RMC420

From my experience, black people want to be referred to as "black", not coloured. As for immigrants, it is they who have to integrate into our culture and accept the way we live our lives - just as they would expect us to do the same if we were in their country.

Sports Entertainment (the crash TV era) has alienated almost as many fans as it has gained. Look at the amount of fans the British wrestling scene has lost. Look at the amount of fans who stopped watching wrestling as soon as WCW folded. The WWE lost about 2/3 million fans in a matter of weeks because hardly any WCW fans made the switch. Look at the flop that is Wrestle-1 and the continuing struggle of AJPW.There are fans of "traditional" wrestling across the world out there to be won over. Why doesn't someone produce a product that has a chance of doing so?I personally still like the WWE, but long for an alternative in the style of the NWA or 70's British Wrestling. The FWA and co should be looking at not increasing the "sports entertainment fans" demographic which is tiny, but looking at winning back all those fans who lost interest in wrestling when it lost a huge chunk of what made it great during the transition to the product we see today.

On the latest M2K comp I watched a match between Davey Boy Smith and Fit Finlay. Why isn't British wrestling like this anymore? My mum and dad actually sat and watched the match saying "this is what wrestling should be like". Surely British wrestling would appeal to a far larger demographic if it went back to the old school style?

Everyone in the public eye has to deal with shit. It's just that wrestlers appear to deal with it a lot worse than anyone else. At least wrestlers only have to be concerned about what is written on the internet about you. Imagine if you were ridiculed constantly in the tabloids. I am not saying that it is right that people phone wrestlers up saying they suck. I'm just saying deal with it, just like a host of celebrities have to do every day to a far higher degree.

I find wrestling to be similar to acting in this respect.Actors go out to please the audience. Critics say their performance was crap, everyone believes the critic, actors career takes a turn for the worse. Same with chefs for example. One point is that the critic will be a fan of the genre, and they are merely expressing their opinion which everyone is allowed to do. So, it could be argued that wrestling fans expressing their opinion on the net is the same deal as AA Gill doing so in The Times. It's up to the wrestler to proove that the fan/critics opinion isn't indeed fact. Bitching and moaning on the internet merely lowers the wrestlers credability. Imagine Ryan Giggs telling all the Man Utd fans that they were wrong last season and that he was actually playing well at that time. But at the same time calling them arseholes which wrestlers tend to do when they rant - further alienating themselves from the fans. The difference between AA Gill and wrestling fans, is that most of the critics of art and sport write in newspapers meaning that the actors can't respond. The fact is that the British wrestling business is so small means that the internet is a big medium of communication. As the internet is a two-way medium, the wrestlers have a chance to respond. Obviously, there are still reviews of actors performances on the net, yet even if an actor reads a review on the net, I doubt that they would respond. That is because they know that it would further harm their career. Directors would think, I'm not hiring this guy, he can't take criticism, he's not professional. One fact is that the UK wrestling business is so small, that the wrestlers feel the need to respond on the net. If they are good enough, their career won't suffer from criticism. They could have 1,000 bad reviews, but it takes just one awesome performance to turn their career around. Look at an actor. They are wooden in their first 10 shows. Obviously that affects their "bookings", but if they have just one performance that connects with people then suddenly they have found their "role". Same with a wrestler, whether that role is "comedy", "hardcore", "babyface" etc. OK, maybe the above was a bit optimistic, but you get my drift. People can live on the legacy of one performance for a long time. Many footballers are examples of this. Naturally, if a wrestler is good enough, they will rarely get a bad review. That's common sense right? I suppose one issue I have failed to cover is that do you honeslty think that enough people believe the opinions of internet smartasses that it makes a difference? It's taken a lot of writing for me to say that, but it's true. If wrestlers honesly think that the opinion of internet smartasses matter then more fool them. On the internet, the people who matter are the people who have build reputations from honest reliable reviews. Of course, if they think your show was bad and they express that, then people will believe them. However, if you inturn put on a good show next week, these are the people that will write that. I suppose there in lies the difference between AA Gill and casual fans. It's about who you believe.There is no qualification required to have an opinion, but qualifications help people to believe what you are saying is at least plausable.IN MMY OPINION....The problem with British Wrestling is that it is still trying to compete with American Wrestling. Of course if they copy that style, fans will realise that the WWE does it a million times better and criticise British Wrestling. It's my opinion that British Wrestling will only succeed when it re-discovers its roots.

The point was that even if Zidane wasn't trying his hardest, he is still going to look good and better than others. Same went for Bret. Angle can try damn hard and still be "meh". See the Iron Man/Summerslam/Generic Smackdown matches for proof.I genuinely can't fathom how people would think that Angle was better than Bret if they have seen enough Bret. Each to their own and all that, but come on!

On the phoning it in debate - If Zinedine Zidane takes it easy against lesser teams (still producing obvious flashes of brilliance), but Michel Salgado busts his ass in every game, does that make Salgado a better player than Zidane? Effort has a lot going for it, but talent always shines through. Bret had more talent than Kurt. Simple.The only way people can think that Kurt is better than Bret, is if they haven't seen enough Bret - which is a crime.

Any chance you can post last years winners?