Crowd reaction in wrestling

[goodhelmet]

 

I think what I was trying to say is I missed it the first time around. I had already quit watching wresling by then. When I went back to revisit the stuff I missed, I had absolutely no emotional connection to the match. It is alot different when you see something when you are 12 and then go back and remmeber it fondly when you are older.

[Loss]

Loss, no mention of "the boyhood dream has come true....for Shawn Michaels," what's wrong with you?

Ha! I guess I wasn't feeling it. I don't have the same connection to HBK that I do to Flair and Benoit though.

[goodhelmet]

Just try to envision as best as possable the circumstances the years and years of buildup. Try to put yourselves in the fans' shoes. Try to let your emotins flow. That may be an obvious statement but it's so true. It's something that has helped me enjoy movies, stories and wrestling matches a lot more.

I usually try that approach. It doesn't help that I don't like the actual match.

 

Flair returning to WCW after the lawsuit

I got chills after that speech. I also loved his Nitro Finale speech. I felt real emotion there.

 

Benoit winning the title in WWE

I marked out like I was 12 again.

 

Savage/Warrior

nothing

 

Loss, no mention of "the boyhood dream has come true....for Shawn Michaels," what's wrong with you?

I cried

[Loss]

Flair ... God ... that interview. I'm getting chills just thinking about it. That's probably my greatest moment as a fan, honestly. The reaction from the crowd and the interview he did ... we haven't had a moment like that in wrestling since.

[Guest Some Guy]

Loss, no mention of "the boyhood dream has come true....for Shawn Michaels," what's wrong with you?

Ha! I guess I wasn't feeling it. I don't have the same connection to HBK that I do to Flair and Benoit though.

But he's "just a sexy boy." I thought you were into that type of stuff.

 

Flair ... God ... that interview. I'm getting chills just thinking about it. That's probably my greatest moment as a fan, honestly. The reaction from the crowd and the interview he did ... we haven't had a moment like that in wrestling since.

Fire me? I'm alredy fired!

[goodhelmet]

I wanted to responded to Loss's comments in depth yesterday but had too much going on (Damn trades!!!! ) so I'll do it now.

 

ECW stuff

Al summed it up nicely although I agree with several of Loss's points.

 

I do agree that ECW and ROH have been a reaction to what the big two were doing at the time, but they also played a major part in shattering kayfabe, to a point where it's nearly impossible to get the crowd to buy into a major angle now without crossing the lines of good taste

For ECW, yes. For ROH, they played a very little part in shatterin kayfabe. It was already gone by the time they arived. Also, while it may not e your cup of tea, ROH and ECW had/has a following because they catered to particular crowds. For ECW, ys, it was the vampires, or the lowest common denominator. For ROH, purely an internet crowd, esp. since their main source of revenue is from tape and DVD sals from their internet site. Personally, I don;t think ROH plays to the LCD but that is because I don't despise internet smarkiness or the loss of kayfabe. I just adjust my paradigm to what they are setting out to do. If I am ok with it, I don't need the aura of it being real.

 

WCW never had a severe problem with this until the NWO started. It's a catch-22 there, because the NWO wouldn't have been nearly as successful had they not played it cool so much, but by playing it cool so often, especially Hall and Nash, it made it impossible for babyfaces to get heat against them. Hogan was the only true heel of the group and without him, it wouldn't have worked for that reason. Before 1996, WCW had smaller, more loud and involved crowds that reacted appropriately to just about everything in the ring, most of the time. It took WCW pulling off some ridiculous angle to get the crowd to get quiet or get undesired reactions. It was always a problem in Philly, because the fans there have always loved to cheer heels, so in Philly, blame the fans for trying to be too cool for the room. There were always fans who cheered Flair because he had carved such a legacy for himself, but it never caused his opponent to get booed. That's when the problems start -- not when a heel gets cheered, but when a face gets booed by proxy. That happened to the Midnight Express's opponents at times in the late 80s, and it wasn't because the Midnights were playing up those cheers. In that case, blame the fans.

We say the crowds reacted appropriately or inappropritately but that is the whole gist of this conversation. What is appropiate? How much is on the fans and how much is on the company? My philosophy is that the company should be aware of fan reactions in certain markets (such as Philly) and adjust accordingly. This is why you always build Flair up strong in the Carolinas or should let Christian or Jericho embrace Canada when the WWF takes Canadian tours... even when they are heels.

