wrestling / Columns
Opinions: They Make Wrestling Fun
Writing about wrestling is, by nature, quite the tricky beast. Nearly everything that is said is, by default, opinion. Think someone is the better wrestler? Well, since every win and loss is decided prior to the match, that seems like more a gut feeling than a fact-based thought. There are those that will tell you, as if it’s fact, that Ric Flair is the greatest of all time. But, why? Because, in their opinion, his ability to have a good-great match with a wide variety of opponents for nearly 40 years, all while staying at the top of the card, is something that should be considered. And that’s fine, but it’s not factual, it’s still opinion.
That’s why I tend to stay away from extremely strong opinion pieces, because I know that just as easily as I could churn out fifteen pages on why Adam Rose should be given a huge push, complete with all sorts of “facts” to back me up, someone else can just as easily write “Adam Rose sucks, this is dumb.” And you know what? My long writeup is just as valid as the six word comment, because it’s all opinion. There’s no factual data that says “Yep, Adam Rose absolutely deserves a push.” It’s just my feelings based on stuff that I’ve observed on WWE TV.
What eventually ends up happening, as can be seen in basically every single comments section on this site, is a battle of opinions being presented as fact. We apply sports logic to something that is not a sport. Certain intangibles will be propped up as the “reason” to push someone – workrate, mic skills, look – while others will just as quickly point out that those don’t matter at all.
For me, that’s what makes writing about wrestling so fun – the idea that, most of the time, everyone is right. And with that knowledge, we will go into battle, screaming to the mountain tops about how much the guy we hate “actually” sucks, and how the “facts” will prove that the guy I do like is “the best.”
We see it every week with the passing of each Raw and Impact, as the fans battle as to which show was actually the “better” one, and which stars have “earned” a push in comparison to others. Now in reality, one assumes that pretty much every wrestler on contract is someone that loves to wrestle, shows up to work, and goes out and does what the company wants. Sure, there’s definitely those that don’t, but overall, I think that’s a fair assumption. Still, we don’t give all the wrestlers a pass for “doing what the company wants” in the same way that we give Michael Cole a pass, because in our opinion, a wrestler should do more. A wrestler should stand up for himself. A wrestler should take control! Again, that’s all just opinion, and the opinion that Cole could do a lot more himself to increase the quality of his announcing would be just as valid, though no more “true” or “false” than the other.
The value of this, to me, is simply seeing exactly where everyone is coming from. Wrestling allows the purest form of fanaticism, because we don’t have to worry about facts. For example, I’m a basketball fan. I hate the Los Angeles Lakers, and even moreso, I hate Kobe Bryant. I will routinely say that “Kobe Bryant sucks.” And as soon as I’ve finished saying that, I have to hear about his championships, his individual achievements, and all of the other accomplishments he’s earned, followed by a sarcastic “Yeah, he sucks.”
We forget that anyone that’s made it to a professional sports league must be, at the very least, somewhat good, and instead use facts to shoot down an opinion. That can make being a simple fan in the world of real sports somewhat annoying. If no one sucks because they’re all really good, who do I boo? What do I get angry at?
Professional wrestling takes that all away. Don’t like a guy? Boo him. Like a guy? Cheer him. It doesn’t matter if you’re booing the single most popular guy going today, because that’s your right. I booed Stone Cold Steve Austin throughout the majority of his Attitude Era run, and it was done simply because he started a feud with Bret Hart.
Sure, I tried to back up my opinion with “facts” like “Well Austin used to wrestle, but now he’s just a kick-punch machine and it’s not fun to watch,” or “It’s unreal to see him take out 9 guys at once knowing how crippled he is.” Again, all opinions. Sure, it was a fact that Austin’s style changed with his neck injury, but it wasn’t a fact that that made him bad. In fact, the numbers would say quite differently.
The point is, I think sometimes we lose sight of this idea. We get so consumed with what I the individual likes, that we cannot even stop and consider that others may disagree, and may do so with completely logical reasons. That doesn’t mean that your line of thought is not logical, it’s that these are all opinions.
