Why do smarks like Nigel McGuiness?

[Slyfox696]

It seems to me that during my many years on wrestling forums, that many IWC smarks use similar sets of criteria to determine what makes a good wrestler, and those who do not conform to those standards are then labeled as poor wrestlers. This criteria is generally centered around have an extensive moveset, using different moves every match, and working a technical style of match. And wrestlers who do not do that, such as Rock, Hogan, Batista, etc., are criticized and many times called poor wrestlers because of this. And then those same people will turn around and praise ROH and their current champion Nigel McGuiness.

My question is...why?

I mean, I admit I am not a ROH fan, and have only seen 5 or 6 Nigel matches, but it seems to me that what many smarks criticize many mainstream wrestlers for is the EXACT same thing that occurs in a Nigel McGuiness match, and I would even argue it holds more true for Nigel matches, and that Nigel performs his moves with less conviction than those who are criticized.

I mean, how many moves does Nigel actually do? Tell me a match he has had that doesn't include the diamond cutter off the top rope, numerous lariats, the top rope headstand, etc. Additionally, how much technical wrestling does he do? I have yet to see Nigel do anything that every other wrestler uses.

So, why the double standard? Why do the same people who criticize those like Batista for his moves and wrestling style praise Nigel McGuiness for working a near identical style?

 

[MattMoses]

Despite my limited exposure to Nigel McGuiness, I'm in awe as to why people think he's so great. People bash Cena for using the same moves, yet every McGuiness match I've seen, guess what...same moves. We all know the moves argument is lame anyway, so that doesn't really matter.

He also wasn't that great at selling moves from the few matches I've seen him in. Storytelling wise, there's nothing there - it's just one huge spotfest with fancy moves. His matches seem like a contest as to who can get the most moves in their alloted time. Coming to think of it, most RoH matches seem like that. It can be fun when a match is fast paced full of high impact moves and nobody sells them, but there is a point where it becomes boring.

Like I say, I've had limited exposure to him, so if someone wants to prove me otherwise, be my guest.

 

[mr. krinkle]

newsflash...most wrestlers, if not all, use the same moves in every match, whether it be WWE, ROH, TNA, whatever

i personally am borderline indifferent to Nigel McGuiness...i really enjoyed his matches vs Bryan Danielson, Takeshi Morishima, and Chris Hero, but really, when i get ROH dvds i usually skip his matches and maybe watch them later on if i am bored...i like him though, his English soccer hooligan gimmick, and i really like seeing him club the living hell out of people with his lariats...the headstand in the corner though, i have never understood, completely ridiculous as most of the time his opponent just kicks him in the face while he is up there
anyways, for example his title win vs. Morishima...he hit like 12 lariats on him before winning,, but the announcers built it as if he is going to win he has to just keep hitting him hard and eventually one will do it...and i also heard great things about his match vs. Austin Aries at the next PPV

i think his earlier ROh stuff has more technical wrestling, but he seems to have adopted a bit more of a striking style...fact is, Nigel could easily be in WWE in the near future, as he isnt as small as most indy wrestlers, and he is just as good as any mid card WWE

anyways, to answer your question about the double standard, i believe it is just that...being "smarky"

some people prefer WWE, some prefer ROH...it's all in what your personal tastes are...people crap on WWE and Cena and co. to seem cool, and people crap on ROH and Danielson/ Nigel for the exact same reasons

i dont know whats "smarkier", following indy wrestling and dismissing what you see on tv as generic garbage, or shitting on smaller niche wrestling as inferior and in no way in hell as good as even the lower card of the WWE

 

[MattButcher]

I'm not an avid ROH fan, and I don't necessarily care for McGuiness, but I have seen a couple of NOAH tag matches with Nigel where he doesn't use thirty lariats and sticks with a more technical UK style to match with his partner (Williams?). He still does his signature spots, but that's what wrestlers do. As for smarks gushing over Nigel, I've never noticed that to be true outside of rabid ROH fans. Nigel is about 50/50 on puro boards.

I would rather watch a Nigel match than most Batista matches, but I don't think that makes me a overly enthusiastic supporter.

