Talk:Professional wrestling/Archive 1

Early comments
I believe professional wrestling should have it's own wikisite as there are so many articles relating to it on wikipedia. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.207.220 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2005 (UTC)


 * There's enough material there, but you'd have to find a group of people willing to put in the massive amount of work that would entail. Personally, I think the existing section of the Wiki is sufficient. If there were a separate wikisite, the articles in the main Wiki might fall into disuse. --Chrysaor 16:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

-- FYI, there is one, found here, but not 100% sure how they're updating it. Perhaps there can be some cross-over? http://www.thewrestlingpedia.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

There is a new one just opened a few weeks ago I think http://www.PWpedia.com, There are several articles posted already.

Should there be a spoiler warning? :D --Cuervo 01:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Nature Boy
Nothing special about Ric Flair ?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.53.250.70 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bone to Pick
You say that the only two major promotions in North America are WWE and TNA but CMLL and AAA do business just as well as WWE and far better than TNA. Is this oversight or are we going with Canada and the U.S. as North America and Mexico in "Central America?"--Darren Jowalsen 03:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If the current page is incomplete or incorrect, fix it. Mexico definitely counts as North America. --Chrysaor 03:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers
I hope most people who work on the pro wrestling pages read this.

Please if you are going to post spoilers, (for example, SD! results before the episode airs) mark the article as such. I just learned of events about to happen on SD! via the Super Crazy page. Thank You

Links
I removed the "Wrestling Directory" link because many of the sites linked are either 404'd or domain catcher search engines.

NOT faked?
Let's be real. Wrestling is faked, in any context. The resentment of wrestling fans, and the wrestlers themselves, against the use of the word prior to the mainstream breaking of "kayfabe" (a carnie/wrestling term meaning BE FAKE) has carried over vestigially into modern times.

It's fake! In fact, wrestling's roots lie deep in swindles and confidence games. The entire business is based on lies and manipulation.

As far as the moves go, Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair are still going at it well into their 50s, and they've been "wrestling" continually for decades. Not to mention Moolah and Mae Young. In Mexico, there are several wrestling legends that have wrestled into their 60s. To be certain there are wrestlers who have had shortened careers due to botched moves or unsafe maneuvers, but stunt men can claim the same thing and nobody is saying that movies aren't fake.

Wrestling is fake, there's no way around it. (preceding unsigned comment by 64.171.5.116 (talk &bull; contribs) )


 * The article itself is quite specific about terms and definitions. I see no reason to alter it. Bad Wolf


 * What you mean to say is that the article claims wrestling is not fake, then uses sophistry to redefine fake so as to exclude what goes on in wrestling. I see a good reason to alter it.


 * To further clarify, this may appear to be just an issue of semantics -- but the denial of wrestling's fakeness has been conditioned into wrestling fans by the wrestling industry itself, which intentionally cultivates "marks". Many talk-show interviews from the 1970s through the early 1990s featured personalities from the world of wrestling, and "Is it fake?" was almost always a topic of discussion.  The wrestlers, maintaining kayfabe, would strive to communicate a negative answer without issuing an outright denial; their mealy-mouthed responses, when not reduced to mere violence against the accuser (as when Vader assaulted the Kuwaiti talk show host Bassam Al-Othman, on Gerald Brisco's orders), very much resemble the relevant text in this Wikipedia article.  Because this weak defense against the accusation of fakeness originates in the era when kayfabe (lying to the public) took precedence over even the wrestlers' - who were strongly encouraged to maintain kayfabe at all times - personal lives, when it's proffered today it rings hollow and arouses suspicion.  To deny wrestling's fakeness is to exhibit a fan's (or even insider's) bias, cf.:


 * ''"The word 'fake' is offensive [to wrestlers]." - Alan Sharp of WCW, quoted by Alex Marvez


 * "It's kind of beating a dead horse if you're talking about going out and saying wrestling's fake, or this or that. People don't want to hear that." - Owen Hart, interviewed by SLAM Wrestling


 * “Everyone always says they know wrestling is fake, but when they ask, they always say, “Wrestling’s fake, …isn’t it?” It’s that moment of doubt, that uncertainty we are trying to protect. As long as there is that moment of uncertainty we have them.” - Keith Hart, via Lance Storm


 * If wrestling isn't fake, I'd like the defenders of that perspective to explain Kayfabe, Calling Spots and Bumping, three concepts essential to professional wrestling which are not mentioned once in the main article. Kayfabe means to be fake, fer cryin' out loud!  I've seen Beyond the Mat, too, but the fact that wrestling is not a completely 100% artificial simulation doesn't redeem it from being fake.  As they say, the best lies are half-truths.


 * "Is wrestling fake? In a word, yes.  In many more words, yes, very, totally, completely, utterly fake." - Wrestling journalist Scott Keith, from the RSPW FAQ (circa 1998)


 * ""No, [wrestling]'s not real. I mean, if somebody believed that, they'd be stupid." - Pro-Wrestler Eddy Mansfield on 20/20


 * "Every once in a while efforts are made to kayfabe more, but I think that’s just silly. You can’t go back in the closet. The cat is out of the bag, for better or for worse." - Pro-Wrestler and trainer Lance Storm


 * Without delving into the issue of hooking, shooting or worked-shoots - three aspects of the business that could easily be defended as real - the fact is that wrestling is mostly predetermined, and that the wrestlers' job is to give the appearance of harming each other while actually striving to the best of their ability to protect the other wrestler from injury. If pro-wrestling isn't fake fighting, then what exactly would qualify as fake fighting?


