Chris Jericho vs. Matt Hardy

[Matt D]

Better execution?

[The Man in Blak]

My first instinct was to vote Jericho for this, even though I do think Hardy's "Mattitude"-era stuff is underrated from a standpoint of overall performance. I haven't seen much of Hardy's post-Edge career, though. (And I added a request for recommendations to Hardy's GWE thread, just in case other folks have a similar gap in exposure.)

 

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

 

"Hilarious undercard heel" Jericho in WCW is one of my favorite undercard characters ever, but he is cringeworthy as a conventional babyface. His work against Wyatt last year was dreadful.

[Matt D]

Sometimes if I read too much commentary from an author about his work or just in general, I can hear his too personal voice too clearly in his fiction.

 

I have that problem with Jericho's matches, more so than any other wrestler I can think of.

[Bierschwale]

I'd also say that Matt has Jericho beat for gimmick match work.

[goc]

I'd also say that Matt has Jericho beat for gimmick match work.

He had at least one, I think it was two, really good hardcore matches with Drew McIntyre that seem to have been completely forgotten since that was during the "LOL Fatt Hardy" period where he was posting a lot of dumb shit online.

[The Chief]

 

 

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.

Sorry but I don't agree with this it all. Subscribing to this logic closes the door on any type of scrutiny or debate. If you weigh card position that heavily, then Sid is better than Arn Anderson. Goldberg is better than William Regal. HHH is the greatest of all time. And so on.

[C.S.]

Sorry but I don't agree with this it all. Subscribing to this logic closes the door on any type of scrutiny or debate. If you weigh card position that heavily, then Sid is better than Arn Anderson. Goldberg is better than William Regal. HHH is the greatest of all time. And so on.

 

Not at all what I said! You've so badly misconstrued what I actually did say that I'm not sure how to respond to you.

 

Perhaps you missed my follow-up? I've added emphasis to certain points in the quote below:

 

 

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.

 

Nowhere in any of my posts did I even hint that I thought that Sid was better than Arn or whatever ridiculous examples you trotted out.

[Jimmy Redman]

The thing is though, when you said in your original post:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

You make it sound as though you chose Jericho based on the "facts" that he had more opportunities and "mattered" more, and therefore must necessarily be better. Maybe it's just crossed wires, but that's how you came across.

[The Chief]

 

 

 

 

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.

Agreeing with Bill here, but I wanted to add something. The main event usually isn't the longest or best match on the card. And that goes for all promotions. You get plenty of opportunities to have good matches in the midcard. And long matches. I understand how card placement can sway opinion, but using it as an argument ender, well...

[The Chief]

 

 

I'd also say that Matt has Jericho beat for gimmick match work.

He had at least one, I think it was two, really good hardcore matches with Drew McIntyre that seem to have been completely forgotten since that was during the "LOL Fatt Hardy" period where he was posting a lot of dumb shit online.

His last televised match with Del Rio was good too. Hardy is pretty much the epitome of a "good" wrestler.

[Matt D]

The problem is Jericho is a "not nearly as good as I wish he was" wrestler.

[C.S.]

The thing is though, when you said in your original post:

 

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.

 

You make it sound as though you chose Jericho based on the "facts" that he had more opportunities and "mattered" more, and therefore must necessarily be better. Maybe it's just crossed wires, but that's how you came across.

 

But those are the facts, pretty much. You cannot seriously argue that Hardy got as many opportunities as Jericho or mattered nearly as much. Not even close. Look, I was pulling for Hardy to get a main event push too during his VI/Matt Facts phase, but it never happened. The Hardy-Edge feud was also heartbreaking because they were clearly favoring Edge - though Hardy didn't help himself by doing that "I hope you die" promo (or however it was worded) and acting legitimately unhinged for months between his firing and re-hiring.

 

Is Jericho better only because he got a main event push and Hardy didn't. No. But the fact is, Jericho was put into a position to have better, more meaningful matches - and he did. If this thread was about Sid, as one poster laughably claimed my point was (nope), we'd be having a much different conversation, obviously.

 

Could Hardy have excelled more than Jericho did if put into the same position? My opinion is no, but as I said, I don't want to argue "what if" and "coulda, shoulda, woulda" because it never happened and we have no way to truly tell 100%. My educated guess, though, is that if all of the factors were the same, Jericho would still come out ahead.

 

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.

Agreeing with Bill here, but I wanted to add something. The main event usually isn't the longest or best match on the card. And that goes for all promotions. You get plenty of opportunities to have good matches in the midcard. And long matches. I understand how card placement can sway opinion, but using it as an argument ender, well...

