Stop Comparing Wrestlers

[D-Man]

I don't know how much clearer my thread title can be stated.

This is a pro-wrestling forum. As we sign on her everyday, we have the intentions of discussing many topic with strangers and friends alike. Discussion is good for the internet wrestling community because it keeps the gears in our brains moving and keeps professional wrestling relevant.

I think it's safe to say that the goal of every professional wrestling fan is to elevate the sport to the top of the pop-culture-totem-pole. Many of us believed this happened during different eras such as the Golden Era and the Attitude Era. While many believe that the overall format of these eras elevated pro-wrestling within the pop culture circle, even more of us believe this was done by specific superstars. Wrestlers like Hulk Hogan, The Rock, and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin have been credited for the accelerated rise in the popularity of professional wrestling. Now that these men have moved on (or aside) to greener pastures, the wrestling fanbase is craving the next coming of the sport's next "messiah". In other words, we're all wondering who's going to be the next "Rock" or "Austin." Therein lies the problem...

I can never seem to understand why all of your are still stuck in the past. As I read the discussions that happen on this forum, I continuously see our readers and posters starting threads and posting entries like:

"The Miz is the next Rock" or "Randy Orton can be the next Stone Cold."

Why do you guys do this? Do you realize what you're doing? I get it... you want another figure like those guys to come back to television and turn the pro-wrestling world upside down again. But why is it that every new wrestler that comes around needs to be compared to one from the past?

When we watched baseball and saw Alex Rodriguez hit his 600th home run, did we say he was "the next Babe Ruth"? When Vernon Gholsten sacks the quarterback, do we all say "He's the next Lawrence Taylor?" When Patrick Kane scored the tiebreaking goal in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals this year, did we all say he was "the next Wayne Gretzky?" And here's an even better question... if we really did ask each other these questions, how stupid would we look??

This is how stupid I think everyone else looks when they compare the newer generation of pro-wrestlers to the trendsetters of old. A wrestler cuts a great promo, so automatically we get a bunch of threads from morons who say they're "the next Rock." Or another wrestler interferes in a match, gets violent with a steel chair, stomps the proverbial "mudhole" in someone, and a dozen smarks write threads on how that guy is "the next Stone Cold."

Come on, people...

Don't you realize that making all of these comparisons keeps you from moving on and helping to create the next superstar like Stone Cold or The Rock? Wouldn't you rather look at someone like the Miz and say, "I've never seen anyone quite like this guys before. His combination of characteristics possessed by this man sets him aside from anyone I'd ever seen." When we compare him to other wrestlers from the past, we look just as stupid as the examples I listed above from other sports. We all need to move on from the past, shift to the present, and look forward to the future without bullshit comparisons and retrospecting about events that have already transpired. Doing so will keep us focused on building the future and moving in that direction. This will build more of the IWC's interest in newer stars and lead the way in steering the rest of the audience into the direction of preserving the future of the WWE.

Does anyone else agree with me on this? If so, please give good explanation. I feel this is an important subject and needs to be seriously discussed by as many readers as possible.

NO SPAMMING!!

 

[gd]

The newer generation is compared to the older generation all the time, when it comes to everything, really. It's just something that always happens. Since Rock has been gone for awhile now, fans are missing him. They want their Rock. So when they see something that in reality isn't even remotely close to him - The Miz - they latch onto him.

Sure, it's stupid, but it happens. You put it perfectly right about here.

Don't you realize that making all of these comparisons keeps you from moving on and helping to create the next superstar like Stone Cold or The Rock? Wouldn't you rather look at someone like the Miz and say, "I've never seen anyone quite like this guys before. His combination of characteristics possessed by this man sets him aside from anyone I'd ever seen."

Completely agree, but it's not going to happen. There's only so much to talk about and nothing's more fun than comparing different generations. Hell, even Michael Jordan, perhaps the greatest athlete of all time, was compared to Dr. J for much of his career. That kind of stuff just happens.

PS - Vernon Gholston sucks.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

I agree with the amount of asinine comments that many people seem to make on the sites by placing up-and-coming stars as people of the past. Saying that someone like Randy Orton will be the next Steven Austin is quite stupid, because I'm pretty sure The Viper doesn't drink a sip of beer. Or by saying that John Cena is this generations Rock... I don't hear Cena calling you a jabroni that needs to check into the SD hotel, do you? These types of direct comparisons are illogical as they are only referring to specific areas of comparison.

