this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
13 points (93.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40315 readers
645 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
technopagan@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
13
Did the western world just suddenly go back to pretending wrestling is "real" for some reason? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 3 days ago by Adderbox76@lemmy.ca to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Since Wrestlemania there's been nothing but stories about John Cena winning an amazing 17th title, blah blah blah... It's a "History making moment", yadda yadda yadda...

Like...of course he did. It's the storyline. It's quite literally "in the script".

This isn't an achievement. Why is this in my sports news next to last night's hockey scores instead of next to an article about who was the bitchiest on the lastest episode of Real Housewives?

I get it. I loved Wrestling growing up. Back when we all WERE pretending it was real; Macho Man, Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, etc... But I thought at some point they steered into the whole "entertainment" aspect when most of us grew the hell up and clued into the absurdity of it all.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

This isn’t an achievement. Why is this in my sports news next to last night’s hockey scores instead of next to an article about who was the bitchiest on the lastest episode of Real Housewives?

Because wrestling is a huge business and it has a lot of overlap with combat sports fans.

Like…of course he did. It’s the storyline. It’s quite literally “in the script”.

Yesn't.

An actor breaking the record for most best performer oscars won in a career would also be newsworthy, yet you can absolutely pay your way to an oscar.

John Cena is remarkable in that he's such a draw that a multi-billion dollar organization decided to set his career as the new ceiling to break for the next big star, by breaking a record untouched for decades, might I add. That's newsworthy.

That isn't scripted, that is a performer being skilled at what he does, as much as I personally don't enjoy his work.

But I thought at some point they steered into the whole “entertainment” aspect when most of us grew the hell up and clued into the absurdity of it all.

This is like, the most "I learned something so the rest of the world learned it with me" I've ever seen.

Wrestling has been known to be fake for over a century; newspapers stopped reporting on it as a factual sport in the early 1900s.

Hell, it was known to be fakery before it was ever televised.

Kids don't know until they do.

It's live action martial arts anime theater. No more, no less.

tl;dr: Should John Cena's record-breaking 17th title win be in the papers? absolutely. Sports section? Maybe, depends. It is a "sport" in the same way that figure skating or synchronised swimming is.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It's a soap opera with fighting. Of course fans are talking about the characters and the story. Nobody talking about anything that happens in a soap Opera will add that it's just fiction, they're talking about the events.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago

Who cares? Let people enjoy it if it makes them happy.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

People are excited about the writting in the show they watch. 90 banillion articles came out about Severence too.

People that are fans then play into the kayfabe, as thats a large part of the point of the show.

Let people enjoy things, they arent harming you by talking about wrestling.

[–] VagueAnodyneComments@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

WWE is less wrestling and more a glorification vehicle for the MacMahon syndicate. All the real pro wrestling is on AEW or the circuits now.

[–] y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

We've regressed into believing a lot of imaginary things are real.

Wrestling is the least of our worries.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a load of bots because Netflix spent the GDP of a small country on it.

[–] cmeio@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Living in the western world - I hear nothing about Wrestling..

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, I think this says more about OP's information bubble.

[–] sucius@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Same. US defaultism strikes again. I don't think I have ever heard anyone talk about wrestling in my life

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wrestling has a significant presence in Central America, Japan, and Europe. Presumably other regions as well but I really don't follow the sport so my experience is all second-hand.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Where in Europe?

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] sucius@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

That's not significant at all. The viership is practically non existent. I've lived in 3 inches different countries in Europe plus the US. Not once have I've seen wrestling make the news anywhere in Europe. It's extremely fringe.

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's a soap opera for men. Sure the storyline is made up, but people still like being entertained.

Note, I am assuming the match was good. I haven't watch wrestling in a while, but some of those old matches are still fun to watch.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I've heard the soap opera comparison before. But I think "circus" is technically more accurate. You've got these very obvious professional athletes performing a well-rehearsed routine that is physically demanding and dramatically delivered.

Like, would you call a tightrope walker or a trapeze artist "fake"? If a dozen clowns pile out of a car and start performing back flips and somersaults and climbing into human pyramids and spraying one another with seltzer bottles, would you dismiss it as an obviously scripted display?

Would you go to a Harlem Globetrotters game and complain when they pull out a springboard and start doing stunt slam dunks?

