Why does the IWC care so much about wrestling ability?

[Cody Trail]

This is more of a WWE question, but in a lot of ways it could apply to TNA and the indy promotions as well.

Why does the IWC care so much about whether or not one guy is more talented in the ring than someone else? And in what way does that somehow make the show more entertaining?

WWE has a specific set of moves they allow every performer to use, and outside of the occasional surprise, this is all we see of them in the ring. It makes absolutely no difference whether that's all they've been trained to know or not. Even I've been critical of wrestling ability from time to time, but it's usually in the case of someone like The Great Khali or Eva Marie, who simply put, can't move in the ring AT ALL. Even a 3 year old fan in a Cena shirt could see they don't know what they're doing, and only then does it affect the show. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

I've also noticed that most of the best wrestlers in the current WWE locker room are also the worst entertainers in the company. Natalya was trained in the Hart dungeon, but has a nonexistent character, terrible acting, and the personality of a cardboard box. Antonio Cesaro is a beast in the ring, but I cringe every time the guy opens his mouth to talk...or in some cases, yodel. I don't care about his 5 different languages, being very European, or even a real American. Tyson Kidd, Jack Swagger, Seth Rollins, etc. etc. - all superb in the ring, but as stale as leftover bread where it actually counts.

WWE is sports entertainment company, and they are all examples of terrible sports entertainers. The casual fans usually don't care about how good or bad someone legitimately is, so why should we?

 

[DarksideEric]

This is more of a WWE question, but in a lot of ways it could apply to TNA and the indy promotions as well.

Why does the IWC care so much about whether or not one guy is more talented in the ring than someone else? And in what way does that somehow make the show more entertaining?

WWE has a specific set of moves they allow every performer to use, and outside of the occasional surprise, this is all we see of them in the ring. It makes absolutely no difference whether that's all they've been trained to know or not. Even I've been critical of wrestling ability from time to time, but it's usually in the case of someone like The Great Khali or Eva Marie, who simply put, can't move in the ring AT ALL. Even a 3 year old fan in a Cena shirt could see they don't know what they're doing, and only then does it affect the show. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

I've also noticed that most of the best wrestlers in the current WWE locker room are also the worst entertainers in the company. Natalya was trained in the Hart dungeon, but has a nonexistent character, terrible acting, and the personality of a cardboard box. Antonio Cesaro is a beast in the ring, but I cringe every time the guy opens his mouth to talk...or in some cases, yodel. I don't care about his 5 different languages, being very European, or even a real American. Tyson Kidd, Jack Swagger, Seth Rollins, etc. etc. - all superb in the ring, but as stale as leftover bread where it actually counts.

WWE is sports entertainment company, and they are all examples of terrible sports entertainers. The casual fans usually don't care about how good or bad someone legitimately is, so why should we?

I'm a gamer and a game designer.

Should I praise a game because it has top of the line graphics and just gloss over that the gameplay mechanics are terrible or mediocre?

It does make a difference how well someone works in a ring, it makes a fairly big difference. Does everyone know the same 80 moves? Yeah, most likely, but it's how you pull them off that matters.

There's a reason why some people, like Bret Hart for instance, have such monikers as "The Excellence of Execution." They do things in the ring at a higher level and can help put on even better matches.

Let's give an in-ring example:

Undertaker vs. Kane is, while entertaining, not a technically sound match at all.

Undertaker vs. Michaels? It's not only technically sound but is far more entertaining than Taker/Kane.

In wrestling, arguably at least 50% of the story being told happens between the ropes, that's why skill is so important. I just watched The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior and a segment dealing with Warrior/Papa Shango expressly said "the backstage stuff, the story segments were great, but they were shit in the ring and it didn't help the story."