 * "Fake" is inaccurate. When one wrestler chops another in the chest, it's not like he's missing. When one throws another, it's not all done with mirrors. "Staged" is more appropriate. The article as it stands is quite clear about this.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Fake" is perfectly accurate. It rubs wrestling fans the wrong way (and has for decades), owing to the practice of "kayfabe" (which, I reiterate, translates from carny-talk -- that is to say, the secret coded language used among wrestlers so as not to tip off the "rubes" -- as "BE FAKE").  The first definition of "fake" in my dictionary reads:

"To contrive and present as genuine"


 * Wrestling's fake. And about the chops and throws -- you're wrong, and you're a mark.  Almost every "throw" hold in pro-wrestling necessarily involves the total cooperation of the person being "thrown" - and in fact, the "throwee" (or "bumper") does the majority of the work in executing the move, contrary to your perception.


 * This is akin to suggesting that performance magic isn't "fake," because the rabbit the magician pulls out of his hat is alive and breathing.


 * Fine, if you think it's so "fake," get off your computer, get in a wrestling school, and go get in a wrestling ring with these guys to see for yourself that the moves do cause genuine pain and injury, and not just in the cases of accidents. No one is saying that there isn't any fiction in the world of professional wrestling, but calling it "fake" is too much of a disrespectful blanket statement when considering these verifiable facts. "Staged" or "simulated" are the more appropriate terms. Dismiss it as fake all you want, but these men certainly are real athletes.

''"If it's fake, I'd hate to see it become real." - Wrestler Kevin Nash on'' Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous &mdash; James26 02:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary definition
According to Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: fake Function: adjective Etymology: origin unknown = COUNTERFEIT, SHAM.

In turn,
 * COUNTERFEIT = 1 : made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive : FORGED

2 a : INSINCERE, FEIGNED b : IMITATION 
 * SHAM = 1. not genuine; FALSE, FEIGNED. 2. having such poor quality as to seem false.

Thus, the questions by extension are, is pro-wrestling 1) imitating or feigning something with the intent to deceive, 2) not genuine or having false-seeming quality?

In answering these, 1)' while pro-wrestling is certainly not sport wrestling, the former is clearly imitating the latter. However, is there an intent to deceive? That depends: do pro-wrestlers and their promoters attempt to pass themselves off as genuine-sport wrestlers during the time they are hired to be stage actors/performers in pro-wrestling? 2) Pro-wrestling has a false-seeming quality due to the exaggerated actions by the perfomers; no real-world wrestler or person acts in such clown-like fashions.

In review, pro-wrestling may potentially be considered "fake" depending on whether pro-wrestling actors claim to be sport wrestlers or merely entertainers (perhaps they claim to be both), but it is certainly "fake" with respect to its false-seeming quasi-wrestling quality. Shawnc 22:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Fake" is too strong a word. Almost everyone who watches wrestling knows that the results are pre-determind, that the wrestlers work together to execute moves that wouldn't be possible otherwise, etc. It's like a movie but nobody complains about movies being fake. In fact, wrestling is far more real than movies with almost all the in-ring been conducted in front of a live audience. Also, if you believe wrestlers do not get injured then you are either stupid or ignorant, possibly both. To try and put on a show of fighting without actually trying to hurt your oppenent in a live venue of 20,000 fans is as hard a job as you can get. "Staged" is by far more appropriate than "fake". Next time you watch a wrestling match watch for one of the wrestlers choping the other in the chest and try and tell me, without lying, that it does not hurt. Just becuase they both intend for this to be the action it does not mean that there's no pain. If you believe to the contrary then you are a fool. JW

'''Here's a point you're all missing by throwing around the word "fake" as if it were a semantics issue. Just as the word "Negro" is a completely viable and dictionary-correct word when describing an African-American, most African-Americans would find the use of the word maliciously disrespectful. There comes a point where word choice denotes not only the intention, but also suggests the speaker's opinions on the subject, and using the word "fake" to describe wrestling, suggests an automatic, typically uninformed disdain for wrestling. If one doesn't wish to seem ignorant and offensive, one would find a better term to describe wrestling's inherent falsehoods. Another point: nobody ever refers to Errol Flynn's sword fights as "fake", yet the process that created them is inherently similar to the one used to create wrestling spots. Jackie Chan actually gets applauded for doing his own stunts, and he is also doing practically the same thing to create his art as a wrestler does. The differece between these two examples, and a wrestler, is that wrestlers can work in front of a live audience, with no second takes in the case of someone messing up. With this in mind, it is easy to see the inherent bias that goes into calling wrestling "fake". -Z. Mann Zilla

