|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 14:39:12 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. Besides Rock, there hasn't been any WWE wrestlers to transition into good movie careers. Hogan's acting career was a failure and so was Austins. My point regarding the curtain call was it was such an infamous moment at the time and in MSG, a rebel thing to do which fit the 90's mold so it all increased the names of each men long term that's all. There's plenty of other cases proving Michaels starpower such as Summerslam 2005 as the top heel and hottest act in the main event, Summerslam 2006 reuniting with DX, WrestleMania 14 as top heel and champion deserves maybe not as much credit as Austin but still deserves credit and when he was not on the card WM12 the box office had a huge drop without him! Shawn Michaels was the most over babyface in the company in 1996 and was the most over babyface by 2008 go look at his pops in the Jericho feud, being that popular over a span of 20 years speaks more than volumes of his star power. Cena was getting the roman reigns booos while Shawn Michaels was getting the Seth Rollins cheers. Shawn Michaels was so loved as a babyface in 2008 he made Chris Jericho the hottest he ever was as a heel. I think in the wrestlemania era, the only man to have an argument of being more influential than Shawn Michaels is Hulk Hogan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 15:10:40 GMT -5
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. Ladder match was 70s. In Stampede. Bret introduced the idea to Vince. Remember he was on top when Vince didn't see Shawn as a top guy, he had that privileged position the champ gets of speaking with Vince daily and discussing ideas. Vince wasn't convinced but Bret persuaded to let him do one with Shawn on a house show. It went over huge but Vince still took convincing. Shawn asked Bret permission to use the ladder match in the Hall feud. Bret didn't innovate the match but he did bring it to WWE.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,905
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on May 21, 2018 15:26:32 GMT -5
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. 1. The ladder match came from Calgary. Bret first wrestled in them there. He took the idea to Vince. He wrestled in the first one. Hand picking Shawn as his opponent. 2. Awesome match. What the Undertaker prefers doesn’t mean shit, especially when you just compare two matches. Undertaker was plenty over without Shawn. 3. WWE star power defined by 3 IC titles and being the first guy ever to do that. 4. Awesome match. Again. Beating Vader in WWE wasn’t exactly an accomplishment. So did Edge in Vader’s last match. Edge was barely on TV then. Beating WCW Vader would be something. WWF Vader, not at all. He was still presented as a monster, but so far at only broken the leg of a immobile Yoko and injured a 80 year old Gorilla. 5. Really depends on how you look at it. Shawn actually dropped the title in the ring?? That IS a huge deal since through all his reigns he did it at that point, once?? Across tag, IC and WWF reigns. 6. People know I still watch wrestling. Over the years they’ve asked about guys, what they’re up to. They ask about Rude, Perfect, Yoko, Taker, Hacksaw, Triple H....you know who they never ask about?? The Rock because he’s the most famous person on the planet and HBK because, well, I don’t know why but I assume it has to do with his star power. Like I said earlier, almost everyone agrees Shawn is one of the best ever and has an impressive list of amazing matches but now you’re plugging him into things where he had no impact or his impact was minimal at best at the long term.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 15:26:43 GMT -5
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. Ladder match was 70s. In Stampede. Bret introduced the idea to Vince. Remember he was on top when Vince didn't see Shawn as a top guy, he had that privileged position the champ gets of speaking with Vince daily and discussing ideas. Vince wasn't convinced but Bret persuaded to let him do one with Shawn on a house show. It went over huge but Vince still took convincing. Shawn asked Bret permission to use the ladder match in the Hall feud. Bret didn't innovate the match but he did bring it to WWE. Well if you want to play that game, Shawn Michaels was in Vince's ear of going into the attitude era since 1995, so in that sense he brought the attitude era to the WWE.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,905
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on May 21, 2018 15:29:16 GMT -5
