Difference between marks and smarts.
Dave Roman
understand the definition of a mark vs. smart but there are other instances
where there is a grey area. For instance, I see all of the time one person
call someone else a WWF-mark because that person prefers the WWF product and
says WCW (negative descriptions go here). Does that necesscarily make the
person that likes the WWF a mark? Or if the person says the WWF (negative
comments go here), does it make that person a WCW mark? Or how about
this...Does reading reports on www.wrestleline.com (shameless plug ) or
articles like The Daily Lariat or Notes from Bob on www.1wrestling.com
(another shameless plug) automatically make someone a smart? What are your
opinions?
D-Chance.
There is no such thing as a "smart". There ARE two groups
among the internet crowd, "marks" and "insiders". People
who affectionately refer to themselves as 'smarts' or 'smarks'
are little more than self-aggrandizing blue-bloods who think
that videotaping every TV show and PPV... or knowing a few
of the wrestler's "real" names... makes them somehow
better than the average fan. They assign stars, they berate
the workers, they talk about such things as 'workrate', even
though they themselves have never wrestled or even gone
so far as to enter a real wrestling ring. The so-called "smart"
is little more than the football equivalent of the 40-something,
beer-bellied, cigarette-smoking bum who considers himself
a true football expert just because he reads the Sports
section of the newspaper daily and listens to all of the radio
sports shows.
In short, Dave, 'smarts' do not exist. A mark... is a mark...
is a mark... and the internet mark, the eye-mark, the alleged
'smark' (ha!), the fictional 'smart' (HA~!) are only small,
insignificant subsets of the overall mark crowd.
D-Chance.
A wise man once said, "We all are marks". Just can't
remember who it was... ;)
Leonard part 7
>who affectionately refer to themselves as 'smarts' or 'smarks'
>are little more than self-aggrandizing blue-bloods who think
>that videotaping every TV show and PPV... o
You mean wrestling fanatics? I know a "mark" who tapes Nitro, RAW and PPVs,
and his favorite wrestler is the master technician Ernest Miller.
>or knowing a few
>of the wrestler's "real" names... makes them somehow
>better than the average fan.
I don't think all of them do. I just think that the "smarks", "smarts" just
like a different part wrestling. Namely, the wrestling itself. I'm not one
to generalize.
> They assign stars, they berate
>the workers, they talk about such things as 'workrate', even
>though they themselves have never wrestled or even gone
>so far as to enter a real wrestling ring.
Oh OK, they have an opinion. Is it right or wrong? Who's to say? I don't
rate matches, but workrate is something to take into consideration. I've never
entered a wrestling ring, but what wrestling is and always has been has been an
entertainment. No matter what, entertainment gets criticized and praised.
Some people like Felicity, some people don't. It's their right to criticize
that show, even if they have never acted or have written a script in their
life. Even fans of Felicity can complain about storylines. They like the
show, but they don't like the direction a character goes.
>'smarts' do not exist. A mark... is a mark...
>is a mark... and the internet mark, the eye-mark, the alleged
>'smark' (ha!), the fictional 'smart' (HA~!) are only small,
>insignificant subsets of the overall mark crowd.
>
Agreed, but you did not need to degrade the workrate fans. That's as
superfluous and making fun of the "marks" who enjoy the Corporate Ministry
interviews, and don't like Chris Benoit. They're opinions, and as long as one
can back up their critiques, then it's all jive. There's 360 ways to see an
elephant.
L. Seven
"I've got too many brain cells to be with Ron Jeremy" --Jasmine St. Clair
Justin Crast
In short, i consider anyone a smart if they truly understand who is or is
not talented. Undertaker is not talented; his popularity is due to McMahon's
gimmick and booking, not due to UT's mic skills, ring skills, or charisma.
Owen Hart was talented; his mic skills were fine, ring skills were good, and
his charisma was fine. Someone that considers Undertaker a "better
pro-wrestler" than Owen Hart is a mark. If someone claims Undertaker is
better due to drawing more fans, they are a mark because it was not UT's own
skill that drew those fans.