you're pretty much an idiot if you think it's 100% fake. of course, it IS predetermined, and yes, a lot of the moves are "faked" in the sense that they require the cooperation of a victim. but, just look at a normal episode of RAW, listen to the chair shots, look at a normal ECW match, look at the injury list of mick foley, look at the 3 WM 22 matches, the hardcore match, HBK Vs VKM, MITB. how can you say those flames are fake? or the ladders? that lying on a table with a trashcan while getting elbow-dropped doesn't hurt? or just look at any TLC match. what do you mean those chops are fake? you can hear them over the whole arena. and they hardly present it as real competition nowadays. Lord revan 10:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Err, I'm sorry but, speaking as a random person surfing through wikipedia and falling upon this article by pure chance, when reading the article I got the impression that wrestling is pretty much real: "Besides the somewhat real violence..." If that doesn't boldly state that it is mostly real, I don't know what does. I also think that while the information that wrestlers don't like to be called "fake" should be inclosed, I don't see the necessity for the fact that they'll sometimes "offer these people a chance to step into the ring and do what they do on a nightly basis while trying to avoid injury to see for themselves just how 'fake' it really is." This statement shows a very emotional approach to the whole subject, it feels as if it's implying that not only is wrestling not fake, but if you disagree, you can proceed to the stage to be beaten to a pulp. Now, is "fake" the appropriate word? I think the best thing to do here is to view the wrestlers as actors, actors that perform their own stunts, sure -- but still actors. Would one call a movie, or a TV series "fake?" I believe that even if the word is technically correct, people wouldn't really use that word as it implies malicious intent. Instead I propose "acting." What do you guys think? 87.203.133.155 22:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. Calling Pro Wrestling "fake" would be like calling Soap Operas "fake". They're "staged" and "acted", not "fake". -Darryl Hamlin 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-wrestling has a false-seeming quality due to the exaggerated actions by the perfomers... but it is certainly "fake" with respect to its false-seeming quasi-wrestling quality. Shawnc"


 * I think you are all looking too much into American/WWE wrestling with this debate -- what most folk in the west/USA think pro-wrestling is. As it stands the article is pretty much rubbish as nothing about pro-wrestling has yet been covered. For instance the type of pro-wrestling in Japan was the starting point for hybrid fighting and mixed martial arts. You have pro-wrestling things like Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling that is anything but fake/staged/false.


 * Fighters like Kazushi Sakuraba cut his teeth in shoot-wrestling -- something that is part of pro-wrestling -- yet there is no hint of such details in the article. Shoot-style is never "false-seeming quasi-wrestling quality" with "exaggerated actions by the perfomers" as you write. It is a totally different beast to WWE wrestling. Both Japanese pro-wrestling and fighting combat sports are thought of as one thing over there.


 * In contrast, the Amercian wrestling (rather WWE) looked to take pro-wrestling in a totally different direction. This article covers no history on pro-wrestling or its diversity. The article should not be dominated by WWE/American style wrestling -- what most folk in the West think of when they hear wrestling. It needs major *researched* work and actually can be a very good page. The pointless rules that cover 3/4 of the current article is mostly irrelevant and only serves as a WWE rule-book. What use does these rules have regarding other pro-wrestling forms exactly? --Revolt 10:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Nobody takes the time to point out that movie stunts, Errol Flynn fights, and soap operas are fake BECAUSE these industries acknowledge themselves to BE fake; There is nothing like the concerted effort put forth by the professional wrestling industry to convince people that it is real (while speaking out of the other side of their mouths that, okay okay, it's staged). That is why this is a flawed comparison. It seems so obvious that it actually pains me to have to point it out. Nobody points out the fakeness of movies because there is no discussion TO BE HAD. Professional wrestling, on the other hand, forces the discussion on us. That is why reasonable people feel compelled to point out its "fakeness," whether some of the sports true fans acknowlege its fakeness or not. Also, the level of exertion of performers, the amount of pain they feel, and the athleticism of the performers is all beside the point. Some people posting comments here are far, far too emotionally invested. Nate

I agree with the above. Wrestlers are much more like stuntmen than athletes. Stuntmen can get hurt doing there jobs, but the things stuntmen do are calculated just like in wrestling. They are stuntmen putting on a fake show ,entertaining to some, but is fake. However they do a lot to make their "sport" look real, but these attempts are very fudal. If you ask a stuntmen wether the stuff he does is real, he wil most likely say no, but a wrestler will most likely get offended. RedHurricane 04:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no way that wrestlers are "more like stuntmen than athletes," especially not the ones who are drug-free. A wrestler's work requires constant weight-lifting, strength, and -- during the actual practice of wrestling -- stamina. --207.69.140.37 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If the acknowledgement of fake is one factor then alot of feds are justified. I read ROH for example does acknowledge kayfabe discussions outside of the actual show.

Is professional wrestling fake?

Yes, it is. I am under the belief that regardless of how real some parts are, if something is mildly fake about it then it should be acknowledge as fake.

Is it scripted entertainment?

Yes, it is also that.

Should there be a section about it being fake in wikipedia? No.

My reason: Wikipedia is edited by a lot of people. These people are often fans who have no more idea of how wrestling works than through reports or schools.

There's no proof that some of these fans have reach the ability of a guy like Bret Hart or Paul London to legitimately categorize what moves are fake and what moves are real due to the injury a person may receive.

Not to say that fake wrestling moves can't injure but like Bret said, things like skinning the cat make it look fake and make it seem like pro wrestling is more fake than real.

As far as context, I don't see how the use of the word fake can offend wrestling fans other than WWE fans. These are the same type of fans who brought up the matter of fakeness in the first place. Mostly due to the Good Guy Babyface gimmick and Pure Evil Heel gimmick of the past that gets resurfaced in modern WWE and for the appearance and cult popularity of ECW.

If anything, wikipedians owe it to readers to explain the influence of realism of feds like ECW that changed people's perception of fake and real regarding pro wrestling and the different fake/real perception of each generation of fans.

