Quote Originally Posted by Fallout View Post
I disagree. Whilst Edge was most definitely successful in his career in the WWE, his overall success and legacy is predicated on him being in a company that was already established, and during Edge's prime, he didn't exactly move the needle; if anything, the needle moved in the wrong direction. I'm not trying to blame this on Edge, but in the grand scheme of things, he'll be seen as a big fish in an ocean full of talent.

AJ is in a similar position when it comes to the WWE, a big fish in an ocean full of talent, which is what makes this match as contentious as it is. However, AJ has one distinct advantage over Edge, in that he was one of the instrumental players in building TNA into a legitimate wrestling company; and probably the reason that despite its horrendous mismanagement for nearly 10 years now, it's still staying alive on past glory. AJ became a huge name without needing the WWE, and the only other wrestler I can think of that transcended that accomplishment in modern wrestling history is Sting.

Edge is great, as is AJ, and it's a very close one to call. However, AJ has ultimately had the more difficult path to tread, which makes it all the more of an accomplishment that he's reached where he has today.
This argument is so stupid. It would be like saying, "Sure, I know Tom Brady just had a fantastic football season, but Buck Folgers is putting XFL on the map!" You're comparing a top star in the best league with a top star in a second rate league and giving the second rate star the edge because he has LESS competition? Edge had to compete with Cena, Orton, HHH, Batista, HBK, Undertaker, Jeff Hardy, Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, and yet he still became an 11 time World Champion.

And this whole "not moving the needle," argument is just incorrect on its face. This is a man who pioneered the TLC match. He won the first Money in the Bank ladder match. He was the top heel in the company for the better part of a decade.