Why Does The IWC Care About The Way A Wrestler Is Backstage?

[SavageTaker]

I have noticed this growing trend more and more every single day. Apparently, it is the vogue thing to do around in many places. Every time someone bashes another wrestler about anything, they tend to always bring up one specific thing about that very wrestler. That thing is the way a wrestler supposedly acts backstage with other people or what they do backstage.

Take Triple H for example. People love to bash him and say abominable things about him. They always make mention of how he never puts anyone over or how he uses his stroke backstage to get what he wants when he wants it. Now, everything that is said about him by people that have worked with him or by wrestling news sites and the way he is backstage may very well be completely and utterly untrue, but let’s just say it is true for this instance. Why does it matter if he truly does bury people and uses his political stroke to keep people from climbing the ladder? Shouldn’t people judge him for the way he is when he comes out through the curtain and not the way he is when he leaves?

I say it should not matter if he does bury people and stops others from moving up in the company. Now, that does not mean I would condone it. Nevertheless, I honestly do not care if he does the stuff that is rumored. If he is fulfilling his job then there is no reason to care. As far as the second question goes, my answer is people should judge him the way he is when he comes through the curtains. As I said if he is fulfilling his job then there is absolutely no reason as to why I or anyone else should care about the way he is when he is not wrestling or doing something in front of the camera or in front of the fans who are watching live from the arena.

What I want to know is why is the way a wrestler acts behind the scenes something that many of the members in the IWC seem to care about. How is it anyone’s business if some wrestler is burying another wrestler or if someone is using their political power backstage to make sure someone doesn’t get pushed over themselves? I would love to know that because I always thought a wrestler should be judged on the way they are when they come through those curtains, not the way they might be once they are not in front of the camera or fans. What do you guys think?

 

[y2empleh]

Ok, Let's take HHH as the primary focal point since that is basically where you were going. Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly neutral when it comes to HHH. I do think he's overrated yet I also feel there aren't many who can currently take his spot. I believe a lot of our concern for their backstage antics is whether they have the best interests of the company in mind or just simply their own best interests. We all remember the Hogan era and have heard stories of how he didn't like putting people over, basically ever. The problem with that was when he jumped ship to WCW, the WWE really didn't have a whole lot of star power left because Hogan had refused to allow anyone else on the roster to gain any momentum that he felt should have all gone to him. For a few years, all we basically had was Bret Hart which made wrestling boring to some. I'm not saying that Bret is boring, on the contrary I am a huge Bret mark, but rather that just having one star who was a great wrestler didn't make for interesting TV. Vince has said on several interviews, those few years there was several times he almost went out of business due to this very fact. Then eventually Bret was willing to put over HBK and they had a great feud and eventually both Bret and HBK were willing to put over Austin who was in turn willing to put over Rock. Now you basically have 4 guys (down to 3 once Bret joined Hogan in WCW) that not only made WWF/E entertaining again but it also allowed those stars to eventually put over even more stars. They were willing to look after the interests of the future of wrestling.

Now fast forward to now, a few top guys looking to retire within the next year in all likelyhood (HBK/UT), a few more who have been with the company for a LONG time and will likely retire (or leave wrestling for another means) sooner then later (Edge/Jericho/Hardy/Batista/Mysterio). That leaves us with realistically 3 potential long term Main event guys who are already there, Cena/Orton/Punk. We as the IWC are basically concerned about the future of this business and don't want to see it get to a point again where you only have one heel and one face who battle every ppv. As it is on Raw we only have Orton as a realistic main event heel, we need more for the better of not only the quality of the program but also the future of it

 

[stingerlegends]

I look at it this way. If the boss is a jerk and not letting people rise in the ranks because HE doesn't like them, it could be bad for business. If he still feels that he is the best that is one thing, and five years ago, fine, Triple H you are on top. But for the sake of the business, you have to see that HHH is getting slower and not as entertaining. Hell, he's the reason I stopped watching every show that he is on. People said the same things about Hulk Hogan ten years ago, and look how much better things got when the wrestling biz finally pushed him aside for fresher blood.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

Ah... do you remember this years Wrestlemania Main Event. This match depicted "The Game" Triple H squaring off against "The Viper" Randy Orton with the WWE Championship on the line. An emotional & gripping fued right up until WM25. The whole situation was right for a long & epic fued, I pictured. The whole fued suggested that RKO was going to deliver the errr... RKO to HHH & finally, after 5 years defeat the man who turned on him. Triple H terrorised Orton mentally after winning the WHC from Benoit, Orton was just paying back the favor. But no, HHH had to win.

Say HHH was involved in this decision, it is a classic example as why people should care about somebody buring somebody else as they have the power to do so. Due to triple H, I cant take Orton seriously as a legitmate threat, though he is getting closer to his objective. Legacy was the Job Squad & still are to me. Nobody should be buried unless in extreme circumstances. Say if Jeff Hardy is leaving WWE, then the WWE have every right to use CM Punk to defeat & even bury Hardy in the process. Since he is so over & well known (more than the Legacy), it wont matter. When & if he decides to come back, will people remember???

