I’ve been a reader of Pulse since the very beginning. I joined the forums in August, 2004. I started writing for the Pulse over in sports in 2008. I’ve read Hyatte and watched him piss people off and give other writers a hard time, sometimes deserved, often not, but always entertaining. I’ve read Charlie Reneke and enjoyed immensely his “too long” reviews. And I read Blair Douglas, who has helped me make sense of Impact.
But something’s happened on Inside Pulse lately that I’ve not seen for a long, long time.
Writers are having a considered difference of opinion with other writers. Commentators are writing well-written, well thought out responses, which are as long as the columns themselves. Writers are taking these to heart. Other writers are getting involved. Pot shots have been taken. Arguments have been made. Debates have been engaged.
It’s interesting.
Add to that the fact that Scott Keith is back reviewing wrestling shows on at least a semi-regular basis, traffic is up, and the number of comments is exploding.
So what does it mean?
I think this is actually indicative of something more than just egos running rampant in an online situation. Sure, there is a bit of the ego thing – there always is, it’s a part of being a sentient human being, and it’s a big part of being a writer – but this is beyond that.
I think this shows something that I have not seen for a long time. I think this shows passion.
It does not matter which side you fall on in the never-ending arguments and debates, each side is putting forward their opinions at every opportunity. They are defending their positions. They are rarely falling into name-calling and all-out abuse (yes, there’s been some, but it has not been the general tone of it all) – it is simply people writing what they feel about what they are clearly passionate about.
Is Mark Henry an overrated slug given the title as a thank-you for years of service? Or has he taken the most of this push and the booking and made himself into a dominant wrestler? Who can say? But the writers here – both columnists and commentators – have come down on either side of the fence here. And they have done so with hundreds, if not thousands of words, many column inches, enough copy to fill a good sized book.
What about Cody Rhodes? Is he the next big thing or an overhyped guy who only got his push because of his name? And Sheamus? Is he just a perennial midcarder who got his push because of his friendship with HHH, or is he a genuine contender and deserving of his high status? Is TNA a confusing mess or a viable alternative to WWE? Is the CM Punk saga a wasted opportunity or a brilliant piece of long-term booking? I’m not going to pretend to have the answers, but these are the sort of questions that have graced these pages.
We’ve seen Pulse Glazer and Blair A. Douglas pass back and forth between them columns on this sort of thing. We’ve seen half of the other writers chime in. Commentators favour one or the other.
And you know what? I think that’s great. It certainly sets up an interesting vibe here at Inside Pulse, but it’s one that shows everyone has an opinion and they may not all be the same. Having so many differences in our writing staff is, I feel, a strength.
So, sure, people are complaining about the sad state of wrestling today, about the storylines and pushes and stars and booking. But the way these complaints are being made shows me that passion for this pseudosport we all know and love is clearly running high. It’s not that people are sick of it and don’t care – it’s that they do care. And that means wrestling still has something to offer. And it means these people are still passionate about it. And if they are still passionate about it, then wrestling must still be doing something right.
So, what else is there?
You know you want to read Blair A. Douglas.
And so, to be fair, you should also read Pulse Glazer.
Joel Leonard‘s always a good read.
And, finally, how can I leave here without saying, “Rey Mundo‘s back!”
And that’s the view!
