Smart Marks 6.22.13: Fiction Friction

Welcome back to another edition of Smart Marks. As always, I’m Dino.

Rough week this time out, as I apparently made a ton of enemies earlier this week in my Fact or Fiction appearance. While not many had much to offer outside of how much they think I suck, what I also gathered was that my answers were too short (which really offends the workaholic readers around here), and that I’m the “smarkiest smark to ever smark.” That last one is such a ridiculous assertation, it’s almost as if someone who never reads me saw one instance and made a rush to judgment. I know, I know… no way that happens around here. But, maybe… just maybe, that’s the case.

Now, if any of you happened to be in the crew that felt my answers were a tad on the short side, well, I apologize. I’ve never been a fan of writing long ass entries just for the sake of writing loss ass entries. If a question can be answered easily in a few words, then that’s the path I’m going to take. It’s not out of being lazy, and I’m definitely not “half-assing” it as I saw mentioned as well. It’s just- this isn’t high school. I’m not going to get a better grade for being more verbose than everyone else. I don’t need to show off how long of an answer I can construct to “You’re excited about RVD’s return to WWE” because the answer really is “Fiction: I don’t like Rob Van Dam.”

I also throw in absolutely ridiculous stories/jokes, such as how I used to refer to him as the “Rotten Vagina Dancer.” One reader decided that was proof at how much of a hack I am- you know, good writers never share anything about themselves. Just the facts. I know that’s not the highest level comedy when it comes to names, but I was simply trying to show how much I’ve always disliked RVD- enough to make up the stupidest name you’ve probably ever read.

Also, to commenter Stan W, who took issue with my stance on the Business side: I hope our back and forth didn’t get to you too much. I guess at the end of the day, my issue is with the fans who find it impossible to enjoy anything if it got bad ratings. Or the fans who don’t watch the shows, but then surmise from the low ratings that the show was horrible. It’s not that the numbers don’t matter at all- it’s that if you enjoyed the product, they shouldn’t. Your entertainment should be more important to you than WWE or TNA ratings. That makes no sense to me if you let low numbers somehow dilute your enjoyment of a show. As to your point that the numbers can be used to try and bring about product change… in a vacuum of logic, I agree. However, in my lifetime, Vince McMahon has brought about change to his company only a handful of times: The Hogan Era, the Hart/HBK Era, the Austin Era, and the John Cena Era. The Hogan Era was the start of Vince’s actual plans of national dominance. The Hart/HBK era was brought about by the feds always peeking around Vince’s rasslin outfit to see if anyone was on the juice, so he switched to smaller bodied guys. Then, he stumbled on Steve Austin, who got crazy popular, and was told by Vince Russo and Shane McMahon that things needed to change. Finally, Austin got old, the Rock left, and John Cena became the new face. Now, note that only once was Vince actually forced by numbers to make a change. That would be when he went with Austin and Attitude. And note that he didn’t just look at the fact that WCW Nitro was kicking his ass weekly in the ratings. Note that it took pleading from Shane McMahon and Vince Russo to finally get Vince to bend.

But you’re telling me that low Nielsens are going to force his hand? I don’t buy it. And maybe I’ve misunderstood, and I’ll accept that, too. The facts, as I see them, are that Vince doesn’t really give a crap what you want, as long as his baby is safe, he’ll do what he wants, and will only change when the bodies he’s using begin to break down. There’s no WCW around today to get people scared. Even a horribly rated RAW does better than TNA Impact. What is there to force Vince’s hand? Nothing. That’s why I don’t buy into the power of numbers. History has shown that Vince doesn’t care, and the one time he did… well, there’s no company we can equate as competition now to force Vince’s hand.

As far as “that’s why, no matter how many people want it, we won’t get a heel Cena” goes, that’s quite the adult-centric line of thinking. What about all of those kids who love John Cena? What about their parents, who also appreciate that there’s this super white-bread good guy for their kids to look up to? Do they not count? Do we pretend there’s only about 8 or 9 people with this mindset? I think a heel Cena would be fun, too, but I’m not going to act like what *I* want is the only thing that matters, and clearly what the majority wants, either. I’d like to debate this more if you’re interested, Stan. If not, well, I hope I’ve more clearly made my point.

So, to reiterate: Sorry for writing short answers. I hope we’ll all be okay. Sorry to Stan for the comment fest, and I hope this more clearly answered retort suffices.

With that out of the way, let’s get to the Marks!

The Total Package

“It’s like a land of Lex Lugers.”

I knew it was going to cause trouble the second I wrote it. I’ve seen the debate over Lex Luger’s final status in wrestling cause many debates in the hallowed halls of the 411 Comment Section. Hell, I’ve even jumped in on a few of the arguments myself.

Maybe I misspoke. Lex Luger had a near twenty year career, wrestled all over the world, main evented for both WCW and the WWF, and wrestled anyone that mattered in that time- from Brian Pillman to Randy Savage to Bret Hart to Curt Hennig to Ric Flair to Sting, and everywhere in between. He made lots of money, and while his physical health took a huge toll a few years back, he remains a happy person, and there’s no way we could equate him to an underachiever, or even a “choker” could we?

