What's Wrong With Wrestling Fans #1: Unfair Comparisons

[D-Man]

Many times in the past, I've tried to create my own series' of threads. Due to time constraints, lack of participation, lack of dedication, or a limited amount of ideas, I haven't seemed to follow up with them. However, I'm gonna give it another shot here. So, welcome to my new thread series; Things That Are Wrong With Wrestling Fans. While I don't think I need to explain what the threads are going to be about, I think I need to point out that these views are purely my opinion and I welcome your feedback. Now, onto the first thread of this series...

Issue #1: Unfair Comparisons

In professional wrestling, new wrestlers, stables, angles, and characters come and go. Some are unique, some resemble things that have been done in the past, and some seem to be a direct repeat of a previous entity of itself. In every one of these cases, the wrestlers are always doing their best to bring originality to these angles/characters/storylines/stables.

Maybe it's a personal thing (and my apologies if it comes across as abrasive) but I will never understand people's obsessions with comparing all of this with things of the past. Sure, it makes for good conversation at times, but I constantly see posters creating and/or contributing to threads like "Is Randy Orton the next Stone Cold?" or "Primo and Epico with Rosa are the new Mexican America". It's almost as if you guys go out of your way and try and find the slightest similarity to a past entity that you can exploit in an effort to make yourself look like you have a shred of intelligence. And it seems like you do this because you can take two completely different things, find a similarity, and point it out for all of us to scratch our heads at.

It's probably just me, but maybe if we spent a little bit more time on the original characteristics of the new entity we wouldn't have so much product to shit on. I feel it's completely unfair to constantly take these new additions to pro-wrestling's programming and pin them up against something either vaguely or strongly familiar, from the past. We need to treat new characters, storylines, stables, etc as if it were the first time we're seeing them. Then, we can give a proper, subjective opinion on what we think of them.

Please weigh in with your views on this topic thank you, in advance, for the feedback.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I totally agree. What we tend to do is that if we see something great for a long period of time and we see something that looks similar, we put it on that pedastal where it doesn't deserve to be. Take John Morrison for example. Everyone was comparing him to the next Shawn Michaels and it is safe to say he didn't meet those expectations and we criticize him. Morrison never put himself in Shawn Michaels' class so it is unfair for us to criticize him for that fact. Instead of us crowning a wrestler as the next *insert name*, let them be them. This applies to tag teams and stables as well. We crave for the next big superstar and we should know that not every wrestler that you favor is going to be that. I think we also look down at the midcard as a byproduct. Some guys are meant to be main eventers and some are just meant to be midcarders and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Yeah pretty much. If someone does, looks, or says anything even resembling what another wrestler has done in the past, everyone immediately starts comparing them. I get it in some cases, such as comparing Khali to Giant Gonzales. They debuted in the exact same way, almost to a T. It was to a point where you knew every move they were going to make for the next few months.

Then there's comparisons between Mr. Anderson and Austin which, yes, Anderson doesn't belong in the same breath as Austin, but it was blatantly obvious that they were trying to get him over the same way Austin got over. Anderson just didn't have the talent to pull it off.

The one I used to see a lot that actually offended me were these comparisons between John Morrison and Shawn Michaels. I still don't get it, is it because they both were shiny pants and have long hair? That's where the similarities end. John Morrison isn't worthy of washing Shawn Michaels' car, which might end up being an issue here soon since he's unemployed now.

I think it's just a case of people being too dense to have an original thought, so they immediately revert back to what's been done before. Then again, I've seen some original ideas on here before too. Ugh. Maybe everyone should just not talk anymore.

 

[Mustang Sally]

.... but maybe if we spent a little bit more time on the original characteristics of the new entity we wouldn't have so much product to shit on.

You can especially see this in the case of John Cena. Fifteen years ago, he probably wouldn't have heard all the ridiculous booing he gets. Today, it's constant comparisons to the Rock and Steve Austin; and of course, Cena is usually regarded unfavorably with those guys, largely because a lot of fans have nothing but good memories of those two. In their day, however, they had plenty of detractors, many of whom saw them as inferior to Hulk Hogan. Seems you just can't win, huh?

