View RSS Feed

Wrestling_Deluxe_08

Is It Wrong To Nitpick or Criticize Pro Wrestling?

Rating: 4 votes, 3.00 average.
Let's clear the air on something. I am a nitpicker. It’s a double edge sword. Sometimes I say and do things that I end up regretting much later. But sometimes, I don’t. In fact, I’m happy I said it.

We as viewers give these wrestling promotions hours upon hours of our time on a weekly basis. We give pay them thousands upon thousands of our hard earned money each year for PPVs, wrestling events, PPVs, merchandise, and all other things related. We as the consumer have a right to critique and judge and criticize the product we are investing our time into. So if a wrestling promotion makes an audience member pay $35 or $50 or $60 or $70 for a show, they sit through the entire 3 hours, and the PPV fails to deliver and it sucks to the viewer, they have a RIGHT to criticize.

This is how I see it. It’s not the act of criticizing that’s wrong – it’s how often we do it and the reasons behind we do it. So the question begs, how far is too far? When is nitpicking or criticizing justified?

We have all run across those people who literally let the smallest errors ruin an entire show or ruin the build of a character. I know someone who said Daniel Bryan isn’t main event material cause of his T-Shirt, “Respect the beard.” Really? IT’S A FREAKIN T-SHIRT! It has absolutely nothing to do with the TV character. Divas get it more than anyone else in the wrestling business, just for being associated with the word “diva” and the bad booking they have endured for the last few years. So when they actually do something good, it gets ignored. These are examples of people crossing the line with criticism and nitpicks.

Let's be real. Every wrestling promotion has its problems. If you really try hard enough and look hard enough, you’re going to find issues with any product you watch. TNA’s shows and production can be considered modern day WCW rip-offs. ROH's production of their iPPVs were terrible. WWE treats their championship titles with little value. So on and so forth. And even if you don’t try, there are going to come times where you just don’t like a show. No matter whether it’s a wrestling match, a storyline, a character, or whatever, eventually you are going to come across some aspect of a wrestling show that just will not do it for you. And when it does not do it for you, you’re more likely to criticize it. To put it simply, we criticize things more that do not engage us. Is that wrong? Not in my eyes.

I think about Wrestlemania 17 and how HARDLY ANYBODY criticizes anything about the show because, well let’s see – it’s a show from the attitude era and, on top of that, it’s a GREAT SHOW from the attitude era. It’s held as the best Wrestlemania, if not the best PPV, of all time. Yeah, it has bad stuff like the gimmick battle royal, forgettable stuff like Tazz & APA vs. Right To Censor and Eddie Guerrero vs. Test, and so-so matches like Chyna and Ivory & William Regal vs. Chris Jericho. But it also has the TLC II with the Dudleyz, Hardyz, and E&C, Shane vs. Vince, Angle vs. Benoit, Taker vs. HHH, and The Rock vs. Stone Cold. Because of these phenomenal matches and how sucked in we were by the wrestlers, storylines, in-ring action, and excitement, we were willing to let the bad stuff slide.

Kevin Steen vs. El Generico in 2010. Many call it a five star match. Yet I don’t hear anyone criticizing how Kevin Steen can kick out of a brainbuster on an exposed turnbuckle. Come on! The man should be DEAD! If any other wrestling promotion would have done that, especially if it was John Cena taking the brainbuster to the exposed turnbuckle, they’d eat shit for it. But because it had an amazing series of events, great storytelling for an ENTIRE YEAR, crazy spots and moments, we don’t feel the need to question it. We did not criticize the Rock back then when he made us laugh with his catchphrases, cut raunchy but great promos, or had great matches, but fans do it more nowadays simply because he does not entertain us as much anymore. Mark Henry is no where CLOSE to being the best technical wrestler around, but we’re so drawn in by his intimidating presence and bad ass character that we do not feel the need to criticize him about it.

