CALDWELL'S TAKE CORNER CUBE THURSDAY 3/13: Answering feedback on Jeff Hardy suspension and WWE's intentions Mar 13, 2008 - 4:51:50 PM

CLICK FOR BIO

Email This Article- Contact Us - VIP Sign-Up - Back to Home Page

|

By James Caldwell, Torch columnist

Updated throughout the day from the corner cubicle, Torch columnist James Caldwell's weekday blog focuses on hot topic current events and other items of interest from around wrestling.

Updated Thursday, March 13, 2008

I've received some quality emails this week on the Jeff Hardy suspension topic I've written about the last two days. It's a very important topic, as it touches on several factors that serious pro wrestling fans deal with on a show-by-show basis. We want to see Jeff Hardy on TV, but at what expense? Can we enjoy watching wrestling when it's evident many wrestlers are living with constant pain in order to provide entertainment? I'd like to think we can ask the tough questions of how another trashcan shot to the head is going to affect Tommy Dreamer in the long-term.

It's a very serious topic that casual viewers aren't thinking about. Two weeks from now, 95 percent of the audience will forget about Jeff Hardy (if he's actually taken off TV during his suspension). When he's forgotten, will his bodily sacrifices be worth it?

In a "what have you done for me lately?" society, wrestlers pay a very real price. Often times, the juice (that adrenaline rush of performing in front of a crowd) isn't worth the squeeze (the constant pain that is the price of performing).

I want to present one piece of feedback on the topic of whether there is a double standard for how Jeff Hardy's suspension is being viewed compared to someone like Chris Masters. Torch reader Rob S. wrote: I wouldn't call it a double standard but more of a case by case standard. I just think that potential value to the company as well as the company's investment in a wrestler comes into play.

Jeff Hardy is not only a great wrestler but also an established one. I'm just saying it might buy him one more chance than a Joey Mercury or a Chris Masters. I think that's just business. Would the Yankees give Derek Jeter more chances than a rookie minor leaguer? I think so. At the same time I do think those chances are limited. They should offer Jeff help cleaning up his act. If he agrees and goes into rehab then give him another chance, otherwise I think they have to let him go. If he does return and falls off the wagon again then release him immediately.

JC: Rob brings up a good point about the potential value to the company. I believe at one time, Masters would have had more value to the company than Hardy, who took a while to re-build confidence with WWE management. That seems impossible in 2008, but WWE invested a considerable amount of TV time into Masters until he became the butt of Triple H's jokes. But, in 2008, Hardy is worlds more valuable than Masters, which affords him another chance if WWE doesn't outright release him during the 60 day suspension. WWE is a company before a charity, so it's understandable to give Hardy another chance, if Hardy is healthy.

Also, context to Chris Masters's firing is important. In November 2007, Congress was paying attention to and looking into pro wrestling following the Chris Benoit murders when WWE suspended Masters for 60 days, then released him. WWE used Masters to show they were serious about the policy. In March 2008, WWE could be using Hardy to set an example that they're not going to shy away from suspending a top star right before WrestleMania.

Hardy is a big enough star to make it look good in a press release, but it's not like Hardy was booked for a headline match. Rather, he was scheduled for a match where there will be five-to-seven other wrestlers to carry the action. WWE could afford the loss of Hardy for one PPV to "make an example" out of a fairly big star to promote their Wellness Policy.

In other words, WWE isn't completely altruistic here. Sure, there is real concern over Hardy's health and it's not like WWE randomly looked at the roster and decided to make an example out of Hardy - there had to be a violation before WWE could suspend him. But, the Wellness policy is almost being used as a means to an end.

The end game is trying to avoid government involvement in WWE's business by creating the perception that they are serious about cleaning up the company. Meanwhile, the wrestlers continue to be pawns in WWE's game of chess. Corporations play political games all the time to create goodwill with government regulator, stockholders, and clients. In this case, it just so happens to involve the health of WWE's wrestlers.

***

Updated Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Hardy Suspension Day 2. After reading several of your emails and reading various opinions on Jeff Hardy's 60-day suspension announced yesterday, I'm seeing two over-riding themes. One theme is people feeling sorry for Jeff Hardy. Some of that is the carry-over from Hardymania leading to the Royal Rumble, as well as people seeing him rebound in life and in his career after his first WWE stint ended in a total mess.

The second theme is people believing there is a double standard with Hardy's suspension being treated with soft hands. I agree with the double standard sentiment, which ironically, was helped along by the Hardymania that I admittedly contributed to.

At the time, I felt Hardy had a chance to be a special WWE champion, who they could build the Raw brand around. It wasn't until a week after the Rumble where I asked the tough questions on Hardy's health issues to see that WWE made the right call not going with Hardy as champion.

The evidence used for the double standard theory relates to Chris Masters, who was suspended for 60 days in November 2007 after a second Wellness violation. He was subsequently released a week later, and the overwhelming sentiment from fans was good riddance. When Hardy's 60-day suspension was announced yesterday, the reaction was quite the opposite.

