Is it unfair to compare the WWE Wrestlers of today to the ones of the past?

[Tenta]

So I'm sifting through the boards today, and I stumbled across a thread wondering who would be the next Hitman. And I'll admit, It seemed like a pretty well written post. I would have answered the question, but then I sat, thought about it, and I realized something:

I can't, in good heart, attempt to make this comparison. And the more I thought, I considered how many times when we make comparisons of pro wrestlers today. Some are pretty blatant (Comparing Cena to Hogan, Morrison to HBK, etc.). Some are pretty much out there (Saying the Miz is the next Rock, Swagger is the next Angle, etc.) Now then, the simple question I have for you all is this; why do you do it? What compulses you to make the comparison of a wrestler to a legend?

Now then, I'm going to explain what makes this so unfair for wrestling fans to do:

A. It gives the wrestler unrealistic expectations to live up to.

While every wrestler likes pressure, I doubt wrestlers like to feel the pressure of always being compared to a legendary wrestler. It heightens what we think about the wrestler, almost to completely unrealistic expectations. And when those expectations aren't met, we tend to throw a giant hissy fit, and throw a temper tantrum, saying the guy is a bust, and that he'll never make it it in the WWE

Perfect Example: I remember a long time ago, folks on these forums were comparing The Miz to The Rock. I, personally, failed to see the comparison, aside from decent mic skills. Still, everyone campaigned for this man to be the new Rock. We all thought this man would be the savior of the WWE, to give the WWE it's next big star, Two months and a squash job to John Cena later, we all threw a hissy fit. We all decided The Miz wasn't the next big superstar, and we gave up on him, realizing that it was unrealistic to believe that this man could be anywhere near the Rock at this point. Again, our expectations were disappointed, and thus, we almost gave up on the guy.

B. It taints the greatness of the legend

Do you think Bret wants to be compared to anyone in the business? He was always a guy that was one of a kind, and comparing him to any old superstar in the WWE really cheapens his value to some fans. It's almost as though anyone can reach that plateau, even if it is a bit unrealistic to expect. There will probably be another Hitman, nor should we expect it, because Bret was so special. Still, we pine away, as we can't accept that no one can top Bret, and that what Bret did was truly that special.

C. It leads to overall bitterness regarding the product

Again, with all this matter of comparison, we get really pissed with how the WWE books certain people. Take the Miz example. When he jobbed to Cena, we all wondered why the Miz didn't go over. We didn't take reason into account, and decide that is was probably best that the top face in the company didn't lost to a mid carder. We tend to lose our objective nature, and we become so unrealistic, we tend to poo-poo everything.

There, those are at least three reasons why comparing wrestlers of the present to legends is unhealthy. The question is simple; why do you do it?

 

[Freddy4190]

I think it's easier to just make a comparison to the older guys. Anyone with decent mic skills will be compared to The Rock or Chris Jericho, if you're a smaller dude and athletic, really smooth style, you'll be compared to Shawn Michaels. If you're a brawler, you win your matches by punching, say hello to Steve Austin. Whatever. It's just easy for a lot of fans to say "Oh man, that looked like something Ricky Steamboat used to do." I never understood it quite much myself. I don't personally agree on John Morrison being called the next HBK. That's one of the superstars there's never gonna be a replica of. John Morrison is his own animal to me, why can't he be the first John Morrison? Think of how hyped up Kennedy got after the praise from Austin, they immediately said he was the next Stone Cold. That's a huge thing to have on your shoulders. That's just too much pressure. I'm sure he wasn't out there trying to be the first Stone Cold, he just wanted to be Mr. Kennedy. [..Kennedy] Like I said, I don't agree with it myself. Your points are all incredibly valid, and perfectly true. I think it is unfair, and people need to tone it down whenever they see a wrestler with similarities as a older one.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Tenta, this is a terrific thread. I love the thoughts in invokes.

Anyway, to answer, no, it is not unfair to compare the wrestlers of today to those of "yesteryear" in most cases.

Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Ryan Howard. How often to we hear these Major League Baseball stars compared to Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle, and Babe Ruth? How often has the name "Brett Favre" been included in a sentence with the name "Bart Starr?" How many times has Sidney Crosby been compared to Wayne Gretzky, or Ovechkin to Lemieux?

It happens, because EVERY sport that we know and love - including pro wrestling - is littered with men who have "blazed the trail." It's comfortable for long time fans to look at Randy Orton and say "he reminds me of a young Jake Roberts, but with realized potential." And you know what? When we do that, it makes sense to other fans. It confirms our thoughts and opinions by placing them into historical context.

