A World Champion & A Good Wrestler: The Unrealistic Ideals Of The IWC

[Jack-Hammer]

Over the past week or so, there has been endless dicsussion and debate regarding the fact that The Miz is now the reigning WWE Champion. Some feel that The Miz isn't the right person to be the WWE Champion whatsoever, some have praised the decision to place the title on him and some are kind of caught in the middle. This past Monday on Raw, The Miz successfully defended the WWE Championship against wrestling legend Jerry The King Lawler that has, again, generated a lot of discussions both for and against The Miz as champion.

I've read lots of posts saying why The Miz shouldn't be champion and among the most common that seem to pop up include: "He doesn't have the size", "He's not good enough in the ring", "He doesn't have the presence" and of course "I'm just not a fan of the guy". Now everybody is entitled to their opinion, of course, but I do think that the IWC seems to be singling The Miz out for certain percieved weaknesses that it's been willing to overlook in other champions.

"He doesn't have the size": - We live in an age where simply being a large mountain of muscle, a genetic freak if you will, or being near or exceeding 7 feet in height simply isn't enough to make you a star. Ezekiel Jackson, Rob Terry, The Great Khali & Matt Morgan are prime examples of that philosophy. During the 70s, 80s and much of the 90s each of these four men may very well be superstars based simply upon their physical size alone. Matches featuring Andre The Giant vs. The Great Khali would sell out wrestling venues all over the world simply because people would flock to see these two gargantuan specimens of humanity wrestle against each other in a one on one match. Rob Terry & Ezekiel Jackson look as though they've been chiseled out of stone with the kind of physiques that would make fictional superheroes green with envy. Matt Morgan is a legit athletic 7 footer that has a great look. It's true that The Miz isn't some mountain of muscle but how often has the WWE been criticized for pushing a wrestler based primarily on the general size and muscularity of his physique? When you look at recent TNA World Heavyweight Champions like Rob Van Dam & AJ Styles, or even reigning champ Jeff Hardy, these men aren't exactly huge and are within the same size range as The Miz. Yet, this same complaint I've read about The Miz is overlooked in these three wrestlers even though the same argument regarding size can easily be made about them. Why? Is it simply because they happen to be wrestling in TNA? Is it because they've been in wrestling longer than The Miz?

"He's not good enough in the ring": - I agree that The Miz isn't the best in-ring wrestler going today. Once again, however, this same argument can be made against the likes of Mick Foley, Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Yokozuna, Ron Simmons, Lex Luger and numerous others. The Miz has shown himself to be very compotent in the ring. He doesn't employ a lot of high risk offense or go to the top rope. He's shown he can use submission holds and some good basics in mat wrestling. While he may not be on the same in-ring level as a Kurt Angle or a Shawn Michaels, I fail to see how that renders him as not being a good caliber in-ring wrestler. The vast majority of wrestlers that pass through the ranks aren't going to be on that type of level, so why does The Miz get singled out for this while numerous other champions, some of them beloved legends that are far less skilled inside the ring than Miz for that matter, are accepted more readily.

He doesn't have the presence": - Presence and charisma are extremely important aspects in pro wrestling today, particularly when it comes to companies as large as TNA and the WWE. A wrestler must get the audience to be interested in whatever angle or feud he finds himself in and this is where he has to connect with them one way or another. Even many that aren't fans of The Miz will admit that he's very good on the mic and his promos are what sets him apart the most from many others today. I'll use three examples that I've already used before with AJ Styles, Rob Van Dam & Jeff Hardy. When it comes to presence and general charisma, I fail to see why this particular weakness in these three are ignored yet this strength in The Miz is often overlooked or just flat out ignorged. The second half of AJ Styles' latest World Championship run was marred by a general watering down of his character when he turned heel, RVD's seemed to be quite lackluster and Jeff Hardy's presence as reigning TNA Champion has been quite slim. While The Miz is still quite new as champion, he does have people definitely interested in seeing what ultimately will happen.