This may sound like Im siding with the IWC & the like, but Im not. They should be judged on how they present themselves at their job. That you can do on a certain criteria. Not judging others as a person. Apparently its wrong, read the bible if you dont agree with me. Wow, I endorsed the bible & I'm an atheist! Crap...

However, burying people is not fulfilling one's job unless you are the Undertaker. Triple H is no Undertaker... hold on... no wait... let me restart

These workplace regulations & rules that often apply to normal business' seem to prevent & have rules against employees politicking & taking the wrong road in climbing the ladder of success whilst intentionally dissallowing others & dragging them through the mud. It is up to the employee if they want to be dragged through the mud by their own behaviours, not because of someones elses desires. Last time I checked, the WWE is a business.

It is a two way road here with the occassional overtaking lane & rest stops SavageTaker.

 

[ThaRaph]

I see what ur sayin, but at the same time the IWC can be completely clueless about how a wrestler is backstage. They bitch about guys THEY like not getting a push when the reason behind it is often because of how they act backstage.

For example, there were reports of how Sabu would be totally uninterested and disconnected with the agents & trainers backstage, and would often be found trying to sneak in a nap when he's supposed to be preparing for a match. That, along with his weed arrest led to him being kicked out of the WWE.

and most recently, was Mr Kennedy. Not only was he injury-prone, but he was in bad standings with ALOT of guys backstage (and this was confirmed to me by Tommy Dreamer when I met him after Extreme Rules).

So it goes both ways, but the bottom line is there's a reason why the people who call the shots are calling the shots while the people who bitch about it are just sitting on the computer.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Everyone that judges the IWC for disliking HHH for his backstage shenanigans seems to fall into the same trap that they don't equally judge the IWC for LIKING John Cena for his work ethic behind the scenes.

Two way street. You can't have a situation being examined solely in the position that benefits your point of view. If you say "its wrong to judge a wrestler based on their actions behind the curtain", it goes for liking and disliking. If you say someone shouldn't list "he buries people" as a reason to dislike HHH, then equally, you have to say someone shouldn't list "he took the kid and brought him into the ring after he was knocked over" as a reason to LIKE Triple H, because you're not judging him based on what he does as a performer in the ring, but what he does as a person. In both instances, you're judging Paul Levesque, not "HHH".

Now...why do I care about the way a wrestler is backstage? In various ways, it depends. Finlay helps guys backstage with training. That's awesome. Much applause for him doing that. Does that mean I find him entertaining in the ring? No. I think Finlay is very overrated and I'm never excited when he comes out...ever. Jeff has drug issues. I'm 100% against drugs, drinking, smoking...hell I don't even like tattoos. So personally, I think Jeff is a fool. Does that mean I dislike when he has a match? Nope. I find Jeff to be entertaining in the ring. It isn't make or break for me when I'm judging talent. I hate Paul Levesque, and I find Triple H to be bland and repetitive in the ring compared to what he used to be, and I'm never in the mood to see him - but at the same time, I'm definitely not going to argue with you and try to say HHH isn't a Hall of Fame worthy and wasn't previously one of my favorite guys. When I hear that a guy is great, or terrible, backstage, it does influence what I think of him a little bit, but not as the majority factor. Orton is a dick, supposedly. He deserves to be WWE champion right now, though. Mark Henry is a great guy, but it'd be a mistake to have him as a world champion...however, I was happy that he was rewarded with the ECW title for his services over the years.

Idk what else I can say about the situation, but I think I pretty much covered it.

 

[Tenta]

It's a great question, Savage.... I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities. And even then, I'm not sure if I'll be able to describe it well.

Personally, I have no problem with a wrestler/pro athlete being a "bad person". For me, I don't say Trips as a particulalry bad guy. May he have held guys down? I don't think there's any way to prove he has, honestly. And besides that, he's always been his brands best option, regardless of the timing. So in that aspect, I don't mind when it's assumed that Trips holds down people, or when Trips "plays politics". Many of the best have done it, as well. Hulk Hogan did it, and there's no way you can get to dislike Hulk Hogan. The same can be said for Stone Cold. I don't mind exactly how he manipulates situations. The only thing I mind is, well, when he took his ball and went home.

Which brings me to why people may mind. People look at the way Trips plays politics, and feel that he's causing the value of the show he's on to go down dramatically. Few people realize that he's the best option the WWE has, and only look into the politics behind his rise to power. And since, to them, they'd rather have men like... I don't know.... This guy....

In the main event, they would rather boo him, and feel that he's the reason guys like Shelton can't get into the main event. They neglect the fact that Shelton isn't ready, because they love him so much, and feel he's not being as much as he should. Thus, the one who winds up receiving the heat is Triple h, and others that it's assumed are holding them down. It's unfair, but it's just the way people feel about it. They blindly cheer someone on, and when that person doesn't have the talent to make it as far as the fan expects, they blame everything around that superstar.