I think we can compare the wrestlers of today to anyone from the Wrestlemania-era or wrestling. Occassionally we can compare a Triple H to a Harley Race or a heel Shawn Michaels to Buddy Rodgers. We look at the clean cut, blue collar work of a John Cena and think "Bruno Sammartino." But that's a lot easier to do than to compare guys to the Lou Theszs and Pat O'Connor's of the world, because they came from an era when the realness of wrestling was not disputed, when "entertainment" wasn't a part of the usual vernacular.

Finally, the wrestlers of today should take it as a compliment. And they should be watching the tape of these stars of the past to see what they did, how they connected to the crowd. It's okay for a star to blaze their own trail, but we call the wrestlers of yesteryear "legends" for a damn reason, and if they did something right (Hogan's crowd connection, Hart's selling, Race's ring psychology, Flair's promos), then it bears emulation to a certain extent.

Again, nice job to Tenta. You remind me of a young IC25 in terms of thread creation and clarity.

 

[Blade]

You can't give a simple Yes or No answer to that question. Sure, there's plenty of arguments against today's wrestlers to past wrestlers. But there's a few pros as well that some of you seem to be failing to see.

It's a great rub for the younger guys if their compared to a great wrestler. If someone said to a wrestler that they were the next Bret Hart or Hulk Hogan, whoever said that if obviously filling the young guy with a lot of confidence, so naturally the young guy will work his ass off night in night out to prove that he is the yougner version of whatever wrestler he was compared to.

Not to mention, if people are dubbed the "next" whoever, then that in itself becomes a (albeit, short-term) draw. If you didn't watch Smackdown regularly, but someone told you that there's a wrestler on there who's the next Hulk Hogan or the next Bret Hart, wouldn't you try to see this guy? Wouldn't you want to look at the guy who's supposedly going to be huge? In has all kinds of benefits.

And as for the past wrestlers themselves, they should take it as a compliment if they just get over their damn egos. I know Bret Hart or Hogan would like it, but if you considered a legend without an ego, then that wrestler would see it as a compliment that this young, great wrestler is being compared to them. Think about it, if you were a retired wrestler, and in your prime you were a great main eventer and multiple time world champion, and this young kid came along who had great talent and huge potential was compared to you? I'd take that as a compliment to how I'd been in my prime. Assuming that the young wrestler was, in fact, great. Being compared to a young wrestler with alot of talent is basically being told you were great back in your prime.

So no, it's a huge confidence booster and incentive for the younger wrestler, and it's a compliment and "We haven't forgotten you!" to the older wrestler.

 

[boozinjedi]

This is definitely one topic that brings about discussion.
Is it fair to compare?...No
Is it natural for it occur?....Yes

It is human nature to do so!

When you rate/discuss the WWE stars of today..It is only natural to compare to those of the past.
It's the only measuring stick that we know of.

 

[BigD2106]

i agree!! these are two completely different generations of Wrestlers!! yeah u got about 8 of em' that still wrestles but u got all of these up and comers like Morrison who has a wide moveset and alot of in ring capability, and The Miz well he's AWESOME!!!!, and you got Evan Bourne who's probably one of the best high flyers of his time!! and Carlito he can out talk alot of the people in that locker room on that mic. and the list goes on and on... but the point I'm trying to make is we shouldn't compare 2days superstars to past generations superstars because they each bring a little something different to the ring that the other one can't!!!

 

[Depakote]

Sure, comparing today's generation of wrestlers to yesterday's is kinda like comparing apples to oranges, but also keep in mind that the last generation of wrestlers were compared to the generation that came before them. I dont think these comparisons will ever stop. It reminds the fans of the history and continuation of pro wrestling. It would be a sad day if the wrestling world stopped mentioning and remembering the greats that have defined the evolution of the industry.

 

[thepalaceprince]

No its not fair to compare different generations. In anything whether it be sports, music or movies there are different styles and standards and when we make comparisons like the jomo/hbk comparison we put unfair pressure on a guy if you were comparing a 2nd generation superstar to there relative that I can understand its inescapable the hart dynasty will forever be tied to the hart foundation same goes for legacy. Its when you make comparisons to stars that have no connection to each other other then a look or style that you are being unfair and almost setting up a wrestler for failure.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Yes, I do think it's fair to make comparisons between today's talent, and the talent of yesterday.

For starters, it is going to be done, whether one agrees with it or not .... or whether Vince and Creative want to contend with it or not.

