First of all, I’d like to extend an apology to Blair Douglas, a talented writer whose articles have provided a heartbeat of sorts for the Pulse Wrestling community for many months now. In response to Blair’s most recent contribution, a take on the Sheamus / Henry match at Summerslam written in the style of Corey Yuen (don’t ask), I acted in a rather knee-jerk fashion in defence of the performers in question and the WWE fans who were being pastiched. Blair was, of course, expecting some kind of annoyed reaction – he quite literally asked for it. But with that being said (!), I’d like to make it clear that I think he’s a damn good writer, and I responded out of sorts.
Blair, if I may, I’d like to offer a more reasoned response to your article. I think it’s quite clear that we don’t see eye-to-eye on this matter, but I’d like to acquit myself a little more professionally than I did in the heat of the moment.
What can I say? I disagree with your opinions here entirely, but appreciate that you’re pretty unshakeable on your views, as I am on mine. I do think that the way you expressed yourself here was a little too antagonistic, however, and while controversy may create cash (TM Eric Bischoff) I don’t think that it necessarily lends itself all that well to intelligent debate.
As funny as your article is (and it is, I hasten to add, very funny indeed), it isn’t so much satire as calculated cynicism. You sought to find the worst in Henry and Sheamus, and you aimed to provoke negative feedback from various readers. It’s a great shame you had to do that, because you earned a vast readership by being a good writer, not by playing a caricature. Perhaps, you will say, this is an over-reaction to an article intended for primarily humorous purposes. Maybe, you might add, everyone should calm down about it and get back to lambasting TNA. Such an objection would be entirely understandable, and I would agree one-hundred percent. A calm audience, however, is not what you intended, is it? With the greatest of respect I would like to point out that your suggestion that anyone who disagrees with you is, in IWC terms, a dumb mark (“it’s tough for me to be like ‘wow, this match is going to suck donkey balls, but it’s a Mark Henry match, so it will be good on that basis'”) is needlessly offensive.
Regarding the content rather than the tone, the point I was trying to make (and I’m not sure I did clearly enough) is that your argument (explained more fully in last week’s Interinactivity) appears to be thus: the reactions of the live crowd are the best way of discerning how professional wrestlers are doing in terms of not simply their crowd appeal, but their overall talent. That argument, I believe, is palpably incorrect. It isn’t far off, I’ll grant you that. In TNA, it’s probably spot on, because TNA is, by and large, viewed by the same live crowd each week. The TNA live fans are pretty much a televised control group. Which is why Dixie Carter’s refusal to listen to them each week is so infuriating.
As it pertains to WWE, however, your reasoning isn’t quite as fair. Firstly, in mere practical terms, each show is performed in front of a different group of fans. There is no control group, and so it’s harder to judge who is ‘getting over’ and who isn’t unless you watch on a weekly basis. Watching a few clips on YouTube (and there’s nothing wrong with that at all. We all do it!) doesn’t quite cut the mustard if you wish to make educated generalisations. I’m frequently saddened that Daniel Bryan doesn’t get quite the reaction that guys like Santino Marella seem to when I watch clips on YouTube, but who’s to say that the crowd in attendance isn’t simply pretty quiet, or bored after a divas match, or over-indulged after a super-exciting match, or sitting on their hands because they’re only interested in the main event? There are all kinds of reasons why crowds cheer and why they don’t. In 2004, Ric Flair’s “inadvertently flash my pale white backside” spot was getting a louder reaction than Shelton Benjamin, but I know which I would have rather seen in the main event.
Let me clarify further: I don’t think that anybody who disagrees with you in seeing something of merit in the Sheamus / Henry angle does so because they believe that the crowd goes insane for those two performers. If Henry were fired tomorrow, I doubt that there would be half the outcry that there was when Daniel Bryan was sacked. I can speak only for myself, but I certainly didn’t expect the cheers received by Sheamus to match those garnered by CM Punk in the main event. What I do think, however, is that Henry and Sheamus are both being very well booked right now. Of course they’re not going to overshadow the main event – no one wants that! – but if characters and feuds were developed as well as Sheamus and Henry in, for example, TNA, the company wouldn’t receive quite the criticism that it does currently. Henry’s work (hard work indeed, I believe) has pleasantly surprised everyone. Sheamus certainly needs a few more babyface-style crowd-popping moves, but at the moment he hasn’t compromised his established character, and I believe that it works in his favour. It’s a good, solid midcard feud, the likes of which TNA simply doesn’t have. The likes of which Raw, at the moment, doesn’t have either.
Secondly, to suggest that crowd reaction is somehow proportionate to talent or how well the talent in question is being used just doesn’t make sense. To begin with, I’m not sure what kind of crowd reaction you look for as standard, but if you expect Hogan/Andre every time you switch onto Smackdown, you’ll always be disappointed. And in your case, I’m not even sure that’s an exaggeration! The Henry / Sheamus angle has only just begun, and solid, consistent fan reactions don’t happen overnight. Regardless of what you imply, I don’t think that anyone has suggested that Sheamus and Mark Henry have been setting audiences alight. The angle has, however, been heating up nicely, and both men are getting good, if not thunderous, crowd reactions. It’s looking very promising indeed.
Furthermore, although you did not once in your article suggest that Beth and Christian and Bryan got poor crowd reactions (and I never once implied that you did, by the way), my point is that I don’t think any of them got the reaction they deserved, but, crucially, that doesn’t make them poorly-used or untalented like your crowd-reaction-based-reasoning would suggest. The crowd took a long time to get into Bryan vs Barrett, couldn’t have cared less about Beth, and – and here may I remind you of one of your own arguments against Sheamus at MITB – fans in attendance only supplied anything close to the sort of pop a World Champion should command when Christian and Randy played at being spotmonkeys. Looked at from such a perspective, in light of performers who the internet loves, your rationale simply doesn’t add up.
I could go on, but instead I’ll merely summarise. I disagree with you on this matter, and I don’t believe you have to look too hard to in order to see that there is a whole lot of good to see in guys like Sheamus, Barrett, and, yes, Henry lately. There is also a big upside in how those men are being booked. That might not be the “cool smark” way of looking at things, but given that I believe that a little objectivity is required from time to time, in my opinion it’s the right way. You clearly enjoy disagreeing with the masses, and you’re not always wrong, but in this case it appears as though a desire on your part to be cool and cynical is inhibiting reason.
Having made that clear, I have no problem with you having an opinion. You’re entitled to it, and you usually express it well. In fact, your readership attests that the IWC appreciates it. With that said, I would ask that you do not insult those same readers, Blair. A writer of your quality does not need to heat-seek.
