Reported by Hunter Golden of WrestleView.com
On Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 1:54 AM EST

The Moral Authority of Jeff Hardy
By Hunter Golden, Wrestleview.com
February 7, 2008
Reported By: Hunter Golden of WrestleView.com


I’ve been doing this job for a couple of years now and I still get a charge out of it almost irregardless of topic. I love arguing, debating, chatting, etc. wrestling.

Perhaps more than just about anything I love being ‘right’. I’ll admit it, I’m an ego maniac . There’s a certain rush one gets when they curb stomp someone’s five minute dream. Something about the blood and the teeth flying everywhere that makes you just feel full of yourself. It’s all about me. Ego is unavoidable.

But perhaps the pinnacle of my own narcissism is when I prove MYSELF wrong. And boy, it seems I’m wrong about Jeff Hardy’s worth in the WWE, or at least have been. Please excuse me while I make out with myself in the corner…

In all seriousness though, I’ve really run out of ways to rationalize ways to convince others that he’s not going to be one of the major players of this current generation of wrestlers. I’ve flush run out of ‘em.

So I present a bold question that will no doubt spark some debate, one that I don’t have the answer to: Is Jeff Hardy the catalyst for next boom period in professional wrestling?

I know it sounds crazy on the surface, but allow me to explain.

John Cena is a main event star because he serves as a proverbial fulcrum that balances two generations of wrestling fans and values. He does it while playing the good guy, but gets both heel reactions from the attitude era crowd and baby face reactions from the newer generation crowd. Edge is very similar. He plays a heel and largely gets face reactions from the attitude era because of his natural shared tendencies with them while invoking vitriolic hate from the new generation crowd for being so diametrically opposed to Cena. One guy plays a face the other a heel but in the end they get the same reaction.

Orton is by himself. He gets negative marks from the attitude era guys and the newer generation of fans. He’s a great pure heel that united two generations in one beautiful orgy of hate.

Jeff Hardy though, seems to be becoming the anti-Orton and capable of what both Edge and Cena haven’t been able to do and that’s garner a POSITIVE, consistent reaction out of the two generations. He’s easily the most over face on the card.

So if Cena, Edge and Orton are all main event guys because they invoke such a strong reaction, then there’s really no reason to believe Jeff Hardy won’t get as monumentally big as they are, right? Orton’s the wrestler. Edge’s the cheater. Cena’s the brawler. Why not add a highlight reel? Seems to fit to me.

But I think while those are reasons to main event Hardy, the real reason to main event Hardy is because he possesses something that none of the above do, not even Cena.

Jeff Hardy has moral authority.

Cena's certainly their biggest draw right now, and the best draw they've had come down the pike in several years. That said, it's easy to overstate his influence. Business is steady on Smackdown, where Cena ain't. If you look at the buy rates this year, they didn’t suffer all that much when Cena was injured.

The company is in good shape for a variety of reasons. A big one is that they've now successfully gotten seven or eight guys over as credible main eventers. Cena's the biggest one of those (and has helped to make another one or two of them), but the system still works pretty well without him.

But if the WWE are looking to enter another real boom period, it'll be on the back of someone besides Cena. That’s not a knock on Cena. I think he’s a better version of Bret Hart. He’s a consistent draw, freaking phenomenal in the ring, maybe by the time he‘s done could seriously be the best ever in ring performer ever, good on the stick, marketable and a guy that, whenever he’s on top, you’ll do at least ‘good’. Given the fact that they oversaturated the market, Cena could be regarded as a phenomenal draw on a few levels.

In the past, it’s not so much that WWF/E top faces and company aces are wholesome/not wholesome, heroes or anti heroes. The one thing that has been consistent about the top acts has been moral authority. They could do to people whatever the heck they wanted.

It’s what made it A-OK for Hogan to put the moves on Elizabeth, hit Andre in the head with a chair RIGHT in front of the referee and show an almost contemptuous disdain for anything NOT America. Bret could get cranky and storm off after losing clean matches. Austin could attack authority figures with impunity for no other reason other than for the sake of it all. It’s what allowed the Rock to make fun of people like Mick Foley for being, well, not him.

No one ever cared for an explanation. The commentators covered them and always agreed with them no matter how wrong they were. It was just assumed that the heels were all dirt bags and that was that. I mean heck, if you look at it objectively, Austin was ‘to blame’ if you look at his feud with Vince in something resembling an objective fashion.

