Jump to content

WWE Releases Discussion


Bushy.
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

Morrison is the Janetty of Miz & Morrison

No way lol

He's had a lesser career.

 

 

Lesser, WWE career? Definitely. Lesser career in general? That's debatable. Marty Janetty certainly never did as well as Morrison is doing beyond WWE. I'm pretty sure Morrison makes just as good money as he was and he's involved in the best wrestling project going right now. Miz is still doing great stuff as a heel, and to be honest, Johnny Mundo is not one of my favorite characters. But the fact he's a part of LU at all is proof he's doing great things. He's getting booked all over the place and he has been doing some small, indie films. They seem equally successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think it's debatable at all, honestly. Miz has definitely had the better career. By a landslide, tbh.

 

And I am not even a Miz fan.

 

Until Morrison did Lucha Underground, he was basically doing jack shit all...and as good as his time in Lucha has been, it's still only been two and a half seasons or whatever. Meanwhile, Miz has been winning championships year round and performing with the biggest names in the industry. Like him or not...Miz is a much bigger star and much bigger success than Morrison. Morrison is certainly nowhere near Jannetty levels of irrelevancy. He's still quite relevant in the world of professional wrestling. But there is really no argument that could possibly be made against Miz having a much better career and being a much bigger star. He just is.

 

I think comparing the two to Edge and Christian might be more fitting than HBK and Jannetty, though. Like I said...Jannetty is kind of the poster boy for irrelevancy. Morrison is more like Christian. He's still very good...but his career is miles behind Miz (who would be Edge in this scenario).

Edited by Generations
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Miz has main evented Wrestlemania.

That's huuuuge. Can't easily be topped with things outside the WWE (besides headlining the Tokyo Dome, Triplemania, etc.)

 

Saying one guy is the Janetty of a tag-team, doesn't mean that their entire career was on a Janetty level. It just means that they had the less successfull singles-career of a former tag-team.

Edited by Vinsmoker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Saying one guy is the Janetty of a tag-team, doesn't mean that their entire career was on a Janetty level. It just means that they had the less successfull singles-career of a former tag-team.

 

That may be how it's intended, but it's too much of an extreme if taken at face value.

 

The Edge and Christian comparison is much more fitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People really do forget that Mizs Mania main event was widely regarded as one of the worst main events ever. Not exactly something a wrestler should really be proud of imo and thats not just because its Miz id say that about anyone.

 

But i digress dont wanna derail this.

Edited by Willows Way
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People really do forget that Mizs Mania main event was widely regarded as one of the worst main events ever. Not exactly something a wrestler should really be proud of imo and thats not just because its Miz id say that about anyone.

 

But i digress dont wanna derail this.

Still counts buddy...but yeah it was awful. Cena VS Miz was a regular RAW match.

 

His video package was awesome though.

Edited by Slashaholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People really do forget that Mizs Mania main event was widely regarded as one of the worst main events ever. Not exactly something a wrestler should really be proud of imo and thats not just because its Miz id say that about anyone.

 

But i digress dont wanna derail this.

 

Not forgetting...but it doesn't matter, honestly. The accomplishment itself is what matters. If Miz keeps working like he currently is, we probably will get to the point where we forget how bad some of his career has been. And that is the true mark of a top star, honestly. Because, every wrestler on the planet has terrible matches in their early careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People really do forget that Mizs Mania main event was widely regarded as one of the worst main events ever. Not exactly something a wrestler should really be proud of imo and thats not just because its Miz id say that about anyone.

 

But i digress dont wanna derail this.

Isn't Triple H widely known for being the common denominator in some of the worst/most boring WM main events ever, though?

 

WM 18, WM 25, WM 32. All just awful.

 

21 gets a pass cause of BIG DAVE and the fact that at least it launched WWE's other top guy into superstardom like planned. Their re-match in the Hell in the Cell was fantastic, however.

Edited by Omēga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think it's debatable at all, honestly. Miz has definitely had the better career. By a landslide, tbh.

 

And I am not even a Miz fan.

 

Until Morrison did Lucha Underground, he was basically doing jack shit all...and as good as his time in Lucha has been, it's still only been two and a half seasons or whatever. Meanwhile, Miz has been winning championships year round and performing with the biggest names in the industry. Like him or not...Miz is a much bigger star and much bigger success than Morrison. Morrison is certainly nowhere near Jannetty levels of irrelevancy. He's still quite relevant in the world of professional wrestling. But there is really no argument that could possibly be made against Miz having a much better career and being a much bigger star. He just is.

