Did We Give Too Much Benefit of the Doubt to Better Workers?

[Tenta]

Right now, I'm going to include a link to a thread I chreated a couple of days ago, in which who I asked had the "Biggest Ego" in wrestling.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=121792

You see something there? Well, besides the fact that Foley has no votes? Look at the two men who had the most votes. Yep, that would be Warrior and Hogan. I can't say I didn't see it coming, but my God, the hate these two men got made me feel as though maybe they needed to be in Witness Protection. Still, there's something I found humorous about this whole thing; people talked about "deserved ego". What I found pretty damn interesting regarding this matter is that, all things considered, the best draws on that list go to Warrior and Hogan. That's right, these two men were the ones that drew everybody's paychecks, and when the other wrestlers had the chance, they didn't draw nearly as much. Meaning, in my eyes, Hogan and, to a lesser extent Warrior, had a reason to have that big an ego. Hey, when you're drawing in the crowds, you kind of feel like you are better than everyone else. Mainly because, well, you are. You drew the money, and while it isn't good business, it's bound to happen.

Now, let's look at the other names. all of them better workers, plenty of ego to spare... and yet they barely hit the radar. It is so overwhelmingly decided that Warrior and Hogan have the bigger egos, no one stopped to remember that, respectively;

Bret Hart is the man that refused to lose the title because he was a Canadian Hero. My God, at least Warrior and Hogan both dropped the title and did good business when the time is right. If refusing to drop the title when you're leaving isn't the most egotistical move ever, I'm not sure what it is.

Not that Shawn is better; he's the man who screamed, backstage, that he would never do another job. Let me emphasize that; Never. Do. Another. Job. Can you get your head around that kind of an ego.

Look, my point is simple; we give far too much leeway to the supposed "better workers", because there matches are better. We allow them to throw temper tantrums and the like, when realistically, they really don't deserve it. Hell, even look at someone like Steve Austin. He refused to work with Jeff Jarrett, and that vicariously spun off TNA. He also refused to put Brock Lesnar, and "took his ball and went home", as Vince put it. And that's exactly what he did, really. Still, people never look to say that these men didn't have large egos. Instead, we always praise their work.

Look, I'm not dumb enough to believe Hulk didn't have a big ego; I know too well. However, I'm an objective kind of guy, who believes if it's one way for one person, it has to be that way for everyone. And clearly, when we're talking about this matter, that's sheerly not the case.

May I please get an Amen?

 

[klunderbunker]

To an extent yes, but keep something in mind: without Hogan or Austin, there is no WWE, period and end of argument. Ok not end of argument but it sounded good.

For guys that big, no they can't get too much of a benefit of the doubt. Austin and Hogan have sold out more arenas than most wrestlers will set foot in in their lives. They have earned the right to do things like have some additional control (emphasis on some). Austin didn't think Jarrett was a big enough star and low and behold he was right. It would have devalued Austin and therefore hurt both himself and the company. People can whine and moan all they want about how he's selfish, but tell me you wouldn't watch if you knew he was coming back for one more match.

Hogan is a bit of a different case as he's done a lot of stupid and selfish things. The argument again though is that without him, there is no modern wrestling to screw up, so again he can get a break.

Then there are guys like Shawn. Yes, he can get too much benefit of the doubt. When you boil it down, Shawn is one of the worst drawing guys of all time. That is just pure fact. When he was on top, ratings were down. "But KB that was against the NWO!" That's true. He also tanked then in 2002 when there was no NWO around to blame it on. He has great matches and was incredible to watch, but he didn't help the company as much as he thinks he did. Guys like him and Bret can get away with stuff, but only so much.

In short, yes we do, but there are exceptions to this rule.

 

[LigerBomb]

Look, my point is simple;

Spoiler

we give far too much leeway to the supposed "better workers", because there matches are better. We allow them to throw temper tantrums and the like, when realistically, they really don't deserve it. Hell, even look at someone like Steve Austin. He refused to work with Jeff Jarrett, and that vicariously spun off TNA. He also refused to put Brock Lesnar, and "took his ball and went home", as Vince put it. And that's exactly what he did, really. Still, people never look to say that these men didn't have large egos. Instead, we always praise their work.