 

Also, you said WCW never had a problem with fan reaction before the nWo but the product before the nWo was pretty embarassing to watch at times. I am sorry, but the Dungeon of Doom and Col. Parker and the WWF rejects taking over made it harder to watch a large chunk of the product. If I have to act appropriately to that it would be walking out of the arena or changing the TV channel.

 

The crowd is usually quiet early on and warms up toward the end. The typical Japanese match has as much heat by the end as any American match, if not more. The roles are a little different there, in that the heels are more subtle, but the audience usually catches on and responds to everything accordingly. I can accept that as part of their culture just because those are their paradigms, and promoters in Japan have made the product work within those norms. That's also more of an All Japan/New Japan thing, as groups like Michinoku Pro, FMW and AJW usually don't face that.

I guess that is my point. Do we accept the different crowds in Japan because of the paradigm shift? If so, why can't we accept the paradigm shift created by groups like ROH and ECW? Simply because they are American groups?

 

According to Dave Meltzer, that was planned by the company, although it was intended to come off as unplanned. It's my understanding that they had plants in the crowd.

That saddens me. I thought it was genuine.

 

Eddy/Edge, the no DQ match from Smackdown a few months earlier, however, saw Eddy, the heel, get a standing ovation afterward despite Edge being the winner and the babyface.

This would have been a much better example. Thanks!

 

I don't see a problem with this, because the fans are cheering the effort, and they wait until the match is over to do so.

I don't think it should matter if the match is over or not. It is still a breach in kayfabe. After the MX and RN'R tore it down in a great match, you didn't see the fans giving Cornette a Standing "O". They were trying to kill him. Then when they get home at night, then they can reflect on the great match they saw. Giving a heel a Standing O during the program is just as bad as any other breach in kayfabe. Either you accept it is over or you don't.

 

Agreed. Fans do buy tickets and should be allowed to do whatever they want, but I can still say that the way they react sometimes isn't appropriate. The examples you named don't really fit the bill, and the whole "You Screwed Matt" thing is exactly why it was a bad idea to fire him after the whole thing had been made so public, but it's exactly why WWE did, because it gave control back to the fans and the company could no longer manipulate the reactions to Lita.

Just to clarify, was the crowd reacion inappropriate or fitting based on theactions of the company?

 

That's true, but in Hogan/Warrior at Wrestlemania VI, a babyface match, everything is cheered, not applauded. Applause during a match is basically saying to a wrestler, "I'm not buying anything you're doing for shit, but thanks for trying." Talk about a backhanded compliment.

If that is what the wrestlers are trying to elicit from the crowd, and in most cases it is, then it is not inappropriate. Inappropriate would be sitting on your hands in dead silence giving the wrestlers nothing. However, sometimes that is what they deserve.

 

They could add lots of promos on the DVDs.

they have promos on the DVD but most of it is C-level acting stuff. The good promos would come later and even start playing out in the ring as you will see later on in your collection. You didn't express any interest in the Punk-Raven feud bu that would be an example of a feud where the promos and angles were better than the actual ring wrestling.

 

We have discussed the commentary in another thread.

 

From what I understand, one of the announcers said on a tape last year, "Ricky Steamboat even got a good match out of Mr. Fuji!" What kind of wink wink nudge nudge bullshit is that?

That doesn't bother me at all esp. since they are just catering to their audience (the internet crowd). It also now makes me want to go find the Fuji-Steamboat match. I am assuming it was the one you reviewed... so YAY... I found it

 

Exhibitions are boring to me. If you can't relate to the story being told in the ring in one way or another, then it's just a bunch of moves, and if that was all I cared about, I'd watch gymnastics. The smarky crowd bothers me more, just because they insist on putting themselves over, and that's annoying.

See, this is where we differ. I don't mind exhibition matches at all as long as there is fluidity and no sloppiness. Many times, there is a conflict in what I label exhibition matches. Who can win the match. It is practically built in because of the nature of wresling. I think I would call a match that has no build or backstory an exhibition... or if it is a special attraction match that would not normally be shown except for special circumstances, like the Bret Hart-Benoit Nitro match.

