"I am a mark"

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

Why workrate doesn't matter

 

I am a mark. To many that word is viewed an an insult. It's negative connotation derived from it's origins. Coined by tricksters, illusionists and con-men, "mark" referred to someone who was succeptable to the fraud. Someone gullible. Someone ignorent.

 

In wrestling, it began the same way. After all, wrestling is an illusion - a staged play, designed to look real. Marks, then, were the suckers who believed what they were watching. Those poor, unknowing souls who plunked down their hard-earned cash to cheer on their hero. A hero destined to fail - scripted to fail - so that promoters could lure the ignorent marks back next week for yet another try.

 

Somewhere along the lines, wrestling changed. The terminology, sadly did not. In fact, it degenerated. With the rapid growth of the internet, in sync with a boom in professional wresling, "smart" terminolgy became hip. In an age where everyone, it seemed, was talking about wrestling, being on the outside of "smart" circles often meant being an outsider, period. Even the term itself suggested that marking was more than just uncool, it was downright "stupid".

 

But as I have said, wrestling changed. No one, aside from small children, believed in the "reality" of what was on screen. And being "smart" did not prevent fans from shelling out their money for the product. Professional wrestling was no longer a con. It was a show. And like all television shows, it no longer depended on the fans believing in what they were seeing. It only depended on fans enjoying what they were seeing.

 

Here is where the smarts had their problem: too much knowledge. There are few things in life more enjoyable that the shock of the unknowable. As their access to information grew, mainstream programming became predictable, even formulaic, to these fans. As a result, they turned their attention to the one aspect that can never be completely controlled: workrate. They may know who will win, and who will lose. But they could never be sure exactly what would happen between the ropes. They replaced the "staged" competition with a real one: who could "execute" the best - complete with detailed ratings systems to measure each performer.

 

I know. I was one of them. But there was an emptyness to that existance. When the only thing you care about is "workrate", happiness is transient. It exists only in small pockets encased by the ringing of a bell. Today's good match assures nothing for tomorrow. As George Simmel said in The Person (the story of a man without roots), I was "a hungry, grasping animal, desperate for meaning beyond simply being. Beyond here and now."

 

What I wanted - nay, needed - was to be the "mark". The old mark. The man who ignorently slapped down his money, not for entertainment, but because he cared. He was emotionally invested in what he saw. But there was no real way to get back there, was there? Once you knew, you knew. You were "smart" whether you liked it or not. Right?

 

Wrong. I have found a way. It is surprisingly simple. Yet it asks alot. You need to cast aside your preconcieved notion on what "wrestling" is supposed to be. In fact, if you are able to understand what I am about to tell you, you will be surprised that you ever had that notion in the first place.

 

There is no such thing as "good wrestling".

 

Wrestling, at its core, is simulated fighting. Yet when it comes to fighting, there is no "correct" way to do things. Some fighters are fat, slow, and sloppy; yet they win with brute strength and tenacity (e.g. Tank Abbott). Others overcome diminutive size with speed and pure technical precision (e.g. Royce Gracie). No matter how they do it, you know that they are giving their all to try and win. Some are just better than others.

 

Now, let's apply this lesson to wrestling. As fat and slow as Big Show is, I can let myself believe that he is giving his all to win. As crisp and quick as Benoit is, if he is beaten by The Big Show then he is the lesser compeitor. They both fought, and gave their all, and the better man won.

 

There is no such thing as "good wrestling". There are many wrestlers, with many backgrounds, many styles learned from many trainers, and many reasons to be fighting for a living. The good wrestlers win. The bad wrestlers lose. But the match itself is neither good nor bad. It is simply a means.

 

I am a mark. I don't love "wrestling". I love watching people I care about wrestle. I love caring about people again. I am a mark, and I have never been happier. And it all happened because of one realization.

 

There is no such thing as "good wrestling".

 

This was posted by someone on another board, and I wanted to see what people here thought.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

I can see where he's coming from, and I disagree completely. See, there IS such a thing as "good wrestling." There's such a thing as "good movies," "good jokes," and "good music," right? Not everybody has to LIKE them, but you cannot deny their basic principles of quality.

