Did I miss where that was established? I am under the impression that 18-35Y.O. males make up the largest portion of their fans. I could be wrong, though.
Ok, I was wrong in that assertion. I jumped to a conclusion after reading leander’s cite on the first page, and I admit that. However, with a median age of 23, that still would mean most WWF fans are concentrated in the age group of ~10 - 22, right? (Feel free to correct me since I know little about statistics.) If the majority of WWF fans are 22+ however, I truly am surprised, since I have always been under the impression that wrestling is most popular with teenagers; furthermore, if it is the case, then I do wonder if such people “grow out of” wrestling to seek other, less fantastic, forms of entertainment (which I guess leads us back to the OP).
Why should anyone grow out of it? Are watching wrestling and intellectual pursuits two mutually exclusive things? Can’t somebody watch a little mindless TV after having spent his whole day translating The Anabasis?
Life is a little like television. Quite some time ago, they invented colours. So, not everything has to be black and white.
Trudico, if they are not athletes, then you try executing the moves they do, day after day after day. Professional Boxers have matches once a month. Ice-skaters have two two-minute routines and a four-minute routine which they perform on consecutive nights. Gymnasts perfom an average of about 4 minutes on each night for a meet. Amateur wrestlers have three rounds of two minues each. In comparison Many of the elite pro wrestlers have to perform for at least ten minutes straight for a match about 6 days a week. some matches go for an hour or even more.
You try performing with broken bones, including on your vertabrae or neck area, with torn ligaments, with severe lacerations, with tendonitis, with one eye open while the other one has to be patched, with one earlobe torn off, or with one foot even. Then, with the pain you have, address the crowd, make positive speeches to them (or disses, if you are a heel), and sign autographs without complaint. Wrestlers do this every day. Even the most severe critics don’t deny that pro wrestlers are among the toughest athletes in the world. Injuries that would force other athletes to rest and not participate, wrestlers work with them.
Cpaactior, my handle is right in front of you. Have you been spelling it wrong on purpose? Trudico is closer than Trudicio, I guess.
I’m going to say this one more time, and that’s it. If you can’t understandd it, or at least respond to it in context, I can’t make myself understood to you, and there’s no point in continuing.
Phsyical ability does not make an athlete. If I can run fifty miles in one day on two broken legs, that doesn’t fucking make me an athlete. If I can juggle pianos and sing opera at the same time that doesn’t make me an athlete. When I pit my physical abilities against another person in honest competition, then I am an athlete.
Let me rephrase: Professional wrestling contains no physical competition, therefore its participants are not athletes. Read that until you’re absolutely sure you understand it, then read it again. Because physical prowess and stamina DO NOT MAKE AN ATHLETE.
Trucido, the definition of athlete is provided in one of Sacrilegium’s posts above (if I knew how to link to individual posts, I would).
By those definitions, pretty much all professional wrestlers would be considered athletes. (Potential exception: X-Pac.)
I think the term you are looking for is either “professional athlete” (which isn’t exactly true, since they are being paid regular paychecks for their job, one of the prime requisites of which presumably being athleticism), or “competitive athletes.”
In the same way the posts on this page admitted that wrestling is not a sport - in that they’re not actually competing to win - I don’t think that you will get any disagreement if you argue that they are not competitive athletes, but unless you have a definition of athlete (cite, please) that differs noticably from Sacrilegium’s above, I think that you are wrong in saying that wrestlers are not athletes at all.
Actually, Trucido, you’re not using the generally accepted definition of the word athlete. According to all the defintions i could find, an athlete does not have to be competitive. For example, Merriam-Websters online dictionary defines it as “a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina”.
And i still don’t understand why you said that wrestlers don’t have to train as hard just because they’re not involved in a win/lose competition.
Howyadoin,
This is an funny thread, started out as a GD orphan, and it is slowly finding the way back to the Pit…
[MontyBurns]
Excellent…
::rubs hands together::
[/MontyBurns]
BTW, Trucido, is it just me or has your syllable per word average dropped significantly as the thread has progressed? 
That Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is taking a beating…
Page 1: 12.0
Page 2: 10.3
Page 3: 8.3
Page 4: 7.3
(Thanks MS Word)
Please don’t take offense, I’m just enjoying your descent into Pitdom. BTW, please feel free to use the earlier line for your sig!
-Rav
Me afraid you am corect, Raven. Words now 1/2, 1/4 bit. (BTW, my friends thought an ascot would be a good idea, except that it wouldn’t go with the ratty, sleeveless Misfits t-shirt I was wearing at the time)
The definitions offered above would indicate that wrestlers can consider themselves athletes. The thrust of Capacitor’s argument appears to be that they are athletes solely due to the fact that I am unable to perform their part. Note also his previous contention that I have no right to question professional wrestling because its participants are both stronger, smarter, and more eloquent than I am. I would also categorize wrestling as theater or (cheap) drama, rather than an “exercise, sport, or game.” That definition of athlete would also include special forces soldiers, skilled cat burglars, SWAT team members, frequent binge drinkers, marathon scrabble players, and certain prostitutes.
On the issue of training difficulty as raised in last part of Monocracy’s post, let me explain myself more clearly. Wrestlers in the ring all cooperate towards a fixed goal. What they do requires the consent and participation of both parties. When a real wrestler steps into the ring, he receives exactly the opposite. To throw someone to the mat when they’re actively resisting is orders of magnitude harder than pantomiming the action with a willing victim. Furthermore, the training a wrestler receives must be divided among disciplines other than strength: his appearance, timing, and theatrics are all arguably more important than physical strength. Training for muscle mass is not the same as strength training.