In short, I feel that many within the IWC have an unrealistic and inaccurate view of what it sometimes takes to be a World Champion. Simply put, there are virtually no instances of a World Champion being all things to all people. Some have great in-ring ability but have little personality, some have tons of charisma but are awful inside the ring, some have a great look about them but not much of anything else and so on and so forth. You simply can't have it all but you can still have enough of some qualities to be a good pro wrestler and champion.

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

I am very much against the idea you need to be a big guy to be a Champ, though it is often called the "Heavyweight" Championship.

Also, since his pre-WWE days on MTV, "The Miz" (calling himself that even then) was good on a mic/cutting promos.

However, even being an Austin fan & a "Foley fanatic", I will back those who say he doesn't have the ability/talent in the ring once you take the mic away.

 

[Con T.]

I am very much against the idea you need to be a big guy to be a Champ, though it is often called the "Heavyweight" Championship.

I'm sorry, why? What makes a big guy such a bad champion? Now, we're going to agree on one thing, that unless the big guy has a flaw which can be harped on by his opponents, babyface big men don't make great world champions. But I'm going to highly disagree with your notion that big men can't be good title holders. Vader used to carry WCW on his borad shoulders during a time when Ric Flair went AWOL and took all WCW's credibility. Why? Because people paid to see the big giant get chopped down by the plucky babyface, Sting. That's the way a good big guy is built... You make him look unstoppable, until the face you want comes in and knocks him off his perch. Yokozuna's run as champion was fantastic, if not for the fact that it ended so anti-climatically. The idea of an imposing big man as champion is really one of the oldest stories in the book, one in which is still successful today.

Anyway, you know what a good champion does? He makes you involved in what's going on with the company. Either you're paying to see overcome overwhelming odds, or you're paying so you're favorite babyface can kick his teeth in. The Miz is far more of the latter, and frankly, he's the best heel right now in making you just wish he gets his ass kicked. That will draw the money. And isn't that what you're really looking for in a champ?

Edit: TJ, do you mean "big guy" as in star, or big wrestler? If so.... Well, you're still wrong. You wouldn't give the belt to Zack Ryder. You give it to a guy you think will be a main event fixture for years

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

I'm sorry, why? What makes a big guy such a bad champion?

I said being big wasn't required; Never said it worked against you.

Anyway, you know what a good champion does? He makes you involved in what's going on with the company. Either you're paying to see overcome overwhelming odds, or you're paying so you're favorite babyface can kick his teeth in. The Miz is far more of the latter, and frankly, he's the best heel right now in making you just wish he gets his ass kicked. That will draw the money. And isn't that what you're really looking for in a champ?

That's part of it... But also, as much as I'd love to see him get whooped, I'm hoping he can give a little punishment too. I don't believe much Miz does physically is watchable.

 

[Con T.]

I said being big wasn't required; Never said it worked against you.

Which is all well and good, until you get to this point here...

That's part of it... But also, as much as I'd love to see him get whooped, I'm hoping he can give a little punishment too. I don't believe much Miz does physically is watchable.

And that's where you go horribly awry. So for you, size doesn't matter, but the ability to inflict punishment is? Let's take a logic standpoint on this matter. Wouldn't you assume that a punch, thrown by a, let's just say, 5'10", 180 lb person is going to hurt less than a punch thrown by a 6'3", 270 lb guy? It's the simple idea that more mass equals more pressure.

With that in mind, explain to me; why shouldn't I believe Miz's offense, as compared the theoretical smaller wrestler which, according to you, is as reasonable a world heavyweight champion as a bigger man? Do you see what I'm getting at? It's a complete double standard. You're calling out The Miz' offense, yet at the same time arguing a smaller wrestler can make a credible champion.