 

[Slash-LN]

The casual fans usually don't care about how good or bad someone legitimately is

This isn't always the case.
One time that I was actually watching with a couple casual fans was when Daniel Bryan had that feud with The Miz. Going into whatever ppv it was that they were wrestling each other on the two people that were watching didn't care about Bryan at all. They thought he was boring. Once they actually saw him wrestling though and especially when he thew his kicks they were converted.

Look at a guy like Bret Hart back in his. Not really the most entertaining guy but great in the ring. People recognized that and got behind him.

It's hard to class everyone together anyway. So many people on this board at least don't care about wrestling ability. There's debates on it pretty regularly.

Not everyone cares about technical ability or big spots. Some people prefer brawlers. Some people prefer entertainers over "wrestlers".

It doesn't matter if it's us in the IWC or if it's the casuals.

Look at Rey Mysterio. Total shit when he talks but he does flashy moves and that makes up for it for a lot of people.

The IWC isn't one collective opinion. I don't know why people so often make it out to be.

It isn't IWC vs Casuals or anything. People like different things. Human nature.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Considering that the centralized element in pro wrestling involves wrestlers getting into the ring and wrestling, in-ring ability can be pretty important Otherwise, fans wouldn't especially care about wrestlers like Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, AJ Styles, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan and others.

However, it's not the most important factor in pro wrestling when you get to a certain level. If you're someone that's made it to a significant level in pro wrestling like WCW, WWE, TNA, New Japan, All Japan, etc. you're going to have to be able to connect with fans via some degree of charisma and personality. If you can't make the fans give a shit about you, then it doesn't really matter how good you are in the ring. Some of those wrestlers I mentioned are loaded with a good mix of both in-ring ability and personality. While it's true that guys who aren't exactly loaded with personality, such as Chris Benoit, are able to get over to a substantial degree, it's a pretty rare exception to the rule. At some point though, being able to put on entertaining matches is going to play a very substantial role. As to what makes a match entertaining, that's sometimes open to personal interpretation. On the indie circuit, or at least in most of the broad variety of indie shows I've been to over the years, it's more about spots than being able to connect with fans or telling a story or psychology or even selling the effects of an opponent's offense.

 

[klunderbunker]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: if wrestling was about mat skills, technical ability and the amount of moves you know (and if we lived in a world without Kurt Angle), Dean Malenko and William Regal would have headlined about seven Wrestlemanias in a row. They've studied and wrestled in styles from around the world and while they know their way around a ring, they're proof that the amount of holds you use doesn't make you a top level guy.

To answer the question: because it makes them think they're smart. Internet fans have a tendency to completely overthink wrestling (See almost any Sly post for proof of this) and miss the whole point: it's FAKE. A good wrestler isn't someone that can get on a mat and do 48 moves in two minutes. It's about telling a story and making you believe that what you're seeing is real. You don't judge a Jason Statham movie by how many people he shoots. It's about how believable he can make his character and how well the film entertains you. It's the same with wrestling.

Side note: wrestling fans that think wrestlers have huge swings in their ability levels make me laugh. Do you honestly believe that anyone from Cena down to Ryder couldn't learn to become a technical master? Just because Cena doesn't wrestle a mat based style doesn't mean he's incapable of it. I can guarantee you that 80% of the roster could work any given style (other than certain high risk/power stuff) with a few weeks of practicing.

 

[Dirk]

Of course it matters, my fellow member of the IWC. You have to watch that shit. Nobody's going to sit through a sixty-minute Miz vs Ryback match. Just like promos tell the story outside the ring, the in-ring story is told through wrestling. Everybody doesn't have to be Lance Storm, though - Cena vs Rock I and II were fun to watch.

 

[Danger Burger]

I think the whole problem is limiting the idea of wrestling ability with technical wrestling. Selling, timing and storytelling have as much to do with ability as how many moves you can do.

The idea of one wrestler being vastly lesser than another is laughable as KB pointed out. Give me an hour and I can do a perfect figure four leglock, and i'll throw in a Ric Flair impression for free. Think Cena cant do a Boston Crab? He can do a hurricanrana, as we've seen, but guess what... It looks ridiculous because he is huge.