Honestly I'm a little mystified as to what "leeway" we give to "these people". For as much as we all talk about backstage minutia for many of us, the iwc for lack of better term, and for practical all the "not in the know" casual fans, these people's respective egos are irrelevant to our support of the product at large and personal opinion of individual talents.

We allow them to throw temper tantrums and the like...

I don't allow anyone to do anything, and I certainly don't have the power to prevent or chastise someone when they do throw said tantrum.
Is your point that we should vilify these better workers to the same extent as extremists do with the likes Hogan, Warrior, etc.? Are you saying that such negative opinion should perhaps be more than Hogan et al. because they respectively drew less?
What if, rather than do the above and hate everyone up the ladder who has an ego (I should want to put a bullet in McMahon's frontal lobe) we just "hate" guys like Hogan and Warrior less? Or not care about the egotistical backstage bullshit that's in every business (the only difference being that other industries have better lock-down on their backstage politics) practically at all.
I enjoy CM Punk's in-ring work and his promos. I find him entertaining and would support the promotion he worked for. I could careless that he's (SUPPOSEDLY) a raging asshole/egomaniac backstage. That stuff doesn't matter to me.
Also, like KB said regarding Austin, sometimes theses guys are egotistical but they're also right. They aren't "burying" talent but rather using their eye for talent and trying to make sure guys who shouldn't be pushed don't get the rub. They are doing what they feel is best for the business, and yes that sometimes happens to align with what's best for themselves as well. The two don't always have to necessarily be mutually exclusive or contradictory ideas.
As far as Bret and Shawn go, they (used to) put on great matches and connect with the fans and that's what people care about. At least in numbers that matter. They probably don't care about all the stuff you mentioned. Should they? Should we? Should I hate, demonize, boycott and/or talk shit about every guy that has every been in the business who tries to put himself over above and beyond others because of a bit of ego? Furthermore should I base these opinions on hopelessly impossible to verify accounts, accusations and tales by people who perhaps have an axe to grind, who feel cheated themselves or who are on the fringes of the business so much so that their words can hardly be taken at face value? If so, I'd have practically no one to cheer for at all and probably have to stop watching wrestling all together.
I'm not saying we shouldn't care or even stop discussing the backstage speculations printed on the front page. I'm just saying we probably shouldn't let it consume and cloud our judgment. Certainly not to such an extent that it ruins our enjoyment of the medium or makes us form such "hatred and anger" (real, manufactured or exaggerated as it may be) towards people we have never met (at least not in a lasting or meaningful way). Perhaps rather than removing such benefit of the doubt leeway we go the other way and instead stop having interweb-aneurysms over such petty things as pro-wrestlers' supposedly over inflated egos.

 

[The Prod1gy]

It's kind of funny that Shawn all those years ago screamed that he would never do another job and then when he returned it seemed that's all he did, that being put the younglings over and be what all wrestlers around his age should aspire to be. Isn't it amazing what a little bit of god can do for you.

But onto your topic here, yes I do agree with most of what you said. We all do make exceptions for some and it very rarely is one rule for all, because if that was true Shawn would of being fired back in 95 for refusing to go to rehab but he wasn't, and isn't that what what Carlito just got fired for?

 

[Judah's Lion]

This is a very interesting thread that is in reality a follow up to another very interesting thread. Tenta, you're on a roll, here.

On the first thread created, about the biggest ego, I will admit that I had a split vote between Warrior and Other for Goldberg. My reasoning, summarized, was that they had not "earned" their ego because of their relatively short careers.

Now, on to this follow up thread... Perhaps you're right and we do give too much grace to guys just based on the work ethic, ring work, mic skills, draw power, etc. For whatever reason, we just give grace to guys that maybe don't deserve it. And besides which, should we really give any grace at all? I mean, ego is ego no matter how much you've "earned" the right to be an egomaniac.