Justin
Justin Crast
>First, Dave, realize that the premise of your question is wrong.
Errrr.....
>There is no such thing as a "smart".
Could have fooled me.
>There ARE two groups
>among the internet crowd, "marks" and "insiders". People
>who affectionately refer to themselves as 'smarts' or 'smarks'
>are little more than self-aggrandizing blue-bloods who think
>that videotaping every TV show and PPV... or knowing a few
>of the wrestler's "real" names... makes them somehow
>better than the average fan. They assign stars, they berate
>the workers, they talk about such things as 'workrate', even
>though they themselves have never wrestled or even gone
>so far as to enter a real wrestling ring.
Up until this last sentence, I understood what you were saying. But here,
you are way off base. First of all, explain why assigning star ratings is
"bad". Secondly, explain why "workrate" is not supposed to be talked about.
And thirdly, and most importantly, explain why I can't critique a wrestler's
performace even though I have never wrestled. By your logic, my local
newspaper had better stop reviewing those movies. Siskel never should have
teamed up with Ebert to review movies since he never made a movie. It's best
that Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News stop discussing sports since a
number of the writers have yet to play professional sports, perhaps not even
playing any of the sports they write on. Hell, you should stop discussing
what you think is GOOD in prowrestling because you are not qualified to
judge, due to never being a prowrestler yourself.
>The so-called "smart"
>is little more than the football equivalent of the 40-something,
>beer-bellied, cigarette-smoking bum who considers himself
>a true football expert just because he reads the Sports
>section of the newspaper daily and listens to all of the radio
>sports shows.
Hmmmm. What about Dave Meltzer and Wade Keller. Are they on the equivalent
as a Jackie MacMullan or Rick Reilly (Sports Illustrated writers)? Are they
qualified to comment on what they talk of?
>In short, Dave, 'smarts' do not exist. A mark... is a mark...
>is a mark... and the internet mark, the eye-mark, the alleged
>'smark' (ha!), the fictional 'smart' (HA~!) are only small,
>insignificant subsets of the overall mark crowd.
IMO, a "smart" simply recognizes what true talent in prowrestling is; the
wrestler entertaining the fan through his or herself's actions, rather than
a booker's character. A "mark" does not recognize this; he or she believes
whatever the promotion says. WWF says Undertaker is one of the very best;
truthfully, his success is due to Vince McMahon's storylines and character,
not Mark Calloway's superb skill in speaking or wrestling.
I don't think "Insider" is a term. An insider can be a "mark" or "smart"
theoretically.
>D-Chance.
>A wise man once said, "We all are marks". Just can't
>remember who it was... ;)
I recall this......
Justin
Chris
This guy must be baiting us with some heavy venom here.
D-Chance. wrote:
> The so-called "smart"
> is little more than the football equivalent of the 40-something,
> beer-bellied, cigarette-smoking bum who considers himself
> a true football expert just because he reads the Sports
> section of the newspaper daily and listens to all of the radio
> sports shows.
Yeah, we're all SOBs because we like to discuss, critique and keep up
to date on the sport(entertainment) that we all apreciate. We should
all just shut up, watch the tv shows a few hours a week and not think
about it at all. Whatever.
>
> In short, Dave, 'smarts' do not exist. A mark... is a mark...
> is a mark... and the internet mark, the eye-mark, the alleged
> 'smark' (ha!), the fictional 'smart' (HA~!) are only small,
> insignificant subsets of the overall mark crowd.
I thought smarts were aware that the outcome of wrestling is
pre-determined, and insiders either knew someone or were themselves in
the wrestling business giving them information not available to marks
and smarts. But what do I know?
EFi6084413
>IMO, a "smart" simply recognizes what true talent in prowrestling is;
So your saying a smart mustr care about workrate and a mark doesn't ok.
