Stop comparing

[Lee]

Jack Swagger = Mr Perfect
The Miz = The Rock
Manu = Umaga

You get the point, any star who seems to be doing well is automatically compared to a star of yesteryear. I think that's a rather bad thing to do. For example, saying the Miz is the next Rock...The Miz will never be the next Rock, NO ONE will be the next Rock, get over it.

It can only hurt new wrestlers/superstars/entertainers being compared to someone great in the past because frankly, they just can't live up to it. It must hurt them in the sense of a kid is always compared to their big brother, they want to be themselves in their own way rather than "Oh he's not better than the Rock."

Lets take Manu for example, I've heard him being compared to Umaga, when really all that's in common is that they're Samoan. Umaga is a single wrestler on SD! and a 'wild Samoan' whilst Manu is on Raw, part of a stable and is proving that people from Samoa can be civilised!

What is your opinion on this? Do they feel that being compared to another wrestler damages someone or does it give them a boost?

 

[Richard]

Being compared to another wrestler can't hurt them, but what it does is lead us to higher expectations and then we won't be happy or start complaining when they don't live up to the expectations.

But I agree, stop comparing because if we compare wrestlers to older wrestlers e.g Kennedy is the next Steve Austin etc, we will never be truely happy because they can't be that. We need to stop looking at what the past was and look at the present and stop comparing so the new wrestlers can be themselves.

Chris Jericho said it perfectly a while ago, I believe it was during their fued which led to WM 19. Something along the lines of.... "I don't want to be the next Shawn Michaels. I want to be the first Chris Jericho".

 

[Miko]

Agreed and I have always said this, we dont need another Hulk Hogan or Stone Cold we need the first Randy Orton or John Cena.

I also agree that it is somewhat of a problem because to plant that label on someone and then expect them to live up to it is extremely harsh, this is The Rock we are talking about the man was a one of a kind, he could get a Rocky chant just by tilting his head slightly and then they expect someone else to live up to that kind of hype.

 

[golden miz]

Comparision of wrestlers in my mind just means that a wrestler will have simmular success and have a career comparable to a past star, when I compareI never think of someone as a past star I think of their potential to be a future star and who in the past can this person's carrer rise to the same levels as. When I stated the Miz=rock thread I never once thought of the miz as rock, there only will be one rock, but I do believ he has the opprutunity to have a big carrer like his but he will awalys be his own identy, the miz, to me

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Actually, it's is very hard NOT to compare one wrestler to one who has past success and similar charisma. I mean the WWE pretty much compares them for us and forms that mentality within our minds as we watch. Who here can sit and say that they have not sat and heard Jim Ross, who supposedly is the gold standard that we compare all other announcers successes and short comings to, paint this vision in our heads. Not sparking your memory yet? Well I'm sure you have heard Jim Ross call a basic knee lift a "Million Dollar knee lift" have you not? Who is this meant to draw comparisons to? What about a 'Double A Spinebuster" or saying that a move has "Shades of Harley Race"?

So it's not our faults. It's marketing. It's subliminal messaging in order to help you more readily accept a superstar without having them go through the rigors that the past superstar who they are being compared to did. And please do not get me started on the new Charlie Haas gimmick where his whole point is to come out and remind you of either current or former successful stars. It's pathetic if you ask me and should come to an end.

So do not sit and plame us, the common wrestling fan for this tend that has developed. Wemerely watch the stars. The story tellers are the ones who are painting the pictures by which we see them. And a slight comment here and a simple mention there is what draws these comparisons out of us. If you want it to stop, then tell them to stop implanting it. Tell them to stop drilling it in our heads over and over again. Tell them to put an end to this farce and to build these stars up on their own merits instead of quickly slapping a label on them during a telecast that they know will stay in our memory and bring up later comparisons involuntarily. It is the companies, not the fans, who you should be expressing this frustration to as we are merely pawns who are doing what we are told.

 

[The Undercover Man]

I agree and disagree, i agree because sometimes it can hang over a wrestlers career, it means their allways feeling pressured into being the next "rock. I disagree because being compared to a legend can do you wll, it can help you achieve more rather then being a complete failure throughout your career

I don't think "it can only hurt new wrestlers", Thats a rather stupid statement to make. Some wrestlers do live upto being compared to another wrestler, Hogan and Cena are prime examples. Ok Cena may not have achieved as much as Hogan but look at the difference, is there really any major differences?

the only thing i think that would hurt a wrestler was if their Father was considered better then them before they have had a chance to actually have a career in wrestling. if i was told that , that would hurt me but on the other hand it would also inspire me to show people that infact i am the better one.

