Interesting Article from 411

[HarleyQuinn 0]

He acts like wrestlers don't mark for themselves and are A-OK with any and all thing requested with them which we all know is bullshit. Like a person ala Steve Austin would be fine jobbing to say Paul London? I highly doubt it and like any sport, they develop egos and take it as seriously as any other sport. So to say that they are cool with doing what they're told and won't do anything otherwise is asinine.

[Tawren 0]

Will he double dog dare me to tell him that WWE FUCKING SUCKS? There's a difference between being negative for the sake of being negative and being negative because there is nothing to be positive about.

There is nothing to be positive about? There isn't anything or anyone you like at the moment? You hate everything on the show?

Pretty much, yeah.

[Guest Ghettoman]

And follow it why?

[Tawren 0]

And follow it why?

Because it's something to do, plus I can always hope they stop fucking up and start doing things right.

 

FOR EXAMPLE: I loved WWF every year but 2003, yeah I could even tolerate the shitwads of 2001 and 2002 because they put on good wrestling. So I can always hope they go back to being good, plus occasionally there is a bright spot.

[King Cucaracha 0]

I cannot help but look at all this, and yawn. It's like two ten year old kids fighting in a god-damn playground.

 

 

The 'Smarks' bitch about something they don't like. At first, it's ok...they have a point. Then someone takes it too far, and suddenly...we're in another 'stop that bandwagon, I want to jump on!' situation. Orton. Nash. HHH. HBK. Batista. Vince. Goldberg. The WWE. Russo. Jarrett. Shane O. Michael Shane. The list goes on and on. Also, the smarks hate being catagorised as being smarkish, but then catagorise anyone who doubts them as 'anti-smarks'. Or 'apologetics'. In quite a few cases, needlessly. They in turn create articles like this, where the idea is decent enough (the Benoit situation is nowhere near as drastic as some 'smarks' have made out), but then turns into a verbal attack at smarks. It always does. In return, the smarks come back with dated insults, or just refuse to see any side of it that may be worthwhile and ignorantly blast it as useless. And remember...the 's' is supposed to mean 'smart'. The cycle then continues...endlessly.

 

The worst thing is...for daring to speak up, I'm probably now an anti-smark. And that is why this'll never end. Because the general smark that's being mentioned in this article always has to be right. You bring up an opinion, and there's AS to argue away (most times rightfully so I must admit, just a little over the top sometimes) or Tawren with his sarcastic 'deal with it'. The real message isn't deal with it. Not the way you see it. 'deal with it' doesn't mean 'like it, love it, adore it no matter what your opinion.' It means 'why are you constantly bitching and whining when you KNOW it's going to happen anyway'. When people say deal with it to you, it's more like when someone wants you to 'deal with' a death. It's not getting over it, it's coming to terms with it. Only, wrestling is less serious than death.

 

And the trouble is, when this happens next time, every smark will be sooo shocked that it's happened again, and will again protest total innocence.

 

 

Had to get that off my chest.

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

Where's Might Damaramu, he's attracted to these topics like hookers to crack.

[AndrewTS 0]

Yeah, that's what happen to all of the yearly anti-smark rants. And if someone does dispute the point, they refer to the author by the name of idiot (as if he will rad the "rebuttal") an go on to curse up a storm, than somewhere towards the middle of the end say, "they don't care what some guys says, they ARE fans damnit!" Let's see if somone can INTELLIGENTLY rebutt both the original article and Goodear's excellent post. We shall see.

You said the author won't read it. So what's the point?

 

And sending him feedback on it would make him think we care about his opinion.

 

We debated the same points long ago. Why bother again?

[Guest Coffey]

I don't know, I actually agree with a lot of what he wrote. However, I think a lot of people are more angry about the Benoit move because it means he'll be going after the belt that people think is worthless. He won't win the "real" belt.

 

Of course, the same people who make that arguement are the ones who wanted Booker T. to go over Triple H at Wrestlemania XIX....

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

So rather than actually debate his points it just gets written off as "anti-smark ranting" that holds no water? Hmmmmm.....

 

Now honestly, I think any one of us could tear this piece of shit apart because it doesn't make a single point we haven't all heard before - which is the whole thing; we've heard this all before. We've argued this stuff before, and much better than this putz right here. Hell, to even put in the time and effort in "debating" his points would be giving it worth - and it's, quite frankly, worthless.

 

Chris Benoit has been involved with major angles for years at a time now with only one month of consistantly bad losses in the entire span.

