The W
Views: 99070535
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.9.14 1307
The W - Pro Wrestling - the mark view vs the smark view Redux
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(9018 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (10 total)
jdw
Loukanika








Since: 21.2.03
From: SoCal

Since last post: 3776 days
Last activity: 3776 days
#1 Posted on
Poking around here for Brew Guy's report from last week, I came across...

"I have never really fully meet a cynmark until I went to TOA and came here. Please believe when I say I fear for us all if we become as bad as TOA."
-A Fan, the mark view vs the smark view
http://wienerboard.com/thread.php/id=10574#128836

So I was wondering what "cynamarks" are, as defined by A Fan. Later in the thread:

"I think there is two types of wrestling fans now a days: Smarks and Cynmarks. You can have the casual wrestling fan, but they are starting to die out.

Cynmarks are guys who are purest. They love Benoit, Angel and anyone that outright wrestle. Yet, they hate Rock, Austin and Booker T, because they are not pure wreslters."

If this applies to the "bad" folks at tOA, you're greatly mistaken. I think there are a number of readers and posters here who are also regular readers of tOA. They can let you know that there were no biggest supporters of Austin in 2001 that the good people of tOA, to the point of regularly ridiculing Meltzer offering up Goofy Keiji Mutoh as a better WOTY candidate than old Stone Cold. Last year, just about the only wrestler that tOA had a bigger hardon for than Booker was his partner Goldust. Hell, they both got far more love at tOA than Benoit, and especially Kurt Angle, who isn't rated as highly on tOA as in most places. As for Rock, tOA loved Rock all the way back to his days in the Nation, and you'll find on tOA more than one poster who thought that Rock vs. Hogan was the 2002 MOTY.

We at tOA are some cynical bastards. But it would be best to try to slap us around with some examples that are *true*.

"Add in the fact that smarks and casual fans love those guys is more of the primary reason. Cynmarks are the guys that take the internet as gospel and go on message boards to trash smarks and the WWE."

I can't speak for alleged cynmarks elsewhere, but the folks at tOA are just about the made jaded bastards _about the Internet_ that you're going to find. We've shit on just about everyone over the years. We take the internet about as seriously as we do Meltzer and Keller these days - with critical eyes.


"They find no good in anything even though Angel has the belt and they are starting to push the younger guys on Raw."

I know this is a bit old, but are those "younger guys" on Raw champion Trip and his challengers this year of Scott Steiner, Booker T and Kevin Nash, all past 35 and mostly into their 40s?

"They also worship Scott Keith."

tOA coined the phrase "The Idiot SKeith". If tOA worships SKeith, than the Titanic made it safely to port.


"The old wrestling days where so much better than now its possible to compare even though the main events on Raw and Smackdown are fans wet dreams come true."

If the main events on Raw and SmackDown, and on the PPVs and house shows, are fans wet dreams come true, why are ratings, buyrates and house show attendence down from 1998-2000?

As far as my own wet dreams, the main events of Raw, SmackDown, the PPVs and house shows are far from my wet dream. Ginger Lynn is.

"Smarks are guys who enjoy the product no matter what."

I tend to think those are idiots. You're telling me that if next week's Raw had Stevie Ray vs. Bob Holly or
Konnan vs. Billy Gunn as the main event, you'd enjoy it no matter what?


"They are entertained by almost everyone including HHH to a point."

So then why have fans been leaving the product for the past two and a half years?


"They do got the internet sites, read the spoilers, discuss with their friends and still watch Smackdown."

That sort of sounds like some of us on tOA as well.

"They are intrigued by the politics, but when Raw is on the politics is thrown out of the window."

It's hard to when, while on vacation last year, I got to watch someone hand Triple H a world title out of thin air.

"They can find at least two or three things liked about the show."

I usually do as well. Sometimes it's just a good camera shot by Production, but I take what I can get.

"They not easily entertained by everything, but they can mark out for stuff cynmarks will give ** to."

I long ago gave up giving snowflakes to things WWE. It made my head hurt.

That said, I spent most of last year entertained by BookDust even when they were being given shit to read, or being sent out there to put over the nWo.

Marking out for Vince "injecting the nWo poison" into the WWF was something I couldn't do. Lots of WWF fans had problems with it as well, it seems.


