To Defend or Obey?

[WCW_Sting]

I had a thought go through my head yesterday and briefly considered making a thread on it. The thought soon slipped my mind, but after reading the thread “People Bash Dwayne – What About Austin?”, which touched on the subject of my thought, I decided to go ahead. This is me just wanting to know some opinions.

In the end of May 2002, Stone Cold Steve Austin walked out on the company that made him a household name. He had already pulled this once after Wrestlemania X8, but came back after a week. As the story supposedly goes, creative (or Vince) wanted to book Austin in a feud with Brock Lesnar with Lesnar coming out on top. Austin had no problem putting Lesnar over eventually, but he didn’t like the build that creative had set up, feeling it was too rushed and that it should be a bigger deal than what was planned. He may have thought that if he jobbed to the new guy like it was nothing, it would make his character look weak and inferior to Lesnar’s.

It goes without saying that top guys, like Austin at the time, have more say and input in their character direction and storylines in general, which is beyond understandable. My question: When it comes down to business, when the boss tells that top guy that this is what he wants him to do, should that top guy defend himself and try to protect his character from a possible weakening, or should he do the “professional” thing, act as a regular employee (or is it independent contractor?) rather than a privileged one, and do what he’s told?

Similar instances include Bret Hart refusing to job to Shawn Michaels at Survivor Series ’97 and Hulk Hogan and others in WCW constantly utilizing their creative control clauses to benefit themselves. I’ve seen arguments for both sides of the Bret Hart situation, but I’ve seen more of “He was leaving the company, and it’s the professional thing to do to put someone over on the way out” than anything else. I don’t even have to mention how people feel about Hogan’s creative control. But I don’t recall ever seeing an opinion about the Austin/Lesnar feud that never happened (some may have been in the Dwayne/Austin thread…I didn’t read every reply).

Again, should someone of Austin’s stature put business aside and defend his character, or should he shut up and do what he’s told? I’m not suggesting that “defend his character” means walkout. I honestly don’t know what it means, which is why I want your opinions. Thanks for reading.

As always, get over yourselves and enjoy some wrestling.

 

[JohnOldSnake4]

I'm with Austin on the whole thing. He did what he did not out of selfish egotism, but because he cares about the product and telling the right story. Austin vs Lesnar could have drawn serious money on PPV, Austin knows this and what's mind-boggling is how Vince could possibly not. Shutting up and doing what he was told would have been bad for business, and so he did the right thing in standing his ground.

I think it differs from case to case however. Bret refusing to lose on his way out, regardless of the circumstances of his leaving, was unprofessional. It flew in the face of tradition and was probably done out of petty personal issues with Shawn more than anything. Although, Bret DID have creative control and so I guess Vince should have honoured that. It's a tough and divisive subject.

WCW was a fucking joke with the politicking that went on, and it played more of a hand in killing that company than anything else.

 

[Foshinzo]

It depends.
When Austin did it, it might have been selfish, but he obviously had his reasons. The only thing that redeems Austin in this situation, in my eyes, is that as far as I've ever heard, he didn't have a track record of behaving this way. If it's a one time deal, then I can see it getting a pass.

However, this is where you have to draw the line as a fan with Hogan during his...well, entire career. From what I've heard, it started at WrestleMania 2 when Hogan was supposed to drop the title like, a month before the show to Piper, who would cheat to win it on a Saturday Night Main Event and then that would set up the ultimate rematch, where Hogan would finally get over clean at WrestleMania and they would settle the score. This whole thing is most likely just a rumor somebody has concocted up and I've picked up somewhere along the way, but it's understandable based on Hogan's track record that this story could potentially be true. Piper never got his title, the feud was never settled, and we got possibly the worst WrestleMania main event ever in Hogan v King Kong Bundy. If this story were true, Hogan basically ruined WrestleMania 2 all by himself.

Of course, you don't need rumors to know how Hogan was. There are stories about Jake Roberts too, that he was supposed to get a main event title feud with Hogan after Roberts DDT'd Hogan on the Snake Pit, but Hogan was so insulted that the fans chanted, "DDT, DDT, DDT," instead of his name, that he refused to do it. Now, Jake Roberts himself probably made this one up, but still, the fact that Hogan is who he is makes it believable.

When I speak of Hogan's track record, I'm of course speaking of how he played his part in the death of WCW. He twisted the knife in that show's back. The finger poke of doom, the fall of Goldberg, the Jarrett lie down...Dennis Rodman...he did what he wanted to do, and what he did was bad for TV. What was good for TV, getting away from the nWo, getting young wrestlers like the Cruiserweights over, getting himself off of television...he actively shot them down, and we know he shot them down. By the end of WCW, he had learned his lesson and was trying to help get Billy Kidman over, but it was too little too late.