Anyway, Hulk Hogan would often take a wrestler's finisher, leap right back up, give three punches, a boot, a leg drop, and win his match. Mind you, he had more offense than that, but you get the drift? Is that entirely believable? No, but you won't sit here and tell me Hogan was a bad champion, will you? The point of wrestling is to suspend your disbelief. The Miz may not look like he's doing much damage, because that isn't in his character description. Flair didn't always look that imposing, yet he's one of the greatest champions of all time, partially because he understood a certain psychology, and played his character well. The Mi' character will never overpower a credible main event wrestler, and that's fine, because that's not how his character should be portrayed

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

Which is all well and good, until you get to this point here...

So wait: First, you seem to be fine with the fact I didn't say being big worked against you, but then you go on, & seem to say it would? When you decide what your opinions are, then post them here.

 

[Con T.]

So wait: First, you seem to be fine with the fact I didn't say being big worked against you, but then you go on, & seem to say it would? When you decide what your opinions are, then post them here.

I don't think my opinions wrong, frankly, and it isn't that hard to decipher. Here's where we disagree.

We disagree that smaller champions can make credible world heavyweight champions. Ok, that's all well and good. Preference taste. Perfectly fine with that. However, you then go on to say you don't buy The Miz as champion, because his offense doesn't look punishing.

Now then, let's just follow logic on this one. Suppose we say that we have two wrestlers, one smaller than the other. Is it really that much of a stretch to say the offense of the smaller, likely weaker wrestler is going to be less credible than the bigger wrestler? Just in general.

Thus, with this logic in mind, is it really fair to criticize the Miz for a weakness, his supposed lack of a "punishing" offense, and support the case of a "smaller" champion, even though, by logic, a smaller champion means less credible offense?

No, I think my logic's pretty ok, knawmeen?

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

We disagree that smaller champions can make credible world heavyweight champions. Ok, that's all well and good. Preference taste. Perfectly fine with that.

It would be fine, except we don't disagree on that.

However, you then go on to say you don't buy The Miz as champion, because his offense doesn't look punishing.

Not true; After watching a Miz match, I often feel punished... More so the more offense he has done.

Now then, let's just follow logic on this one. Suppose we say that we have to wrestlers, one smaller than the other. Is it really that much of a stretch to say the offense of the smaller, likely weaker wrestler is going to be less credible than the bigger wrestler? Just in general.

Generally, perhaps. But we're talking about WWE, often home to big, slow idiots (Khali) & smaller, faster Champs (Mysterio).

Thus, with this logic in mind, is it really fair to criticize the Miz for a weakness, his supposed lack of a "punishing" offense, and support the case of a "smaller" champion, even though, by logic, a smaller champion means less credible offense?

Yes. I'm not criticizing him for not being able to hit hard, so much as inability to be able to do much well.

 

[Con T.]

Right.... Let's just move this thread back on track. Quick. Let's get back to Jack Hammer's main point

In short, I feel that many within the IWC have an unrealistic and inaccurate view of what it sometimes takes to be a World Champion. Simply put, there are virtually no instances of a World Champion being all things to all people. Some have great in-ring ability but have little personality, some have tons of charisma but are awful inside the ring, some have a great look about them but not much of anything else and so on and so forth.

It really depends, because the truth is, in spite of what we may believe, the IWC is not one collective mass of opinion. Sure, they may hold similar opinions. "Daniel Bryan is the greatest thing evar!!!!" "Czena Sucks!!" However, the IWC is really filled with nuances of different fans with different backgrounds. A fan well versed in an NWA background will likely say Miz, or any champion for that matter, isn't a good worker, likely because they had an extreme anomoly of a champion, Ric Flair or Harley Race, that they grew up from and learned what is the "right" kind of worker. Attitude fans will praise him for his mic work, because it may be somewhat reminiscint on what they gre up on, let's just say The Rock. The problem is, the IWC is a collective group of smart fans, who think they're well versed in everything, and thus, know the exact combination for a perfect wrestler. Tis the dangers of letting the masses congragate. Still, you're right, no wrestler is the complete wrestler, and even if he was, we'd still find a hole in him. It's what the IWC does. We have our own perception of what's good, and we'll hold onto it until our dying day.

