Why do smarks like Nigel McGuiness?

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Nigel's style is significantly different because he's stiff and uses complex moves, which some people think is cool. Hogan basically started strong with power moves and very soft striking, then sold sold sold, then made his comeback, Cena is slightly more complex than Hogan, but not at all stiff, that's the major difference.


As for the definitions, no, I am not a smark because one of the qualifiers for being a smark seems to be that you have to hate Cena, which I don't.

Either way, it's a term that is basically slang made up by the internet, I don't care for it, but I still use it. Just like I don't like the way the number "nine" sounds but I still call it "nine" even though I hate the way it sounds.

 

[jmt225]

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

You didn't actually say it, but you did imply it. However, you're right... I shouldn't have put words in your mouth like that.

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

But aren't you bastardizing the term yourself by the use of the term 'smark' in this very thread? I mean, just because someone likes Nigel McGuiness, that automatically makes him or her a 'smark'?

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.

So every movie and tv show that has a fight scene where someone took time out or paid money to see, are all marks too then, right? No, man. We're all just fans looking for a way to get our minds off the crap in our life for a couple of hours. That's it. Why insult people who keep the business alive by using derogatory terms to describe them? I just never got it.

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.

I agree with you here. Every wrestler has a move set they follow. Nigel does mix it up a tad bit more than most, however. I think Austin Aries would've been a better example here. His little move set, in my mind, is on par with someone like Cena or HHH, except he's still a worse wrestler than those two since he can't sell half as good, give a firey comeback, or add basic psychology to his matches. But the main point is, like Cena or HHH or Hogan, Aries does the exact same shit all the time, never mixed up. I see nothing unique about it, either. Nigel though at least has original moves and incorporates some psychology in his matches (though he still needs work). I think that's why people show him more love and doesn't use the horseshit argument that "all he does is five moves blah, blah, blah". I think anyone who says that about any wrestler shows how ignorant they are, since I'm sure their favorite wrestler whether it’s HBK or Bret Hart has/had a limited move set. It's just they knew how to perfectly put those moves with each opponent to have a very different match every time. That's why those two were so great.

And Hogan, Warrior, and Cena are/were all talented. Hogan and Warrior were talented because not of their in-ring skills, but because of their presence and charisma. Whenever they were in the ring, you just had to stay glued to the TV because they were so unbelievable to watch. You felt like you were watching real life super heroes infront of your eyes. Only a very talented person could make someone feel that. Cena, on the other hand, is just a great worker period. I'm sure little kids feel the same way about Cena the way we all felt about the Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan when we were kids. But they have it that much more great since they also get classic match-ups to go along with their hero. We didn't get that a lot with Hogan and Warrior. Not saying they didn't have any; it was just a different era back then and for them to put on a good match, it would have to be on a big showcase. Whereas the kids today get that pleasure almost every week. It's just too bad I and most adult fans of this era can't get the same enjoyment as them. Sure, Cena can pull a tremendous match out of his ass every now and then that has us all very impressed, but it's not the same. Brock Lesnar was the last long-term champion that truly had me tuning in every time he was going to be on my television. He was for fans like myself. Just a bad ass motherfucker who will destroy anything that gets in his path, and you believed he could do it, too. Pro Wrestling could use more people like him right now. It sucks he left.

 

[Slyfox696]

You didn't actually say it, but you did imply it. However, you're right... I shouldn't have put words in your mouth like that.

No problem.

But aren't you bastardizing the term yourself by the use of the term 'smark' in this very thread? I mean, just because someone likes Nigel McGuiness, that automatically makes him or her a 'smark'?

Yes, I was, but I only did that so people understood who I was talking about. It was lazy on my part, not a lack of knowledge. But, yes, I suppose I was. It was just easier.

So every movie and tv show that has a fight scene where someone took time out or paid money to see, are all marks too then, right? No, man. We're all just fans looking for a way to get our minds off the crap in our life for a couple of hours. That's it. Why insult people who keep the business alive by using derogatory terms to describe them? I just never got it.

Mark is an old carny term, given to those people who were gullible enough to fall for the old carny tricks. Rumors say that the carnys would actually use a pen or some kind of instrument to literally make an inconspicuous mark on the person, which is where the term comes from. To the best of my knowledge, the term has never been used to describe movie-goers or viewers of television, because it has ALWAYS been known, without pretenses, that their shows were fake. Whereas wrestling used to keep very secret the fact it was scripted, and even today, tries to maintain some semblance of avoiding the fact it's scripted be let out. Now, obviously, any educated person over the age of 10 knows its scripted, but the term sticks.

I agree with you here. Every wrestler has a move set they follow. Nigel does mix it up a tad bit more than most, however. I think Austin Aries would've been a better example here. His little move set, in my mind, is on par with someone like Cena or HHH, except he's still a worse wrestler than those two since he can't sell half as good, give a firey comeback, or add basic psychology to his matches. But the main point is, like Cena or HHH or Hogan, Aries does the exact same shit all the time, never mixed up. I see nothing unique about it, either. Nigel though at least has original moves and incorporates some psychology in his matches (though he still needs work). I think that's why people show him more love and doesn't use the horseshit argument that "all he does is five moves blah, blah, blah". I think anyone who says that about any wrestler shows how ignorant they are, since I'm sure their favorite wrestler whether it’s HBK or Bret Hart has/had a limited move set. It's just they knew how to perfectly put those moves with each opponent to have a very different match every time. That's why those two were so great.