And unfortunately, wrestlers such as Triple H receive the blame

 

[DDelaware2009]

I see what ur sayin, but at the same time the IWC can be completely clueless about how a wrestler is backstage. They bitch about guys THEY like not getting a push when the reason behind it is often because of how they act backstage.

For example, there were reports of how Sabu would be totally uninterested and disconnected with the agents & trainers backstage, and would often be found trying to sneak in a nap when he's supposed to be preparing for a match. That, along with his weed arrest led to him being kicked out of the WWE.

Perfect synopsis and a great example. That was the case with alot of the ECW retreads. Just like in any business, a bad attitude and/or personal problems keep one from a promotion, or in wrestling, a push. The company - WWE - is not going to invest TV time and promotion energies (again time, and money) on someone they cannot count on, or who creates negative vibes with the other superstars, unless they are a HUGE draw who cannot be stopped like a HBK or Hogan.

Let's call it what is: most of the time "people" - meaning KIDS - just bitch because their favorite spot monkey isn't holding the world title. News flash he's 160 pounds sopping wet and all of his moves involve flips. Not realistic, kiddies!

 

[JJYanks121]

The reason that we care is because we can. As kids, we watched wrestling purely to be entertained and didn't look for anything deeper. As you get older, you look for more depth on screen that really, just isn't there. As we age, we begin to understand how the business side works, and thus, think that by being a fan, we could infiltrate the business side and run things. It's the same as with any sport. How many of us are also general managers for our favorite sports teams because we know better than the actual GM?

It works the same with every sport. Us as fans hear a rumor, or hear through the grapevine about an incident, and instantly brand a guy with a reputation. Many times, the rumor grows because people want it to grow, and this generally applies to top guys in their respective sport. It is very tough to be that guy. With our beloved wrestling, if after an event you wait outside and see Triple H or John Cena and they blow you off, just ONE fan can make these people into "bad people" and "assholes" because they didn't give you your autograph. That is a lot of pressure to uphold an image all the time.

To the real reason I believe this thread was started, and that is the politics. Again I state that the bigger the star you are, the more responsibility you have. As you grow through the company, your responsibility grows with you. The bigger star you become, the more fans expect to see you so you must make more public appearances, you have more of a responsibility to the company. Merely being able to hang in the ring isn't justification for moving up. Being a top star means selling a feud, working well on the mic and in the ring with those you are feuding with, making the other person look good in the ring, protecting that person from injury in the ring, and it also means having a say in your character development. As you may know, Chris Jericho works with the writing staff a lot more than most on his character development, promos, etc.

When you get to the top and management trust you to run with the title, you are THE MAN. If you get a decent length of reign, it means management is trusting you in that role, and you are selling tickets. If it is felt that you will not do those things, you wouldn't be given that chance in the first place. We must remember that a child fan is worth the same to the WWE as a smarky one, so you are selling to the majority. Therefore, those chosen to beat the best in the biz, be it a victory over Jericho, HHH, Orton, Cena, Undertaker, HBK, Edge, Jeff Hardy, and now CM Punk, and sustain that position, must earn it. If guys at the extreme top like HH, Orton, and Cena were to put over every favorite of the smarks, you would have a clusterfuck and beating those top stars would lose all credibility. The top stars need to win most of the time in order for victories over them to mean something. Therefore, when we think they are "holding people down", it may be because those people aren't ready for the responsibility yet. Every top player in the history of the business has had say in how their matches go and who beats them. If you want to call that "politics", then do so, but the WWE has become an empire, an institution, and the dominant form of sports entertainment. I'm pretty sure they know what they are doing. We can continue to judge on heresay if we want, but for me, it'll always come down to who entertains me on my television set or in rare instance, live.

 

[Blizzy101]

Wow JJYanks121 said everything I wanted to say and more

Impressive response man.. I agree 100%

 

[D-Man]

I must agree with JJYanks121 and I'm going to add a bit to their point.

SavageTaker, you ask a really good question here. If I had to answer you, I'd say that it's because everyone wants to be a smark. While members of the WWE's audience like you and I only care about the entertainment aspect of professional wrestling, there are so many others out there that love to make judgment calls about wrestlers' personalities and futures by digging around to find out about their "backstage demeanor." I could give two shits about it. But, since 90% of pro wrestling fans strive to be the ultimate smark that knows more about the business than the next person, they dig for more information than the casual fan needs to know in order to prove their status in the IWC.

I've been preaching the same message to everyone since the first day that I came onto this website... ENJOY THE PRODUCT FOR ITS ENTERTAINMENT ASPECT AND KEEP IT POSITIVE. Now, does everyone listen to me? Of course not. They have no reason to. Everyone is going to like who they like and do what they want to do and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. But, until members of the IWC stop finding things about the product to speak negatively about, all of this bullshit will never stop.