An Open Letter to The Internet Wrestling Community.
DISCLAIMER: This article is not directed toward the entire group, but rather a majority. Also, this article is not written with proper English. I can assure you, I know how to write well.
Dear Internet Wrestling Community,
I've been reading article after article attacking Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and "Hollywood" Hulk Hogan. These articles are diverse in nature, however, they all have the same stupidity backing them.
I've never read more stupidity then I read on this site. (Specifically in the professional wrestling section)
How can a group of people judge TNA or Hulk Hogan? How many of you actually work in the wrestling business, anyway?
By making comments about the "impending failure" of TNA, you are suggesting you know more about the wrestling business then those who run TNA. This comes from the idea that you know what caused WCW to go under.
However, it's obvious that none of you have a damned clue what's going on.
The IWC is frequently worked by the industry. Every spoiler before Royal Rumble 2008 or Royal Rumble 2010 told you Triple H was going to win, and the majority of you believed it.
Most recently, the spoilers said that Triple H would win the Elimination Chamber. Guess who was wrong again.
Is this enough evidence to support the idea that the IWC is frequently worked?
How can a group of people who are so gullible, think they can predict the future of an entire company?
That is simple. The Internet Wrestling Community is not only stupid, but also very arrogant.
So please, I beg of you, Stop pretending you know what is going on.
It's came to my attention that you think you know "The Wrestling Business" better then even Vince McMahon.
The IWC is full of people who claim Indy wrestlers as the most talented group.
Obviously, Bryan Danielson (AKA Daniel Bryan) is talented, but he is not the best in the world...
He is great in the ring and he is decent with a microphone, I'll admit that. However, most of you don't consider the structure of the WWE.
None of you consider any basic ideas (Like massive roster size, production time, marketability, and safety) when judging a wrestlers' abilities.
This idea is painfully obvious by all of the hatred of guys like John Cena, Triple H, and Hulk Hogan.
You assume that you see their entire arsenal during the 9 minute match they're allowed on television. You then claim that Bryan Danielson is a better wrestler (Even the majority of you don't bother to watch the entire match.)
This is not true.
I can't claim to know who is better, because I am only presented small, marketable portions by the WWE. These portions, again, are held back because of the massive roster and the need for safe, fresh moves. (Do you know how BORED you'd all be of wrestling if every match was a thirty minute clinic?!)
Please use your brain when judging wrestlers; dig deeper then what you see on TV.
On to my final point...
You are constantly attacking wrestlers. Whether it be a huge star like John Cena or an up-and-coming guy like Sheamus, you are always quick to attack.
Why is that?
The majority of the IWC doesn't pay for pay-per-views. These same people probably don't watch more then half of WWE or TNA television, but rather watch streams of it.
At that point, when you are stealing the product, how can you continue to attack it?
Stop acting like you're important.
I'd guess only a small percentage of you actually buys pay-per-views. How many of you can honestly say you paid for Elimination Chamber?
Remember, this is a business. When you are not a part of the target audience, you do not matter. Essentially, you don't matter to these companies unless you actually buy a pay-per-view, watch one of their programs, or purchase some of their merchandise.
Even then, you are no more then a common customer. Quit pretending like you're better then what you are.
*I'll note again that I did not try to write perfectly. I did not revise this, so don't expect perfection.*
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?