 

[RVDgurl]

Smarks like Nigel McGuiness for the same reason they like anyone else- they relate to him. Nigel does work a match more similar to a WWE style. He is more of a striker/brawler than most indy wrestlers and that makes him stand out. It's makes him special among the guys who are pure technical wrestlers, hardcore guys or highflyers.
I like Nigel, but I don't go crazy over him. And it has been said in previous posts: it's all about personal preference. Personally, I prefer indy shows over the big production of the WWE, therefore, I would rather watch a McGuiness match. Much of Nigel's earlier ROH work is filled with more technical style matches. It's been a recent transition to his current style of matches.

 

[Audioslave]

It's a perceived notion of ROH's "workrate godness". Anyone associated with it that is pimped as high level gets a lot of love regardless of if they're pretty boring in general. Most of the guys that people pimp in ROH are no better than some of the guys in WWE that get criticized. I say that as a fan who is entertained the actual wrestling. I'm not entertained by the Briscoes doing fifty million moves a match or someone who is lacking in the personality department like Roderick Strong. I think Nigel's pretty good and I've enjoyed what I've seen from him, but he needs some sort of Heyman-type booker to utilize him in a way that gives him a sharper, more entertaining personality. Gabe ain't that kind of guy.

Those type of hardcore fans also seem to be suppressing some smarklove for the Cena and Batista types. They feel ashamed to admit they like seeing Big Daddy V squash a bunch of suckas now and then, because it will rebuke their smark card. They would likely mark out to Cena returning and then completely do a 180, as if to say "Oh shit, I'm s'pose to be cool and counterculture! I'm gonna boo him now! FUCK YOU CE-NA *clap clap clapclapclap*", but they really, really want to show love for the guy.

 

[midgensa]

I have commented on this before.
I think a lot of people try to "protect" their smark image. It definitely is "smarky" to like anything Ring of Honor puts out ... and it is "smarky" to bash the WWE at every turn (at least the main event talent).
I think that what it boils down to is letting "smark" guard down and just watching even keel. Nigel McGuiness is a fairly entertaining wrestler and does some very good spots. He has a solid handful of moves, wrestles loose and helps make his opponents look good.
I think he is fairly similar moves wise to some of the top guys in the WWE (Cena in particular) and think some of the haters would love Cena if he was in ROH and hate Nigel the other way.
I personally like both of them and think they both are pretty good at what they do. I think Nigel is lacking a little bit of the charisma a Cena or Batista has and that is why he is running around with ROH, but he definitely offers a solid entertainment factor for that company.

 

[SHOCKTHEMONKEY]

Does anyone here go to the ROH boards? They are split about 50/50 on Nigel. Some love him, some hate him, some think he's good but not championship good. So it's not like ROH fans just cream themselves over Nigel's work when everyone else thinks he's terrible. Not even close.

As for Nigel. His lariat strategy all build up to his title win against Morishima. He knew that he couldn't try to be a technical wrestler against him- Danielson tried it and go schooled. So Nigel knew that the only thing he could do was beat the monster down. Since he won the title, Nigel has focused his offense away from the lariats again and it has become more technical again.

This is why following the story helps. I'm not faulting people for not knowing it, I just happen to stay up to date on ROH. Was the story a good idea? Definitely. But it didn't play out nearly as well as it could have, so it ended up just hurting his match quality and turning people against him when he was supposed to be the first true babyface champion in a while.

 

[peazy420]

Smarks like Nigel McGuiness for the same reason they like anyone else- they relate to him. Nigel does work a match more similar to a WWE style. He is more of a striker/brawler than most indy wrestlers and that makes him stand out. It's makes him special among the guys who are pure technical wrestlers, hardcore guys or highflyers.
I like Nigel, but I don't go crazy over him. And it has been said in previous posts: it's all about personal preference. Personally, I prefer indy shows over the big production of the WWE, therefore, I would rather watch a McGuiness match. Much of Nigel's earlier ROH work is filled with more technical style matches. It's been a recent transition to his current style of matches.

Thats why your the shit RVDgurl. we see eye to eye on this one. and you to MrKrinkle, i said the same thing on the thread that was started before this one and it got closed down for some reason. I also think that if your going to try and act like an athourity on something you should do your resaerch on something before you ask such a question. I would recomend watching some of Nigels' early 06 matches during his pure title regin to show you his depth.