>the
>wrestler entertaining the fan through his or herself's actions, rather than
>a booker's character.
and that makes you smarter then anybody else.I am almost sure the average
wrestling fan can tell that a regular X-Pac match was better then a regular
kevin Nash match.So I guess that means everybody is a smart.The difference is
that they still would rather watch the Kevin Nash match over the X-pac match.
>"mark" does not recognize this;
What?That doesn't make you smarter then anybody else because you think one
match is better then another orone wrestler is better then another.
> he or she believes
>whatever the promotion says.
Only 5-9 years old believe that.
>WWF says Undertaker is one of the very best;
>truthfully, his success is due to Vince McMahon's storylines and character,
>not Mark Calloway's superb skill in speaking or wrestling.
Point being.
>I don't think "Insider" is a term. An insider can be a "mark" or "smart"
>theoretically.
Sure just face it there is no difference between a mark and smart.
Justin Crast
>>
>>IMO, a "smart" simply recognizes what true talent in prowrestling is;
>
>So your saying a smart mustr care about workrate and a mark doesn't ok.
Oh, so you think workrate is the only talent in prowrestling?
Interesting........
>>the
>>wrestler entertaining the fan through his or herself's actions, rather
than
>>a booker's character.
>
>and that makes you smarter then anybody else.
"Smarter" to the business..... not literally smarter...
>I am almost sure the average
>wrestling fan can tell that a regular X-Pac match was better then a
regular
>kevin Nash match.
Are you so sure?
>So I guess that means everybody is a smart.The difference is
>that they still would rather watch the Kevin Nash match over the X-pac
match.
Because they don't recognize the fact that Xpac is actually more talented
than Nash at wrestling. Really, their interview skills are pretty equal now
as well. The difference is that Nash is promoted as a winner, and Xpac as a
loser. So fans probably like Nash more.
>>"mark" does not recognize this;
>
>What?That doesn't make you smarter then anybody else because you think one
>match is better then another orone wrestler is better then another.
If someone thinks Undertaker is more talented than Xpac, they have to be a
mark.
>> he or she believes
>>whatever the promotion says.
>
>Only 5-9 years old believe that.
*laugh*
My 42 year old dad thinks Steve Austin is the most talented wrestler in the
world. My 18 year old friend thinks Rock is the most talented in the world.
Why? Because of WWF's promoting.
>>WWF says Undertaker is one of the very best;
>>truthfully, his success is due to Vince McMahon's storylines and
character,
>>not Mark Calloway's superb skill in speaking or wrestling.
>
>Point being.
Marks believe that Undertaker is one of the very best due to Vince McMahon's
storytelling and character. They think Undertaker is great because WWF says
so.
>>I don't think "Insider" is a term. An insider can be a "mark" or "smart"
>>theoretically.
>
>Sure just face it there is no difference between a mark and smart.
I stand by my comment. There are "marks" and there are "smarts". "Insider"
is a particularly worthless term as far as classifying wrestling fans
concerns.
Justin
NovaLyte
likes and dislikes who the promotions tell them to, for no other reason than
because they were told to. For example, a mark might have disliked Chris Benoit
when he was part of the Horsemen. The Horsemen were heels, so a mark would boo
them.
A smart, on the other hand, bases his likes and dislikes on something other
than the say-so of the promotions. Thusly, we get people who like Benoit for
his wrestling talent, or cheer people with good workrate, regardless off
heel/face or pushed/nonpushed status. Basically, a mark obeys the feds, and a
smart makes his own judgements. Sometimes, the two will agree, often they
won't.
Just my $0.02.
-NovaLyte-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will know my name is the Lord Of Caffeination. . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFi6084413
>not talented.
How can you truly understand if one person is talented that its debatble even
among the so called internet smarks
.>Undertaker is not talented; his popularity is due to McMahon's
>gimmick and booking, not due to UT's mic skills, ring skills, or charisma.
So your saying the undertaker doesn't have mic skills or charisma.Which is just
your opinion.Personally I think he has mic skills and charisma so now I am a
mark huh.
>Owen Hart was talented his mic skills were fine,
Sure.
> ring skills were good,
Sure.