Think about the Hall of Fame, for instance. There are many who will gripe over almost any inductee, angry that it’s not Owen Hart, or Rick Rude. They will say that the inductee “doesn’t deserve” to be in the Hall. But, what are we basing that off of? If, like many tiredly say, “Koko B Ware is in there,” then isn’t it already stated pretty clearly that “company men” are just as likely to be inducted? On top of that, how do we fairly “judge” whether someone is worthy of the Hall? We certainly can’t use wins and losses as our justification, because we’re smart fans and we know better.
On top of that, the opinion that only the extremes are valid choices constantly rings through. I’ve campaigned on behalf of Slick for a while now, only to be told that “there’s better options than Slick.” And sure, that’s a neat statement, but how does that take away from Slick deserving the honor? It’s almost like more than one person can deserve the same thing or something. But that’s too easy, and doesn’t allow the individual to show how deep-thinking they are when they say “What about The Grand Wizard?!?”
And to make this clear, there is nothing wrong with arguing opinions. That’s, like I said, what makes wrestling so much fun. But we need to stop pretending that the argument that I’m presenting is completely factually and logic based, while the arguments contrary to what I said must be stupid and wrong.
I’d even argue that the only “facts” in wrestling are the numbers. How many people ordered your show? How many people bought tickets? How many people tuned in live? Those are numbers that can’t really be argued, though many will point out that some of the methods used to get to those numbers are antiquated at best.
Still, “There were 67,000 people at WrestleMania VI” is a much easier statement to digest than “Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart at WrestleMania 13 was the best match of all time.” I firmly believe that second statement to be true, but I also know that doesn’t make it fact.
Still, I love to write about wrestling, and I love it because of all the takes you can get.
Last week, I griped about Matt Hardy winning the TNA World Title. The “facts” I’d use to support my opinion that it’s a bad move would include that he’s not very entertaining, looks old and busted, and that it never made any sense for him to get the match in the first place.
In the comments, there were a few people who felt like this could, in fact, lead somewhere. They also disagreed with my idea that Hardy isn’t entertaining, and I’ve seen more people hopping on the “Big Money Matt” bandwagon after he hit Twitter to further the character progression. Again, no one was “right” or “wrong,” we were all just sharing where we were coming from, and how a certain event felt to us.
When I take part in MMA Fact or Fictions, I have to be pretty careful with my opinion. I watch most sports like I watch wrestling – cheering guys I like, booing those I don’t, and hating anyone that’s not on “my team” – but I understand that, when writing about MMA, I can’t say that Anthony Pettis is going to lose his next fight because “he sucks and I hate him.” That just isn’t going to work. I’ll have to break down why I think his takedown defense can be suspect, or how he sometimes fights too cautiously at the start, allowing his opponent time to get going.
With wrestling, not only do I not have to do it, but I’d argue – as I have throughout this piece – that it’d almost be silly to do so. Sure, it’s easy to point out that Neville may be more aerially gifted than Wade Barrett, but does that mean Barrett sucks? Or does Neville suck because he can’t brawl as well as Barrett? Both seem silly to me.
And as the guy that tries to keep us wrestling fans united, I guess that’s all I want to get across here. Wrestling is fun. It’s fun because it has all things for all types. It’s fun because we can argue in kayfabe and shoot terms both in the same argument. It’s fun because, at the end of the day, it’s all dependent on how each individual feels. Sometimes more individuals agree on one thing than others, but that doesn’t make them facts.
Hell, this column itself is still opinion, and I fully expect to see people pointing out where it’s flawed. And that’s fine. That’s your opinion.
Now let’s all take a deep breath and complain about the Royal Rumble finish together, yeah?
PUT SLICK IN THE HALL OF FAME!!
It’s All Wrestling. It’s All Silly. We All Love It
More Trending Stories
- Jake Roberts Details Challenges Of Traveling With A Snake
- More Details on Injured Shoulder for Rhea Ripley, Relinquishing Title
- Kevin Nash Says Will Ospreay’s Comments on Triple H Prove He’s Not Smart to the Business
- Mark Henry & Bully Ray on What’s Next for The Rock, Roman Reigns & The Bloodline in WWE