It's a show! It doesn't need to be competitive in order to be fun.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago

Would you go to a Harlem Globetrotters game and complain when they pull out a springboard and start doing stunt slam dunks?

I did, so Ethan "Bubblegum" Tate made fun of me, I became verbally abusive, and then they asked me to leave.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah from a physical aspect yes you are correct but wrestling has the storylines that the circus doesn't. The Jerry springer like drama and feuds that people really get invested in with the same level of chair throwing.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The outcome of the match is predetermined while the participants pretend that it isn't. That is why there are constant arguments about whether or not it's "fake".

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The outcome of the match is predetermined while the participants pretend that it isn’t.

The adventure is in the journey, not the destination. I don't care whether you win or you lose when I came to see two roided out giants do backflip kicks into one another's torsos while their friends spray silly string to distract the combatants from the sidelines.

That is why there are constant arguments about whether or not it’s “fake”.

There is absolutely no question that the outcome of the matches is predetermined, in the same way that there is absolutely no doubt that the Rat King is going to get killed by the Nutcracker at the ballet. But both wrestling and ballet are athletic endeavors.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I agree that most of them are athletic, but they simply aren't competing in an athletic competition.

I think your comparison to the Globetrotters is on point. In the ballet and other examples, the difference to me is that they're not pretending to be in a ballet competition while dancing the ballet.

There's no doubt that what most wrestlers do requires skill, talent, and athleticism but it's "fake" in that what you're watching isn't an authentic athletic competition despite the people involved pretending that it is.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the ballet and other examples, the difference to me is that they’re not pretending to be in a ballet competition while dancing the ballet.

In the Nutcracker, at least, they're pretending to fence, in a choreographed dance. A first-time naive viewer who came out of the show offended when they discover skill at fencing has nothing to do with whether the dancers playing the Nutcracker or the Rat King wins would sound silly.

I do think that the kayfabe is what sets wrestling apart from more traditional performance art. The carnival-barker lying-to-your-face aspect of the performance is what makes it feel extra circus-y. But when you accept that the kayfabe is just part of the performance, you stop feeling offended by it and start recognizing degrees of commitment to the bit as part of the artform.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the Nutcracker, at least, they're pretending to fence, in a choreographed dance.

And no one writes stories about who won the fencing match.

Wrestling takes things to a ridiculous level compared to all other performances.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And no one writes stories about who won the fencing match.

Because it's the same story that's been running for the last century. Pro-Wrestling shows are just stories you haven't seen before. And reviews of new performances are written about regularly.

Wrestling takes things to a ridiculous level

Sure. The exaggeration and the very deliberate kayfabe is a big part of the appeal. But then you see that in Cosplay and at the Renaissance Faire all the time. Running onto the tournament grounds and shouting "These aren't real knights! They aren't really jousting!!" is still considered gauche. And it breezes past the skills you need to ride a horse, maintain a kit, and put on the display without hurting yourself or your partner.

[–] masta_chief@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Hello. Wow this is a deep thread. I didn't read all of it but I'm impressed by the enthusiasm and persistence in this thread.

Also man there aren't too many places left on the internet you can actually have a discussion and talk back & forth and know that there's actual person on the other end.

Anyways, to you, reading this, fellow Lemmy-goer, thanks for getting this far in my rambling

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No, we know the outcome's predetermined. Last year's Wrestlemania was basically written six-months ahead of time.

It's still fun to watch though, and the athletes do some amazing shit.

[–] iegod@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call them athletes if their skill isn't what determines the outcome. Performers certainly like cirque du Soleil.

[–] SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why not? What definition of 'athlete' are you even using? Did you just decide this?

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

athlete Athletes compete or strive against others to attain a goal, TV wrestlers perform, or enact a feat before an audience.

[–] mostNONheinous@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You could say there goal is to perform for that audience, as a team….of athletes.

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

No idea why my previous comment shows as quoted, but whatever

My argument is that if they were actually competing that would mess with the performative nature of the storytelling.

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Wrestling is a form of theatre.

