Simple, what are the things that you hear certain wrestling fans say that drives you insane? The things that are either incredibly inane, mind-numbingly stupid, or just flat out wrong that you hear on a constant basis from so-called "fans" of this entertainment phenomenon that we all love?
I've got a few, and you probably won't like them.
Indie Wrestlers Can't Draw Because They Aren't In WWE: This is one that really, really, REALLY pisses me off. There seems to be this mentality lately that, when someone talks about a lesser-known wrestler that they like who isn't a part of WWE, someone else has to jump in and say that said wrestler is nothing just because they haven't been part of WWE and hasn't wrestled at Wrestlemania. The lack of any realism in this argument is staggering. I mean, think about this for a minute. Out of the thousands of wrestlers in North America alone, how many do you think are going to be able to wrestle at one yearly event in your lifetime? I think, realistically, an indie wrestler is slightly more concerned with keeping his job so he can feed himself/his family. Crazy idea, I know.
This mentality seems to extend to the idea that WWE is automatically better than every other company out there because they're WWE or because they have Wrestlemania or both. OK, let's take away every storyline ever written for any company still existing in North America today as well as any wrestlers that have made a name for themselves in any of those companies. What separates WWE from the rest?
Three things: Money, history, and notoriety. Obviously, WWE is the richest wrestling organization in North America today, as anyone can tell from the production value alone. They've been around for a long time, the only company beating them in that being the NWA. And they're the most notable company because they jumped on an opportunity back when wrestling was still mostly unknown to the general public. And these three things intertwine with each other. They have the most money because of their history and notoriety. They have a lengthy history thanks to their money and notoriety. And they're notable today thanks to their money and their long history.
This does not automatically make them the best. "Richest" does not equal "best". "Longest-running" does not equal "best". "Most notable" does not equal "best" either. What makes a company good is subjective. Everyone has their own viewpoint and their own opinions on what is good. It doesn't matter where a wrestler wrestles, if they have fans, they draw, and if they accomplish something, it's an accomplishment no matter what.
This mentality also extends to the idea that foreign wrestlers aren't as important because they haven't wrestled in America for WWE. Whoopdy-fucking-do. Do you really think fans in Japan give a shit about WWE? Unlikely, considering they have a ton of promotions over there they can get behind. Likewise for Mexico. What makes you think the fans there should give up AAA for WWE? What makes the company you like so special?
In short, if you like one company more than the other, fine, but have a reason for it besides "because it's better".
Spot Monkeys: Just....spot monkeys. The term itself just sounds stupid to me. The term essentially means wrestlers who just string together moves, or "spots", without any thought behind them. Well, first of all, every wrestler has their own set of spots that they do in a match. And chances are, they do them in the same order every match as well. So this also applies to the whole "DIS GY ONLY KNOS FVE MOVS!" mentality. You can't expect a 190-lb cruiserweight to one day powerbomb a 300-lb heavyweight, can you? You likewise can't expect same 300-lb heavyweight to do a corkscrew moonsault. Chances are, it won't happen, and someone will get seriously hurt. Second, you cannot expect every match by every wrestler to be a fluid, mat-focused contest of technical wizardry. Some are able to do that, some aren't. Some are capable of doing that, but choose not to, or don't because of a storyline, or a match type. That's how it is.
Let me make an example: The Triangle Ladder Match between the Dudleys, the Hardy Boyz, and E&C back at Wrestlemania 16. That was spot after spot after spot. And you know what? It was fucking awesome. The first TLC match at Summerslam 2000 was a spotfest as well. And everyone loved it. To this day, people still talk fondly about it. TLC II, at Wrestlemania 17, was an even bigger and more unrealistic spotfest that its predecessor. And most people consider it to be BETTER than TLC I. What does that tell you?
In the end, what it all boils down to is taste. Don't get me wrong, I love a good technical showdown as well. But I like flashy matches as well. And I can like wild bloody brawls too. It's all subjective. One is not better than the other, you just prefer one to the other. Big difference.
Chris Benoit: I'm just going to cut the bullshit, remove any personal feelings about the situation, and just give you the facts:
Chris Benoit was a professional wrestler who was considered to be one of the best. His technical skills were and still are compared to greats like Mr. Perfect, Bret Hart, Ricky Steamboat and Ric Flair. He could play a psychotic heel well, and had enough of what I like to call "natural charisma" to be a believable face. He had the respect and admiration of his peers and the love of his fanbase.
And then, over the weekend ending on June 24 2007, he killed his wife, his son, and then himself.
Since then, almost every subject about Benoit is usually something like "Will Benoit ever be in the Hall of Fame?" or "Will WWE talk about Benoit again?" or "Does Benoit deserve this?" or "What about Benoit?" or whatever. And, despite whatever good or curious intentions are behind the poster, just about every conversation de-evolves into this:
"Benoit should be forgiven because he's the greatest ever and he should be in the Hall of Fame next year R.I.P. Benoit."
"Benoit was a child-murdering psychopath and he deserves what he got and is burning in Hell and good riddance."
"You're an asshole because you can't sympathize with him."
"You're an asshole because you sympathize with him."
"FUCK YOU!"
"FUCK YOU!"
*flamewar begins*
Let me make something perfectly clear to both sides: You are not going to change the other person's mind. They are deadset in their beliefs and aren't going to change them because someone they're talking to on the internet told them so, no matter how you rationalize it. All it will do is get you pissed off because they don't agree with you and they must because you are so right about this and how dare anyone say otherwise.
Clearly, talking about the situation isn't getting anyone anywhere, so it's probably best to just drop the subject for good until WWE actually does something in regards to it. That seems to be the only way people will truly move on, although I doubt that'll be the case even then.