However, to say outright that comparing one person to another is stupid... well, is stupid. There is a reason why certain aspects of one wrestler can be analysed in contrast with another wrestler... it's because they portray some distinguishing similarities. I'll use the examples from above. Aspects of Orton can be compared with aspects of Austin because both have feuded with the McMahon's on a personal level and both don't give a flying fuck what they do, yet they get cheered (essentially being the anti-hero). John Cena has been known to use a condescending tone towards other wrestlers whilst cutting promo's and delivering quick-witted comments, something like the Rock used to do. These comparisons are okay as they can be used to provide a thorough description that allows examples.

When discussing a wrestler, we should all point out how unique they are and strictly remain on them for the most of the topic... but it doesn't mean we can't use some examples to back-up our descriptions for certain aspects.

 

[Max Headroom]

I completely agree with you budd. People always say Orton is the next Stone Cold, or Cena the next Rock. How can these people make a true name for themselves if they are always compared to somone from the past.

Hell after watching summerslam I'm suprised I didn't see a thread here adressing The Miz for telling the crowd not to chant his catch phrase, like The Rock done before. I'm happy there wasn't though. The Miz is The Miz, Cena is Cena, Orton is Orton, you get the point.

If they actually did go by comparison, how would it look when they are the legends, and when this time comes, will the new people be "the 3rd Stone Cold"? "The 10th Rock"? No, they want to be known for what THEY done, what THEY accomplished, and the name THEY made for themselves. They don't want to always be compared to older stars.

It would be one thing to say "Randy, I've yet to see someone as entertaining and badass as you since Stone Cold, keep at it" as opposed to "Dude your just like Stone Cold! You must have idolized him".

You could blame the WWE for this, and say they are trying to make their stars like older ones, but I'm sure that's not the case. I guess some people need to take their heads out of their asses and realize were in the future. Stone Cold was Stone Cold, Rock was Rock. Now, Cena is Cena, Orton is Orton. It's like some people can't accept that a star can be made a star in this new era, to them, to become famous in wrestling, you must either be, or be like a star of the old.

You make a good point I'm glad someone finally made a thread about this.

 

[D-Man]

However, to say outright that comparing one person to another is stupid... well, is stupid.

Ok, prove it to me.

There is a reason why certain aspects of one wrestler can be analyzed in contrast with another wrestler... it's because they portray some distinguishing similarities. I'll use the examples from above. Aspects of Orton can be compared with aspects of Austin because both have feuded with the McMahon's on a personal level and both don't give a flying fuck what they do, yet they get cheered (essentially being the anti-hero).

Hasn't every main event superstar from the past 10 years feuded with Vince in a similar manner? Haven't there been others who "don't give a flying fuck what they do, yet they get cheered"? Matter of fact, John Cena was one of them, if you recall. But this has happened to wrestlers so often that it's become as generic of a point as a professional football player sacking a quarterback and then immediately being compared to Lawrence Taylor. It's downright stupid.

John Cena has been known to use a condescending tone towards other wrestlers whilst cutting promo's and delivering quick-witted comments, something like the Rock used to do.

Oh, that's right. Because the Rock was the first wrestler to give a verbal comeback to another wrestler cutting a promo, right?

This is what I mean. Such a generic occurrence happens on a broadcast of pro-wrestling and suddenly everyone tries to become a play-by-play analyst and talk out of their asses about wrestler comparisons. Let's face it... people do it for the sake of attempting to sound like they know what they're talking about. Vis-a-vis: The smarks.

When discussing a wrestler, we should all point out how unique they are and strictly remain on them for the most of the topic... but it doesn't mean we can't use some examples to back-up our descriptions for certain aspects.

But what I'm referring to is not those who use wrestlers of the past to back up a valid point. That's a natural discussion topic. I'm talking about the keyboard cowboys who sit in their seats and are so eager to start a thread that they pull an absolutely ridiculous wrestler comparison out of their asses in order to get noticed. But the biggest problem is that they are truly believe what they're posting. This keeps them stuck in the past. I think it's time for all of them to move on.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

Ok, prove it to me.

Sometimes evidence is needed from the past to solve a case or prove a point in the current situations. People could say that Jack Swagger is built as something that we have already seen in the WWE. They would then use the comparison of Kurt Angle to Jack Swagger to make the point because of the amount of similarities. Swagger and Angle use the ankle lock, they both wear traditional tights, they wrestle technical styles... going quite deep into the conversation would be suitable as it's just an allusion.

