As we read our way through the beginning stages of American professional wrestling, I cannot help but notice the strange relationship that has always existed between the wrestlers and promotions. For the guys on the top of the card, it makes sense to stay until the money dries up. But what makes wrestlers who are not getting a major push stay with a promotion?
One of the first large scale wrestling promotions was the "Gold Dust Trio", made up of Ed "Strangler" Lewis, "Toots" Mondt, and Billy Sandow. In Fall Guys, by Marcus Griffen, it is claimed that the trio had over 500 wrestlers under contract. If even half that many wrestlers worked for the three, it is clear that not all could be pushed to fame.
The wrestlers may have thought about taking their skills to a different market, with hopes of higher paydays, but there was nowhere else to go. The trio controlled the wrestlers by controlling the wrestling clubs. The trio had a monopoly on wrestling in America, until other organizations later rose up from the stranglehold the trio had on wrestling.
For other organizations, like the NWA in the 1950s, a wrestler emerged who could carry the organization, and the NWA World Heavyweight Title, for almost a decade. Lou Thesz held the title for seven years straight, in a relationship that was obviously beneficial for both parties. The NWA had a credible champion, one that could withstand most double-crosses, and Thesz was a national wrestling icon. As long as the two stayed together, the money continued to flow.
But how much allegiance does a wrestler owe his promotion? This is a question that the TNA is trying to answer now. They recently issued a memo that all wrestlers under contract must get approval before doing any public interviews, and also warned against making any statements criticizing the promotion.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Gotch shouldn't be praised
So at first when I was reading about Frank Gotch he sounded like an incredible athlete, a hall of famer, a role model. He won several matches against some of the top wrestlers of his time, including Tom Jenkins and Fred Beel. After reading about how he came to be what he was it sounded like he was a man of honor, but I was wrong.
After many accomplishments, Gotch was ready to face the best, he was to face George Hackenschidt. The match was won by Gotch due to default, Hackenschidt refused to return to the ring after the first fall. A rematch took place several years later, and like the first was highly anticipated. Again this match was won by Gotch but it was an unfair advantage since Hackenschidt had a knee injury. This injury was caused by another wrestler while Hackenschidt was training. Apparently, Gotch paid this other wrestler in order for him to injure Hackenschidt.
Does this sound like a hero to you??? How can society honor a man that would do such a thing as to hire someone to hurt his opponent in order to win a match. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Hackenschidt didn't return to the ring in the first match was caused by Gotch as well. Gotch is a sore loser, a cheater, a coward, and does not deserve the respect or honor of being named the greatest historical figure in pro wrestling.
After many accomplishments, Gotch was ready to face the best, he was to face George Hackenschidt. The match was won by Gotch due to default, Hackenschidt refused to return to the ring after the first fall. A rematch took place several years later, and like the first was highly anticipated. Again this match was won by Gotch but it was an unfair advantage since Hackenschidt had a knee injury. This injury was caused by another wrestler while Hackenschidt was training. Apparently, Gotch paid this other wrestler in order for him to injure Hackenschidt.
Does this sound like a hero to you??? How can society honor a man that would do such a thing as to hire someone to hurt his opponent in order to win a match. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Hackenschidt didn't return to the ring in the first match was caused by Gotch as well. Gotch is a sore loser, a cheater, a coward, and does not deserve the respect or honor of being named the greatest historical figure in pro wrestling.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Anybody want a peanut?
I remember my brother had a picture of Stone Cold Steve Austin on his wall. It seemed out of place next to photos of a bear catching a fish, and a hawk soaring in clear blue sky. I remember living in Calgary and reading an article on a wrestler, I think named 'Hart,' who fell to his death. They said wrestling was a family affair, and so it was as sad as a man who died buggy racing at the Stampede around that time. I know the buggy overturned, but I never understood what the wrestler was trying to do up in the rafters. I remember watching Hulk Hogan in reassuring roles of contrast as the gruff but wonderful babysitter in at least one movie I remember nothing else about. Him I liked. But mostly I remember Andre the Giant... as Fezzik, William Goldman's strongest man there ever was.
(And I do realize this is fictional character development, and must have nothing to do with real wrestling) but as the story goes Fezzik grew up amazingly fast and strong in body. He was born for wrestling - except for a disinclination for violence. In a match against the reigning king he dwarfed his competition, but was a perfect 'evil' foil - all his holds were backwards and the smaller man toyed with him, taunted him for the crowds. Until Fezzik was able to wrap his arms around the master wrestler, and then all he had to do... was squeeze. The crowd boo'd him, as every crowd would boo, (unless they were hissing). His parents wanted him to throw matches, to display some weakness in order to gain some favour. Eventually he would fight groups, which the crowds enjoyed. That is, until he grew too strong and too skilled even for this...
In retrospect, the story of Fezzik sounds more like the story of a real wrestler than I believed it would. In the course of Fezzik's development, we see hints not only of his own unintentional creation of a wrestling persona, but how this persona existed in opposition to those of the wrestlers and groups he was matched against. Though in reality gentle and soft-hearted, in the ring he was always a goliath, and no audience would allow him to be anything else. After all, the thrill is in the belief that the giant will be toppled. His successes came when he learned to cripple himself for the sake of the performance. When he would let matches drag on and when he set himself against stronger coalitions.
Andre the Giant was wrestling as Goldman wrote his book, and might have provided the real inspiration for Fezzik. Yet Andre seems to have always remained popular, which is a curious disjuncture from Fezzik's ultimate failure to maintain a place in the wrestling circuit. Perhaps this is due to the magnified perfection neccessary in fiction? Or it may have to do with the enjoyment of the spectacle which is found in real life, but would not have allowed Fezzik's story to progress? Or maybe there is a difference between Andre, who knew something more about wrestling than just how to wrestle, and Fezzik, who never really understood the crowds at all? At any rate, what I remember about Fezzik (who I will always picture as Andre) is that his adventures only came after the wrestling, when there was room to breathe outside the ring. As one man against any other force he is ever too strong for sympathy, though as a pawn in a greater match he is perfect. The final question this begs is how wrestlers today bridge the gap between in-the-ring and outside-the-ring. Of course I don't know, but I think this is a topic we'll ponder as the semester continues.
(And I do realize this is fictional character development, and must have nothing to do with real wrestling) but as the story goes Fezzik grew up amazingly fast and strong in body. He was born for wrestling - except for a disinclination for violence. In a match against the reigning king he dwarfed his competition, but was a perfect 'evil' foil - all his holds were backwards and the smaller man toyed with him, taunted him for the crowds. Until Fezzik was able to wrap his arms around the master wrestler, and then all he had to do... was squeeze. The crowd boo'd him, as every crowd would boo, (unless they were hissing). His parents wanted him to throw matches, to display some weakness in order to gain some favour. Eventually he would fight groups, which the crowds enjoyed. That is, until he grew too strong and too skilled even for this...
In retrospect, the story of Fezzik sounds more like the story of a real wrestler than I believed it would. In the course of Fezzik's development, we see hints not only of his own unintentional creation of a wrestling persona, but how this persona existed in opposition to those of the wrestlers and groups he was matched against. Though in reality gentle and soft-hearted, in the ring he was always a goliath, and no audience would allow him to be anything else. After all, the thrill is in the belief that the giant will be toppled. His successes came when he learned to cripple himself for the sake of the performance. When he would let matches drag on and when he set himself against stronger coalitions.
Andre the Giant was wrestling as Goldman wrote his book, and might have provided the real inspiration for Fezzik. Yet Andre seems to have always remained popular, which is a curious disjuncture from Fezzik's ultimate failure to maintain a place in the wrestling circuit. Perhaps this is due to the magnified perfection neccessary in fiction? Or it may have to do with the enjoyment of the spectacle which is found in real life, but would not have allowed Fezzik's story to progress? Or maybe there is a difference between Andre, who knew something more about wrestling than just how to wrestle, and Fezzik, who never really understood the crowds at all? At any rate, what I remember about Fezzik (who I will always picture as Andre) is that his adventures only came after the wrestling, when there was room to breathe outside the ring. As one man against any other force he is ever too strong for sympathy, though as a pawn in a greater match he is perfect. The final question this begs is how wrestlers today bridge the gap between in-the-ring and outside-the-ring. Of course I don't know, but I think this is a topic we'll ponder as the semester continues.
A Brief(ish) Introduction
Hello All,
I wanted to give a quick introduction to myself as I won't be at the class more than once or twice, but hope to be a regular contributer to this blog. My name is Joshua Shea and I've had an interesting journey down the road of professional wrestling and hope to be able to share some stories and knowledge about the medium.
I think there are four categories that my pro wrestling life fall into: Fan, Crazy Fan/Scholar, Participant, and once again, Fan.
Fan:
Like most people who can remember independent TV stations, I discovered wrestling one Saturday morning in 1982 or 1983, when I was six or seven. I enjoyed it enough, but when it really started playing to me with the Hulkamania era was when I completely got on board and bought the T-shirts and the action figures and those horrible ice cream bars simply because they featured the WWF. I was this way until 1994.