Fast forward to today and it’s clear John Cena hasn’t been granted that same kind of authority no matter how insanely good he may be. Considering the dynamic his character represents, it’s probably impossible to do so without hurting business. However it’s also the same reason that there’s backlash against Cena while at the same unstoppable groundswell of support for Jeff Hardy.

WWE baby faces have traditionally done stuff that most wouldn’t consider ‘good’. In the world of the WWE, what’s right is what’s popular. WWE fans, attitude era, new generation, whatever, are conditioned to see that and unconsciously look for that in it’s company aces. I haven’t seen Cena do anything questionable in a feud that the announcers would cover him on.

Jeff Hardy has to main event in some capacity because the WWE, however unintentionally, may have made it impossible to reverse. There’s no turning back.

Hardy’s feud with Orton leading up to this year’s Royal Rumble was a good one. Lots of hate and non-sense for all. But the moment that sticks out in everyone’s mind is obviously the Swanton off the set onto the motionless Orton. That plunge single-handedly made Hardy.

Hardy could’ve gotten even with the back drop and left it at that. Great big spot to go off the air with. But then Hardy got all defiant and almost killed Orton ‘just because’. He wanted to injure someone and take them out. What makes him any ‘better’ than Orton, who spent the summer punting people into retirement? Well, moral authority.

The fans believe in Jeff Hardy. Whereas Cena is the middle point and a representation of a clash of values between two eras, Hardy seems to have evolved from just another attitude era spot monkey into a guy whose become the genesis of two eras through a common value that they have been conditioned to admire and look for in a top act.

His spottiness adds to his edge and toughness, which makes him unique. That uniqueness appeals to attitude era fans and as a result, they respond to it well. But at the same time, his values as a character are more conservative and traditional, something that appeals to the newer fans.

I know we tend to get into the schematics of wrestling a lot around here and who pulls out a good performance in the ring and how they execute things, and well, everywhere else on the internet, but in the end, wrestling IS just a TV show. Like any drama, it has good guys who extol a set of positive values and evil-doers who diametrically oppose those values, but in a way reflect them, too.

The 1980s was all about Hulk Hogan, the traditional, all American values super hero whose cartoony disposition was complimented by a host of allies and enemies who were also cartoony, but nonetheless reflected the overall attitudes and prevailing attitudes of Hogan.

In the 90s, it was all about usurping authority. The women were showing boobs not just because it drew, but it was a way to break the chains. Austin was the man there and his top rival, Vince McMahon himself, stood in complete opposition and represented the exact opposite of those.

Today, we’re at a weird place with Cena at the top of the card. By 1995, most of the fans of the Hogan era had moved on to other things, making it easier to transition into the Austin era. However, this time, there are a lot more holdovers from the Austin era and they’ve essentially run into the backside of the Cena era.

The Cena era is more ‘traditional values’ than the Hogan era, but not nearly as cartoony. As a result, attitude era fans view that as more confined and repressive and react negatively towards him whenever he’s up against someone from that era At the same time though, Cena himself represents order and authority in a way and that’s constantly cheered by the incoming generation of fans regardless of whether he’s facing another baby face trying to test their worth against the man, or the heel trying to buck those values.

Cena represents the backbone of a new generation of guys and when he faces them, gets a largely positive reaction. When he faces attitude era staples like Shawn Michaels, Triple H and Kurt Angle, he gets wild cheers from the newer generation of fans, but gets booed by the attitude era fans. As a result, he serves as an exact center point to two eras of wrestling which creates a massive rift in how fans perceive him depending on how and whom he’s booked against.

I don’t know, at this point, if that challenge is one that can possibly be overcome while Cena is the top man on the roster. To me, I feel the next guy to lead a boom era is going to be a guy that can unite these two opposing forces. By the time the attitude era fans dwindle, if they ever do, Cena might be out of stuff to do and that’s assuming he’s healthy enough to continue.

Jeff Hardy on the other hand, has emerged with a profound sense of moral authority that Cena doesn’t have. Not to sound too political-ee, but he’s a uniter, not a divider and maybe, despite my apprehensions, could be that guy.

So, is he?

I’m not sure I know the answer. Maybe I could just be getting swept up in the hype. Maybe we all are. But what if we're not. What if I’m not!?