There are a few other reasons for the second theme of a double standard. It relates to the in-ring style and push of Hardy vs. Masters. The vast majority of fans enjoy watching Hardy wrestle, and they felt like they were part of something special with his main event push. As a result, there's selfishness in play with people wanting to see Jeff perform, even if his physical well-being is at stake.

Masters, on the other hand, always carried the stigma of being an uncoordinated musclehead who WWE kept force-feeding on TV. He represented the entire group of big wrestlers who carried the perception that they couldn't wrestle, and were only on TV due to their size. When Masters was released from WWE, it was considered a victory for fans who have no desire to see larger-than-life muscleheads on their TV.

Another factor is steroids vs. pain pills. Whether or not Hardy violated the policy due to prescription drug abuse is not known at this time. But, the perception is that he's in that category, while Masters carried the perception of being a steroids user. Society has created this idea that pill-popping is considered the lesser of two evils, with steroid use being considered the worst possible offense. Never mind that a wrestler high on pills is probably more dangerous to his fellow wrestler in the ring than a wrestler jacked to the gills on steroids.

Looking at whether there is a double-standard will hopefully give us pause next time Hardymania ensues for other wrestlers. It's easy to get caught up in pro wrestling storylines, especially when the storytelling is well done and creates an easy suspension of disbelief.

We just need to remember that whether or not we like or dislike a wrestler shouldn't be a determining factor when evaluating a wrestler's health or well-being. If Jeff Hardy misses WrestleMania to get treatment, we shouldn't be upset.

If Hardy gets treatment as part of the Wellness violation, we should be glad he is getting help to ensure his personal well-being. Not for selfish reasons with the idea in mind that he can generate future entertainment by putting his body at risk again. But, for the reason that Hardy can maintain a sustainable, healthy lifestyle that's not dependent on drugs to make it from the bed to the sink every morning.

***

Updated Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Jeff Hardy suspension. Unfortunately, we should have seen this one coming, as Sean Radican wrote this morning. It also shows that WWE made the right call at the Royal Rumble of picking Cena over Hardy as the top babyface going into WrestleMania.

Remember the interviews Jeff Hardy did before the Royal Rumble, especially where he talked about how banged up he was with Kevin Eck of the Baltimore Sun? Torn up ankles. Herniated discs in his back. Bone chips in his elbow.

Right now, we don't know what drugs showed up on Hardy's Wellness test that drew a violation of the policy. But, I believe it's a fair conclusion that he hasn't been fighting the pain with two Advils and a glass of water.

As I wrote in the Torch Newsletter a few weeks after the Rumble - after the disappointment of Hardy not winning the WWE Title subsided - Hardy doesn't have a good track record. He hasn't gone through the stress of being WWE champion, which could have compounded his injuries and risked more health problems. Certainly, Hardy had been rebuilding his reputation in his second WWE run, but someone like Cena has been a model citizen since the day they gave him the ball and told him to run.

I hope that Hardy will be able to recover, WWE will get him whatever help he needs, and both sides will re-evaluate Hardy's injuries to see if he needs more than 60 days to take care of his body. We should pause when more information comes out about this story to remember priorities. A wrestler's health and well-being should always take precedence over any entertainment he generates for the fans with his body.

Big Show vs. Mayweather. I think the funniest thing about the build-up to Show vs. Mayweather isn't the imaginary $20 million figure or Mayweather's storyline injury last night. It's that we don't even know what the match is.

WWE is basically asking people to pay $50 for the WrestleMania PPV to find out what they paid for. It would be like going to the store and buying a TV, but not being told ahead of time what features are on TV. Sure, you know you're buying a TV, just like you're ordering Mania for a "match" between Show vs. Mayweather. But, people aren't going to find out what they bought until WWE has their money.

Based on the intriguing build-up for Mayweather vs. Show, many mainstream reporters have slowly stuck their nose in the story to first, mock the whole thing so they ensure their pretty reputation isn't soiled by spending a second covering wrestling, and second, speculate on exactly how the match is going down. I'm sure it's frustrating for reporters who aren't aware how the pro wrestling hype machine works to know exactly what they're supposed to be covering. Or even speculating on.

Not explaining what type of match will commence between Show and Mayweather is all part of WWE's sales pitch for WrestleMania. They've got a salesman with a quick wit and fast tongue straight from the carnival trying to sell you the TV out of a blank cardboard box. They're banking on your trust that the TV will work to your expectations once they have your money. Oh yeah, refunds not available.

For more BREAKING NEWS on WWE, TNA, ROH
visit our co-affiliate: JASON POWELL'S PROWRESTLING.NET

REACT TO THIS STORY IN OUR FREE PWTORCH FORUM

PWTORCH VIP SIGN-UP INFO - NO ADS, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT

|