If you're like Austin and you invoke creative control ever so seldom, then that's fine, to me. If you're like Hogan and you're trying to use your creative control to essentially book the show, you are a cancer and you need to be gone.

 

[b.m.chunk]

It's not like he refused to put lesnar over he was going to eventually put him over he just wanted it to be important for both of them. and i think with austin's prestiege he has the right to refuse to job. Hell the big show didn't job to lesnar, and why would vince a buisness savy intellegent individual blow his load like that and throw away a wrestlemania quality match. I think there is more to this story.

 

[akrassikauda]

If I were Austin I would defend. I would tell Vince that it's a rush job, have no problem putting Lesnar over but not so fast. The big problem with doing it too fast is what's the payoff. Do you want Lesnar to beat Austin in a squash match on RAW when the entire Corporation couldn't do it. Lesnar is a beast but the Stone Cold character is the ultimate bad ass it takes a lot to beat him which is usually done at a PPV. Putting him over on RAW in such a fashion would not only ruin the character but also the PPV when people want to know if Lesnar by himself could do what Vince,Rock,Undertaker and any sort of Corporation couldn't do. I would put heavy emphasis on the business of putting Lesnar over before my ego.
The Bret thing as JohnOldSnake put it, It's a tough and divisive issue. Now Hogan on the other hand was just pure ego. His ego lead to the younger talent leave to WWF. Having absolute creative control was not a good idea which in retrospect made Hogan and anyone who had his ear the booker which lead to NWO controlling 70% of tv time either in a match promo or beat down. Also some of the dumbest ideas ever like having Rey take off his mask NWO wolfpack etc.

So in conclusion If I were Austin I would still defend my character for business reasons only not for ego because at the end of the day Austin is still one of the top guys and along with Rock puts asses in seats and getting paid millions and would get more with a lengthy program with Lesnar who was on fire at the time.

 

[Mustang Sally]

My question: When it comes down to business, when the boss tells that top guy that this is what he wants him to do, should that top guy defend himself and try to protect his character from a possible weakening, or should he do the “professional” thing, act as a regular employee (or is it independent contractor?) rather than a privileged one, and do what he’s told?

It reminds me of an analogy given by an old-time sportswriter who covered baseball. He was trying to interview a pitcher who had just lost a crucial game; the pitcher had had a great career that was now winding down as age caught up to him. During his glory years, the pitcher was happy to talk to the press, expounding on his opinions about everything from baseball to the war in the Middle East. But while the pitcher was glad to talk to the sportswriters after winning a game, he turned mean and ugly when the writer tried for an interview after the pitcher lost this big game. The sportswriter objected to being refused, reasoning that one of the beauties of sports is that for every winner, there's a loser.....and if you were willing to be interviewed while you were on top, you should be equally accommodating when on the downhill slope. After all, that's life.

I equate this to the Austin-Lesnar topic. At the time it was happening, Austin was surely on the downside of his career; he had suffered the broken neck and was rapidly aging. During his heyday, he was headlining wrestling cards as the greatest hero ever produced in America...... in addition to throwing out the first pitch at ballgames and appearing on network TV shows. (Remember MAD TV?: "I'm not just gonna talk about my feelings. I'm gonna sing about my feelings.")

I don't think having creative control of your character was meant as strictly as guys like Hogan took it; as an excuse to never fail, to never be portrayed as weak. Still, once the provision is granted, it's hard to know how the performer will invoke it, since he's been given it while he's on top...... not really considering what things will be like when his career is winding down.

In the Austin-Lesnar deal, Stone Cold was approaching the end of his active ring career, no? He had been on top for a long time and surely enjoyed all the fame, money and adulation he received. What's the big deal if this one program made his character "appear weak?" Is it really going to make a difference at this point? Did he really believe his "legacy" would be harmed by it? Can't he take one for the team?

Of course, we don't know the exact sequence of events and can't say with certainty what really went on behind the scenes, but if the Lesnar episode was actually vital in causing Austin to take his ball and go home, then you can see why I equate him to the baseball pitcher I referenced above.

Nobody stays on top forever......but some handle the fall more gracefully than others.

 

[Rip]

It's not so black and white. From what I've read, to succeed in the business, you do need to be fairly selfish. You do need to protect your character, you need to stand up for yourself and you can't let others walk all over you. Of course, taking it too far can be career suicide. You have to learn your place and pick your battles. Austin was right to protect his character, and personally I just think that having Lesnar smash his way through Austin would have been lazy booking. In my opinion, good booking is when both and winner and loser come out looking strong.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I was on the fence with this question but after reading Sally's post, I have to say that I've been swayed somewhat to the "obey" side of the argument.