Now, it should be maintained that certain matches do call for a higher level of technique to be used. Think of a submission match, a lot of drma can be drawn out through chain wrestling as each guy is looking to avoid ending up in a hold. Same can be said of matched like Owen v Bret at Mania 10, where the story is each guy trying to outsmart and seem the superior technician. But in each case the technique is secondary to the story.

A good wrestler knows how to do more with less. To say Cena (for example) is lacking in wrestling ability is shamefully shortsighted. The rock has a few moves, mostly slap, clothesline, spinebuster, samoan drop, sharpshooter and rock bottom. But when you sit back and realise he makes the peoples elbow seem like a genuine offensive manuever, you really have to re-evaluate.

 

[PINFALLMagazine]

I like some variety, but who doesn't want someone at the top of their game in the ring at all times? I think in-ring ability is insanely subjective, though, too.

I mostly think it means two things, getting the crowd to pop in-between the bells ringing and not injuring the guy they're working.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I think that most of the "IWC" members are fans of Indy wrestling which focuses more on actual wrestling than overall entertainment value. So, the IWC expects to see more actual wrestling in WWE and gets attached to the guys that are actually really good in the ring.

I never really understood why people cared so much about who's "good in the ring" and who isn't. PEOPLE, IT'S FAKE. The whole point of being is fake is so that they can tell a story they otherwise couldn't tell with a real fight. It seems, and maybe I'm wrong, that more and more fans are caring less about the stories and entertainment and more about whether or not a guy can wrestle.

I understand that while it's fake, they're still doing the moves and some are better than others at actually performing the moves. But in the end, it's just acting. So if someone is "great in the ring" all you're really saying is he's a great actor.

Back to the original question: I think the popularity of the Indy circuits is what has made the IWC care so much about "technical wrestling"

 

[Sweettre15]

The thing is though, it's not JUST the IWC that cares about ringwork. While I feel promo skills are charisma are indeed CRITICAL, the matches are just as important. Being about to sell, have mobility and keep the crowd engaged in the match is important.

Have you guys noticed at a lot of events now that if the match becomes too plodding or cumbersome, the audience will either crap on it by chanting "BORING" or give pure silence until someone wins?

I think some people like to think in extremes of either "Ringwork doesnt matter, Entertainment does" and some say "Ringwork is King", it's not really that black and white AT ALL....atleast not to me

I like guys that can keep me engaged and get me to want to see the PPVs but at the same time, I want to enjoy THE ACTUAL PPV since the PPV is mostly about the matches and culminating the angles.

It's like going to an action movie and going "Why do you guys care about the quality of the fight scenes when it's all staged anyway?" Because while the story might be important as well as the acting and characterization, ULTIMATELY you're going to see an action movie.

Same thing with wrestling, Characters, storylines, etc are important but at the end of the day IT'S STILL A FUCKING WRESTLING SHOW and if the matches are going to be there, they might as well be good matches...regardless of the styles being used whether it's highflying, lucha libre, brawling, technical, or power wrestling.

 

[Sweettre15]

I think that most of the "IWC" members are fans of Indy wrestling which focuses more on actual wrestling than overall entertainment value. So, the IWC expects to see more actual wrestling in WWE and gets attached to the guys that are actually really good in the ring.

I never really understood why people cared so much about who's "good in the ring" and who isn't. PEOPLE, IT'S FAKE. The whole point of being is fake is so that they can tell a story they otherwise couldn't tell with a real fight. It seems, and maybe I'm wrong, that more and more fans are caring less about the stories and entertainment and more about whether or not a guy can wrestle.

I understand that while it's fake, they're still doing the moves and some are better than others at actually performing the moves. But in the end, it's just acting. So if someone is "great in the ring" all you're really saying is he's a great actor.