Crazy Fan/Scholar:
After I graduated from high school, it occured to me that I could go see live shows wherever I wanted. I took a year off before college and I decided I wanted to see a lot of wrestling. I attended some indy shows, but really loved following the WWF. I would travel to Pay-Per-Views and then travel to Raw on Monday night and their syndicated TV taping on Tuesday night. Since this was a down cycle, getting to wrestlers was very easy and I got to know some of the crew as well. They'd fill me in on things like what hotels everyone was staying at (so I could claim to be crew and get a discount.)
When I finally went off to school, I realized that I could exploit the "scholarly" world and convince two of my teachers to give me independent study, which just allowed me even more access to the wrestling world. I was invited into indy locker rooms and was able to get backstage at WWF shows easier than ever. It reached the point that I had an 8" x 10" photograph of me and just about every person on the roster autographed. Most of the wrestlers and crew knew me by name and thought I was insane. However, at the end of the semester, I created "The Pro Wrestling Thesis". Now, it's a horribly outdated, mostly useless research piece. For it's time though, it was actually one of the few scholarly works on wrestling that existed.
Participant:
Through a series of circumstances that are too long to explain, I left college and went to work at a newspaper in my hometown. One day, a press release about a new independent group came across the fax. I grabbed it and called to see if there was a story there. We got to talking and I told him about my past and he asked me to check out one of his shows. I did, and it was horrible and about 20 years behind its time. We talked and I came on board as the assistant booker to Mr. USA Tony Atlas and as the heel color commentator on the TV show. Atlas and I clashed and the whole thing came to a head on an episode of MTV's "True Life". I won't get into what happened, but Atlas was gone and I was allowed to book a fairly well-funded indy. I also continued to play a heel commentator and after we stopped producing TV, became a heel manager. It was a great time being involved and doing some creative writing, but then the owner decided to pack up his tent after three years of not making money. He sold the company to myself and two wrestlers. We agreed that they would handle booking and I handle promoting. It was a miserable year as we constantly butted heads, they turned me into a babyface with no creative control, and I knew I was putting in the most hours advertising and promoting everything. Two weeks before 9/11, I quit.
Fan Again:
I took a year off from everything wrestling, and was planning on completely staying away. However, when you get married and have kids, you stay at home a lot more, and you watch TV a lot more. I slowly started watching Raw again and haven't stopped. I miss having real alternatives, but if I didn't like WWE programming that much, I could change the channel.
I'm probably never going to be more than a fan again, but after seeing how the then-WWF ran from the inside at shows, and being part of a fairly successful independent organization makes me feel lucky. I think I was too early to be a real scholar examining wrestling, and since I wasn't a TV writer, was never going to get a job with WWE. I'm not bitter though. It was a manic, unpredictable, fun ride...and isn't that what wrestling is supposed to be?
I wanted to give a quick introduction to myself as I won't be at the class more than once or twice, but hope to be a regular contributer to this blog. My name is Joshua Shea and I've had an interesting journey down the road of professional wrestling and hope to be able to share some stories and knowledge about the medium.
I think there are four categories that my pro wrestling life fall into: Fan, Crazy Fan/Scholar, Participant, and once again, Fan.
Fan:
Like most people who can remember independent TV stations, I discovered wrestling one Saturday morning in 1982 or 1983, when I was six or seven. I enjoyed it enough, but when it really started playing to me with the Hulkamania era was when I completely got on board and bought the T-shirts and the action figures and those horrible ice cream bars simply because they featured the WWF. I was this way until 1994.
Crazy Fan/Scholar:
After I graduated from high school, it occured to me that I could go see live shows wherever I wanted. I took a year off before college and I decided I wanted to see a lot of wrestling. I attended some indy shows, but really loved following the WWF. I would travel to Pay-Per-Views and then travel to Raw on Monday night and their syndicated TV taping on Tuesday night. Since this was a down cycle, getting to wrestlers was very easy and I got to know some of the crew as well. They'd fill me in on things like what hotels everyone was staying at (so I could claim to be crew and get a discount.)
When I finally went off to school, I realized that I could exploit the "scholarly" world and convince two of my teachers to give me independent study, which just allowed me even more access to the wrestling world. I was invited into indy locker rooms and was able to get backstage at WWF shows easier than ever. It reached the point that I had an 8" x 10" photograph of me and just about every person on the roster autographed. Most of the wrestlers and crew knew me by name and thought I was insane. However, at the end of the semester, I created "The Pro Wrestling Thesis". Now, it's a horribly outdated, mostly useless research piece. For it's time though, it was actually one of the few scholarly works on wrestling that existed.
Participant:
Through a series of circumstances that are too long to explain, I left college and went to work at a newspaper in my hometown. One day, a press release about a new independent group came across the fax. I grabbed it and called to see if there was a story there. We got to talking and I told him about my past and he asked me to check out one of his shows. I did, and it was horrible and about 20 years behind its time. We talked and I came on board as the assistant booker to Mr. USA Tony Atlas and as the heel color commentator on the TV show. Atlas and I clashed and the whole thing came to a head on an episode of MTV's "True Life". I won't get into what happened, but Atlas was gone and I was allowed to book a fairly well-funded indy. I also continued to play a heel commentator and after we stopped producing TV, became a heel manager. It was a great time being involved and doing some creative writing, but then the owner decided to pack up his tent after three years of not making money. He sold the company to myself and two wrestlers. We agreed that they would handle booking and I handle promoting. It was a miserable year as we constantly butted heads, they turned me into a babyface with no creative control, and I knew I was putting in the most hours advertising and promoting everything. Two weeks before 9/11, I quit.
Fan Again:
I took a year off from everything wrestling, and was planning on completely staying away. However, when you get married and have kids, you stay at home a lot more, and you watch TV a lot more. I slowly started watching Raw again and haven't stopped. I miss having real alternatives, but if I didn't like WWE programming that much, I could change the channel.
I'm probably never going to be more than a fan again, but after seeing how the then-WWF ran from the inside at shows, and being part of a fairly successful independent organization makes me feel lucky. I think I was too early to be a real scholar examining wrestling, and since I wasn't a TV writer, was never going to get a job with WWE. I'm not bitter though. It was a manic, unpredictable, fun ride...and isn't that what wrestling is supposed to be?
Confessions of a Fangirl
Hello gentle readers, it is time for an introduction. I am Deirdre, a would-be Course 6-er, rugger, movie whore and not-so-secret fan of pro-wrestling, but the path by which I became addicted was more by accident than any other pure intent. You see, back in the day (which was a Thursday) there was a weekly battle between my cousin and I for control over the television, he wanted to watch Smackdown, and I wanted to watch a girly drama that will remain nameless. So I plotted and schemed and watched for the occasional opportunity to pounce and possibly wrestle the remote away for at least a minute or two, but was often unsuccessful. Therefore, I spent most of those Thursday nights half-watching and half-ridiculing the matches and plotlines unfolding before us on the flickering screen. Ridicule turned to mock-interest. Mock interest turned genuine.
The physicality was one thing, and I came to accept that while the action wasn't 'real' in the strict sense, there was not much sense in denying that falling off ladders, through tables and over opponents' heads onto metal surfaces took extreme toughness and athleticism. As the kids say nowadays, it really was 'hardkore'. Then there were the characters and plotlines, some ridiculously outlandish, some purely vanilla, and everything in between, so that there was something for everyone it seemed. For me, it was the Hardy Boyz that sealed the deal. They did not look or act at all like the sterotypical wrestlers I had seen or imagined, they were young, punkish daredevils, doing their own thing and wowing the crowd with it. With them at the time was Lita, and she was certainly an inspiration in some ways. She was not a blond bimbo, a damsel in distress, or even a female monstrosity, but rather a strong, fierce woman, who went toe to toe with the ladies and the guys, a combination of tomboy, rebel and beautiful diva to boot. I became a fangirl, and began watching all the wrestling I could, and have ever since.
Unfortunately, being a wrestling fan can be difficult, as there are plenty of others who do see wrestling as ridiculous, stupid, and 'fake', aimed at rednecks and hicks to satiate the thirst for violence, real or fake, and trying to change someone's mind about wrestling is often a battle lost before it is begun. I cannot count the times I have been forcibly carried off from the lounge tv by hallmates when trying to watch Raw or Smackdown, because of the ire that they had for my viewing tastes. It is unfortunate that there is such a hypocritical mindset about wrestling in our society, where such entertainment is often deemed too violent, hazardous to our children, and contributing to social decay, when the highest grossing Hollywood features contain far more graphic acts of violence or sex than are ever seen or even insinuated on wrestling programming. Wrestling fans are not social degenerates, blood-crazy hicks or threats to morality, but rather they are you and me and probably your friend Bob. We cheer on our favorite characters, boo the villians, and gasp and scream at the twists and turns and falls and slams, following the good vs evil, revolution vs. establishment, age old themes that are mirrored across creative mediums. We aren't hicks, we're watching Shakespeare in a squared circle, but instead of watching our hero being double-crossed in silence, we jump up and yell along with the crowd.
