Why People Are Attracted To Wrestling
Posted by Douglas Nunnally
on 02/15/2006
Originally posted on September 18, 2004.
Mystique: Good evening gentlemen and welcome to the inaugural edition of the Wrestling Roundtable. Unfortunately, Mr. Stover could not join us, so it will be us tonight. Tonight's topic for discussion is why people are attracted to wrestling. Who would like to go first?
Douglas Nunnally: I would.
Mystique: Doug, be my guest.
Douglas Nunnally: The thing that always grasped my attention of wrestling was the overall package. If you will, imagine wrestling like mini-action movies. Most evolve into a great series of culminations yet keep the intrigue of drama and human interest of the struggle of one man to win a match. Each person has their own reason for watching wrestling, but to me, it adds together the key features of storytelling as well as pure athleticism into a package most everyone enjoys watching.
Mystique: Do you feel there is merit to the argument that wrestling is a grown man's soap opera?
Douglas Nunnally: Yes and no. It has the elements of it to be exact, and at times the horrible acting to go with it. But in the end, it's more like an action movie. You have your good ones like with Jackie Chan (Chris Benoit) and your stinkers with Steven Segal (A-Train).
Matt Green: I agree with Doug to an extent on the intrigue factor with what’s happening next so on and so forth. That was always the draw for me when I got into the WWF. Although when I was first attracted to it, I was attracted to the character traits rather than the storylines of it. Terry Funk grasped my attention straight away with the bizarre psychotic tendencies he had and just to be so off the wall in what he said and how he held himself in the ring. I think that’s why my favorite workers have always been the edgier characters. I know I go on about great wrestling and whatnot, but my true love for the business is through the characters like Raven, Terry Funk, Tracy Smothers, Taker, and Cactus Jack. They all had an ambience on screen where you didn't want to break concentration from them, and that is the biggest draw for a non-wrestling fan, I think. I think of the grown men soap opera factor, and in no way do I feel that wrestling is to that point. Want to watch a soap opera, watch something like Dallas or whatever is popular in America right now. Wrestling is like warfare, not a theatre stage.
Shak: The thing that really attracts me to wrestling is that it is unique from almost all other sports, or forms of entertainment. In wrestling, you theoretically have the perfect mix of sporting athleticism and the drama of television entertainment. In sports, like basketball or football, for instance, there can be a massive buildup to a match, but the contest can be horribly one sided or very boring and fall flat. In wrestling, the fact that it is scripted allows the chance to create the perfect dramatic sporting event, something which is impossible to guarantee in other sports.
Mystique: Well, then I have a question for Shak. In your statement you said that wrestling can be scripted into the perfect dramatic event. Do you feel WWE still lives up to that?
Shak: I think the great scenarios don't come around as often as they should. When the ratings war was at a peak, WWE and WCW were constantly trying to pull out great events. I really feel WWE is a very poor promotion for the most part at the moment, considering the talent at their disposal.
Mystique: What would you do to improve things Shak, in a general sense?
Shak: If I were in charge of WWE?
Mystique: Yes.
Shak: I don't think WWE puts on anywhere near enough top quality matches where the two wrestlers are just given 20+ minutes to give us a top quality match without worrying about ramming storylines down our throat. I find I have to look to the independents to find these truly great matches, which is ridiculous when you have the likes of Benoit, Angle, Guerrero, HBK, and many others at your disposal.
Douglas Nunnally: I really disagree with the criticism about the length of the matches. People like Benoit, Jericho, and others can do wonders in Raw timed matches. And the WWE needs those matches to further storylines so they culminated in better PPV matches. Would La Resistance Vs. Tajiri & Rhyno been better had they not done buildup?
Matt Green: Personally I think matches can be done without buildup. Take the 'B Shows' or the old WCW Worldwides for example. An abundance of matches thrown together just to get another TV show. I know Doug will agree here. Steve Richards works his ass off every week and never fails to deliver a top notch Sunday Night Heat main event, whether he's working with Test or Shelton Benjamin. Matches are definitely possible without any angle buildup. They just need very talented workers to pull them off in my opinion.
Douglas Nunnally: Matt, the point I was trying to make was that matches are better with buildup. Yes, some matches are excellent, but I always feel they could be better with more buildup. With buildup, you add emotion to the match, which gets people linked instantly. Matches can be good without them, but I always feel matches are better with them.
Shak: I agree that matches need buildup; my complaint was that so many WWE big matches just seem very ordinary. They spend lots of time building them. Then the match itself isn't as good as I know they’re capable of. Seems to defeat the point to me.
Matt Green: I don’t know; I've seen matches between guys that have buildup, and they have been horrible. Then I have seen matches with the same guys in the match with no buildup and pulling off a corker of a match. Best example, Jerry Lynn vs RVD - Hardcore Heaven 1999 hyped and built for 2 months follows a 30 minute classic at Living Dangerously 1999. The Hardcore Heaven match was poor and nothing as to what it should have been. 18 months later when Lynn and RVD hadn't had a match in well over a year, they closed out ECW's last ever PPV with a 30 minute classic that outstripped everything they'd ever done. The only build for the match is that they had feuded 18 months earlier.