 

I sometimes do wish I could go back to the days of being a mark. But then I remember how little I cared for the industry as a whole, and just cared about who won. I didn't care about HOW, which, to me, is the fun part. There's a saying that can be applied, sort of, to this concept: Why ask "why" when "how" is so much more fun?

 

Why bother reading the middle of a book when you can just read the end? Why bother watching the full movie when you can just watch the closing minutes? Because the "how did it get to where it is" is an underlying question in all of us, and in wrestling, it is THE theme that drives smarks to watch matches.

 

To me, match quality cannot be judged by just one style. You have to take in all different styles, as well as personal impact. There is no objective way to rate a match, as each rating a reviewer gives is their own personal view on it. Many are commonly agreed upon, and even more are argued about. But, in the end, a good match is still a good match, whether it involves Undertaker and Big Show, or Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle.

 

There is a reason fans stood and applauded Chris Benoit after losing at Royal Rumble 2003. They knew that they just witnessed a classic match of epic proportions, nearly 3 years in the building. They knew that the two men just did something special in the ring, and they did not care one bit that the bad guy won the match. Why? Because it was a good match performed by two good wrestlers featuring good wrestling. That's all there is to it.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

The biggest problem with the WWE is it's become too much of a joke, a mockery of itself. In Japan, Mexico, Canada they still take wrestling seriously.

 

If the fans here in America have got to the point where they believe there is no "good wrestling" then there is no hope.

 

The guy who wrote that was wrong. Even some "marks" know when a wrestler is flat out bad.

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

That shit wasn't even worth my fucking time. Whoever wrote that isn't a wrestling fan, or at least they're disillusioned about their place in it.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

"There's no such thing as good wrestling..."

 

This, my friends, are the words of a WWE employee.

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

Or the majority of the residents of the WWE Folder.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

That shit wasn't even worth my fucking time. Whoever wrote that isn't a wrestling fan, or at least they're disillusioned about their place in it.

He's trying to justify plopping down his $$$$$$ time after time for PPVs, live shows, merchandise, whatever through this contrived explanation.

 

Hardly a piece that touches the heart and soul.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

This was posted, by the same person, in response to criticism of his 'piece':

 

I obviously failed to word it well enough last time, so I am going to just try and be straightforward as possible.

 

I like to talk about wrestling. But I only have a few friends who watch wrestling, so I come here. But the way I look at wrestling is different than the way people here look at wrestling, and so I think that my thoughts, opinins, and points are misunderstood.

 

So I am posting this in hopes that people will understand me better. I don't want to change anyone's mind about wrestling. I just want the members who are frequently in The Ring to be able to understand what I mean when I say

"Big Show is a credible threat to the World Title."

 

 

I do not mean "Big Show has wrestling talent."

I do not mean "I think Big Show deserves a title".

 

I mean "The character Big Show has been portrayed as tough to beat, even by Brock Lesnar. Since he is so hard to beat, I am not surprised that he is battling for the World Title. Most people are not booked to look as hard to beat, and therefore he looks like one of the characters who might actually be able to win the belt from Brock."

 

 

I know it is hard to understand how I can think like this. So I am going to use an example from a recent match.

 

Goldberg vs. Jericho is not what most people considered a good match. But I don't judge matches based on "quality" (as measured by things like workrate, selling, psychology, movesets, etc.). To me, the matches are really an extension of the characters.

 

Instead of seeing Goldberg flailing wildly as him being "sloppy" (which is a BAD thing), I think that it shows him (as a character) as "intense, agressive, and overzealous" (a GOOD thing, becuase it gives his character depth). When Jericho works over Goldbergs arm (a BAD thing "psychology-wise", since his finisher is a leg-back submission), I see it as Jericho (the character) being "smart". Neither of these things make the match good/bad to me, because they are about the wrestlers, not the match.

 

So if I am a Goldberg fan, I cheer for his intensity and agressiveness.

If I am a Jericho fan, I cheer him for being smart, and putting fear into Goldberg (which is why Berg is overzealous).

 

Either way, I cheer. No matter what happens in the match, I still enjoy it becuase there will always be something to cheer about.

