|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 21, 2018 6:12:02 GMT -5
...And a whole shitload of lifting ideas from the New World Order. That doesn't take away the popularity from DX. Besides, the nwo angle does not work without the outsiders and Shawn Michaels was the one who put both guys on the map, so Michaels had influence on NWO as well. And the NWO outdrew DX for 83 weeks. Plus, DX being a draw does not make Shawn a draw, because WWF's peak drawing periods did not involve Shawn whatsoever even if they did involve DX.
|
|
|
Post by The Barber on May 21, 2018 7:07:51 GMT -5
Given his resume and general belief HBK is one of the best, if not the best ever, this is gonna sound odd, but I think you’re grossly exaggerating HBK’s importance in wrestling. I'm starting to think that this is a troll thread like someone else said above.
|
|
Renslayer
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
every time i come around your city...
Posts: 16,557
|
Post by Renslayer on May 21, 2018 7:12:13 GMT -5
If I could time machine this, 2002 Rock and heel 1997 HBK would've been a terrific pairing. Rocky was at his peak there and you combine that with Michaels at his best (at least promo wise. Can't definitively pick out his best year in the ring at the moment), it would've been magic.
On the other hand, Austin v Hogan would've made that Hogan Undertaker match from Judgment Day look like a classic. Austin hated Hogan in 2002 and when you combine that with him being burnt out, it wouldn't have been pretty
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 11:25:32 GMT -5
Given his resume and general belief HBK is one of the best, if not the best ever, this is gonna sound odd, but I think you’re grossly exaggerating HBK’s importance in wrestling. I disagree he was the creator of the attitude era, revolutionized ladder and hiac matches, put nash and hall on the map as stars, cleaned up Hogan's mess and elevated undertaker, cemented Austin as the guy. Shawn Michaels gave so much to the wrestling business compared to a guy like Hogan who just taked taked taked and didn't give back, he even refused to put over Bret Hart on his way out as he refused to put over Sting at starrcade 1997. The defining events of the monday night wars were wrestlemania 14 and starrcade 1997, Shawn Michaels did the right thing and Hogan did not. That was one of the main differences in who won the wars on top of everything else ive mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 11:36:43 GMT -5
That doesn't take away the popularity from DX. Besides, the nwo angle does not work without the outsiders and Shawn Michaels was the one who put both guys on the map, so Michaels had influence on NWO as well. And the NWO outdrew DX for 83 weeks. Plus, DX being a draw does not make Shawn a draw, because WWF's peak drawing periods did not involve Shawn whatsoever even if they did involve DX. 83 weeks? Lol you are counting the weeks DX was not even invented now? Nwo was a pop culture smash with 90s gangster rappers and all that going wild and Shawn Michaels had the unfortunate timing of being top guy when the angle was hot. From Bash at the beach 96 until starrcade 97 NWO was what the 90s wanted to see not a pure babyface but Shawn Michaels kept things respectable. The invasion angle was fresh, was 90s and not Vince's outdated pure babyface top guy that Vince was trying to make Shawn Michaels become. By late 97 though, Shawn Michaels was a white hot heel after escaping Undertaker and screwing over Bret, for people to have an impression that he was some transition champion to Austin was flat out wrong. Austin and Michaels both in the main event was what popped the 500k increase, tyson was not even wrestling. Wrestlemania 14 press conference already had attitude era logos on it, pretty much the first official attitude era feud which is transcending in itself.