 

[Gambit]

Speaking for myself who DOES like Nigel McGuinness, I challenge anyone to say that he isn't a great technical wrestler; he is. In fact, when he first came (back) to America, he was often made fun of because all he did were 'pretty girl wristlock' type moves. He has changed his style to one with more 'umph' in the moves. Sure, when he isn't doing his brilliant arm work for his Thames hold (see vs. Bryan Danielson for Survival of the Fittest 07) his offense is comprised of lariats, but so what? Those lariats look like they hurt, sound like they hurt, and probaby do in fact hurt. Don't see anyone getting on Claudio's case about doing European uppercuts every other move in his matches.

As far as the headstand-in-the-corner goes, when done right as a counter to a Irish whip, and the opponent sells it (either wanting to know what the fuck is going on before/or just charging in and getting the dropkick to the face) its an awesome move. When Nigel just does it out of the blue, it sucks.

 

[Slyfox696]

Speaking for myself who DOES like Nigel McGuinness, I challenge anyone to say that he isn't a great technical wrestler; he is. In fact, when he first came (back) to America, he was often made fun of because all he did were 'pretty girl wristlock' type moves.

I know that I never said he wasn't, I just said that he didn't work a technical style, which according to so smarks, is the only way that a wrestler can be truly skilled.

He has changed his style to one with more 'umph' in the moves. Sure, when he isn't doing his brilliant arm work for his Thames hold (see vs. Bryan Danielson for Survival of the Fittest 07) his offense is comprised of lariats, but so what? Those lariats look like they hurt, sound like they hurt, and probaby do in fact hurt. Don't see anyone getting on Claudio's case about doing European uppercuts every other move in his matches.

As far as the headstand-in-the-corner goes, when done right as a counter to a Irish whip, and the opponent sells it (either wanting to know what the fuck is going on before/or just charging in and getting the dropkick to the face) its an awesome move. When Nigel just does it out of the blue, it sucks.

No one is getting onto Nigel for the moves he does do. I'm just inquiring about the hypocrisy of fans who think he's so good, while at the same time they bash other, more mainstream wrestlers like Batista, Hogan, Warrior, Cena, Lashley, etc. for doing the exact same kind of things they praise Nigel for.

 

[Gambit]

I know that I never said he wasn't, I just said that he didn't work a technical style, which according to so smarks, is the only way that a wrestler can be truly skilled.

Smarks suck; that's pretty much it.

No one is getting onto Nigel for the moves he does do. I'm just inquiring about the hypocrisy of fans who think he's so good, while at the same time they bash other, more mainstream wrestlers like Batista, Hogan, Warrior, Cena, Lashley, etc. for doing the exact same kind of things they praise Nigel for.

Because unlike most of the mentioned above, Nigel's performance is consistently good, and like we agreed on, Nigel's a good mat wrestler when he feels like it. Lashley COULD have been good if they kept him on the Smackdown mid-card with Finlay rather than ECW main event with Big Show(and probably gotten more exposure too), Hogan at his best was 'meh' as far as in-ring action went, Warrior sucked when Savage wasn't across the ring from him, Batista sucks when he doesn't feel like doing his job (which until Taker got a hold of him was 90% of the time) and Cena gets WAAAAAAAAAAY more shit than he deserves. Like, a LOT more. In fact, I'm of the opinion that he doesn't deserve any shit, but I'm in a teeny minority.

 

[wrestlingfan4ever2002]

To Me Nigel's matchs are very entertaining. 1 time I asked him if he could wrestle any wrestler he wanted in the wwe which 1 would he wrestle and why. He said to me John Cena and the reason why is for the pay per view check. I think that Nigel would win the match than. Cena's and Batista's matchs put me to sleep Nigel's matchs don't at all. Thats why us smarks like him. What isn't to like about him? He dose great moves. He would be perfect in the wwe and tna. He has made the roh what it is today along with the other great wrestlers. Gabe knows what he is doing with making Nigel the world champion. Nigel has earned it. Nigel is the man. Nigel is the best pure wrestler ever to me that is. Nigel is in it to win it.

