Ok I see its time for someone to play the mediator here. There seems to be a lot of the same arguments going around, so let me put it straight so you guys see each others' point of view.
The Hardy nay-sayers claim that, because he isn't as technical as a Bret Hart or Chris Benoit, he isn't a good wrestler. That's a little harsh, in my opinion, as he's been improving and adding more moves as time goes on. He may not be the best wrestler ever, but to say he's garbage is to say that 90% of the people they've had is garbage, and if you think that's the case, why are you watching the WWE?
One of the arguments is that he's a "spot monkey", which in some ways is used out of context. Essentially a spot monkey is someone who receives most of their admiration and pops through high risk and flashy moves. That is not necessarily a bad thing, remember. Everyone who is a fan of Rey Mysterio, the early Shawn Michaels, pretty much any Cruiserweight, etc, will tell you that those moves are very entertaining. If one ONLY does that, and can't execute any other types of moves, then yeah, that's a piss poor job. Hardy's dominated by his high risks, but if he literally only did those moves, he wouldn't be as popular as he is. As someone mentioned above, everyone has different tastes, and there are some people that think high risk is boring/fantastic just as there are some people that think submission is boring/fantastic, 20 minutes of headlocks is boring/fantastic, or ultra-violence with hardcore and extreme rules is boring/fantastic. Judging someone else's likes or dislikes does not prove your point whether you're for Hardy or against it. The fact of the matter is, you have to stand outside your own thought process and look at the man as a whole, since the WWE isn't tailoring just to YOUR likes and dislikes. I personally like Hardy and I'd love to see him as a WWE champ. Now, I also really like Kennedy, and I'd like to see him as a WWE champ. Would I put the belt on him right now? NO, because I don't feel he's ready. I like the guy a lot, and it seems like the majority of the fans do as well, but when I step back from my own pov, I can see that he could use a little more in-ring work, so I wouldn't book him as the champ just yet.
Another issue coming up a lot is the concept of "storytelling". For the fans of the old, old days, I feel there's a bit of the "rose colored glasses" effect going on. Fans nowadays would get bored watching no-name wrestlers from the 70s compete in slow, methodical matches. At the same time, there are too many fans nowadays that like too much fluff with not enough substance. Flashy colors and lots of bs doesn't mean its going to sell. Look at Snitsky. They've been trying to build him up for months with promos, squashes, a new look, etc, and it hasn't gotten over because for all their flowering, the root is still dead. The top men in the WWE have to be able to not only entertain in the ring but carry some sort of persona that the fans will care about, whether or not they're a face or heel. In-ring "storytelling" is totally dependent on the type of feud and the type of wrestlers. Do you think the Undertaker's story is ever going to be the "kid looking for respect"? You're kidding yourself if you do. Umaga right now is the "dominating villain" in the ring, so whoever he's up against has to reflect that. Last week with Umaga/Hardy, did Hardy not sell during the entire match the fact that Umaga was dominating him? Slam after slam, that incredibly repetitive nerve hold, etc, he never once acted like Chris Masters apparently did when he supposedly kept forgetting that the Undertaker was working on his arm. If Jeff in that match would've acted as if Umaga's moves didn't phase him, I'd support the hell out of the nay-sayers, but to say he can't tell a story in the ring is to not give credit where credit is due. Nearly every performer can tell the in-ring story, but it depends on whether or not a story is there. If you simply have Hardy vs Benjamin, there's no feud, and there's no title chase, then what's the story? See what I mean?