|
|
Frosty
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,800
|
Post by Frosty on May 21, 2018 11:54:27 GMT -5
Given his resume and general belief HBK is one of the best, if not the best ever, this is gonna sound odd, but I think you’re grossly exaggerating HBK’s importance in wrestling. I disagree he was the creator of the attitude era, revolutionized ladder and hiac matches, put nash and hall on the map as stars, cleaned up Hogan's mess and elevated undertaker, cemented Austin as the guy. Shawn Michaels gave so much to the wrestling business compared to a guy like Hogan who just taked taked taked and didn't give back, he even refused to put over Bret Hart on his way out as he refused to put over Sting at starrcade 1997. The defining events of the monday night wars were wrestlemania 14 and starrcade 1997, Shawn Michaels did the right thing and Hogan did not. That was one of the main differences in who won the wars on top of everything else ive mentioned. The Attitude Era began before Shawn and DX. Early signs of the attitude era were Diesel's heel turn, Goldust, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Bret vs. Austin and Mania. To revolutionize something means to change it radically. I wouldn't say Shawn "revolutionized" ladder matches and Cell matches; he did have a hand in introducing them to the WWE audience. The Hardys, E&C, and Dudleys revolutionized ladder matches; Mick Foley revolutionized Cell matches. Hall was a star before his association with Shawn in WWE; a debate can be made about Nash. I'm not sure which Hogan mess you're suggesting Shawn cleaned up. Lots of people helped to elevate the Undertaker, as the Undertaker helped elevate lots of people. It could be argued that his match with Bret "cemented" Austin as the guy; a stronger argument could be made for Tyson helping "cement" Austin as the guy; an even stronger argument could be made that McMahon helped "cement" Austin as the guy. Hogan may have taken away from the business in your opinion, but Shawn and the Kliq did as well. Shawn was toxic to wrestling in the 90s. Like Hogan, Shawn also refused to put Bret Hart over when he "lost his smile." He also mentioned he wouldn't put Bret over in the events that led to the Screwjob. Confirmation bias is a funny creature.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 12:16:37 GMT -5
I disagree he was the creator of the attitude era, revolutionized ladder and hiac matches, put nash and hall on the map as stars, cleaned up Hogan's mess and elevated undertaker, cemented Austin as the guy. Shawn Michaels gave so much to the wrestling business compared to a guy like Hogan who just taked taked taked and didn't give back, he even refused to put over Bret Hart on his way out as he refused to put over Sting at starrcade 1997. The defining events of the monday night wars were wrestlemania 14 and starrcade 1997, Shawn Michaels did the right thing and Hogan did not. That was one of the main differences in who won the wars on top of everything else ive mentioned. The Attitude Era began before Shawn and DX. Early signs of the attitude era were Diesel's heel turn, Goldust, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Bret vs. Austin and Mania. To revolutionize something means to change it radically. I wouldn't say Shawn "revolutionized" ladder matches and Cell matches; he did have a hand in introducing them to the WWE audience. The Hardys, E&C, and Dudleys revolutionized ladder matches; Mick Foley revolutionized Cell matches. Hall was a star before his association with Shawn in WWE; a debate can be made about Nash. I'm not sure which Hogan mess you're suggesting Shawn cleaned up. Lots of people helped to elevate the Undertaker, as the Undertaker helped elevate lots of people. It could be argued that his match with Bret "cemented" Austin as the guy; a stronger argument could be made for Tyson helping "cement" Austin as the guy; an even stronger argument could be made that McMahon helped "cement" Austin as the guy. Hogan may have taken away from the business in your opinion, but Shawn and the Kliq did as well. Shawn was toxic to wrestling in the 90s. Like Hogan, Shawn also refused to put Bret Hart over when he "lost his smile." He also mentioned he wouldn't put Bret over in the events that led to the Screwjob. Confirmation bias is a funny creature. Ladder match was forever changed in fans perception after Shawn Michaels WM10 ladder match. HIAC HBK\Taker absolutely blows away Foley\Taker, Undertaker will tell you himself as there's a 2003 shoot interview on youtube of him saying it's far superior. Shawn Michaels sold the HIAC structure as if it was the most dangerous and menacing things in wrestling history, all foley did was take a few big bumps. Hall's defining moment of his career was the ladder matches at WrestleMania 10 and Summerslam, which Shawn should receive more credit for. As much as I love Scott Hall he