 

Oh come on now - his big "return match" after his 01 injury was against the Dudleys, in the opening match, in a tables match, and he lost... After NWO he slid down the card hard and fast, to where he was lost in the shuffle at WM, off the backlash card completely, and in a 6 man tag in the jerker of Judgement day where he barely got in the ring. There was the heavyweight title tournament, which he lost to John Cena in (after Under had owned him in the ring), and the worthless US title tournament where they didn't even show the brakets to the quarter-finals. In between all of this he's lost to the Bashams and Sean O'haire and had a "feud" with Rhyno which didn't amount to anything and they couldn't even give Rhyno a reason for turning until, like, 3 months after he did it and it was in a throw-away comment by Michael Cole and it was the exact same one Eddie used (which the fans NEVER buy because Benoit is not in the spotlight often enough to cast a fucking shadow!) All this after, what I think would be called, a rather "successful" title match w. Kurt Angle at the Rumble. The only, somewhat concrete, fued he had was with ALBERT. Instability can kill some guys' careers. Then, the one really good feud Benoit was in in 03 (vs. Brock) was killed off because BOB HOLLY took precident. So please don't try to paint the picture that they've treated Benoit very well.

 

Your point about Smarks taking W/L serious is true, but you've missed why they do. Smarks didn't bitch over Benoit losing to Angle at RR. Smarks didn't bitch about Benoit losing to Lesnar on Smackdown. I don't recall Smarks bitching about Benoit losing to Austin (though we probably did about the finish). So "Benoit losing = bad" doesn't work. Losing to Sean O'haire, losing to the Bashams, losing to John Cena - yes, we bitch about this. We take wins and losses seriously because they have *meaning*. Benoit losing to Cena after Cena was made to look like a punk by Taker makes Benoit look bad. Benoit losing to Angle after a terrific effort that no one should be ashamed of and having came so close, makes Benoit look good - or at least, doesn't make him look bad. That's how it is. Benoit on RAW makes Benoit look bad. I don't want Benoit to look bad; I want people to see him as I see him, as what he deserves to be seen as.

 

The only real difference between being a smart mark and a mark is simply the basis for which we determine who to cheer and who to boo.

 

I cheer Hogan. Hogan is king politik. A lot of people here cheered HHH before he returned in 02; he was still politicking in 01 and 00. I didn't cheer him at that time because he just didn't appeal to me - I liked him during a period in 1999 though. I think the whole backstage factor just adds to the hhhate.

 

So in the end, the real line between being a 'mark' and a 'smart mark' is about as thin as thin could be. It's just the line that connects your computer to the internet.

 

Disagreed completely. I was a "smark" in 1992. I was "on-line" in 2000. What made me a "smark" in 1992? I WANTED TO LEARN MORE! I cherished knowing little things like Hulk Hogan's real name. I used to call up the Herald Line (a local halifax newspaper's phone line) to find out all the "inside" wrestling news; and I eagerly waited for that news. That's all that a smark is; someone who wants to know more than what they show us - which is what the internet provides. The difference between a smark and a "casual fan" is that the casual fan doesn't have that desire (notice how I don't say "mark").

 

You still want certain people to win. You still want certain people to lose. But in the end, its a phoney win. It's a phoney loss. The fact that you care who wins more than the quality of a match only goes to show just how 'smart' everyone is.

 

After Jericho had that "phoney loss" to HHH (both times, Mania and FullyLoaded) he was severely dropped down the card. This lead to bad angles and bad matches. When Benoit is put to the Main Event of the card (Rock, Austin, Angle, Brock), there are good matches. Wins and Losses often dictate card placement - if someone gets a lot of victories, the WWE is positioning them for a better place on the card; if they get a lot of losses, they will be on Velocity or Heat pretty soon. With Benoit moving to RAW, and him facing HHH, that means that after he loses to HHH he will hurt... bad. Benoit on RAW means JR and the King announcing his matches - that's bad. Benoit on RAW means matches with test, steiner, mark henry, batista, flair, booker, christian - these, btw, are not good matches and are definitely not matches that Benoit needs. Win OR lose, it's still bad for benoit (*remembers Benoit on RAW before* *shudders*)

 

the fact that he is married to Stephanie McMahon. Honestly though, should those things really matter to us?

 

When you see Jericho fetching Steph lotion and walking their dog and -as champion- playing second fiddle to the "real" storyline... YES.

 

It's a fake belt (they all are).