 

To me, a match can only be bad if I don't care about the people, or if it is clearly "fake".

 

 

Again, this is just how I look at wrestling. I am not saying that you should look at it this way. As far as I know, I may be the only one that looks at it this way.

 

 

In fact, there is one major drawback to looking at things this way: I can't have good discussions with people in here.

 

I don't know what is good for business. I'm not going to assume that I do. So I can't talk about buyrates, attendance, even fan reaction (I really don't listen to them unless it is really noticable). All I can really talk about is who I like/dislike, why I like or dislike them, and how much I liked/disliked the shows.

 

But on the good side, I really tend to like the shows because the only things that I dislike are "really fake stuff", characters who bore me getting lots of screen time, and lots of losses by my favorites.

 

I'm honestly not trying to cause any problems. I certainly don't think that one way is better than another. I'm an Epicurian ("do what makes you feel good") and a philosophy student ("There is no truth"), so I'm really not the kind of guy to take sides. But I do get defensive when I feel attacked, which is why I have made many enimies in here.

 

Hopefully, now that you know me better, you won't be surprised to see something like:

 

"I really loved the Triple H/Nash match."

 

because you will now know that all I mean is:

 

"I really like both of these characters, and I think that the match was a very satisfying way to end the feud, knowing each man(character) gave their best".

 

 

 

I appologize to any of those who took my previous thread in the wrong way.

[Guest thetrendsetter]

Newsflash... Every Wrestling Fan's a mark. You buy the PPV sunday night, you're a mark.

 

Got a Bushwackers action figure sitting on your wall, you're a mark.

 

Pop in your copy of WCW Revenge... You're a mark.

 

Smark is a term only used by Internet Marks who don't want to be lumped in with the regular marks. People in the buisness don't use the term Smark, except when talking to appese the internet marks.

 

There's nothing wrong with it, in all honesty, it's part of the buisness, and fans tend to make fun of Marks more than people inside the business. Because people inside the business realize that these marks pay thier bills, and should be respected as such.

 

Traditional Marks are marks for being entertained, for being able to sit back and watch to see something funny, something cool, to see thier favorite wrestler win.

 

Internet Marks are the same. They watch to see something cool (Instead of a person's gimmick, it's thier in-ring ability), instead of something cool (Kane snapping, The Ring on SD breaking, it's more of a coolness to see Angle whip out the Germans, or Lesnar do the F5) and a Traditional mark's favorite may be (Albert, Triple H, Angle, Lesnar), internet marks enjoy (Rey Misterio, Benoit, Angle and Jericho)

 

Irregardless, people enjoy the buisness for different reasons, and there's enough wrestling out there that everyone can be pleased. But don't get pissy just because the only promotion for most people that's free (WWETV), may not cater to your every whim...

 

 

 

That shit wasn't even worth my fucking time. Whoever wrote that isn't a wrestling fan, or at least they're disillusioned about their place in it.

 

maybe some internet marks are disillusioned about thier place as fans, or inside the buisness.

[Guest Ace309]

There is no such thing as "good wrestling". There are many wrestlers, with many backgrounds, many styles learned from many trainers, and many reasons to be fighting for a living. The good wrestlers win. The bad wrestlers lose. But the match itself is neither good nor bad. It is simply a means.

 

Oh, I think all the people who go out to see the USA Wrestling world team trials or the World Championships in New York City this fall would disagree. You have people with poor technique and people with good technique. Two people with poor technique put on a sloppy, boring match. A pair with unevenly matched technique put on a quick or squashy match. Two people with good technique put on an interesting, fun match. The latter could arguably be called "good wrestling."

 

You'll note that this applies to pro wrestling as well.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

He seems to misunderstand that not all good wrestling is the same. I'd hardly call Ric Flair the same type of wrestler Mick Foley was, but they both have put on great matches, and you could tell they were good.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I don't think it's wrong of us at all to hold THE wrestling organization in the USA to a higher standard especially since they have their best roster ever.

 

There is a difference between "good wrestling" and "bad wrestling" just like there are "good movies" and "bad movies".

 

I'm going to say something that may not be popular, but those fans who sit back and say everything is okay are hurting the WWE right now.