 

Totally the conflict. All the way. There needs to be a reason why things are happening, even if it's as simple as one guy wanting to beat another guy to prove himself. It doesn't have to be elaborate at all, but there needs to be some type of conflict; otherwise, you don't have a wrestling match.

See above. Typically there is a conflict built in since the goal of a wrestler is to get the better of the other guy. See my above explanation to see what Iemant by exhibition.

 

Rey/Psicosis is a spotfest, but it's a spotfest that doesn't let up.

This is what I meant by an exhibition match. To the crowd, they really had no emotional attachment to either guy. They really couldn;t care who won or lost. Same thing goes with Jericho and Benoit from the same card. How many times did Jericho have to yell at the crowd to react? Yet, that match gets high praise. It certainly isn't because of the fan reaction.

 

I think that's what wrestling is all about myself -- regardless of if you believe it's real or not, you get so wrapped up in it that you lose yourself in the story. It's the same thing as watching a movie where the villain pisses you off or that makes you cry because the story is touching. I don't feel bad for those people; I embrace them for putting themselves out there like that. They're fans, and they love wrestling. I do too, what do you know

So, since I don't cry for wrestlers and keep an emotional disconnect, does that make me less of a fan? Of course not. Different fans expect different things from wrestling. Mexican crowds react differently than American crowds. Some American crowds react differently than the Japanese crowds. You have the bloodthirsty garbage lovers. The Sports Entertainment guys. Some like the flippyfloppy. The smarky, know-it-all crowds. The analytical guys,, the shallow-accept-any-shit-thrown at you type. Yet, through it all, all would argue they are a bigger wresling fan than the next guy.

 

Basically, sometimes it's in the hands of the wrestlers when the crowd reaction isn't what it could be and sometimes, the crowd is to blame. If the wrestlers are doing everything right but the crowd just isn't taking to it, I'm not going to blame them, but if the wrestlers are totally ignoring the fact that people are watching the match, then I'm going to have a problem with that.

This sorta answers the questions I posed above but I still think crowd reaction is contingent to the surroundings. ROH expects the fans to applaud mid-match. That is their crowd. ECW wrestlers expected the fans to act all hostile and smartass. Jim Cornette expected fan hostility and would run for cover. If the fans refuse to play along, who's fault is that? The fans who know it is fake or Vince McMahon for reminding them and changing the rules of engagement?

[Loss]

I do agree that ECW and ROH have been a reaction to what the big two were doing at the time, but they also played a major part in shattering kayfabe, to a point where it's nearly impossible to get the crowd to buy into a major angle now without crossing the lines of good taste

For ECW, yes. For ROH, they played a very little part in shatterin kayfabe. It was already gone by the time they arived. Also, while it may not e your cup of tea, ROH and ECW had/has a following because they catered to particular crowds. For ECW, ys, it was the vampires, or the lowest common denominator. For ROH, purely an internet crowd, esp. since their main source of revenue is from tape and DVD sals from their internet site. Personally, I don;t think ROH plays to the LCD but that is because I don't despise internet smarkiness or the loss of kayfabe. I just adjust my paradigm to what they are setting out to do. If I am ok with it, I don't need the aura of it being real.

If ROH never has any hopes whatsoever about expanding past their current fanbase, then what they're doing is fine. Kayfabe doesn't define quality. There is no "good wrestling" or "bad wrestling" when kayfabe is kept. The interest is who's going to win and what's going to happen. How are they going to get there? What is this guy going to have to do to beat this guy? What kind of strategy is he going to have to use, considering where they've been in the past and where they are now? When I mention kayfabe, that's specifically what I'm referring to.

 

We say the crowds reacted appropriately or inappropritately but that is the whole gist of this conversation. What is appropiate? How much is on the fans and how much is on the company?

It's on the company to deliver the product to get the reaction they want from those who are watching it. If I'm watching a Midnight Express match, and Cornette is cheating, and telling the audience to shut up, and they're doing awful things to the guy who's the babyface, and the crowd still cheers, that's the crowd's fault. That's the crowd putting themselves over just to be cool.

 

My philosophy is that the company should be aware of fan reactions in certain markets (such as Philly) and adjust accordingly.

I think that's a good idea. I don't think they should do televised shows in areas where they're worried about the reaction either. Tour there plenty, but it's up to the company to be familiar with every market.

 

This is why you always build Flair up strong in the Carolinas or should let Christian or Jericho embrace Canada when the WWF takes Canadian tours...? even when they are heels.