But then you think about people like John Cena or Garrett Bischoff from TNA. These people do not entertain you as much, do not draw us into their characters, don’t engage us as in-ring competitors most of the time, and quite frankly bore you have to death. It’s a lot easier to notice their problems and EVEN MORE easier to rip them apart for the inconsistencies in the characters, the mistakes they make inside the ring, and how awful they’re portrayed on TV. This concept can apply to anything. Hell, let’s talk movies. I love Disney movies, especially Aladdin and the Lion King. You can’t tell me anything about those movies. I Hate the Twilight saga! You can’t convince that any good can come from those movies. You will never hear me say anything bad about Disney movies, however I can go on for DAYS pointing out the flaws in a Twilight film.

When you think about it, the problem is not the fact that the wrestler or wrestling show has mistakes – it is the fact that you were not engaged enough to not be distracted by those mistakes. If the wrestling promotions altogether had more good characters, good wrestling, good storylines, and good feuds to distract the fans from the mistakes, they would not have to worry about fan criticizing them all the time. Now, that does not mean fans STILL WILL NOT criticize the shows, but I guarantee you there would be LESS of it. The more plot holes, inconsistencies, badly executed segments, and badly executed matches a wrestling show has, the more open it will be to criticism. At the end of the day, professional wrestling is a story being told with the human body. I hate the term male soap opera, although it’s true, but I prefer my own definition. The trick is to convince the viewer that an epic story is unfolding before their very eyes, so much so that they invest themselves into the story's events and, in the end, are more emotionally affected by the outcomes.

Wrestlers like CM Punk, Dolph Ziggler, and most of all Daniel Bryan do this for majority of the wrestling fans nowadays. Which is why, in my personal opinion, Daniel Bryan needs to win the WWE championship at Summerslam 2013. I think him beating John Cena is a HUGE possibility. No excuse why he shouldn't. Wrestling wise, he's the best talent on the roster inside the ring, cuts decent to good promos, and the most over character there is. Business wise, he sells shirts, other types of merchandise, and appeals to ALL AGES. Kids love him, females love him, males love him, INTERNET FANS (the hardest to please) love him, and his fanbase continues to grow every day. When you have someone who is THAT engaging and THAT entertaining, you should make the most out of him and make a run with him.

So let’s answer question. Is it good or bad to nitpick or criticize wrestling? Although nitpicking can be a fun pass time, the act of nitpicking or criticizing depends on solely on how the viewer uses it. If the purpose is to tear a wrestler or wrestling show down in hopes of no one watching it cause you don’t like him, that’s a horrible use of nitpicking. If the purpose is to create comedy and acknowledge ways on how to make the wrestling show better, then it’s a great use of nitpicking. But what we should realize is that the problems we are nitpicking are not really the problem, it is the fact that we are noticing them at all. It all comes down to how much a wrestling program can grab you and keep you invested. The better it is done, the more likely you are to praise the show and less likely to criticize or nitpick. The act of criticism is absolutely acceptable. It’s how often and the reasons behind why we do it that decide if it’s bad or good. As long you’re being constructive with the criticism, whether it’s through comic jabs or listing ways to make a show better, criticize and nitpick all you want. Laugh at it, say how much this guy or that guy sucks, get angry at it, or do whatever. Just be aware that there you’re not doing it cause a wrestling show has problems, it’s just that wrestling show did not have enough strong characters, situations, or stories for you to get lost in.

Don’t complain that the magic acts at a magic show is fake, complain that the magician did not make you believe hard enough that magic was real.


Thanks for reading. Comments are appreciated.