Back to the original question: I think the popularity of the Indy circuits is what has made the IWC care so much about "technical wrestling"

Or maybe some of these people grew up watching NWA wrestling and seeing feuds like Ric Flair vs Ricky Steamboat and/or enjoyed feuds for the IC title in WWE like Bret Hart vs Mr. Perfect.

While storylines and the like are a good part of what people remember about most feuds,

Would some of you guys look at Flair vs Steamboat and Bret Hart vs Mr.Perfect as fondly as they do now if the matches at the PPVs themselves werent as good as they were?

 

[Messiah]

People are entertained by wrestlers who can go in the ring. There's no specific reason the IWC cares about wrestling ability, and besides, it's not only the IWC. Casual fans care about wrestling ability to, all WWE fans do. It's pro wrestling for God sake.

 

[shobbitverma]

ICW wants to make WWE more interesting and that is why it choses it like this.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

My biggest issue is that none of you, zero of you, not a single one of you, knows what good technique is. I don't even care if you're an indy wrestler, there are hundreds of shacks around the world where you can pay billy bob 2,000 dollar and he's teach you to rassle.

A few years ago, Bret Hart called Randy Orton the most technically sound guy on the roster. People on the IWC said "WTF is Bret smoking?". Think about how ridiculous that is for a second.

What even is technical wrestling anyways? I've been to a wrestling school, most of the basic chain wrestling, you learn within the first few months. It's hilarious how people would shit on cena, but then once he starts exchanging basic wristlocks, go behinds, and drop toe holds floating over into headlocks they get quiet (those moves are not really all that hard to do).

Another thing is, not every wrestler should be technical. It makes no sense for Mark Henry to use a technical, leverage based move to take you down. He's strong and big. He can just throw you down.

Ultimately, I look at match story. If what is going on in the ring makes sense and are they selling it. I could find a match between Pac and Riccohet and show it and many of you would love it. The match fucking blows though. It's gymnastics. It's not wrestling. Not a move is sold and there is no story. They do about 1,000 moves and flips though. yet many people would praise it and act high brow about the technical aspect of it. That's stupid.

Bottom line, none of you know what is and isn't technical. It's a style that's mostly a work. The commentators say guys who do a bunch of chain wrestling are technical to get their character over. "Technical wrestler" is a character type just like "brawler". If you were to technically evaluate the punching technique of any wrestler, it'd suck because they are working the punches.

 

[Crypt Keeper]

Is Cesaro really that bad on the mic? Sure, he's no Punk or Rock, but damn I wouldn't consider him cringe-worthy. John Morrison's mic work as a face, now that was cringe-worthy! Any who, it's wrestling. People expect good wrestling if you are a wrestling company. Just like when they watch a movie, they expect good acting. Sure, it's nice to have performers who have good mic skills, but I feel that shouldn't be the focal point, in my view. If you're a wrestling show, the wrestling should be number one. And those who say the wrestlers who can't talk but can wrestle aren't as entertaining as the wrestlers who talk better than they wrestle, that's incorrect in my opinion. Either way, they're both entertaining. Just one is more entertaining in one particular field, and the other is more entertaining in the other field. All together it's still entertainment!

 

[aholeisahole]

Wrestling ability makes matches more entertaining. Hogan punching and clotheslining people for 15 minutes stops being fun after a while. Having the ability to pull out different moves makes the match more unpredictable and thus more entertaining.

It's why people appreciate when Cena steps it up and pulls out new tricks, as he did in Monday's Cesaro match. When he does his usual Five Moves of Doom stuff his work is terribly boring.

 

[OYDK]

Smarks hates everything that became to mainstream.

They want to be the person that wants to go against the others.

They want to bee seen, to be different.

They maybe never was seen in school etc.

So they hate everything that got mainstream attention, because of the lack of that in their own life.

Huh? Are you saying it is mainstream to actually enjoy a good wrestling match or mainstream to hate on one?