>nd
>his charisma was fine
Sure.
>meone that considers Undertaker a "better
>pro-wrestler" than Owen Hart is a mark.
So I must be a mark because I always considered the Undertaker better then owen
Hart.Owen Hart was a bore to me so I must be a mark because I disagree with
you.
>If someone claims Undertaker is
>better due to drawing more fans, they are a mark because it was not UT's own
>skill that drew those fans.
>
>
Nobody own skills draw fans.It is there storylines and how they are
marketed.They may be one difference between a smark and a mark though.A "smark"
is a Japenese wrestling mark.While a mark is is am American wrestling mark.
Kevin Lee
"Dave Roman" <d-r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In your opinion, what makes one person a mark and another a smart?
A mark is someone who doesn't know that wrestling is predetermined and
staged. A smart is someone who does know.
Why can't definitions be this simple? Why must we invoke some form of
ideology into the mix and twist words into complex definitions that we
all can't agree on?
peace...
kpl
--
"Beyond the walls of intelligence, life is defined" - Nas
Jeff Amdur
> Why can't definitions be this simple? Why must we invoke some form of
> ideology into the mix and twist words into complex definitions that we
> all can't agree on?
Because the definition isn't that simple. Not getting into the whole
megillah again (you can look it up in DejaNews if you want), I have always
maintained that WE ARE ALL MARKS, no matter how knowledgeable one may be
about the business, for the simple reason that that is the way all
wrestling fans are looked at from the point of view of the promoters and
the workers.
--
Jeff Amdur
Quality foreign language instruction since 1971 (Oy, gevalt! THAT long?!?)
Quality timekeeping for sports events since 1973
Donald Duffy
of sports entertainment today is the ability to get heat which he still does
at a level no one in the WWF other than Austin and The Rock can match.
Prior to his injuries over the last 18-24 months, Calloway gave us all both
"marks" and "smarts" one of the greatest characters in the history of the
WWF. He combined high flying and ring rope maneuvers with one of the best
finisher sequences ever when he would rise from the dead as he pinned his
opponent.
Both marks and smarts alike should at least consider that his original
entrance with his theme music and arms raised to turn on the lights may have
been among the best of all time in any wrestling company.
Justin Crast wrote in message <7mmkf4$oit$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Dave Roman wrote:
>
>In short, i consider anyone a smart if they truly understand who is or is
>not talented. Undertaker is not talented; his popularity is due to
McMahon's
>gimmick and booking, not due to UT's mic skills, ring skills, or charisma.
>Owen Hart was talented; his mic skills were fine, ring skills were good,
and
>his charisma was fine. Someone that considers Undertaker a "better
>pro-wrestler" than Owen Hart is a mark. If someone claims Undertaker is
>better due to drawing more fans, they are a mark because it was not UT's
own
>skill that drew those fans.
>
>Justin
>
>
Mark Nixon
>In article <7moopa$iom$1...@216.39.133.125>, kpl...@usa.net (Kevin Lee) wrote:
>
>> Why can't definitions be this simple? Why must we invoke some form of
>> ideology into the mix and twist words into complex definitions that we
>> all can't agree on?
>
>Because the definition isn't that simple. Not getting into the whole
>megillah again (you can look it up in DejaNews if you want), I have always
>maintained that WE ARE ALL MARKS, no matter how knowledgeable one may be
>about the business, for the simple reason that that is the way all
>wrestling fans are looked at from the point of view of the promoters and
>the workers.
You're absolutely right, Jeff. We're all marks 'cause we're all
getting worked all the time.
>
>--
>Jeff Amdur
>Quality foreign language instruction since 1971 (Oy, gevalt! THAT long?!?)
>Quality timekeeping for sports events since 1973
>
Un montréalais living in Denmark
Adam
Well, I think the technical definition is that a mark thinks wrestling is real
while a smart is aware of what is really going on behind the scenes. This
isn't how the term is used though. The difference between the two terms as they
are used is similar to the difference between a fan and a fanatic, where the
fanatic is unable to criticise whatever it is they are obsessed with.