 

I think comparing the two to Edge and Christian might be more fitting than HBK and Jannetty, though. Like I said...Jannetty is kind of the poster boy for irrelevancy. Morrison is more like Christian. He's still very good...but his career is miles behind Miz (who would be Edge in this scenario).

 

Wrestling for promotions like DGUSA, WWC, PCW, and WXW is "doing jack shit all"? I know he wasn't on pay-per-view or anything, but it's not like he wasn't keeping busy between WWE and LU. He frequently wrestled for little east coast indies and even a few larger companies around the world. He had some decent matches too.

 

Are we talking about real careers or fictional wrestling careers? I don't understand how Miz being booked to win fake wrestling belts and working with actual big stars means that Morrison has "the lesser career". Morrison is working with legends like Rey Mysterio and Dr. Wagner Jr but that has little to do with his real life success. I don't even know if I'd agree that Miz is the bigger "star". He's more recognizable, but if fans had the choice of paying to see Miz or Morrison, would he really draw more? I don't think so. I don't think fans are lining up to see Miz, or Morrison for that matter. Miz is just fortunate to be in the premier promotion while LU is more of a niche product. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's getting paid less or has fewer perks. I wouldn't say that The Usos are bigger stars than the Young Bucks by virtue of where they work, and we don't really know what these guys' lives are like behind the scenes. I don't think it's fair to say that Morrison has a worse career unless you can show me how much money these guys make and how happy they are. There's nothing that we fans can look at to judge something like that.

 

Based on what I can see, Miz only has a better career in WWE kayfabe.

I also think Johnny Mundo's resumé has more quality matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being booked to win "fake wrestling belts" actually means something. Let's not act like winning a title is worthless Crowley. Fake or not, most wrestlers dream of winning the big one.

 

It's not worthless in kayfabe. In real life it's a good indicator that your career is going well, but it still doesn't mean a whole lot. For example, I don't think that Great Khali necessarily had a better career than Jamie Noble just because he was WHC once while most of Noble's matches were in the undercard. Noble was more talented and more experienced. If I was a promoter, Jamie Noble's resume would look more impressive to me.

 

Besides, Jamie Noble was ROH World Champion, which brings me to my next point; who decides what "the big one" is? Most wrestlers dream of winning the WWE championship because there's a good chance that means they've reached the top level and are making more money. It doesn't matter what the title is called, who held it, or what it looks like. And the money/success isn't even a guarantee. Because wrestling is totally scripted and wacky, their booking philosophies could change and they might decide to put the strap on a guy who gets paid peanuts while someone in a random midcard match is making millions. Titles don't always mean success. John Cena gets paid a lot more than Kevin Owens. Kevin Owens wouldn't hesitate to throw that ugly belt right in the trash if it meant he could be on The Rock's level.

 

You can't really compare the value of fake wrestling belts. The WWE Universal Championship is not more coveted than the Inter Species Championship. WWE may not even exist in ISW's fictional universe. Being a top player in WWE obviously means you're more successful, but simply being a champion there doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

People really do forget that Mizs Mania main event was widely regarded as one of the worst main events ever. Not exactly something a wrestler should really be proud of imo and thats not just because its Miz id say that about anyone.

 

But i digress dont wanna derail this.

Isn't Triple H widely known for being the common denominator in some of the worst/most boring WM main events ever, though?

 

WM 18, WM 25, WM 32. All just awful.

 

21 gets a pass cause of BIG DAVE and the fact that at least it launched WWE's other top guy into superstardom like planned. Their re-match in the Hell in the Cell was fantastic, however.

This is true but even Orton vs Triple H was better than Miz/Cena. At least someone actually got cleanly pinned in that match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Being booked to win "fake wrestling belts" actually means something. Let's not act like winning a title is worthless Crowley. Fake or not, most wrestlers dream of winning the big one.

It's not worthless in kayfabe. In real life it's a good indicator that your career is going well, but it still doesn't mean a whole lot. For example, I don't think that Great Khali necessarily had a better career than Jamie Noble just because he was WHC once while most of Noble's matches were in the undercard. Noble was more talented and more experienced. If I was a promoter, Jamie Noble's resume would look more impressive to me.