never really had any great matches after that. I'm talking about the mess of Hogan putting Undertaker over for the title than taking the belt right back off him and beating him for it IN A WEEK, that mess. If that happened today over a rising star like Undertaker, it would be an indefinite burial. Luckily, Undertaker had Bret and more importantly Shawn Michaels to elevate him. The ministry run was 90's pop culture splash like NWO so it drew well in the short period of time as well. 6 day title reign? Lol I've seen people complain about even longer reigns than that. Bret Hart cemented Austin in a match that was not even the main event and also a wrestlemania that drew the worst buyrate in history? It could be argued but it wouldn't be a good argument that's for sure. Post WM11, nobody was worthy of going over Shawn Michaels until Austin. Sting on the other hand was the hottest face in the world at the time right up there with Austin, Bret was supposed to be in a passing of the torch match with Hogan on his way out, Undertaker could of been cemented longer than a week. Hogan did a lot more damage. As far as the attitude era, two dudes with attitude, the strike that Kliq went on to hold a meeting of pushing the company in an attitude era type product came in 1995, than of course the feud that actually fully convinced Vince Mcmahon to go with the attitude era: Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 1997. Producer at the time Bruce Pritchard will tell you himself:
|
|
|
Post by chronocross on May 21, 2018 12:37:41 GMT -5
Honestly I didn't see how that buried Taker as Hogan had to cheat to win a title, Hogan didn't even get to appear with the belt on TV. He was stripped of it that weekend and it paved the way for the Rumble to see who would win the WWF title. If you want to talk about messes, HBK losing his smile there conveniently before having to put Bret over at WM13 ranks up there, come to think of it I think he's forfeited every title he won or lost in a sham match.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 12:39:53 GMT -5
Given his resume and general belief HBK is one of the best, if not the best ever, this is gonna sound odd, but I think you’re grossly exaggerating HBK’s importance in wrestling. I'm starting to think that this is a troll thread like someone else said above. Far from a troll, I respect everybodys opinions. I just give my opinion and if you disagree well so be it.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 12:52:21 GMT -5
Honestly I didn't see how that buried Taker as Hogan had to cheat to win a title, Hogan didn't even get to appear with the belt on TV. He was stripped of it that weekend and it paved the way for the Rumble to see who would win the WWF title. If you want to talk about messes, HBK losing his smile there conveniently before having to put Bret over at WM13 ranks up there, come to think of it I think he's forfeited every title he won or lost in a sham match. The aura of Undertaker took a hit after not beating Hogan cleanly and than only having a 6 day title reign which was all influenced by Hogan. Bret didn't pass the torch correctly first of all. Couldn't even get pinned once until he was surprised after the iron man match was done? That was bullcrap, I didn't see Cena doing that stuff to Roman Reigns. Secondly, Bret Hart at wrestlemania 13 only for him to leave to wcw by survivor series 1997? That's not good for business, think about it. Besides, there was reports Shawn Michaels actually had knee surgery in 1997 and the whole faking the injury thing was just a rumor started by Bret that got blown out of proportion. Lastly, are we comparing Sting at starrcade 1997 to Bret Hart at wrestlemania 13? Sting was far the hotter act at the time, not even close.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 21, 2018 12:56:45 GMT -5
Given his resume and general belief HBK is one of the best, if not the best ever, this is gonna sound odd, but I think you’re grossly exaggerating HBK’s importance in wrestling. I disagree he was the creator of the attitude era, revolutionized ladder and hiac matches, put nash and hall on the map as stars, cleaned up Hogan's mess and elevated undertaker, cemented Austin as the guy. Shawn Michaels gave so much to the wrestling business compared to a guy like Hogan who just taked taked taked and didn't give back, he even refused to put over Bret Hart on his way out as he refused to put over Sting at starrcade 1997. The defining events of the monday night wars were wrestlemania 14 and starrcade 1997, Shawn Michaels did the right thing and Hogan did not. That was one of the main differences in who won the wars on top of everything else ive mentioned. This POV is a lil ludicrous. Hogan, for all his politics, racism, etc is about 10,000 times more important to wrestling history than Shawn by any legitimate metric. I like Shawn a lot, but let's not get silly.