I can't post this since this is more conclusion and unsourced but things like the below should be acknowledged:

In the Hogan era, fakeness was defined by how weak a feud is and how unrealistic a move set is. Things like the figure 4 leglock that Flair did could be considered more realistic at the time and things like how invincible the opponents are and how Hogan wittles them down can attribute to whether pro wrestling is fake/scripted or real at least based on the perception of the fans and the reasons why.

Bret Hart era, realism remains how strong a feud is but in a different context. Internet rumors and gossip defined what is real and fake, also gimmicks like what Bret did as a heel defined realism. Some things Bret said can be attributed to real life scenarios and so he was no more different than a modern day actor hyping up a movie. Alot of the fakeness got transferred into the press and wrestling realism was about how two wrestlers look good in a ring and how much reason they have to fight. WCW also jump started the era of expect the unexpected and fans treated this betrayal angle and NWO angle as real.

Austin/Rock era came the era where realism was how "tweener" a character gimmick can be.

Modern wrestling's realism is defined by the different contexts that happened. Things like the Montreal Screwjob and Owen's death painted wrestling as more realistic and dangerous.

Indy circuits defined a different sort of realism.

TNA defined it's realism by taking wrestling to a path similar to ECW with a mix of more indy styles.

WWE went to the complete fake ignorant of kayfabe paths.

Also it should be taken into explanation how real life things like Edge's scandal resulted into his current gimmick with Lita and how wrestling handles it's realism.

Another thing I think us wrestling fans owe to readers of this encyclopedia is to finally stopped our bullying of the word "fake" and be as specific as what "fake" is and what "real" is and how wrestling is justified for tricking it's viewers due to what the public perception is of that time.

As an encyclopedia, we owe it to clarify to readers that fake and real has nothing to do with kayfabe at all. That fans who this day know of wrestling as fake can see a match several years ago and be drawn to it like it was a real match and how fans even admit that most of the WWE's matches today are sub par and do look fake and that alot of it is contributed by the lower quality of the WWE and it being at the spotlight of what readers of pro wrestling think is the top of the glassroof when clearly it's not.

We fans owe to them the explanation of how despite WWE being # 1, professional wrestling does not function in similar ways to the NBA or other top associations where the most well known is often the one with the best representation of it's sport and that there have been different categories due to certain events that make wrestling as it is today: popularity does not = quality. That the emergence of certain feds have catered to certain types of wrestling fans and that quality is no longer judged by the most popular fed but by what a fed has to offer to it's demographics. That the difference is so crucially different that it is like comparing the quality of mayo to the quality of mustard/peanut butter/etc. That due to this, even the accusation and reasoning for fakeness and realism now depends based on these qualities

Fake is in it's particially scripted, i.e. the winner is declared before battle, or as in they aren't actually getting hurt; they would have to have quick reflexes to fall on their back, or get slammed into a table, maybe they practice a type of martial art where "pain is all in your mind"

Edge, Kurt Angle, Steve Austin and Dynamite Kid would all tell you that they are not competing in any sport and that they were injured in an accident. A man jumping off the top rope landing a splash on someone else can be faked by landing on the forearms and knees on either side of the other wrestler. Let's take a look at the Star Wars article then: "Star Wars is an epic space opera franchise". It does not begin "Star Wars is the name given to a series of critical battles and events which occurred in the past". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.235.92 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ask Edge, Kurt Angle or Steve Austin how they can break their necks in a fake sport, ask Dynamite Kid how it feels to have a leg amputate due to a back injury from a fake sport. Then explain to me how a man jumping off the top rope landing a splash on someone else can be faked - Effects? Light trickery? Yes it's theatrical, yes it's pre-determined and yes most of the impact is "over sold" if you will. But to just call it "fake" dismisses the physical sacrifice of the performers. No one denies that it's entertainment, that it's exagerate in how it's described and no one denies that the matches have pre-planned outcomes - but the label "fake" misses the mark by a country mile. Wrestling continuously gets the label "Fake", no other form of entertainment gets that dismissive attitude, I mean does anyone put a comment of "It's all fake" in the Star Wars articles?MPJ-DK 10:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why professional wrestling should be referred to as "worked." Worked is the proper term anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Article accuracy / bias
Any pretense of sporting competition was dropped in the late 1990s, when Vince McMahon's World Wrestling Federation began to frequently describe its events as "sports entertainment,"

''As the 20th century progressed, promoters spent less time focusing on believable sports action, and more time presenting it as a "sports entertainment" spectacle.''

The WWF/E is not the governing body on all things wrestling, nor is their style or influence universal. For instance, in Mexcio and Japan this is not the case. The article is "pro-wrestling" but it has very much a United States slant though it should be far more general. There is no mention of New Japan (who were the largest promotion in the world for many years) and others experementing with mixed styles -- Inoki vs Mohammed Ali for instance, or the UWFi before when all this "sports entertainment" stuff was going on. It needs to be more general or organized before into section as it reads too WWE / United States orientated. (preceding unsigned comment by 80.189.241.145 (talk &bull; contribs) )