The physicality was one thing, and I came to accept that while the action wasn't 'real' in the strict sense, there was not much sense in denying that falling off ladders, through tables and over opponents' heads onto metal surfaces took extreme toughness and athleticism. As the kids say nowadays, it really was 'hardkore'. Then there were the characters and plotlines, some ridiculously outlandish, some purely vanilla, and everything in between, so that there was something for everyone it seemed. For me, it was the Hardy Boyz that sealed the deal. They did not look or act at all like the sterotypical wrestlers I had seen or imagined, they were young, punkish daredevils, doing their own thing and wowing the crowd with it. With them at the time was Lita, and she was certainly an inspiration in some ways. She was not a blond bimbo, a damsel in distress, or even a female monstrosity, but rather a strong, fierce woman, who went toe to toe with the ladies and the guys, a combination of tomboy, rebel and beautiful diva to boot. I became a fangirl, and began watching all the wrestling I could, and have ever since.
Unfortunately, being a wrestling fan can be difficult, as there are plenty of others who do see wrestling as ridiculous, stupid, and 'fake', aimed at rednecks and hicks to satiate the thirst for violence, real or fake, and trying to change someone's mind about wrestling is often a battle lost before it is begun. I cannot count the times I have been forcibly carried off from the lounge tv by hallmates when trying to watch Raw or Smackdown, because of the ire that they had for my viewing tastes. It is unfortunate that there is such a hypocritical mindset about wrestling in our society, where such entertainment is often deemed too violent, hazardous to our children, and contributing to social decay, when the highest grossing Hollywood features contain far more graphic acts of violence or sex than are ever seen or even insinuated on wrestling programming. Wrestling fans are not social degenerates, blood-crazy hicks or threats to morality, but rather they are you and me and probably your friend Bob. We cheer on our favorite characters, boo the villians, and gasp and scream at the twists and turns and falls and slams, following the good vs evil, revolution vs. establishment, age old themes that are mirrored across creative mediums. We aren't hicks, we're watching Shakespeare in a squared circle, but instead of watching our hero being double-crossed in silence, we jump up and yell along with the crowd.
In The Beginning
My earliest memory of the WWF was a match that took place 17 years ago between The Rockers and the Orient Express in Wrestlemania VI. I remember watching the tape, since we waited until it came out on video, with my dad who was a big fan of wrestling. I soon grew to love watching wrestling short after this encounter. Eventually my older sister and two younger brothers would gain interest as well. Even though my mom did not care for wrestling, she still allowed us to watch at such a young age.
The primary reason for my interest in wrestling, in my opinion, was my father. I looked up to him and enjoyed spending time with him, so it was only natural that I would take interest in the same pastimes as him. Every week we would watch WWF Superstars together and follow the storylines closely. We would also watch the pay-per-view events whenever we could at my grandpa's house since he would always order them. I can remember watching Royal Rumble early in the year, Wrestlemania in the spring, King of the Ring in the summer, Summerslam in the summer, Survivor Series around Thanksgiving, and every once in a while an In Your House event. Some of the best memories I have were watching these events with my dad and brothers.
Every character in the WWF was very unique and colorful. My favorite wrestler was perhaps the most colorful, literally. My dad and I were huge Ultimate Warrior fans. Everything about him was bad ass: his name, his theme music, the way he would run into the ring, his colorful outfits with streamers attached to his elbows and boots, his face paint, and his finishing move, the gorilla press slam. The two significant events that made him one of the greatest wrestlers, in my opinion, was becoming the second person to bodyslam Andre the Giant and beating Hulk Hogan in the main event of Wrestlemania VI to become the first wrestler to hold the Intercontinental and Heavyweight Championships at the same time. Whenever Ultimate Warrior came back to wrestling after a long break my dad and I would get so excited. I remember in 1996 when it was announced that the Ultimate Warrior was coming back to the WWF and would be wrestling at Wrestlemania XII, which my mom and dad had tickets for, my dad yelled out from the living room, "He's Back, He's Back!!". My mom had just got out of the shower and immediately ran to the living room screaming "Who's Burned??", thinking that my dad was saying "He's Burned, He's Burned!!", referring to one of us kids being on fire. Everyone other than my mom had a good laugh about this.
There are many more memories of wrestling that come to mind but I only discussed the earliest and most significant ones that I could remember. I'm hoping that this class will help bring back more great memories I have of wrestling.
What made my dad yell "He's Back"
The primary reason for my interest in wrestling, in my opinion, was my father. I looked up to him and enjoyed spending time with him, so it was only natural that I would take interest in the same pastimes as him. Every week we would watch WWF Superstars together and follow the storylines closely. We would also watch the pay-per-view events whenever we could at my grandpa's house since he would always order them. I can remember watching Royal Rumble early in the year, Wrestlemania in the spring, King of the Ring in the summer, Summerslam in the summer, Survivor Series around Thanksgiving, and every once in a while an In Your House event. Some of the best memories I have were watching these events with my dad and brothers.
Every character in the WWF was very unique and colorful. My favorite wrestler was perhaps the most colorful, literally. My dad and I were huge Ultimate Warrior fans. Everything about him was bad ass: his name, his theme music, the way he would run into the ring, his colorful outfits with streamers attached to his elbows and boots, his face paint, and his finishing move, the gorilla press slam. The two significant events that made him one of the greatest wrestlers, in my opinion, was becoming the second person to bodyslam Andre the Giant and beating Hulk Hogan in the main event of Wrestlemania VI to become the first wrestler to hold the Intercontinental and Heavyweight Championships at the same time. Whenever Ultimate Warrior came back to wrestling after a long break my dad and I would get so excited. I remember in 1996 when it was announced that the Ultimate Warrior was coming back to the WWF and would be wrestling at Wrestlemania XII, which my mom and dad had tickets for, my dad yelled out from the living room, "He's Back, He's Back!!". My mom had just got out of the shower and immediately ran to the living room screaming "Who's Burned??", thinking that my dad was saying "He's Burned, He's Burned!!", referring to one of us kids being on fire. Everyone other than my mom had a good laugh about this.
There are many more memories of wrestling that come to mind but I only discussed the earliest and most significant ones that I could remember. I'm hoping that this class will help bring back more great memories I have of wrestling.
What made my dad yell "He's Back"
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Never Really a Fan
Like some of you, I can remember wrestling being the "cool" thing to watch when I was younger. A lot of my friends would show up to school with t-shirts glorifying wrestlers like Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Undertaker. Even our class shirts featured a spin off of the NWO logo. I never really understood what the hype was all about, and to be honest, I still don't.
For the longest time I considered wrestling to be the tough man's soap opera, a rehearsed and overly dramatic spectacle with poor "actors". I never bothered to watch any matches long enough to know the different story lines surrounding all the characters. I could only handle so much of the machismo and over-the-toppedness that I thought was the mainstay of wrestling's entertainment value.
As a form of entertainment, how does the viewer classify wrestling? Is it appealing because one gets caught up in the episodic drama that the story lines provide? Or is it the "sport" of it that keeps people coming back for more? As someone who appreciates both the sense of competition and entertainment that sports foster I can't consider wrestling a true sport. With outcomes that have been preordained and no real criteria for becoming a champion (except maybe a bodybuilders physique and charisma) wrestling falls way short of being considered a serious sport. I mean, the combat's not even real. I'm not questioning the athleticism of the wrestler's themselves. I doubt the average person could waltz into a ring day in and day out and pull off the kinds of acrobatic feats these guys do.
If not entirely a drama with a multitude of characters nor solely a spectator sport, then perhaps pro wrestling is in a league of its own. It must be this middle road that wrestling has paved over the years that makes it so appealing and continues to draw a large audience. Even so, I wouldn't consider myself a part of pro wrestling's following; but who knows? Maybe I'll be a fan by the end of the semester.
For the longest time I considered wrestling to be the tough man's soap opera, a rehearsed and overly dramatic spectacle with poor "actors". I never bothered to watch any matches long enough to know the different story lines surrounding all the characters. I could only handle so much of the machismo and over-the-toppedness that I thought was the mainstay of wrestling's entertainment value.
As a form of entertainment, how does the viewer classify wrestling? Is it appealing because one gets caught up in the episodic drama that the story lines provide? Or is it the "sport" of it that keeps people coming back for more? As someone who appreciates both the sense of competition and entertainment that sports foster I can't consider wrestling a true sport. With outcomes that have been preordained and no real criteria for becoming a champion (except maybe a bodybuilders physique and charisma) wrestling falls way short of being considered a serious sport. I mean, the combat's not even real. I'm not questioning the athleticism of the wrestler's themselves. I doubt the average person could waltz into a ring day in and day out and pull off the kinds of acrobatic feats these guys do.