|
|
|
Post by chronocross on May 21, 2018 13:07:46 GMT -5
Honestly I didn't see how that buried Taker as Hogan had to cheat to win a title, Hogan didn't even get to appear with the belt on TV. He was stripped of it that weekend and it paved the way for the Rumble to see who would win the WWF title. If you want to talk about messes, HBK losing his smile there conveniently before having to put Bret over at WM13 ranks up there, come to think of it I think he's forfeited every title he won or lost in a sham match. The aura of Undertaker took a hit after not beating Hogan cleanly and than only having a 6 day title reign which was all influenced by Hogan. Bret didn't pass the torch correctly first of all. Couldn't even get pinned once until he was surprised after the iron man match was done? That was bullcrap, I didn't see Cena doing that stuff to Roman Reigns. Secondly, Bret Hart at wrestlemania 13 only for him to leave to wcw by survivor series 1997? That's not good for business, think about it. Besides, there was reports Shawn Michaels actually had knee surgery in 1997 and the whole faking the injury thing was just a rumor started by Bret that got blown out of proportion. Lastly, are we comparing Sting at starrcade 1997 to Bret Hart at wrestlemania 13? Sting was far the hotter act at the time, not even close. That's how things were back then, WWF was a babyface territory, heels never got put over clean, I never saw the big deal in that. Taker was still very much a threat as Hogan had to do a schoolboy pin after blinding the guy, I'd say that made Taker look like a monster, hardly a burial. They wanted to make history with the 92 Rumble crowning a new champion and this was the way to do it, by getting off of Hogan and Flair winning it. I'd say that was also a passing of the torch, there was always meant to be controversy with the Iron Man match as it was slowly planting the seeds of his heel turn, he had a gripe, he had signed for\ a 60-minute match not a 62-minute match as he mentioned on a Raw episode in April of 96. I wasn't comparing Bret to Sting at all, just this "mess" you claim about the Tuesday in Texas 91 show and how it ended.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by dav on May 21, 2018 13:09:37 GMT -5
Honestly I didn't see how that buried Taker as Hogan had to cheat to win a title, Hogan didn't even get to appear with the belt on TV. He was stripped of it that weekend and it paved the way for the Rumble to see who would win the WWF title. If you want to talk about messes, HBK losing his smile there conveniently before having to put Bret over at WM13 ranks up there, come to think of it I think he's forfeited every title he won or lost in a sham match. The aura of Undertaker took a hit after not beating Hogan cleanly and than only having a 6 day title reign which was all influenced by Hogan. Hogan losing to Undertaker was a huge deal. Even if it wasn't a clean win, Hogan lost to him. He lost nothing of his aura and was still booked and shown solidly throughout his career afterwards. The only thing that gave him a hit was his gimmick, making it hard for him to be the kind of guy you could build a company around, even if it did help guarantee his longevity in the company. Hogan didn't do anything to damage Undertaker with the loss.