Anywhoooo yes WWE is a sports entertainment business, but I think some people (like you) forget that the second W in WWE stands for WRESTLING. If in-ring ability had nothing to do with it why would guys spend 10 years trying to perfect their craft in the ring? Why dont we just hire actors and teach them a few basic holds and throw them in the ring? It is because, yeah, there are some fans like you who care about the entertainment aspect, but MOST fans (imo) want to be taken into the match and ride that emotional roller coaster. Its why people love the walk-off homerun or overtime goal and dont want to see a 10-0 blowout, because the emotional aspect is 10x more present. If a guy is entertaining but cant wrestle (Fandango) you are going to get buried and buried hard. To make it in the WWE you gotta be very well rounded but usually if a guy can GO in the ring and isnt great on the mic, hes got a better shot than someone whos great on the mic but cant wrestle for shit. The entertainment aspect is basically used in order to hype up the real show. To get people excited about seeing a GREAT MATCH.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Who knows why the fuck so many IWC members give a shit about wrestling ability, I mean I value it because one of my top ten favorites was one of the best at doing that. Just see my avatar and you'll get my drift. However, it's like this, we are not talking about an actual contest here boys and girls, this is an entertainment artform first and foremost. These guys and gals participating in it are trained to put on an illusory show of entertainment and that's the first and foremost prerogative, if you happen to be an athlete with an arsenal of moves and all that noise, that's a great bonus but it shouldn't take the front and center of your ability to work a crowd and maintain their interest. I'm just a fan, I realize that but I know enough to say that if you can't keep me entertained the whole way through then it doesn't matter how many moves you have in your repertoire.

Guys like Bret Hart had great wrestling skills as a bonus to what they had in their ability to carry themselves, I mean don't get me wrong the fact he had wrestling ability is what enhanced his character, after all who can forget his label of "The Best There Is, The Best There Was, And The Best There Ever Will Be" but Bret Hart had a methodology to how he did those moves and everything he did had meaning and purpose. Just watch his body language after losing to Owen at Mania X and the way he grasped victory out of the jaws of defeat against Mr. Perfect at SummerSlam 1991.

That's the stuff that really matters, at the end of it all. That's what separates guys like Bret Hart from solid in-ring athletes like Dean Malenko, who I credit with all the athletic ability in the world, but his ability to express himself was subpar.

Now let's move onto the flashier personalities, a lot of these guys might not have the move sets that make the "work rate" snobs cream their jeans but the ironic thing is for people in the business that get the most vitriol and criticism from the "work rate" aficionados, I'd defy any of you to try to actually see how you'd hack it in wrestling training yourself. It's very easy to be a keyboard warrior and tear down the abilities of the Hogans, Cenas and Ultimate Warriors of the wrestling world, but actually try it sometime and see how you fare.

Bottom line, there's nothing wrong with being a fan, enjoy that role, I know I do, I've made peace with it that my wrestling aspirations amounted to just a couple of seasons of wrestling in high school, I decided to go into the military afterwards instead of trying to follow the foot steps of my idols like Bret Hart, Macho Man, and Hulk Hogan. But again I'm fine with that, my respect and gratitude goes out to anyone who performs in that business and has made a living, even if I don't personally love their characters. I cite John Cena, Jim Duggan, and Rey Mysterio as a few performers I've never gotten into or liked.

They are still doing something that I haven't been able to accomplish. And while I might criticize creative direction and sometimes disappoint in how some wrestlers may "work", I reserve the soapboxing of being such a grand critic and over opinionated asshole like so many of the "work rate" fixated douchebags typically are.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

My biggest issue is that none of you, zero of you, not a single one of you, knows what good technique is. I don't even care if you're an indy wrestler, there are hundreds of shacks around the world where you can pay billy bob 2,000 dollar and he's teach you to rassle.