Where as it may be difficult and challenging for them to come up with things that haven't been done before, they need to try and make more of an effort to do so. Nobody said it was easy, but they need to try harder than what they have done. They may simply need more qualified people in place that are more creative or willing to invest more time into thinking.

I think the way they have "dealt" with this issue of repetitiveness is by toning down characters and personalities. Unfortunately, that only got them so far. Yeah, they're different, but unfortunately it's still boring. They don't stand out enough to make people want to care about them.

I can understand the issue of kayfabe not being in existence and that it gave the talent a huge advantage in terms of audience reaction.

But when you take a look at colorful characters like:

Hulk Hogan
The Ultimate Warrior
The Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase (my favorite heel of all time)
Macho Man/King Randy Savage
Ric Flair
Ravishing Rick Rude
The Honky Tonk Man
Mr. Perfect
Jake "The Snake" Roberts'
Jerry "The King" Lawler

etc.

what we take a look at was how successful they were as characters and then compare to what we have today. And today's characters absolutely can not compare, under any circumstance to those characters.

Now, you tell me if you put that list of people in today's WWE, do we really think they wouldn't get HUGE reactions from the audience?

Now, we undoubtedly will have some ROH-botz come in here and tell us how much better today's quality of technical wrestling is soooo much better than what most of that list could produce, and yes ... that is correct. Unfortunately, nobody cares but them, and they are the minority (who think they are the majority). But saying things like "wrestling needs more characters" will ruin their pipe dream of professional wrestling actually being taken seriously one day, down the road, as a legitimate sport ... so they don't have to put up with being mocked by their friends and family for still watching wrestling.

Me, I don't care one way or another. But I think if WWE wants to be taken more seriously, the way to go about it is through the Entertainment side, because they are still too much "sport focused" with some of the tactics they have done over the years. Guest Hosts was a temporary step in the right direction, but it wasn't enough.

But getting back to the ROH-botz, yu can have both, you know. You can have good quality wrestling AND good quality characters like we used to see. I know you aren't happy because you think the more toned down the character, the better WWE will be perceived to be as a sport, though. So at the same time, I understand that is a compromise you don't want to make.

But people will still comparing the talent of today, to the talent of yesterday. Why? Because they don't embrace your vision for what professional wrestling should be-- that being a semi-sport, with toned down personalities. The people want characters they can become emotionally attached to, so they will actually compare about their performances.

And I guarantee IF you go out and find some Honky Tonk Man's, Ravishing Rick Rude's, Mr. Perfect's, Million Dollar Man's, Jake "The Snake" Robert's and so forth ... people may still compare to the past, but I absolutely guarantee that it may not be in a bad way, like it is today. It may very well be comparison in a good way, because they actually ENJOY what they see today, and it reminds them of the talent of the past, in what they used to see.

Food for thought.

 

[ccotreau1]

The only way I see fit if someone is compared to a legend that actually worked was when Paul Wight (Big Show) went as The Giant and part of the storyline that he was the kid of Andre or if its their own kids, ie: Legacy to Dusty Rhodes and The Million Dollar Man. For me that is the only time I am willing to compare a legend to current wrestlers, the rest of them, I will not say that a wrestler is as good as one of the legends.

 

[Tastycles]

You shouldn't compare people to the stars of the past, because it puts an unecessary burden on them. Look at Mr. Kennedy. Rather than viewing him as a decent midcarder that was injury prone, people see him as a failure because he was called "the next Stone Cold" by more people on this forum for example than you can shake a stick at. It's part of a bigger problem that exists amongst fans of anything for living in the past. John Cena shouldn't become the next Hulk Hogan, he should be the first, and only, John Cena and build a legacy of his own, so that one day people can unfairly say "he's the next John Cena"."

People will always do it though, no matter what, and there's nothing anyone can do about that. You can't help being reminded of people, it's a fact of life unfortunately, and everyone's guilty of it, but what does that mean the WWE should do? Well it means that "the next..." tag should be used with caution.

It can burden lesser wrestlers with a tag they cant live up to, a la Stone Cold Ken Anderson, but it can also turn them into a Little Petey Pump-esque parody. For the biggest stars, it is also be an issue. The biggest stars have to be leaders, and something that people want to see, not a rehash of someone else. If Hulk Hogan had spent his years on top being referred to as "The Next Eddie Graham" it wouldn't have helped him really.

The solution then is to use it for people at the very top of the midcard, and not to use the very biggest stars in history as the topic. E.g. Abraham "The next Rock" Washington is a bad idea, but John "The next HBK" Morrison isn't as bad.