 

[Gambit]

What makes Nigel's performances consistently good then, when Lashley's and Hogans and Warriors and Batista's performances are not?

His matches are able to stand on their own, for one. I could watch just about any of McGuinness' matches with no idea of the story behind it or why the two guys are fighting, and still be entertained by it.

Not so with ANY of Lashely's matches, and only a very select few of Batista's. The only matches either Warrior or Hogan had like that were with Savage.

Add to the fact that Warrior and Hogan were both sloppy in the execution of their moves (Warrior dangerously so, if Heenen is to be believed), Batista's offense looks painfully soft for what's supposed to be a powerhouse 67% of the time, and Lashley has the charisma and personality of a knob, the exact opposite of Nigel.

Basically, the only thing anyone on your list did better than Nigel was involve the live crowd in their matches, and even that point is limited almost exclusively to Hogan.

 

[instant classic Dan]

Some of You fans are so stupid! EVERY WRESTLER HAS A LIMITED MOVE SET THEY DO EVERY MATCH! Hart,Flair,Michaels etc all the greats. Its not about doing a million moves a match, its about telling a story.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

First off, how many moves you do doesn't matter, it's the story you tell, watch Danielson vs McGuinness, Morishima vs McGuinness, Hero vs McGuinness, a story of some sort is told. Whether it's Nigel in his home country refusing to give up, Nigel trying to win the title when he's a notorious bridesmade, or if it's just Nigel trying to decapitate the arrogant ass heel, he tells a GREAT story in most of his matches.

His lariats are fun, they're not meant to end a match. See, he has a different style of finisher, instead of one move, it's a combo of moves, Tower of London combined with lariats will beat you, a Tower of London might not. Also, he's passionate, watch his Unified match, if that doesn't make you a fan for his passion alone, I don't know what will.

I agree with Dan, obviously. An example would be harley race vs jerry lawler 1978 Memphis for the NWA title. I'll bet neither man did more than 20 different moves (including punch, kick, headbutt, headlock, front facelock, abdominal stretch, hiptoss, etc.) but the story told was amazing, they went an HOUR using only a handful of moves and every move made perfect sense. THAT'S wrestling, not busting out a new cool move every match.

Take Petey Williams as an example, he's known only for the Destroyer, why? Because he has no clue how to use it, it should be his burning hammer, his "end all" move that he only does to end feuds, but he uses it every match, and now everyone expects it and cares more about seeing the move than about seeing Petey. The problem with that is that eventually someone will have a better move. From the moonsault-SSP-standing SSP-phoenix SSP-double moonsault evolution to the evolution of the piledriver, someone will always come up with a better move, but those who get remembered are the ones who know how to use the move and tell the best stories and connect with people the most.

 

[Slyfox696]

First off, how many moves you do doesn't matter, it's the story you tell

I agree completely, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the hypocrisy of any fan who bashes a mainstream wrestler and praises Nigel for doing the same exact style. So many IWC fans have in their head that only a certain style makes someone good, and that if a wrestler doesn't work that style, they can't bee good. Nigel works a different style, so why do smarks praise him?

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I agree, smarks are stupid and hypocritical.

Cena is a great wrestler, so is Nigel, just in different ways. Cena is good because he's everything WWE looks for in a wrestler and puts on damn fine matches when he needs to. Nigel is great because he has a lot of what ROH looks for in a wrestler.

Think of it like this, Batman Begins is a great superhero film, Silence of the Lambs is a great psychological thriller movie. They are seperate, both fill different needs, believe it or not, some people DON'T like Silence of the Lambs and would prefer Begins, it's personal preference, but both sides would agree that the other is good for what it is supposed to be.

 

[jmt225]

I think a better question is why people, on the internet of all places, categorize fans "smarks" and "marks". Ugh.. I just don't get it and it's a big pet peeve of mine.

Anyway, certain ROH fans love McGuiness, others don't. The people who do like him are those who appreciate the European style, while those who don't just thinks he's boring and overrated by his fans. It's doesn't make anyone smart to feel either way. Some people like him, others don't. It goes for every other wrestler in the industry.