|
|
Frosty
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,800
|
Post by Frosty on May 21, 2018 13:10:27 GMT -5
The Attitude Era began before Shawn and DX. Early signs of the attitude era were Diesel's heel turn, Goldust, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Bret vs. Austin and Mania. To revolutionize something means to change it radically. I wouldn't say Shawn "revolutionized" ladder matches and Cell matches; he did have a hand in introducing them to the WWE audience. The Hardys, E&C, and Dudleys revolutionized ladder matches; Mick Foley revolutionized Cell matches. Hall was a star before his association with Shawn in WWE; a debate can be made about Nash. I'm not sure which Hogan mess you're suggesting Shawn cleaned up. Lots of people helped to elevate the Undertaker, as the Undertaker helped elevate lots of people. It could be argued that his match with Bret "cemented" Austin as the guy; a stronger argument could be made for Tyson helping "cement" Austin as the guy; an even stronger argument could be made that McMahon helped "cement" Austin as the guy. Hogan may have taken away from the business in your opinion, but Shawn and the Kliq did as well. Shawn was toxic to wrestling in the 90s. Like Hogan, Shawn also refused to put Bret Hart over when he "lost his smile." He also mentioned he wouldn't put Bret over in the events that led to the Screwjob. Confirmation bias is a funny creature. Ladder match was forever changed in fans perception after Shawn Michaels WM10 ladder match. HIAC HBK\Taker absolutely blows away Foley\Taker, Undertaker will tell you himself as there's a 2003 shoot interview on youtube of him saying it's far superior. Shawn Michaels sold the HIAC structure as if it was the most dangerous and menacing things in wrestling history, all foley did was take a few big bumps. Hall's defining moment of his career was the ladder matches at WrestleMania 10 and Summerslam, which Shawn should receive more credit for. As much as I love Scott Hall he never really had any great matches after that. I'm talking about the mess of Hogan putting Undertaker over for the title than taking the belt right back off him and beating him for it IN A WEEK, that mess. If that happened today over a rising star like Undertaker, it would be an indefinite burial. Luckily, Undertaker had Bret and more importantly Shawn Michaels to elevate him. The ministry run was 90's pop culture splash like NWO so it drew well in the short period of time as well. 6 day title reign? Lol I've seen people complain about even longer reigns than that. Bret Hart cemented Austin in a match that was not even the main event and also a wrestlemania that drew the worst buyrate in history? It could be argued but it wouldn't be a good argument that's for sure. Post WM11, nobody was worthy of going over Shawn Michaels until Austin. Sting on the other hand was the hottest face in the world at the time right up there with Austin, Bret was supposed to be in a passing of the torch match with Hogan on his way out, Undertaker could of been cemented longer than a week. Hogan did a lot more damage. As far as the attitude era, two dudes with attitude, the strike that Kliq went on to hold a meeting of pushing the company in an attitude era type product came in 1995, than of course the feud that actually fully convinced Vince Mcmahon to go with the attitude era: Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 1997. Producer at the time Bruce Pritchard will tell you himself: 1) If a person doesn't have a perception of what a ladder match his, how can that person's perception be changed? Vince didn't even know about ladder matches until Bret introduced the idea to him. 2) You're speaking from a biased point of view. There's no way to objectively say which Cell match is better; it comes down to personal preference. 3) It can be argued that the WM10 ladder match is his best match, but Hall's career is defined by his work with the NWO. Also, again, he was still a star before working with Shawn in the ladder match. 4) The Undertaker was still over after his matches with Hogan. How did Shawn clean this up? Also, in my opinion, the Undertaker was most elevated by his feud with Mankind; this was the feud that allowed him to evolve his character and breathe new life into his career. That's much more than Shawn ever gave to the Undertaker. 5) A match can be revered regardless of buyrates or its status as the main event; the Austin/Bret match is regarded as one of the best matches of all time because of its story-telling and its ability to elevate both Austin and Bret. 6) "Nobody was worthy of going over Shawn Michaels" - Wrestling isn't real; whomever is written as "worthy" is "worthy." I'm beginning to believe this thread was created for trolling intentions. 7) There is no way to measure if Hogan did "a lot more damage" to wrestling than Shawn and the Kliq; the damage can't be quantified. 8) Mr. Prichard is entitled to his opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, Vince mentioned in a WWE-produced documentary that WWE's shift toward "attitude" was reflective of American culture at the time: trash TV and anti-hero popularity, for example. The seeds were planted before Shawn and DX became a thing.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 13:17:46 GMT -5