Justin Crast
>>In short, i consider anyone a smart if they truly understand who is or is
>>not talented.
>
>How can you truly understand if one person is talented that its debatble
even
>among the so called internet smarks
Well, it's fairly obvious to me that good mic skills are tougher to come by
than good charisma. So a good mic worker is alone, is more talented than a
person with good charisma, for example. And constructing a good match and
having good ring skills (entertaining the fans through their wrestling) must
be harder than becoming a good speaker. In my own experience, becoming good
at football has been harder than giving a good speech. Becoming physically
good at something seems to me, to be harder than becoming good at speaking.
So I say a good worker is more talented than a good talker.
>.>Undertaker is not talented; his popularity is due to McMahon's
>>gimmick and booking, not due to UT's mic skills, ring skills, or charisma.
>
>So your saying the undertaker doesn't have mic skills or charisma.Which is
just
>your opinion.Personally I think he has mic skills and charisma so now I am
a
>mark huh.
Heh, you think Undertaker has good mic skills? Ok, you may *like* his mic
work, but the thousands of quiet fans during his talking should tell you he
really isn't *good*. I like Kurrgan, but I recognize that he is pretty
untalented. You like Undertaker's mic work, but since his speaking is
generally met with disdain (both as a face and heel), it should be clear
that he isn't talented in that aspect.
>>Owen Hart was talented his mic skills were fine,
>
>Sure.
People liked his Blue Blazer routine....
>> ring skills were good,
>
>Sure.
No doubt about it.
>>nd
>>his charisma was fine
>
>Sure.
Once he turned heel, I think his charisma was at least average from that
point on.
>>meone that considers Undertaker a "better
>>pro-wrestler" than Owen Hart is a mark.
>
>So I must be a mark because I always considered the Undertaker better then
owen
>Hart.Owen Hart was a bore to me so I must be a mark because I disagree with
>you.
If you really think this through, I don't think you can possibly think
Undertaker was more talented than Owen Hart. Owen's wrestling no doubt
excited more people than UT's wrestling. His mic work elicited the same
responses as UT's, at the very worst. Possibly, UT had better charisma. Add
in the fact that UT is obviously one of the laziest prowrestlers of the 90s,
I don't understand someone could not recognize that Owen was more talented.
Sure, you may have liked UT better, but I'd think you'd also see that UT
isn't one of the more talented prowrestlers.
>>If someone claims Undertaker is
>>better due to drawing more fans, they are a mark because it was not UT's
own
>>skill that drew those fans.
>>
>>
>
>Nobody own skills draw fans.It is there storylines and how they are
>marketed.
What?!? So basically, fuck talent completely? Prowrestlers are just
interchangable? If nobody's own skill mattered, I suppose we could easily
substitute Midion into Steve Austin's spot, and business wouldn't be
affected at all. Sorry..... this is too goofy......
>They may be one difference between a smark and a mark though.A "smark"
>is a Japenese wrestling mark.While a mark is is am American wrestling mark.
*laugh*
So watching Japanese wrestling can be a negative trait?
Seriously, I think talent can be detected in wrestlers. Steve Austin and Ric
Flair speak very well. They entertain the fans through their speaking. Rocky
Maivia and Bill Goldberg have incredible charisma; they entertain with that.
Jeff Hardy and Chris Benoit have fantastic in-ring skills; they entertain
with their wrestling. From my own experience, charisma is the easiest to
come by; just look at Kojima in NJPW, went from a somewhat bland wrestler to
some sort of fireplug overnight, ditto Jericho in WCW. Mic skills seem to be
next easiest to come by. Rock developed good mic skills in less than a year;
the fact that most wrestlers in American get by on *only* their mic skills
also backs up this point, I think. In-ring skills are the hardest to attain.
It takes years and years to go from a bad worker to a great worker.
So if we had three wrestlers, one who had only charisma, one with only mic
skills, and one with only ring skills... I'd rate the good worker #1, the
speaker #2, and the charismatic one #3.
