|
| Article: |
Author |
| Next Stop: Humiliation |
Michael Campbell |
Why does WWE feel the need to ridicule some of its top talent?
Whatever the occupation, most workplaces are environments that lend themselves to deranged political mind games. Holding others down for your own benefit? Wedging your nose up the bosses’ rear entry? There are always the opportunity to get one over at the expense of another employee… it’s all par for the course, after all.
However, the landscape of professional wrestling is particularly intriguing in this regard because its primary purpose is to sell itself to the fanbase as an entertainment entity. It isn’t, say, a department store, a newspaper or a civil service office; as such, the bottom line is to appease fans and deliver the best possible product up for their salivating appetites. Sometimes in WWE though, that seems not to be the case and instead, the biggest priority instead appear to be to please Vince McMahon. More often than most fans realise, priorities are completely muddled amid WWE’s quagmire, and the programming becomes a playground for the vindictive, insecure and selfish.
Certainly, one of the company’s biggest stars to feel the lash over the last year has been CM Punk. The former IWA Mid-South wrestler raised his stock immeasurably by completing a successful programme with the departing Jeff Hardy, and carried championship gold in the shape of the World Heavyweight title. Despite earning hugely favourable notices for his sterling promo work and crisp in-ring performances though, much of what he achieved in the first half of 2009 was taken away at the Hell In A Cell pay-per-view by The Undertaker… and in under fifteen minutes of the opening match, no less. This was in spite of Undertaker being in a physically dilapidated condition and Punk being on the hottest run of his career. As previously reported in FSM, the title loss was rumoured to be as the result of an incident occurring while on tour that saw the young champion disregard veteran The Undertaker, who suggested that Punk adopt more formal attire ‘appropriate’ for a champion.
Regardless of how it came about though, fans were forced to endure a horrible creative decision and a downturn in the quality of television as a result, just so the WWE office to send a message to Punk that he conform to a useless tradition. Sound more than a little petty, doesn’t it? Never mind that Undertaker’s logic was completely archaic and utterly illogical (while he may have a point in certain circles, how often has Undertaker himself appeared outside the ring clad in a suit? What about Steve Austin or current top dog John Cena?), but for the viewers to be punished for a wrestler’s ‘attitude’ strikes us as a tad harsh.
For the rest of this feature, check out issue 55 of FSM - available at WH Smith and all good retailers. (For US readers we are now carried at Borders and Barnes & Noble, so check for local availability or click here to subscribe.)
Back to Articles Menu |
 |
|
