The first thing everyone is thinking is how could I even think such a thing. How could anyone at all believe that Jeff Jarrett is good for TNA" In fact, with almost everyone I have spoken to, the exact opposite seems to be the consensus. In a discussion, another columnist for OWW, compared Jarrett as champion to something much more vulgar than I care to imagine again. But he's nowhere near alone in his opinion of Jarrett. Rather than think of all the people who have spoken out against Jarrett, I will list the people I know who have actually said good things about Jarrett in TNA: Jacob Kuhn. Yup, that's it. I am the only one. This is certainly not to say that no one else feels this way, but as of yet, not a single other person has expressed this sentiment to me. I can already tell you that probably every single response I get to this column will tell me that I am crazy, stupid, and will probably use more vulgarities than I again care to mention in this column. In fact, I look forward to all of these comments because to me, it will prove that I am right. Jarrett is good for TNA because absolutely everyone hates him and feels that he is a paper champion.

Before I go into the details here, I need to explain something, though. Anyone who knows a thing about me knows that I am a mark for Ric Flair. I have been all my life and I will be until I die. In my opinion, there is not a single wrestler who is fit to hold Flair's jockstrap. Not Hogan, not Austin, not the Rock and not Sting. Jarrett is not anywhere near the same class as Flair ever was. But, I feel that Jarrett does have one of Flair's greatest strengths and it is that reason why he is good for TNA. It's the fact that all of you hate him as much as you do.

In the history of the WWWF/WWF/WWE, it has generally been thought of that it's best for the company for a face to hold the belt. Until the most recent years, this has been the rule. One needs to look no further than the long years of Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund and Hulk Hogan to see this. In fact, with the exceptions of Superstar Billy Grahm and Yokozuna, before 1998, any heel that would have the belt would only hold it for a short amount of time. Iron Sheik held it for about a month. Andre the Giant held it for a few minutes. Even Ric Flair's longest WWF title reign was only three months. These all paled in comparison to the many years long reigns of the previously named wrestlers.

In the NWA, it was always different. Sure, there would be some faces that would get the belt and hold it for a while. This was never the rule. More often than not, either a heel had the belt or a wrestler who constantly went back and forth between face and heel would have it. Harley Race dominated the 1970's. Ric Flair was the man throughout the 80's. Even WCW enjoyed its greatest successes with a heel (Hogan) as champion. Even in the AWA, Nick Bockwinkel was the dominate champion after Verne Gagne retired. It's debatable how these title runs competed with the WWWF/WWF/WWE in relation to success. The WCW and AWA are gone, the NWA is smaller and weaker and the WWE, although not going strong, is still the dominate name in the business.

During the "Attitude Era", it seemed that the WWF changed its ways a bit. Though World Title reigns were short, we began seeing heels with them more often. The Rock and even Steve Austin had successful heel title reigns.

Still, it has long been the WWE's formula to let the face champion hold the belt. Right now, they have reverted to that pattern with both of their World Titles. Batista and John Cena have had strangleholds on the two respective titles. But is the WWE any better for it" I would suggest their low television ratings, in spite of their nationally recognized name, would say that they are not. I would further suggest that all of the criticism I am seeing aimed at WWE would also say that they aren't.

But how does that put TNA in a better place" Well, despite all of the bad things many of us say about Cena and Batista, they are still quite popular with a large percentage of the fans out there. They get cheered more than they get booed. They are made out to be heroes. A lot of people don't want to see them lose their belts. Many of us do. But more than anything, the longer they hold them, the more bored many of us get. We have no idea when or who will defeat Cena or Batista or even if anyone in the WWE deserves to be champion at this time. There is almost a form of indifference and boredom with these two champions. Neither have faced anyone yet who has had any real chance of beating them (with the exception of Kurt Angle, but we knew he wouldn't win). A champion is often defined by his competition and WWE is not giving either of their champions anything of the sort.

It's different with Jarrett, though. Almost everyone wants to see him lose the belt. Not only does his in ring persona gets under people's skin, but his behind the scenes actions do as well. Since the Jarretts have a certain amount of control over TNA, it makes it easier for people to hate the fact that Jarrett is more than likely maneuvering himself into the position as champion. His matches, though better than those of Batista or Cena, are nowhere near on par with the other wrestlers in TNA. There's not a member of the X-Division that couldn't show Jarrett up any day of the week. Often, it might seem that the main event is anti-climatic because it's never the quality of the preceding matches.

I think another factor in Jarrett's favor is his competition. One could argue whether the wrestlers he has been facing are on par with those of the WWE (I would argue they are better). But the fact is, the wrestlers Jarrett is opposing are on par with Jarrett. Anytime one of them opposes him, he has a definite shot at losing. That makes his title reign more interesting than either of the WWE Champions.

But there's one thing Jarrett's matches have in them that Flair's had back in the 1980's. The fans tune in to see them because they want to see Jarrett lose. They actually want to see someone beat him and take the belt. Maybe deep in their hearts they know he will walk out with the championship, but that doesn't stop them from hoping. Things can change at the last minute, TNA might find someone to be a much better champion and have him drop the title, right"

I think Flair knew this in the 80's. Ric Flair has always been willing to do what is best for wrestling. Whenever he has had to play the heel, he has done it. Whenever he was told to drop the title, he did it without Hoganesque whining. So he was smart enough to make enough people hate him because they would tune in to see him lose. And when he didn't, the fans would get frustrated. But the more frustrated they get, the more easily they would tune in to see Flair eventually lose.

There are a percentage of us who have these feelings about Cena and Batista, but with Jarrett it is more universal. Being that I am the only person I know who actually likes Jarrett with the belt, both 'marks' and 'smarks' - and the rest who think both those labels are stupid - generally want to see Jarrett drop the belt. It adds something extra to the product.

In Flair's day, he knew it was good to make the fans hate him and to let his opponents kick his ass throughout the match, generally. It worked and it kept the NWA alive while competing with WWF in the 1980's. Jarrett is doing something similar. While he's not in the same class as Flair, he is giving the fans something they want. They want to hate him, they want the possibility to see him lose and they want to see him get his ass kicked over and over.

We may see another champion soon in TNA. With Sting coming into the company, there might be some incentive to give it to him. But, I suspect, the same as 2004 and 2005, we can expect to see Jarrett come out on top more often than not.

by Jacob Kuhn ..