In short, I don't think that "the next whoever" tags help anyone apart from as passing comparisions, but if you have to use them, be realistic and be respectful.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I'm going to give taking the 400 lb. gorilla on a shot.

Tenta, this is a terrific thread. I love the thoughts in invokes.

Anyway, to answer, no, it is not unfair to compare the wrestlers of today to those of "yesteryear" in most cases.

I disagree.

Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Ryan Howard. How often to we hear these Major League Baseball stars compared to Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle, and Babe Ruth? How often has the name "Brett Favre" been included in a sentence with the name "Bart Starr?" How many times has Sidney Crosby been compared to Wayne Gretzky, or Ovechkin to Lemieux?

But, to a certain extent, these guys are playing the same game. Especially with the baseball players, the stats of yesteryear hold up to the stats of today in comparison. All of these are more offensive games today then they were yesterday, but the wins and losses and stats in comparison to league averages can be used to determine status. The problem is that in wrestling, the game is so different today, there are no tangible ways to compare. We can say all day long that HHH is no Hogan, and it's true, but why? Hogan is an iconic figure, but is that because of his skill or someone else's marketing? Why is Hogan better than HHH? You can give reasons, but they are debatable, whereas if Ryan Howard drives in 200 runs next year he surpasses Hank Greenberg and we can tangibly prove that.

It happens, because EVERY sport that we know and love - including pro wrestling - is littered with men who have "blazed the trail." It's comfortable for long time fans to look at Randy Orton and say "he reminds me of a young Jake Roberts, but with realized potential." And you know what? When we do that, it makes sense to other fans. It confirms our thoughts and opinions by placing them into historical context.

But using the wrestlers of yesteryear for context is different than making comparisons. Using your example, Orton may be Roberts with realized potential, but how do we prove that? Is it because of title reigns? If so, then it's for two reasons that Orton has title reigns, and neither of those reasons even pertains to Roberts. First of all, the title doesn't mean what it used to. It used to denote the top guy in the company. It would be held for years, in some cases, by the same man. Secondly, someone chooses the champion. It would be naive to say that, in today's terms, Jake Roberts was not over enough for a couple of two or three month title reigns. As the WWE has moved from sport to TV action drama, the title has started to mean less. How can we tangibly prove that Roberts did not realize his potential when he was an incredibly over midcarder that got to be involved in a few top level storylines. In the 80's that was the goal of most guys. Tito Santana was an amazing worker who gave good promos whose most high profile match was the Ultimate Survivor match. He had some tag reigns and an IC reign and had an amazing career. Where would he be in today's WWE? We don't know, and it's unfair to compare him to someone like Chris Jericho, who in 1989, would have been in a similar spot. Comparing yesteryear's guys to the current roster will always fall unfavorably upon the last generation. The new generation has multiple title changes and reigns to thanks, and all the last generation has on their side is sentiment and nostalgia.

I think we can compare the wrestlers of today to anyone from the Wrestlemania-era or wrestling. Occassionally we can compare a Triple H to a Harley Race or a heel Shawn Michaels to Buddy Rodgers. We look at the clean cut, blue collar work of a John Cena and think "Bruno Sammartino." But that's a lot easier to do than to compare guys to the Lou Theszs and Pat O'Connor's of the world, because they came from an era when the realness of wrestling was not disputed, when "entertainment" wasn't a part of the usual vernacular.

Once kayfabe was broken, and gimmicks disappeared, the game changed completely. Now, the goal is not to look real, it's to make people care. The emphasis is no longer in the ring, but on the mic. Guys in the last generation had to get themselves over in the ring to get mic time. The opposite holds true now. If you can't get yourself over on the mic, you have to job to those who can and hope that you lose so spectacularly that people start to like you, a la Evan Bourne. The dichotomy between pre- and post-Attitude Era wrestling is so strong that comparing stars is like comparing apples and condoms.

Finally, the wrestlers of today should take it as a compliment.

I agree here. It should be a compliment, but the validity of the compliment is questionable at best.

And they should be watching the tape of these stars of the past to see what they did, how they connected to the crowd.

This is true, as well. The tricks of the trade don't change too much over time, but the predominance of some of the tricks vs. the others has completely reversed. Wrestlers used to be athletes who had to act a little. Now, they are actors who perform their own stunts.