Howyadoin,
How 'bout if we just call professional wrestlers “actors who do their own stunts” and be done with it? They perform in the same manner as stuntmen, no?
- The illusion of combat with the opponent moving in a manner that allows the attack to be completed.
2.When objects are used as weapons, they have been prepared to break in such a manner as to distribute the impact, reducing the chance of injury.
- When wrestlers fall or leap from a height, they do so in a scripted manner, with objects placed to prevent injury.
Just my attempt to bump my thread killer score
-Rav
Trucido**, you confuse part for the whole. I only focus on one part of the argument because others were arguing the other parts very well…
I liken pro wrestlers as stuntmen who has to speak. If you deny that stuntmen are themselves athletes, then you have a different problem altogether.
Funny, that wasn’t there when I typed it.
Howyadoin,
Bloody simulpost… 
-Rav
You like The Misfits, eh? I love irony…
No, they are not exclusive. The problem comes when this one form of entertainment becomes predominant, which, I believe, is the topic of the thread. However, certainly the stereotype that has been discussed does not represent all wrestling fans, and there is definitely nothing wrong with watching wrestling itself, but it cannot be healthy to be so fixated and entranced by violence. What I meant by “grow out of it” was not meant as “stop watching it altogether,” but to not be so involved in the world of wrestling and broaden one’s tastes.
I prefer to think of it as multiple-personality disorder.
Capacitor, you’re still not getting it. You’ve said some decidedly screwed-up shit in this thread.
The logic here is spectacular in its impenetrability. Maybe you can clear it up.
I see. Anyone who doesn’t like professional wrestling is physically unfit.
You’ve sampled all the entertainment world has to offer, and damned if wrestling isn’t the only thing left worth your attention. The rest of this message is equally ridiculous, essentially saying that you can’t be taught anything about politics or entertainment. Well, maybe you’re right.
I don’t think I said anything about wasting time. I sure as hell didn’t say you should watch “Friends” or “Survivor,” nor did I suggest opera or musicals. I don’t think you’d enjoy them anyway. The outcomes are just too unpredictable.
I still don’t know what to make of this. I thought my arguments were pretty coherent, except for I was lambasting you for the above statements.
Wrestlers are athletes because they spend a lot of time in the hospital. Diabetics, cancer patients, and emphysema suffers are also athletes.
Once again, I become the gold standard for judging whether or not someone is an athlete. I’m honored.
They’re not. Setting yourself on fire and jumping off a building is not a sport, though I would pay to watch if it was.
Tricido, not all athletes are playing sports. You have issues if you think that a Navy SEAL or stuntmen aren’t athletes. I submit that even curlers are athletes as well, although they certainly don’t need the athletic requirements that wrestlers do.
Oh BTW, my favorite TV shows are Buffy, The Vampire Slayer, and The Practice. Can’t call them two predictable, can you?
The point that you are missing is that pro wrestlers don’t do the same moves as real wrestlers. The things that pro wrestlers do could never be accomplished against an unwilling opponent. For an analogy, take pairs figure skating. If the dude lifts the chick above his head and spins her around, does it make him less of an athlete than a real wrestler because she is not resisting him, but helping him?
And why is physical strength training harder than other types of training? A basketball player has to train at shooting, dribbling, passing, etc … does that mean his training isn’t as intense because it’s not purely physical?
And just because the competition isn’t real, doesn’t mean that wrestlers can slack off. Just like acrobats, gymnasts, ballet dancers, high divers, etc., they have to make their performance as exciting as possible to please the audience (or judges). The choreographed routines are designed around the wrestlers physical abilities … the more physically fit and well-trianed the wrestlers are, the more exciting routines that can be created.
Nah, on their own they are quite predictable. The inevitable Buffy/Practice crossover, on the other hand, should prove to be quite wild!
And Trucido, ol’ buddy ol’ pal, are you arguing, facetiously, that wrestlers aren’t athletes because of the way Capacitor has compared you (unfavorably) to them?
Or are you arguing, seriously, that they fall short of the definitions that were, again, cited earlier. In case you missed it:
While you protest that:
If I’m being whooshed here, fine. If not, then, again, I think it’s time for you to break out the OED, since it’s the only dictionary that I’m aware of that is accepted as being a more credible dictionary than Websters.
Keep in mind that, if I’m reading you right, those involved in physical competition are athletes, while those that are just really, really, athletic are not. By this definition of yours, elementary school kids playing tag are athletes but the entertainers in Cirque de Soleil are not.
Curious thing, that.
I’m not entirely sure that isn’t my point, Monocracy. Wrestling could not take place in a competitive environment. Many of the moves are relatively low-contact- they’re all show and stomping the mat. This requires less strength than actually throwing another 250 lb. person to the mat. Yes, they do different moves, which are incidentally much easier to execute than most real wrestling moves. On the issue of training, their exercises are more like rehearsals, preparation for a set of specific plans as opposed to contest. If you will examine the average wrestler’s physique, it is apparent that they use bodybuilding techniques. These also detract from strength and agility training, as the types of exercises involved are different.
KKBattousai, read if you will the first and third definitions, as well as the word origin and the dictionary.com definition. I still contend, despite the breadth of Webster’s second definition, that wrestlers, as well as members of the Cirque du Soleil, fall into the category of performers or actors rather than athletes. First and foremost, they act out a story to please the crowd. Professional wrestlers do not simply stand up and demonstrate their strength, rather they spend most of their time is spent in elaborate theatrics as opposed true physical exertion. To use your own example, the average acrobat at the Cirque du Soleil probably exerts him or herself for a much longer time and to a much greater extent than a wrestler.
As for the OED, I’m unsure that I’ll be able to get access to one today. I will, however, drop by the library soon.