 

Leonardo Dicaprio was a "fake person" in Titanic - I recall a lot of people crying when he died in the film. Andy Dufresne was a "fake person" who escaped a "fake prison" in The Shawshank Redepention - it still didn't stop me from being joyous, and it sure as hell didn't wipe the smile from my face when he and Red met up again on the white sand beach in Mexico. The Superbowl is next week - it's a "real title" but why should it have any meaning to any one other than those players? Yet, people still watch the game, people still cheer when their team wins or are down when their team loses. Sure, they are "fake belts" but they have meaning, people still want them. Some titles have more meaning than others.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Of course, the same people who make that arguement are the ones who wanted Booker T. to go over Triple H at Wrestlemania XIX....

 

Yes, and that had everything to do with the belt and nothing to do with the racist storyline it was based around.

[Guest Coffey]

That was actually a really good reply, RRR.

 

EDIT: Not referring to your sarcastic second reply. Should've refreshed before throwing a complement your way I guess.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Serves ya right for giving me a compliment.

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

Yeah, that's what happen to all of the yearly anti-smark rants. And if someone does dispute the point, they refer to the author by the name of idiot (as if he will rad the "rebuttal") an go on to curse up a storm, than somewhere towards the middle of the end say, "they don't care what some guys says, they ARE fans damnit!" Let's see if somone can INTELLIGENTLY rebutt both the original article and Goodear's excellent post. We shall see.

You said the author won't read it. So what's the point?

 

And sending him feedback on it would make him think we care about his opinion.

 

We debated the same points long ago. Why bother again?

Then why make the same insults as well?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I won't give him feedback simply because he'd probably put it in his next column and point and say "You guys gotta calm down, stop taking this so seriously, it's just wrestling."

[AndrewTS 0]

Yeah, that's what happen to all of the yearly anti-smark rants. And if someone does dispute the point, they refer to the author by the name of idiot (as if he will rad the "rebuttal") an go on to curse up a storm, than somewhere towards the middle of the end say, "they don't care what some guys says, they ARE fans damnit!" Let's see if somone can INTELLIGENTLY rebutt both the original article and Goodear's excellent post. We shall see.

You said the author won't read it. So what's the point?

 

And sending him feedback on it would make him think we care about his opinion.

 

We debated the same points long ago. Why bother again?

Then why make the same insults as well?

You mean last time we pointed out an instance where the column writer called the product shit himself, and last time we pointed out there has yet to be a perfectly valid reason for Benoit to go to Raw?

[Guest butters]

To get kind of off topic - but still remaining on the subject of Benoit's title possibilities. In a friend's room the other day, he's watching Smackdown; the handicap match w/ Benoit/Cena against all of Heyman's goons is going on. Another kid walks in and watches for a minute or two. Judging by his complete lack of knowledge of everything that's happening, I'd guess he hasn't watched too much wrestling lately. He sees Benoit fighting Rhyno and Morgan, and this guy's response is "Wow, he's small" Now anyone will look small next to Morgan, and I don't know if Benoit is actually shorter than Rhyno, but at least Rhyno has a mass to him (not to mention a striking look). That right there is the problem with Benoit as champion. Any casual person who just happens to check in on WWE w/ Benoit as the lead guy could go "Wow he's small." That is why Vince hesitates giving him the title. However, he recognizes that he is an amazing performer, and the reason he moves all around the card is to see what he can pull out of people. He is the wrestling barometer; he is Flair, the opponent is the broomstick. That in itself is a compliment b/c you're boss recognizes that your the best worker he has, and he puts you with someone so that you can get the best out of them.

 

In addition Benoit could have been world champ, and he walked away from it. Yeah, say all you want about the WCW title being damaged, but there was no David Arquette or Vince Russo or title swapping every Nitro and Thunder, yet. Bret Hart had to retire and the man that WCW (and Kevin Sullivan, his supposed rival, btw) chose to step up and carry that company was Benoit - and he walked away. But just think had he been champ, you could have had Benoit fighting Guererro, Jarrett, Saturn, Malenko, Kidman, Booker T. How many of those guys still seem like legitimate threats now? Supposedly, the Nitro after he won it, he was supposed to wrestle a Triple threat theater and win, just to show how badass of a champ he was - and he walked away. WCW was at least willing to make him champ for 48 hours, will WWE ever let him hold the title?

[Guest Choken One]

WCW only offered the title to him to keep Benoit, Guerrero, Saturn and Melenko and the other potential walk offs from leaving...

 

Benoit saw the writing on the wall and knew to leave.

 

I assure you, not a fucking bit does Benoit wish he could have that meaningless wcw title reign over his last three years with WWE...EVEN when he was stuck with A-Train.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Of course when people do 'deal with it' by not buying PPVs or routinely missing WWE TV shows, it's the Iraq War that is the reason for it.