Hi all, and welcome to a decidedly different weekly offering discussing something in the news this week that struck a chord. So much so, that I feel compelled to write about it. This is probably not going to be one of my best columns, but today I feel the need to just wade in and let the shit hit the fan.
Now of course, unless you hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, there will always be an element of doubt in any news titbits that you might hear about what goes on behind the wrestling curtain. Consider it like a game of Chinese Whispers – despite what may be the best intentions, even a rather distinct phrase can be misinterpreted into something completely different. Sometimes as a result, independent reporters are often accused of showing a poor understanding of what is going on and/or misrepresenting what really happened. So in all fairness to those it affects, if at some point news were to reach that maybe my interpretation of the following story is misguided or even completely wrong, then so be it, but as of the time of writing, this is what I understand happened. Even if my facts are wrong, then I still believe very strongly in the principals behind this week’s column – a problem that I feel needs to be dealt with.
Last week C M Punk suffered his first loss on a televised WWE show, as he was pinned by Hardcore Holly on ECW. Holly’s victory was clean and neither this nor the manner of the victory are in dispute as this was a booking decision made for better or worse like any other.
Some of the more reputable independent news sites, known for at the very least trying to ensure all stories published are as factual and unbiased as possible, have reported that there was significant backstage heat on C M Punk ever since the December to Dismember Pay Per View event, where he allegedly disagreed over the booking of the Extreme Elimination Chamber match, specifically how he was to be eliminated. To the best of my knowledge however, regardless of whether he agreed or not, ultimately it would appear he stayed professional and did the job as necessary and requested within the match. However despite this the heat has continued to the point where it was allegedly insisted by some agents/producers that Punk was to job cleanly to Holly last week on ECW’s weekly show. This was done in such a way that it risked killing momentum towards Punk’s growing following and affecting his popularity. Again, I reiterate that I have no problem with the actual decision as these are made many times a week in many different matches. It is the WWE’s prerogative to push and de-push talents as they see fit. What bugs me however are the alleged circumstances regarding why it happened, specifically the precise choice of reason for that action to have been chosen.
My problem comes from one reported sentence and one sentence alone, the alleged “reason” why Punk had to lose to Holly. Forgive me if this is not word perfect, however the reported phrase, spoken by a very well respected veteran wrestler turned booker, is along the lines of “After fourteen years of being on WWE television, Holly is the bigger star.” If those words were meant as I believe they were, then here ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, marks the return of the single most retarded mindset that darkens this industry worse than steroids, crap gimmicks, shoddy and baseless writing and excessive hyperbole. I’m talking about using the concept of paying dues as a guise for bullying, elitism and blatant politics.
I realise that last statement was a very bold one and will be open to a lot of strong disagreement, so I shall at least attempt to justify what I know is a tough one to back up. Basically the five traits I have listed above are in my opinion five of the biggest scourges of the wrestling world. I believe that the culture within professional wrestling, especially the WWE, of the need for “paying dues” in this context is the worst of those five. Three of those, poor gimmicks, foundation-less writing and excessive hyperbole are major issues, but their consequences are different to the other two, and therefore whilst they are serious, it is in a different and in my opinion less important way. The concepts of steroids and paying dues however are in my opinion both very dangerous pitfalls within the wrestling industry. Steroids has claimed a number of lives in recent years and by no means do I believe it should be taken lightly, however I am concerned that “paying dues” has indirectly and more subtly claimed the careers and maybe even the lives of more. In some cases, it may even be that a wrestler whose demise we might put down to steroidal abuse, at a deeper glance may have been led down that road initially by the concept of paying dues. It may also be responsible for very bad business decisions that hurt the product quality and so therefore harm wrestling on two different fronts, hence why I believe it is the most serious.
So what is this term “paying dues”? In this instance, it is a very specific concept. It is the idea that you are only worthy of a higher spot on the card when you have completed a mandatory and possibly unspecified amount of time on the lower end of the card and have been subjected to a significant amount of rough-housing and ribbing from wrestlers who have been around longer than you and as such are considered to have “paid their dues”. You must continue to show them the appropriate respect they feel they deserve because they showed it to those before them and when they make way for you at the top you will be afforded exactly the same treatment from those below you. Furthermore, you will have earned the right to demand superiority in those forms over newer talents along with the right to subject them to roughhousing and ribbing yourself. It should not however be confused with the concept of “experience”, as the latter is a genuine tool towards self-improvement as a performer whilst in my opinion the former is nothing more than a glorified pecking order.
I have absolutely no problem with the idea of showing respect to veterans for their continued dedication to an industry they love, regardless of where they stand on the card. Some wrestlers talk about “paying dues” in a much simpler way, in that they treat the more experienced talents as well as management with decency and respect and they do their best to learn and absorb as much about their craft as they possibly can. These people who work by this definition are very different to the first kind mentioned as this group of people understand that showing respect to someone who has “paid dues” and relative positions on the card are separate issues. The first group seem to think that they go hand in hand.
When a starting team is picked in any sport, the line up is chosen based on the required tactics and strategy of the side and of course the strengths and weaknesses of those available. If you assign a player to perform a certain task, it is because they are considered the best in your squad available at doing it. The factors which you use to determine who is best suited will probably include natural talent and indeed experience, but any coach or manager would tell you it would be foolish to pick someone solely because he has been there the longest! “Experience” is a qualitative term as well as a quantitative one. Similarly, producers and directors would not cast someone to a role in a movie because they have been acting the longest, they go for the person who fits best with how they want a specific part to be played. Previous experience of other parts can often be a redundant factor in such a situation. When a company chooses a new manager, director or executive, they will look at what accomplishments each candidate has made and in what fields with what companies rather than just pick the person closest to retirement age. So returning to the statement allegedly made earlier regarding specifically why Holly was to win over Punk, it’s all very well if Holly is genuinely the bigger star, but by what criteria have they measured it? My worry is that it was measured solely on the time spent with the WWE and as I have just shown, you would never get that sort of decision made on that sort of reason with any professional group in any other remotely similar profession.
Just because an older star was subjected to rough treatment on his way up does not mean he has the right to treat others like he was. It’s no doubt easier said than done, it has been shown that abusers of many kinds were often abused themselves previously. But whatever the reasons, whatever the current circumstances, the idea or culture that new talents must go through what older talents did needs to be stopped, particularly with the increased travel and heavy duty international touring that is prevalent these days. It is damaging to new talents who can quite easily learn the ropes of the business without being subjected to this vile behaviour and it is damaging to a company that consequently gets denied great potential but young stars. We have seen increasingly younger stars make it to the top of the WWE, so by no means do I think this is a worsening problem, it may even be getting better on its own, but I believe the events of last week showed that the problem is still there and until it is eradicated for good, professional wrestling will continue to have serious issues as both talents and viewers will pay the price for the egos of a few who have worked hard to be where they are, and no doubt deserve to be, but simply can’t comprehend that it might come more quickly and easily to those with more natural talent. Respect and experience are one thing, but this is quite another.
Just a thought…
I would like to take this opportunity to invite anyone who may have been involved in the decision reported above, or indeed anyone currently working full-time in professional wrestling and actively involved in backstage decisions in general to respond to the thoughts within this column. I will publish your comments unedited so people can make a balanced judgement for themselves and have no problem being proven wrong or misguided on this issue. All readers are of course welcome as always to send me their thoughts and opinions at stuart_black@hotmail.com and I look forward to hearing from each and every one of you!
No column next week as I’m on holiday, so see in you two weeks!
Copyright © 2005; TheWrestlingVoice.com & Douglas Nunnally.
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Statement
| What Did You Think About WWE Backlash 2008? |
|
|