 

Okay, again, nowhere in the OP does it say we're only talking about ring work. I have no problem with someone who - as one person put it - cares only about "the art." That's fine. I can understand and respect that. I have an entirely different view of wrestling though. I look at the whole package and the big picture, how all of the elements come together to create a wrestler. Yes, that includes "outside" factors like mic work, positioning, character (Jericho was very versatile in this regard, and Hardy's no slouch himself), etc.

 

But if we are limiting this to ring work and nothing else, I think Jericho still comes out ahead.

 

Of course, the main event isn't always the best match on the show, as Bill pointed out. But I think that more applies to older wrestlers or Hogan, Warrior, and Sid types. When we're talking about two faster, more athletic wrestlers like Jericho and Hardy who didn't get ahead because they were 300-pound freaks of nature, I do think it's more than fair to point out that getting opportunities to showcase your skills in longer, more meaningful main event matches would absolutely have an impact on the careers of guys like Hardy, Jericho, Bret, HBK, etc. Just to be clear, I am speaking in general terms... I realize there are always exceptions, so no need to tell me that Al Snow was better in ten minutes than Shawn Michaels was in thirty (or whatever someone might come up with, LOL).

 

Before you think all of this makes me some raving Jericho fanboy, I should point out that I actually agree with the statement below...

 

The problem is Jericho is a "not nearly as good as I wish he was" wrestler.

 

That's true. But remember, Jericho was never "the guy" either. He was the top of the bottom or bottom of the top - however you want to look at it - below Austin, Rock, etc. on the pecking order. I think that's about where he belongs. I can't call him overpushed. He got just the right push IMO. Like you, I wanted him to be even better than he was. In some respects, he's slightly overrated, just based on the insane love he seems to get (or at least used to get) from the general "IWC." With all of that being said, come on, he was still pretty good.

 

Do I hate Hardy? Not at all. I like him a lot, actually. In many ways, he's a classic example of "what could have been." But since we don't know for sure, I have to analyze what actually happened. Jericho is the more complete package (and for you ringwork/art-only types, the better wrestler) IMO.

 

Yeesh, that was a lot of typing. I hope I've made my position clearer, because I think people weren't quite getting what I was trying (and obviously failing before) to say.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Was there ever a worse insult in wrestling than Hardy calling Edge a peice of feces? Who says that?

[C.S.]

Was there ever a worse insult in wrestling than Hardy calling Edge a peice of feces? Who says that?

 

LOL. I could see a ridiculous line like that working for a smarmy heel (ironically, Jericho or the V1 Matt Hardy could've pulled it off, I think), but it's horrible coming from a righteous babyface as Matt Hardy was at the time.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I mean, obviously they couldn't say "peice of shit" but "crap" is right there.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I thought the "Adam Copeland is feces" line was just something Matt wrote on the internet. Did he ever say that in a promo? If so, not good, though I do remember Stone Cold once replying to the Rock's assertion that he was the "super species" by stating that Rock was the "super feces," but he pulled it off.

[goodhelmet]

I am not going to convince anyone who doesn't like Jericho to like him now but these are some time frames that impressed me during his career.

 

1998 WCW Cruiser run - The matches are hit or miss but for the character crowd, this is a huge feather in Jericho's cap. In 1998, he was one of the few segments I actively looked forward to. The Malenko feud was awesome to go through week to week and his TV match I attended live was the highlight on an evening of lowlights. He carries a one man feud against Goldberg and made that entertaining.

 

2000 WWF - He was having good/gerat matches with Angle and Benoit, none of which I plan on revisiting anytime soon. He was one of two faces (the other being the Rock) who could get entertaining segments out of Stephanie McMahon. I don't remember the X-Pac or Kane feuds and need to revisit the HH LSM match. I don't know if my hatred for HHH will allow me to rate the match fairly.

 

2001 WWF - I loved, loved, loved the feud with the Rock and during the Jericho project, it stood the test of time 8 years later. I haven't seen the Regal IC match in a decade so I should probably revisit the match. His tag work with Benoit was praised but I probably won't revisit that stuff. I thought he felt right at home at the top of the card during the title unification stuff and don't remember him botching any moves or embarassing himself on the big stage unlike the Rhyno botches that took place at Summerslam.

 

2002 - The HHH feud was dogshit but that was just as much about the booking as it was the matches. I don't remember the Flair feud. I am pretty down on Flair from this period so somebody can tell me if I should waste my time on this feud.

 

(I honestly don't remember anything from 2003 including the Goldberg feud but people praise the Goldberg match so i should revisit it.)

 

(Ditto 2004)

 

2005 - I really liked the John Cena feud. I thought Jericho did as good of a job as anyone in putting him over and making Cena feel important. His Loser Leaves Town match wasn't a classic but it was a huge memorable moment and I love Jericho going out kicking and screaming.

 

2008 - I know people here are divided on the HBK feud but I am on the side where I thought it was effective and well-worked. I am not going to waste time trying to convince anyone it was a great feud because this is one of those things people have already made their mind up on. I put it in the Jericho plus column.

