Chris Jericho vs. Matt Hardy

[goodhelmet]

Dylan, Bill Thompson and others made a case for him in the GWE forum and Dylan brought up Jericho. I am going to make a case for Jericho this week but wanted to get the ball rolling. Anyway...

 

Y2J or V1?

[Grimmas]

This is tough, because they both have gone from guys I enjoy to guys I haven't at points in their career.

 

Early on you had juniors Jericho versus tag team Hardy. That's a tough call.

Then you had heel versions of themselves, another tough call.

Then you had lame versions holding on, which I don't give a shit about either.

Then the re-invented themselves which was awesome.

 

Jericho had more opportunities, so he had more better matches. However, for their performances I can be swayed either way. The edge slightly leaning towards Hardy, because he never seemed to do as many stupid things in the ring as Jericho did.

[BillThompson]

10 years ago as much as I loved Hardy I would have given Jericho the edge. Now, I go with Hardy and don't even question the decision. Jericho is a case of diminishing returns, and of past glories not holding up. It's been depressing working through old WCW/WWF/WWE and realizing how very little of Jericho's run holds up. Conversely Hardy is someone who I find I appreciate much more because of how he was successfully able to change himself as a performer. He's had his run as a spot guy, as a base guy, as the Morton style babyface, as the prick heel, the aging veteran, etc. and he's performed all those roles greatly at different points in his careers.

 

Grimmas is right that Jericho may end up with more great matches as a result of his position on the card. But, I think Hardy easily has more great and versatile performances, and the thing is that Hardy is still a top level guy whereas Jericho has completely fallen off a cliff.

[Matt D]

I don't have the evidence to back this up right now, but Jericho seems like a poster boy for not knowing his limitations to the detriment of matches, and if not a poster boy for this, then someone who often times "doesn't get it." The hissy fit over people criticizing his RVD match comes to mind.

 

Hardy on the other hand feels a bit more like "one of the best tv workers of the 00s," someone whose delusions actually make him better.

 

I'm not really seeing this comparison.

[Exposer]

Matt Hardy is better than Chris Jericho. I've only scratched the surface, but I'm inclined to believe there are at least several Hardy Boyz TV tags from 99-02 and 06-08 that are fun to great. I know I've seen a few really fun Radical tags from late 00-early 01. That's just bringing up the matches people wouldn't think about. When talking about matches of Jericho's that are scattered on TV over the years, he has fun to great ones as well. Hardy has been more consistent than Jericho though in these matches. Even if it's just been in the last five years, Jericho on off nights is pretty bad. He's terribly sloppy and has a tendency to run through spots that don't look any good. I've seen bad Matt Hardy performances too. They are similar to Jericho in sloppiness, but he has much fewer of them. When adding in other random TV matches like Matt-Punk or Matt-Drew Mac vs Jericho-Bourne or Jericho-Morrison I'd have to pick Matt. These examples of course are on a small scale, but I think they're very important.

 

When you look at the big scale I'm a huge fan of the Hardyz-MNM feud, the Matt-Edge feud, Matt Hardy's TV work from 06-08, his ECW Title run, the Drew Mac feud, and his indie performances in the last year. I love the Jericho-Michaels and Jericho-Rock feuds, but there's no other series of matches from Jericho that really stand out. The Benoit and Eddie matches are good to great, but I don't think I like them more than say the Matt-Edge or Hardyz-MNM feud. I definitely don't like them more than Matt's TV run on SD and ECW from 06-08. Matt was pretty bad in TNA for awhile, but Jericho's been bad in WWE for almost five years. I'm comfortable calling Matt Hardy a better wrestler than Chris Jericho.

[goc]

In ring I think Matt Hardy is better. Including promos & character work I think Jericho has him beat as an overall performer.

[Dylan Waco]

I agree with almost everything Exposer said.

[goodhelmet]

It would seem you like 2 are cut from the same cloth.

[Parties]

I picked Hardy, but Jericho's neither fish nor fowl. His feud with Rey in '09 was very good. I just saw him have a house show match with Orton in MSG that was far better than you'd expect. Dude is enough of a veteran to mentally know what to do, while his body fails him every time. His layout of a match can be smart. Problem is partially that WWE doesn't want their guys playing to the crowd in taped matches, and partially that Jericho was never as good an athlete as he was gimmicked, and has had at least one glaring, clumsy botch in all of his matches for years. Hardy has several good-to-great runs. Jericho was the better talker, but I'm not sure I ever liked him as much as I liked Matt Hardy V1, or the Hardy who was the de facto Smackdown TV champ.