I guess, really, it's simple: Can't please everybody

 

[shattered dreams]

Hammer, I do not think the knock against the Miz is that he doesn't do all of those things at once, it is that he doesn't do any of them period. Most champions have at least a great look, character or wrestling ability and often combine that one aspect with another plus attribute even if they do not have everything you listed. Miz is below average wrestler, below average look and decent-good mic skills. There is just not much of a total package. There is basically only one way to book him and it has been done to death in WWE over the last 5 years and failed miserably the most recent time they went to that well.Miz's mic skills to many are not versatile enough to cover up his shortcomings. I guess it comes down to how impressed you are with hi smic skills. Since the reviews there are mixed it is hardly surprising that is carried over into thoughts about him is champ. The fact that different people like different things is why it is dangerous having all your eggs in one basket with only one plus trait.

You kind of do a reverse of your own complaint when you list different people in each category as a reason why Miz can make it in spite of his shortcomings. The problem is that Miz doesn't have the look or even mic skills IMO of a Nash, the promos/character and spots of a Foley or the wrestling ability of an AJ Styles. Since when does Jeff Hardy have no charisma?

 

[Ferbian]

It's not an unrealistic ideal of the IWC. At least it's not unrealistic, because it's been done before. We've had the good in-ring wrestlers be world champions. Just have a look at Kurt Angle, Triple H, Shawn Michaels to an extend etc.

Let's just focus on the 3 above. All of them are considered some of the best the wrestling world had to offer in the past 20 years, Triple H and Kurt Angle 15 and 10. They all have a major presence in the ring, they all have the mic work and they are all great in-ring workers.

So, certainly it's not an unrealistic stand point that the IWC is taking. It's called being picky. And they want the cream of the crop. They want the ultimate all-around talent which the 3 people above have been in terms of in-ring presence, looks (Again, Shawn to an extend), in-ring ability and most importantly, ability on the microphone.

It's more than something that can once again be achieved. I'd like to believe that Sheamus is one of those that would, or could fit the mold of the IWC's ultimate world champion. He's alright in the ring, he's charismatic and he has a great look. The same can kinda be said about Wade Barrett (Slightly dry in the ring according to many). So the ideal world champion for the IWC is more than available, it just needs to be more exposed, more established and all that.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I do not think it is neccesary to possess all the three qualities that Jack-Hammer mentioned but it is important to possess at least one of them in abundance. The three points that Jack-hammer mentioned can be summed up as:

a) Look
b) In ring ability
c) Charisma

Now the great champions of the past had at least one of these things in abundance and one other thing at least in considerable amount. Hogan had a lot of charisma as well as a great look. Austin was again insanically charismatic and was above average in the ring and was ok in the look department as well in the sense that he looked like someone who could mete out punishment. Triple H again had great charisma and was quite good in the other two departments. Cena is more of the same in the sense he has great charisma and is decent in the other two departments.

Now there have been other champions who have not been as great as the ones I just mentioned but at least had one redeemable quality. Batista, for example, worked mainly because of his look. He showed glimpses of charisma here and there but it was mainly his look that did the job for him. Same with Chris Benoit. He was great in the ring but lacked a look as well as charisma. But both were moderately successful as champions. Hell even Khali worked to an extent as champion because he had a great look, but was totally shit in the other two departments.

When I look at The Miz I see a below average wrestler, a bad look and a guy with some presence, though not as much as people say he has. So he has only one quality of the three mentioned. Judging by the analysis I have done so far, he will end up being a moderately successful champion, someone like Chris Benoit, a transistional champion, unless he improves in all three departments.

 

[Lying Retarded Crybaby Troll Bitch]

Miz isn't even the best guy in half his matches. I watch him, & am shocked he started on reality TV; He has great mic work, but I can't stand watching him physically.