I disagree he was the creator of the attitude era, revolutionized ladder and hiac matches, put nash and hall on the map as stars, cleaned up Hogan's mess and elevated undertaker, cemented Austin as the guy. Shawn Michaels gave so much to the wrestling business compared to a guy like Hogan who just taked taked taked and didn't give back, he even refused to put over Bret Hart on his way out as he refused to put over Sting at starrcade 1997. The defining events of the monday night wars were wrestlemania 14 and starrcade 1997, Shawn Michaels did the right thing and Hogan did not. That was one of the main differences in who won the wars on top of everything else ive mentioned. This POV is a lil ludicrous. Hogan, for all his politics, racism, etc is about 10,000 times more important to wrestling history than Shawn by any legitimate metric. I like Shawn a lot, but let's not get silly. I will say WM3 andre hogan was a bigger match than any Shawn Michaels match, Hogan played a better babyface and naturally a face is always going to be more popular. 80's is when everybody loved the pure babyface, 90's is when gangster rap and grunge became huge and pure faces were no longer effective. For instance, lets take Austin-Rock out of the picture because they were not pure babyfaces like Hogan was. Even the most popular pure babyface ever in Hogan would never work in the 1990s. I hope I explained why comparing 90s stars to 80s stars is like apples and oranges. However, if you want to compare 90s Hogan to 90s HBK, thats where we disagree. 90s HBK had more influence on being an innovator of matches (ladder, hiac) and helped create stars (nash hall) and cement stars (austin). 90s Hogan on the other hand had dud match after dud match, refused to put over Bret Hart, played politics to get belt off Undertaker in less than a week, beat Nash by his finger, pinned sting at the biggest show in company history (so much for putting over the face brother). The negatives stack up more for Hogan and shawn Michaels was a bigger innovator and had a more positive influence on other stars long term. The nwo was a pop culture splash but it never elevated any stars long term if you think about it, hence wcw losing millions even by 1999.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 21, 2018 13:26:05 GMT -5
I'm comparing Hogan period, to HBK period.
They're not even in the same stratosphere of importance to wrestling-pop culture saturation etc.
Hell, I'd go so far as to say porn Sean Michaels has just as much recognition outside of wrestling as Shawn Michaels.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 13:43:19 GMT -5
Ladder match was forever changed in fans perception after Shawn Michaels WM10 ladder match. HIAC HBK\Taker absolutely blows away Foley\Taker, Undertaker will tell you himself as there's a 2003 shoot interview on youtube of him saying it's far superior. Shawn Michaels sold the HIAC structure as if it was the most dangerous and menacing things in wrestling history, all foley did was take a few big bumps. Hall's defining moment of his career was the ladder matches at WrestleMania 10 and Summerslam, which Shawn should receive more credit for. As much as I love Scott Hall he never really had any great matches after that. I'm talking about the mess of Hogan putting Undertaker over for the title than taking the belt right back off him and beating him for it IN A WEEK, that mess. If that happened today over a rising star like Undertaker, it would be an indefinite burial. Luckily, Undertaker had Bret and more importantly Shawn Michaels to elevate him. The ministry run was 90's pop culture splash like NWO so it drew well in the short period of time as well. 6 day title reign? Lol I've seen people complain about even longer reigns than that. Bret Hart cemented Austin in a match that was not even the main event and also a wrestlemania that drew the worst buyrate in history? It could be argued but it wouldn't be a good argument that's for sure. Post WM11, nobody was worthy of going over Shawn Michaels until Austin. Sting on the other hand was the hottest face in the world at the time right up there with Austin, Bret was supposed to be in a passing of the torch match with Hogan on his way out, Undertaker could of been cemented longer than a week. Hogan did a lot more damage. As far as the attitude era, two dudes with attitude, the strike that Kliq went on to hold a meeting of pushing the company in an attitude era type product came in 1995, than of course the feud that actually fully convinced Vince Mcmahon to go with the attitude era: Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels 1997. Producer at the time Bruce Pritchard will tell you himself: 1) If a person doesn't have a perception of what a ladder match his, how can that person's perception be changed? Vince didn't even know about ladder matches until Bret introduced the idea to him. 2) You're speaking from a biased point of view. There's no way to objectively say which Cell match is better; it comes down to personal preference. 