Anyway, personally, I think he's okay. World Championship material? Potentially, yes... right now though? In my opinion, no. He's a good wrestler with tad bit above average mic skills, but his presence and charisma lacks as a babyface. He needs to stick to being a heel, but at the same time, even though he is a very good heel, when being one, he doesn't need a belt around his waist. So it's kind of complicated from my view, but overall, I like him both as a wrestler and person. He seems like a nice guy, and when it comes to being in the ring, if put with the right person, he can deliver.

 

[ShowTyme]

Also, he's passionate, watch his Unified match, if that doesn't make you a fan for his passion alone, I don't know what will.

Now as much as I hate to say this, but you just described John Cena. Hes the IWC's most hated wrestler, and one of mine too, but even I cant deny the mans passion. He has more passion in his pinky than half the roster does combined. So by you're theory above, then John Cena should be the IWCs wrestler of the century.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

European style? He hasn't done that in years, now he's a more high impact, stiff guy who uses the european style in instances, not as a complete strategy.


I don't see "boring" as a complain for Nigel since he hits a TON of stiff lariats in his matches which will usually make you go "oooo" or he'll hit a hard european upper cut or on occasion, a kick. He's very high impact near the ends of his matches, using a lot of lariats and finishers, THAT is the complaint against Nigel, he's went through like 5 finishers since he's been in ROH simply because he lets too many guys kick out of his finishers.

As for him being championship material, he's earned it. They just gave it to him at the wrong time, they milked it too long. After the ROH roster was depleted by TNA signing more exclusive contracts, they were basically left with Bryan Danielson, Nigel McGuinness, and the Japanese guys. With Aries back, it helps a bit, but their world title picture used to be Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, Bryan Danielson, AJ Styles, Low Ki, Christopher Daniels, Homicide, CM Punk, James Gibson, so I can see how Nigel seems like a bit of a downgrade, but it's necessary, Bryan can't hold the title forever and the only way to elevate guys is to give them a chance.


People use "smark" and "mark" to distinguish between types of fans, there is a major difference between the two, just talk to one of each, what else do you want people to call them? "fans who believe it's real" and "fans who go on message boards"? It's an easy, almost slang term to use "smark" or "mark" it's just the culture of the boards.




Showtyme, I may have made my post a little unclear, Nigel caters to the smarks a lot more than Cena does, so Cena would have to show tremendous passion, as in something insane, to get a "I don't like what he does but I appreciate him" (which I already give him, that and he's the perfect WWE wrestler, but I'm not going to get into that again).

Nigel has a smark friendly style, he shows passion, so if you dislike him, or think that he's not as good, it's easier to like him for his passion. Think of it like a car, it's easier to go from 60-100 miles per hour than it is to go from 0-100 miles per hour. Think of 100 miles per hour as respect/appreciation and the first number as the wrestlers likeness. Nigel starts out at 60, so it's easier for him to gain your appreciation due to his style. Cena starts out at 0, because his style in no way caters to the internet wrestling fan, and it's harder for him to get appreciated.

The analogy was a little rough, but I hope you understand.

 

[ShowTyme]

I understand you TWJC. Ive only seen one Nigel match, hard to get ROH stuff here in Tennessee. What I saw did impress me some, but I didn't see anything special.

By the way, Ive never understood the "smarks" name. Everyone is a mark. They mark out for something or someone. Like everyone in here shouts to the heavens how Hogan is past his time blah blah but if they hear that music, they scream like they were 7 again. Smark is a lame attempt to make them feel special and superior.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

No, smark and mark are categorizations. Smark stands for "smart mark" which I would strongly argue with because a majorit of smart marks think they know more than they really do, such as when people go "that was a poorly executed move" when they haven't had ANY training in pro wrestling so they wouldn't possibly know.

Everyone is a mark for something. I mark for wrestling in general, if I see a little kid with a Cena shirt, I feel good inside, because he reminds me of a time when I believed, when I had that sparkle in my eye when I watched instead of a critical eye. It's okay though, because now I feel I understand wrestling more fully.