"They are there for the fun and passion of it rather than the wrestling and the bitching for bitching sake mentality of the cynmarks."

You seem to miss the point that some of us have "fun" with our "passionate" bitching for bitching sake posts.

"I'd like to say I'm a smark. Yes, I hate HHH's politics, but I marked out huge for Austin/HBK just sharing a screen togeter."

I got over Shawn long ago. Dole had just lost his run for president that last time he did something I really enjoyed. His sharing the screen with Austin only serves to drag Steve down... not that Steve needs a lot of help right now since he doesn't seem too into his work other than the drinking part.


"Its all a matter of taste yet both fans will stay with the product no matter what."

There you're wrong. Fans have been leaving for sometime.


"They are devoted as any other fan to their sport."

Which is a problematic analogy. Track team attendence through the years. It comes, and it goes. Sometimes for good. Wrestling has had the same thing. Afterall, is there a WCW anymore?


"Every sport has these types of fans. You have the guy screaming plays from his couch to the guy who sit backs and enjoys watching someone playing the game."

You'll find very few sports fans who sit back and enjoy watching someone play the game when the team he's rooting for is losing. For the most part, those are casual fans. People like my mother when my dad had season tickets to the Dodgers. She really *wasn't* a big baseball fan, nor really followed the team very closely. She just liked the night out at the park, and didn't care who won or lost, or even if the game was any good. Most fans with the "enjoyed watching someone playing the game" attitude fall into that category.

A small percentage of fans "enjoyed watching someone playing the game" and don't really care which team wins are among the hardest of the hardcore fans, and something closer to what you call cynmarks. They don't really give a crap about teams anymore, but pull for certain players who facinate them. They could watch a whole shitty game be played and not mind as long as their attention on Bonds, Durham and Alfonzo parts in the game were compelling. In essence, like a fan into Kawada, Benoit and Eddy - the rest of the card can be crap, but give me a couple of good matches/plate appearances by my favorites. Those are the *someone* they're enjoying watching, and they cringe their teeth when Santiago or Grissom comes up.

I'll confess I have a bit of that in me in watching some games. I have teams I care a great deal about (the Lakers, the Braves, ManU, Duke, etc.). But I also have some teams I don't really care about (or strongly dislike because they're rivals to a team I care about). Let's call them Arsenal. That said, I can total get off watch Bergkamp play, just as I have over the past decade of watching him. Dittos Viera in the middle, especially when he was partnering several years back with Pettit. Anelka is a joy to watch as he's developed many of the same passing skills I love in Bergkamp. And on and on with that team. I can't really root for them to win, unless ManU is comfortably ahead of them in the table. But there do play a game that I can sit back and enjoy.

On the other hand, it would probably take Ginger Lynn down on all fours to tempt me into watching the MLS. I find it unwatchable futbol.


"A Fan- In the end, we are all fans."

Yeah, I said as much back on RSP-W back in 1996 when Jeff Amdur was trying the "we are all marks" line. I've always found the marks, smarks and now this cynmarks labels to be silly. We're fans.


John
Promote this thread!
darkmatcher
Bockwurst








Since: 12.2.03
From: New York, USA

Since last post: 2643 days
Last activity: 1719 days
#2 Posted on

    Originally posted by jdw


    I know this is a bit old, but are those "younger guys" on Raw champion Trip and his challengers this year of Scott Steiner, Booker T and Kevin Nash, all past 35 and mostly into their 40s?




    Trips is 33. And Booker being past 35 means he's no longer good to run for the title? He's still relatively young to the WWE, especially compared to Trips, so why should that matter?
    Reminds me of when someone called Dawn Marie 'sexy, despite her age'(ripe old 32). Is there some unwritten rule that turning 30 makes you too old and washed up for anything?






    fear hamburglar...
Jackson
Sujuk








Since: 4.1.02

Since last post: 1957 days
Last activity: 1482 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.10
Speaking of old and washed up, GInger Lynn? Get real. There must be hundreds of hotter new porn stars out there. Not that I would watch such filth myself but you get the point.



jdw
Loukanika








Since: 21.2.03
From: SoCal

Since last post: 3776 days
Last activity: 3776 days
#4 Posted on
darkmatcher
"Trips is 33."

The 35+ comment was aimed at the challengers. I wouldn't consider Trip two months shy of 34 as being "young".