The man has been dead for almost three years now. Leave it be.
Your turn.
I've got a few, and you probably won't like them.
Indie Wrestlers Can't Draw Because They Aren't In WWE: This is one that really, really, REALLY pisses me off. There seems to be this mentality lately that, when someone talks about a lesser-known wrestler that they like who isn't a part of WWE, someone else has to jump in and say that said wrestler is nothing just because they haven't been part of WWE and hasn't wrestled at Wrestlemania. The lack of any realism in this argument is staggering. I mean, think about this for a minute. Out of the thousands of wrestlers in North America alone, how many do you think are going to be able to wrestle at one yearly event in your lifetime? I think, realistically, an indie wrestler is slightly more concerned with keeping his job so he can feed himself/his family. Crazy idea, I know.
This mentality seems to extend to the idea that WWE is automatically better than every other company out there because they're WWE or because they have Wrestlemania or both. OK, let's take away every storyline ever written for any company still existing in North America today as well as any wrestlers that have made a name for themselves in any of those companies. What separates WWE from the rest?
Three things: Money, history, and notoriety. Obviously, WWE is the richest wrestling organization in North America today, as anyone can tell from the production value alone. They've been around for a long time, the only company beating them in that being the NWA. And they're the most notable company because they jumped on an opportunity back when wrestling was still mostly unknown to the general public. And these three things intertwine with each other. They have the most money because of their history and notoriety. They have a lengthy history thanks to their money and notoriety. And they're notable today thanks to their money and their long history.
This does not automatically make them the best. "Richest" does not equal "best". "Longest-running" does not equal "best". "Most notable" does not equal "best" either. What makes a company good is subjective. Everyone has their own viewpoint and their own opinions on what is good. It doesn't matter where a wrestler wrestles, if they have fans, they draw, and if they accomplish something, it's an accomplishment no matter what.
This mentality also extends to the idea that foreign wrestlers aren't as important because they haven't wrestled in America for WWE. Whoopdy-fucking-do. Do you really think fans in Japan give a shit about WWE? Unlikely, considering they have a ton of promotions over there they can get behind. Likewise for Mexico. What makes you think the fans there should give up AAA for WWE? What makes the company you like so special?
In short, if you like one company more than the other, fine, but have a reason for it besides "because it's better".
Spot Monkeys: Just....spot monkeys. The term itself just sounds stupid to me. The term essentially means wrestlers who just string together moves, or "spots", without any thought behind them. Well, first of all, every wrestler has their own set of spots that they do in a match. And chances are, they do them in the same order every match as well. So this also applies to the whole "DIS GY ONLY KNOS FVE MOVS!" mentality. You can't expect a 190-lb cruiserweight to one day powerbomb a 300-lb heavyweight, can you? You likewise can't expect same 300-lb heavyweight to do a corkscrew moonsault. Chances are, it won't happen, and someone will get seriously hurt. Second, you cannot expect every match by every wrestler to be a fluid, mat-focused contest of technical wizardry. Some are able to do that, some aren't. Some are capable of doing that, but choose not to, or don't because of a storyline, or a match type. That's how it is.
Let me make an example: The Triangle Ladder Match between the Dudleys, the Hardy Boyz, and E&C back at Wrestlemania 16. That was spot after spot after spot. And you know what? It was fucking awesome. The first TLC match at Summerslam 2000 was a spotfest as well. And everyone loved it. To this day, people still talk fondly about it. TLC II, at Wrestlemania 17, was an even bigger and more unrealistic spotfest that its predecessor. And most people consider it to be BETTER than TLC I. What does that tell you?
In the end, what it all boils down to is taste. Don't get me wrong, I love a good technical showdown as well. But I like flashy matches as well. And I can like wild bloody brawls too. It's all subjective. One is not better than the other, you just prefer one to the other. Big difference.
Chris Benoit: I'm just going to cut the bullshit, remove any personal feelings about the situation, and just give you the facts:
Chris Benoit was a professional wrestler who was considered to be one of the best. His technical skills were and still are compared to greats like Mr. Perfect, Bret Hart, Ricky Steamboat and Ric Flair. He could play a psychotic heel well, and had enough of what I like to call "natural charisma" to be a believable face. He had the respect and admiration of his peers and the love of his fanbase.
And then, over the weekend ending on June 24 2007, he killed his wife, his son, and then himself.
Since then, almost every subject about Benoit is usually something like "Will Benoit ever be in the Hall of Fame?" or "Will WWE talk about Benoit again?" or "Does Benoit deserve this?" or "What about Benoit?" or whatever. And, despite whatever good or curious intentions are behind the poster, just about every conversation de-evolves into this:
"Benoit should be forgiven because he's the greatest ever and he should be in the Hall of Fame next year R.I.P. Benoit."
"Benoit was a child-murdering psychopath and he deserves what he got and is burning in Hell and good riddance."
"You're an asshole because you can't sympathize with him."
"You're an asshole because you sympathize with him."
"FUCK YOU!"
"FUCK YOU!"
*flamewar begins*
Let me make something perfectly clear to both sides: You are not going to change the other person's mind. They are deadset in their beliefs and aren't going to change them because someone they're talking to on the internet told them so, no matter how you rationalize it. All it will do is get you pissed off because they don't agree with you and they must because you are so right about this and how dare anyone say otherwise.
Clearly, talking about the situation isn't getting anyone anywhere, so it's probably best to just drop the subject for good until WWE actually does something in regards to it. That seems to be the only way people will truly move on, although I doubt that'll be the case even then.
The man has been dead for almost three years now. Leave it be.
Your turn.