I disagree with you slightly, I know amateur wrestling, and I think that Kurt Angle has great technical skill. Plus, it's pretty simply defined by the difficulty of the moves plus how seamlessly a performer executes said move, and how it fits into the wrestling match properly.

A few years ago, Bret Hart called Randy Orton the most technically sound guy on the roster. People on the IWC said "WTF is Bret smoking?". Think about how ridiculous that is for a second.
What even is technical wrestling anyways? I've been to a wrestling school, most of the basic chain wrestling, you learn within the first few months. It's hilarious how people would shit on cena, but then once he starts exchanging basic wristlocks, go behinds, and drop toe holds floating over into headlocks they get quiet (those moves are not really all that hard to do).

Well for one it is a little ridiculous to call Orton the best when the Angle is around. Whether you believe there is a real definition for it or not. I think that I've given a pretty descent one. BTW Cena's always been a great wrestler. Maybe not the most technical guy but his transitions and how he controls matches is truly remarkable.

Another thing is, not every wrestler should be technical. It makes no sense for Mark Henry to use a technical, leverage based move to take you down. He's strong and big. He can just throw you down.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean you take all the skill out of it just because he's big.

Ultimately, I look at match story. If what is going on in the ring makes sense and are they selling it.

I believe that is part of a technical match. The transitions, how believable it is, and how the performers execute the match.

I could find a match between Pac and Riccohet and show it and many of you would love it. The match fucking blows though. It's gymnastics. It's not wrestling. Not a move is sold and there is no story. They do about 1,000 moves and flips though. yet many people would praise it and act high brow about the technical aspect of it. That's stupid.

I see what you're saying, but I personally wouldn't. It all has to come together, and those matches don't and I doubt anyone even those people who praise it would call it a technical masterpiece

Bottom line, none of you know what is and isn't technical. It's a style that's mostly a work. The commentators say guys who do a bunch of chain wrestling are technical to get their character over. "Technical wrestler" is a character type just like "brawler". If you were to technically evaluate the punching technique of any wrestler, it'd suck because they are working the punches.

Yes it's a work, but it's still a performance, and if an actor sucks horrible and is awful in a scene people will remember that and say it sucks.

 

[Kidpolean]

My biggest issue is that none of you, zero of you, not a single one of you, knows what good technique is. I don't even care if you're an indy wrestler, there are hundreds of shacks around the world where you can pay billy bob 2,000 dollar and he's teach you to rassle.

A few years ago, Bret Hart called Randy Orton the most technically sound guy on the roster. People on the IWC said "WTF is Bret smoking?". Think about how ridiculous that is for a second.

What even is technical wrestling anyways? I've been to a wrestling school, most of the basic chain wrestling, you learn within the first few months. It's hilarious how people would shit on cena, but then once he starts exchanging basic wristlocks, go behinds, and drop toe holds floating over into headlocks they get quiet (those moves are not really all that hard to do).

Another thing is, not every wrestler should be technical. It makes no sense for Mark Henry to use a technical, leverage based move to take you down. He's strong and big. He can just throw you down.

Ultimately, I look at match story. If what is going on in the ring makes sense and are they selling it. I could find a match between Pac and Riccohet and show it and many of you would love it. The match fucking blows though. It's gymnastics. It's not wrestling. Not a move is sold and there is no story. They do about 1,000 moves and flips though. yet many people would praise it and act high brow about the technical aspect of it. That's stupid.

