Shining a Spotlight 02.23.12: Legacy

Judgments

It’s quite ironic that in her prime, Houston was called a female Michael Jackson and now, like Jackson, has seen her legacy redeemed more by her death than by any possible comeback. The sad fact is that for the last several years, the woman’s reputation had been something of a joke due to her addictions, her bizarre public behavior and more, tarnishing the memories of the fantastic singer she had been. It was much the same with Jackson, whose own bizarre antics made people easily forget how he’d been the biggest star on the face of the planet. Like Jackson, the aftermath of Houston’s death has had people noting her decline but more wanting to remember her fantastic appeal and all the good she did. It’s interesting to see such a thing as it reminds you how it can be difficult judging a person’s legacy due to their personality and actions.

The same week as Houston’s death has brought debate on Chris Brown, on how his career seems to be bouncing back after his infamous beating of then-girlfriend Rhianna a few years ago. It’s a delicate question, bringing up a lot of issues on whether what happened can be just brushed aside. I admit, I’m a little disturbed to hear my teenage niece talk of how cool a guy who beat a woman is and others say you should judge him by music, not his actions, which seems a bit wrong. It reminds me of how Mike Tyson is seen as a pretty cool guy in various movies and TV shows, everyone remembering his legacy as a boxer and seeming to skim over the tiny thing about him going to prison for rape. It’s one thing to judge, say, Pete Rose for gambling, another for such a horrendous crime. Some will say “made a mistake, paid the price” but sometimes it goes beyond mere “moral lapses” and into something really terrible that can tarnish a person forever.

That’s not to mention how sometimes guys can be pulled into the hype regarding someone’s legacy. The good book The Chris Farley Show details how the comedian modeled himself so much on John Belushi, from his style to his sad personal demons. It really seemed that Farley wanted to emulate Belushi all the way to the grave and a chilling segment is when he’s told point blank that when he dies early, he won’t be seen in the samel light as Belushi as he just won’t have that huge comedic legacy. Farley wasn’t the first to get suckered into emulating the sides of a guy they wanted rather than the bad stuff. Just consider how Chris Benoit modeled himself after the Dynamite Kid, a damn brutal bastard and we saw how that life ended up.

For wrestling, a business where judgments can be so varied and fans can be ultra-hot defending or fighting them, legacies are harder to maintain. We fans all have our likes and dislikes, our reasons for wanting a guy to be seen as great or not. That bias will quite often get in the way of judging a guy properly and recognizing them as the true legends they are. It also hurts that the entire idea of a legacy can be debatable in some cases. Some guys are truly at a level where they can be seen as great in the business (Flair, Hogan, Austin); others had long careers of success but not that same level (Steamboat, Jericho, Bret Hart); and others have long careers but not seen in the best light (Dusty Rhodes, Jeff Jarrett and slews of lower-card guys). It’s hard to see it clearly as too often we fans can let our personal ideas get in the way and with a business that’s known for messing with fan beliefs, that’s even trickier.

Time and again, the IWC can accept as fact stuff that just isn’t true. The recent Bret/Shawn DVD showcased that with the revelation that so much of the supposed real-life heat between the men was all a work, to fool the fans and make their feud more intense. It’s a reminder that wrestlers are always working the fans, it’s their job and that makes it harder to judge a guy. Even in real-life interviews, they try to stay in character and keep the act going. Look at Cena’s promo on this past RAW, some seeing it as a true shoot, others on how he’s putting a new spin on his character. Either way, he did touch on things about how the Rock keeps leaving and coming back to do the same act, something that even a lot of Rock fans have to admit carries some truth. Yes, the Rock is one of the most charismatic figures wrestling has ever known but his constant talk on how “WWE is home” loses impact when you consider how often he’s left. Yet people still hold the Rock in higher esteem than Cena, a guy who’s given his all for this business.

Those judgments mar the ability to see a lot of guys in a fair light. HHH is a huge star, no one can deny that but there will always be those who maintain his success was solely due to his marrying Stephanie. There are still a lot of guys who claim HHH doesn’t love Steph at all, just using her for his own success, which I feel is far too unfair. Hogan and Flair both have had their legacies seen in a different light due to their personal issues and their age and Angle’s own issues have put his legacy in a bit different light as well. And I don’t think I need to bring up Benoit. The fact is that things can happen to change how a legacy is perceived for both good and for ill and people today have a hard time seeing that.

Hindsight

Sometimes, you need the passage of time to properly judge things as opinions can shift, even for those involved in events. Bret Hart’s 2007 autobiography made him out to still be bitter on a lot of his career and not happy with Shawn Michaels. But since returning to WWE, Bret really has opened up more on his troubles and let go of that resentment, he and Shawn seeming to get along well, each recognizing how they let their own egos get in the way of their friendship. Likewise, Shawn is far more respected for his work now than when he retired in 1998, his amazing comeback and openness of his problems aiding him in winning respect. Again, this pertains to sports as you can’t judge the legacy of guys like LeBron or Tebow until they’re done. Sure, we can say Tom Brady is a future Hall of Famer but then again, Pete Rose was supposed to be the same, you never know what can happen. With Bret, he and WWE have both done their best to ensure his legacy will be more than just Montreal but a damn good career bigger than just one night.