If not entirely a drama with a multitude of characters nor solely a spectator sport, then perhaps pro wrestling is in a league of its own. It must be this middle road that wrestling has paved over the years that makes it so appealing and continues to draw a large audience. Even so, I wouldn't consider myself a part of pro wrestling's following; but who knows? Maybe I'll be a fan by the end of the semester.
Musings from another "outsider"
My name is Jackie Roe, and though I'm not a student in the course, I've been following the blog and am thrilled to be able to contribute to it! Let me tell you a little bit about myself:
I just recently completed my M.A. in Speech Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a focus on media effects research. In particular, I spent some time looking into the effects of viewership of pro wrestling; I proposed a study examining the relationship between pro wrestling viewership and desensitization to violence in children and another study looking at the link between pro wrestling viewership and body image problems (e.g., a drive for muscularity) in men. This research was borne out of my personal affinity for pro wrestling, as I have been an ardent fan and follower of "sports entertainment" for close to 13 years.
I vividly recall my first experience watching pro wrestling. I was in the 4th or 5th grade and was channel surfing with my sister. I came upon the image of a demented clown (Doink), holding a steel chair in his hands, hovering over a fallen muscleman in orange spandex (Crush). These sights were mesmerizing; as my sister implored me to change the channel, my only thoughts were, "Who were those men? Why was there an audience? What that real or was it acting?" And so my obsession began! I took note of when and on what channel the program aired (it was actually "WWF Superstars") and watched it week after week in secret, assuming my family would frown upon their young daughter/sister watching such a program. As time passed, I became a great student of pro wrestling, from memorizing the names of moves and characters to learning the history/politics/styles/jargon of pro wrestling to researching pro wrestlers' personal lives. I also amassed quite the collection of pro wrestling memorabilia (hundreds of magazines, dozens of videotapes, books, CDs, action figures, trading cards, games ... ). Having followed and studied pro wrestling for so many years, I've come to see myself as a sort of connoisseur (though some of you could probably give me a run for my money!). I should note, too, that since I began watching, I haven't stopped for more than maybe a couple of weeks at a time. Through the good and the bad, I have remained a steady fan. In fact, my fondest memories of pro wrestling come from the period when the WWF was at its nadir in terms of popularity (1994-ish, around WrestleMania X).
To me (and to most of you, I'm sure), pro wrestling is an art form. The matches I enjoy most are those devoid of outside interference, weapons, and stipulations - ones that simply feature pro wrestling at its finest. In no match was this more apparent than in the SummerSlam 1992 Intercontinental Title bout between Bret "Hitman" Hart and the British Bulldog, which I believe you'll be viewing later in the course. I think it's important for today's fans to view matches such as this one, as it exemplifies pro wrestling in its purest form and demonstrates that a memorable match is not dependent on the inclusion of blood or countless high-risk maneuvers. And speaking of Bret Hart, I truly believe that we have yet to see a more impressive technical wrestler and storyteller in the ring.
On a final note, I've always felt that pro wrestling carries with it the stigma of being entertainment only to white males with low IQs who live in trailer parks and guzzle beer all day (I exaggerate, but you understand the implication). As an educated Asian-American female, I feel that I break every "wrestling fan" stereotype, and I've longed for an arena in which I could share my perceptions of pro wrestling and how it has impacted my life and to discuss my experiences/ideas/opinions with others who also break the aforementioned mold. Thus, I'm excited about corresponding with you, and I invite any questions or comments you might have (and see them coming, particularly in regard to media effects research!). As I wish I were an actual student in the course, I'll do my best to keep up with the readings and hope to even visit the class at some point, if you'll have me! Take care!
I just recently completed my M.A. in Speech Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a focus on media effects research. In particular, I spent some time looking into the effects of viewership of pro wrestling; I proposed a study examining the relationship between pro wrestling viewership and desensitization to violence in children and another study looking at the link between pro wrestling viewership and body image problems (e.g., a drive for muscularity) in men. This research was borne out of my personal affinity for pro wrestling, as I have been an ardent fan and follower of "sports entertainment" for close to 13 years.
I vividly recall my first experience watching pro wrestling. I was in the 4th or 5th grade and was channel surfing with my sister. I came upon the image of a demented clown (Doink), holding a steel chair in his hands, hovering over a fallen muscleman in orange spandex (Crush). These sights were mesmerizing; as my sister implored me to change the channel, my only thoughts were, "Who were those men? Why was there an audience? What that real or was it acting?" And so my obsession began! I took note of when and on what channel the program aired (it was actually "WWF Superstars") and watched it week after week in secret, assuming my family would frown upon their young daughter/sister watching such a program. As time passed, I became a great student of pro wrestling, from memorizing the names of moves and characters to learning the history/politics/styles/jargon of pro wrestling to researching pro wrestlers' personal lives. I also amassed quite the collection of pro wrestling memorabilia (hundreds of magazines, dozens of videotapes, books, CDs, action figures, trading cards, games ... ). Having followed and studied pro wrestling for so many years, I've come to see myself as a sort of connoisseur (though some of you could probably give me a run for my money!). I should note, too, that since I began watching, I haven't stopped for more than maybe a couple of weeks at a time. Through the good and the bad, I have remained a steady fan. In fact, my fondest memories of pro wrestling come from the period when the WWF was at its nadir in terms of popularity (1994-ish, around WrestleMania X).
To me (and to most of you, I'm sure), pro wrestling is an art form. The matches I enjoy most are those devoid of outside interference, weapons, and stipulations - ones that simply feature pro wrestling at its finest. In no match was this more apparent than in the SummerSlam 1992 Intercontinental Title bout between Bret "Hitman" Hart and the British Bulldog, which I believe you'll be viewing later in the course. I think it's important for today's fans to view matches such as this one, as it exemplifies pro wrestling in its purest form and demonstrates that a memorable match is not dependent on the inclusion of blood or countless high-risk maneuvers. And speaking of Bret Hart, I truly believe that we have yet to see a more impressive technical wrestler and storyteller in the ring.
On a final note, I've always felt that pro wrestling carries with it the stigma of being entertainment only to white males with low IQs who live in trailer parks and guzzle beer all day (I exaggerate, but you understand the implication). As an educated Asian-American female, I feel that I break every "wrestling fan" stereotype, and I've longed for an arena in which I could share my perceptions of pro wrestling and how it has impacted my life and to discuss my experiences/ideas/opinions with others who also break the aforementioned mold. Thus, I'm excited about corresponding with you, and I invite any questions or comments you might have (and see them coming, particularly in regard to media effects research!). As I wish I were an actual student in the course, I'll do my best to keep up with the readings and hope to even visit the class at some point, if you'll have me! Take care!
Well, Here We Go...
Hey!
So, who am I?
My name's Rob. I'm a "21E" (joint major) in Comparative Media Studies (CMS) and Computer Science (Course VI). I'm in my 8th semester and my 5th year here at MIT (does that make me a "super senior" yet?).
So, what am I doing in this class?
Well, I really have no personal interest in professional wrestling myself, but it sure is an interesting phenomenon I'm curious to learn a little bit more about. You don't seem to hear about it that often, yet from seemingly nowhere, there are a whole lot of people watching this stuff everyday. $40 for a single viewing of a pay-per-view wrestling event? That right there is amazing to me!
My main interests hover in the area of mass media and mass entertainment (videogames, television, etc.), so I think the unique success (why, who, where, how, etc.) of professional wrestling as a form of mass entertainment is probably what interests me the most about this subject.
In doing the readings and watching the documentary on Wednesday and Thursday I was already surprised to see just how far back wrestling goes as a fairly succcesful form of mass entertainment, so I'm curious to see how much the audience and what they get out of it has changed.
I also find it interesting how some things seemed to have changed dramatically over the years, yet the basic experience doesn't seem to be very different, so I'm interested in looking at how these changes have added or detracted from the enjoyment of wrestling, and whether they've really changed things at all or maybe just refined and distilled the experience that people have always enjoyed.
So, I guess that is about all I have to say!
I don't know much about professional wrestling, but I'm curious to learn more about it -- especially its success or lack thereof in the context of mass media and entertainment -- and see where this goes.
So, who am I?
My name's Rob. I'm a "21E" (joint major) in Comparative Media Studies (CMS) and Computer Science (Course VI). I'm in my 8th semester and my 5th year here at MIT (does that make me a "super senior" yet?).
So, what am I doing in this class?
Well, I really have no personal interest in professional wrestling myself, but it sure is an interesting phenomenon I'm curious to learn a little bit more about. You don't seem to hear about it that often, yet from seemingly nowhere, there are a whole lot of people watching this stuff everyday. $40 for a single viewing of a pay-per-view wrestling event? That right there is amazing to me!
My main interests hover in the area of mass media and mass entertainment (videogames, television, etc.), so I think the unique success (why, who, where, how, etc.) of professional wrestling as a form of mass entertainment is probably what interests me the most about this subject.
