The Farce Of The Pro Wrestling "Media"

    If our position in the eyes of the mainstream media and mainstream fans is a bruise on the business then our own wrestling media is a breakout of acne. It's ironic that I used that metaphor considering that the wrestling media consists mostly of poorly made websites by 14 year old kids with poor social skills. These are the reporters of the wrestling world, our Stuart Scotts, our Matt Lauers, and our Al Michaels. They create sensationalistic websites designed not to professionally represent our industry or to inform viewers but to satisfy their urges to be relevant to an audience much like them. The stories are mostly unsubstantiated rumors started by one of them or third person hearsay that has no credence in the world of professional wrestling. When one looks at a NFL draft preparation site you generally see a well formatted page with citations, a use of spell check and just general restraint and human decency. Not so with these "wrestling news sites". Hell, even my former site has been besieged with spelling errors and a format that just doesn't please the human eye. It's this kind of "journalism" that makes us seem so bush league in comparison to the rest of entertainment/sports.   
    Now I mentioned these wrestling reporters as being our Lauers and Rokers. Well if that is the case then there is a man in our industry that represents our version of Peter Jennings and his name is Dave Meltzer. I'll give Meltzer credit; he certainly has more credentials than the average wrestling reporter, with a journalism degree from San Jose State University. But Meltzer has so many flaws in his game that it's ridiculous. First off he pioneered something we in the business call the "Star System". Basically the star system is a way of assigning stars to a match based on how good it is. Now, forgive me, but this is a problem that is rooted in the fact that unlike films (which still shouldn't be rated with stars but with descriptions) wrestling matches are an art that depends on a variety of factors that decide what it should be and what it is. Basically there are too many damn factors to determine in a match to give it a "star rating". How do you judge an emotional battle but largely unspectacular (in a technical sense) between Hulk Hogan and The Rock from WrestleMania 18 against the technical mastery of Shawn Michaels vs. Bret Hart from WrestleMania 12? You can't, they are two different animals. Another huge problem with the star system is that unlike acting or sports, the wrestling match is a constantly evolving art and matches today may seem more technically precise or impressive than matches from 1955. In theatre and film, while the techniques to achieve it always change, the goal is the same: to "be" on stage. In sports, the techniques have stayed largely the same from year to year. For example, a baseball game from 1972 is just as dramatic today as it was in 1972. On the other hand if you watch a wrestling match from 1972 you may fall into a coma if you are not properly prepared for what you are about to watch.
    Meltzer has also created the closest thing our business has to a Hall of Fame, as I and everyone with a sense of history doesn't consider the WWE version to be even a shadow of a legitimate Hall of Fame. But once again we are applying the standards that applicable to normal sports to our humble art of pro wrestling. While I applaud the fact that Meltzer actually has a voting process and a system designed to give the HOF a truly international feel, it raises too many questions. Do we honor the wrestler with the most skill how may have delivered the best matches and was the master of his craft or do we honor the wrestler who has the most storyline accomplishments? Or do we skip all that and go by the ones who have drawn the most money or is it a combination of all? The problem is that we don't know it's never made clear and there is no way to judge.
    So what standard do we have? What news medium do we have to truly regulate everything? PWinsiderelite.com? It's pretty much the only one but at the same time it's still extremely flawed, something I'll look at in a future column. But all in all, we don't have enough respected journalists able to take a look at wrestling for what it truly is, treat it with respect and treat you the readers with the respect you deserve. Hopefully this is where I come in here on Bleacher Report. Hopefully with me you'll realize you have a journalist with a college degree, a decent sized IQ and an unwavering devotion to the professional representation of the great art of professional wrestling.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?