 

The WWE does NOT need to hear that right now. The more people that say nothing's wrong the less the WWE will try to fix anything. Why should they? They're the only big game in town so if people are just giving up and accepting crap then why should the WWE fix anything?

 

We need fans that are going to have the balls to say "this sucks...change it" and say it in mass amounts.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

He has now come up with this gem:

 

Good matches don't get you over

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

What board is this from?

 

My guess is TPWW. If not that, Rajah.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

It's from The Ring, which is the wrestling part of the Extreme Warfare Battleground board.

[Guest Breetai]

Somebody show this guy a copy of Hogan/warrior 2, STAT!

[Guest Thunder Rising!!!]

I agree with most of his opinions but not the one on 'there is no such thing as good' wrestling.

 

A 'good' wrestling match is one where the viewers actually bother about and is actually sucked into the action. The intensity, the story telling, the spots of match actually catches the attention of the viewer.

 

When two guys go out there and just punches, kicks and throws chairs at each other just because they hate each other so much. I don't think the viewer will give a shit because that is so boring.

[Guest godthedog]

this guy makes us philosophy students look bad. his language is so spacy and "new age"-like, it sounds like he's a freshman who just finished taking an 'intro to philosophy' class and thinks it makes him king shit. the whole thing is completely condescending and it's obvious he thinks he's above everybody else and is just trying to put on some air of humility and objectivity. "there is no truth"...fucking moron. no philosophy student would EVER claim that there is even such a thing as "too much knowledge."

 

i'd like to rip apart both of those pieces of rhetorical masturbation he wrote, just out of spite, but i'm too tired to do it right now.

[Guest Ace309]

this guy makes us philosophy students look bad. his language is so spacy and "new age"-like, it sounds like he's a freshman who just finished taking an 'intro to philosophy' class and thinks it makes him king shit.

 

I thought the same thing. I was waiting for him to bust out his I JUST TOOK A COURSE IN LOGIC AND TOMMY FIERRO IS AD HOMINEM, PLUS ALL OF BOB RYDER'S ARTICLES ARE FALLACIOUS OMG like every other PHI freshman.

[Guest Indikator]

Why were Scott Steiner and Goldberg so unsucessfull in WWE? They suck

Why did Diesel draw hardly anything? He and his opponents sucked back then

 

A little while ago I read why wrestling in England collapsed in the early 90´s. Wrestling in England was for a long time a credible sport, but then there was Big Daddy - a non wrestler like Otto Wanz. Both wrestlers were abysmal and the viewers who didn´t like entertainment stopped watching wrestling. And since then they haven´t come back. In Mexico El Santo is an icon, in USA he´d just be an average freak in a comedy show. If you give the wrestlers and your product credibility more people will follow wrestling and more people would be there to appreciate good wrestling

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Great first article, a good read. If that's how he wants to watch WWE, then hey, that's his business.

[Guest godthedog]

i'm not tired anymore, so away we go...

 

Why workrate doesn't matter

 

I am a mark. To many that word is viewed an an insult. It's negative connotation derived from it's origins. Coined by tricksters, illusionists and con-men, "mark" referred to someone who was succeptable to the fraud. Someone gullible. Someone ignorent.

nothing really of note here, except an appropriate misspelling of the word "ignorant."

 

In wrestling, it began the same way. After all, wrestling is an illusion - a staged play, designed to look real. Marks, then, were the suckers who believed what they were watching. Those poor, unknowing souls who plunked down their hard-earned cash to cheer on their hero. A hero destined to fail - scripted to fail - so that promoters could lure the ignorent marks back next week for yet another try.

more nothing, "ignorant" is misspelled yet again.

 

Somewhere along the lines, wrestling changed. The terminology, sadly did not. In fact, it degenerated. With the rapid growth of the internet, in sync with a boom in professional wresling, "smart" terminolgy became hip. In an age where everyone, it seemed, was talking about wrestling, being on the outside of "smart" circles often meant being an outsider, period. Even the term itself suggested that marking was more than just uncool, it was downright "stupid".

so somehow it's degenerating if you refuse to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain? shocking as this may seem, there are people out there who want to find out what makes a match work and why, the same way one would want to find out what makes a piece of music work or a novel. you can't figure out how it works when you limit yourself to "he's a bad guy! BOOOO!" or "he kicked out of the legdrop, he must be superhuman!"

