No it's absolute nonsense - he's no more a more successful Tony Pulis than any other manager. Listing JM's achievements doesn't prove your point at all - it just highlights how successful JM was, it doesn't mean he's the same as Pulis only more successful."He is a more successful Tony Pulis". I stand by that, and writing a list of his achievements as a comparison does nothing but prove my point.
They both play a similar style of football - just one with substantially more resources than the other. Both are whiny, annoying men.
The reality is that most of the best clubs in the world simply wont stomach the Mourinho style of football anymore - it's archaic and being the underdog is only good if you're actually the underdog. Some managers are better with such jobs and some managers are better when they have to create attacking sides. Mourinho made his name as a big budget defensive coach with a focus on being a strong side that's tough to beat. But even at Chelsea he was the underdog as they'd not won anything of note in year. The same at Inter in the Champions League where no one expected them to win anything, despite their budget at the time being massive compared to everyone else in their league. But at Real and Man Utd, where he's had to build proactive, attacking sides for fans that demand more, he's failed.
So I'm sorry, but the comparison is valid.
When JM was winning multiple trophies with Chelsea, his team wasn't boring. You imply that his strength was an emphasis on defence and you say his teams were tough to beat. Well you don't win titles by drawing lots of games, so that is a silly remark.
You're also skirting over his time at Porto where he made his name. He won the league twice there of course (which is nothing special in a 3 team league) but he also won the CHAMPIONS LEAGUE. WITH PORTO. Not Liverpool, Man City, or Spurs and all their millions. It was like winning the UCL with PSV Eindhoven, Ajax or Celtic. Can you imagine any of them winning the UCL? Of course not.