Who is a more credible champion?

[Kenny Powers]

There is a lot of controversy about TNA world heavyweight champion Jeff Hardy, and WWE champion The Miz. There is a lot of praise and contempt for both champions. Who do you think is the more credible champion of the two for their organization? TNA World Heavyweight Champion Jeff Hardy, or WWE Champion The Miz? Discuss.

 

[WWTNA Returns!]

Hardy is more credible Miz has never been through the wars that Hardy has. Hardy has done it all, hes been in TLC matches, he's wrestled the best WWE has to offer, and now he's the ambassador for the best wrestling company in the world, TNA! HE's everything you could ask for in a champion. All of you rag on him because he does drugs but guess what all the wrestlers do drugs even the Miz and the golden boy Cena they just suck Vince off so thye can do whatever they want. Hardy is the better champion but it should be RVD! ONe of a Kind!

 

[Tequila Dave]

As soon as i saw the names I voted for The Miz out of instinct (and contempt for Hardy), however, after taking things under consideration, I believe there are two possible ways of looking at this,

The definition of credible is: "believable or plausible; authentic or convincing". Jeff Hardy, though a drugged up piece of shit, has held the belt for longer than The Miz and is clearly one of TNA's top stars. Meanwhile, The Miz won the WWE Championship (the greatest wrestling championship in the world) recently and is yet to defend it cleanly. He's young, not fully established, and a cheat. Every week his tactics and heelish ways make it clear he can't win matches without outside interfearence, and thus, he's not credible. Still fun, entertaining, and fucking awesome; but not as credible (in kayfabe sense.)

In the realy world, Miz is more credible because he's holding the more credible championship. Pretty simple.

 

[Davi323]

I went with Miz...to me, credibility means earning it. The Miz busted his ass every day for the WWE, Jeff Hardy got the title because he was a name made famous from another organization. He did absolutely nothing in TNA to earn that belt, it was given to him as a desperate attempt by TNA to cash in on his name recognition. If Hardy had not been given the belt so soon, and actually worked his way up the TNA roster, it would be a lot different. Basically, Miz earned his title, Hardy didn't, thus the reason I voted for Miz. If AJ Styles was the current TNA champ, instead of Hardy, I might have voted for him over Miz...but he isn't.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Ye have to go with the poster above me. Hardy used to be exciting in the ring with his unorthodox flying offense but lately he is been coming off as very sloppy. The Miz, while no HBK, still manages to pull off a stellar match and is really a fantastic workhorse for the E.

Oh and Davi, if Styles was the champion, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[ABMorales787]

As soon as i saw the names I voted for The Miz out of instinct (and contempt for Hardy), however, after taking things under consideration, I believe there are two possible ways of looking at this,

The definition of credible is: "believable or plausible; authentic or convincing". Jeff Hardy, though a drugged up piece of shit, has held the belt for longer than The Miz and is clearly one of TNA's top stars. Meanwhile, The Miz won the WWE Championship (the greatest wrestling championship in the world) recently and is yet to defend it cleanly. He's young, not fully established, and a cheat. Every week his tactics and heelish ways make it clear he can't win matches without outside interfearence, and thus, he's not credible. Still fun, entertaining, and fucking awesome; but not as credible (in kayfabe sense.)

Umm... I wouldn't call Jeff's wins "clean" either. They are both heels. They aren't meant to look as credible wrestlers in the slightest. But that's where Jeff differentiates from The Miz. Jeff's been in the field longer and has played both heel and face. You can talk about who holds the more credible title, but that's not the question. It's the champion's we are discussing. The way I see it, It's Jeff Hardy. He's been champion longer for one and so far he's always a step ahead of whoever his rival might be at the time. While The Miz might be somewhat dominant too, he's had a shorter reign and he's still trails behind his opponent's and looks like the underdog.

 

[Nikkolas]

I think Jeff is the more credible champion simply because of how much longer he's been a big name.

Whether or not he was made in TNA doesn't matter. At least not to me. I mean, would people say Kurt Angle was less credible than The Miz just beause Kurt was made in the WWE?

Jeff hasn't done much while champion but that's because of other circumstances. I think the storyline in TNA is ramping up and at or aftr Genesis, Jeff will be a bit more impressive.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If one were to simply judge credibility based upon the length of career and the overall diversity of opponents faced in said longer career, then Jeff Hardy would get the nod in that particular instance.