Absolutely. On either a basic mark or smart mark level, Lex Luger underachieved.

Luger stormed into the NWA in either late 1986 or 1987, and the world took notice. He was chiseled, athletic, and powerful. He seemed to be an evolution on the WWF’s Hulk Hogan, and surely soon, he’d wear gold. And he did. United States championships. Tag team championships. Time spent as a Horseman. Then, he split with the Horsemen, and embarked on a series of matchups against Ric Flair for the NWA Heavyweight Championship. And time in, and time out, he came up empty handed. Sometimes he’d get suckered into Flair’s “feet on the top rope” pin. Sometimes there’d just be a DQ. Once, he even had Flair in the Torture Rack, but decided instead to release it, and help his buddy Sting at ringside as he was being attacked by the Andersons. Counted out, Luger again blew it.

When you’re a kid watching this, you start to think to yourself, “you know, this guy just keeps blowing it. He’s never going to win.” And that’s what this kid did. This kid then moved on to Sting, another 90’s wrestler with strength and athleticism, and one who didn’t need 500 chances to win the title.

Even the Apter Mags would make mention of Luger’s underachiever status. And when you’re arguing the Mark perspective, what better place to start than PWI?

Sting eventually defeated Ric Flair for the World Title, while Lex stayed involved in other feuds. Then Ric Flair left, and Lex Luger ended up defeating Barry Windham for the NWA Title in the summer of 1991. Again, ignoring the capabilities of all involved, as one who watched this show live, seeing Barry Windham (fresh off being a Horseman, and not really that close to a title shot himself) come out as Ric Flair’s replacement in a title match left things feeling flat. Add to it that Luger won in some horribly executed double turn, and what could have been a great Luger moment (finally winning the belt) becomes a bad one (finally wins the belt but not from the man he chased for years, and needs instructions from Harley Race to do it).

This amazing title run he had, you ask? One ppv match against Ron Simmons, one Clash of the Champions match with Rick Steiner, a match with Masa Chono at the Japan Supershow, and then he loses the title to Sting after not being seen for months. Truly, an appropriate title reign that set the world on fire. And don’t go applying hindsight to Ron Simmons to act like it’s fine that he got the shot. In the fall of 1991, Ron Simmons didn’t belong anywhere near a title shot. In the fall of 1991, Rick Steiner didn’t belong anywhere near a title shot. But there they were, receiving them against the underachieving champion.

In WWF, it was no better. He debuted as an upper midcard heel The Narcissist, but quickly turned into Made in the USA Lex Luger. And he got fan support. And earned a title shot with Yokozuna. And won the match. By countout. But earned another shot by winning the 94 Royal Rumble. Well, co-winning it with Bret Hart. But he still got a title shot at Mania! Which he promptly lost by DQ because arguing with the referee is more important than winning a match.

Underachieving, he started up a summer of 1994 feud with Crush. Yep. Hey, I loved Crush, but are we gonna act like this was a top of the card, main event level feud? Okay, good.

Because when that feud ended, he got into a REAL big time feud, that with Tatanka. Then he teamed up with Davey Boy Smith so that they could open WrestleMania 11 against Jacob and Eli Blu. Then a tag team title feud, and then he returned to WCW.

I’ll wrap up his WCW run briefly in the interest of space: Tweener that wrestles Randy Savage 50,000,000 times, WCW Crusader against the nWo who makes Hulk Hogan submit on Nitro for the World Title in a great moment (that is immediately rendered moot 6 days later when he loses the belt right back), joins nWo Wolfpac and somehow looks stupider than Lobster Sting, decides to change things up by dropping his name and going by the nickname he was always known as, joins the Magnificent Seven and is then promptly teamed up with Buff Bagwell where he will rot until WCW is closed down.

Now, I don’t see the “guy who worked at the top of the card for 15 years and was one of the most over faces/heels for a good 10+ years?” as reader ego put it, in this write up. In fact, being polite, his entire career was 15 years (let’s ignore his missed 1992 for Motorcycle accidents and WBF appearances). And he most certainly was NOT at the top of the card the entire time, right Crush? Right, Tatanka? Right, Buff?

This is not to say that Lex Luger had a bad career. But to act like he was some super achiever, at least in mark terms, is pretty flawed.

As for the Smark breakdown, I feel that’s a bit easier. At only two points in his career was Lex Luger seen as someone the office wanted as their champion, and were willing to go through with it. This was when Ric Flair left for the WWF, and Sting was injured. He was then given a completely forgettable title reign before dropping the belt to Sting and leaving. Vince McMahon, despite doing everything he could to recreate Hulkamania with the guy, still pulled the plug on him as champion, going with a silly count out at SummerSlam, and the DQ at Mania 10. Luger never got close to a WWF title shot again. When he returned, and while in the middle of the hottest angle WCW ever had, Luger was given a six day title reign. It was only done to create an “anything can happen” feel for the show, and he was basically pushed to the side once he lost the belt so that Sting could go after Hogan himself.

Two times in his career, Lex Luger was seen as someone you could put a belt on. As long as everyone else was unavailable, or they wanted to spike some ratings.