Submit "Is It Wrong To Nitpick or Criticize Pro Wrestling?" to Digg Submit "Is It Wrong To Nitpick or Criticize Pro Wrestling?" to del.icio.us Submit "Is It Wrong To Nitpick or Criticize Pro Wrestling?" to StumbleUpon Submit "Is It Wrong To Nitpick or Criticize Pro Wrestling?" to Google

Updated 07-24-2013 at 08:44 PM by Wrestling_Deluxe_08

Categories
Thoughts and Opinions , User News

Comments

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. TheGreatOne's Avatar
    Hell yea we have the right to nitpick. I don't see no problem in it. It is like these dudes on here who get criticized for their blogs. Edit comments, delete them, ect. Early on when I started blogging, I took it hard when I received criticism, but now it is far more positive reaction than negative. I'll be more than happy to take the good with the bad. Not everything is perfect in any wrestling promotion right now. TNA, ROH, or WWE all have good things and bad things about them.

    I'll tell you something I don't like about each promotion: TNA: triple threat maches every single X-Division match.
    WWE: Del Rio is the world champion.
    ROH: Tag division is taking a backseat for whatever reason.
  2. RobVelcoff's Avatar
    I always enjoy your blogs, Deluxe. What I hate is fans who only complain, and can never say anything complimentary about someone no matter what. I understand that many internet fans hate John Cena, even though I like him. Of course, they are free to bash on him (and anyone else) as much as they like. What bothers me is when all they have is blind hatred. In his match against CM Punk on Raw a few months back (just before Wrestlemania), which was a great match and one of Cena's best, all some people could do was continue to blindly criticise him. All they could say was that Punk carried him, or that Cena botched the hunacunrada (flying head scissors roll) even though it was clearly Punk who bothced that move by failing to flip over and roll with it, etc. Criticism and (to a lesser degree) nit-picking are fine. Blind hatred is boring. If you're taking the time to comment on something, be intelligent and state your opinion, respect the other readers' opinions, and respect the business of professional wrestling, what it is and what it isn't. Then other readers will enjoy your posts. Save the blind hatred for screaming at the TV.
  3. Wade Barrett 1979's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by RobVelcoff
    I always enjoy your blogs, Deluxe. What I hate is fans who only complain, and can never say anything complimentary about someone no matter what. I understand that many internet fans hate John Cena, even though I like him. Of course, they are free to bash on him (and anyone else) as much as they like. What bothers me is when all they have is blind hatred. In his match against CM Punk on Raw a few months back (just before Wrestlemania), which was a great match and one of Cena's best, all some people could do was continue to blindly criticise him. All they could say was that Punk carried him, or that Cena botched the hunacunrada (flying head scissors roll) even though it was clearly Punk who bothced that move by failing to flip over and roll with it, etc. Criticism and (to a lesser degree) nit-picking are fine. Blind hatred is boring. If you're taking the time to comment on something, be intelligent and state your opinion, respect the other readers' opinions, and respect the business of professional wrestling, what it is and what it isn't. Then other readers will enjoy your posts. Save the blind hatred for screaming at the TV.
    With this description regarding Cena, you've basically described this blogs author.
  4. ewantu2's Avatar
    I think the fact that you either hate Cena, or love him helps make him engage. Lets admit it when 2 guys you like face off you don't really mind who wins. But when your face faces Cena, your jumping out of you seat begging for your face to win.
  5. steezin4areezin's Avatar
    Criticizing the WWE product, yet maintaining to spend money on payperviews is like complaining about the food at a restaurant yet continuing to go back to it week after week.

    The 1997-200whenever-you-think-it-ended Attitude Era was an outlier to wrestling's abundant history. It was a mix of the culture at the time, the fact the VKM was looking to simply dominate pro-wrestling and the WWE did not have a 1/100th of sponsors they have now. Once that era did it's job, vault WWE to the top, it was a natural business transition that in order to generate more revenue, you have to adjust your product. WWE did this, successfully, by re-building the young audience with more family friendly programming.All of this the while doing JUST ENOUGH to keep the die-hard fan continuing to tune in and spend money.