[Loss]

I remember Dylan saying once that Jericho is either the worst great wrestler ever or the best bad wrestler ever. That seems like an apt description. He got over pretty strong and he has definitely had some great matches and performances, but he is also pretty overrated in retrospect. Jericho was my favorite wrestler a long time ago -- I think because he had the most charisma of anyone in the WCW undercard and it was also easy to rally behind someone who seemed to be a victim of politics in the WWF -- but he never really realized his potential, be it as a worker or as a star.

 

I actually think Jericho is a smarter worker than Hardy (you'll never hear Jericho say something as mind-numbingly stupid in a promo as Matt saying as a babyface that he wished Edge would die in a car accident), but the execution of his ideas is often missing something. By contrast, I don't really think Matt Hardy is this great worker or anything. He's consistently good, though, which is probably enough to place him ahead of Jericho, as odd as that sounds in my head. I think about the Edge feud from 2005 producing two really unique, high-quality matches on pay-per-view, and I'd compare those to almost any of Jericho's matches.

[dedhemingway]

This is an interesting one for me. For one thing, Chris Jericho is absolutely my brother's favorite wrestler ever, although that has a lot more to do with getting him into wrestling than anything else.

 

For me, however, Jericho is one of the most overhyped wrestlers ever. Now, don't get me wrong, he's good, but there's something about him that makes him fall short of the place that most of his fans put him on. I do think that my perception of Jericho would be better if he had stayed away after his brilliant 'Best in the world at what I do' run, as the HBK stuff, and JeriShow was some really great work. Since then, however, he's been a case of exponentially diminishing returns.

 

As for Matt Hardy, I'd have to say he's pretty much always been my favorite Hardy. Obviously, his tag work is top notch, although probably helped by coming around at a time where the car crash style was just breaking out on a big stage. I think he proved that he could actually 'wrestle', for lack of a better way to put it, instead of just throwing his body off of stuff. I loved the V1 stuff, the 'Matt Facts', and his feud with Edge, thanks to the edge of reality, was great as well. I even liked his angle with MVP.

 

I think, at the end of the day, overall, I'd go with Matt Hardy. I'd rather see Hardy wrestle than Jericho wrestle, though I'd probably rather see Jericho, at his best, cut promos than see Hardy cut promos.

 

It's a close decision, but, yeah, Matt Hardy.

[C.S.]

It's a case of diminishing returns with Jericho because they haven't put him in a position to matter. Some of that may be Jericho's fault if he's getting to choose his own feuds - such as with the massively overrated Bray Wyatt. But I know he didn't choose to put himself in the position of facing - and losing - to a fad wrestler like Fandango (who would be much better if he could let loose and be Johnny Curtis again).

 

Is Jericho slightly overrated? Maybe. But I don't know who is actually considering him a top-top guy. He's right underneath that designation.

 

Hardy is still a top level guy whereas Jericho has completely fallen off a cliff.

 

Can you really be a "top level guy" in current-day ROH though?

 

I do agree that Hardy should've had more opportunities on the big stage, but for whatever reason, he didn't.

 

You can argue "what if" and "coulda, shoulda, woulda," but Jericho was put into the position to matter and Matt Hardy wasn't. Based on the facts (you know, what actually happened), I have to go with Jericho.

[Jimmy Redman]

What does their card position or how much they "matter" have to do with who is better?

[C.S.]

What does their card position or how much they "matter" have to do with who is better?

 

Are you really asking this? Come on now!

 

The answer is EVERYTHING! People on the bottom of the card don't get the same chances to showcase their skills.

 

You know that.

 

There's a tendency around here to make the false argument that the way a wrestler is booked doesn't matter, when the reality of it is, it absolutely matters and has a major effect on every aspect of someone's career and ring-work.

[Jimmy Redman]

I'm not saying it's irrelevant per se, but in this specific case I'm not sure why it matters. Matt isn't some jobber who worked five minute squashes his whole career and never got a chance to show his skills. He was a multi time title holder in WWE and had featured roles on TV for over a decade, having countless long matches, storylines, promo time, etc., in both a tag and singles setting. I don't think a lack of opportunity really prevents us from getting a good look at Matt Hardy the worker. Nor do I think he was that much less featured than Jericho on any metric other than World Title runs, and I guess promo time.

[BillThompson]

 

What does their card position or how much they "matter" have to do with who is better?

 

Are you really asking this? Come on now!

 

The answer is EVERYTHING! People on the bottom of the card don't get the same chances to showcase their skills.

 

You know that.

 

There's a tendency around here to make the false argument that the way a wrestler is booked doesn't matter, when the reality of it is, it absolutely matters and has a major effect on every aspect of someone's career and ring-work.