 * I agree that the article is biased towards the United States and doesn't even try to include Japanese style and Lucha Libre in it's description. Perhaps we can have short sections on Lucha Libre and Puroresu and put a link to the full article at the start of the section.--Darren Jowalsen 00:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah! Puroresu! Barbed wire and fireworks! \^o^/ 85.226.122.227 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The need for a Puroresu section has been proven with the above statement about barbwire and fireworks - because someone don't know the definition of it MPJ-DK 10:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC) WRESTLING IS NOT FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bogus articles?
I have come across two articles on wrestling organisations, WTWF and UTW. Are they real? I couldn't find any mention of them on Google. Alan Pascoe 21:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) NOT REAL PROFFESIONAL WRESTLING IS NOT FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But is it art?
I'm quite perplexed by the description of pro-wrestling as a 'performance art'. Is the author being tongue-in-cheek? Not wanting to get into a philosophical debate about this, but surely this implies there is some kind of concept or meaning beyond the wrestling. It's just a form of popular-entertainment. You can't label wrestling as performance art any more than you can Football or Oprah. Opinions? Beerathon 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, gee, I dunno... is it art to sign a toilet? Marcel Duchamp thought so, and 100 years later, everyone agrees with him. Is it art to throw paint at something? Jackson Pollack seemed to think so, and they even made a movie about what a great artist he is. Wrestling is just as much an art form as, say, a staged sword fight, a television show, a play at a theatre, or a Gwar concert. -Z. Mann Zilla

I would therefore conclude that Professional Wrestling is not art in the strict definition. It would surely be the bare minimum qualifying criterion that an expression of art would require a consciousness on the part of the artist that the act/product/process was intended to be an artistic statement. There is no apparent evidence that I am aware of that those involved in the organisation of Pro-Wrestling events subscribe to this notion. As such, I put forward the proposal that the section heading 'Professional wrestling as performance art' should be changed to '...as a performing art', which suggests an analogy to more loose applications of the word 'art' (eg Theatre). The Wiki definition of Performing Arts seems to support the idea that Wrestling fits this context, as it makes a distinction between perfomance and performing. I would also draw attention to the fact that the text in this section does not currently make any reference to art anyway. On a seperate issue: what the hell is 'Ronman Wrestling' when it's at home?! Beerathon 20:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Further to my above argument, please review the Wikipedia page on Aesthetics, which draws a distinction between Visual Arts and Performing Arts. Beerathon 20:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While "pro wrestling" certainly involves performance, it is only arguably art; that is POV. Most people would say it is entertainment. It is art to sign a toilet? Well, no, but that case needs to be made in an article about performance art, not an article about wrestling.

No, it is not art, and anyone pretending that it is would have you open the category of what could be considered art into anything and everything. I would prefer something along the lines of "Exhibition Athletics"...I think that would be more appropriate. Vaginsh 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When you think about it, it is basically acting, I think most people agree that acting is a art.Cameron Nedland 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an art. But it depends on your definiton of art. If art is something that's kind of vaguely defined, and refers to something indescribable, almost metaphysical in nature, then no, it's not art- because most people who say that other stuff is e.g. theatre- certainly would not call it art. And art is so loosely defined there's no real way to define something as it other than that. Personally I think it is, because you've got storylines, imaginative characters, etc. I mean, when it's good. It may not be to everyone's tastes, but then, what style of art is? Admittedly a lot of wrestling is just two guys pretending to hit each other and blatantly not doing, or throwing each other around in ways that clearly don't hurt. But even there, there's a clear skill to making it look convincing, and telling a story with a match. It's not just mindless entertainment. Yes, it's a matter of taste, but there are plenty of people who would agree with what I've said there. Just look up Chris Benoit and it will tell you about his technical wrestling ability. Some wrestlers are a lot better at it than others. There's a skill to it.Doom jester 13:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to aesthetics page, art is "skill is being used to [...] engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities[...]", and professional wrestling does just that. I, personally, find aerial maneuvers do this more then grappling maneuvers, and grappling maneuvers more then "strikes", but professional wrestling, as a whole, does "engage [...] aesthetic sensibilities", and skill is most certainly used.

I wouldn't call it art, but it is a form of acting in a sense isn't it? I know that it's more dangerous than any other kind of acting, but still, at it's core, isn't it a kind of acting? Myname100 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

minor changes
I think that wrestling "throws" should be changed to wrestling "grapples", and wrestling attacks should be changed to wrestling "strikes"
 * Well grapples would infact refer to holds more than throws and as for strikes well there is a debat on the issue as it is simulated striking the word strike or even attack can be seen as miss leading. --- Paulley

Chris Masters' picture
Shouldn't there be a better, more recognisable picture of a wrestler. like maybe Lou Thesz, Ric Flair, or hell, even Hulk Hogan. Not insulting Masters in anyway but I think a more well known and legendary wrestler would be better.


 * I've had this thought too. But then I also realised how outstanding a picture the Master's one is, so I'm content with it. --Naha|(talk) 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To all those involved in changing the pictures, the other picture of Master's that is now missing from the article was much much better. Regardless, whatever picture stays should be at the top of the page, not in the middle. --Naha|(talk) 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I put a picture of SM from Manis XIV. I believe that this is appropraite for those wanting a more important wrestler. I was'nt bothered either way.

ill put Hulk Hogan at the top,after all he IS the most famous wrestler.

TNA
I think somebody accidentaly screwed something up while making an edit. As it reads now, the article does not list TNA as a major promotion, and then references it as if it had been mentioned before (which it hadn't), and then refers to it as a part of NWA (which it no longer is, it jusst bought their titles).