    Television ratings have become the long standing argument for some in the IWC. Ratings are simply important so that sponsors buy into your product. The WWE has had no issue as far as sponsorship goes based off the product they presently produce. Enough sponsors, based on their advertising on WWE programming, have made enough profit to satisfy their investments. Why would WWE gamble all of what they've built to please a mass of fans who are complaining about their product while continuing to spend money?

    Wrestling remains a shell of what made us fans, yet tease us with enough glimpses of that era in a few wrestlers today to maintain a very successful company...

    ...A Billion dollar company.

    At least we have our DVD's to reminisce.
  6. azure's Avatar
    See now I agree with the idea of this blog, ie nitpicking. The thing is with me or my personal nitpick is with ryback. Now for one, I don't mind the guy as a wrestler, sure he needs some work with his mic skills and promos but at least their giving him a chance to develop himself. Secondly he's obviously not on the level of wrestling ability like cm punk, Daniel bryan or even dolph ziggler.

    Ryback was designed to be nothing but a monster, to destroy people in the ring with imtimdation of his size and power and in the past he has done quite well. It's not often you get to see a guy of his size, power and determination in the ring, fucking people up with some good moves, my 2 favourites being the packpack stunner and double power bomb.

    Sure, sure he's no brock lesner or bill Goldberg but I like what he does in the ring none the less.

    Of course though as a nitpicker its not all praise I have for ryback, sure I still like his character but there's a few things about his character I don't like either. The fact he nods his head a lot when heading to the ring or even when he's in the ring for that matter. I've seen him doing this numerous times, also makes me wonder if he's listening to some kind of music in his head.

    Then there's the whole, 'ryback rules' slogan. Now in my book, to rule, you simply have to back up that claim, ie like cm punk who claims to be 'the best in the world' the difference between the two is that Punk can back up what he says and has proven time and time again, ryback hasn't.

    Again though I don't entirely believe it's all rybacks fault either, I think the WWE management is to blame also. Rybacks a hard worker and I think will do whatever it takes for company and for the fans to show he's loyal willing to do as he's told. If they say jump, he jumps. If they say go out and say this or that, he'll do it. He may not 100% agree with it, but he does it none the less.

    Then theres the fact that even at times, I can't help but feel that he seems to act so green. Sure he's only been this ryback character for about a year or so in the WWE, repacked from being skip Sheffield but he looks at times like he's really lacking in ring experience and somewhat awkward. This also includes his constant saying ryback rules in the ring, far too many times. Saying that gets too stale, very quickly.

    Then there's his heel turn. Now I loved it when he clotheslined John cena, then went over to his body and gave him the basic, under arm gesture of a 'Fuck you'. It screamed attitude to me and was intense. But that kind of intensity quickly fizzled out as of late since he seems the E have dropped the ball with ryback and turned the monster in jobber fodder, seriously WTF?

    However its not all bad he does still get a negative reaction from the fans and he is booed or jeered but I think they could really amp up that intensity by pairing with a heel manager that everyone can hate, to really solidify his heel status. I'm thinking paul heyman or Vickie guerrero here as both get intense hatred from fans and can work the crowds really well, pair either of them with ryback and let them do the talking and let him fuck up the good guys.

    Another thing I actually liked about ryback when he was the whole monster face was his 'feed me more' gimmick. The crowd actually worked with him on this and got behind him. I'm sure that if he goes back as a face the fans would get behind him again but the question is will they really with how hes been used recently in losing in constant ppv's, being constant jobber fodder in constant fucking table matches and the like to john cena. I wonder if he'll be able to bounce back from this?

    Also finally another good point that I nearly forgot is the fact that even if ryback loses the match he still is made to look like the monster even from a loss. That's the 1 good thing the WWE have done right with him, oh and the fact that he has yet to tap out via submission to anyone just yet.

    I want to see how he develops in time and hopefully for the better. Whether people love or hate ryback on here, I think he's alright.
  7. K2Jelly's Avatar
    I see someone's a NC fan.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.