By Eric Gall, Torch specialist

Hello, I'm Eric Gall, and welcome to "On the Contrary," where I examine the conventional wisdom concerning a generally believed train of thought in the wrestling industry each week. I then propose the "flip side" of the argument, outlining what I feel are reasons that the mainstream opinion may need a second look. I encourage discussion and a free exchange of ideas, so send in you thoughts below or email me at ericgall@optimum.net.

The prevailing thought: Women's wrestling is an inferior product to men's wrestling. Every week in Torch feedback, I see it. Usually multiple times a week. The "Worst Match" vote seems to disproportionately be represented by the female match on the show. Unless the show is Impact, that would make it the only female match of the night. There is clearly a perception that women's wrestling, or at least WWE's "Diva" treatment of it, is lacking.

One argument is that women are not better athletes than men, and thus the matches can't expect to be better, and are rarely equal. Another argument is that many female wrestlers have very little experience and training, and are selected based on their looks as opposed to their skill. Such under-training leads to bad matches. A common idea is that a wrestling fan watches wrestling for wrestling, not for T&A, at least that's the vibe I get from some Internet fans.

On the contrary: Women's wrestling is every bit entertaining, and in some cases, more so, than standard male wrestling. Let's look at WWE's presentation of women's wrestling. The last Raw, Maryse defeated Kelly in a short match and received the Worst Match ratings in both entries of the first batch of Raw feedback. This is a typical case of Torch feedback, I might add. I'm wondering, was the six-man match involving Goldust, Hornswoggle, Santino, and Festus against the heels who didn't even get an entrance really better? The mid-card matches are almost all equally short, so something else is going on here. Perhaps there is more a perception and an expectation that the women's matches are inferior than the reality of the matter. Let's not blame the amount of time the women get in a match when there are four other matches on Raw of equally poor time allotment.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that women may not be as athletic or even as well trained as most of the men. That still doesn't mean they aren't entertaining in their own right, and in some cases, more so. Should every match be judged based on whether or not attempted moves were botched or not? Should the level of difficulty of maneuvers and general workrate be the sole determinant of a match's worth? That would be one way to rate a match, and yes, a lot of Raw's women's matches might not get high grades based on that criteria, but neither would the "new oddities" six-man tag.

Another Internet whipping boy is the big wrestler; it has come in vogue to deride the slower, bigger members or a wrestling roster as being lesser wrestlers in contrast to the smaller, faster high-flyers. Again, isn't this more of matter of personal taste? Similar issues can be raised with hardcore wrestlers; should their particular style assume a lesser quality of match? Some of the featured women in wrestling might not be the most technically skilled, but it seems as though they're held to a higher level of accountability than their male counterparts.

What's wrong with looks? Wrestling is supposed to be entertainment, right? Even if you don't buy into the concept of "sports entertainment," (I don't), you have to admit that wrestling is about entertaining you in some form, with the best wrestling hitting you on multiple levels. It can be with high workrate, good comedy, well-crafted promos, or maybe just plain old good-looking people. Is it just a coincidence that Batista, Cena, and Orton are all cemented into the main event picture? Their physiques wouldn't have anything to do with that, would it?

Clearly the Wellness Program seems to overlook these chosen few, and I'm no fan of the body-builder look being the ticket to the top, but the perception of these guys isn't a "this is the worst match on the card" type of assessment. Of course, attractive women will be placed onto the rosters, but beauty shouldn't be equated with incompetence. True, some women on the WWE roster have little wrestling skill, but many of them are good already or are rapidly improving. Should a Maryse-Michelle McCool match really be given the same grade as a match between Eve and Maria?

I want to take this issue a little wider, and look at women's wrestling beyond "The E." TNA has made great strides with a diverse Knockouts Division, which is frequently the showcase of the night. Skilled workers like Taylor Wilde and Raisha Saeed, great talkers like Angelina Love and Daffney, and unique talents like Awesome Kong all contribute to making women's wrestling more than "pretty but uncoordinated blondes." While I feel that the Knockouts get more respect than the women of WWE, there is still that element that will lazily chalk up whatever Knockout match is on as the worst. I have to wonder if there is any real consideration going on, or is this a case of "herd mentality," where someone decided that the women's matches were automatically inferior?

How many wrestling fans have seen Shimmer? I would venture to say that this is the best women's wrestling you can find, and I am often far more entertained by it than Raw, and often other wrestling offerings as well. I haven't even mentioned the joshi tradition in Japan, and at this point, you would be right in saying that is a different case altogether as opposed to what we're given on weekly free TV. Perhaps the damage done by the pushes given to the Christy Hemmes and Joy Giovannis of the Diva Searches have trained viewers to think all female wrestlers are talent-less models, but the reality of the matter is quite different.

My take: Women's wrestling is another valid subculture of professional wrestling, with its strengths and weaknesses, and like wrestling itself, is largely a matter of personal taste. A friend of mine who's also a long-time wrestling fan has told me that I'm too generous when it comes to grading women's matches. Perhaps that's the case, but when it comes down to it, isn't all wrestling value subjective? Sure, there can be a consensus as to who are considered "good workers" and "bad workers," but when it comes to what's actually better or worse, a lot of it is a matter of individual whims.

As far as the view of women's wrestling goes, WWE's portrayal of it paints the biggest slice of what most wrestling fans believe it to be: large-breasted women in very short matches. The skill sets of said women, contrary to a widely-held belief, DOES, in fact, vary. Yes, a WWE Divas match can have two highly skilled workers giving a great show - Mickie James vs. Natalya, anyone? If you look beyond Stamford, your chances of finding quality women's wrestling improves. Check out Impact, check out Shimmer, go find yourself a Manami Toyota tape.

I would exhort those of you who give the women's matches the default "Worst match of the night" rating to check out a Shimmer DVD and see what women's wrestling, given the proper focus, can really do. There's a lot of wrestling out there, and variety can give a fresh perspective on the stuff you see everyday.

We suggest these recent related articles...

10/5 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Natalya vs. Paige, Owens vs. Cara, Stephanie McMahon, Sasha Banks, Xavier Woods

COLLECTIBLES COLUMN: The History of Foam Hands in Pro Wrestling

9/28 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Kane's Split Personality, Divas Revolution, Heyman & Big Show, Reigns vs. Wyatt