 

But as I have said, wrestling changed. No one, aside from small children, believed in the "reality" of what was on screen. And being "smart" did not prevent fans from shelling out their money for the product. Professional wrestling was no longer a con. It was a show. And like all television shows, it no longer depended on the fans believing in what they were seeing. It only depended on fans enjoying what they were seeing.

wrestling has ALWAYS depended on fans enjoying what they are seeing, and it's always required a certain suspension of disbelief. it's exactly like going to a movie: you know it's not real, but it doesn't detract from your enjoyment.

 

Here is where the smarts had their problem: too much knowledge. There are few things in life more enjoyable that the shock of the unknowable. As their access to information grew, mainstream programming became predictable, even formulaic, to these fans. As a result, they turned their attention to the one aspect that can never be completely controlled: workrate. They may know who will win, and who will lose. But they could never be sure exactly what would happen between the ropes. They replaced the "staged" competition with a real one: who could "execute" the best - complete with detailed ratings systems to measure each performer.

like i said before, there is no such thing as "too much knowledge," and if you believe there is, you're more ignorent than i thought.

as i said, it's like the movies: as you grow up, you find that you're not always satisfied with "that guy was so cool the way he blew the other guy's head off" as a reason for liking it, and you start looking for other things. you start looking at how the movie's put together and noticing specific things that you liked or didn't like: the acting, the sets, the script, what have you. thinking about a movie like this does not in any way make you an elitist asshole. similarly, thinking about a match in this same way does not make you one either.

 

I know. I was one of them. But there was an emptyness to that existance. When the only thing you care about is "workrate", happiness is transient. It exists only in small pockets encased by the ringing of a bell. Today's good match assures nothing for tomorrow. As George Simmel said in The Person (the story of a man without roots), I was "a hungry, grasping animal, desperate for meaning beyond simply being. Beyond here and now."

the first thing i thought when i read this was "what the fuck?" i'm not even sure if i can break it down into points, cause it's hard to see if he's actually saying anything.

but the "happiness is transient when you only like workrate" argument doesn't hold any more weight than saying happiness is transient when you pay attention to the way a movie's made. if anything, your enjoyment gets DEEPER. you find a good match and watch it over and over, and you notice more things, and you like the match even more. or, you've noticed other things and you don't like it anymore, but you still learned something. either way, you learn more about what makes a match work and what doesn't. if you pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, you learn nothing. you "ooh" and "ahh," and might feel all warm and fuzzy, but that's about it. and there's nothing wrong with that, but to suggest that it offers more satisfaction than figuring a match out is ludicrous.

 

What I wanted - nay, needed - was to be the "mark". The old mark. The man who ignorently slapped down his money, not for entertainment, but because he cared. He was emotionally invested in what he saw. But there was no real way to get back there, was there? Once you knew, you knew. You were "smart" whether you liked it or not. Right?

ignorant: I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T. ignorant.

 

Wrong. I have found a way. It is surprisingly simple. Yet it asks alot. You need to cast aside your preconcieved notion on what "wrestling" is supposed to be. In fact, if you are able to understand what I am about to tell you, you will be surprised that you ever had that notion in the first place.

this is some of the most condescending bullshit i've ever read.

 

There is no such thing as "good wrestling".

eh, maybe. but there IS such a thing as bad wrestling. if wrestler A fucks up an armdrag and i say "that looked horrible," you can't say "but there's no such thing as 'good wrestling.'" things sometimes get hairy with match-to-match comparisons, but there IS a set of standards to be agreed upon.

 

Wrestling, at its core, is simulated fighting. Yet when it comes to fighting, there is no "correct" way to do things. Some fighters are fat, slow, and sloppy; yet they win with brute strength and tenacity (e.g. Tank Abbott). Others overcome diminutive size with speed and pure technical precision (e.g. Royce Gracie). No matter how they do it, you know that they are giving their all to try and win. Some are just better than others.

again: there is no one "correct" way to do it, but there are wrong ways to do it, and some ways can obviously be judged to be better than others. don't tell me a big show match is just as exciting as an eddie guerrero match when big show did a bearhug for 10 minutes, and eddie spent those same 10 minutes working the leg, doing a flying headscissors off the ropes and doing a sunset powerbomb.