In doing the readings and watching the documentary on Wednesday and Thursday I was already surprised to see just how far back wrestling goes as a fairly succcesful form of mass entertainment, so I'm curious to see how much the audience and what they get out of it has changed.
I also find it interesting how some things seemed to have changed dramatically over the years, yet the basic experience doesn't seem to be very different, so I'm interested in looking at how these changes have added or detracted from the enjoyment of wrestling, and whether they've really changed things at all or maybe just refined and distilled the experience that people have always enjoyed.
So, I guess that is about all I have to say!
I don't know much about professional wrestling, but I'm curious to learn more about it -- especially its success or lack thereof in the context of mass media and entertainment -- and see where this goes.
Punching in at 1:30 AM
Wow, ten posts already. I'm way behind. I figure I too should introduce myself as well. I'm Brian, a former MIT student (now a working stiff) taking the class as a modified listener - if you would. Like Henry, I will try to pop in myself as much as I can throughout the course. Additionally, I'll be attending the Monday Night LABs so I may meet a few of you there.
As for my story:
I first got into wrestling during the Rock/Austin era sometime in 1999. I really didn't have the chance to delve into the world of wrestling earlier, as cable television was one of the many Americana staples of which I was deprived while growing up. Knowing this, a high-school friend pitched Smackdown (on network TV) to me as something that would be cool to discuss over lunch, and after the first few Rock monologues and DX/Mcmahon family feuds I was hooked. Soon I would be keeping up with the storylines on the internet or through discussion with friends. My fandom tended to irk my parents every so often. Trying to psychoanalyze/rationalize the reasons for a well-adjusted honor student to suddenly obsess over something so "base and low-brow," my dad concluded that it was a desire to see "anger, frustration, and retribution played out on screen." I simply took it as more of a niche sufficiently far enough away from the in-crowd that my friends and I could call our own - much like Anime or Star Trek.
During my first few years of college, I took a small hiatus from wrestling - there was just far less TV time and it was less of a priority. I still took the time to follow who had left and what the bigger angles were. Through divine intervention, a fraternity rush poster offered a Wrestlemania 18 PPV party, and a lifelong friendship was born. It turned out that only 3 of the brothers actually watched wrestling, but that was enough for us. We watched every PPV in the house until the cable was turned off in the house. At that point, we would trudge out to Good Times in Sullivan Square to watch it with the rest of the townies. This tradition continues to this very day.
Over time, I've frequented sites like rajah.com to keep on top of various ongoings in the behind-the-scenes world of wrestling. This has changed a lot of my perspective on what happens on television. I would consider myself a smart mark - somebody who tends to root for the characters who can work a crowd or perform well as opposed to the pre-determined good guys. Case in point - I was one of the many people booing John Cena while he would spit out a one-liner, do five moves, and hold onto the belt for another month. I booed Edge and Lita for their part in the Matt Hardy saga until Edge largely admitted to it and said "Matt, you lost your job because you were the lesser wrestler." I like Randy Orton because he has good matches and he really is that much of a prick. I've always been interested in seeing how these play out, and how the companies deals with these incidents. Learning about ECW years after they had been finished, I always thought that they were able to roll with these punches pretty well while the WWE for a large part would find itself flatfooted. I actually wrote a paper for David Thorburn's television class analyzing how pro-wrestling in the internet generation tries to handle an audience privy to the backstage reality while presenting a (mostly) separate story, and wondering if and how the two can peacefully coexist.
Like Henry, I agree that over the years there have been highs and lows. Sometimes I would tune in eagerly to see what Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle would do that night, other times I would be so disillusioned that I would play fantasy wrestling and go to the pay per views to shout "POINTS!" every time one of my guys scored. I've debated switching over wholeheartedly to TNA, but I really don't see their product as being all that satisfactory all the time either. I usually spend most of the time hoping that one brand or the other is going to get it right sometime soon, and bring the fans some glory days once again.
Over time, I hope I can share a lot of other opinions and rants about what goes on in wrestling and learn from your own experiences. Thanks for the opportunity, Sam. See you all Monday.
As for my story:
I first got into wrestling during the Rock/Austin era sometime in 1999. I really didn't have the chance to delve into the world of wrestling earlier, as cable television was one of the many Americana staples of which I was deprived while growing up. Knowing this, a high-school friend pitched Smackdown (on network TV) to me as something that would be cool to discuss over lunch, and after the first few Rock monologues and DX/Mcmahon family feuds I was hooked. Soon I would be keeping up with the storylines on the internet or through discussion with friends. My fandom tended to irk my parents every so often. Trying to psychoanalyze/rationalize the reasons for a well-adjusted honor student to suddenly obsess over something so "base and low-brow," my dad concluded that it was a desire to see "anger, frustration, and retribution played out on screen." I simply took it as more of a niche sufficiently far enough away from the in-crowd that my friends and I could call our own - much like Anime or Star Trek.
During my first few years of college, I took a small hiatus from wrestling - there was just far less TV time and it was less of a priority. I still took the time to follow who had left and what the bigger angles were. Through divine intervention, a fraternity rush poster offered a Wrestlemania 18 PPV party, and a lifelong friendship was born. It turned out that only 3 of the brothers actually watched wrestling, but that was enough for us. We watched every PPV in the house until the cable was turned off in the house. At that point, we would trudge out to Good Times in Sullivan Square to watch it with the rest of the townies. This tradition continues to this very day.
Over time, I've frequented sites like rajah.com to keep on top of various ongoings in the behind-the-scenes world of wrestling. This has changed a lot of my perspective on what happens on television. I would consider myself a smart mark - somebody who tends to root for the characters who can work a crowd or perform well as opposed to the pre-determined good guys. Case in point - I was one of the many people booing John Cena while he would spit out a one-liner, do five moves, and hold onto the belt for another month. I booed Edge and Lita for their part in the Matt Hardy saga until Edge largely admitted to it and said "Matt, you lost your job because you were the lesser wrestler." I like Randy Orton because he has good matches and he really is that much of a prick. I've always been interested in seeing how these play out, and how the companies deals with these incidents. Learning about ECW years after they had been finished, I always thought that they were able to roll with these punches pretty well while the WWE for a large part would find itself flatfooted. I actually wrote a paper for David Thorburn's television class analyzing how pro-wrestling in the internet generation tries to handle an audience privy to the backstage reality while presenting a (mostly) separate story, and wondering if and how the two can peacefully coexist.
Like Henry, I agree that over the years there have been highs and lows. Sometimes I would tune in eagerly to see what Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle would do that night, other times I would be so disillusioned that I would play fantasy wrestling and go to the pay per views to shout "POINTS!" every time one of my guys scored. I've debated switching over wholeheartedly to TNA, but I really don't see their product as being all that satisfactory all the time either. I usually spend most of the time hoping that one brand or the other is going to get it right sometime soon, and bring the fans some glory days once again.
Over time, I hope I can share a lot of other opinions and rants about what goes on in wrestling and learn from your own experiences. Thanks for the opportunity, Sam. See you all Monday.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
The Way It Started
I really don't remember how my fascination with wrestling started. I do remember that the first show I saw was the WWF Special Smackdown on UPN. I saw it, thought it was pretty cool but didn't give it much thought. I didn't know much about the storyline going on at the time and didn't think twice about trying to watch Raw is War. Then Smackdown came back as a full fledged show and that is when I started watching. Ads were running for it and I decided I would make a point of watching this. However before that, I knew that Raw is War was aired on Mondays so I decided to watch that as well. It happened to be the night after the pay-per-view SummerSlam. Mankind happened to have just won the WWF Championship from Stone Cold Steve Austin and Triple H had been in that match. Triple H wanted a match with Mankind and he got it. And that is where Triple H won his first championship. It was just such a different experience. I had an idea that wrestling was fake. At that point I didn't know in what sense though. Was the story real? Were the moves real? I hadn't seen, read or heard enough about it to make a judgment. So when that first show of Smackdown came around, that is where it really didn't matter. For me, the person that changed it around for me was the Rock. I hadn't even seen him wrestle and I was already a fan. The way he spoke to Triple H was amazing. He used his famous "stick it straight up your candy ass" line. For me, it wasn't so much about the wrestling but instead it was about the story. I just wanted to see what would happen, what they would say. It was similar to a comic book. I am also a big fan of Spider-Man and wrestling seemed to fit that same mold. Great action and a fast paced story.
So I started watching wrestling in 1999 and I stopped in 2002. It happened for the same reason, the Rock left and things just didn't seem the same. The story lines seemed too forced and there were too many wrestlers. It happened to be after the merger of ECW and WCW with the WWF and the change to WWE was made. I think I lost the interest because the wrestlers that interested me were not there anymore. It was not worth it to get back into the story if my favorite wrestler was gone. Though I did read about wrestling later on and do wish I had watched more of it because it was around that time that Shawn Michaels began a feud with Triple H and the Rock did come back. Though he turned heel and I don't know how much I would have enjoyed that.