 

 

Card placement doesn't really matter. It means that the person higher up on the card will probably get more air time and more chances at longer matches. However, that in no way means that someone like Matt Hardy isn't better in his role of ten-15 minute matches compared to Jericho's 15-20 minute matches. Also, in this case arguing that Jericho is better because he was more over doesn't really hold water. We're not talking about drawing power, we're talking about their skill in the ring as workers. In that regard I think Hardy is definitely better, and the longer they both wrestler the wider the gap becomes.

[C.S.]

Card placement doesn't really matter. It means that the person higher up on the card will probably get more air time and more chances at longer matches. However, that in no way means that someone like Matt Hardy isn't better in his role of ten-15 minute matches compared to Jericho's 15-20 minute matches. Also, in this case arguing that Jericho is better because he was more over doesn't really hold water. We're not talking about drawing power, we're talking about their skill in the ring as workers. In that regard I think Hardy is definitely better, and the longer they both wrestler the wider the gap becomes.

 

But why should drawing power be disqualified? Wrestling doesn't work in the kind of workrate-only vacuum that so many people online wish it to. If someone is less over, that should and does matter. Of course, in Matt's cake, if he hadn't been cut at the knees during his great heel Matt Hardy Version 2 heel run, terrible Edge feud where he was made to look like a chump, etc., he might have gotten more over. That goes back to my earlier point about booking. Jericho has lost luster recently because he's been booked abysmally and Hardy lost luster a decade ago because he was never booked past a certain point. It all matters.

[Dylan Waco]

We aren't discussing drawing power in this thread. We are discussing in ring work. If you are arguing that it is impossible to separate the two I don't agree, but that is fine as long as you are consistent in applying it.

[C.S.]

We aren't discussing drawing power in this thread. We are discussing in ring work. If you are arguing that it is impossible to separate the two I don't agree, but that is fine as long as you are consistent in applying it.

 

The only thing the OP says is "Who is better?" There's nothing indicating that the thread is about ring work only. To be fair though, I didn't read the GWE thread this sprang from, so it's possible I'm missing part of the larger context that everyone else apparently came into this thread with. Better drawing power alone doesn't make someone a better wrestler - of course not. I'm not saying that at all. My argument is that better booking can make someone a better draw, which can then give them opportunities to be in better matches where they're able to showcase more. (Note that I'm using the word can, not will.) All three tie together. I don't believe in the concept of looking at one aspect of wrestling in a vacuum (in-ring, in this case), because you can't draw accurate conclusions about a wrestler's overall abilities (or lack thereof) that way. Just my opinion, of course.

[goc]

 

We aren't discussing drawing power in this thread. We are discussing in ring work. If you are arguing that it is impossible to separate the two I don't agree, but that is fine as long as you are consistent in applying it.

 

The only thing the OP says is "Who is better?"

It is true that the question is fairly open ended and not well defined. It's why I posted that I thought Matt was better strictly from an in ring standpoint but Jericho was better as an overall performer.

[goodhelmet]

The reason it was left open-ended is because not everyone is going to have the same criteria when it comes to voting in the GWE poll. I didn't want to limit this discussion to my own personal criteria when I know other people are factoring in promo ability and other stuff into their voting.

[BillThompson]

 

Card placement doesn't really matter. It means that the person higher up on the card will probably get more air time and more chances at longer matches. However, that in no way means that someone like Matt Hardy isn't better in his role of ten-15 minute matches compared to Jericho's 15-20 minute matches. Also, in this case arguing that Jericho is better because he was more over doesn't really hold water. We're not talking about drawing power, we're talking about their skill in the ring as workers. In that regard I think Hardy is definitely better, and the longer they both wrestler the wider the gap becomes.

 

But why should drawing power be disqualified? Wrestling doesn't work in the kind of workrate-only vacuum that so many people online wish it to. If someone is less over, that should and does matter. Of course, in Matt's cake, if he hadn't been cut at the knees during his great heel Matt Hardy Version 2 heel run, terrible Edge feud where he was made to look like a chump, etc., he might have gotten more over. That goes back to my earlier point about booking. Jericho has lost luster recently because he's been booked abysmally and Hardy lost luster a decade ago because he was never booked past a certain point. It all matters.

 

 

I am consistent in not placing any value on drawing power. It matters to business men and to the wrestlers in terms of how much money they make. But to me, the consumer, drawing power doesn't matter nor do I feel it should matter. The art form is all that matters to me,

[Sidebottom]

Not much of a debate to be had here for me. Even the most ardent Jericho hater is going to find it hard to put forth an argument that Matt Hardy is better (in any regard) than Jericho which I could entertain.

[Bierschwale]

In any regard? I'd certainly call Hardy the better babyface without hesitation.

[Jimmy Redman]

Better tag team wrestler seems kind of obvious too.