Justin
jpe...@cnw.com
efi60...@aol.com (EFi6084413) wrote:
> > and that makes you smarter then anybody else.I am almost sure the
> average wrestling fan can tell that a regular X-Pac match was better
> then a regular kevin Nash match.So I guess that means everybody is a
> smart.The difference is that they still would rather watch the Kevin
> Nash match over the X-pac match.
>
And how is it that you know this? Are you basing it on the canned
"pops" when Nash walks to the ring? Do you mean the "average" casual
fan that watches RAW and none of the WWF's other programming? Or do you
mean the "average" fan with some degree of knowledge about pro-
wrestling? If the former, you may be right; if the latter, you are most
assuredly wrong.
Interesting side-note: There's a retro bar here in Seattle that has
feeds of Nitro and Raw piped in on Mondays. This has resulted in a lot
of casual fans mixing with the few smarts that come in. It's really
amazing to see how quickly they pick up on WHY we cheer for Eddy and
Benoit and loathe slugs like Nash. There's also a large group that
would just as soon be watching Springer, these are the people that have
inflated the ratings the last year. They find wrestling entertaining on
a superficial level now, but they'll soon become bored with it and
switch to whatever else happens to be trendy. The dangers of a major
fed catering to this transient audience is the subject for another
essay elsewhere...
>
> > >"mark" does not recognize this;
> >
> > What?That doesn't make you smarter then anybody else because you
> think one match is better then another orone wrestler is better then
> another.
>
It's a matter of taste, I prefer Osamu to Nash for a whole host of
reasons as I prefer J. Sheridan LeFanu to "Scooby-Doo". (Note: if the
only names you recognize are "Scooby-Doo" and "Nash", this may be
cause for concern...)
> >
> >
> > Sure just face it there is no difference between a mark and smart.
>
We're all marks, young Efi... It's a question of taste, aesthetics, and
personal preference. Some of us are marks for Eddy, Benoit, Misawa,
Flair, and others that have elevated what they do as professional
wrestlers to an art form. You may call us "workrate nazis", "smarts",
"elitists" or whatever you like. There are those too, that mark out for
the Dudleys and Kevin Nash. What do you call them?
>
I'm afraid it goes back to the analogy that some people prefer filet
mignon to the more common but less glorious hot dog. However, rarely
does one having become acquainted with the former still show a
preference for the latter...
NOTE TO MODS:(Particularly Gern, as in "stern"): Please note that the
last paragraph has been modified to a more palatable metaphor involving
comestibles... The Cru does not intend to offend, merely to enlighten.
--
Old School John
Shouldn't you visit the Cru?
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/1219/CruBiz.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Gabriel Sanchez
>of sports entertainment today is the ability to get heat which he still does
>at a level no one in the WWF other than Austin and The Rock can match.
That is all "sports entertainment" is about. Sports Entertainment by design
and even by title can not and will not be able WRESTLING. Whether it is work
or shoot, wrestling and athletics will always come a distant second to
showmanship.
>Prior to his injuries over the last 18-24 months, Calloway gave us all both
>"marks" and "smarts" one of the greatest characters in the history of the
>WWF.
Perhaps he gave it to the "marks" or kids under the age of 10, but his
character stopped being believeable really fast.
>He combined high flying and ring rope maneuvers with one of the best
>finisher sequences ever when he would rise from the dead as he pinned his
>opponent.
One of the best finishing sequences ever is exposing the business with a phony
baloney "magical regeneration" and one of the weakest Tombstone Piledrivers in
the business? Odd...
His high flying moves were pretty limited, and they never came off smoothly.
His arsenal was limited, his workrate was awful, and his no selling is
inexcusable. People will cry, "Oh but it's part of his character!" Well
that's fine and dandy that Vincent K. McMahon Jr. decided a good way to cover
up Calloway's total lack of ability with a dead man gimmick but it's still not
an excuse.