I'm not disagreeing with you on outright saying Person A is Person B. However, making an analysis of an aspect that resembles a previous person is alright to point out.

Hasn't every main event superstar from the past 10 years feuded with Vince in a similar manner? Haven't there been others who "don't give a flying fuck what they do, yet they get cheered"? Matter of fact, John Cena was one of them, if you recall. But this has happened to wrestlers so often that it's become as generic of a point as a professional football player sacking a quarterback and then immediately being compared to Lawrence Taylor. It's downright stupid.

Steve Austin is the first thought to have striking similarities with someone like Randy Orton to the common person. Yes, there have been many people who can be used to make the comparison but it seems that the perfect example can be given by using one person... because the IWC are lazy like that.

The same can be done in other sports too, like such and such footballer has a similar tackle to such and such footballer that used to play back in the 80's. It's simply making a statement to provide further evidence to a point you are trying to make.

Oh, that's right. Because the Rock was the first wrestler to give a verbal comeback to another wrestler cutting a promo, right?

This is what I mean. Such a generic occurrence happens on a broadcast of pro-wrestling and suddenly everyone tries to become a play-by-play analyst and talk out of their asses about wrestler comparisons. Let's face it... people do it for the sake of attempting to sound like they know what they're talking about. Vis-a-vis: The smarks.

I can't argue with this logic here. A lot of people talk through their arse and can't be bother to get in the specifics, so they speak in such a generalised fashion. Kind of makes me wonder how they can bad-mouth the WWE for being so watered-down when their opinions are nothing but vapour.

But what I'm referring to is not those who use wrestlers of the past to back up a valid point. That's a natural discussion topic. I'm talking about the keyboard cowboys who sit in their seats and are so eager to start a thread that they pull an absolutely ridiculous wrestler comparison out of their asses in order to get noticed. But the biggest problem is that they are truly believe what they're posting. This keeps them stuck in the past. I think it's time for all of them to move on.

Again, I can't argue. I said I agreed on these types of people and provided my reasons for it. My side is that you can't completely ignore it to provide for some further evidence like you said you weren't discussing, but I just thought I'd add it into my argument as the topic would deem it worthy to discuss it.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

The Orton/Stone Cold comparisons never cease to amaze me. Do people not realize Stone Cold Steve Austin was the biggest star ever next to Hulk Hogan? Orton still has VERY long way to go. Even if he some how manages to reach that status some day. I can see why people would compare The Miz to The Rock, because The Miz can cut some amazing promos every now and then, but when it comes to the charisma...he's just not on Rock's level. Rock would have the audience hanging on his every word during a promo or segment, and everything about him(especially his appearance) just screamed wrestling superstar. And I don't even want to get into how ludicrous some of the Pope/Rock comparisons were a while ago on here. I haven't seen anything regarding this in a while, but during Pope's monster push earlier this year, these comparisons were running wild.

Guys like Rock and Stone Cold have set the bar very high, and it's going to be tough for anyone to ever get to those levels. Another important factor in all of this is the fact that wrestling just isn't as hot as it was during the days of Steve Austin and Rock. The world of pro wrestling was on fire back then, and as of right now, it's not "boom" time when it comes to pro wrestling.

Let The Miz,Orton,and others go down their own paths and create their own legacies

 

[LitasRevenge79]

I think to be a star in today's business you have to have an awareness/appreciation/respect for people/stars of the past to get to where you are now. So that means that they will have to have seen matches that took place with those stars of the past in them. Everyone is going to probably have nuances that harken back to people of the past. John Cena's leg drop...back to Hogan's leg drop. RKO's tweener attitude...Stone Cold's don't give a F$%# attitude. Or Swagger with his red, white, blue and his ankle lock a reminiscent of Angle. Even if we were to look at the older people in WWF/E, and see their moves, more than likely you would see them emulating moves/personas of previous wrestlers. There are only so many moves you can do, and everyone will try to put their own spin on it. As noted by AJ Styles doing his styles clash and mccool's faith breaker, everyone will have a style either bites from someone or pays homage to someone, doesn't mean they need to be compared to that person.

 

[Miko]

Doesnt someone make a thread like this every few months or so? Not exactly new ground we are covering here

Anyway comparing not such a good idea, too much hype to live up to, too much expectation on the wrestler. Wwrestling doesnt need "another" it needs the "first", it didnt need another Hogan, it needed the first Austin etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.