Of course there will allways be likenesses like Manu and Umaga but quite honestly they will never ever be like each other. its on a very odd occasion where you get two wrestlers who are exactly the same as eachother. WWE are allways trying to compare these guys to others from the past which is wrong, they do this because they want us to see these new wrestlers like the ones they are being compared too.

In closing , like i said earlier i think it can damage a wrestlers career but sometimes improve it

 

[supersayian]

i agree as well wrestlers should only care about the present not the past. guys like edge Randy, Cena, Jeff, and others have all come on their own. lets look at the new stars now. Ted and Cody have been around almost a year or more. these two already draw major heel heat. they both will be the next big thing. i only hope the WWE gets more involved on a global stage with international wrestlers. this would draw a new fan base around the world and help a declining buissness.

 

[Tim]

A lot of the current wrestlers model their styles off of past wrestlers, so sometimes they do look and act similar. But saying things like Miz is the next Rock or that Manu is like Umaga is just pointless. manu and Umaga are only compared because they're samoan, and what's the point comparing an up-and-comer to someone who hasn't even done much in his whole career? But some of the things people are compared to are just stupid. There's not going to be another Rock and if there is, it's definately not going to be the Miz.

It can hurt wrestlers. They may be overrated and can't live up to the expectations that are put on them to be the next Austin or Mr. Perfect. They could be angry that they can't live up to these expectations, and their work in the ring wll suffer, and this could lead to them getting released.

But it can also motivate wrestlers. If they know that people think thy are the next Austin, then they will believe that they have a lot of potential and will strive to be the best they can. They will be inspired by other people's belief in them, and this will help them to become one of the next stars.

 

[golden miz]

I agree and disagree, i agree because sometimes it can hang over a wrestlers career, it means their allways feeling pressured into being the next "rock. I disagree because being compared to a legend can do you wll, it can help you achieve more rather then being a complete failure throughout your career

I don't think "it can only hurt new wrestlers", Thats a rather stupid statement to make. Some wrestlers do live upto being compared to another wrestler, Hogan and Cena are prime examples. Ok Cena may not have achieved as much as Hogan but look at the difference, is there really any major differences?

the only thing i think that would hurt a wrestler was if their Father was considered better then them before they have had a chance to actually have a career in wrestling. if i was told that , that would hurt me but on the other hand it would also inspire me to show people that infact i am the better one.

Of course there will allways be likenesses like Manu and Umaga but quite honestly they will never ever be like each other. its on a very odd occasion where you get two wrestlers who are exactly the same as eachother. WWE are allways trying to compare these guys to others from the past which is wrong, they do this because they want us to see these new wrestlers like the ones they are being compared too.

In closing , like i said earlier i think it can damage a wrestlers career but sometimes improve it

ted has not been around for a year hes been around since june, mamby even may, and manu is compared to umanga because they are cousins and that family awalys gets comapred to eachother, just like umanga gets compared to rikishi. And dosn't your coment about cena prove that you are for comparisons because you said there was no diffrence

 

[Fizzy]

I think that it would be an honor to be compared to the likes of The Rock and Mr.Perfect. I don't see how it could hurt them. It's basically saying, "you remind me of one of the greatest superstars of all time". Sure they may not live up to the expectations, but it lets them know just how good they really are. I agree that no one will ever be the next Rock or Mr. Perfect, but it doesn't hurt to compare their styles. Hell if I were them i'd be fucking honored. It shows their hard work is paying off, and it would give my confidence a huge boost. So yea comparing them to those greats can really do nothing but help them.

 

[Shocky]

Nothing wrong with comparing wrestlers of today to wrestlers of the past. In fact I've started a thread in the Old School section on this very topic. Why would the business see somethign that was successful twenty years ago, not try to reapply that to the wrestlers of today?

In fact, most of the best/biggest stars of the last 25 years were just retreads of previous gimmicks. Hulk Hogan was nothing more then Billy Graham, Buddy Rogers was a direct influence of Ric Flair. There is a lot of Harley Race in Triple H, Randy Savage in Shawn Michaels, Sting in Cena, Andre in The Undertaker. You can draw parallels to anyone, and rightfully so. All of those people that were previous mentioned, worked, and their successors, all worked.