This needs fixing69.9.31.132 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the NWA titles. TNA did not buy them, they paid the NWA for their use for a certain amount of time. More of a rental than an outright purchase. TNA's license to have the NWA World Heavyweight Title and World Tag Team Titles will expire in 2014. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought TNA simply dropped the NWA out of their name and are still connected with the organization. NWAwrestling.com still has a discussion forum for the promotion, which seems unlikely if TNA withdrew completely from the NWA.

"Face" and "Heel"
I know almost nothing about pro wrestling so while reading this article I was very confused by the use of "face" and "heel" to describe the wrestlers. What do those mean? I assume one is the “good guy” and one the “bad guy” or something like that but I think there should be some discussion or reference to define these terms in this context. The sentences: --Fsamuels 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "While he's stunned, one wrestler, usually a face, will suddenly have the match won, only to then have it robbed from them via outside interference, a foreign object, or some other unfair means."
 * "It is illegal to use the ropes to secure oneself or gain leverage while pinning, and is therefore a popular cheating method for heels."
 * Yeah, really, what is the face? Maybe these terms should be added to the terminology section. Jecowa 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found the definitions and added links. Jecowa 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Face" and "heel" are terms that a lot of wrestling fans (children in general) won't be familiar with as they are not used in broadcasts or any other situation requiring kayfabe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.235.92 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Salaries?
I read somewhere that the top wrestlers make at least 1 Million a year. Is this true?

Actually some make in the $2 to $3 Millon dollar range.


 * For agruement's sake, Shawn Michaels signed a new 5-year deal valued at $1.5 million per year. Does anyone else agree with me that salaries (or general vicinities of salaries) should be on the article? Normy  132  08:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, my bad it's already there! Normy  132  08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone is coming at this from a very biesed opinion. I dont think you've actually took into reality that all pro sports use the "staged" events. Isn't it true that football players "appear", especially offensive linemen or receivers try their hardest to get flags thrown on the other team, or like maybe basketball players positioning themselves in a way so that they appear to get fouled? It's in their fundamentals, just like bumping, psyhchology, and an ability to work WITH another person, not against them....Anyone can work against someone, but it takes a a great artform to work with someone, to appear they are workin against them, and make it look well. Wrestling is an artform, if you honestly believe that wrestling is 100% "fake" then I strongly suggest you go into a ring and take 1 session of bumping, running ropes, and even getting chopped, punched, and kicked, then come back and tell everyone that it was a piece of cake and that even you yourself could be a pro wrestler. That way if you do come back and say that, we will all know that you are completely full of it and dont have it in you to do this for a profession and risk injury with every move you do. I will say that while it may not be a hundred percent real...its pretty close
 * Being hard to do does not make something real. Being easy does not make something fake.

Fake merely refers to what something claims to be, and what it is. Football claims to be a game that follows certain rules, which it is. Proffesional wrestling is fake if it claims to be sport, or claims to be open competition. Everything we see is real, as all we see are facts e.g. that phospher glowing on our tv screens. When somebody says proffesional wresting is not real, they rely on the definition of proffesional wrestling as something like ancient wrestling, which does not exist, and so is not real, and any pretense at it is fake.86.128.121.119 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

King's Road
I've noticed in this article, as well as a few others, King's Road is discussed and usually described as being similar to strong style, but different in some respects. Maybe someone who actually knows the difference should actually state what these differences are because saying they're similar without giving the differences doesn't really tell you much. --Kiltman67 23:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Basic information missing from this article (who, what, when)

 * 1) What is the annual total revenue from PW? (i.e. box office, cable, merchandising, etc.)
 * 2) What are the names of corporations and associations involved in PW?
 * 3) What are considered to be the greatest events in PW?  (i.e. Hulk Hogan v. Andre the Giant (1987))
 * 4) Who were the biggest names in PW?  Who are now the biggest names in PW?

The introduction is too long -- and it's not an introduction -- it's more like the first three paragraphs of the article.

This looks like an article written by devotees for devotees. I'm not one, so I'm appealing to one of you to add the basic information on PW. The article needs your help. patsw 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ==

'''# What are considered to be the greatest events in PW? (i.e. Hulk Hogan v. Andre the Giant (1987))'''

Cannot be included as these are subjective. Although there are some matches that may be universally considered greatest events, due to the large disparity of the audience and the length of the generation of pro wrestling and the lack of video footage from some of the lesser known wrestling feds, no such event can easily be put in without having a bunch of other guys put other lists which they consider to be greatest.

For ex. Hulk Hogan vs. Andre may evoke debates about whether it was really one of the greatest events or just great marketing and then it will evoke discussion about what categories to define something as 5 star matches and then it will continue with people mentioning how some article writer's categories are more credible so we should consider that of value and then others will argue how some matches were equally great just didn't draw as much attention at the time due to being less well known and then we have an encyclopedia entry with no credibility.

'''# Who were the biggest names in PW? Who are now the biggest names in PW?'''

Nearly impossible. For ex. Stu Hart is considered to be among the biggest names in PW but there is little online source of his matches and alot of the sources point more towards a biography of 1 man and then we have guys who wrestled in major promotions who may not really be the biggest names in PW unless you consider biggest names to be ones who also injured alot of wrestlers, screwed alot of guys in championships, had money issues.