I spent some time looking at old videos of wrestling before I got into it. The person that I became a fan of was Shawn Michaels. He acrobatics and skill just seemed to outshine the person he would wrestle with. And so I watched his feud with Triple H over the championship and it had many spectacular matches such as a three stages of hell match where it is a contest of best two out of three. What really brought me back to wrestling was the possible return of Degeneration X. Rumors happened to be going around and it was the actions of Triple H and Shawn Michaels that made me think it was going to happen. And so when it happened, I just could not stop watching. Degeneration X had been a stable in 1997 and 1998 and their trademark "Suck It" catchphrase was something that I always wished I had been there to see. The later incarnations just didn't seem to do the original team of Shawn Michaels, Triple H and Chyna justice.
I will write more about Degeneration X and what happened to them over the past year later but to give you guys a sense of what it was that made me a fan, I will leave you with these clips of the first episode of Smackdown!
Smackdown first clip
Smackdown second clip
So I started watching wrestling in 1999 and I stopped in 2002. It happened for the same reason, the Rock left and things just didn't seem the same. The story lines seemed too forced and there were too many wrestlers. It happened to be after the merger of ECW and WCW with the WWF and the change to WWE was made. I think I lost the interest because the wrestlers that interested me were not there anymore. It was not worth it to get back into the story if my favorite wrestler was gone. Though I did read about wrestling later on and do wish I had watched more of it because it was around that time that Shawn Michaels began a feud with Triple H and the Rock did come back. Though he turned heel and I don't know how much I would have enjoyed that.
I spent some time looking at old videos of wrestling before I got into it. The person that I became a fan of was Shawn Michaels. He acrobatics and skill just seemed to outshine the person he would wrestle with. And so I watched his feud with Triple H over the championship and it had many spectacular matches such as a three stages of hell match where it is a contest of best two out of three. What really brought me back to wrestling was the possible return of Degeneration X. Rumors happened to be going around and it was the actions of Triple H and Shawn Michaels that made me think it was going to happen. And so when it happened, I just could not stop watching. Degeneration X had been a stable in 1997 and 1998 and their trademark "Suck It" catchphrase was something that I always wished I had been there to see. The later incarnations just didn't seem to do the original team of Shawn Michaels, Triple H and Chyna justice.
I will write more about Degeneration X and what happened to them over the past year later but to give you guys a sense of what it was that made me a fan, I will leave you with these clips of the first episode of Smackdown!
Smackdown first clip
Smackdown second clip
A blast from the past
Hi I'm Chris Pena, known by many as Crispy. When I was in middle school I remember the hip thing to talk about between classes was pro wrestling. We would try to reenact the moves of the wrestlers like the diamond cutter, the drop kick, or the stone cold stunner. Many times we were sent down to the principle's office. We would even have games where we would try to name as many wrestlers as possible. I would go home and watch wrestling at home on mondays if I remember right. I would always sacrifice my school work for it. I did that because if you didn't know about wrestling then basically you were not going to have friends and you were not going to be popular, and back then being popular was everything.
Once High School started, I feel like this all went to a hault. Wrestling for me felt like it was jsut a phase, an era, just like Pokemon or yo-yo's. I went several years without watching or speaking about wrestling. Every once in a while I would catch a show or two, but with so many stories, I wasn't able to keep up and so I would quickly change the channel.
When I heard about this class, I realized it was going to be fun because of the context and because it would resurect my childhood memories. So far I have been correct in my hypothesis and I see no reason why that should change. Pro wrestling is fun and exciting, I guess the only reason why I didn't follow it as much after middle school was because I was a follower. But I hope that with this class I will be able to catch up with all the stories that I missed out on and continue with watching it.
Once High School started, I feel like this all went to a hault. Wrestling for me felt like it was jsut a phase, an era, just like Pokemon or yo-yo's. I went several years without watching or speaking about wrestling. Every once in a while I would catch a show or two, but with so many stories, I wasn't able to keep up and so I would quickly change the channel.
When I heard about this class, I realized it was going to be fun because of the context and because it would resurect my childhood memories. So far I have been correct in my hypothesis and I see no reason why that should change. Pro wrestling is fun and exciting, I guess the only reason why I didn't follow it as much after middle school was because I was a follower. But I hope that with this class I will be able to catch up with all the stories that I missed out on and continue with watching it.
Friday, February 9, 2007
My thoughts on pro wrestling
I've been a wrestling fan for many years and have followed different organizations for quite a while, still keeping up with it to this day. One of the things that I truly enjoyed in the videos we watched this past week was how so many view professional wrestling as an art form. I think with the negative connotation that people have with wrestling, it's refreshing to know that so many, like myself, do consider it an art. To an outsider, that might be difficult to fully understand - especially if said outsider was flipping channels and wound up watching a fast-paced, lights out tables, ladders, and chairs match. The ladder match we saw this week was an excellent example of this. Granted, that was a PPV match, but matches like this on Raw and SmackDown do happen occasionally. It's hard sometimes to make a case for this profession being an art form when you're watching guys landing into ladders (and wondering why, of course), but I don't think it takes away from what "the business" is.
I truly believe that the single most important thing when it comes to a pro wrestling company being a success is a connection to the audience. If you can't draw in a fan emotionally, you won't be nearly as successful as someone who does. I liked the comparison in the documentary of pro wrestling to Shakespeare because it's a perfect parallel. Live performance and improvisation is no easy task, as I'm sure anyone who's ever performed in theatre knows quite well. If a Shakespearean play (or any play for that matter) can't pull in a viewer emotionally and truly make a person care about the characters, then it won't be nearly as successful as it could be. It's the same with pro wrestling. Some will put athleticism before storytelling and charisma, but that's a personal preference. From what I've seen over the years, the stories drive the actions, not the other way around.
Is it really that much different from watching Rocky movies, where you know that Rocky wins every single time? Not to me there isn't, and I've seen those movies so many times I've lost count. You don't walk into a movie theater expecting to see "real" sports movies - you go for a break from your everyday world by watching actors draw you in emotionally to what they're doing. It's the exact same thing for pro wrestling, who also try to use emotion to draw in their audience. Pro wrestlers are athletes, performers, entertainers, and actors. It hasn't always been that way, especially in the beginning when it was just getting started. But by and large, this is what it is today - and considering the huge international market and demand for the biz, I'd say they're doing a pretty good job.
I truly believe that the single most important thing when it comes to a pro wrestling company being a success is a connection to the audience. If you can't draw in a fan emotionally, you won't be nearly as successful as someone who does. I liked the comparison in the documentary of pro wrestling to Shakespeare because it's a perfect parallel. Live performance and improvisation is no easy task, as I'm sure anyone who's ever performed in theatre knows quite well. If a Shakespearean play (or any play for that matter) can't pull in a viewer emotionally and truly make a person care about the characters, then it won't be nearly as successful as it could be. It's the same with pro wrestling. Some will put athleticism before storytelling and charisma, but that's a personal preference. From what I've seen over the years, the stories drive the actions, not the other way around.
Is it really that much different from watching Rocky movies, where you know that Rocky wins every single time? Not to me there isn't, and I've seen those movies so many times I've lost count. You don't walk into a movie theater expecting to see "real" sports movies - you go for a break from your everyday world by watching actors draw you in emotionally to what they're doing. It's the exact same thing for pro wrestling, who also try to use emotion to draw in their audience. Pro wrestlers are athletes, performers, entertainers, and actors. It hasn't always been that way, especially in the beginning when it was just getting started. But by and large, this is what it is today - and considering the huge international market and demand for the biz, I'd say they're doing a pretty good job.
MMA and Pro Wrestling
Interest in the world of mixed martial arts (MMA) has increased significantly in the last few years. It has reached a point where wrestling organizations are monitoring the pay-per-view numbers of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and view it as a competitor in the pay-per-view arena. I’m sure that from time to time, some of my blog posts will examine the similarities and differences of MMA and pro wrestling. One topic that interests me is the lack of media coverage for MMA in the United States. Even professional wrestling was covered in papers in the early 20th century. Why can't you see UFC on SportsCenter? First, we need to take a quick look at how MMA reached its current level of popularity.
In the mid 1990s, a new combat sport was created by the Gracie family in
On the brink of bankruptcy, the company was sold to Dana White and Frank and Lorenzo Ferttita in 2001. With new leadership and new rules, the company has seen a huge jump in popularity and acceptance, with pay-per-view buyrates matching all but the largest of WWE events.
How do you all feel about MMA? Is it a fad? Will it gain the mainstream recognition that wrestling has not had since the late 90s? Will it affect wrestling in America?
Character development and other first post stuff
Hello, everyone. As I stated in class during our big group intro, I have never been a big wrestling fan (besides an early childhood appreciation of Hulk Hogan), but I'm interested in it academically because the storytelling and character development angles seem to have a lot in common with certain videogames, of which I AM a big fan. So, let me bore you for a few minutes with a bit of that.