"And Booker being past 35 means he's no longer good to run for the title?"

Not at all. I just don't see pushing a 38 year old to the title as pushing someone "young".


"He's still relatively young to the WWE, especially compared to Trips, so why should that matter?"

Realatively young compared to Trip when he's four years older? I must have missed that day in math class.

"Reminds me of when someone called Dawn Marie 'sexy, despite her age'(ripe old 32)."

I think Dawn looks like crap, and age has little to do with it. I liked Liz when she was older.


"Is there some unwritten rule that turning 30 makes you too old and washed up for anything?"

Not at all. It's just the word "young" was being used.

I just don't see the Raw roster as "young", especially in guys pushed. Flair is over 50. Steiner and Nash are over 40, with Nash closing in on 45. Booker is closing in on 38. Michaels was the challenger before those guys, and he was 37 and out of the game for years. Goldberg is the next challenger (until Trip changes that plan), and he's 36. Kane was the challenger before Shawn, and he was 34 at the time. Not "old", but clearly not young, and he's main evented in the company since 1997, so he's not exactly "fresh". Storm is now 34, Jericho is 32, RVD is 31... they're not "young", though all have more left in the tank that many of those mentioned earlier.

Who's "young"?

Christian is 29. He really isn't getting any more of a push either at the time the post was made or now than he's seen over the past four years.

Hurrican is 28, closing on 29. He's got the same comedy push he's had for a year.

Test is 28. Same push he's had for ages. He seemed to have more of a push back when "engaged" to Steph. His current push has more to do with banging Stacy than anything else.

Maven is 26... where is Maven?

Nowinski is 24. Mostly stuck in a spinning his wheels push.

Orton is 22 and out hurt. Don't know how old Batista is. They both would be getting pushes as Trip's side kicks had they not been hurt.

If anything, Raw is going backwards in pushing young guys to the top:

* RVD (12/18/71)
* Kane (04/26/68)
* Shawn (07/22/65)
* Steiner (07/29/62)
* Booker (05/01/65)
* Nash (07/09/58)

It's getting older and older from last year. Goldberg will drop it down, but he's older than Kane and RVD.

SmackDown *is* pushing some younger guys, in addition to all the Hogan and Vince stuff. But Trip and Raw really aren't doing much in that direction.


John
Venom
Boudin rouge








Since: 15.1.03

Since last post: 2572 days
Last activity: 2543 days
#5 Posted on
Age doesn't have anything to do with it. It's about pushing something new and different and not relying on the same guys who've been around for the past 5 years and aren't drawing anymore.




Number One In Da Hood, G
darkmatcher
Bockwurst








Since: 12.2.03
From: New York, USA

Since last post: 2643 days
Last activity: 1719 days
#6 Posted on
Realatively young compared to Trip when he's four years older? I must have missed that day in math class.--

I meant newer to the company, as in Book debuting with WWF in 2001, Trips in '95.

As far as the young comment, could you honestly expect to see a 22 year-old champ? I don't know, I'd expect and prefer a world champion to have plenty of experience and establishment. Not to mention, its difficult load carrying a federation at such a young age, and then what'll be left for the guy in 5-10 years?

Wanting new and different I understand, which is what guys like Booker T are to the WWF/E. But I understand the sentiment for wanting someone different. It just shouldn't matter if the guy is 33 or 23, as long as he's doing a good job.





fear hamburglar...
RabitHead
Loukanika








Since: 30.4.03
From: Frankfort, Kentucky, USA

Since last post: 4140 days
Last activity: 3819 days
#7 Posted on
:::Age doesn't have anything to do with it. It's about pushing something new and different and not relying on the same guys who've been around for the past 5 years and aren't drawing anymore:::

Uhhh. . . HHH/Nash is your Bad Blood main event. Maybe you meant eight years ago, back when Nash was WWF champion. Nash is one of the poorest drawing world champs of any time. Trips may give Nash a run for his money when it is all said and done. Trips has also been with WWE since the mid 1990's, though it took him until 1999 to become a main event playa.

Also, age is clearly a factor with Booker, he's pushing 40, and has said he's only in wrestling for the next 1.5 years (though we've heard that before). Therefore, as much as I like Book, it's silly to build the future around him when he could very well be done by the end of next year. That's why it was beyond stupid not to put Book over at WM and give him a solid run with the title. Trip/Goldberg didn't need the Title Belt to make the feud a big deal. A World Title feud between Booker and Jericho means more than a regular old "roll Booker and Jericho out to fill 15 minutes on the PPV", match. But, I digress. . .