Given what we know about Jeff Hardy & The Miz behind the scenes, I simply cannot go with Jeff Hardy as being a more credible World Champion. Jeff Hardy has let himself go physically since coming to TNA, he supposedly performs under the influence sometimes according to reports, he's got multiple felony drug charges hanging over his head right now and he's just not the type of guy that I'd want as the "face" of my company. Hardy has also most definitely lost several steps since coming to TNA and he's still a very young man.

The Miz has worked very hard to get to where he is and that can't be denied even if you hate The Miz's guts. There's always a part of people that do like seeing people that've put in lots of hard work get a deserved pay off. The Miz might not be on the same in-ring level as a Kurt Angle or Shawn Michaels, but he does have great matches.

I think one thing that's the mark of a "credible" champion is whether or not he's able to make people generally interested in what he's doing and The Miz undeniably has that advantage over Jeff Hardy. For the past month, there's been constant buzz surrounding The Miz being WWE Champion by both wrestling fans and the "mainstream" media. People are interested in The Miz as WWE Champion, they wanna see his matches and who he feuds with as champ and the numbers that Raw has generally pulled in seem to support that.

I'm not saying that ratings outweigh everything but The Miz has been able to keep the interest in his presence in the WWE Championship picture up while Jeff Hardy hasn't. Interest was up for Hardy and his heel turn just after BFG but completely vanished a week after. I've got to go with The Miz at this particular point in time overall.

 

[shattered dreams]

I do not know what people think credible means but it is funny watching them attempt to rewrite the definition just so they can chose Miz over Hardy. The question isn't who do like more, what company do you like more, who do you think does drugs, who do you think works hard (since when is it so hard to do a promotional appearance?). I find anyone that picks Miz to not be a credible source of unbiased information. Obviously the person who has been to the top before and beaten top people before is more credible than someone who has never been there and still hasn't had a meaningful victory that was booked to look remotely good in. Credible doesn't necessarily mean better, just get over that and quit making up unrelated reasons to avoid picking the right answer.

 

[Arkham Noir]

I do not know what people think credible means but it is funny watching them attempt to rewrite the definition just so they can chose Miz over Hardy. The question isn't who do like more, what company do you like more, who do you think does drugs, who do you think works hard (since when is it so hard to do a promotional appearance?). I find anyone that picks Miz to not be a credible source of unbiased information. Obviously the person who has been to the top before and beaten top people before is more credible than someone who has never been there and still hasn't had a meaningful victory that was booked to look remotely good in. Credible doesn't necessarily mean better, just get over that and quit making up unrelated reasons to avoid picking the right answer.

Listen to this man! Personal feelings and how the person is in real life shouldn't affect their on-screen credibility.

I don't like Jeff Hardy, but that doesn't make him less credible than The Miz. Jeff Hardy has been a proven draw. He was one of , if not the top star, in WWE when he left. Crowds love him and he can put on a good match. If he had chosen to stay he would be champion in WWE right now. Regardless of how he is in TNA now, history has shown him to be more credible. Even now, he still feels like more of a champion than Miz and I do take him more seriously. He is doing well in TNA.

The Miz still has to prove himself as a champion. Does this mean that he won't ever be bigger than Jeff Hardy? No. He could very well end up more credible than Jeff, but right now, Jeff Hardy is more credible as a champion.

 

[dman1373]

i think they are both very credible champions. Jeff was a former 3 time world champion in the wwe and was not far from being the face. And the miz is a very credible champion as well. He has held the us title and tag titles, at the same time. He got a major rub from the big show, he has had great fueds, matches, and has become a highlight of raw. He is actually a more credible champion than sheamus and jack swagger. With the latter never deserving to be anywhere near the title.

 

[jpickens]

The Miz simply because unlike Hardy he actually busted his ass off to get his day in the sun while Jeff like RVD and Kurt Angle is only TNA worlds champion due to name recognition and being an exWWE main eventer not bcause he earned it.

 

[Tequila Dave]

Umm... I wouldn't call Jeff's wins "clean" either. They are both heels. They aren't meant to look as credible wrestlers in the slightest. But that's where Jeff differentiates from The Miz. Jeff's been in the field longer and has played both heel and face. You can talk about who holds the more credible title, but that's not the question. It's the champion's we are discussing. The way I see it, It's Jeff Hardy. He's been champion longer for one and so far he's always a step ahead of whoever his rival might be at the time. While The Miz might be somewhat dominant too, he's had a shorter reign and he's still trails behind his opponent's and looks like the underdog.

I said it was Jeff Hardy too, but there are different ways to look at it. I realise that Jeff Hardy is an established main eventer and has been champion longer, making him more credible in that sense. But at the same time, doesn't the credibility of the championship have an effect the crediblity of the champion?