John Cena should be looked at for who he is.....by himself. Yes, most of his ring repertoire is the same thing over and over......but that can be said of Rock and SCSA, too. And Hogan? Face it, if ever there was a performer who ran with the same soup warmed over in every match, it was him.

Even so, Cena works hard as hell and always seems to come up with something different in his matches, whether it manifests itself as a winning or a losing move. For example, I seriously wonder if Rock or Austin would have allowed themselves to be depicted as being gang-beaten by Nexus; even running from the ring when confronted with a 7 on 1. (Discretion being the better part of valor). Do you think Rock or Austin would have allowed Creative to put that on them? I doubt it; yet, Cena suffers in comparisons to those two. Illogical.

Stop worrying about comparing him to those two past icons. The important thing is what Cena's got, not what he lacks. Above all, Cena has the charisma that forces you to watch and listen to him, no matter who else is sharing his stage. As far as I'm concerned, it's the genius of the WWE machine that's brought Cena and Rock together for a program. It's as if Creative is saying: You want to compare Cena to Rock? Fine, we'll give you a double dose of head-to-head.......and you can decide for yourselves.

I'd rather look at these guys for who they are.....not who they're not. Makes for a more enjoyable watch.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

In fairness, I think this is a deeper issue that really shouldn't be blamed solely on the fan. Let me explain why I won't point the dirty finger at wrestling fans here:

Comparisons are common in all things as a way of giving a present topic a frame of reference.

Now, as D-Man can certainly attest, I am a massive fan of the Green Bay Packers. As of the moment I am sitting down to write this, they are 13-0 with a road test against the Kansas City Chiefs and two home games with the Bears and Lions away from a perfect regular season. Sports fans in general cannot seem to help themselves - the comparisons of the '11-'12 Packers to the '72 Dolphins, the '85 Bears, the '07 Patriots, the Packers of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's, and the Cowboys of the 90's has dominated discussion. Even worse, people have constantly compared Aaron Rodgers to both his predecessor, Brett Favre, and to Dan Marino.

Kobe Bryant and LeBron James both faced the same obnoxious questions - "is this the next Michael Jordan?"

Sidney Crosby was compared to Gretzky, Alex Ovechkin to Mario Lemieux.

You get my point. There's an innate tendency to compare present to past, whether long since past or recently past. Look at how popular CM Punk is, and while that's partially due to his volatile honesty, it also has something to do with his being the voice of the old-school vintage fan. The two arms in the air before hitting the elbow drop a la Randy Savage. People have fond memories of "the good old days," and I think their comparisons reveal more of a desire to recapture the glory days and to help themselves understand what is happening by looking at what has happened that they are reminded of.

It also gives us the term "standard bearer." The Four Horsemen are the "Standard Bearers" of stables. Shawn Michaels and Marty Jannetty are the "Standard Bearers" of tag team breakups. Hollywood Hulk Hogan is the "Standard Bearer" of unexpected heel turns. And The Undertaker is the "Standard Bearer" of Wrestlemania. You get the idea.

 

[Paralyzer Z]

In today's society it is human nature to compare everything going on in the current time, with things they thought were important in their childhood.

People need to move on from the wrestlers and the storylines of the past and focus on the current product, Lingering in the memory of their childhood is what brings on these comparisons. People are not willing to admit that what got them into some type of product, or show, may look stupid nowadays. For example if some random guy got into wrestling after a squash match in 1993, he will compare today's squash matches (in a biased way) to his memory of what he thought was good back then. John Cena is not the next Hogan, John Cena is John Cena, Randy Orton is not the next SCSA, He is Randy Orton a different entity.

If it somewhat resembles what you liked in the past, it is hard not to compare them and chose your generation over the current. These character's are relevant (and in some cases original) to today's audience, that really is all that matters.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

While it's not the cause of all the problems wrestling fans these days have, unfair & even unrealistic comparisons are a problem.

