Paid Members herbie747 Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 (edited) I remember there was an interesting post about this on here around 20 years ago and I thought it might be fun to revisit since the business and perspectives constantly change. I've always found this question interesting since the term constantly evolves. The best definition I heard years ago was from John Lister (in the UKFF thread referred to above), who said it's someone who spends more money on wrestling than they make from it (which suited me at the time because I was making money on The Wrestling Channel, which meant I wasn't a mark.... even though I totally was 😁). So in today's era, what does it mean? Is the term just completely redundant now when it applies to fans? Or have WWE created a new type of fan that are pre-programmed to use all the WWE terminology and hate on AEW without having ever watched it? This new breed of fan seem less capable of critical thinking than the WWE fans of say, 10 years ago. And does the term apply to wrestlers? We've heard this phrase in many shoot interviews: "the biggest marks are often the boys". I suppose there are two types of wrestlers that could be considered marks. One would be the ones who mutilate themselves, land on their head, get wrapped up in barbed wire, get light tubes broken over their heads for $25 in front of 30 people. Are those people marks because they're mutilating themselves for nothing? And the second type would be the ones (usually old school / old timers) who dedicated their lives to the business; their bodies are broken down, and they've got nothing to show for it. They seem to call other people 'marks' more than anyone else does. I only thought of this recently because I always see Rip Rogers in various wrestling Facebook groups calling people marks in the comments. As far as I know, he's spent his entire life in the business and a few years ago he needed a GoFundMe just to make ends meet. So would someone like that be considered a mark? He throws around the word mark at people as he sits there all day in pain browsing Facebook groups hoping someone will recognise him. Edited June 30 by herbie747 Quote
Paid Members BomberPat Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 A mark is a guy that spends his last 20 dollars on crack cocaine. A mark is a guy that believes that OJ didn't do it. Quote
Paid Members mim731 Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, BomberPat said: A mark is a guy that spends his last 20 dollars on crack cocaine. A mark is a guy that believes that OJ didn't do it. Sorry... Quote
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 38 minutes ago, mim731 said: Literally, figuratively and legally a “mark”. This thread reminds me of that time in 97 when Shawn said to Bret, live on air, “because in your mind, MARK MAN, you really think all of this is yours!” Bret ‘Mark Man’ Hart was never gonna catch on was it? Although Austin could’ve still said the line “if you put the letter S in front of Mark Man…” and it still would’ve worked. Quote
Members SuperBacon Posted June 30 Members Posted June 30 I'm reminded that the first time I ever heard the phrase was in Boyz N The Hood when Doughboy calls his mate a mark because he didn't know you could get aids from a blow job. I don't know what you can do with this information, but I always think of it when I hear the term. Quote
westlondonmist Posted June 30 Posted June 30 I've always found the phrase mark used by wrestlers a bit odd. It's this weird insult they have for fans (who've often bought their merch, paid them silly money to do an appearance at a show, paid £50 for a photo opp etc) who buy into storylines and works and maybe take it a bit too seriously. In the end wrestling is supposed to get you emotionally invested, and also be on the edge of fiction and reality. A bit like the Internet Wrestling Crowd, which is every wrestling fan in 2026. I remember it being used to describe random promoters who would pay for big names on the indy scene to get a crowd of 50, when you would have gotten the same crowd with Johnny Kickpads taking on Davy Pleathershorts in the main event. They've bought into the idea that they can get a big crowd with a big name but the big name doesn't give a fuck as long as he's paid. Felt that was a fair use. Quote
Paid Members Supremo Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 In 2026, the biggest marks are the grifters. Your Cornettes, Bischoffs and Bully Rays. I can’t decide what’s more pathetic. Whether they actually hate everything they watch, or feign the hatred for pennies. Either way I find the whole thing desperately tragic. I can’t imagine leaving a job or industry decades ago, my value so limited that no-one will hire me, and so I fill my time still moaning and trolling over it. The only thing worse are those Vauxhall Conference grifters, who don’t even have a platform or a way to monetise it. Lads like Val Venis and Jimmy Korderas. Still putting the grift in all day every day, but seemingly just out of boredom. Fucking losers, man. Quote
Paid Members Arch Stanton Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 I can't speak for Bischoff or Bully Ray, but I will stick up for Cornette a little here, in that he's making a decent living doing nothing but watching wrestling and chatting about it on a podcast. I can't see how that makes him a mark whatsoever, it would be the total opposite to that definition in my head. Whatever you think of his opinions, he seems to enjoy what he does and he has a healthy audience for it. Quote
Merzbow Posted June 30 Posted June 30 9 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said: and he has a healthy audience for it. I doubt any of his fans are healthy. Quote
