Hot Take: "The Wrong Guy Won!" is Lazy Criticism

[HMARK Center]

May 31, 2021 18:30:26 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

This entire thread is just one giant, "No true Scotsman!" Maybe it doesn't ruin the show for you but saying that anyone who does take issue with booking doesn't really like the show is an unbelievably broad statement.

And one I think is fully accurate, since it's focused on one aspect of that critique.

This is about taking issue with a very particular aspect of booking: the mere outcome of who wins individual matches as a determinant of a show's overall quality. Stripping away the performances, the potential for the storylines and characters to go in new or different directions, and basically just saying "[whomever] should've won, they didn't, the show sucks" and leaving it there. I'm making a thread about it because I'm seeing it often enough that it's becoming noteworthy, and increasingly strange, to me.

Again, I'll fully agree there are occasions where a match outcome seems like it has to be a certain way, or else the show's overall quality suffers: nobody would've accepted Bryan losing at WM 30, for example, and I think they'd have been pretty justified to feel that way. And again, I can see this particular criticism having some merit to it when a promotion has proven it cannot be trusted to deliver certain things the audience wants (e.g. anyone tired of the nWo's booking come early 1999). But I repeat, these are occasional situations; I see this form of critique often enough now that I question whether it's hurting some people's abilities to really enjoy themselves while watching a show, since I remember feeling that way when watching WWE and TNA in the past and I know full well I wasn't really enjoying myself as a fan with those companies anymore once I did.

Criticize away when it comes to overall booking, sure, half the fun of being a superfan of anything is having in-depth analyses of it, but this is about a very specific aspect of all that which feels, at least to me, like it's dominating too much of the discourse and doesn't contribute enough.

[Blade]

It honestly just depends, imo. Sometime the plot and characters are part of a greater story and that outweighs individual wins and losses, but in wrestling the wins and losses in key matches are also very important and also tend to signal whether a company is behind someone or not.

Also there's just people's personal feelings to consider. Many fans get strongly behind their favourites, and in most cases that also means strongly wanting their favourites to win. It's a downer when the wrestler you love loses, especially in an important match. It can also similarly cast a pall on a show if a wrestler you hate wins a big match, especially if winning means they have a title now, will continue to be featured prominently, etc.

Ultimately, you can't really argue someone into retroactively liking a show they didn't enjoy, or vice-versa. It's an emotional thing, not a rational thing.

[Tyrannosaurus Sex]

Yeah, I mean I heavily didn't like some of the results at Double or Nothing. Like I absolutely do not like Britt Baker in any way and I could complain for ages about my thoughts on her winning her title match and being the women's champion now. I still loved the show and had a great time watching it, I'll remember the stuff I liked even if I felt salty during points of the show, that's just my philosphy if I enjoy the rest of the show overall but don't like certain performers or their pushes. If I let wrestling booking for one match or performer influence my opinion on the overall show and be a bitch about it even if I like everything else, then that's my own problem. I personally look back on me taking hissy fits as a teenager about stuff like Cena winning matches badly, I was being a stupid mark kid.