I've read posts in which fans are so busy running down a wrestler or wrestlers because of how how similar their character is to a Bill Goldberg or a Steve Austin that they don't really stop to think if what the guy's doing is actually entertaining. In TNA right now, for example, there have been constant comparisons of Crimson to Goldberg because of the undefeated streak angle. I'm not a huge fan of Crimson, but he's pretty solid inside the ring, has a good look about him and brings a good deal of athletic ability. Instead of giving the guy his props for that, however, a lot of people decide to simply label him as a poor man's Goldberg and won't give Crimson a chance. If someone's just not into Crimson that's fine, but how many just flat out don't give the guy a chance or any credit at all for the things that he does bring to the table all because of focus on what, in my view, has been a lame angle involving an undefeated streak?

I think nostalgia also plays a huge factor in this area. For all intents and purposes, I've read thousands upon thousands of posts, articles & general complaints in which those that've written them have said that things aren't as good as they used to be. We hear people say it seemingly every generation when it comes to music, television, movies, politics, clothes and, yes, even pro wrestling. When I was 10 years old, I thought everything in wrestling was great from the matches to the characters to the promos and everything in between. Now, at age 31 when I look back on some of the stuff I enjoyed at age 10, a good deal of it was 100% crap. I was so focused on the memories of good times I had watching guys like the Bushwhackers, Demolition, Randy Savage, Tito Santana, Greg The Hammer Valentine, The Mountie and sooooooo many others that I didn't really know how bad some of them were and how shitty some of what they were involved in was at times.

Today, some considering almost blasphemous to not say that the Attitude Era was a shining beacon of what wrestling should be. Some are so focused on just the good or what they enjoyed that they, sometimes purposely, forget the bad that was alongside the good. They remember the good times they had hanging out with their friends on Monday nights, getting together to watch the ppvs on Sundays, debating about what was better in school the next day, etc. and all that was great. Still, some of what went on was pure crap that we thought was good and we constantly compare the Attitude Era and the time before that when we were kids to what we see today.

All in all, wrestling wasn't really better in some ways 20 years ago than it is today. Tito Santana was a good wrestler but, personally, I wouldn't take 10 of him for 1 CM Punk. I wouldn't trade 20 Mounties, Ken Shamrocks or Val Venis' for 1 guy like Dolph Ziggler or Cody Rhodes.

 

[Jtrivera]

For many years we have seen alot of superstars come and go, most of them are now retired and gone, and we now have a new batch of superstars, problem with that is there being compared to someone who was similar to them some examples are CM Punk-Stone Cold, Swagger-Angle, Dolph-HBK, Mason Ryan-Batista, and Miz-Jericho, because of the comparison i think it's hard for the star to make his own name, do you think it helps or hurt these guys being compared to past wrestlers?

 

[SavageTaker]

When people start saying so and so is the next Shawn Michaels or the next Ric Flair, I think it hurts them. Firstly, most wrestlers aren't trying to be the next anyone. They want to be their own unique character. That's a big thing in this day and age. With wrestlers trying to be something new it creates freshness for the product so that way we don't have the mentality that we've been watching the same thing for years now.

Also, it can hurt that wrestler for us, the fans. For example, when you start saying so and so is the next Hogan or Austin it creates a problem. Those guys were at the top of their respective eras and they created really high standards for pro wrestling. When we say someone is the next so and so then I think at times we expect more out of them and want them to meet the same standards that Flair, Austin, Hogan and many others created. Sometimes, they just can't do that and as a result we end up dissapointed with them. If we hold each wrestler to their own standards I think we would be able to enjoy them more than we do if we hold them to someone else's standards.

It might seem like a compliment to compare someone to Shawn Michaels and other legends, but I think it can really hurt them in several ways.

 

[Notorious718]

I wouldn't go so far as to say comparisons "kill" careers per se but it can hurt a superstar's career. On one hand, it can be an absolute honor to be compared to a legend like Stone Cold Steve Austin (like CM Punk was or still is). But it sure puts a ton of pressure on the superstar in question and gives them big shoes to fill. In doing so, there is a chance that they end up not meeting peoples' high expectations which ends up disappointing the fans.

