The Return of......

the v2 wrestling question of the day.

Yep, that was a Dixie-esque disappointment of an announcement.

Anyway, todays question of the day is this:

Would wrestling be better if the internet didn't exist?

Think about it - no spoilers, no background politics, no news of proposed match ups. Powerslam would still be relevant.

Would WWE and TNA be in a better place?

I expect that without an internet, there could be no WWE Network and therefore no 9.99.  So, how can the answer be anything other than a resounding "yes"?

Otherwise, my personal view would be no.  I tend to be quite good at avoiding spoilers for shows and PPVs before I watch them.  Admittedly, sometimes I will know who won a main event, but that still leaves the journey of how they get the win.  So, case in point.  I had seen a picture of Brock winning the title at Summerslam, but the match still shocked me in how he got that win.  Maybe, if anything, it even piqued my interest to watch the recording sooner.

I'm also terrible for forgetting things, especially if I'm into a show.  So, news like 'Ambrose will miss time to make a film' I forget until after I've seen how he's written out and then remember it again.

I guess on the positives, I like to occasionally dip into the tittle-tattle and gossip.  

I tend to think that complaints that the internet is killing wrestling mostly arise when the in-ring product is not very strong.  So, it could be that the wrong element is being looked at.  Because when the in-ring product is weak, my interest in what is reported on the internet also declines.

EDIT: Thinking of your own podcasts, there can be prescient moments in them. Like a couple of months ago, one of the team said that the split of Golddust and Cody Rhodes was going to result in Cody having a similar gimmick to Golddust and it would be Poopie. Well, knowing that might happen in advance didn't stop it being Poopie when it did.

It really depends on which way you look at it. I think WWE shows are much better if you don't read spoilers. I don't read them any more for any show and I enjoy them more than I used to. I have recorded and watched every RAW since TLC. I haven't done that in over 10 years previous.

Re backstage politics we'll find out about them anyway if we were to read PowerSlam - which I think was still relevant up until it closed last month. I felt I could trust it more especially considering wrestling sites generally just guess at stuff or throw out vague rumours. Even Meltzer seems to be a lot less accurate these days. I reckon Teddy Long was his contact

However, the reaction Reigns has been getting recently is probably down largely to the internet so in that respect we are better without it.

I don't think so, I think the main reason is that the internet is one of the main reasons I watch wrestling. As a TV show on its own merit, it is far too inconsistent, long, repetitive and often really stupid for me to watch. What keeps me coming back for more is the discussion on the internet, it's the debates it throws up, the arguments it creates. For me I don't like wrestling enough to enjoy it without it.

Also I feel it creates a more accessibly critique of the product for the writers, I think WWE would like to pretend they ignore the internet opinion but I don't think it's true. Crowd reactions to certain wrestlers are fueled by the internet and I think that has definitely affected the product. Take away the internet and in my opinion CM Punk and Daniel Bryan don't get enough widespread support to be pushed to the top, their indie careers would not have been as widely consumed and so they would essentially be unknown, small and WWE's presentation of them would be difficult to get behind.

Crimey wrote:I don't think so, I think the main reason is that the internet is one of the main reasons I watch wrestling. As a TV show on its own merit, it is far too inconsistent, long, repetitive and often really stupid for me to watch. What keeps me coming back for more is the discussion on the internet, it's the debates it throws up, the arguments it creates. For me I don't like wrestling enough to enjoy it without it.

Also I feel it creates a more accessibly critique of the product for the writers, I think WWE would like to pretend they ignore the internet opinion but I don't think it's true. Crowd reactions to certain wrestlers are fueled by the internet and I think that has definitely affected the product. Take away the internet and in my opinion CM Punk and Daniel Bryan don't get enough widespread support to be pushed to the top, their indie careers would not have been as widely consumed and so they would essentially be unknown, small and WWE's presentation of them would be difficult to get behind.

Do you think that WWE see that as help or hinderance?

Their push of Bryan for example has focused on his B-player looks as a wrestler. I guess there was a lesson in there that anyone can make it if you try hard enough. But it still seemed begrudging. And even when he was champ he was not sold as "this is our best wrestler". So the fans may have got what they wanted, and I think it was a story worth telling, but its not been clear to me that WWE thought that was good for business. And I'm too lazy / don't know where to look / don't know in the age of the Network whether it matters to look up buy rates for PPVs that he headlined and see how much he sold.

Some of the shows I've enjoyed least are where the crowds are smartest. If, for example, there are two guys giving it their all in the ring, but the crowd decides to chant CM Punk for the whole match, that really takes away from what is being delivered. And I agree that can't be put at the foot of the internet, as those fans would probably be getting news from other avenues if it did not exist.