 

2009 - Man, I thought Jericho vs. the Legends/Steamboat and Jericho vs. Rey were stellar feuds in and out of the ring. One of the few things I cared about in WWE that year. Again, huge feathers in Jericho's cap. I also thought he was effective teaming with Big Show and had the chance to check out 2 PPVs live with the tag team this year.

 

2010 - The Edge feud generated positive press and there was enough momentum for me to add the Mania match to the MOTYC project. I don't know if it holds up now but it was praised at the time and I enjoyed it.

 

2012 - The CM Punk Mania match stood up on revisit when we did the Mania project last year at P2B. Smart work by both guys. This was a great in ring feud hurt by a bad out of the ring feud.

 

 

I understand Matt Hardy had a hot ECW run and V1 run. Cool. He also had a couple of years as a white hot tag team with his brother. Cool. Add his Omega and indy run and you have a couple of more feathers. I don't think it stands up to Jericho's cache of impressive feuds and matches over the years. However, I think Jericho is slowly reaching Angle and HBK territory where people are already predisposed to like or dislike the guy and he'll have that going against him.

[Dylan Waco]

However, I think Jericho is slowly reaching Angle and HBK territory where people are already predisposed to like or dislike the guy and he'll have that going against him.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

To me Jericho is a guy who loses a ton on rewatch. There is no question that he stood out as different among the WCW cruiserweights and even to a degree later in the WWE. In real time I think that helped him. If you are Meltzerian this might be an argument for putting him in a pretty high position on a top 100. But as someone who believes you can evaluate things in the rearview I think there are very few wrestlers who hold up as poorly as Jericho. Those flaws have become more evident and obvious with time.

 

As an aside I thought the feud with Michaels was good as a feud, but the ladder match blowoff was fucking awful, and I don't think any of their matches was better than good

[Matt D]

My guess is that Will thinks that people hold Jericho's personality against him. There's been something of a backlash based off of his last few returns and elements of his podcast, self-consciousness, and towing the company line, which is especially poignant considering that a lot of us really associated ourselves with him in 98-01 or so.

 

Personally, I think reevaluation of the in-ring work shows that Kane had a better 1999 in WWF than he did and the demand, by the WWF, that he learn to work their style from Kane, was not actually egregious in the least. But at the time it was fury-inspiring.

[goodhelmet]

Kane's 1999 sucked. If they had him work Kane to show him WWF style it might have to do with the fact that Kane is a safe worker.... like Lance Storm. All of the wrestlers love working with Kane ("It's like a night off"). It doesn't mean he is actually producing great matches in the ring or was enjoyable to watch.

 

What I meant was that there are certain wrestlers that have been dissected and spit out enough either here or at DVDVR that we don't need to recycle the arguments and I think people formed their opinions already. Kurt Angle, HBK, Mark Henry, Chris Jericho, HHH. HBK and Kurt Angle are going to get a lot of votes on this project. I have no intention of making the Angle vs. HBK poll because it is a tired topic in my view. I thought the Jericho vs. Hardy discussion brought something new to the table so I created a Jericho topic.

 

As far as revisiting... I have no intention on revisiting the Angle or Benoit stuff. No desire or heart to. When i revisited the Rock stuff, still loved it. When I went back and watched the Punk feud, in ring, still loved it. When I made the 1998 yearbook, still loved his cruiser run in 1998. I made notes above of stuff I want to revisit. I don't need to be labeled as a Meltzerian who only lives in the here and now. I may revisit the HBK feud but it is still pretty fresh in my mind I don't know if I need to. Same with the Legends stuff. I am going to revisit the Cena stuff (not just for Jericho's case but for Cena's as well). I think I need to go back and explore the early 2000s stuff more because my view of wrestling has changed drastically since that time. My view since 2008-2009... not so much. I have been pretty consistent on what I think is good for about the last 8 years or so and the more I rewatch matches from those time periods, or watched within that time period, I usually only reinforce what I thought in the first place. Now, pre-2006... a different story.

[C.S.]

My guess is that Will thinks that people hold Jericho's personality against him. There's been something of a backlash based off of his last few returns and elements of his podcast, self-consciousness, and towing the company line, which is especially poignant considering that a lot of us really associated ourselves with him in 98-01 or so.

 

Also, his third book - at times - makes him come across as the most drunken, unlikeable, immature asshole imaginable.

[C.S.]