 

Besides, Jamie Noble was ROH World Champion, which brings me to my next point; who decides what "the big one" is? Most wrestlers dream of winning the WWE championship because there's a good chance that means they've reached the top level and are making more money. It doesn't matter what the title is called, who held it, or what it looks like. And the money/success isn't even a guarantee. Because wrestling is totally scripted and wacky, their booking philosophies could change and they might decide to put the strap on a guy who gets paid peanuts while someone in a random midcard match is making millions. Titles don't always mean success. John Cena gets paid a lot more than Kevin Owens. Kevin Owens wouldn't hesitate to throw that ugly belt right in the trash if it meant he could be on The Rock's level.

 

You can't really compare the value of fake wrestling belts. The WWE Universal Championship is not more coveted than the Inter Species Championship. WWE may not even exist in ISW's fictional universe. Being a top player in WWE obviously means you're more successful, but simply being a champion there doesn't.

All I am saying is that the title still means something in real life. You think Eddie faked his tears when he won the big one in WWE? Or AA when they won the tag titles...

 

It's far from worthless. Winning a fake title is something they've dreamed of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I am saying is that the title still means something in real life. You think Eddie faked his tears when he won the big one in WWE? Or AA when they won the tag titles...

It's far from worthless. Winning a fake title is something they've dreamed of.

 

 

When Eddie beat Brock? I don't think he cried. If I remember correctly, he was actually laughing. Of course that made more sense for his character, who had just lied, cheated, and stolen his way to the title. God, I miss Eddie Guerrero. His stuff was never too cliche.

 

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. He did cry when he got in the ring to celebrate with Benoit at the end of WMXX. The point is that he wasn't crying because they won some pretend wrestling belts. They cried because the two of them had traveled the world together for years honing their skills, and at that point the reality was setting in that they made it to the highest level in the business (at that time, there were no John Cenas and Brock was on his way out). Lets say everything was the same, but there were no titles involved. You think it wouldn't have been emotional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

All I am saying is that the title still means something in real life. You think Eddie faked his tears when he won the big one in WWE? Or AA when they won the tag titles...

It's far from worthless. Winning a fake title is something they've dreamed of.

 

When Eddie beat Brock? I don't think he cried. If I remember correctly, he was actually laughing. Of course that made more sense for his character, who had just lied, cheated, and stolen his way to the title. God, I miss Eddie Guerrero. His stuff was never too cliche.

 

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. He did cry when he got in the ring to celebrate with Benoit at the end of WMXX. The point is that he wasn't crying because they won some pretend wrestling belts. They cried because the two of them had traveled the world together for years honing their skills, and at that point the reality was setting in that they made it to the highest level in the business (at that time, there were no John Cenas and Brock was on his way out). Lets say everything was the same, but there were no titles involved. You think it wouldn't have been emotional?

He cried. Dude I can't believe you're arguing this. It's an honour for any wrestler to be considered good enough to be the world champion of a company.

 

A lot of wrestlers mention in real interviews how winning it was their dream as a kid. Holding that title actually means something to somebody in this profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People missing the significance of winning a professional wrestling championship, or competing in the main event of Wrestlemania really bothers me. - It might not be an "achievement" in the sense that they actually "won" a championship through competing. But, it's an award in the sense that any other award is. It's the culmination of a lifetime of work. Pro wrestling isn't a "fake" sport with "fake" awards...Pro wrestling is pro wrestling...and being awarded championships, or performing at Wrestlemania, means that you're the best in the industry. Of course that's an honor. That's a humbling honor that legitimately makes grown men and women cry. It means that they're the best in their line of work.

Edited by Generations
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He cried. Dude I can't believe you're arguing this. It's an honour for any wrestler to be considered good enough to be the world champion of a company.

A lot of wrestlers mention in real interviews how winning it was their dream as a kid. Holding that title actually means something to somebody in this profession.

 

 

Nah, being a main event guy, being famous, being richer, that's what matters. Like I said, in most companies, being "world champion" is a good indicator that you're on the right track but it's not a necessity. Daniel Bryan was "world champion" at WrestleMania 28 and it didn't mean jack shit. It was just a mcguffin for him and Sheamus to fight over. Roddy Piper was never WWF heavyweight champion but he's considered one of the all time greats for a reason.