When you take all the ideological stuff that we bring to wrestling as fans and look at wrestling as the business that it is, it's just the professional thing to do what you're told. In every job, no matter what it is, you have a boss. You don't do what your boss tells you, then expect negative consequences. Unlike most jobs, however, Austin was in a position that afforded him a degree of control and leverage that the vast majority of other people will never have in their chosen careers. That doesn't mean that Austin shouldn't have had input by any means.

I don't know all the various details & circumstances that went on backstage and up in the WWE offices regarding the situation. Probably very few people actually do for that matter, so all we're really left with are the various stories we've heard and what we're able to see on the surface. To me, on the surface, it mostly looks like a mega star in WWE whose body was rapidly winding down and was generally in the twilight of his in-ring career as a pro wrestler and may have had trouble accepting it with grace. Wrestlers like The Rock & The Undertaker were willing to put Lesnar over. Their legacies in WWE had been assured already by this time, same with Austin's, and losing to Brock Lesnar wasn't going to put a dent in those legacies.

Nobody can stay THE guy forever. It's just a fact of life. It's also a fact of life that, sometimes, a wrestler is going to work a program with someone that he might not like or that he might not think is in his league or is ready to be where he is or whatever. I've nothing against voicing criticism and opinions on the matter if you think whatever said criticisms & opinions are valid. But, in the end, if you're asked by the promoter & guy that ultimately signs your paycheck to do the job and put over another wrestler, then I think it's unprofessional do do otherwise.

Realistically though, at the end of the day, who can really say about this situation?

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

It's really a tough question to answer. My first reaction was that the wrestler should do his best to try and convince his promoter that what he is doing is wrong for the character and for the business and if he is unable to do so, he should honor the contract. However that, like most idealistic thoughts, is easier said than done. Particularily if you have creative control on your side. In that case, the temptation to have your way could be almost unbelievable.

I do side with Austin's actions in 2002. Austin's career was dwindling down and I think that Vince got a bit too nervous. What he was trying to do, I think, was get Austin to put as many wrestlers over as he could before his retirement which did not look too far away on the horizon. Either way, losing to Brock in a qualifying match on Raw was not a decision that Austin deserved to be at the recieving end of. But then I cannot disagree to the fact that what he did was unprofessional. He was a locker room leader before that incident and that is not the decision that you should be making as the person to whom a bunch of young guys look up to.

Hindsight is often said to be a wonderful thing but you will say that in these cases even hindsight will fail to provide you with a clear answer. Therefore I guess we are no one to judge the decisions that the wrestlers or the promoters made at the moment without the benefit of hindsight. No matter what the case, I do not think that there can be a clear cut answer to this question. Ever.

 

[kjbaits]

I rarely comment of these websites but i just had to say something about Austin.
Austin never said he didn't want to job to Lesnar, he did. Austin was the face of the WWE during the attitude era and the years were passing by and it was time for a new face, and the WWE at that time were pushing Lesnar to be that new face, so just think about it. It was like a "passing of the torch" to the next generation as most people say. Why would you pass the torch without any build and in a raw episode..?? I mean come on. People say the rock and undertaker jobbed to Lesnar. Yes that's true but they had build towards their matches. If you listen to some Austin videos he says that when he comes to the ring he gives 110% to the fans.
If you listened to the video of him being asked about the WWE creative team, he said he wanted them to loosen up the grip on script promos, he says he wants people to be natural and entertaining the way he was and it will connect to the audience.
All Austin wanted was to have a solid build and entertaining match with Lesnar, and to give you the Wrestling fans a good and entertaining feud not a squash match. Was that too much to ask..? If Lesnar had gone over Austin i know the same people now saying Austin is selfish would be saying the WWE made a wrong mistake by not giving a feud to the Austin-Lesnar match.

 

[MFR0mack]

I'm with Austin on the whole thing. He did what he did not out of selfish egotism, but because he cares about the product and telling the right story. Austin vs Lesnar could have drawn serious money on PPV, Austin knows this and what's mind-boggling is how Vince could possibly not. Shutting up and doing what he was told would have been bad for business, and so he did the right thing in standing his ground.

