Pro Wrestling: Did They Ever Really Expect People to Believe It Was Real?

Well we know the only thing really pre-planned is who wins and as is often the case, who comes in from outside the ring to hit who with a chair, and how the storyline will progress until the next pay-per-view event. I thought the action in the ring was largely improvised, with the exception that you know the stars will have to perform their signature moves at some point.

I loved wrestling as a kid during a period when they had fantastical characters like the original Undertaker, and when many of the characters had magical powers. It was self-evident how fake it was. Although I did grow up with a healthy respect for the I.R.S.

Shocked nobody has linked this video yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI&feature=related

OK, “vast” was probably a bit too much, but I find it hard to believe that even back in the 50’s more than half the audience really thought it was an actual competition. I know there are “True Believers” even today, but I’ve never personally met anyone over the age of 15 who actually thought it was a competition. However I have met many folks who find it more fun to simply play along and enjoy the entire show as if it were true. It’s kind of like a role playing game that the fans can enjoy.

now that was funny… I don’t think I was ever that emotionally into wrestling than that when I was a kid and heard Hulk Hogan’s intro music piping.

In the early 70s our local paper in Raleigh printed the results of the matches in the sports section.

It’s faker than silicone tits. What are you, one of their lobbyists?

I used to be a fan of pro-wrestling. The word fake to explain it is bandied about as if it’s the cool thing to do. When everyone uses that buzz word to explain it and can’t come up with decent and more comprehensive words to explain the lack of realness, I find it to be ignorant talk. Like people joining the bandwagon to bash something they can’t explain properly and accurately. They find the need to demean something they’re not into and use these buzz words to get a rise out of those that actually are fans of said thing. Simply put, i find the word fake in the context of wrestling to be a demeaning buzz word.

Okay, but there are things faker than silicone tits. Saline tits for example.

It is choreographed. It is predetermined who will win. There was a Roddy Piper documentary a few years ago which showed how pissed he was when they decided it was time for him to lose. He wanted to stay on top, but Vince wanted him to step aside for the next hot thing.
I have a friend who wrestled as the Masked Marvel, or any other masked costume they wanted him to don. He fought Dick the Bruiser, the Sheik, Bobo Brazil and others.He has just had his 7th back operation. He has been stiff and in pain for years.
They are huge, roided up athletes. They do get hurt.But back when Harry was wrestling ,most people thought it was real.

The amount of improvisation that occurs in a given match can vary greatly, depending on the importance of the match, the skill and experience of the wrestlers themselves and even the temperament of the performers. Some guys like to have every encounter and transition mapped out long in advance, Randy Savage was infamous in how meticulous he was in setting up his matches. The main event of Wrestlemania 6, Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior, was scripted in great detail weeks before the event and they were made to rehearse the entirety of the match several times before they went live.

Other times guys are just given a broad idea about what needs to be accomplished, a time limit and a winner and are allowed to go wild. This is more rare in places like the WWE where time and exposure equals money, but in small feds and leagues it can be the rule.

In a typical 10 minute match on Monday night the wrestlers usually have some “spots” that they want to hit but are given some leeway in how they reach those points.

Also about the use of the word “fake”…

It’s a perfectly cogent descriptor of the business and I don’t get the visceral reaction some of my fellow fans have to it. If someone comes up to me and says, “You know it’s fake right?”, my first response is “of course it is”. If they really want to know what appeals to me about it we can sit down and have conversation about “fake” vs. “worked”, but the word itself doesn’t get me riled up.

I wouldn’t call a stunt movie “fake” just because those guys weren’t really jumping from exploding cars to prevent their imminent death. Maybe pro-wrestling tries to blur the line between real and fake since the events take place with live crowds, but I still say calling pro-wrestling “fake” and not uniformly doing the same to all other forms of entertainment is a bit disingenuous.

Regarding the matches themselves, I always wonder how the guys know what move to do next and not have it end up looking like a mess. I’ve read they (and the referee) are constantly giving each other hand signals and even verbal cues, but I can never seem to spot them. Anyone have more details on this?

So, you’d call it “real”?

Fake is certainly a better descriptor than real.

It used to be that way. Old school guys would go to the ring knowing the finish, and roughly how long the promoter wanted the match to go. They’d improvise the match as they went, depending on how the crowd reacted. Usually, the heel would call the match, ie tell the other guy which moves to do, but if the heel was less experienced, the babyface could do it. Not very many of the modern workers can do that. Now, the matches are more often planned out in considerable detail before bell time.

Why do you have to give it a single, vague, all-encompassing label in the first place? It’s both and neither.

I disagree. Those other forms of entertainment do not purport to present a competition which will be won by whoever is best/luckiest that day rather than by whoever is scripted to win. The notion of a match that could be won by either party, depending on how things go, is indeed fake when in actuality it will be “won” by whoever is so designated beforehand. There is not a parallel to this in other sports or entertainment.

Mostly verbal. When the guys lock up, or otherwise get their heads close together, they can talk. Some refs will also call spots. When he gets close, acting like he’s either chastising a rule breaker, or checking for an illegal choke, he can say a few words. Non-verbal communication also exists, but it’s pretty subtle to the audience. For example, on a “whip into the ropes/corner” sequence, a hand placed one way or another on the whip can let the other guy know if he’s supposed to take the back drop/clothesline/whatever or reverse/duck the move.

Communication between the ref and the wrestlers is happening constantly in the ring. This is going to sound terribly obvious,(and I don’t mean it to sound condescending) but the reason you don’t see it is because they don’t want you to. Anytime the guys are locked up close together, even for a few seconds, they’re communicating. Collar and elbow tieups, headlocks, resting holds, all of them allow for quiet, quick communication. They’re also shouting smack at each other constantly just so the audience thinks they’re doing more of the same if they happen to catch a stray word here or there.

There’s also the concept of “cooperation”. When you’re out there your primary concern has to be the safety of the other guy in the ring. If someone gets you into a suplex or bodyslam you don’t fight it unless you’ve agreed to beforehand. If you do you could end up hurting yourself or your opponent, or at the very least the move gets “botched” and you look bad in front of the crowd. That’s a quick way to lose your job.

ETA: Or what Oakminster said. :smiley:

There really isn’t a modern comparison that can be thoroughly made to pro-wrestling on any level. The industry grew out of the carny acts of the 19th century and it really is a unique profession unto itself.

Comparing it to movies isn’t completely accurate, but neither is saying it’s a “pre-determined sport.” There is competition that occurs between performers, but it’s about captivating the audience with your charisma or athleticism, not about winning or losing. It’s very difficult to explain to people who don’t already “get it”, because there’s really nothing to compare it to.

Actually, I do consider many forms of entertainment and entertainers fake. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but not copping to it is lame, at best.