That's actually one of the big things I've noticed ever since I began following wrestling online. A lot of people have the tendency to dub someone the next so and so. And usually, it doesn't quite pan out the way fans expected. Just look at John Morrison, for example. Almost everyone dubbed him the breakout star of his tag team with Miz and the next Shawn Michaels, now he's no longer with the company.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

The comparisons exist in all sports. On one hand its an honor to be compared to an all time great but its also a curse. I remember like a year or two into his career people were calling Kobe the next Jordan. He responded by saying he was honored but he wasn't looking to be the next MJ, he was just looking to be the first Kobe Bryant. I think thats the best way to handle it.

A good example today is people saying Ziggler could be the next HBK. Well it shows Ziggler has great potential but it also means if he fails to be the next HBK people will probably call his career a waste or unfullfilled

 

[Azane]

a good wrestler will overcome any comparisons.

Remember Miz-Morrison, when Miz was being called Jannety? funny, I don't think that comparison hit home, as right now, Morrison is out of work, and Miz is a former champion still in the ME scene here and there.

A poor wrestler will take a comparison and let it consume them, good or bad. A strong wrestler needs to be his own man, people nowadays are comparing Ziggles to Perfect, but in reality, Dolph is differentiating himself while still playing the perfection arrogant heel gimmick amazingly.

Comparisons don't hurt a wrestler if he doesn't let it. CM Punk is hardly anything like Stone Cold, I still don't see that comparison at all. Sin Cara being a Rey Mysterio? seriously?

 

[Toroc102]

It only hurts your career if you let it. Comparisons appear in all types of work, not just sports. People used to talk about the next Marlon Brando/Pacino/DeNiro, the next Madonna/Britney Spears/Michael Jackson, the next Babe Ruth/Mickey Mantle, the show Entourage's main character was supposed to be the next Leonardo DiCaprio. This is not something new either, or something that happened because of the internet. Its been going on in locker rooms, barber shops, hair salons(she looks just like Jaqueline Onasis) and anywhere people get together to talk probably since the beginning of time.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It's good in that it can get more people to notice you when you are looking for more attention. The problem is that most comparisons are either really poorly expressed, interpreted or just impossible to fulfill due to the glamorization we have of time that has passed.

Right now people are talking about Foley doing the same thing for Ziggler's career that he did for Edge's career. This is a comparison that is not expressed in much detail, hard to interpret and nearly impossible to fulfill in our minds since it took place so long ago when we were different people. Doesn't mean that we are going to be let down entirely (assuming this feud happens) but it creates an uphill climb for the performers.

Ultimately, it is up to the guys to take advantage of the rub they get from the media, fans or whoever else is making the compaison.

 

[ECW Dan Selby]

If the internet thinks it, no, it doesn't affect anything.

However, if people in the back are thinking it, yes, i'd assume it could do damage to their career if they expect wrestler X to meet the dizzying heights of wrestler Y.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Not really. The problem is that too many fans take comparisons to an extreme. If a certain current wrestler doesn't somehow measure up in every way to their favorites from days gone by, then many will automatically say that the guy's not a good wrestler.

As much as it would kill some fans to admit, there are several wrestlers on the WWE roster that I think are every bit as good overall as many of the big stars that we all grew up with. These current wrestlers don't have the added advantage of time as these veterans have and, as a result, are generally viewed as not being on the same level. Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Sting, Macho Man Randy Savage, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Undertaker, Triple H and others are huge stars that are ultimately on something of a different level now than current wrestlers because of time. None of these guys started out as the mega stars and legends that they would ultimately become. That took years and years of accomplishments, feuds, matches and memorable moments. When it comes to guys like Punk, Ziggler, Barrett, Rhodes, Miz, Sheamus and some others, their careers have only really started to shoot up within the past few years. Plus, wrestling is an altogether different game in many ways now than it was 30+ years ago.