You can't even compare in ring styles anymore. The use of the closed fist punch is prevalent now, and the suplex, body slam, and most other throws have all but disappeared. The grappling has been replaced by striking. Lou Thesz wouldn't even recognize today's product and someone like Harley Race wouldn't be nearly as over because his in ring style would look alien to today's fan. This is no knock against against those guys, but it's Mickey Mantle vs. a generation of aluminum bats. It just doesn't compare.

It's okay for a star to blaze their own trail, but we call the wrestlers of yesteryear "legends" for a damn reason, and if they did something right (Hogan's crowd connection, Hart's selling, Race's ring psychology, Flair's promos), then it bears emulation to a certain extent.

All true. These guys could learn from the last generation. That isn't even debatable. The problem is that the techniques they learn have to be adjusted to such an extent that it would take the most discerning eye to pick out what they picked off from whom. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the new generation to learn from the last, but to compare them stylistically doesn't work. You can pick skills, but the game is so different now, that any comparisons are unwarranted. It isn't a case of guys "blazing a new trail" as much as it the business leaving the trail and hitting a paved road.

Again, nice job to Tenta. You remind me of a young IC25 in terms of thread creation and clarity.

Who do I remind you of?

 

[dansaint]

It's two different products-- different style athletes with different styles.

It's like trying to ask which team is better...the 1927 New York Yankees or the 2009 Yankees. Different styles of baseball and different athletes.

Same holds true for the wrestling industry. It's not even really about wrestling anymore...it's a TV show that setting happens to be a wrestling ring..just like House's setting is a hospital. Fans are smarter...so they see through a lot.

So no...completely unfair. Records and stuff have no bearing on the business today.

 

[Baximus]

Here's why we shouldn't compare the legends to today's WWE stars.

All of the WWF (As in 'Fuck off, writers') stars that became so popular had a ton of control over their characters. They were told what the point of their promo was supposed to be and that was it.

Do you think writers came up with the Ultimate Warrior? Nope.

Do you think writers had anything to do with Stone Cold? Nope.

Do you think Rock woud still be useless if Vince hadn't given him freedom? Yes.


In short, outside of the established big guys (like HHH, HBK, Cena, Jericho and Taker), no new guy outside of the Miz has really been allowed to show through. We didn't even know how Kofi was until a month ago and then they gave us that crap 'I left Randy his mirror' promo which was god-awful. He's over now because he's awesome athletically and is fighting Randy Orton, not because he's been allowed to talk all of a sudden.

His only 'unscripted' promo was the car bashdown and it was great and hilarious.

I would love to see the muzzel taken off of Morrison, Kofi, Swagger and others at this point because we can't compare a lot of guys in any sense other than a technical one because they don't have the same promo freedom.

 

[Toroc102]

Nah it's completely fair to compare current stars to older ones and i actually think it helps them more than it hurts them, I mean really I don't see what harm there is in it, its not like Cena's reactions are any bigger or smaller because we compare him to Hogan or whoever, most people have already decided how they feel about any given wrestler, the comparisons are just a side thing, its fun.

If it was actually the announcers consistently comparing wrestlers to older stars then that would be different, becuase they would be trying to fit that character into someone else's shadow. But when JR says every once in a while that such and such superstar reminds him of a young Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair I think it does a good job or promoting that star.

In Basketball until the current era of stars retires, pretty much every young wing in the league is going to be compared to Jordan, and in the next generation, depending on how things go it'll probably be Kobe or LeBron. Point Guards will be compared to Magic/Stockton, Centers to, well any number of great centers, its how stuff works, everything is compared. Burger King is compared to McDonalds, Papa Johns to Pizza Hut, it comes with the territory of competition. Their's really no fair or unfair about it, its just the way it is.

I think people look too deep and too narrowly into these comparison like because someone might compare Orton to Jake the Snake that they're saying he is exactly like Jake the Snake. No I believe that they mean that he resembles Jake's character in a lot of ways, but obviously they aren't carbon copies of each other. Orton has a lot of qualities of his own, and in the future people will compare superstars to him. The only problem I see is that todays characters are a lot more bland. While Orton plays a good heel, and Cena plays a good face(ehh if it was the 80's), thats basically all they do. They are like cliches of the two archetypes in wrestling but really don't add anything special to it in my opinion.

Also I don't think people view Kennedy as a failure because he was compared to Stone Cold. Its just that imo and probably a lot of people's opinions online, Kennedy was the future of the WWE. If anything people are dissapointed that he was so injury prone, I don't even blame the WWE for firing him. He probably would've been main-eventing right now if he had been injured like 2 or 3 less times. Hell he was probably going to win the belt with the MITB at some point but he got injured and had to drop it to Edge.