 

Now, let's apply this lesson to wrestling. As fat and slow as Big Show is, I can let myself believe that he is giving his all to win. As crisp and quick as Benoit is, if he is beaten by The Big Show then he is the lesser compeitor. They both fought, and gave their all, and the better man won.

it depends on how well the match is put together. a poorly-executed match ruins the suspension of disbelief, and you don't necessarily go away thinking that "the better man won."

 

There is no such thing as "good wrestling". There are many wrestlers, with many backgrounds, many styles learned from many trainers, and many reasons to be fighting for a living. The good wrestlers win. The bad wrestlers lose. But the match itself is neither good nor bad. It is simply a means.

bull. shit.

a match CAN BE good or bad, just like a basketball game can be good or bad. if a match isn't good or bad, then what's to enjoy about it in the first place? it can't be the drama of seeing who wins, because a match has to be GOOD to suck you into that drama.

 

I am a mark. I don't love "wrestling". I love watching people I care about wrestle. I love caring about people again. I am a mark, and I have never been happier. And it all happened because of one realization.

 

There is no such thing as "good wrestling".

more condescending bullshit, no arguments here worth asserting, game over.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

His latest piece, on Chris Benoit, is subtitled "A question for marks". He ends with the following tagline:

 

I labeled this thread as specifically for marks, so hopefully this will prevent answers like "wins don't matter" or "he loses cuz they tell him to". I'd really like to hear the way people are reacting and thinking about his character's seeming degeneration. If you aren't interested in talking about this aspect of him, I'd really appreciate it if you don't respond. Thank you.

 

Does anyone else find that tagline a little bit pompous ? He now only wants people to respond in the manner he has decided on. It's a message board pal. You're going to have to deal with opposing viewpoints to yours.

[Guest MaxPower27]

Don't you think that you are getting a bit worked up at this board? I don't see this guy around here, so you're basically ripping on him without his being around.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

Don't you think that you are getting a bit worked up at this board? I don't see this guy around here, so you're basically ripping on him without his being around.

I just felt idiocy such as his should be shared with a wider audience. I can stop if it bothers you that much.

[Guest Ace309]

Someone want to post a link to this thread on the native thread? It really is only fair.

[Guest MaxPower27]

I don't care, you just look a little whiny, that's all.

 

[King Cucaracha 0]

He has now come up with this gem:

 

Good matches don't get you over

Yeah, because Jamie Noble is over AS HELL isn't he...

 

 

The guy's got a point. A smark is just another level of mark. A higher level all be it, but another level still. It's like thetrendsetter said. By buying merchandise, by watching the shows avidly...hell, by 'marking out' we are still marks. When Hogan returned on Smackdown, and got that standing ovation, there were probably smarks there cheering just the same as the marks. Hogan is no Chris Benoit in the ring, but he's still over.

 

I see what he means about too much knowledge, and as an example take HBK vs Y2J at Wrestlemania. Marks would be happy HBK won and that they saw a good match, smarks thought it was a good match but HAD to concentrate on the fact the 'wrong guy' went over. When you do that all the time, you begin to lose interest in the match and it's quality, and just concentrate on who won and why(backstage terms of why).

 

And what he's talking about with Show is right...in mark terms he is a threat. In smark terms he's not. So feasably, as a mark Lesnar-Show matches are less predictable, so therefore more enjoyable. That's his standpoint. The HHH-Nash feud would be (more) enjoyable if people stopped thinking about workrate.

 

That's what he's saying, and you can see his point.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

I await with baited breath the "every wrestling website aside from wwe.com is responsible for the decline we've seen since 2001... aside from the economy, the war, 9/11, and the natural cyclical nature of this business" rant.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I don't think marks look at Big Show as a threat. Most marks I've met hate Big Show and think he's a big joke.

 

Good matches may not get you over, but without them you'd have a harder time getting over than you would with them.