If they're getting that cheered in a specific market, then maybe they shouldn't be heels at all, especially if they're not overwhelmingly over as heels in other places. Flair gets cheered everywhere, and Jericho always had trouble getting heel heat. Christian is just now starting to get heat of any kind. That's bad booking, making popular guys heels.

 

Also, you said WCW never had a problem with fan reaction before the nWo but the product before the nWo was pretty embarassing to watch at times. I am sorry, but the Dungeon of Doom and Col. Parker and the WWF rejects taking over made it harder to watch a large chunk of the product.

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about Barry Windham, Sting, Rick Rude, the Dangerous Alliance, Ricky Steamboat, Ric Flair, Arn Anderson, the Midnight Express ... *that* era. They never had a problem with the crowds cheering the heels and booing the faces unless they were in Philadelphia, in which case they do bizarro world house shows and they never should have run televised events.

 

If I have to act appropriately to that it would be walking out of the arena or changing the TV channel.

Fans who want to be entertained nonstop are a problem. Bear with me and I'll explain that phrase. Promoters have never, ever booked and never, ever will to give fans great matches for the sake of giving them great matches, at least not successful promoters. Who wins and who loses, and the ramifications of those decisions, are *far* more important to the company's success. Being entertained and being involved are two different things; they shoot for involvement first and foremost. Being entertained is just a side effect. Fans who demand constant entertainment are the reason we have spotmonkeys like Rob Van Dam and Sabu who don't know how to wrestle a match, but who figured out that they can get a pop doing stupid highspots nonstop. If you look back at the downfall of companies who have been on top, they can almost always be traced back to illogical booking and a few controversial decisions in who to push or not push. WWE's downfall has had little to do with the quality of their matches. Watching WWE and expecting a card full of great matches is not understanding their product, because that's not the goal they have, nor has it ever been. The goal they have is to make you care about the results. If fans are more occupied with the quality than the results, in that case, the fans are to blame, especially if that's not the bill of good they're being sold in the first place.

 

I guess that is my point. Do we accept the different crowds in Japan because of the paradigm shift?

Yes.

 

If so, why can't we accept the paradigm shift created by groups like ROH and ECW? Simply because they are American groups?

Yes. There are societal norms in America that demand a different type of product for a promotion to be successful. You can try new things and new concepts constantly, but if you forget where you came from, you're going to fail in the end. The problem with ECW was that they expected you to believe Shane Douglas was a bad guy in the same breath they expected you to see Steve Austin's plight in the past being held down. It's no different than Vince Russo's booking -- if you're going to remind the audience during the show that what they're watching is fake, then why should they care about what happens? ROH runs into the same problem in 2002 with Christopher Daniels as a heel. They're trying in one breath to tell you wrestling is fake and that it's designed to produce great matches that entertain you because of all the moves used. They're telling you in another breath that Christopher Daniels hates everything ROH stands for and is a heel. No one buys that, so why run the angle? Pick a vision, whatever it is, and stick to it. ECW and ROH tried to have it both ways. American wrestling companies are going to have certain expectations, and that's just how it is.

 

I don't think it should matter if the match is over or not. It is still a breach in kayfabe.

Not completely. I took that as "Eddy, we may not like you, but we respect you for surviving that war and doing what you could to win."

 

After the MX and RN'R tore it down in a great match, you didn't see the fans giving Cornette a Standing "O". They were trying to kill him. Then when they get home at night, then they can reflect on the great match they saw.

I don't know if they did go home and reflect though. I don't know if they saw wrestling in those terms.

 

Giving a heel a Standing O during the program is just as bad as any other breach in kayfabe. Either you accept it is over or you don't.

It's a problem, and I'll give you that. I just know that there are bigger problems than that.

 

Just to clarify, was the crowd reacion inappropriate or fitting based on theactions of the company?

Totally inappropriate, but a major guilty pleasure.

 

If that is what the wrestlers are trying to elicit from the crowd, and in most cases it is, then it is not inappropriate. Inappropriate would be sitting on your hands in dead silence giving the wrestlers nothing. However, sometimes that is what they deserve.

True. We're dealing in total shades of gray here instead of absolute rights and absolute wrongs. I'd take a crowd doing that to turning on the match and putting themselves over as being clever though.

