Monday night, Jerry Lawler hit the ground running in his return to WWE, being involved at the middle of a controversial and polarizing segment where CM Punk brought up his real life heart attack, Paul Heyman faked one himself and Mick Foley came out to defend him. There are two camps. One claims that the angle was pro wrestling at its finest, a carny display from a carny form of entertainment where the lines between reality and kayfabe were blurred heavily. The other thinks that it was tasteless, even by pro wrestling standards, and that a real life brush with death should have been off-limits.
[adinserter name=”366 left”]Personally, I think that everything they did Monday was okay with one exception. I didn’t like them showing the footage of Lawler getting the paddles backstage in Montreal after his heart attack. I thought it was way too ghoulish for television. But the angle itself was great. It’s what pro wrestling is all about. I do have a problem, however, with some of the reasoning given by those who agree with me about the okayness of the whole segment.
Basically, the reasoning is that Lawler himself was okay with the angle because he has a history of doing risqué stuff throughout his career, and people assumed (probably correctly) that it was his idea in the first place. Obviously, he would have to be okay with it as a prerequisite for it to be ethical as part of his job, especially after coming back from such a stressful event such as a heart attack. But is that reason enough to tell people that they shouldn’t be offended?
I don’t think that’s the case whatsoever. Everyone has a different line. No one’s is the same, and that’s why something like Lawler’s heart attack being used as story fodder is polarizing instead of a cut-and-dried case of right or wrong. Maybe it’s something that hit too close to home for them. Maybe they felt that Lawler being okay with it was a sign that he didn’t take his own health seriously enough and was setting a bad example to other people. I don’t know, but whatever it was, there is a chance that Lawler’s participation in the angle could have been objectively wrong. I don’t know if I’m in the position to say whether anything on Monday regarding what took place was right or wrong. Then again, it’s a matter of opinion anyway.
People are going to get offended no matter what. Ricky Gervais said once “Just because you’re offended doesn’t make you in the right.” He’s absolutely correct, but at the same time, it might not matter because people taking offense to things might make them turn off the show. Honestly, I think if you do watch wrestling, you should have a reasonable expectation that they’re going to do some carny stuff. Then again, I don’t know if I’m the authority to tell you what should offend you or not.
[adinserter name=”366 right”]The thing is, neither is Jerry Lawler. The guy cut his teeth in a skewed environment. He’s maybe the biggest carny in pro wrestling history with the way he and Jerry Jarrett ran Mid-South. What offends him is not going to offend most people, even speaking of pro wrestling fans. If you thought what happened Monday was fine, you don’t need Lawler’s justification for it, just like Lawler’s justification shouldn’t be the be-all, end-all arrow against your argument against the tastefulness of what went down.
Tom Holzerman is a lifelong wrestling fan and connoisseur of all things Chikara Pro, among other feds. When he’s not writing for the Camel Clutch Blog, you can find him on his own blog, The Wrestling Blog.
[amazon_link id=”1416577203″ target=”_blank” container=”” container_class=”” ] It’s Good to Be the King…Sometimes[/amazon_link]
[amazon_link id=”B008WAM2N8″ target=”_blank” container=”” container_class=”” ]WWE Attitude Era DVD[/amazon_link]
[amazon_link id=”B008IG0ESG” target=”_blank” container=”” container_class=”” ]WWE: CM Punk Best in the World DVD[/amazon_link]