How story functions in videogames is kind of a hot topic in critical circles, and no genre makes story more problematic than what are generally called fighting games, i.e. games in which two characters (one or both of which controlled by a human) with complex controls beat and/or kill each other. There realism varies from game to game, but most involve a heavy dose of fantasy--demons, people throwing fire from their hands, or just martial artists who regularly defy the laws of physics and biology. These games are, by almost any standard, sports games, but designers have been cramming character storylines and rivalries into them almost since the beginning.
The archetypal example for this, in my opinion, would be Mortal Kombat, a series that began in 1992, and released its 7th canonical iteration last year. The game could best be described as Enter the Dragon if it were a superhero comic: mysterious tournament, 7 contestants with different fantastic powers, and a lot of people getting killed. Two of the contestants, Sub-Zero and Scorpion, are dressed identically except for the colors of their uniforms. Sub-Zero, dressed in black and blue, uses ice-based attacks, while Scorpion, dressed in black and yellow, executes his opponents by breathing fire. So, just looking at these two characters at work, we already have a vague relationship between the characters, similarities (appearance) and differences (elemental opposition). When the game is not being played, the "attract" screen displays biographical information on all the characters, although Scorpion and Sub-Zero are both described in very vague terms. We know that Sub-Zero is an assassin, and Scorpion, for some reason, seems to dislike him very much. Upon completing the game with Scorpion, we find that Sub-Zero killed Scorpion a year before the tournament, and Scorpion made a deal with a/the devil to exact revenge. (There's more, but this is the quick and dirty.)
Of the 7 main characters, Scorpion and Sub-Zero become hugely popular with fans. In Mortal Kombat II, we are told that Scorpion killed Sub-Zero during the previous game, yet Sub-Zero is back. Upon completing the game with either Scorpion or Sub-Zero, we learn that this new Sub-Zero is the younger brother of the original, and that Scorpion has chosen/been assigned to protect the new Sub-Zero, as penance for murdering his brother. (If this doesn't make sense to you, don't worry--Mortal Kombat is notoriously underwritten and subject to frequent retroactive story changes. I've been playing for 15 years and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.) So Scorpion and Sub-Zero, once mortal enemies, are now friends, and remain hugely popular. However, from a pure narrative standpoint, their storyline is finished. There's no real place for their characters to go, even if they're popular.
Mortal Kombat 3 rolls around, and the creators want to do something new with the series, so they massively alter the game's aesthetics, dump several popular cast members, bring back some unpopular ones from the first game, etc. Scorpion is missing entirely. Sub-Zero returns with a newly heroic storyline and a new costume. The fans HATE this, and an upgrade is soon released that reintroduces Scorpion and "Classic" Sub-Zero. The storyline is even less clear than before, but the fans seem pleased.
Nonetheless, the series is running out of steam, and facing complaints that the dark feel of the early games has been ceded to an over-the-top, Wile E. Coyote kind of violence. So in Mortal Kombat 4, the series goes back to basics. Sub-Zero is back in his original uniform, and Scorpion is back, once again trying to kill Sub-Zero. (This story essentially pretends the events in MKII didn't happen, and the creators mumble some bullshit about hypothetical continuities instead of hiring a writer to connect these stories in a way that makes some degree of sense.) At the end of the game, Scorpion befriends Sub-Zero again, and embarks on a quest for vengeance against Quan Chi, who was setting him up. In the next game (Deadly Alliance), Scorpion and Sub-Zero are still around, but each is involved in a different web of alliances and rivalries.
This is one of the more famous examples, but the genre abounds with characters who are set up as foils to one another, babyfaces and heels, who swap their rivalries and moral status with every game. I'm not familiar with the storylines running in the recent WWE, but in the things we've watched, there seem to be some similarities. What's most interesting about this is that, while reviewers and academics generally treat fighting game storylines as epiphenomenal, the players care deeply about them--which also seems consistent with the way wrestling fans and cultural critics seem to view pro wrestling.
That's it for now. Laundry to do.
How story functions in videogames is kind of a hot topic in critical circles, and no genre makes story more problematic than what are generally called fighting games, i.e. games in which two characters (one or both of which controlled by a human) with complex controls beat and/or kill each other. There realism varies from game to game, but most involve a heavy dose of fantasy--demons, people throwing fire from their hands, or just martial artists who regularly defy the laws of physics and biology. These games are, by almost any standard, sports games, but designers have been cramming character storylines and rivalries into them almost since the beginning.
The archetypal example for this, in my opinion, would be Mortal Kombat, a series that began in 1992, and released its 7th canonical iteration last year. The game could best be described as Enter the Dragon if it were a superhero comic: mysterious tournament, 7 contestants with different fantastic powers, and a lot of people getting killed. Two of the contestants, Sub-Zero and Scorpion, are dressed identically except for the colors of their uniforms. Sub-Zero, dressed in black and blue, uses ice-based attacks, while Scorpion, dressed in black and yellow, executes his opponents by breathing fire. So, just looking at these two characters at work, we already have a vague relationship between the characters, similarities (appearance) and differences (elemental opposition). When the game is not being played, the "attract" screen displays biographical information on all the characters, although Scorpion and Sub-Zero are both described in very vague terms. We know that Sub-Zero is an assassin, and Scorpion, for some reason, seems to dislike him very much. Upon completing the game with Scorpion, we find that Sub-Zero killed Scorpion a year before the tournament, and Scorpion made a deal with a/the devil to exact revenge. (There's more, but this is the quick and dirty.)
Of the 7 main characters, Scorpion and Sub-Zero become hugely popular with fans. In Mortal Kombat II, we are told that Scorpion killed Sub-Zero during the previous game, yet Sub-Zero is back. Upon completing the game with either Scorpion or Sub-Zero, we learn that this new Sub-Zero is the younger brother of the original, and that Scorpion has chosen/been assigned to protect the new Sub-Zero, as penance for murdering his brother. (If this doesn't make sense to you, don't worry--Mortal Kombat is notoriously underwritten and subject to frequent retroactive story changes. I've been playing for 15 years and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.) So Scorpion and Sub-Zero, once mortal enemies, are now friends, and remain hugely popular. However, from a pure narrative standpoint, their storyline is finished. There's no real place for their characters to go, even if they're popular.
Mortal Kombat 3 rolls around, and the creators want to do something new with the series, so they massively alter the game's aesthetics, dump several popular cast members, bring back some unpopular ones from the first game, etc. Scorpion is missing entirely. Sub-Zero returns with a newly heroic storyline and a new costume. The fans HATE this, and an upgrade is soon released that reintroduces Scorpion and "Classic" Sub-Zero. The storyline is even less clear than before, but the fans seem pleased.
Nonetheless, the series is running out of steam, and facing complaints that the dark feel of the early games has been ceded to an over-the-top, Wile E. Coyote kind of violence. So in Mortal Kombat 4, the series goes back to basics. Sub-Zero is back in his original uniform, and Scorpion is back, once again trying to kill Sub-Zero. (This story essentially pretends the events in MKII didn't happen, and the creators mumble some bullshit about hypothetical continuities instead of hiring a writer to connect these stories in a way that makes some degree of sense.) At the end of the game, Scorpion befriends Sub-Zero again, and embarks on a quest for vengeance against Quan Chi, who was setting him up. In the next game (Deadly Alliance), Scorpion and Sub-Zero are still around, but each is involved in a different web of alliances and rivalries.
This is one of the more famous examples, but the genre abounds with characters who are set up as foils to one another, babyfaces and heels, who swap their rivalries and moral status with every game. I'm not familiar with the storylines running in the recent WWE, but in the things we've watched, there seem to be some similarities. What's most interesting about this is that, while reviewers and academics generally treat fighting game storylines as epiphenomenal, the players care deeply about them--which also seems consistent with the way wrestling fans and cultural critics seem to view pro wrestling.
That's it for now. Laundry to do.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Introduction and Thoughts on Molinaro Readings
My name is Michael Wehrman. I'm a Ph.D. Candidate in sociology at the University of Cincinnati. My only foray into pro wrestling as a scholar is a working paper that I'll be presenting at the joint North Central Sociological Association/Midwest Sociological Society conference in April. Briefly, I examine the frequency of early deaths among pro wrestlers, and try to compare that to ages at death in the past, as well as early deaths of other professional athletes.
My academic interests lie in criminology and corrections, social inequality and social psychology; however, that's likely to be the last you'll hear of that this term. I hope to provide a sociological perspective to the readings and thoughts on the topics of discussion.
Although my academic interests lie elsewhere, I have remained a huge fan of professional wrestling for most of my life. I've long argued that, unlike the more popular book on soccer by Franklin Foer, it is truly pro wrestling that can explain the world. At any rate, I'll do my best to subdue the fan enough that I can contribute to the discourse in this class.
