I’m a WWF fan.
I studied Classical Greek and Latin.
I was a supervisor at an archaeological excavation in Italy.
I can stick out my tongue and touch my forehead.
Does that answer any questions?
Re: my previous post.
It was either that, or call HairyPotter all kinds of not-so-flattering names for making that OP.
Then, he(?) apologized, so I couldn’t have flamed him(?) without looking like an asshole. Argh. I hate apologies.
Howyadoin,
Hey Trucido, the dry cleaners called…
The ascots and smoking jacket are ready to be picked up.
-Rav
To add to Trucido and blur’s debate:
I think it’s fair to say that wrestling corresponds to the “low comedy” from classical Greek theater. Yes, it’s stupid, predictable, and violent, but what’s so bad about that in and of itself? If someone watched nothing other than low-class entertainment, I might take issue with that, but I see nothing wrong with mixing high and low-class entertainment.
mouthbreaker - I was responding directly to blur’s assertion, that “wrestling is marketed to the young working males with disposable income” (emphasis mine). And while I certainly agree that WWF is marketed towards young men (18-35), the audience in general is in the lower income bracket. I’m sure you are somewhat aware that the audience for “Friends” is nearly the same age; yet for some reason they fall into a higher income bracket (see my previous post). The fact that the ads cost considerably less is further evidence that the audience generally has less disposable income.
Does this mean that they (the audience) are any less intelligent? No, not at all. Does it mean they are less educated? Well, perhaps. There have, of course, been many studies directly relating education and income. And, if you believe the figures and Nielsen, then perhaps an audience which has less income also has a lower level of education.
Again, this is a generalization - the kind which advertisers use to decide how much and where to spend their money. As for intelligence, see trucido’s excellent posts for a better explanation.
Leander
It’s mouthbreather, BTW. 
Now, for the meat of your post – fair enough. You said earlier in this thread that “In fact, there have been studies relating audience education and economics to viewership.” I thought you were trying to use this as an example of education and economics.
Actually, I’m not. All I’m going on is what has been presented in this post. From your quote, "The median age of a “Smackdown!” viewer … is 23, …younger and less affluent than the viewers of …“Friends,”
How much younger? That’s probably an important piece of information for this discussion.
I don’t have a problem with the idea of less education = less income. But one thing to consider is that maybe they have less income because they are younger, not becasue they have less education. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that there is a correlation there as well. I also don’t have a problem with the idea that the AS A WHOLE the wrestling fanbase is less educated than the fanbase of the shows you mentioned. (It may be true, I just don’t think it’s been proved in this thread). It’s just when people start assuming that you are stupid if you are a wrestling fan that gets me a bit riled, as it happens all the time. As blur said,
And how. 
All you pencil-neck geeks who think that wrestling fans are dumb, why don’t you go and try out some of the moves the wrestlers make. Then after hours of exercise, practice and a hard match, try to come up with something clever on the mike without breathing too hard. And by the way, don’t cry when we laugh at your pathetic performance. Oh, you can’t even walk a block without breathing hard.
See, see…<pointing at capacitor>…there are some really stupid wrestling fans out there. This is what we’re talking about. Thank you, capacitor for putting an exclamation mark on my point! :wally
capacitor–
I know we’re on the same side of this argument and all, but what does that have to do with the fans’ intelligence?
Capacitor, ol’ buddy, ol’ pal, you’re not making much sense. Are we to believe that intelligence and physical ability are directly linked? Stephen Hawking certainly doesn’t look that dangerous, and I haven’t yet read the Rock’s latest published research so I won’t judge him. Quite frankly, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard since I got out of the schoolyard. “I’m stronger, so I’m smarter, too.” Professional wrestling entirely aside, that kind of sentiment makes me fucking sick.
Do you want real physical ability? Look at men like Alexander Karelin or Rulon Gardner, either of whom could toss around the best professional wrestlers like rag dolls. Real wrestlers participate in physical struggles. Extremely stylized, yes, but combat all the same. Acting, no matter how physically demanding, is still just acting. Professional wrestlers play at combat, and every extravagant parody of an attack or injury reinforces that. All flash, all noise.
I’d bet that Kurt Angle would have something to say about that. (Yes, he’d be outweighed by a bit, but I’d wager he wouldn’t get “tossed around like a rag doll”). If you don’t know, Angle won the 1996 gold medal in Atlanta, ~225 weight class. He’s now one of the top draws in the WWF.
As would Brock Lesnar have something to say about that, who is 6’3", 285#s and was the 2000 NCAA heavyweight wrestling champion. I imagine he could hold his own against either of those two. Maybe not win, but it certainly wouldn’t be embarrassing. (Lesnar has currently been working “dark” matches for the WWF – you should be seeing him on TV in the near future).
Feel free to call me an asshole any time, Zaphod Beeblebrox, if it makes you feel any better. Unloading in the Pit can be very theraputic for pent-up frustration, which we all sure as hell get in day-to-day survival!