Bottom line, none of you know what is and isn't technical. It's a style that's mostly a work. The commentators say guys who do a bunch of chain wrestling are technical to get their character over. "Technical wrestler" is a character type just like "brawler". If you were to technically evaluate the punching technique of any wrestler, it'd suck because they are working the punches.

well I'm a Indy wrestler...i was trained by a former WWE wrestler, not Billy bob lol. Technical wrestling, the way actual wrestlers use the term, just means that someone can make moves look devastating while keeping his opponent completely safe. This is most likely what Bret meant when he said Orton was the best technical wrestler. I agree 100% with what you said about the technical wrestlers just being a type of character. I've only been wrestling for 3 years and I bet that I can do any chain grappling or submission that Daniel Bryan can do. Its just a term the commentators use to try to get guys over. The IWC is mostly full of idiots that dont understand anything about putting on an actual match, but talk as if they know everything about the business. The IWC thinks that chain grappling for 15 minutes followed by 30 minutes of 3000 random high impact moves is a great match....u know ROH style. IMO its all about entertainment, the best entertainers are the best wrestlers. I always thought Bret Hart was boring as hell and I hate almost all of his matches but thats a matter of opinion.

 

[El Wyshu]

I personally have never really cared about wrestling ability, unless I'm watching a match to get visual stimulation which can also be achieved by people who are not traditionally proficient wrestlers. Hell, I can even say that I find mat wrestling boring. It's about the atmosphere, the presence, the ability to tell a story. I've never been a visual guy. I've always been more appreciative of the intangible things. The concepts. The story-line. The big picture. I prefer promos to matches.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

WWE

World Wrestling Entertainment

Hmmm I wonder why

Wrestling is still an important component in the product. It's where the action lies and the story is further told. I am not saying technical wrestling or stuff like that but in ring work that displays a wrestler's athleticism as well as their ability to create drama from it.

Plus my belief is, especially these days, is that the wrestling match is the climax of a feud. All the promos and stories all lead to a wrestling match. And I firmly believe PPV's and House Shows live in die if fans can trust the people in the card to have good matches, if not might as well skip the PPV's and don't attend house shows and just watch RAW every week.

So yeah Wrestling ability is important. If The Rock was entertaining but had little wrestling ability, I can just watch free TV to catch his promos and catch phrases and just not order PPV's knowing that his actual in ring work is terrible.

Also keep in mind Wrestling Ability does not equal to Technical Ability only. Ric Flair is often considered one of the best in ring workers out there but he's hardly what you call a technical wrestler.

 

[johnchampcena]

IWC are people that never had attention in school.

So they hate everyone that gets attention and became mainstream.

That's IWC psychology. It's hate for them who get's loved and attention.

Because the random IWC are lonely man behind a computer.

Hate is self reflection from within.

 

[Sweettre15]

IWC are people that never had attention in school.

So they hate everyone that gets attention and became mainstream.

That's IWC psychology. It's hate for them who get's loved and attention.

Because the random IWC are lonely man behind a computer.

Hate is self reflection from within.

So does that make you a lonely basement dweller by default? By your own definition the IWC people are lonely men behind computers and you posting on the Internet talking about wrestling makes you a part of this community.

But seriously back on topic, Like I said before I enjoy promos and all that BUT the quality of the match that's being hyped is what makes is all worth it for me. Otherwise I wouldnt buy PPVS or sit through matches on Raw and Smackdown.

For me

Promos = Movie Trailers

Matches = The Movie

You better believe I'd be disappointed if I was hyped by the trailers just to pay for a shitty film. Same things with a crappy PPV that had a great build-up IMO.

 

[BringThePain834]

The IWC (the way I see it) are the over the top wrestling fans who sit behind their computers and go on their little internent and complain about things in wrestling and be all pissed off and others want to call those people hypocrites. Let's look at Batista, he won the Rumble in his first match back and is now in the main event at Wrestlemania, despite clearly not having any kind of buzz around him from when his return was first announced. THAT'S why people are mad, and that's why they're not hypocrites. People also want to go around and say that these companies can't make new stars. Again, wrong. Companies like WWE and TNA haven't failed to make new stars, there simply aren't new stars to make. Wrestling is on a downswing, there is nobody on Earth that could make wrestling mainstream again. but unlike TNA, WWE has plenty of guys to fill the void when they need to (Rock, Lesnar, Taker, etc.)