Really, I think this is all a bit simple- if I’m discussing Lex Luger, I’m discussing an underachiever. If I’m discussing Larry Pfohl, then sure, he had a great wrestling career.

Smark Marks and Smarks

This is somewhat born out of the Lex Luger debate from last week, but I felt it deserved its own separate section. You see, when I pointed out that Luger had developed a “rep as a choker” back in the day, I was asked by reader Weyer “I don’t know how someone can be considered a choke in the fake / worked world of professional of wrestling?” At least, I think I was asked. It has a question mark, so most likely that was a question. My answer, short as it was, was basically: “Just like Lt. Dan lost his legs but Gary Sinise has his, Lex Luger, the character, was a choker, in the context of wrestling.”

Which is the opening to this mark: the difference between the Smart Mark and the Smark (as I see it), and why one is just unbearable.

When you talk wrestling with a smark, be ready for constant linguistic gymnastics, semantics, and clarifying points that were already pretty clear. Why? Because Smarks cannot accept the show, and the events in the show, as fact. They have to constantly remind that this is a show. It’s fake. It’s not real.

You know, like when you watch The Walking Dead or whatever, and some character dies, and then when you tell someone about it the next day, they’re always like “Well, the character is dead. Not the actor. He’s still alive. That was just part of the show.” Wait… that doesn’t happen? Of course not.

Smarks, though, live in a world of constant ridicule, and in order to combat it, have these super defensive mechanisms to survive. One is always pointing out that wrestling is fake/worked, even when discussing it with other fans who are MORE than aware of how wrestling works. But you know, God forbid we discuss the show in context. Or that we accept the events that happened as fact. Hulk Hogan beat Ric Flair. A lot. I’m not saying Terry Bollea beat up Ric Fleihr in street fights, but guess what? The results from a wrestling event happened. They really happened. In the context of the show.

Hell, I’ve eaten at Medieval Times before. And I rooted my heart out for that Yellow Knight. And I was bummed when he was eliminated. And even moreso when I figured out that he was eliminated because he also plays the Black Knight that comes out later in the show. Guess what? When I talk about it, I say that our Knight got eliminated, and the Black Knight won. Why? Because that’s what happened! Who the hell cares about whether or not it was “real” or not? Isn’t that why we watch this show? Because we LIKE that it’s not real? We LIKE the escapism of it all? No, no, please make it impossible to have any sort of fun banter about wrestling because you’re going to kill every single subject with “well it was a work.” Screw that. Tell me why Sting would beat Shawn Michaels 8 times out of 10. Tell me why the Natural Disasters were the most unstoppable tag team of all time. But don’t suck all the fun out of it by trying to break it down as actors and scripts.

If you ARE going to do that, then use the wrestlers’ real names. Sting isn’t a real person. Shawn Michaels is fake. You don’t love CM Punk. Those are all fake. If you want to constantly cry out how this is all fake, then use the real names of real people, not fake names for fake characters. It’s only fair.

A smart mark, on the other hand, knows how wrestling works. We get that it’s a show. However, we don’t feel the need to defend our love of it to non-fans, and we certainly don’t need to preface any and all talks with “I don’t know how one can be seen as a loser in a business that’s a work”. Really, if in the context of wrestling, you lose all of your matches, guess what? You’re a jobber. That’s not a comment on you as a person, but your character in the context of wrestling is absolutely a jobber.

The context of wrestling. Something that is constantly ignored for the sake of sounding cooler than everyone. Hulk Hogan lost to the Ultimate Warrior. The Undertaker pinned CM Punk. These events actually happened. They really did. If you need to point out that this is a work, then I wonder if you’re as smart as you think you are.

Mea Culpa

This one’s going to hurt me a lot more than it hurts you. However, it’s more than overdue.

You see, ten years ago, I wrote this. Let’s just say, I was not a big Shawn Michaels fan for a while. This, of course, is because I gladly pissed and moaned about him just like Bret Hart.
So yeah, I wrote that. If you don’t wanna click, I basically broke down why, as of January 2003, Shawn Michaels’ status as an all time great was undeserved. My basic points were that he was a main eventer for roughly 2 years before the back injury took him out. That he simply didn’t have enough time as an active participant to be given such a lofty status. That it was all based on potential, and what he “could” have done if he had stayed healthy.

And really, if 2003-2010 never happened, I’d still stick to every word of that column.

However, 2003-2010 happened. Shawn Michaels is easily one of the all time greatest wrestlers. There’s no question. What he did post-back injury so badly eclipses what he did prior, that to even question his status is ridiculous. I realize this. And that’s why I’m calling myself out. This needed to be corrected.
You can call me all sorts of names, but never let it be said that I can’t handle being corrected. Man, that column sure rings stupid, and people hated it back then! Ah, wrestling. It’s always fun to get so worked up over something so silly, isn’t it? Until next time…

That will do it for this week, thank you all for reading. Don’t be afraid of your takes on my marks, and as always, enjoy your WWE, enjoy your TNA, enjoy your Lucha Libre, your Puro, and your Indies.

It’s All Wrestling. It’s All Stupid. We All Love It.