Mike Steele: Staying on topic, I think that wrestling is an art form, one that is a direct imitation of life. I also think that since wrestling is an imitation of life, it doesn't conform to any particular style. Because it lacks conformity, it can appeal to anyone so long as no other aspect of wrestling conflicts with the aspect they can relate to. Wrestling is also a greatly exaggerated imitation of life. Sports fans may be able to relate to wrestling because they like seeing the referees and commentators more involved. We can't watch Don King get what he deserves from Mike Tyson, but Brock Lesnar was able to give it to Paul Heyman. A teenager may simply like wrestling because of the comical wit of The Rock and Eugene. An average bank teller may be interested because someone kicks the crap out of Vince McMahon, which reminds them of their boss very much. Wrestling has something for everyone, and if someone can deal with the aspects that don't relate and appeal to them, they will become a wrestling fan. If someone likes the comedy, but not the blood and sex driven storylines, they will not become a fan. Television shows are similar to wrestling, but not dynamic like wrestling is. In wrestling, we see different characters arrive each year, whereas the sitcom Friends kept the same cast for all ten years. TV shows also try to base themselves around reality and try to pass their stories off as realistic, while wrestling avoids this and goes straight for the extreme version on purpose. There is simply nothing else out there that mixes so many different genres together.
Matt Green: Personally I just think he's hit the nail right on the head. Doug, Shak, and I have each danced round the topic without fully explaining. Wrestling is just an exaggeration of life, as Mike said. All the best pros say their gimmicks are exaggerations of themselves. Mike's got it all there in black and white. The only thing I would really have grievance with is the fact this is very much 'sports entertainment' we're debating. That is where the exaggeration lies. Once you get away into different styles, like Lucha and Puro, it's a different ball game. For sports entertainment Mike has it all right in my opinion.
Mike Steele: I would just like to say that if any had, "Why don't some people like wrestling?" in their mind, I think it's been answered in my statement here today in addition to the question that was initially raised at the beginning of this meeting.
Shak: I think it's also important when addressing why people don’t like wrestling to acknowledge that wrestling has a bad stigma that some people can't get over. Coming from Ireland, a place where wrestling is very unpopular, it's sometimes amazing to see that so many people hate it, without any particular reason. Just that it's "fake."
Matt Green: Going on the point of why people don't like it, I posted on TWV a few days ago a quote I find quite fitting and sadly very true. The sad thing is, the traditional wrestling fan, those who kept the business going in lean times because of their dedication to and appreciation of certain basic traits that carried through from generation to generation, are no longer there in large enough numbers to support the down cycles. They've simply been ignored and insulted to the point that they no longer exist in large enough numbers to make a difference. Those folks weren't the majority of the population or even close; they were wrestling fans, a relatively small number of folks if you look at the whole picture, but people that were always there. Trying to make professional wrestling a product for the masses has and will always fail in the long run because that's not what it was meant to be. For short periods when someone or something catches the imagination of the overall population in a special way, maybe, but overall, it is a product and a sport meant to appeal to a mindset that, while intelligent and knowledgeable, is that folks are willing and eager to suspend their belief systems to a certain degree in order to enjoy and engross themselves into a world of fantasy, sport and relatively moralistic challenges between interesting and mostly believable characters. It's a specialized world and a specialized audience, not meant in large doses for the masses. And, regardless of what it may seem to be or the WWE's high profile, the masses do not care, nor do they watch today.
Douglas Nunnally: Basically, how can you not like a thing where men dedicate their lives to putting their lives on the line each night? People have died, been crippled, and seriously scarred trying to entertain the masses, and I know they have no regrets. Ask yourself how you cannot like a thing that offers that each and every night before you criticize wrestling again.
Shak: I think wrestling is something that you can either comprehend and like it or you can't. It is an innate gift. To those of us who have that gift, we are attracted to wrestling for the great moments it can offer us, moments we remember forever. And when those moments happen, and a wrestling match just delivers, you aren't just attracted to wrestling, you can love it. I wouldn't have it any other way!
Mike Steele: In rebuttal to Doug's last statement, I believe that wrestlers being crippled, injured, and killed is part of the reason that so many people do not watch it. Some people just aren't attracted to violence. For example, many would rather watch a romantic comedy than watch Arnold Schwarzenegger pump 50 bullets into random bodyguard #2. This side of wrestling simply does not appeal to some people. Not everyone can relate to the desire to conquer and the conquest for glory. Some people just brush it off as a "macho thing." One of the perks of being a wrestling fan is that I feel like I am in a club. It's not for everybody, which is why being a wrestling fan is so unique and why I am so proud to be one.
Mystique: Well gentlemen I would like to thank all of you, especially our special guest, Mr. Mike Steele, for being here.
Shak: No problem, I enjoyed it.
Matt Green: Just one thing: was it me or was Shak's last comment like the voiceover at the start of Wrestlemania?
Mystique: Remember, this will be our weekly meeting day/time, and next week, Hopefully, Mr. Stover can join us. Thanks again and good night. Say good night to the readers, gentlemen.
Mike Steele: Good night.
Douglas Nunnally: Nighty nighty.
Shak: Good night to the readers.
Matt Green: Good night readers; it's 2:25 am here on the Isle of Wight, I hope you know.
Mystique: Good night Mary Ellen, good night John Boy, good night Grandma.
Shak: Night, Roundtable, see you next week. Same council time, same council channel.
Click here to let us know what you thought about this roundtable on TWV's official discussion forums!
Copyright © 2005; TheWrestlingVoice.com & Douglas Nunnally.
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Statement