I get that. But my point from the very first thread was this: Yeah, maybe Hogan is a crazy big egomaniac. Austin too. Triple H too. HBK too. Hart too. Steiner too. Anyone else that was worth anything in the ring for any reason. The list is nigh endless. My point was that, for these men, many of them have "paid their dues" so to speak by working in the same business for decades. The only one that didn't (please correct me if I'm wrong) is The Rock, who worked for about 8 years. That's not the decades that other guys did, but they were arguably some of the best 8 years in wrestling and he was a major part of that. Him aside, we have guys like Warrior and Goldberg.

IMO, their egos are just not as "deserved" as anyone else because of the time invested into the business. Their time combined was less than that of The Rock, and The Rock's time was less than any other option out there for biggest ego. So that was my point and I'm gonna stick with it for now, but not without once again emphasizing that I in no way justify any kind of ego. It just isn't necessary, but then again, how much do I really know about any of this? I'm not there and I don't know these guys personally...

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I think you might be on to something here... Hogan and Warrior apparently have the two biggest egos in wrestling history (or at least according the WZ fans who voted), but they've also sold out more stadiums and one more for the business than most ever will-specifically Hogan. Sure, the guy puts his face everywhere he can and does whatever it takes to make sure he's all over the place...but let's face it, Hulkamania sells. Hogan produced excitement and resurrected a dying industry, and while he didn't do it alone, he has some right to say and do what he wants. It wasn't that bad of a move for Dixie to give Hogan control over TNA, because if you think about it, if the product is decent enough, slapping Hogan's name on it SHOULD draw more ratings.

But there are plenty of other guys who should have been higher up in the rankings. It's also difficult because a lot of guys grew out of their ego. By the end of his career, HBK was a completely different man. I'm not going to pull the God card and claim it's all because he became a Christian, but he was a changed man who became more about the business than himself. And Triple H...I know he's got an ego, and he likes to bury lots of people, but the Game does sell. He's not Hogan-tastic or anything, but he sells. He's also the owner's son-in-law...Triple H gets whatever he wants and that seems to be a problem... And yeah, Bret Hart could drop the title, and Austin may have been responsible for Brock "taking his ball and going home".

 

[theHeadliner]

First, if you read Michaels book, he would yell that backstage as a joke because other wrestlers would run to the dirt sheets with these rumors. He would yell that on purpose since other wrestlers were spreading that rumor, to feed it and get back at the guys who started it in the locker room. He said it was s childish thing for grown men to run to these publications to gossip and talk behind other guy's backs like little school girls, so he purposely would say he wouldn't job cus other guys said it first to the sheets.

Bret def. had some pride and ego issues; refusing to lose when he was leaving to go to the direct competition, making the decision while he was still champ, when Vince allowed him to breach his contract to sign the most lucrative deal ever, after Vince gave him the stage to shine and create his legacy, in which caused the interest from WCW. There was another thread created about who has the biggest ego in wrestling. Bret also had shrines all over his house in every room, pictures of him wrestling, pictures of him posing, wrestling memorabilia of him, etc. Do we give them the benefit of the doubt? I'd say no because there are places like this where fans and others can vent and speak their minds on how they feel about a certain person, and there are def. equal amounts of criticism and distaste to go with the praise these great workers get.