>Both marks and smarts alike should at least consider that his original
>entrance with his theme music and arms raised to turn on the lights may have
>been among the best of all time in any wrestling company.
>
>
We should consider it eh? Hmm...considering...ok.
His ring entrance, music, and "supernatural" powers were amongst the most
embarassing moments in a wrestling company ever.
When you consider the near 100 year history of pro-wrestling, the hundreds of
promotions that have existed over the years, and the literally thousands of
entrances they have all had...I find it really...REALLY difficult to call The
Undertaker's ring entrance one of the best ever. However, I would certainly
rank it up there as one of the sillest ever.
- Gabriel Sanchez [Workrate Cru Associate]
Cru Homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/1219/CruBiz.htm
500 Anos Resistencia Indigenista | Manifest Destiny you will taste in a horror
of your ignorance as thy hell...
guer...@my-deja.com
jpe...@cnw.com wrote:
> Interesting side-note: There's a retro bar here in Seattle that has
> feeds of Nitro and Raw piped in on Mondays.
Name of bar, address?
> This has resulted in a lot
> of casual fans mixing with the few smarts that come in. It's really
> amazing to see how quickly they pick up on WHY we cheer for Eddy and
> Benoit and loathe slugs like Nash.
This is a very true phenomenon. When watching with a non-fan, the
non-fan's initial reaction is to favor the bigger, more muscular guy
(though I don't want to delve into why that is, exactly). After giving
the non-fan a few pointers about what to look for, they will usually
appreciate the athleticism of the whole thing.
ViNNY
news:7mml7r$3c4$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> D-Chance. wrote:
> >First, Dave, realize that the premise of your question is wrong.
>
> Errrr.....
>
> >There is no such thing as a "smart".
>
> Could have fooled me.
You ever paid money to see a wrestling show? If so, you're a mark. Do you
work for a wrestling company? If so, you're an insider. Not interested in
wrestling at all? Then you're probably mentally balanced :)
> Up until this last sentence, I understood what you were saying. But here,
> you are way off base. First of all, explain why assigning star ratings is
> "bad". Secondly, explain why "workrate" is not supposed to be talked
about.
> And thirdly, and most importantly, explain why I can't critique a
wrestler's
> performace even though I have never wrestled. By your logic, my local
> newspaper had better stop reviewing those movies. Siskel never should have
> teamed up with Ebert to review movies since he never made a movie. It's
best
> that Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News stop discussing sports since
a
> number of the writers have yet to play professional sports, perhaps not
even
> playing any of the sports they write on. Hell, you should stop discussing
> what you think is GOOD in prowrestling because you are not qualified to
> judge, due to never being a prowrestler yourself.
Appreciating workrate is fine and dandy, but if you're a fan, you're a mark.
> IMO, a "smart" simply recognizes what true talent in prowrestling is; the
> wrestler entertaining the fan through his or herself's actions, rather
than
> a booker's character. A "mark" does not recognize this; he or she believes
> whatever the promotion says. WWF says Undertaker is one of the very best;
> truthfully, his success is due to Vince McMahon's storylines and
character,
> not Mark Calloway's superb skill in speaking or wrestling.
It takes a certain amount of skill and charisma to be out there and not look
like a deer in headlights (see Hardy, Jeff). The Undertaker lives his
gimmick 24/7, will NEVER break kayfabe to anyone outside the company, and
works his gimmick perfectly. Thousands of people in the early 90s really
believed he was a dead guy - he must be doing something right - something
that goes beyond Vince McMahon's booking alone. Vince booked Papa Shango
straight in as a main eventer, and it lasted about a week because the marks
simply didn't buy it. By your logic, since Calloway and Wright are equally
untalented, they should have met with equal success...
> I don't think "Insider" is a term. An insider can be a "mark" or "smart"
> theoretically.
Insider refers to someone who works in the business - a wrestler, a booker,
a referee. Meltzer, Scherer, Keller - they all have insider sources who feed
them information, but since they don't work in the business, you can't call
them first hand insiders.
-Vin