 

they have promos on the DVD but most of it is C-level acting stuff. The good promos would come later and even start playing out in the ring as you will see later on in your collection. You didn't express any interest in the Punk-Raven feud bu that would be an example of a feud where the promos and angles were better than the actual ring wrestling.

I just don't know how DVD sales excuse them from breaking kayfabe. Bigger wrestling companies rely on DVD sales as well.

 

That doesn't bother me at all esp. since they are just catering to their audience (the internet crowd). It also now makes me want to go find the Fuji-Steamboat match. I am assuming it was the one you reviewed... so YAY... I found it

If they're going to cater to the internet crowd, you know what I'd rather them do? Go all the way with it. Have the announcers mention the great psychology and point out that one guy is sure selling the other guy's punches. After a promo, call it a great promo instead of reacting to what the guy said. Say, "That transition was lacking, but they nicely covered that blown spot." Trying to have it both ways is a problem, because if wrestling is mythological, which I think it is, then the universe isn't consistent.

 

See, this is where we differ. I don't mind exhibition matches at all as long as there is fluidity and no sloppiness. Many times, there is a conflict in what I label exhibition matches. Who can win the match. It is practically built in because of the nature of wresling. I think I would call a match that has no build or backstory an exhibition... or if it is a special attraction match that would not normally be shown except for special circumstances, like the Bret Hart-Benoit Nitro match.

I don't consider those exhibitions, because rather there's a backstory or not, both guys are trying to win. There's at least *some* story there. It doesn't have to be anymore advanced than that, but when I think of exhibitions, I think of Liger and Sayama on the Michinoku Pro show. I don't know if you've seen that or not, but it's basically just a display of spots. That's all it is. They don't even call it a match.

 

This is what I meant by an exhibition match. To the crowd, they really had no emotional attachment to either guy.

True, but you at least have one trying to win and the other trying to keep him from winning.

 

Same thing goes with Jericho and Benoit from the same card. How many times did Jericho have to yell at the crowd to react? Yet, that match gets high praise. It certainly isn't because of the fan reaction.

Last time I saw that match, I didn't like it. Maybe it's the ECW of Japan. Who knows?

 

So, since I don't cry for wrestlers and keep an emotional disconnect, does that make me less of a fan? Of course not.

No, it only makes you a different type of fan.

 

Different fans expect different things from wrestling.

Usually only after being told that what they're expecting is wrong, or going on the Internet and learning that Rey Misterio is better than Hulk Hogan, despite Hogan winning more matches. That's not an absolute though.

 

Mexican crowds react differently than American crowds. Some American crowds react differently than the Japanese crowds. You have the bloodthirsty garbage lovers. The Sports Entertainment guys. Some like the flippyfloppy. The smarky, know-it-all crowds. The analytical guys,, the shallow-accept-any-shit-thrown at you type. Yet, through it all, all would argue they are a bigger wresling fan than the next guy.

I wouldn't, because I don't think they understand what wrestling is supposed to be. You and I can watch wrestling like that, and at the same time not expect others to do it. There's perspective there. I'd never do it at a live event, especially not when I'm watching a hell of a match. I think it's disrespectful.

 

This sorta answers the questions I posed above but I still think crowd reaction is contingent to the surroundings. ROH expects the fans to applaud mid-match. That is their crowd. ECW wrestlers expected the fans to act all hostile and smartass. Jim Cornette expected fan hostility and would run for cover. If the fans refuse to play along, who's fault is that?

I don't know. Either way I answered would be right, and either way would be wrong. It's hard to compare different eras as well, just because the believability factor is different in each era.

 

The fans who know it is fake or Vince McMahon for reminding them and changing the rules of engagement?

In that case, Vince. Vince is the reason WWE fans have trouble buying into things, because the company is even called World Wrestling Entertainment. I think the answer is going to be different for every example you think of.

[goodhelmet]

When I mention kayfabe, that's specifically what I'm referring to.

 

OK

 

That's the crowd putting themselves over just to be cool.

 

Agreed, but I have always felt the crowd can react however they want to. I may not like it, and it can alter the enjoyment of the match, but I don't fault them for it. If it is a few hecklers, yeah, then they hould be dealt with. If it is the entire audience, that is your audience. Please them.