 

[Dum Dum Dudley]

I suppose we give the 'better workers' more lee-way over egotism because if someone has to be pushed to the moon and main-event PPV's without doing a job, it may as well be someone entertaining in the ring. The HBKs and Bret Harts of the wrestling world get away with rampant egos because you know that if we're gonna have them pushed down our throats, they may as well be good enough and entertaining enough to keep us watching. I could easily sit and match any HBK/Austin/Hart match due to a number of reasons such as the good quality of the match or the story thats being told. Guys like Warrior, Goldberg and Hogan don't excel in these departments, so when they start to plead their case to be the top guy and never job, the IWC starts to view these guys as 'big-headed' or 'egotistical'.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I actually agree with you Tenta, sure the better workers may have the best matches, but they are very rarely the guys who put the butts in seats at the events and when you think about it, thats what really counts. There are 1000's of better workers than Hogan or Warrior, but none of these guys can pack an arena like the 2 names mentioned (not in America at least). There is a reason why Hogan is widely considered the greatest of all time, and it certainly isn't because of his in-ring work (because it was no more than passable). Sure these guys had massive egos, but like you said they were well deserved, Hogan may of had a Jupiter sized ego, but considering what he did for professional wrestling, he has earned the right to have an ego that big. I always enjoyed wrestlers with superb in ring skills (like Bret Hart and Chris Benoit), but I'm not blind into thinking these guys were actually superior to the likes of Hogan. The ratings and the bankbook don't lie.

 

[Ferbian]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that we all give too much of a benefit of the doubt to the better workers. I've heard people screaming and shouting how Shawn Michaels temper tantrums backstage in the 90's still convinced them that Shawn Michaels sucked in the 00's. The same goes for Bret Hart. There's still gonna be people out there to complain no matter what.

And even with that I don't think that the fans as a whole give too much of a benefit of the doubt to the better workers. Mostly because just because we enjoy their matches. There's no doubt that we still don't approve of the backstage material. I don't approve of Bret nor Shawn Michaels situations backstage. But it doesn't influence my opinion about them on-screen.

And that I think might play a huge factor in this whole ordeal. The fact that they don't care what goes on backstage to the performer in the front. Sure the thread you linked focused on ego's. But I surely don't believe that it was purely for the fact that Hogan and Warrior weren't wonder children in the ring.

But also if you turn it the other way. Sure there might be some that looks past the bad things because "Uh. He does flippies" or "Uh. He can actually wrestle a 1 hour iron man match and make it look great without flapping around too much" etc.

There's a lot of things that could've resulted in those votings Tenta. be it giving the benefit of the doubt. Or simple preferences. Hell or the fact that Hogan and Warrior just were big ego's in a business filled with them.

 

[billm75]

If they're good in the ring, on the screen, then I don't really care too much what they do backstage in the business. It's not MY business to worry with, I'm in it for entertainment. I mean, how many hollywood actors have tremendous egos, yet people still flock to their movies every year. It's part of the deal.

Frankly, you can't be good in this business without being egotistical. You have to believe you're better than everyone else in order to do your job. Same with "real" athletes. Check out just about any receiver in the NFL. They rant and rave and carry on for special treatment all the time, yet on Gameday (when it counts) they do the job and the fans get behind them.

It's all part of the industry. Hogan has probably the biggest ego of all time, but then, he was the biggest wrestler of all time. Nobody can match his influence in the industry. He brought fans to the arenas that would never have otherwise come out. He put wrestling on the map with the mainstream. When you do that kind of stuff, you're BOUND to have a huge ego. There's too many people supporting your ego to avoid it.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

"Bret Hart is the man that refused to lose the title because he was a Canadian Hero. My God, at least Warrior and Hogan both dropped the title and did good business when the time is right. If refusing to drop the title when you're leaving isn't the most egotistical move ever, I'm not sure what it is."

Bret Hart never refused to lose the title. He just refused to lose it to Shawn Michaels. And seeing as how he had a creative control clause in his contract,he was well within his rights to do so. He also said he'd drop the belt to anybody else,he just didn't want it to be Michaels.

And Hulk Hogan doing what's good for business? Please,this is the same guy who refused to drop the belt to Bret Hart because he felt he was "too small" Granted Hogan had the same said creative control clause in his contract,so he was within his rights. But to say he does what is good for business,that's a stretch. Hogan never did what was best for the business. Hogan did what was best for Hogan.