He didn't do the right thing at all and his decision was made completely out of selfish egotism, just like all his decisions in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Austin vs. Lesnar was supposed to be a King Of The Ring qualifying match, where Lesnar would destroy Austin -- like he destroyed else in the tournament -- on his way to victory. It was supposed to build him up to being the most ruthless monster around. A win where he lays Austin out, leaves him unconscious and broken at the end of an episode of Raw, would have done amazing things for Lesnar. Austin could have been put on the shelf for a couple weeks, given time to rest (because he was claimed he was overworked the first time he walked out) then come back and made a run for Lesnar while Lesnar was champ. It could have lead to big money and a big fued.

But Austin was sad about getting squashed by a newcomer, so he cried like a baby, said he wouldn't do it and walked out like a bitch. Hulk Hogan, The Rock & The Undertaker all did their share in putting Lesnar over and making him into an unstoppable monster. They had no problem with it. They saw it was the professional thing to do.

 

[The Mighty Tiger]

Originally Posted by WCW_Sting
My question: When it comes down to business, when the boss tells that top guy that this is what he wants him to do, should that top guy defend himself and try to protect his character from a possible weakening, or should he do the “professional” thing, act as a regular employee (or is it independent contractor?) rather than a privileged one, and do what he’s told?

I believe that the top guy can successfully do both depending on the situation. Austin had some creative say so in his booking so when creative didn't agree w/him to have a proper buildup for the match he could have told them I'll lose on Raw but it can't be a squash match. Austin could have suggested that if you guys want me to get beat by this new guy on simply a Raw then the match has to be booked as a hard fought 25 to 30min battle between the two of us w/Brock getting the victory in the end. With that suggestion both parties could have got what they wanted Austin would have lost to Brock but he wouldn't have looked weak in the process and Brock would have got one hell of a rub by getting a clean victory over Austin.

Brock didn't have to destroy Austin to get the point across that he was this unstoppable force just beating Austin period would have been enough. The match also didn't need this epic buildup to protect Austin from looking weak either. If Austin was thinking clearly he could have handled the situation better where he did what he was told & also protected his character in the process. Instead he let his ego & fear of his character being tarnish (which at the time was pretty impossible to do) get in the way of business & he made some mistakes. I understand why he did what he did but he could have handled things better. No one person is above the company so letting your ego get completely in the way of things should never be an option but I also believe that a person shouldn't be a doormat for the company either.

 

[LSN80]

As Shawn Michaels said in his book, "there is no refusing to do a job." You can present your case as to why, but in the end, Vince has the final say. So what makes Stone Cold any different from the rest?

The argument can be made that Bret Hart refused to do a job, and he did. But how did that work out for him? Whether Vince handled it properly is besides the point- Bret was adamant he wasn't going to do the job, and he wound up doing it anyway, albeit unwillingly.

To me, part of being apart of any company means doing what your boss tells you, especially as someone who's considered a locker room leader, a top guy. What type of message does it send to the rest of the boys in the back when one does refuse to "follow the script", such as Austin did? He was right in principle, don't get me wrong. The feud with Lesnar should have been built up over a period of time. But as in any job, the boss doesn't always get it right. Those in higher positions may have positions of authority to present their case and give creative input, but in the end, the boss' word is final. In what other job, regardless of your position, could you walk out and come back later? Stone Cold was being selfish and immature because he didn't get his way, even if his way was the right one.

Picture it this way: What kind of example would it set if John Cena refused to lose in a match or a feud because he didn't like how the feud was structured? What if he had refused to drop the title back to Del Rio two weeks after winning it at Vengeance? It was terrible booking, & I'm sure Cena knew it. But he went along as a company guy and dropped the belt, even if it made little sense. Cena, as a locker room leader, did what he was supposed to do. Austin didn't, regardless of his solid reasoning, and he was selfish because of it.

Defend yourself and your point of view beforehand, but when the decision comes in, do business. Anything else makes one an insubordinate ass in my eyes, and I'm a huge Austin fan. But he was in the wrong here, and even he has acknowledged it. If he's doing so, how could anyone argue that he's right here? Even if it weakened his character for a time, Austin more then anyone else was in a position where he could easily be rebuilt. His reputation and respect? A longer road back.

 

[waylon p]

I think that austin was not trying to save his character, as he knew he was near the end; plus, many badass has come back from a squash match with the "I underestimated the guy once, it will not happen again" defense.

I think he was, in his way, trying to protect "good business.". He saw a big payday from losing to lesnar in a well built program. Not just for himself, but everyone involved. He felt it was being squandered. I think he was right. Built properly, it would have been make any PPV set new records.

That being said, if Vince wanted him to lose to keifer Sutherland in a squash match, that is what he should have done. The end. If Vince does not want to make the most money possible, that is his problem.
If your promoter insists after you have laid out your views, there are only two honorable options. Do it anyway or quit. Austin picked one of those options. More power to him.