[Byrntrigan]

The Rockers


vs.

The Hardy Boyz





Please feel free to post youtubes of matches as well as your arguments for or against the team of your choice! Polls will lock approximately in 1 week at midnight.

[Mikey]

I'll put it this way... had the roles been reversed, and the Hardyz were in the late 80's-early 90's and the Rockers were in the Attitude era, Janetty and Michaels would've been even bigger stars, and Matt and Jeff would've been jerking the curtain on Wrestling Challenge, and everyone here knows it.

The Hardyz only SEEM comprable to the Rockers because they have had the advantage of competing in crazier matches thanks to the era. Janetty is totally underrated, and Matt and Jeff can't hold either of their jocks.

[salmonjunkie]

Nah, I'm voting the Hardys on this one.

[The Jewish Cunthead]

I'm with Thai. I love Michaels but Janetty was a big pile of meh to me.

[Lucky]

I do not know what Mike said. I can't deny that neither Hardy can probably hold up to what HBK became but I've seen plenty of Rockers. He wasn't any better than Matt or Jeff back then. He was learning his game and wasn't yet the Heartbreak Kid. And Jannetty almost seems overrated because he's underrated. He was a very good wrestler, but absolutely 100% forgettable to the brilliance that soon followed.

If the Rockers came up when the Hardys do and presuming they don't do the same crazy shit the Hardyz did I don't see how they become bigger stars. I think it more likely that they get laughed at in an Attitude Era and while pure fans appreciate their skill but not to a star level.

But I thought they were actually less talented than London & Kendrick. So what do I know?

[Attitude Adjuster]

Neither were the originators of the genre. The Hardyz are better at jumping off tall things, but the Rockers were the better tag team. Besides, I hate most teams that spell their name with a "Z" instead of an "S".

[Mikey]

Aug 8, 2008 11:58:37 GMT -5 Lucky said:

I do not know what Mike said.

I was at work at 2am... I know I wasn't making a lot of sense.

If the Rockers came up when the Hardys do and presuming they don't do the same crazy shit the Hardyz did I don't see how they become bigger stars. I think it more likely that they get laughed at in an Attitude Era and while pure fans appreciate their skill but not to a star level.

Well, you're getting close there. Working under the assumption that it was the booking and evolution of the business that led to TLC matches and table matches and all that... if it were a young Michaels and Janetty filling that role - rather than the Hardys - along with the Duds and E&C, the Rockers would've been HUGE stars, bigger than they were when they came up in the 80's.

On the contrary, I'm saying that if the Hardys came up in the 80's-90's Rockers era, in an era of far fewer highspots, they would've been glorified jobbers. I truly believe that. It's all hypothetical, I know, but do any of you really see Matt and Jeff getting over in that era? As opposed to the Rockers who I can see being over in ANY era.

And I really have no dog in this fight, cause I was never a fan of either team.

[salmonjunkie]

Aug 8, 2008 14:42:11 GMT -5 Mikey said:

Well, you're getting close there. Working under the assumption that it was the booking and evolution of the business that led to TLC matches and table matches and all that... if it were a young Michaels and Janetty filling that role - rather than the Hardys - along with the Duds and E&C, the Rockers would've been HUGE stars, bigger than they were when they came up in the 80's.

On the contrary, I'm saying that if the Hardys came up in the 80's-90's Rockers era, in an era of far fewer highspots, they would've been glorified jobbers. I truly believe that. It's all hypothetical, I know, but do any of you really see Matt and Jeff getting over in that era? As opposed to the Rockers who I can see being over in ANY era.

Does any of that matter, though? I mean, if the Road Warriors were new today, they wouldn't be booked like bad asses who destroy everyone before "Iron Man" gets to the instrumental coda of the song. Hell, they'd be split up and given different gimmicks after a year.

[Mikey]

Aug 8, 2008 17:34:17 GMT -5 salmonjunkie said:

Does any of that matter, though?

Probably not. I just hated the Rockers less than I do the Hardys.

[Lucky]

Seriously, Mike. This idea of trying to move them to different eras and then seeing how they fit is pretty silly. So what if the Hardys wouldn't have worked 10 years earlier? Rock would have been fucked 20 years earlier because of racists, or something. Big Show would have been a legend and noone would know Andre's name if they flipped places. It might be fun exercise to try and divorce the popularity from the skill but what does it actually prove? I did the Andre/Show thing but only to point out how being "1st" made him better than he was. But you're basically arguing that if you take away Hardyz' big matches, big moves, greatest skills, and best opponents they might not get over. Ok. As Thai said, if you bring the LOD along now their face paint is laughed at, they're booked more even, they don't get to come out to Iron Man, and they get broken up a year in. And much of wrestling probably laughs at the hosses delivering nonsensical promos in ridiculous voices wearing ridiculous getups that look like a film from 30 years ago.

But that's not what happened.