Now, I think I need to defend John Cena a bit. I've said it before, and I'll say it when he comes back again: the biggest problem I have with John Cena has nothing to do with John Cena, it has to do with management. I am NOT a big fan of his. I find his mic work a little predictable, his in-ring skills a bit flat at times, and I think he's a little overrated. Does that mean I would bury him? Not a chance. Even though Cena is not my favorite athlete in the WWE right now, and I would much rather see some others get the spotlight over him, I would be stupid to deny he has a lot of fans AND a lot of haters. The fact that he has so many fans is one of the reasons why he was pushed so hard and that's also one of the reasons why the WWE is considering pushing Jeff. Its business, guys, not playground rules. If the WWE sees something marketable, they'll run with it. Look at HBK, Austin, the Rock, etc. You think if they never sold a single t-shirt, they'd have been pushed as hard? NO WAY IN HELL. Whether or not you like certain people as wrestlers, you cannot, under any circumstances, ignore the "entertainment" aspect of this situation, because both "wrestling" and "entertainment" are included in the name of the company. If the WWE was not concerned about entertainment, revenue, and so forth, then they would not have pyrotechnics, half-nude models, fictional dead men, STORYLINES, etc. They would have straight-up strict wrestling matches, now wouldn't they? They can't push people just because they have great in-ring skills because the fans won't get behind someone who can't work the mic in the slightest bit and if that's the case, they won't make any money off the person. No profit = no point. Cena was making them a lot of money and that's the main reason why he was champ for a year...and the main reason so many people started hating his guts these past few months is because they were bored with the same thing and the WWE was too afraid to switch it up. Hardy is a fan-favorite as well, so he's profitable just in the same rights.
What everyone needs to stop doing in this thread is trying to diminish a wrestler's ability based strictly on whether or not you in particular are blowing a load over the guy. Its a little off topic, but it still applies...Lorne Michaels, the man responsible for Saturday Night Live, once stated that he had no idea what the people were laughing at when Adam Sandler came out and did his skits. He didn't see what was so funny. But, however, he did see that the AUDIENCE saw what was funny and they responded, and that's what counted. I've ran into just as many people that can't stand Adam Sandler as I've ran into wrestling fans that can't stand Cena, or Hardy, or Triple H, or (insert name here). The fact of the matter is that if the majority of the audience goes against you, you don't matter. If I was in charge of the WWE and I decided to do everything based on who I like the best, well then we'd see the Undertaker as WHC, HBK as WWE champ, we'd fire Khali, we'd never see the Women's division again, etc. Is that the best business strategy? No, because this isn't about what one person wants, its about what everybody wants. You don't like Jeff Hardy? Fine. He's your favorite? Fine. You don't like Cena? Ok. He's your favorite? That's good too. Saying that just because someone's style is different makes them a terrible performer because you prefer another style is just being stubborn, though. We can ALL agree that no wrestler should be pushed if they can't execute a single move and they injure someone every time they're in the ring, but we can't all agree on what the best finishing move out there is, can we? So for those that like Sweet Chin Music, are they wrong just because you like the Ankle Lock? No.
The WWE makes mistakes and sometimes they try to push the wrong people. Right now, the prime example of that is Snitsky. Can they save his career? Maybe, but most likely not. The best way to judge these things is a fan reaction. If a heel is getting heat, they're doing they're job. If a face is getting cheered, they're doing their job. If the crowd is dead, that's when you know the WWE has made a mistake. Snitsky's dead-asleep-reaction from the crowd is siren to management just as Hardy's cheers, Kennedy's screaming fans, Cena's merchandise pull, Rey's enormous fan base, and so forth. Snitsky's siren is a warning sign and the rest are glaring red lights to show them that they have something to offer us that the fans want to see more of. That right there gives you your answer to settle this quarrel from this thread. As long as ANY WWE wrestler has an impressive amount of fans, he deserves a shot at stardom, because no matter how important it is for people to be impressive in the ring, if you have nothing outside of that and you were the champ, you know damn well everyone on this forum would be complaining that "Charlie Haas is champ? Wtf. The guy just goes out there and wrestles. He doesn't even have a personality."
Everyone just needs something to complain about all the time here, whether its Triple H burying people, Cena, Randy Orton being the champ, Hardy getting a push, etc, so this issue will not resolve itself until there is a new distraction. I LOVE the fact that we get to debate about stuff. I LOVE having discussions about why I'd rather see HBK with the title instead of Orton or why I'm pissed that Edge's return at Survivor Series wasn't after the Undertaker won the belt. Keep your opinions and like and hate who you will, but no matter what your opinion is, no argument is sound if all the words coming out of your mouth is simply "I think this way so its right".
Sorry for such a long post. Its becoming a habit of mine. I'm just a little tired of seeing this back and forth bickering with nobody willing to accept the fact that not everything is black and white, but there are gray areas as well. By the way, happy Thanksgiving lol.
