Credibility

Tonight, I wish to comment on something that seems quite common among internet smarks. It seems to be commonplace to question the validity of certain sources when there is a disagreement. The problem is that when the topic of conversation is wrestling, rarely are the wrestlers, themselves, seen as credible. Somehow, smart marks have gotten it into their heads that they know more about the business, especially behind the scenes, than the people that are actually involved.

Whether it be an outspoken wrestler, such as Shane Douglas, or one of the many wrestlers that have actually written books (Mick Foley, Chris Jericho, Bret Hart, etc.) this evidence is usually treated as completely meaningless when compared to some teenaged fan that, more than likely, just started watching wrestling three or four years ago. Somehow, it's acceptable to completely disregard anything that a wrestler says or writes because, magically, the fans know better than the people that were there and lived it.

For example, if Bret Hart or Raven says something happened a certain way, until someone else can offer proof to the contrary, take it for what it's worth and don't try to second guess these people just because you have these preconceived notions based off of unreliable sources.

Let's call a spade a spade, here. Most are nothing more than internet marks, usually, not as smart as they like to think they are. What it comes down to is that there will never be a time when a pimply-faced fifteen year old mark is more of an authority on the subject of wrestling than the wrestlers, themselves. Period. I've been watching since the early 80s, and I still wouldn't dare to say that "The Franchise" is full of it and that I know his actions and motivations better than he does. It's asinine. So, just as a reminder: it doesn't matter how many newsletters you've read, you will never be an expert when compared to the people living it. That goes for so-called wrestling journalists, as well.