It’s not just people who can be judged like this either. WWE has a major responsibility when they put DVD’s out as they own so much footage, they can slant things badly. But to be fair, they do try to give props when they can. The AWA DVD is great in showcasing how the company made so many great stars and how you can’t blame Vince totally for their fall as Verne Gagne’s stubbornness to change with the times was always going to do them in. The World Class sets also did their best not to focus as much on the horrible stuff. It’s sad that the legacy of WCCW should be the tragic death count as the promotion should be better remembered for how it broke ground with entrance music and production values that brought the action closer, influencing so much of wrestling since. And of course, ECW has been lionized (perhaps a bit too much) by fans for how it broke new ground in wrestling.

That’s an issue regarding legacies, you get wrapped up in the outlook for it and not the dark edges. I get it, I’m from Chicago, we prefer to think of Michael Jordan as near-perfect, ignoring the gambling charges and ego issues. A recent autobiography of Walter Payton caused a massive stir for suggesting “Sweetness” wasn’t that nice a guy to his legion of fans. Babe Ruth should be remembered for his baseball career but also was a pretty nasty guy outside the ballpark. I’ve touched on it before, how Flair was a major star who carried Crockett for years but also just as much a spotlight hogging politician as HHH or Hogan at their worst and that actually hurt Crockett’s business. ECW, I believe, has been elevated a bit higher than it should be, great with breaking ground in promos and edge but frankly not as huge as its legions of followers prefer to remember it. WCW’s legacy is mixed, some great stuff but sadly more remembered for its collapse from greatness that stands as a cautionary tale for future promoters. You really do need the distance of time to properly judge something so tossing around “legacy” label on guys who still have a lot of years left is a bit unfair.

Again, people will let their personal judgments get in the way of things, ignoring some facts about a guy and what he’s done. There will always be those who rip Vince for undoing the “good old days” of the territories and turning wrestling into “sports entertainment.” Those people overlook how the territory system was always going to fall, just like the Hollywood studio system of the 1930’s and ‘40’s did and that those “old days” were pretty damn nasty. We’ve seen it with Bret Hart, guys adoring him for a time after Montreal but when he retired, fans started to complain over his ego issues. Ditto with Flair, his refusal to accept he’s no longer the same great performer he once was and personal problems clouding his great career. Some can overcome personal stuff but others can be overwhelmed by them. Tiger Woods, for example, has yet to overcome the blow to his reputation his extra-marital affairs have caused and how it’s marred his standing as one of the greatest golfers ever. Jeff Hardy may be able to truly turn around and be the great champion fans want him to be but as it stands, his legacy is one of a man with so much promise who let his personal issues wreck so many opportunities. For Hogan, you cannot deny him as one of the greatest stars the business has ever known, despite all the bashing on his ego, something that very few can touch. I’m sure the Rock isn’t too upset over Cena’s comments as he’s moved on as a Hollywood star but telling how the hits on Rock borderline hypocrisy regarding “WWE is home” have been met with acceptance by fellow wrestlers as well as fans. Letting your judgment of a guy interfere in judging what he’s done can be damaging; just see how various writers will state as fact that “such and such totally sucked” in books and newer fans will believe that, robbing them the chance to decide for themselves. That’s not protecting a legacy, that’s harming it.

So you can’t go on saying “this will be such and such’s” legacy when it’s still up in the air. I can’t say for sure what Vince McMahon’s legacy will be. He’ll be trashed by fans for taking down old system but I think also recognized for elevating wrestling to a massive level in the mainstream. Cena will be looked down for his style and such but you can’t deny how he’s been the face of WWE for the last half-decade and giving his all to the business. TNA’s legacy will be doing their best to provide WWE with competition and helping launch some good stars. Sadly, too many times, a person’s legacy only becomes clear when they leave us, as Jackson and Houston and others have done. It is telling how I’ve seen so many guys ripped into by the IWC but when they die, like Bossman or even Umaga, everyone talks of the tragedy to lose someone so great. It’s hard to judge but it’s something important as everyone leaves something behind. With a business that relies on so much deception and hearsay it’s harder to judge a man’s legacy fairly and even then, you have to accept the good with the bad. No one is perfect, everyone has their bad side and bad traits, even our idols. We need to see that in a better light to judge a man, good or ill. Life will end but a legacy can live on for far longer and wrestling has many that should be remembered. We just need to see that it’s done in a proper manner rather than letting our judgment overwhelm the chance to be appreciative to what someone’s done.