It's again time for me to take a look around the business and find a few things that are bothering me this week. But first…
If you think I'm doing this because I'm an angry wrestling fan deep down and I hate the business, you're wrong. I do it because it's an easy gimmick to recycle and when your job is to write multiple editorials each week, those help! The following is for entertainment purposes only. It's here to present topics for conversation.
I'm a fan, just like you, and whether you agree with my opinions or not, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Feel free to leave them in the comments section below, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org, or tweet me @RealityofChris.
#3. Sid No-Shows, Promoter Goes Too Far
When I read the story of Sid "Vicious" Eudy no-showing an indy event, I knew I would include it in this week's feature immediately. It's bothersome on two different levels, but I'll list both in this one part for your benefit.
First, Eudy deserves to be called out on his no-show. That's a given. Promoting a wrestling show (especially these days) is hard enough without one-half of your main event not making the trip. When they don't call with a legitimate reason, that makes matters worse.
Sid Eudy has been difficult to work with for years. I have no personal issues with him (anymore), but know him all too well. It doesn't surprise me that he didn't show. I doubt it surprises others that know him. With great risks come great reward, but it can also come with little to no reward. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a "great risk". The promoter should have acknowledged, understood, and accepted that fact going into it.
Let's say he did understand those risks. He still has every right to be pissed. I'm even okay with him calling Sid in the middle of the ring and allowing the fans in attendance to boo on his voicemail. He cheated them; they deserve that right.
The moment the promoter gave out Sid's personal cell phone number is the moment I feel he went over the line. You can get your point across without being malicious. Sid cost him money, credibility, etc. I side with the promoter fully to that degree. But there's no reason to take it that far.
Here's the main part that bothers me — from what I've heard, the promoter hadn't talked to Sid that day. He had no idea what the reason was behind Sid's no-show. He didn't know whether or not Sid was physically okay before he reacted in that manner. He assumed. We all do it, but it doesn't make it right.
If my information is inacurrate and the promoter knew for a fact that Sid was perfectly fine, this is all moot. It might not have been the direction I would have taken, but I certainly have no issue with him doing it. If the promoter did NOT have those important details beforehand, then he's 100% wrong in this case.
And he'll feel like absolute shit as a result if he finds out there was a legitimate reason behind the no-show. Or, at least, he should.
Have a news tip?Attended an event and want to send a live report?