Let's start with the obvious question. Should wrestlers who took drugs be left out of the WWE Hall of Fame? Of course not. Wrestling is not a competitive sport like cycling or baseball. These wrestlers go out there to perform to give the fans a show. That is what it is all about. There are definitely some guys who took steroids currently in the Hall of Fame. Keep them there. More than likely, they still earned their legacies.
Now onto what I really want to talk about. Taking performance-enhancing drugs is viewed as taking a shortcut in many fields. Is that the only shortcut to success in the world? Of course not. In pro wrestling, can you consider it a shortcut for those wrestlers given great careers that they did not actually earn? The idea the WWE sells is that they push what the fans want to see and you have to get over to get the great career. That's the way it should work. That is the way it sometimes works. Some wrestlers start out with mediocre careers for years, they prove themselves through the midcard, and they get the better career eventually. That is like what happened with Eddie Guerrero. However, you also have some guys who seemed to have a great career the moment they debuted, then got over after already being pushed well. That's Brock Lesnar. He was getting a big push right from the time he debuted. What kind of overness did he have to warrant that kind of push? The WWE rigs the playing field for certain individuals. They use people to put over these individuals, never giving these people those same opportunities and treatment. Does that count as a shortcut? Does that taint the success of these guys who got these great careers and earned the overness after the fact?
I don't think it should taint their legacies. They still earned their success. Those guys who are used to put them over, they still usually get other opportunities to still show what they can do and connect well with the fans.
The diva division is a different creature. Women who are used to put over whom the WWE is developing to be a success usually don't get opportunities after that are better or just as good. Most of what they get after is mediocre. Trish Stratus will definitely be in the Hall of Fame, but how many of the credible jobbers used to put her over will? Maybe more for what they did outside of the WWE? They definitely don't deserve it for the mediocrity they received in the WWE. They definitely never earned the overness while in the WWE, with the exception of Mickie James. Should this kind of diva division taint the success of Trish Stratus? There is no denying that she succeeded, but she was the kind of diva the WWE likes to push as the centerpiece and she was never getting the kind of treatment of a credible jobber prior to the WWE pushing her well to get over with the fans when she was just eye-candy periphery. And you look at the current diva division. It is basically the same agenda. The WWE is attempting to have an eye-candy centerpiece, women with wrestling credibility are used as credible jobbers, and the only female wrestler supported to be a success is in the periphery. The only real change from then to now is eye-candy divas being less effective as periphery divas and used more as credible jobbers. Same diva division, but look at the quality and the failure to create stars. This is what Trish paved the way for? I think this current division should be seen as more of a slap in the face of Trish's legacy than the fact that the WWE developed her to be a success. She did succeed. For that reason, she will deserve her spot in the Hall of Fame.
What about Michelle McCool? Aside from Trish Stratus, her run as centerpiece lasted longer than any other woman pushed in this manner since the diva division started. But does she deserve to be viewed in the same way as Trish? McCool never got over. Some people can argue that McCool was a heel for most of her centerpiece run and heels are meant to make other people look good. Yeah? And how many faces actually became big successes off Michelle McCool? And even after a face got one over on the annoying LayCool, the centerpiece still got pushed hard consistently after. The WWE were not pushing a division that could deliver. The wrestling critics can look at how they were pushing McCool at this time and say they were pushing her very well. Yeah, that's true, but that's not the point. You don't push someone well for the sake of pushing someone well. You push them like that in hopes that they can connect well for the fans. McCool was a solid worker, but does that mean she should be inducted into the Hall of Fame? If a woman being a solid wrestler was a rarity in the world, then she should be. It isn't. Michelle McCool's career deserves to be inducted more than she does. She never did with it what a centerpiece is supposed to. And I wouldn't be surprised if she is inducted one day. The WWE cannot keep overpushing people the fans don't really care for. And they wonder why their ratings suck and they have to rely on stars from a decade ago to save them? Anyone pushed hard to be a success throughout their career who never earns the overness at all deserves to be in a Hall of Failure. It is not solely to insult them, but to remind the WWE of their own mistakes.
Mickie James and tainted success. What can anyone possibly say about that? Her ex wants people to believe that Mickie James slept her way to the top of a filler push back in 2008 and started to get over with the fans after that. He overlooks the fact that Mickie started to get over during her debut push and was maintaining the overness while she was not even being pushed prior to Candice's injury in 2007. That sure looks like an attempt to taint one's success. He's not the only one. Dirtsheets have said much to make Mickie look like she screwed herself out of the WWE, but they fail to see that she was never being pushed as Trish Stratus or Michelle McCool. She was being pushed as one of those women used to put over who the WWE wants to succeed. Should that be a chief reason why the success of a woman pushed as centerpiece should be tainted? Even when a credible jobber does do the impossible and get over with this kind of career, the WWE still pushes who they want to be a success and they screw the credible jobber. The playing field is rigged hard in favor of the centerpiece. Not only is there no real competition for the best worker to get the best spot, but a centerpiece who is not succeeding will still be pushed hard until she gets the overness to be a success. Or flops. Or quits. It never ends well these days. Mickie James took a career in which no woman had ever reached that height of success and she did it. Instead of being seen as a legitimate success, she has this legacy of tainted success.
Just to go back to the original thing I was talking about, how do I feel about the controversy with Lance Armstrong and the baseball players? I wouldn't have taken away Armstrong's titles and all that. I would induct those baseball players. You can say I'm a bit of a pushover. I'm more sour about people who are handed success than people who take shortcuts to succeed. If someone succeeds, I don't like denying them of their success. Let it be known their success was tainted, but don't take it away.
No comments:
Post a Comment