Not every star is going to be as good as The Rock on the mic or as big of a draw as Hulk Hogan or as technically skilled as Ric Flair, but that doesn't mean that they still aren't damn good wrestlers that might still be better than these all time greats in other ways.

 

[Mustang Sally]

If the internet thinks it, no, it doesn't affect anything.

However, if people in the back are thinking it, then yes, I'd assume it could do damage to the career if they expect wrestler X to meet the dizzying heights of wrestler Y.

You could be right, but it's still a scary thought. It's the people in the back who should know better. Pro wrestling has been around a long time and it's harder than ever to come up with an original gimmick because so much has already been done. It's one thing for fans to make comparisons; that's inevitable......but when the folks in the back start comparing a present-day performer to a past one, the poor newcomer has to sink or swim on factors he may have little control over.

Take Mason Ryan. Because of his muscular physique and facial features, people immediately began comparing him to Dave Batista. Now, fair or not, all Ryan seemingly needed to do was have ring skills comparable to Batista, which shouldn't have been too hard since Batista was hardly a marvel of technical wrestling.

Yet, Ryan couldn't do it. In fact, he couldn't generate the heat Batista could, and look how badly Mason has wound up being hurt by the comparison. The company has tried like hell to push him......with very, very limited success.

Of course, some performers end up being better than the person they've been compared to. It's rare, because we tend to look at the older performer through rose-colored glasses, remembering him as better than he actually was regarded during his career.

But that's just nostalgia working; if today's wrestlers want to compare favorably with their counterparts, they've got to find something to distinguish themselves......or, Creative has to.

It's not easy.....and often not fair.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Comparisons do not hurt a wrestler any more than the pressure of performing live in from of thousands of people inside the arena and millions watching your every step from television screens knowing that every mistake you make will there for the world to see and judge you on. Pressure is the name of the game in any performing art, be it acting, pro wrestling or even sport. If you cannot stand the pressure, then maybe the job isn't right for you. Also, comparisons may add to the pressure that a performer faces but it is pretty miniscule when you compare it to the other pressures that the performers face, like putting on a good show for starters.

Comparisons are mainly an outlet for fans to stay connected to a product that is mostly aimed at kids. Yes, that is what pro wrestling is, a kids show. Comparing a performer with a name of their childhood makes them reminisce about their own happy times rather than degrade the wrestler that is performing. As such, I do not see anything wrong with it.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

Its alot of pressure to compare someone to a legend. You cant fairly expect someone to be as great as someone else or to be the same. Let them be themselves and itll work out better than you expected.

 

[thebarber]

comparisons are generally a compliment to the talent.
Ultimately, promoters and the talent themselves are responsible for killing a guys career.
Poor storylines, no pushes and their own bahaviour is the biggest thing that can make or break guys careers,,in my opinion.

 

[Cats Pajamas]

I couldn't blame a comparison for killing anyone's career. If anything, looking at Ziggles as the next Mr Perfect or Morrison as the next HBK really only creates more buzz among internet fans. We were dead wrong about Morrison, eh?

More often, a career is killed because of injuries, Wellness violations, and creative having "nothing for someone". Comparing them to a great likely prolongs their career for an extra month or two.

 

[Scofield]

It hurts them alot in the long run because it starts getting mentioned so then it starts getting expected. A great example of this is CM Punk to Stone Cold. Sorry but that is a idiotic comparison. Really any comparison UNLESS the wrestler is a 2nd/3rd Generation wrestler is idotic...but even with that being said look at Harry Smith to his dad Davey Boy Smith, yes they look the same but both are completely two different individuals.

Going back to the Punk/Austin comparison. The more it gets mentioned the more we expect for Punk to have the threshold on the business that Austin once had during the 90's, well fact is no matter how much of a sucess or not a sucess he becomes at Main Event level...we are in completely different times now!

 

[Monkey_Mania]

I agree whole heartedly and hate when someone compares someone to another wrestler. The sad part is Im guilty of it too. It's an unnecessary yet all too common bitch that we like to fuck or something metaphorical like that. It really is unfair because we should just let the wrestler be who they are meant to be and not somebody that already happened.