3) It can be argued that the WM10 ladder match is his best match, but Hall's career is defined by his work with the NWO. Also, again, he was still a star before working with Shawn in the ladder match. 4) The Undertaker was still over after his matches with Hogan. How did Shawn clean this up? Also, in my opinion, the Undertaker was most elevated by his feud with Mankind; this was the feud that allowed him to evolve his character and breathe new life into his career. That's much more than Shawn ever gave to the Undertaker. 5) A match can be revered regardless of buyrates or its status as the main event; the Austin/Bret match is regarded as one of the best matches of all time because of its story-telling and its ability to elevate both Austin and Bret. 6) "Nobody was worthy of going over Shawn Michaels" - Wrestling isn't real; whomever is written as "worthy" is "worthy." I'm beginning to believe this thread was created for trolling intentions. 7) There is no way to measure if Hogan did "a lot more damage" to wrestling than Shawn and the Kliq; the damage can't be quantified. 8) Mr. Prichard is entitled to his opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, Vince mentioned in a WWE-produced documentary that WWE's shift toward "attitude" was reflective of American culture at the time: trash TV and anti-hero popularity, for example. The seeds were planted before Shawn and DX became a thing. 1) Lets not let biased bitter Bret Hart attempt to twist things to benefit himself and discredit people he hates. Bret is also the same guy who said HHH never had a great match. The ladder match was created in the 1970s, bret taking credit is laughable. 2) Undertaker worked both matches and said his hiac with hbk was far superior than his one with foley. How is that not objective? Undertaker has wanted to beat shawn Michaels up physically as a shoot, he likes foley better. Sounds to me like despite being biased to HBK in a negative manner, undertaker still admits the objective truth. 3) WWE career defined by feud with Shawn Michaels. Wrestlemania 9 hall didn't do anything but a 3 minute match, Randy Savages star power was on the huge decline when feuding with razor ramon. The ladder matches with HBK is what made him a huge star and take that feud away he's not the wwe legend and big star that he was when leaving to WCW. 4) Shawn Michaels was selling in the ring for Undertaker like never before and its what cemented Undertaker as a face and as the strongest you've ever seen him. The way shawn Michaels sold for undertaker in the HIAC match told the best story of Undertaker's career. Here was a guy who beat Vader and you had Undertaker just running through him, the rub was the biggest for Undertaker's entire career. 5) Great match i agree but by 1997 Shawn Michaels was the top guy and beating him had a stronger meaning than beating bret. Besides, austin didn't even pin Bret that wasn't a passing of tthe torch match, it was a double turn match. The bret feud was what helped Austin turn face but the michaels feud is what cemented Austin as the guy. 6) I was speaking in terms of talent and star power, not kayfabe.
|
|
Frosty
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,800
|
Post by Frosty on May 21, 2018 13:48:22 GMT -5
Okay. Now, I know for sure. I'm bored, but not that bored. Enjoy your day!
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 13:52:53 GMT -5
I'm comparing Hogan period, to HBK period. They're not even in the same stratosphere of importance to wrestling-pop culture saturation etc. Hell, I'd go so far as to say porn Sean Michaels has just as much recognition outside of wrestling as Shawn Michaels. Ive said in this already that star power its rock austin hogan but HBK can hang with anybody after those three guys. Influence on the wrestling business and influence on mainstream pop culture are two things you are confusing with.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 21, 2018 14:14:13 GMT -5
I'm not confusing anything. You're the one who was earlier claiming that the curtain call was a big deal mainstream wise. Shawn is a fantastic wrestler, but even within wrestling, he'd maybe crack the top ten of influential guys, and that's depending on one being extraordinarily generous. Honestly, top 25ish is much more likely even inside wrestling. Despite the narrative WWE has pushed hard about Mr. Wrestlemania etc, Shawn is a second tier guy.
|
|