And Hogan, Warrior, and Cena are/were all talented. Hogan and Warrior were talented because not of their in-ring skills, but because of their presence and charisma. Whenever they were in the ring, you just had to stay glued to the TV because they were so unbelievable to watch. You felt like you were watching real life super heroes infront of your eyes. Only a very talented person could make someone feel that. Cena, on the other hand, is just a great worker period. I'm sure little kids feel the same way about Cena the way we all felt about the Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan when we were kids. But they have it that much more great since they also get classic match-ups to go along with their hero. We didn't get that a lot with Hogan and Warrior. Not saying they didn't have any; it was just a different era back then and for them to put on a good match, it would have to be on a big showcase. Whereas the kids today get that pleasure almost every week. It's just too bad I and most adult fans of this era can't get the same enjoyment as them. Sure, Cena can pull a tremendous match out of his ass every now and then that has us all very impressed, but it's not the same. Brock Lesnar was the last long-term champion that truly had me tuning in every time he was going to be on my television. He was for fans like myself. Just a bad ass motherfucker who will destroy anything that gets in his path, and you believed he could do it, too. Pro Wrestling could use more people like him right now. It sucks he left.

I agree with your basic premise, but must vehemently disagree about Hulk Hogan being a worker that was not very good. I disagree about Warrior too, but I made a whole separate thread for that. I'll just say this. I'm glad you understand why Cena is a great worker/wrestler, just understand that Hulk Hogan was a better worker/wrestler. And that's coming from one of the biggest, if not the biggest, fans of Cena on this board.

I've never been impressed with Nigel's psychology (although, like I said, I've seen few matches of his, two of which were the overrated matches with Bryan Danielson), and haven't really been impressed by anything from Nigel but it has nothing to do with his style, rather the way it's implemented.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Holy shit other people on here understand that Cena is good? Wow, the reaction I got in other threads was like I was the only one.


As for Nigel's psychology....psychology is a weird thing, it can be as complex or as simple as you think it is, the best can mix the two.

Here's an analogy that I use. Silence of the Lambs, great film, why? Because if you want to get REAL deep, it'll satisfy you with stuff like how Hannibal never judges himself because he fears what he'll see, because he, deep down, has some morals, such as being nice to good people like Clarice and Barney, while biting the faces off of ********s. On a not so deep level, the movie can make you feel smart when you figure stuff out that's placed there for you to figure out. On a strictly surface area, the movie has enough action and drama to suck you in without you putting forth any thought. It satisfies on all levels, a great pro wrestler can do that.

Now, with Nigel, he normally puts out enough action to entertain you, and sometimes his psychology is simple enough for everyone to follow, sometimes it's too complex, sometimes it's not complex and people make it out to be complex.

I'm a good enough bullshitter that if you gave me time, I could make Khali sound like the best ring storyteller ever (k, maybe not THAT good) but there are people who like to twist things into something they're not, some matches ARE just a bunch of moves, but if you find the pyschology in it, and even if you're the only one, then it did it's job for you.

Nigel does his job with me, he entertains me, he's a cool guy in real life for the few minutes I talked with him about his stuffed squirrell, so I like him.


Also, he has a pretty wide range in his library, if you dislike old Nigel, you might like new Nigel, and vice-versa.

 

[strafro]

While my exposure to Nigel is limited, what I have seen of him is rather boring. I ordered and watched the pay per view where he beat Morishima for the belt and it was the worst match on the card, it was given less time than a majority of the other matches and I felt the same thing was happening over and over again. That's where I see him as different than Cena, Cena does the same stuff but only once per match. Nigel didn't do much more than lariats, European uppercuts and that thing where he propels himself by leaning back against the ropes, he seems very over-hyped to me. I think Claudio Castagnoli is far better and works the same style, but just doesn't get as much love.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

It's the style, you watch a Japanese match and you'll see a trademark move done a lot, Kobashi's chops, Misawa's elbows, Nigel's Lariats.

It took me a while to get accustomed to it too, but now I'm used to it, I understand the style. You have to watch it in context to appreciate it (like with all pro wrestling). If you don't like the style, that's fine, I don't like the style Cena wrestles, but I understand it, and I know he's one of the best at it, so I like him for that.

I like the style Nigel uses, and he does it pretty good, so I like him.

A lot of times on the internet, people confuse disliking a style with disliking a wrestler. For instance, most RVD matches don't do anything for me unless he's matched with a guy who can control the pace (like Jerry Lynn), but I understand why he's so good at his style, so while I dislike the style of being really spotty, taking a move brutally, but having shitty long term selling, etc, I understand why he's good and why people like him.


Claudio is fucking great, watch him vs any cruiser and be amazed, he brings out the best in the little shits, plus he has loads of charisma.

 

[STOrm.jepperson]

i realy prefer Roh over anything else now i realy lost intrest in wrestling for long time till i came across wrestling i beleive that Roh and the indys are way more fan friendly then these big Companys screw Vince mcmahon and all them

 

[PWAQfan]

I don't like batista and cena etc because they bring evidence to the dumb people who state 'oh, he does look like a wrestler he's too small' etc.
I liked batista alot better when he was Leviathan in OVW and Cena was better against Carlito, because they were portraying their styles yes but using various differentials and charisma. it gets pretty annoying when all Cenas doing is telling people you cant see him....but as for Nigel i don't particularly like him, he does f**kin good lariats and is an amazing technical wrestler(when he first debuted he used alot of good shit) but he does have something that i don't quite like about him, not enough charisma well he does its just the same portrayal every time.
And if you don't like no-selling you pretty much should watch strong style because it's widely known for quick often high impact moves for example fits of rage discus elbows, kicks, lariats etc out of nowhere....thats all i have to say really.