-Chad

(edited by RabitHead on 20.5.03 0913)
Venom
Boudin rouge








Since: 15.1.03

Since last post: 2572 days
Last activity: 2543 days
#8 Posted on

    Originally posted by RabitHead
    :::Age doesn't have anything to do with it. It's about pushing something new and different and not relying on the same guys who've been around for the past 5 years and aren't drawing anymore:::

    Uhhh. . . HHH/Nash is your Bad Blood main event. Maybe you meant eight years ago, back when Nash was WWF champion. Nash is one of the poorest drawing world champs of any time. Trips may give Nash a run for his money when it is all said and done. Trips has also been with WWE since the mid 1990's, though it took him until 1999 to become a main event playa.

    Also, age is clearly a factor with Booker, he's pushing 40, and has said he's only in wrestling for the next 1.5 years (though we've heard that before). Therefore, as much as I like Book, it's silly to build the future around him when he could very well be done by the end of next year. That's why it was beyond stupid not to put Book over at WM and give him a solid run with the title. Trip/Goldberg didn't need the Title Belt to make the feud a big deal. A World Title feud between Booker and Jericho means more than a regular old "roll Booker and Jericho out to fill 15 minutes on the PPV", match. But, I digress. . .

    -Chad

    (edited by RabitHead on 20.5.03 0913)



Nash has been around for 8 years as a main-eventer...Triple H has been around for 4...5 years is just a rough figure...the point is, they're not drawing now so why not give someone else a shot at the title? Is there a reason why Booker T or RVD couldn't be given a main-event run longer than 4 weeks? I guarentee they can't be any worse than Nash and they MAY even pop a buyrate higher than he would.

Again, it's not AGE...is about being something new and different. Benoit is pushing 40 too I believe, and he can still GO in the ring...why not give him a run with title?




Number One In Da Hood, G
RabitHead
Loukanika








Since: 30.4.03
From: Frankfort, Kentucky, USA

Since last post: 4140 days
Last activity: 3819 days
#9 Posted on
:::Is there a reason why Booker T or RVD couldn't be given a main-event run longer than 4 weeks? I guarentee they can't be any worse than Nash and they MAY even pop a buyrate higher than he would.:::

Part of WWE's problem is they need to build for the future, unfortunately, Booker may not be around more than through next year. I agree that Booker should have gotten a run on top to see if he could draw while HHH could kill Goldberg's career. That didn't happen, at this point, there's nothing much to gain because Booker very well may be done sooner rather than later.

:::Again, it's not AGE...is about being something new and different. Benoit is pushing 40 too I believe, and he can still GO in the ring...why not give him a run with title?:::

New and different does not always equal good. Russo's WCW was often new and different and it was often shitty. The reason why "young" often crops up is there's no one outside of Lesnar (and even though he's the real deal as far as fans seeming to take him as such, there's no solid proof people want to pay and see him) and maybe Cena, who I can see main eventing WWE cards five years from now.

Hunter could blow up at any time. Big Show's back is already starting to go. Undertaker can't make it for too much longer (I hope). Kurt Angle's neck is shot and this Jho surgery could likely just be duct tape over a hose that's ready to blow. Rock may be a full-time actor any day. Austin is already done. Benoit could be done at any time as the long term results of wrestling after neck fusion don't look so good. Plug Edge in there with Benoit, Rhyno too. Christian is too funny to be taken as a serious main event threat, though he could be rebuilt. This new Christian is too creepy because he looks like Jeff Jarrett. Kane may still be around, but he's upper-midcard for life.

Goldberg will probably be done in one or two years, also.

Point is, while I agree WWE needs "new and different" and "young" they need to be careful about it. The Natural Born Thrillers were both of the above, but did nothing for WCW's business, it continued to tank. I'm as big a Booker fan as anyone, but since WWE has made the commitment to stay with HHH at least through the summer and probably beyond, there's no point to do it now unless he shows some commitment to sticking around past next year.