The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior already shows that it is very easy for anyone to categorize someone as greatest and another person to categorize a person as a flash in the pan and another one to categorize someone as one of the worst wrestlers in history and even the most unprofessional which will then result in an avalannche of "we need citations/sources".

The introduction is too long -- and it's not an introduction -- it's more like the first three paragraphs of the article.

That is my fault.

In response to someone adding the amateur wrestling comparison, I felt it was needed to clarify to readers who may walk in on the presumption that professional wrestling does not function quite like a sport, a long explanation of the difference.

Unfortunately it unnecessarily prolonged the introduction albeit I think at a necessary cause.

'''This looks like an article written by devotees for devotees. I'm not one, so I'm appealing to one of you to add the basic information on PW.'''

Please define basic information.

Billy Firehawk AfD discussion in need of expert opinion
Check out: Billy Firehawk and Articles for deletion/Billy Firehawk. It seems to me the article is worth keeping, but maybe you folks at this project could chime in and let the admins know what to do about it. At the very least, the article needs some cleanup and TLC. --Jayron32 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Real or Fake Salaries
Okay, It says that people like Stone Cold only earned 5000 dollars per year and The Rock earning 3-5 thousand a year, you gotta be kidding, right?

I second this - has someone just vandalised these numbers (by a power of 10?)? Buzwad 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a salary listing of WWE performers? If it is a lot of names need to be removed since they don't work for WWE anymore. People like Christian and Tyson Tomko need to be removed. They probably make a different salary now anyway. HorseApples 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Broadway
In the article the term "Broadway" is used to describe a wrestler intentionally losing by count out. This is incorrect. The term "Broadway" is used to describe a 60-minute time limit draw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.189.252.90 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Professional Wrestling Generations
Would it be worth creating an article, or perhaps individual articles, on the three generations of professional wrestlers? It would be interesting to roughly define them, including year spans, and reflect on the changes and evolution of wrestling styles that have taken place over the years. Of course, we have to consider that we already have an article describing various wrestling styles, but I think this could be quite insightful for new fans and a worthy piece of information on its own. Cale 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We've also got a history of professional wrestling article that info could also fit into. Speaking of which, that could use some work. Normy  132  09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I cleaned up some vandalism that caught my eye, but i'm sure theres probably more. Prehaps a clean-up is needed?144.132.88.49 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Spree on 2007-04-14
There was a massive spree of vandalism (the kindergarten must have had a new computer delivered), and I've done my best to revert it, as has Natalie Erin and Kzrulzuall and a bot, but the article might need a close check to see if anything has slipped through... — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

These points should be added I think?
i.e. the WWE only employs the minority of Pro Wrestlers in the Americas but is essentially 'it' in terms of making a good living. Some companies are so local however that that isn't the case, but once again the focus of this article should be on the realities of the profession and this is certainly a reality for many if not all Professional Wrestlers. Furthermore unless you're one of the 'top' guys in a company, you've got to pay for your own accommodation and food and sometimes the travel too. This also can make life difficult as wrestlers need to eat a lot to maintain size and strength! Finding the time to work-out in the gym is also difficult when you are constantly traveling. --> In wrasslin' there is no 'off-season'. Wrestlers have also been paralysed in the ring (Droz is a 'famous' example) and some have even died not only due to botched moves but due to the 'showmanship' aspect going wrong. Sadly Owen Hart is probably the most famous example of this. Above all when people carp on about all the 'fake' stuff the above points are ignored and in respect to these people who literally put their bodies and lives on the line constantly for their profession, well... I think these facts should be recognised.
 * On Salary first: Professional Wrestling is an extremely tough industry (especially in North America/Canada) to make a 'good' living at. Unless you work for McMahon's WWE, it is hard to even guarantee that you will get consistently paid in the course of a year as the 'Indy's' (Independents) are dependent upon the fluctuations of local markets and cannot guarantee their performers much money never mind consistently.
 * Life on the road: being a Pro Wrestler means constant travel, every week in a new city and the only time you are off that constant schedule is if you are unemployed or injured.
 * There should also be a section on injuries. Pro Wrestling is rife with them, from shoulder separations, dislocations, broken teeth and bones to the fact that many wrestlers have become addicted to pain killers and many have died partially as a result of such use. Examples here could include people like Mic Foley etc. but almost all retired or older wrestlers mention that they still feel adverse effects in their bodies daily functioning from their time in this industry. Citations could be needed for this last point but the info shouldn't be hard to find and cite.

60.229.96.133 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3 May 2007

Well, the first point seems a bit POV, but the rest sound good (: Myname100 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlers section
I just overhauled and cleaned up the "Wrestlers" section of this article. I removed the tags asking for cleanup and copy-editing, but feel free to add them back if you think the section still requires it. Nikki311 16:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrestler Pictures
I've noticed in most wrestler profiles there's no picture. I'm just wondering if plenty of wrestlers would be willing to let us use their picture on wikipedia if they were asked. It's good publicity for them. Masses of people use wikipedia. Doom jester 13:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is because we have an image use policy which states that only images released with a free content license (images that can be freely modified and distributed without restrictions) are allowed to identify living people. Many wrestlers do not have these images readily available.
 * Yeah but what I'm saying is that if people asked the wrestlers (via their official sites), they might be inclined to give pictures to wikipedia because it would be good for their publicity. Doom jester 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment wrestling versus real wrestling
This article should be really be renamed to the less corporate interests reflecting and much more accurate name "entertainment wrestling". The only professional wrestling is the classical, real wrestling, which is not even linked to from this fan-generated mess. A superficial glance at how the majority of entertainment-wrestling-related articles appears to totally neglect and indeed bury the fact that all matches are kayfabed tells me that this suggested move will probably never happen, so I'm just putting it here for discussion and not "professionally" suggest the move.