Its just the high octane, sensationalized, ridiculous, coked up, american pop culture version of Theatre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvSs3HEz2o excellent video where someone talks about why Wrestling got popular

Wrestling Isn't Sports. But it also isn't fake. Not entirely. the outcomes are usually scripted, and theres a card they are usually following (Sometimes, they aren't. Whether its a botch, a shoot, etc) (botch means a mistake, a shoot means someone's not acting, and they're throwing real punches)

but the acrobatics and "stunts' people are doing, are very real. an incredible amount of effort and skill is needed to have the physical ability and timing to make the stuff look real for the kids and cameras

thats why its called sports entertainment,

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just to further your point. It's like Cirque du Soleil, scripted, but they are really doing those moves.

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Makes me wonder how 'real' roman gladiators were.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Far as I know, not very.

Real combat with weapons is not all that entertaining.

You nick a guy in the right place and he'll die a slow agonising death in the locker room, far from the eyes of the crowd, then you're down an athlete and even the enslaved ones aren't cheap, and they need training, and housing, and feeding, etc.

Moreover this may happen at any point of the fight and that's not very satisfying to watch, think Mike Tyson one-hit KO vs a 20 minute banger with back nad forth.

So obviously you'd make it look good and take your time, send the crowd home happy. Even were it a real competition, which it was at times.

Gladiators that were intantionally killed in the arena were "bought" by the editor (the person paying for the games overall), and it was at a premium. Afterall the lanista got a major cut of their stable's wins, so you'd have to cover the sum of all the potential winnings of the rest of their careers, and then some, to make it worth it.

So it wasn't quite pro wrestling, but it was definitely close, the economics of it make more sense that way, and the (relative) longevity of certain documented gladiators also.

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Interesting thanks. Not all that surprising though.

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Counterpoint- all sports are silly. That’s why they are called games.

I don’t dunk on wrestling fans anymore because people are free to enjoy whatever they want. But it’s always been like this. It didn’t change - you did. Personal growth!

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago

I agree to some extent, but there's an important difference between sport and performance. WWE is categorically separate from say, BJJ. Sure, they both have guys rolling around on the floor, and they're both kinda silly, but one is a real competition with rules and skill while the other is a predetermined show.

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not all sports are games, if you cant quickly grab some friends and head out to play it, its not a game.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

All sports are games. Not all athletic competitions are sports.

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What athletic competition would not be a game if all sports are games? I mean, honestly, what is the difference you see between "sport" and "athletic competition"?

You can extend or contract "game" as much as you want, but I can't think of a definition of game that would encompass all sports but not all athletic competitions (if there really is a difference).

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Track and field events are not games.

Gymnastics or any kind of event involving a choreographed routine. Diving. Really any kind of race.

I don't consider all athletic competitions to be sports.

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why track and field events not games? They have rules, can be won or lost, and can be played casually if you think that is a requirment.

Take shot put, hammer throw, and javelin, for example. The game is who can throw the object in a certain way the furtherest. I could play a shot put game with some friends at a river bank by drawing a line in the sand and seeing who can huck the heaviest rock on the shore the furthest.

There's a reason they call them Olympic Games.

Really any activity with some structure is a game if it is play and not "real", even better if it can help practice a skill useful in life. There is a difference between a running race (a game) and running for your life from a bear (not a game). Between MMA and a street fight. Between war games and a shooting war.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah. Those aren't games. The rules are often quite loose. You're often not even directly competing with anyone else. Like, one person acts, and later another person acts and the results are compared. Your opponent's actions don't affect your results. Those field events don't even necessarily have a set order to act on... people just wander in and out making their attempts, it's mostly them competing with themselves.

You could run a race asynchronously as well, but time constraints prevent that.

Games have action, AND reaction. They have strategy. Throw things harder isn't a strategy. Run faster longer isn't a strategy.

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The rules are quite loose? Why else would they have eagle eyed officials watching closely to disqualify athletes for infractions.

Games can absolutely be played asynchronously. Games can have scoring systems instead of head-to-head.

Would you say pinball is not a game?

I didn't think I needed to get out the dictionary definition of game, but I hope this clears it up... Definitions from Oxford Languages: "noun, a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

The existence of officials looking for infractions in the few rules that they do have does not mean that overall they don't have a looser set of rules compared to head to head competitive games. Like I said before, there often isn't even a turn order for these events. You make your number of attempts over a long period of time and then are done.

I wouldn't call those events "play" either. No one is really having fun riding a heavy stone multiple times. They might feel accomplished afterwards. But they aren't engaging in play. And I still say it's not a sport. You busting out a tautological oxford definition doesn't really help anything.