Some may be harder than others.
But there is hope.
Jeeze, it took like 14 hours for someone to finally get that?
No, blur, some of us merely let it slide
And some of us just now got in on this.
Anyway, on to the meat. You say that wrestlin is fake and full of violence and steroids. Thus we shouldnt watch it. Many of us are stupid, poor children. We should watch “Friends” and the “high” arts. You do know that “Friends” is fake to right? Do think the cast is drug free? Sure pro rasslin has violence, but so does “harry potter” (I’m actually just guessing there) and Bugs Bunny. I just went to a taping of Smackdown! here in Omaha on Tuesday and I can attest that a good number of rasslin fans are children or poor or dumb or all 4 of those (hehe). There was also old people that drove new BMW’s. And Middle Aged people that drove large trucks from the farm. And young mid 20’s well to-do’s in the computer field. If the WWF didnt make a lot of money selling merchendise and TV ads we wouldn’t be talking about this right now. Some fans obviosly do have money and a clue. The average wrestler is almost as good of actor as the average actor. He is also almost as physically gifted as the average pro sport athlete. He also has to be a good public speaker and have an uncanny ability to adlib. Sure its low brow entertainment, but its funny as hell. And just because its fixed, still dont mean we know whats gonna happen all the time. I will stop rambling and giving more amunition to the “wrestlin fans are dumb” camp now.
dead0man
Yeah, Friends is highbrow entertainment, I watch it whenever I’m not banging on bongo drums and reciting poetry. I’m not telling you not to watch wrestling. No one in this thread has said anything to that effect. I don’t think it’s fair to pretend, though, that the audience can somehow elevate the entertainment.
As for wrestlers being good public speakers, I had a good long laugh at that. Since when have preening and threats been good public speaking? I really don’t believe the physically gifted thing, either. Look at weightlifters, boxers, and wrestlers. Conspicuously absent are the leathery mounds of scar tissue that people somehow equate with physical strength in wrestlers.
Most of these defenses of wrestling keep focusing on the audience. I prefer to focus on the content. It’s almost like pornography. Pornography is titillation for those who haven’t got the real thing ready at hand, be that real thing some particular partner, a personal fetish, or any gratification at all. In the same way, the crude symbols of physical strength people find in wrestlers seem to me to be the pornography of individual power. They are what many people locked in stultifying jobs and polite society want to be: extravagantly rude and purposefully subversive, with a cartoonishly overdone personal image. So why substitute poorly made porno and play-acting? Make a grab for the real thing, be it sex or violence or a steroidally enhanced physique. Punch your boss and demand your significant other wear skimpy leather outfits. To thine own darkest self be true.
Raven, I damn near injured myself laughing. Do you mind if I use that as a sig?
I have not challenged any of your opinions (well, except one) to this point, because they are absolutely yours to have and express as you like. I don’t agree, but that’s fine – But I can’t decide if this statement is more funny or wrong, or equal amounts of each. I dare you to look at Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, HHH, Booker T, and any number of others – look into their daily training schedule, and then you tell me that they are not physically gifted. You may not like what they do, but these guys train as hard as any other athlete you’d like to stack them up against. I’d say you need to learn something before you make broad statements such as the one you just did.
And I have no idea what you’re talking about with “leathery mounds of scar tissue” – can you give an example? If you’re talking about scar tissue on peoples heads from bleeding, I don’t think anyone equates that with strengh. I usually equate physical strength with their build and the stamina they display.
Sure, there are some fatsos and slobs out there, but you never see them busting their ass in half hour matches, either. They are the ones that put on boring, slow, short matches, any most fans who really know what they are watching don’t like these guys anyway.
Have you actually watched wrestling since the 1980s? It’s not like that anymore at all. You should watch some tapes of Mick Foley, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, Edge, and quite a few others. These people are funny and witty, and much of what they say (at least in Jericho, Angle, and Foley’s cases) is improv. As in: not pre-scripted. The only wrestlers who go around growling and threatening people are those who lack the public-speaking skills. Nobody here said that ALL wrestlers are gifted public speakers. SOME of them are. I can easily see a future for Kurt Angle as a movie star.
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying, here. Do pro-wrestlers lack such scar tissue? Do boxers lack this scar tissue? I’m confused. Also, considering that many pro-wrestlers were “legitimate” athletes who moved on to pro-wrestling (Kurt Angle, Ken Shamrock, Ron Simmons, Dwayne Johnson, just to name a few), I fail to see what you’re “getting at.” This is not so much a criticism, as a request for you to explain what you meant by this quote.
Though I agree completely with everything you just said, I’d like to nitpick that particular point. Some of those fat guys display surprising conditioning. Vader, for example, has been through countless long matches, and did rather well for a guy who’s WELL over 300 lbs.