Prometheus

I see the pushing of DB as a 'b plus player' being the focus of his feud with the authority was there for (and worked) getting him support. He's got a big internet following and big fan following, what better way to rile the fans up to boiling point than playing on their perceived fears...that the wwe won't push him because he is not a 6ft3+ bodybuilder.

gcBlues

I see your reasoning and I think it is an argument that can hold water, that this case can be looked at from either side. Particularly on the build to WM and therefore the pay-off when he won.

However, after he became WC IMO that would be the time to change tack if they believed in him to sell WWE. Otherwise we have the same people telling us to buy the WWE Network, etc. telling us that their own champion is not worthy of that crown. I know fans are not stupid, but you can't IMO have the logic of "believe the Authority when they say this, but not when they say this".

Their playing down of their own champion I think weakens their overall product.

In literally 6 months we have gone from the underdog B Plus player Champion. To the unassailable Champion. It is a stark contrast. And though it can be argued that they are just playing the cards they are dealt, I think it is clear which the WWE prefers. Of course that the Internet is also behind Brock and Heyman doesn't hurt.

I would say both Yes and No for various reasons.

Yes

I sometimes feel that by using the internet and learning more about the inside of the business and the backstage politics and such things can really put a negative spin on certain wrestlers and the business as a whole. Triple H used to be one of my favourites, but when you're exposed to such negativity surround his backstage/personal life it tends to tarnish him, for me anyway. When you start looking into the booking side of things you start to over think things and get a negative feel for things.

Also, the advent of social media has been nothing but detrimental to todays product. I dont mind the wrestlers coming to the ring with their Twitter handle next to there on screen ring name graphic. I dont mind the '#Xsegment' in the top corner of the screen. What I do mind is having Twitter constantly reference and 'WE INVITE YOU TO TWEET ABOUT THIS BY USING THE HASHTAG 'X'' really breaks the immersion and takes you right out of it. Its the same problem as the constant plugging of the Network. If you focus on delivering a coheerant and viable product then people will subscribe and tweet about it regardless, just shut up about it. You'd never see Good Ol' JR plug Twitter to the extent Vintage Michael Cole does. The over pushing of social media and the immersion breaking is one of the bigger problems the WWE has right now.

No.

As Crimey said; because of the internet it makes it a hell of a lot easier to communicate with others with similar interests. Forums like this wouldnt exist, and we wouldnt all be friends and I wouldnt have learned nearly as much. I love a good discussion and a good debate, and forums like this provide the platform for us to have such discussions. Its also a great place for some of the funniest things about wrestling. The Ultimate Worrier, WrestlingMemes and Botchamania would never have existed if it werent for the internet.

For me, those couple of good things outweigh the bad. Im happy to sit through another Twitter plug if it means I can still debate and laugh with friends.

I would argue that wrestling would be better if there was no internet. The basis of my argument has been mentioned once or twice already, but here goes.

One could argue that you can avoid spoilers or reading about the results of the previous night's Raw or Impact, however, if one spends a bit of time on wrestling sites independent of WWE and TNA, you can't help but read the headlines and wonder what is going on. Sometimes the headlines gives the game away! Why then would you want to watch Raw, Smackdown or Impact if you already know what is going to happen?

I didn't read, or hear, about The Miz successfully cashing in his MITB briefcase against Randy Orton and it totally blew my mind when he did. That is what I want from wrestling, nothing to indicate what is happening, therefore giving the wrestling promotion a chance to surprise.

The other side of the coin was the match at SummerSlam between Nexus and Team WWE and no one knew who was going to be the last member of Team WWE. I made the fatal error of reading my Twitter feed through a dull period and lo and behold, someone retweeted that it was Daniel Bryan. That was that suprise ruined for me!

Someone metioned about the dirt sheets. Great if you want to know about the backstage stuff, but that impacts on how the person, most notably HHH, is then perceived on screen.

The pushing of Twitter on Raw gets totally ridiculous, then there was the pushing of Tout. Sorry, but I want to watch wrestling, not some large boned Yank giving a half baked reaction on a dodgy video feed. Rhetorical question, but what ever happened to Tout?

In summary, maybe I want to go back to the time when I was completely innocent/niave/ignorant of what wrestling really was about. Get to watch things unfold naturally, rather than read about it through spoilers or "insider" gossip. Sadly, those days are long gone.

I can see a couple of positives, in as far as like minded peopls can communicate and debate on forums such as this and sometimes, the WWE do use the internet to swerve the smark fans. But as far as I can see, that are the only two positives.