Looking at OVW, there's not a helluva lot of talent down there I see making any real impact in the future. Damaja is great for the local fans in Jeffersonville, IN, but has no national appeal whatsoever. Dinsmore, Conway and Basham are technically sound, but boring as hell. Everyone else is too small for WWE to take seriously except Matt Morgan who while big is also too milquetoasty.

Rob Van Dam, ecchh, I don't see it. WWE probably should've struck while the iron was hot with him back in 2001.

-Chad


(edited by RabitHead on 20.5.03 1229)
Venom
Boudin rouge








Since: 15.1.03

Since last post: 2572 days
Last activity: 2543 days
#10 Posted on

    Originally Posted by Rabithead
    Part of WWE's problem is they need to build for the future, unfortunately, Booker may not be around more than through next year. I agree that Booker should have gotten a run on top to see if he could draw while HHH could kill Goldberg's career. That didn't happen, at this point, there's nothing much to gain because Booker very well may be done sooner rather than later.


Booker's retirement talk is mainly due to the fact that he doesn't think he's going anywhere in his career. Thus, the WWE is de-pushing him for those exact reasons you're listing. Thus, he's not going anywhere and wants to retire, continuing the vicious cycle. I guarentee you, if the WWE handed Booker the belt and pushed him in the main-event, he'd scrap his retirement plans. He hasn't had a lot of injuries, can still go to a good extent in the ring, and has the charisma to get over. It's not like he's 46 and being held together by pins and needles.

However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point was, with the ratings and buyrates being exactly shit, why not try something different? There's no reason to keep the belt on Triple H when he's not drawing. I think you misinterpreted my first post and thought I was DEFENDING the Triple H/Nash fiasco.


    Originally Posted by RabitHead
    New and different does not always equal good. Russo's WCW was often new and different and it was often shitty. The reason why "young" often crops up is there's no one outside of Lesnar (and even though he's the real deal as far as fans seeming to take him as such, there's no solid proof people want to pay and see him) and maybe Cena, who I can see main eventing WWE cards five years from now.


True, new and different is not guarenteed to be good. It is, however, the only way to find out what the fans want and what needs to be done to fix the product. Right now, Vince can't figure out what the audience wants, so his solution is to keep the same old shit on TV and hope everyone goes full circle. The only way you can find the next Rock or Austin is to give someone else a chance and a push and hope it works. If it doesn't, cycle them out and try someone else. Business can't get much worse at this point, so why not take a chance?


    Originally Posted by Rabithead
    Point is, while I agree WWE needs "new and different" and "young" they need to be careful about it. The Natural Born Thrillers were both of the above, but did nothing for WCW's business, it continued to tank.


The problem with the Natural Born Thrillers is that, while they were different and young and new, there wasn't any reason for the fans to care about them. WCW shoved a group of guys out there and said "okay, here you go smart marks." Of course that wouldn't translate into an upturn in business. You can't just stick random people out there and hope for the best. They needed characters or a drive for people to respond to. I would also add that WCW was dead long before they debuted, with Hogan and Nash destroying the company through most of 1999.

One of the WWE's biggest problems nowadays is that they translate "getting ass kicked by bigger star" into "getting pushed." How is anyone supposed to take the midcard seriously when they are routinely getting stomped to death by Triple H/Undertaker/Big Show? Selling 2 minutes of offense for them in a match before beating the shit out of them for 4 more minutes isn't going to help anyone. Neither are fluke roll-ups and pins. You need to convince the audience that the Hurricane or Matt Hardy or Rey Mysterio are the next big thing.

The point is, fans need a reason to care about someone, and one of the big reasons Brock hasn't set the world on fire is because there's no reason for people to care about him. He's big and he beats people up. Woopty shit, there's only 15 others guys like him in the WWE and 100's more on the indy circuit. He needs a personality or a motivation to go out there night after night, rather than "BROCK ANGRY, BROCK SMASH!!!"




Number One In Da Hood, G
Pages: 1Thread ahead: “Wrestling Fans and Bill Goldberg”
Next thread: Line of the Night
Previous thread: O.K. So THAT'S why Ric Flair went over Hurricane last week!
(9018 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
And unlike McCool, she ate that move with a faceplant. She didn't soften the blow with her legs. Not sure if you necessarily get to make that choice yourself.
- JustinShapiro, SmackDown #611 5-6-11 (2011)
The W - Pro Wrestling - the mark view vs the smark view ReduxRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.407 seconds.