 

[mrbooker]

"Bret Hart is the man that refused to lose the title because he was a Canadian Hero. My God, at least Warrior and Hogan both dropped the title and did good business when the time is right. If refusing to drop the title when you're leaving isn't the most egotistical move ever, I'm not sure what it is."

Bret Hart never refused to lose the title. He just refused to lose it to Shawn Michaels. And seeing as how he had a creative control clause in his contract,he was well within his rights to do so. He also said he'd drop the belt to anybody else,he just didn't want it to be Michaels.

And Hulk Hogan doing what's good for business? Please,this is the same guy who refused to drop the belt to Bret Hart because he felt he was "too small" Granted Hogan had the same said creative control clause in his contract,so he was within his rights. But to say he does what is good for business,that's a stretch. Hogan never did what was best for the business. Hogan did what was best for Hogan.

You are talking apples and oranges with Hogan and Harts situations, Hogan refused to loss to hart because he was to small yes but Hogan wasn't jumping ship and signing with WCW (who was already beating WWF into the ground) two nights after doing a PPV. Bret may have been with in his rights in your opinion but the fact remains is he has creative control over his character not over the companies World Title Belt. Bret wanted to leave WWF HIS way on HIS terms, sorry but thats not how business works. HHH said it best "If he doesn't want to do business you do business for him." And if you dont think Hogan did whats good for business thats false Hogan did do whats best for himself but Hogan never did what was undeniable for good business hence him losing CLEAN to the the Ultimate Warrior for the title. Guys like Austin and Hogan refused to lose to unworthy opponents. Bret hart was nor will he ever be in that tier with Hogan.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

You are talking apples and oranges with Hogan and Harts situations, Hogan refused to loss to hart because he was to small yes but Hogan wasn't jumping ship and signing with WCW (who was already beating WWF into the ground) two nights after doing a PPV. Bret may have been with in his rights in your opinion but the fact remains is he has creative control over his character not over the companies World Title Belt. Bret wanted to leave WWF HIS way on HIS terms, sorry but thats not how business works. HHH said it best "If he doesn't want to do business you do business for him." And if you dont think Hogan did whats good for business thats false Hogan did do whats best for himself but Hogan never did what was undeniable for good business hence him losing CLEAN to the the Ultimate Warrior for the title. Guys like Austin and Hogan refused to lose to unworthy opponents. Bret hart was nor will he ever be in that tier with Hogan.

Wait,what? Please explain to me how it is perfectly fine for Hogan to refuse to a certain person,but it's just flat out wrong from Bret Hart to refuse to lose to a certain guy. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I'm not taking up for Bret Hart,but the fact that the guy tried to work out different scenarios to where he would drop the title to anybody else only to have those ideas shot down by McMahon pretty much show me that Hart was trying to do business.


And seriously,let's stop pretending that Hogan putting Warrior over clean was Hogan doing what was right for business. All that was about was Hogan getting the hell out of dodge until the steroid cloud that was hanging over him passed.

 

[Tastycles]

Absolutely. Hogan and Warrior get rode on for taking steroids, yet Bret Hart has admitted to taking them, and Shawn Michaels must be the only wrestler to have ever failed a steroid drugs test before 1995, but nobody ever mentions that. When Michaels retired this year, people had the audacity to claim he was some sort of saint, and for years people go on about how he helped put the young guys over. Bollocks. Hogan lost to Lesnar. Hogan lost to Billy Kidman. Hogan lost to Warrior. Michaels had to get forced to lose to Steve Austin. The amount of people who could have made their career by retiring Ric Flair is astounding, but no, Michaels wanted it, so c'est la vie.

The dichotomy between Triple H and Shawn Michaels is obvious. In the last few years Triple H has put over Orton, Batista, Jeff Hardy, Sheamus all before they went on to better things. Michaels has put over John Cena, who is already a megastar, and Undertaker, who is 45 years old. Yet if I made a thread right now about who has done more to push youngun's the answer would invariably be Michaels. Why? Because he takes 20 minutes to beat them, where Triple H loses in 10. The double standards in the IWC is astounding, it really is.