 

It's not like wrestlers don't care about the titles in real life. They're fans just like we are. It's just that being champion isn't a real life accomplishment. Having a successful career is. And of course they're going to talk about how special the belts are. Like I said, they're fans, and it's important for them to protect their company's image. That's a big part of their job, even in "real interviews". Acting like a title win isn't special would be disrespectful to your coworkers and would turn fans off to the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nah, being a main event guy, being famous, being richer, that's what matters. Like I said, in most companies, being "world champion" is a good indicator that you're on the right track but it's not a necessity. Daniel Bryan was "world champion" at WrestleMania 28 and it didn't mean jack shit. It was just a mcguffin for him and Sheamus to fight over. Roddy Piper was never WWF heavyweight champion but he's considered one of the all time greats for a reason.

 

 

I'll bet it meant the *censored*ing world to him. And if Bryan's career had concluded without him being world champion in WWE, he would definitely be in a lesser category as far as where he sits on the list of greatest wrestlers. It definitely means way more than you're giving it credit for. Dude is a 3 time WWE champion and a one time WHC. It definitely puts him a whole notch above where he would be remembered otherwise.

 

Being remembered for talent is great. Making the argument that the skilled wrestlers are remembered without winning championships is great. But it really isn't the point at all. The point is, being a great wrestler and winning championships is still better.

Edited by Generations
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, though the belts do mean something, WWE still tends to treat it more like props than anything. Didn't Punk lose the WHC because WWE wanted to use the title as part of the feud between Jericho and HBK? And despite being a WWE champion, Cena was still main eventing over Punk, even against Laurinaitis! I mean, winning the big title doesn't make you the top dog unless or until you beat Cena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are situations where the belts have been used in questionable ways...

 

But that doesn't change what winning a WWE championship means. It means that the company you work for views you as a valuable asset. It's like an employee of the month award. It's still humbling for these guys who have made this their lifelong career.

Edited by Generations
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't necessarily mean the WWE views the person as a valuable asset, it's all about the booking as well. I'd definitely cease to be happy if I wasn't main eventing as a champion or lost a lot of important non-title matches cleanly. Weird how WWE went from putting the belt on people they saw as important and valuable to putting it on people they see are placeholders or somewhat valuable, for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Nah, being a main event guy, being famous, being richer, that's what matters. Like I said, in most companies, being "world champion" is a good indicator that you're on the right track but it's not a necessity. Daniel Bryan was "world champion" at WrestleMania 28 and it didn't mean jack shit. It was just a mcguffin for him and Sheamus to fight over. Roddy Piper was never WWF heavyweight champion but he's considered one of the all time greats for a reason.

 

 

I'll bet it meant the *censored*ing world to him. And if Bryan's career had concluded without him being world champion in WWE, he would definitely be in a lesser category as far as where he sits on the list of greatest wrestlers. It definitely means way more than you're giving it credit for. Dude is a 3 time WWE champion and a one time WHC. It definitely puts him a whole notch above where he would be remembered otherwise. Being remembered for talent is great. Making the argument that the skilled wrestlers are remembered without winning championships is great. But it really isn't the point at all. The point is, being a great wrestler and winning championships is still better.

 

 

I know what you're getting at, but I think Bryan is a terrible example. Bryan was a legend, at least to true wrestling fans before he even stepped in a WWE ring. He would have been considered one of the all time greats to wrestling fans either way. Casual WWE fans? Maybe not. But wrestling fans? Hell yeah. He had already won Wrestling Observer's most outstanding wrestler award like five years in a row. That's unprecedented. And I probably shouldn't bother bringing it up because I can't go digging for the source right now, but I've actually heard Bryan say in interviews that he wasn't a huge fan of the WWE product and the main reason he went there to begin with was money. Supposedly he did love it but still didn't have quite the same passion for it. I also know that when discussing WrestleMania 28, he speaks highly of that moment but puts little to no emphasis on the title. It was special because of the reaction from the audience. The fans being fed up with the way he was booked and the title not being seen as important played a big role in propelling him to the next level.

 

Being a great wrestler and having a great career is more important than championships. There are guys who have had a lot of titles reigns but in the big scheme of things it doesn't mean much if you're abused by the business, have personal problems, or end up being forgotten by the fans. If you have a good career, then you aren't facing those issues.

There are situations where the belts have been used in questionable ways...

 

But that doesn't change what winning a WWE championship means. It means that the company you work for views you as a valuable asset. It's like an employee of the month award. It's still humbling for these guys who have made this their lifelong career.

 

That's actually a good way to put it. Would you rather get an employee of the month award or be the highest paid guy in your company? Titles are neat but they mean very little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...