 

[ABMorales787]

The problem I see is that WWE has become complaisant. They see one good aspect in a wrestler and then harp on it the most they can. In The Miz' case, its his mic skills. They stand out. Therefor WWE pushed on that to the point that the crowd recognizes him as a top heel. Yes, it's working so far, but what happens when his mic skills aren't enough? Like I said, WWE sees something and then harp on it. This opposed to expanding the character. I saw the same detail with Jeff Hardy. He got over well with the crowd. But him jumping off a ladder was what made the crowd go nuts for him. And that's what WWE picked on. Just number the amount of times he did it in 2009 alone and you'll see my point. That's the only flaw I see with WWE's development of The Miz. They failed to expand his character. Yo barely get to know him or establish that connection that says you can relate to the guy.

Back with Batista, you saw him go from Evolution's muscle to being caught in Evolution's powertrip to finally deciding to become his own person. It added to his character. The same can be said about John Cena, who went from the Eminem wannabe to WWE's personal rap sensation, to it's posterboy. If you go deeper back, you Austin, who went from Ted DiBiase's assistant, to rebel, to the boss' worst employee. With The Rock, he was the 3rd generation uberface who the crowd wanted dead, to the blue chipper of The Nation, to the corporate Champion, to the People's Champion. You see the character grow up and evolve into a major star. I don't see that kind of development with The Miz, Sheamus or any other up and comer in WWE right now.

 

[The Crock]

To be champion you have to be a draw, as well as a good combination of things. The fans would like something perfect, but it's unattainable. We've seen plenty of guys who didn't exactly fit the mold and they were great champions, HBK, Mysterio, etc. The unrealizeic ideals of wrestling fans are what is dragging down the business today, they'd like everybody to be the next Rock or Austin. Miz is a fine champion, why? Because the fans tune in to see him. It's simple. He's a heat magnet, he's doing it just right. Just because wrestling fans criticize him doesn't mean he'll to away, because at the end of the day, he's a huge draw.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

The Miz is a decent worker, who can entertain or gain heat on the mike. Every one knew he would be a champion after he won the MITB match, so the fans knew it was only a matter of time before he became champ.

Comparing him with previous champions won't help his cause. The only thing that will, is his performance in the ring, and how well the company works to establish him, in terms of storylines and match ups. Is the one who can change the tide of WWE's fortunes like a Hogan, or an Austin. I don't think so, but time will tell.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

The last two big faces came out of nowhere didn't they?

I mean Evolution was grooming Randy as THE next guy in 04 but it was their enforcer that started getting the pops. And slowly but surely, started getting the crowd in his corner and culminated into, what I believe, one of greatest build-ups in recent history against Hunter.

Cena's character came outta of a Halloween SD special where the main event had Bischoff making out with Stephanie.

The public won't discriminate, and they can see how much a guy fits into a certain persona. The kinda ease that he brings to the ring, into his moves, while he is talking everything. It never goes unnoticed.

However, does he have to be a superb wrestler not always. I mean come to think of it if you morphed the Dirt Sheet, you'd have the complete wrestler. Someone who had the gab-strength of a Miz and the skills of JoMo would be the answer to all our prayers, but that's not how it works. Miz toiled worked on his physique (I can't stress this enough, go look at the Miz who debuted and the Miz today, there is a considerable difference), his attire and above all his mic-skills. He's worked for this, and it's plain to see and appreciate.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I think some people just have ridiculously high expectations. Some members of the IWC believe a World Champion should be perfect. They think he should be able to put on five star matches, have the perfect character, have tons of charisma, and cut A+ promos all of the time. It's almost impossible to find a guy who can meet these standards.

The IWC has been spoiled as far as World Champions go. We've seen guys like Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, and Kurt Angle hold World Titles, so I guess some members of the IWC believe that the World Champions of today should be able to mirror these men. But there's one big problem with that....guys like Hogan, Rock, and Austin don't come along too often.

The Miz isn't perfect, but he has improved over the years, and I think the guy does have some potential. It takes time for some wrestlers to come into their own, but the IWC can be so impatient.