Also, a rewrite from a healthy, emotionally and intellectually distanced perspective might do this article good. —AldeBaer (c) 05:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It has always been known as Professional wrestling and the other has always been known as collegiate or Greco Roman. There is no need to call it "entertainment wrestling". And most people who do come here to read about wrestling know that it is staged so there is no reason to announce every time that it is staged. (Silentjay24 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * It may be called professional wrestling, but it is easy to see how people could be misled by the name. Professional implies that it is official, genuine and regulated, like as if it were an Olympic sport. But in truth it is far from anything that could qualify as an Olympic sport played by professional athletes JayKeaton 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was pretty much my point. Besides, extensive coverage on a single area may warrant a seperate wiki. You may call it "ProfessionalWiki" if you like. —AldeBaer (c) 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Forget that, all you need is already here. —AldeBaer (c) 00:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even competitors in catch-as-catch-can wrestling and are paid for it do not call themselves "professional wrestlers" because the term is so strongly linked with sports entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.235.92 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition
The definition given here is not accurate enough for an enciclopedia because it doesn't give useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.220.51 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the definition and cite references! --Naha|(talk) 14:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Intergender Matches Change
I deleted the phrase "Other women who also frequently faced men include Terri Runnels, Gail Kim, Lita, Trish Stratus, Torrie Wilson and Molly Holly." I don't know what the hell the person who wrote that in the first place was thinking. Hope nobody minds... --Hophi 04:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rules Correction
It was stated that in wrestling it is legal to kick your opponent with any part of the foot, when in fact it is only legal to kick your opponent with the flat of the foot as the toe of the foot is considered illegal. thank you : Road dawg 99, 1/12/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Road dawg 99 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Steroids, sex and real wrestling
Seems like 'roids are a huge part of the sport and should be addressed. Also the, fascination in looking at overly developed musculature. Also would like some inclusion of the reaction of appreciators of real wrestling (the actual competitions in HS, college, etc. versus the sham of pro wrestling.

Interestingly, MMA gives a place for people who like to watch real wrestling, real martial arts, and a place for grapplers to earn pro money.TCO (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. and stop erasing comments in the talk section. I put this more controversial stuff in talk and NOT in the article, because I want to raise the issues before addressing them (or not)in the article itslef.

MMA is not "real wrestling", the rules are significantly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.235.92 (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Finishers?
I don't see anything about finishing moves anywhere in the page. Seeing as how nearly every wrestler has one, and some wrestlers get over thanks in good part due to a good finisher, shouldn't there be something on it? 71.231.248.184 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really, since the term "finisher" is an unencyclopedic jargon term used by fans (and rarely, if ever, used on-screen in wrestling) and very new at that. The term itself was originated in video games, specifically Mortal Kombat in 1992 (finishing move), where it describes a specific action of killing. To apply that to wrestling is improper, not to mention highly subjective, since literally any maneuver can be the one to end a match. A wrestler might utilize a specific maneuver that has a high rate of success, but this really doesn't make it anything more than a signature maneuver. A short section on signature maneuvers might be warranted.TravelingCat (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
It might be old news, but I recall significant controversies a few years ago in New Zealand, Australia, the UK and the US about pro wrestling moves being copied in playgrounds and children being injured. It fueled the whole "TV violence causes real violence" debate on the news for a while. In fact, it received media attention during the case of Lionel Tate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Tate who was convicted of murder for practicing WWF moves on a six year-old girl. Might be worth a mention. This is the first time I've edited on wikipedia. I don't know the procedure, so apologise if I'm not using the right etiquette. dk 6 may 2008

Worldview issues
I would like to know why there is no discussion associated with this worldview tag on the article. What is the problem with worldview? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole fakeness dispute
Being an outside observer, here are a few thoughts. The word fake is apparently deemed offensive, and besides, you can hardly question wrestlers are highly skilled individuals, with real ability. On the other hand, pro wrestling is not a sport, as there is no real competition. So... avoid the word fake, and specify as much as you like the high level of wrestlers' ability... but on the other hand, do also specify this is not in any way a sport, and wrestlers themselves are not athletes, but (highly skilled) performers. Also, to me, it seemed the article did not at all clarify as much as necessary that outcomes are predetermined (this is mentioned only as an afterthought in the article!) and the moves are generally also predetermined, in that the victim fully cooperates. In fact, the only reason I even turned to this talk page is the glaring lack of such specifications in the article. Skimming through the article looking for references of the "sport" being "worked", I came up almost emptyhanded. Clearly, this is not an accurate representation.

On another point, wrestling, for the sake of God, is not an "art". I am not questioning the (surely admirable) skills possessed by wrestlers, but to say that a wrestling performance is an art in the same way that a performance of King Lear is must surely be mistaken. Art, to my mind, has the inherent quality to make the viewer reflect on some matter of relevance to him/herself. Wrestling, along with football and Jackie Chan films, are entertainment, that is a pleasant (for some at least) passtime, but certainly not something that could ever serve as "food for thought".

Druworos (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)