Now, with regard to the readings from yesterday, historical accounts of wrestling always strike me in a peculiar way. Because of the progression with which carnival strongman contests became "sports entertainment," it's hard to tell where the dividing line is when wrestling became "fake." There are a number of reasons for this, including the believability of the characters, the attitudes they conveyed in and out of the ring, the cultural resonance their hometown region or ethnic ancestry helped them bond with or run up against the fans, and so forth. Ultimately, I think that we'll never find a single moment when wrestling became a work - whether it's Lewis v Stecher or something prior to that. But the important thing to keep in mind are the deep performances of the wrestlers - at no point were these wrestlers "out of character." It was a vastly different business then, but as the Kerrick lingo shows, wrestlers are in the business of "selling" you the match, which involves everything from the persons involved to the premise to the buildup to the match(es).
While I'm not ready to make a giant leap 90 years to today and claim that "wrestling was better then because the wrestlers were more believable," I will claim that those wrestlers who are successful today are those who tend to exhibit characters who are (1) multilayered and (2) "worn" 24/7. No different than the grapplers of the past, the most popular guys, loved or hated, are those who the fans "buy" as legitimate characters - Steve Austin, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, The Undertaker, and so forth. Yes, even the Undertaker (proving that one does not have to have an "average joe" name and no facepaint/mask/lavish garb to be perceived as legitimate. Although looking back on wrestling of the past (heck, even 11 years ago), we find a remarkably different product, except in its construction. Let us keep in mind that as much as the presentation of the product changes, it's ultimately the same now as it was 90 years ago at its very core.
My academic interests lie in criminology and corrections, social inequality and social psychology; however, that's likely to be the last you'll hear of that this term. I hope to provide a sociological perspective to the readings and thoughts on the topics of discussion.
Although my academic interests lie elsewhere, I have remained a huge fan of professional wrestling for most of my life. I've long argued that, unlike the more popular book on soccer by Franklin Foer, it is truly pro wrestling that can explain the world. At any rate, I'll do my best to subdue the fan enough that I can contribute to the discourse in this class.
Now, with regard to the readings from yesterday, historical accounts of wrestling always strike me in a peculiar way. Because of the progression with which carnival strongman contests became "sports entertainment," it's hard to tell where the dividing line is when wrestling became "fake." There are a number of reasons for this, including the believability of the characters, the attitudes they conveyed in and out of the ring, the cultural resonance their hometown region or ethnic ancestry helped them bond with or run up against the fans, and so forth. Ultimately, I think that we'll never find a single moment when wrestling became a work - whether it's Lewis v Stecher or something prior to that. But the important thing to keep in mind are the deep performances of the wrestlers - at no point were these wrestlers "out of character." It was a vastly different business then, but as the Kerrick lingo shows, wrestlers are in the business of "selling" you the match, which involves everything from the persons involved to the premise to the buildup to the match(es).
While I'm not ready to make a giant leap 90 years to today and claim that "wrestling was better then because the wrestlers were more believable," I will claim that those wrestlers who are successful today are those who tend to exhibit characters who are (1) multilayered and (2) "worn" 24/7. No different than the grapplers of the past, the most popular guys, loved or hated, are those who the fans "buy" as legitimate characters - Steve Austin, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, The Undertaker, and so forth. Yes, even the Undertaker (proving that one does not have to have an "average joe" name and no facepaint/mask/lavish garb to be perceived as legitimate. Although looking back on wrestling of the past (heck, even 11 years ago), we find a remarkably different product, except in its construction. Let us keep in mind that as much as the presentation of the product changes, it's ultimately the same now as it was 90 years ago at its very core.
The Four-Way Ladder Match
I thought the ladder match was brutal- not necessarily because of how many stiff-looking moves there were, but because of the inherent problem of having lots of people in the ring, lots of metal lying around, and lots of aerial moves. As we saw with Joey Mercury's fairly horrific face-plant onto the metal, one unlucky fall in a ring full of ladders is going to mess you up pretty badly. I wonder how many of these matches would actually happen if the wrestlers had a bit more freedom to decide what they would and would not do, because there certainly seem to be plenty of specialty matches that don't jeopardize the wrestlers' health so much.
Even worse, Mercury was back almost immediately on TV wrestling with a mask. I understand the added pressure for him to be working, given that he spent 3-6 months in rehab last year, but it's hard to believe that he would be out there if he had some bargaining power (rather than being the sometime tag team partner of Johnny Nitro, whose future and marketability seem far brighter than Mercury's). I know it's a smart booking move to work injuries into the storyline, but this just seems like yet another example of the unbelievable control WWE has over its "independent contractors".
Even worse, Mercury was back almost immediately on TV wrestling with a mask. I understand the added pressure for him to be working, given that he spent 3-6 months in rehab last year, but it's hard to believe that he would be out there if he had some bargaining power (rather than being the sometime tag team partner of Johnny Nitro, whose future and marketability seem far brighter than Mercury's). I know it's a smart booking move to work injuries into the storyline, but this just seems like yet another example of the unbelievable control WWE has over its "independent contractors".
Getting Started
Our pro wrestling class had its first sessions yesterday afternoon, in which we started a preliminary discussion about the world of pro wrestling. It was nice to have a room full of MIT (and Harvard and Emerson) folks who were eager to discuss. During our first session, we watched an example of contemporary pro wrestling--a four-way tag team ladder match with WWE performers The Hardy Boyz, MNM, William Regal and Dave Taylor, and Paul London and Brian Kendrick.
In our analysis of that match, we discussed the dangers of wrestling performance, the tension between athletics and drama, the difficulty in fully understanding wrestling performances when they are pulled from the contexts of the storylines surrounding them, and a variety of initial observations about the business.
We also started watching the documentary The Unreal Story of Professional Wrestling, which initially aired on A&E in 1998. Our second class session is today, when we will be finishing that documentary.
In addition, the students in the class are reading the opening chapter of Morton and O'Brien's Wrestling to Rasslin, which looks at the ancient roots of professional wrestling and its pre-television history in America, from P.T. Barnum and William Muldoon to George Hackenschmidt and Frank Gotch, as well as reading brief profiles of Hackenschmidt, Gotch, and Ed "Strangler" Lewis from John Molinaro's The Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time and George Kerrick's short piece on the jargon involved in professional wrestling, which he wrote for American Speech in 1980.
Look forward to discussing some of these initial readings and viewings over the next few days here on the blog, and we welcome some of our cohorts from abroad, as well as any other interested folks who want to talk about the colorful world of pro wrestling.
In our analysis of that match, we discussed the dangers of wrestling performance, the tension between athletics and drama, the difficulty in fully understanding wrestling performances when they are pulled from the contexts of the storylines surrounding them, and a variety of initial observations about the business.
We also started watching the documentary The Unreal Story of Professional Wrestling, which initially aired on A&E in 1998. Our second class session is today, when we will be finishing that documentary.
In addition, the students in the class are reading the opening chapter of Morton and O'Brien's Wrestling to Rasslin, which looks at the ancient roots of professional wrestling and its pre-television history in America, from P.T. Barnum and William Muldoon to George Hackenschmidt and Frank Gotch, as well as reading brief profiles of Hackenschmidt, Gotch, and Ed "Strangler" Lewis from John Molinaro's The Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time and George Kerrick's short piece on the jargon involved in professional wrestling, which he wrote for American Speech in 1980.
Look forward to discussing some of these initial readings and viewings over the next few days here on the blog, and we welcome some of our cohorts from abroad, as well as any other interested folks who want to talk about the colorful world of pro wrestling.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Learning from a distance
My name is Kathe Lowney; I'm a professor of sociology in South Georgia. I study pop culture, social problems, gender, and for the last about six years, professional wrestling. You'll be reading one article that I wrote - about the WWE's response to criticism by the Parents Television Council later in the term. Had hoped to come to your class during my spring break, but am unable to -- so I am excited to get invited to the blog conversations.
Hope to learn, share, and just talk wrestling.
Hope to learn, share, and just talk wrestling.
Correspondence Learning
Hi! My name's Henry. Yes, Henry Jenkins. No, not that Henry Jenkins. I'm Professor Jenkins' son, Henry IV. I just graduated from the University of Arizona with a self-designed interdisciplinary degree in Transmedia Studies and I'm waiting to hear back from grad schools so I know where I'm going next fall. Though I'm not a student at MIT - and in fact am currently in Tucson, not Cambridge - I'm participating in Sam's class in an honorary, long distance capacity and plan to visit a few times during the semester. I'm a life long wrestling fan. I started watching the NWA (and soon the WWF and WCW) in 1990 while spending the night at a friend's house, I soon started going to the monthly events at the Boston Gardens with my dad and over the years I've gone through quite a love/hate relationship with Vince McMahon's sometimes offensive, constantly repetitious, often maddening but none the less intoxicating brand of live storytelling. My Sophomore year of college I wrote an essay about my experiences as a fan called Growing Up and Growing More Risque, published in Nicholas Sammond's Steel Chair to the Head: The Pleasure and Pain of Professional Wrestling, which you'll read later in the semester. Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself since I'll probably be one of the few people on the blog who's not in the class. I look forward to meeting all of you when I'm through town and I hope you have some really excellent discussions this semester.
Henry
Henry
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)