westlondonmist Posted June 30 Posted June 30 6 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said: I can't speak for Bischoff or Bully Ray, but I will stick up for Cornette a little here, in that he's making a decent living doing nothing but watching wrestling and chatting about it on a podcast. I can't see how that makes him a mark whatsoever, it would be the total opposite to that definition in my head. Whatever you think of his opinions, he seems to enjoy what he does and he has a healthy audience for it. He does sometimes say positive stuff too, and often has a reason for him not liking it, I don't necessarily agree but he has reasoning. I also think he generally believes most of what he says, even if he amps it up a bit. Bully Ray seems to chat shit on everything, and maybe says something nice if he thinks he may get extra work. I'm not sure he believes anything he says, he may believe some of it but that's not why he's said it. Bischoff just seems to have a bit of a narcisist complex, everyone else is a thick fuck. Quote
Paid Members BomberPat Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 The "marks" today are the people who think that the bitter old podcasters are sincere, experts, and genuinely working in the best interests of making wrestling better. The people who respond to every clip of an indie wrestling match with "outlaw mudshow" or some other Cornette-ism, yet are absolutely convinced that they are independent thinkers reaching their opinions of their own volition rather than just parroting what a podcaster tells them. The people who tag Jim Cornette in a Tweet replying to a clip from an AEW show, desperate for some kind of validation. I've said for a long time now that the easiest people to work in modern day wrestling are the people who think they've got it all figured out; you're not going to convince a dad taking his kids to a show that it's all real, your average TV viewer doesn't care if it's real or not they just want to be entertained for a couple of hours a week, but someone with just enough knowledge? Hook, line and sinker. They're the people you work with an insider reference in a promo, or a leaked news article about somebody being unhappy with someone else, so that when it plays out on TV they feel like they've got it all figured out. Quote
Paid Members herbie747 Posted June 30 Author Paid Members Posted June 30 (edited) 39 minutes ago, BomberPat said: The "marks" today are the people who think that the bitter old podcasters are sincere, experts, and genuinely working in the best interests of making wrestling better. The people who respond to every clip of an indie wrestling match with "outlaw mudshow" or some other Cornette-ism, yet are absolutely convinced that they are independent thinkers reaching their opinions of their own volition rather than just parroting what a podcaster tells them. The people who tag Jim Cornette in a Tweet replying to a clip from an AEW show, desperate for some kind of validation. I've said for a long time now that the easiest people to work in modern day wrestling are the people who think they've got it all figured out; you're not going to convince a dad taking his kids to a show that it's all real, your average TV viewer doesn't care if it's real or not they just want to be entertained for a couple of hours a week, but someone with just enough knowledge? Hook, line and sinker. They're the people you work with an insider reference in a promo, or a leaked news article about somebody being unhappy with someone else, so that when it plays out on TV they feel like they've got it all figured out. I like that definition. It tracks based on what I've seen from all the Bischoff, Russo, and Prichard podcast dorks who aren't old enough to remember that Bischoff used to be a regular guest on Observer Radio from 2000 - 2001, and chat with Meltzer all the time. Eric said the complete opposite back then of what he says now. And any time you try to question any of these fans when they regurgitate some of the lies they hear (on those 3 podcasts in particular), they say "were you there? Sorry but I'm going to believe someone who was there over some lying mark journalist. Fuck Dave Meltzer". Their hatred of Meltzer has become harassment at this point because they've been so brainwashed. And most of them don't even know who he is. I wouldn't put Cornette in the same category as those guys. Yes, he's become more insufferable over the years, but moreso in his hatred of the newer product and his clickbaity podcast rants. But he doesn't lie about things that happened or make up numbers or revise history like the others do. He just cuts promos on matches / wrestlers / angles. Edited June 30 by herbie747 Quote
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted June 30 Paid Members Posted June 30 Cornette doesn't even watch AEW anymore (or so he claims) aside from the PPVs so he's running a podcast where he's talking about stuff that his co-host has watched and moaning about it vicariously through him. Cornette clearly genuinely hates AEW but also knows that most people tune in to hear him complain about it. But it's the same complaints he was making 6 years ago. His historical stuff is still superb, I love listening to him talking about his experiences from earlier in his career especially but I've no interest in listening to him talk about today's wrestling even if I broadly agree with him that WWE and AEW are shit. Wrestling has moved on and while a lot of the stuff that has traditionally worked in wrestling can still be hugely successful today, a lot of it no longer applies and is irrelevant. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.