 

[Undercurrent]

In many cases comparisons are simply to be taken as a very flattering compliment but I tend to ignore these. A wrestler may have all the tools to become the next Bret Hart but as we all know there will ever only be one Bret Hart. I personally feel insulted whenever a wrestler is repeatedly compared to a legend of this industry as it comes off quite contrived. The easy root is to claim this individual is the next so and so.....well allow this particular wrestler to create their own legacy. How many times have we heard "this basketball player is the next Michael Jordan!" It's quite the turn off and it needs to be limited or put off all together.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

I think it's alright to compare other wrestlers and it's obviously going to happen, but I think you can't over compare because then you will complain about everything. This is the same for the different era's as well. People will always compare the attitude era and the current era, which is pointless since their different and nothings going to compare. Comparing can be bad when you always think the "original is better" and hate all the "new" guys. Like people compare Swagger to Perfect, but Swagger can't match up to Perfect so your just going to get disapointed. Anyways comparing is always going to exsist and thats all right as long as you keep an open mind.

 

[FromTheSouth]

First off, WWE can kiss my ass. They present wrestling as a sport no matter what they call it on the air. It is athletic competition (Fake, but nontheless....). And in sports, comparisons are always on the tip of broadcaster's tongues.

Albert Pujols is a right handed Ted Williams. Derek Jeter means as much to the Yankess as Mickey Mantle ever did. The search for the next Michael Jordan, who was the next Dr. J, who was the next Elgin Baylor, who begot Abraham, who begot Isaac.

Sports fans tend to compare athletes because it conceptualizes greatness. If someone is the next Willie Mays, then they are great at baseball. If someone is the next Shawn Bradley, they are a skinny waste of height.

Even in forms of entertainment, comparisons are made. Buy a suspense book and the cover jacket compares the writer to Dan Brown. Jason Statham is a more talented Jean Claude Van Damme. Grey's Anatomy is the new ER.

Even when eating at Chili's, someone will compare their burger to that of Friday's.

It doesn't matter what phase of life you are in, comparisons are what we have to give someone's ability a context for discussion.

I do agree with the calls for everyone to stop trying to be Bret Hart and Stone Cold, but that doesn't mean similarities don't exist. The broadcasters wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't point them out.

I would argue that it is more important in wrestling than elsewhere. To get someone over, the crowd needs a reason to cheer them. Someone may be talented, but a subtle Bret Hart comparison puts the idea in a fan's mind that the wrestler is very technically sound and innovative. JR even asked Tazz to compare Morrison and Miz to former great tag teams. JR wants to viewer to understand that the teamwork and innovative double team move MNM use make them better at their craft. Therefore, a Midnight Express comparison gives the idea to old school fans (the one's that would be slower to accept MNM) that this the new generation best tag team, and they better get used to them.

 

[CelticPride101]

its all about gimmick gimmick gimmick. they compare john cena to hulk hogan because he does things that hogan use to do "overcoming the odds" the whole "were all in this together" crap but you take someone like edge the diabolical rated r superstar compare him to someone of the past? maybe you can but i guareentee you cant because his gimmick is so awsome and unique you cant compare him to someone of the past. Once someone has a ceartain look,or a ceartain manner similar to someone of the past your basically screwed because you WILL be compared

 

[Downward Spiral]

I too don't see a need to try and 'compare' any wrestler to someone from the past. Today, you hear so much about 'uncovering the next Rock or Austin' and who this may be, when in reality, trying to find guys good enough to emulate those from the past is taking a step back. Rather, originality is, and should always be, a top priority.

Being compared to the past greats cannot be good for the upcoming wrestlers in their hopes of becoming breakout stars. If they hear how people think they could become 'the next Rock', they will lose their individuality and sooner or later, there will never again be an even slightly unique character in the business.

Instead of looking at how guys compare to the Rock, they should just look at what they can see in the individual character. As soon as they compare, that particular wrestler feels the pressure to live up to the name, lest he face the brunt of contempt from the IWC for 'not being as good'.

Basically, when people copy off each other, there is no creativity. And isn't creativity what made the original Rock and Austin characters in the first place?