Because of this thread, I watched the Matt Hardy vs. Edge "Rivalries" show on WWE Network last night. Even with all of the editing and cleaning up to omit Matt's goofier moments, it's amazing how much better and more convincing both Edge and Lita were on the mic during this run. Even though Matt Hardy was angry in real life (justifiably so IMO), almost everything he said still came across like a rehearsed wrestling promo. Whereas, everything that came out Edge and Lita's mouths felt so much more "real." Even so, I still think it's unfair and total bullshit that Edge dominated the feud and eventually forced Matt off of Raw. Yes, this comes back around to Jericho, who was one of the talking heads and sounded like a clueless corporate douchebag once again. He said something along of the lines of Matt being fired "wasn't necessarily fair, but business isn't fair." Gag!

[Johnny Sorrow]

He said something along of the lines of Matt being fired "wasn't necessarily fair, but business isn't fair."

Well, that's true.

[C.S.]

 

He said something along of the lines of Matt being fired "wasn't necessarily fair, but business isn't fair."

Well, that's true.

 

 

Yeah, it's true, but it's the way he said it and the fact that it was coming from him at all when that seems more like a Vince or Triple H line. Maybe it's just the editing, but that's all he said in that bit.

[Chess Knight]

Literally nothing in the ring I think Jericho does better than Hardy. Maybe he's a better heel, I guess, if that counts. Even then I find him overrated there. Guy has a fuckton of charisma and personality and for some reason he really just likes yelling "come on, _wrestler_". Match-wise I'd put Hardy's stuff against Edge, Henry and Finlay pretty much next to anything of Jericho's career. I think I thought the Finlay 6/07 was Hardy's career match - where he put on a terrific "sell the leg" showing - and I'd prob only put the Eddie FB97 and Austin/HHH v. Vanilla Midgets tag over it. Maybe not even the latter. And Hardy was just as good, if not better, than his opponent in those. Best-In-The-US level wrestler; totally serious. I've always thought Eddie made that Jericho match, and I loved Jericho as an apron boy in the tag but still thought it was Austin/Benoit making the match. I think a bunch of Jericho's best stuff is against guys who outperformed him pretty obviously to me (Eddie match in 97, Rock match in 01, Best matches w/Austin). Watched the Bash Rey match in 2013 or something; didn't LOVE it, but did think it was good. Though I also thought Jericho could have been replaced by a handful of people. Hell I'm not positive I'd put it ahead of the best Rey match with Mike Knox. Like, he was fine, and I had to explain to people that I didn't think he sucked because I was talking him down, but this is his "BITW" period for people and I didn't get it.

 

Hardy's a fantastic seller, builds up an offense at the right times, knows when he's getting cut off v. when he's making a full comeback, appropriately injects big spots matches even if they're small, is awesome at flash/hope spots, can work a tag team even with a random partner like Tatanka, can work a brawl...really, just anything he does I think he's pretty super at. He just had a ridiculously great, consistent run from 05-08. Maybe further than 08. The best Hardy/McIntyre (from June 2010) is excellent, for example. Not sure I've ever seen Hardy look actually really bad. Seen Jericho look bad a bunch. That Edge feud especially. Good Lord. Mania match is probably one of my ten least favourite matches ever now. Thought it was just the most awful, dry, irritating, emotionless, terrible wrestling. And they had an angle to play off of with Edge's ankle, but kept running lame backyard shit for the whole match instead. Then Jericho taps the ankle for two seconds at the end and Striker on commentary calls him a genius. I absolutely think Jericho's typically a good worker with a couple creative spots and good timing on 'whoa' stuff like Lionsault > knees > Walls, but he's definitely a guy I've been really disappointed with on re-watching. Re-watching the Michaels feud a few years ago I really liked the GAB match, and thought JD was good, but every other match they had together in 08 I honestly thought just totally sucked. And, again, he was WOTY for a lot of people in '08. I came out of a lot of his late WCW run wishing Juvi/Finlay/Rey/others had a different opponent to face instead. Even stuff that I still think is good I think is just way less good than so many others do. 03 Michaels stuff, WWF Benoit series, Christian in 04, Rock in 01, that Rey match (would need to see the whole feud again but it was never my favourite thing), etc.

 

I don't dislike Jericho ('98 Jericho is one of my favourite characters but I'm a bell-to-bell guy), and I think his career is mostly pretty good, and sometimes I talk him down to this level where people think I honestly hate his guts - where I have to correct them b/c I'm just saying he's massively overrated even if still good. But I can't honestly think of many Jericho showings I'd call really, really, really good. I don't need really, really, really good, but do if I want to stick a person next to Matt Hardy. The gap between the two to me is immediately apparent.

 

 

 

2002 - The HHH feud was dogshit but that was just as much about the booking as it was the matches. I don't remember the Flair feud. I am pretty down on Flair from this period so somebody can tell me if I should waste my time on this feud.

 

Jericho tagged w/Christian against Booker & Goldust for a good bit of 2002. Awesome series of tags. Might actually be my favourite point of Jericho's career, and actually I don't remember thinking he looked really outclassed in any of them.