 

Also, while the crowd in ROH has this wierd sort of schizo vibe to it, you really should see how the company has evolved. In 2002, no one is arguing with you about the ROH crowds. In 2003 and 2004, there is still the smarkyness, but the stories become a little clearer and the lines are defined slightly better.

 

If they're getting that cheered in a specific market, then maybe they shouldn't be heels at all, especially if they're not overwhelmingly over as heels in other places. Flair gets cheered everywhere, and Jericho always had trouble getting heel heat. Christian is just now starting to get heat of any kind. That's bad booking, making popular guys heels.

Agreed.

 

Fans who want to be entertained nonstop are a problem.

This is what tape trading is for.

 

Promoters have never, ever booked and never, ever will to give fans great matches for the sake of giving them great matches, at least not successful promoters. Who wins and who loses, and the ramifications of those decisions, are *far* more important to the company's success. Fans who demand constant entertainment are the reason we have spotmonkeys like Rob Van Dam and Sabu who don't know how to wrestle a match, but who figured out that they can get a pop doing stupid highspots nonstop. If you look back at the downfall of companies who have been on top, they can almost always be traced back to illogical booking and a few controversial decisions in who to push or not push.

I agree with some of this but why would I be involved with a character or feud if it did not entertain me? The former and the latter should be joined hand in hand.

 

Watching WWE and expecting a card full of great matches is not understanding their product, because that's not the goal they have, nor has it ever been. The goal they have is to make you care about the results. If fans are more occupied with the quality than the results, in that case, the fans are to blame, especially if that's not the bill of good they're being sold in the first place.

Yes and no. If they didn't deliver good quality matches on a consistent basis or semi-consistent basis, then the product would suffer. Who cares about the result if it was excruciatingly painful to get there? I agree in the sense that if the fans are willing to except a mediocre product to get to the winners and losers, then yes, the fans are to blame.

 

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about Barry Windham, Sting, Rick Rude, the Dangerous Alliance, Ricky Steamboat, Ric Flair, Arn Anderson, the Midnight Express ... *that* era.

Ok, good, because the era bright before the nWo was pretty damn embarassing.

 

I'll be back with more...

[Guest Some Guy]

If I have to act appropriately to that it would be walking out of the arena or changing the TV channel.

Fans who want to be entertained nonstop are a problem. Bear with me and I'll explain that phrase. Promoters have never, ever booked and never, ever will to give fans great matches for the sake of giving them great matches, at least not successful promoters. Who wins and who loses, and the ramifications of those decisions, are *far* more important to the company's success. Being entertained and being involved are two different things; they shoot for involvement first and foremost. Being entertained is just a side effect. Fans who demand constant entertainment are the reason we have spotmonkeys like Rob Van Dam and Sabu who don't know how to wrestle a match, but who figured out that they can get a pop doing stupid highspots nonstop. If you look back at the downfall of companies who have been on top, they can almost always be traced back to illogical booking and a few controversial decisions in who to push or not push. WWE's downfall has had little to do with the quality of their matches. Watching WWE and expecting a card full of great matches is not understanding their product, because that's not the goal they have, nor has it ever been. The goal they have is to make you care about the results. If fans are more occupied with the quality than the results, in that case, the fans are to blame, especially if that's not the bill of good they're being sold in the first place.

 

Just to nick pick one little thing:

 

Is that really entertaining though? I can see how people would look at RVD and Sabu matches and enjoy the "wholy shit" factor the first time through. I bought the RVD DVD and has trouble sitting through the whole thing. It's fucking brutal at times. I've seen all teh high spots repeated over and over in ads and once that "holy shit" factor wears off there is no entertainment to the match. You become desensitized and there is no other substance to the matches. Plus, spotfests tend to be one big spot and then a whole lot of lieing around, before they get up and do another spot. I find that to be boring. It would be like watching action movie that had a huge explosion and then 15 minutes of blank screen before another explosion.

[Loss]

Oh, I agree. The type of fans I'm referring to are the ones who chant "boring!" any time a match goes to the mat and sit on their hands when a match takes its time building up to the climax.

[Guest Some Guy]

Oh, I agree. The type of fans I'm referring to are the ones who chant "boring!" any time a match goes to the mat and sit on their hands when a match takes its time building up to the climax.

I know what you meant, I was more critising those types of fans. The ones who will praise a spot fest and crap on a good match that starts slowly and then builds to something.