Guest OnlyMe Report post Posted October 26, 2003 ERIC BISCHOFF IS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU MOTHER FUCKING SMART MARK SONS A BITCHES ROLLED UP INTO ONE GIANT PIECE OF SHIT. I guess you guys didn't get that. Smart Marks. What's a smart mark? A mark with a high IQ! Ok Smart Marks, you know what a mark is, a mark is a guy that spends his last 20 dollars on crack cocaine... A mark is a guy that believes that OJ didn’t do it... And a mark is everyone of you sorry sons of mother fucking bitches. - Brian Pillman Continued... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Wow. Anyway, the difference between a mark and a smark (to me anyway) is that marks are oblivious to backstage politics, storyline spoilers, as well as McMahon's bullshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jack_Bauer 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 I always say that a smark is a 'smartass' mark. Sorry, but that's just my view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TripleHater Report post Posted October 26, 2003 White People(some) Need to get over this OJ Shit,Damn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OnlyMe Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Just so you know, that OJ comment was made by Brian Pillman in 1996. - Nik Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TripleHater Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Yeah I just noticed it was old after I read the name but I didn't wana edit it but Some still need to get over it though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 I really enjoyed that column. And yes I do agree that ANYONE who knows about the backstage politics and such are "Smart Marks" which makes it so funny when someone who knows about it says "well you smarks need to get over it" because it's like "buddy? the moment you learned anything about the backstage and about the business in general you became a smark. hypocrite". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 What OJ thing? Did OJ do something? I don't watch much news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
J.B. Buzzkill 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 He ran for 2,000 yards in 1973, but he hasn't done anything of note since then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PhantMan Report post Posted October 26, 2003 the whole mark/smark argument is pretty pointless. it's been for years and it'll still be in yaesr to come. matter of fact, we as customers pay for wrestling products like tapes, ppvs, shirts, toys, whatever... so we re marks. in carny days, a *mark* was a guy that accepted to partecipate in infamous *stay in the ring with the strongman for 15 minutes and win cash* competition. some promoters even *marked* this supposed victim with chalk before the bout. so, technically, we're a bunch of marks. if we keep in mind we know what promoters want us to know, this theory is solid. brian pillman was perhaps the smartes man in wrestling, capitalizing on wrestling's biggest bunch of marks since the days of the midnight express/rock'n'roll express feuds, the ecw fanbase, to get big money contracts and a reputation as a straight shooter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jay Z. Hollywood Report post Posted October 26, 2003 One of my favorite quotes: People who claim to be "smart" to the business are dumber than they'll ever know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 One of my favorite quotes: People who claim to be "smart" to the business are dumber than they'll ever know. Does that mean you're dumber than you'll ever know? And if one of us were to become a wrestler for the WWE and saw how dumb everyone here was then that would defeat that quote...because now we know how dumb we were... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PhantMan Report post Posted October 26, 2003 See, my definition of *smart* fans is perhaps a little bit different than that of a Keith, for example. A *smart* fan is a student of the game. Of all the *smarts* fans that shit on McMahon for exposing the biz, how many knows how this con biz really was invented? ok, easy one. Who created the modern version of professional wrestling? Hint: 3 men collectively known as the Gold Dust Trio. name at least one of these 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jay Z. Hollywood Report post Posted October 26, 2003 (edited) One of my favorite quotes: People who claim to be "smart" to the business are dumber than they'll ever know. Does that mean you're dumber than you'll ever know? I never claimed or will claim to be "smart" to the business, and I readily admit I know nothing about what truly goes on in it- so yes. Like I read in my old philosophy class- According to the Delphic oracle, Socrates was the wisest man, because he knew he had no true knowledge, whereas all others also had no true knowledge but claimed to have it. Edited October 26, 2003 by DuskTillDawn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JHawk 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 See, my definition of *smart* fans is perhaps a little bit different than that of a Keith, for example. A *smart* fan is a student of the game. Of all the *smarts* fans that shit on McMahon for exposing the biz, how many knows how this con biz really was invented? ok, easy one. Who created the modern version of professional wrestling? Hint: 3 men collectively known as the Gold Dust Trio. name at least one of these 3. If I'm thinking of the right group, wasn't Jack Pfefer (sp?) part of that? Anyway, I can't remember who said it, but I remember someone saying one time, "All wrestling fans are marks, but you have to be in the business to truly be a smart mark." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 I'm sorry, he lost me after he said that a couple clearly in their 60's were in their 40's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 A smark is someone who wants to learn more about wrestling - who wants to go behind the move and behind the curtain. It's that simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 I don't think it's fair to generalize all Smart Marks as 12 year olds in a basement. We've moved far beyond just rumors. When WWE personnel and former employees are saying the same things I think it's about time we wake up and realize we're just reflecting the product. The internet didn't ruin me to wrestling...WWE did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PhantMan Report post Posted October 26, 2003 If I'm thinking of the right group, wasn't Jack Pfefer (sp?) part of that? Toots Mondt, Billy Sandow and Strangler Lewis, who technically created the fixed form of pro wrestling we see today. As the Phantom of the Ring pointed out in The Founding Father (check it out at WrestlingPerspective.com), 90% of today's formulas were invented by these 3 individuals. too bad I have to read such stupid remarks like "Who the hell is Jim Londos" by self professed *smart* fans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PhantMan Report post Posted October 26, 2003 I don't think it's fair to generalize all Smart Marks as 12 year olds in a basement. We've moved far beyond just rumors. When WWE personnel and former employees are saying the same things I think it's about time we wake up and realize we're just reflecting the product. The internet didn't ruin me to wrestling...WWE did. Don't be mistaken by WWE's use of smart terms and inside tidbits. keep in mind Vince had the wisdom to start revealing little truths to hide bigger lies. That's why he's so willing to tell us his matches are predeterminated, but you'll never hear him explain the true reasons WM 7 was moved to the Sports Arena (despite anyone knoing why). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JHawk 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 If I'm thinking of the right group, wasn't Jack Pfefer (sp?) part of that? Toots Mondt, Billy Sandow and Strangler Lewis, who technically created the fixed form of pro wrestling we see today. As the Phantom of the Ring pointed out in The Founding Father (check it out at WrestlingPerspective.com), 90% of today's formulas were invented by these 3 individuals. too bad I have to read such stupid remarks like "Who the hell is Jim Londos" by self professed *smart* fans. There was definitely a connection between Pfefer and Mondt though. Must have been a bit later than that. Of course, Mondt had an on-again off-again working relationship with Vincent J. McMahon throughout the 50s and 60s in the northeast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PhantMan Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Newer students may better know Mondt as *the policeman*. think Bradshaw and the real beating he and Simmons gave Buff Bagwell after his poor performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 That's why he's so willing to tell us his matches are predeterminated, but you'll never hear him explain the true reasons WM 7 was moved to the Sports Arena (despite anyone knoing why). the funny thing about that was how the other day I saw on TV (can't remember for life of me where) something about Sgt. Slaughter, and specifically his heel turn in '90-'91. They ran with the claim about how the heat and threats were the reason for the move from the LASC to the less impressive LASA So it's still alive and well apparently... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Of course, even the most avid wrestling historian will tell you to take all the information (from) "back then" with a grain of salt. As knowledge from both news paper article and through word of mouth can be "worked". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted October 26, 2003 I really enjoyed that column. And yes I do agree that ANYONE who knows about the backstage politics and such are "Smart Marks" which makes it so funny when someone who knows about it says "well you smarks need to get over it" because it's like "buddy? the moment you learned anything about the backstage and about the business in general you became a smark. hypocrite". Indeed. I refer to these people as "self-loathing smarks." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Coffey Report post Posted October 26, 2003 A quick analogy: Who is the “worse” person: The Washington Sniper or the sniper in Phone Booth? (name withheld for those who haven’t seen it yet) The Washington Sniper is a real person, with real emotions and shit, and genuinely wanted to kill people. The Phone Booth sniper was just a character – someone pretending to want to kill. What did this analogy have to do with anything? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 I think it had something to do with wrestling not being real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Coffey Report post Posted October 26, 2003 It killed the article for me. It just seemed like random thoughts were just thrown around without, like, putting them together. What did the old people have to do with anything? Was he just talking about how there were marks in the past? I don't agree with the three types of fans either. Ugh. I wasn't a fan of this article. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Neither was I and I completely agree with what you said. It was all-over-the-place, and the comparisons were just poor. Perhaps a better subject would be "believability" in wrestling, and how suspension of disbelief is created and sustained, rather than pointing fingers at the fans and the internet. There were probably 3 different topics which could have been given it's own column: - The Internet - Believability - The difference between "then" and "now" I can see how these 3 subjects can crossover, but they are not one-in-the-same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mulatto Heat Report post Posted October 26, 2003 That article should not have been titled "Smart Marks" because it seemed that the main subject was not about that at all. Perhaps "Suspension of Disbelief" would have been more appropriate. My guess was that it was titled that way to attract attention and hits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
