubt important. I've always felt he's a fine athlete and I give him the credit for what he's done in the business. For those who have a more extreme opinion of how they classify professional wrestlers, they might not even consider Rey Mysterio a wrestler because he jumps around the ring like a character from a comic book. But it's a necessary part of his character to rely on such attributes, since going from his later WCW days to most of his WWE run, he's been against such bigger opponents. Despite not being a part of his fan base, I understand his underdog appeal and laud him for how he accomplishes that role despite my indifference towards him. This might come off as a snarky and know it all sentiment, but I often find myself communicating with some fans on here that don't share that same impartial approach to performers they might not like. I would say that's more likely than not my problem, because I should take more initiative to seek out posters that I can debate with on a civil level rather than just outright argue with.
In closing, I stand my ground that within the definition of professional wrestler there are several different types, no one is better or worse than the other. As long as they successfully do what they're trained to, and that is as I said earlier, manage not to severely injure someone in the ring and connect with the fans. Then they're doing their jobs correctly. Now it's the turn of any other posters reading this thread to contribute your own opinions on this matter.