Smark is a sort of superior sounding word, but I think the more modern connotation is a negative one. To me when I hear smark I think of someone who cheers Teddy Hart because he does MOOVEZ and then boos a guy who spends 10 minutes working the crowd because he's not doing enough moves.


I simply like to think of myself as a "experienced wrestling fan" I watch a ton of wrestling from all over the world from all time periods and I have been in a ring, read instructional books and seen instructional DVDs, "secrets of the ring" DVDs, etc. to increase my knowledge. But if I had to chose this or to be 8 years old again, I'd rather be the 8 year old who gets nervous when the babyface starts to lose and is in ecstacy when the face finally wins the big one. So I don't see myself as superior and I don't look down on the marks, if anything, I look down on the smarks because they have some sort of superior complex but really don't know anything, which is why a lot of wrestlers hate them.

If you ever get a chance, watch Chris Hero, he's hilarious, he mocks the smart marks, like at points in his match he'll just start doing random shit like running the ropes, doing backflips off the ropes, a bunch of kip ups and rolls, and sometimes before he does a highspot he'll say "this is awesome" or "chris is awesome" to mock them, and I love it.

 

[jmt225]

People use "smark" and "mark" to distinguish between types of fans, there is a major difference between the two, just talk to one of each, what else do you want people to call them? "fans who believe it's real" and "fans who go on message boards"? It's an easy, almost slang term to use "smark" or "mark" it's just the culture of the boards.

Okay, but by this logic, then you and Slyfox are smarks, but yet, you both called smarks stupid and hypocritical.

I distinguish fans of pro wrestling as either a "Casual Fan" or a "Hardcore Fan". A casual fan is one that watches it every now and then and doesn't really care about the product that's presented to them. They only want a couple of favorites to root for, and that’s it. Once the show’s over, they don’t give it much thought and go on to something else. A hardcore fan is someone who watches as much as possible, and has very strong opinions on the industry.

See, I think everyone should look at it that way. Being called a mark or smark is always done in a way that's insulting. That's the real issue I take with the terms mark and smark. Besides, in what business is it okay to call your fan a mark? Mark implies a con or a grift. To call fans marks implies that you're knowingly conning people out of money. It's a derogatory way of referring to your audience. The fact that people still use this word is ridiculous because it makes them seem as if they hold themselves above their audience.

 

[Slyfox696]

Okay, but by this logic, then you and Slyfox are smarks, but yet, you both called smarks stupid and hypocritical.

I did? Where in this thread did I say that?

See, I think everyone should look at it that way. Being called a mark or smark is always done in a way that's insulting. That's the real issue I take with the terms mark and smark.

The problem is how both the terms mark and smark have been bastardized by the IWC to have totally different meanings.

Besides, in what business is it okay to call your fan a mark?

The wrestling business.

Mark implies a con or a grift. To call fans marks implies that you're knowingly conning people out of money. It's a derogatory way of referring to your audience. The fact that people still use this word is ridiculous because it makes them seem as if they hold themselves above their audience.

Umm...duh? That's the whole point of the wrestling business is to get you to put real money down to watch a fake fight. A mark meant someone who could be worked into thinking that the wrestling was real, and that they would pay money to watch the shows. Basically, it was just another term for gullible.

To call fans marks simply means that the fan is someone who can be worked into giving their money for a fake fight. A smark is someone who understands the fight is fake and generally will still have some knowledge of the business, but is still willing to suspend disbelief and pay their money for the show...thus the term smart mark into smark.

However, the terms been bastardized by those in the IWC to generally refer to anyone who participates on internet boards, or reads "insider" newsletters. The biggest problem with labeling IWC fans as smarks is that so many of them aren't actually all that smart to the business. The term "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is an applicable description to so many in the IWC. The IWC has totally misunderstood and changed the meanings of many terms around, and the biggest problem with that is apparently many of the newer indy wrestlers are actually taking those meanings as the actual definitions, thus further harming wrestling.

Now, before I get on even more of a soapbox, I would just like to say that I have yet to see tangible evidence which shows how the style Nigel works is significantly different than the styles of mainstream wrestlers like Hulk Hogan or John Cena, and yet Nigel is praised by those in the IWC whereas guys like Warrior and Batista are considered untalented.