Subjectivity

This post really isn't completely wrestling related as it can be applied across the board in any subject where there's no concrete way of determing who's "better", mainly music, movies, television etc. However, what caused it has been spurred on by posts made by certain people at message boards I post at.

Wrestling is a unique beast. Its roots are in sport, as it's clearly an athletic endeavor to compete successfully in the squared circle, yet its predetermined nature gives it a lot more things in common with scripted entertainment. Because of that, judging it is much different than judging other "real" sports, and in fact, it causes pro wrestling to be judged much like a television show or movie. The biggest stats objectively would be money made and television ratings, but most fans would be inclined to judge it with subjective criteria like entertainment value.

That is not to say that there are no objective criteria other than money; they're just murkier to discuss, mainly because people's perspectives are different depending on the wrestling they were weaned on. Regardless, there's a general compass for what is considered good, influential or important.

What isn't covered by that compass is what entertains us. We don't always like what's important or what's influential or even what's "good". While it's undeniable that Hulk Hogan was the biggest draw of the 1980s and not a reach to say he was the most important, it's perfectly understandable for a person not to enjoy him, or to have found a lesser light, like maybe a Curt Hennig or a Magnum TA or a Ronnie Garvin to be better. You like whom you like, and sometimes, there's no rhyme or reason as to why.

That's why I find it ludicrous when people start attacking people for liking something. I mean, yeah, I come on this blog and say that Triple H sucks or TNA sucks or Randy Orton sucks or EVERYTHING SUCKS~!!!!~~~!~!~!~@!~@~!@#~!@~!@`12`12`1, but conversely, I'm not going sit here and blast someone for being a fan of any of those things I hate. Take Matt Ward, or Tchu as some may know him, the guy who co-mods the wrestling forum at PTC with me. He's a huge Triple H fan. I've had spats with him before over the more "objective" arguments, like Triple H's impact on ratings or his political machinations, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to sit here and hate on him for liking the guy. I would never belittle him or criticize him for liking Triple H, just as he'd never do the same to me for liking The Miz. And I have to say, there are scarce few other people that I respect more when it comes to discussing wrestling. That's why we moderate the forum.

On the flip side, there are people out there who think their opinions are ironclad enough to be considered fact, and you get bullshit like this:

"Yeah, Santino [Marella] is lots more entertaining if you're willing to virtually obliterate any ounce of disbeleif [sic] factor from within you. Heck, who am I kiding?! [sic] Even then, Santino is stupid (and not in a good way, in majority) at best."

(in response to me saying that Santino was more entertaining than Jim Cornette) "It's ridiculous and it's wrong... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are wrong."

"TNA has been excellent in the last few months, and if you don't agree, then you're biased against it and furthermore, have your head up Vince McMahon's ass."

"Who cares if David Arquette didn't make money for WCW during his short time there? You're not smart if you don't believe that it was good at the time for WCW."

Yeah, that shit doesn't fly with me at all. To tell someone that their opinions on how they're entertained are wrong is to tell them that they can't enjoy wrestling the way that they want to, and that they should enjoy it a certain way or else not watch all. That to me is elitism at its worst, and the last time I checked, wrestling isn't exactly entertainment for the social elite.

I'm not going to sit here and say that everyone's opinion is valid. Yes, there are "wrong opinions", but usually they're ones made after being presented with facts, be they true or false. If someone were to say "I think that Santino Marella is more important than Jim Cornette", that opinion would be pretty wrongheaded unless you were to discount the huge amount of influence Corny had on heel managers from his days in Smoky Mountain, JCP and the NWA. Of course if you did that, you'd be arguing in bad faith and would still be wrong.

But to say an opinion of "I am more entertained by Santino Marella than Jim Cornette" is wrong is... well, forming an opinion that is wrong, in my opinion. You're doing the exact same thing that you're accusing me of. That's pretty laughable.

It's very much possible to have a debate about wrestling without looking stupid or resorting to petty flames. Again, look at the countless debates that me and MatTchu have had at the PTC wrestling forums, or the disagreements I've had with guys like Freakfish or Linus at A1. Those arguments are ones that are being made in good faith on both sides, not ones made by people looking to push their dogma on others, or even worse, by people who come in condescending and arguing from the position that wrestling is for mouf-breathers and that since they're more refined, they know what the real score is.

Honestly, I don't care about differing opinions. They're what make the world go round. But don't call me stupid, don't call my purely subjective opinions wrong and don't condescend to me. I'm not an idiot, and I don't treat people like idiots unless they do the same to me in kind. Realize that debating subjectivity isn't a reason to get all angry at people, and everyone gets along fine.