What I am saying is that Martinetti is more of a public relations worker than a President of World wrestling. Now Karelin or Baumgartner or Fadzaev or John Smith could have been real wrestling Presidents.
The role of Martinetti is to suck up to the Olympic committee and Jacques Rogge who in turn answers to the media which in turn answers to American credit card companies among others to get financing.
What I am saying is that Martinetti is more of a public relations worker than a President of World wrestling. Now Karelin or Baumgartner or Fadzaev or John Smith could have been real wrestling Presidents.
The role of Martinetti is to suck up to the Olympic committee and Jacques Rogge who in turn answers to the media which in turn answers to American credit card companies among others to get financing.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or not.
Your logic is becoming more bizarre. If Quick wasn't arguing with you I would have thought you were joking in your posts about credit card companies.
I am typing this stuff with a smirk on my face. Of course none of this is as simple I post here but I do believe there is some truth to it.
Before 1992 Wrestling was mostly about which system is better, communist or capitalist. That is why rules were relatively constant and wrestling was based on what determines the very best.
With the fall of Soviet Union the interest for wrestling naturally waned among lay people. Olympics became more and more sponsored by advertisement and it became important to tailor it to lay people to provide the highest viewership.
Wrestling today is tailored to please lay people and not to provide the best wrestling. This is because ultimately it is all about selling advertisement and people need to want to watch wrestling to watch the advertisements as well.
I would not be surprised if Martinetti consulted his own daughter and wife on such changes as 3 periods with rest and scored separately. "Dear, what do you think should be changed in wrestling to make it more appealing to women?" Martinetti's wife or daughter: "Oh I think it should be more like tennis. I love watching tennis". Not surprising wrestling has 3 periods, not 5, like women's tennis and not men's.
Wrestling is very political or at least used to be. Almost every American who is not even familiar with wrestling knows that some American HWT beat an "Unbeatable" Russian HWT in Sydney.
If they wanted more "lay" people to be interested in wrestling, why do they keep changing the rules so only the hardcore fans know what the hell is going on? Why did they change the rules so that aggression and excitement is not rewarded? Nobody is going to buy commercials during a sport where no one knows what's happening and those that do know are bored out of there minds.
__________________
[Wrestling] did nothing for comedy except for when I slammed people and thought it was funny. -Gerald Harris
Lay people will know more than the serious fans. Serious fans are looking at every little thing like where a wrestler grabbed during the clinch and was there really an exposure and who started it.
Lay people are moere interested in constant action (pushout rule), constant tension to win (each period scored separately), and of course a break for commercials (30-second rest)
I mean take boxing. Very popular in America but I doubt every casual fan knows how all the points are scored. A throw is a throw just like a punch is a punch.
I am typing this stuff with a smirk on my face. Of course none of this is as simple I post here but I do believe there is some truth to it.
Before 1992 Wrestling was mostly about which system is better, communist or capitalist. That is why rules were relatively constant and wrestling was based on what determines the very best.
With the fall of Soviet Union the interest for wrestling naturally waned among lay people. Olympics became more and more sponsored by advertisement and it became important to tailor it to lay people to provide the highest viewership.
Wrestling today is tailored to please lay people and not to provide the best wrestling. This is because ultimately it is all about selling advertisement and people need to want to watch wrestling to watch the advertisements as well.
I would not be surprised if Martinetti consulted his own daughter and wife on such changes as 3 periods with rest and scored separately. "Dear, what do you think should be changed in wrestling to make it more appealing to women?" Martinetti's wife or daughter: "Oh I think it should be more like tennis. I love watching tennis". Not surprising wrestling has 3 periods, not 5, like women's tennis and not men's.
Wrestling is very political or at least used to be. Almost every American who is not even familiar with wrestling knows that some American HWT beat an "Unbeatable" Russian HWT in Sydney.
I agree with some of your points but I do not put any credence in your political spin on the changes. when Rulon beat Karelin in 2000, very few people looked at Russia as an enemy anymore. Almost all cold war rivalries were finished by the mid-1990's.
I think they are trying to make wrestling more spectator-friendly and are not doing a good job of it. They are drastically changing the rules and I doubt it is bringing new fans in, I think it is irrating to hard-core fans and confusing to casual fans. In my mind the clinch has always been an embarrment. Imagine watching a Gold medal final with a non wrestling friend when the match is decided by the clinch. Jut watching the referee thrying to positon the wrestlers is painful.
But if you tell your lay female friend while watching the match: "We have to wait for the ball to determine the wrestler with the favorable hold, she will possbly get excited and more into it".
In 2000 it wasn't Soviet Union anymore but the fact of the matter is Karelin was a Soviet product and defeating him meant almost like the end of Cold war as was portrayed by the media. Do you think it would be as important if Karelin was Canadian?
But if you tell your lay female friend while watching the match: "We have to wait for the ball to determine the wrestler with the favorable hold, she will possbly get excited and more into it".
In 2000 it wasn't Soviet Union anymore but the fact of the matter is Karelin was a Soviet product and defeating him meant almost like the end of Cold war as was portrayed by the media. Do you think it would be as important if Karelin was Canadian?
My Mother-in-law is a huge Olympic fan and loves watching gymnastics, diving, figure skating etc. She is the target audience that the networks (and therefore FILA) wants to attract. She does not follow any sports or watch any sports on TV besides the Olympics, but will watch hour after hour of anything the network puts on during the Olympics. In my opinion none of the rule changes are going to make wrestling more appealing to her. She will watch it if it is on TV and she will enjoy the drama of a Gold medal match no matter what the sport is and how the rules are tweaked. She is never going to understand wrestling or become a fan.
I really don't think it mattered what country Karelin was from. He was the best in the world by far for so long, plus he had the look of a badass so it was a great story (even if it was a boring match). In 1980, during the height of the Cold War, it mattered that the team that the US hockey team beat was the USSR for political reasons, but not in 2000.
The fact of the matter is that wrestling is on the verge of being dropped from Olympics because advertisers are not interested in sponsoring it due to poor viewership of those with TV access to Olympics. FILA is being pressured to do something about it. It changes the rules for 2 reasons: 1) to attract more interest and 2) to let more countries win medals which would increase participation in those countries which could also attract viewers.
The fact of the matter is Olympics is a money maker now and wrestling is not bringing in enough money. Its a capitalist way of thinking and America is a major player.
In ancient Greece Olympics were about athletes. Today its about the fans.
Re: This is really bad... 
Linear Mode