Ladder match was 70s. In Stampede. Bret introduced the idea to Vince. Remember he was on top when Vince didn't see Shawn as a top guy, he had that privileged position the champ gets of speaking with Vince daily and discussing ideas. Vince wasn't convinced but Bret persuaded to let him do one with Shawn on a house show. It went over huge but Vince still took convincing. Shawn asked Bret permission to use the ladder match in the Hall feud. Bret didn't innovate the match but he did bring it to WWE. Well if you want to play that game, Shawn Michaels was in Vince's ear of going into the attitude era since 1995, so in that sense he brought the attitude era to the WWE. It’s not a game. It’s literally what Bret did. Yes Shawn wanted a more adult product but to say he invented it was a stretch. For starters, his friends in WCW were already doing an edgier thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 15:29:44 GMT -5
Ladder match was 70s. In Stampede. Bret introduced the idea to Vince. Remember he was on top when Vince didn't see Shawn as a top guy, he had that privileged position the champ gets of speaking with Vince daily and discussing ideas. Vince wasn't convinced but Bret persuaded to let him do one with Shawn on a house show. It went over huge but Vince still took convincing. Shawn asked Bret permission to use the ladder match in the Hall feud. Bret didn't innovate the match but he did bring it to WWE. Well if you want to play that game, Shawn Michaels was in Vince's ear of going into the attitude era since 1995, so in that sense he brought the attitude era to the WWE. He played a part certainly. They even joked about it in the 09 reunion. I haven't argued otherwise at any juncture. I simply addressed the point about the ladder match. That's not playing a game, that's factually how the ladder match came to WWE and how Shawn came to be a part of it.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by dav on May 21, 2018 15:39:06 GMT -5
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. Hogan was more influential in the 90's, if only for one thing, the nWo. Him turning Heel and joining the group really cemented it and made the 'cool bad guy' gimmick a huge thing. Hogan kickstarted two major periods of wrestling popularity. The second one came while Shawn was a whitemeat babyface and the company was losing the battle against WCW badly. Shawn just wasn't as popular as Hogan in either decade. Others have pointed out the influences of others when it came to those matches, Calgary and the cell concept goes back to WCW's War Games. I don't think Shawn can really criticise anyone for not putting over Bret considering what he did. Other stars did much better once Michaels was out of the picture. Even WrestleMania 14 was Austin, Vince and Tyson being the major point of interest with Michaels taking a back seat. He was a toxic piece of crap during this period as well, his attitude making the place almost rotten to work at and just being a bad person all round.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 15:41:51 GMT -5
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. 1. The ladder match came from Calgary. Bret first wrestled in them there. He took the idea to Vince. He wrestled in the first one. Hand picking Shawn as his opponent. 2. Awesome match. What the Undertaker prefers doesn’t mean shit, especially when you just compare two matches. Undertaker was plenty over without Shawn. 3. WWE star power defined by 3 IC titles and being the first guy ever to do that. 4. Awesome match. Again. Beating Vader in WWE wasn’t exactly an accomplishment. So did Edge in Vader’s last match. Edge was barely on TV then. Beating WCW Vader would be something. WWF Vader, not at all. He was still presented as a monster, but so far at only broken the leg of a immobile Yoko and injured a 80 year old Gorilla. 5. Really depends on how you look at it. Shawn actually dropped the title in the ring?? That IS a huge deal since through all his reigns he did it at that point, once?? Across tag, IC and WWF reigns. 6. People know I still watch wrestling. Over the years they’ve asked about guys, what they’re up to. They ask about Rude, Perfect, Yoko, Taker, Hacksaw, Triple H....you know who they never ask about?? The Rock because he’s the most famous person on the planet and HBK because, well, I don’t know why but I assume it has to do with his star power. Like I said earlier, almost everyone agrees Shawn is one of the best ever and has an impressive list of amazing matches but now you’re plugging him into things where he had no impact or his impact was minimal at best at the long term 1) Just like Shawn first told Vince about pushing the product into being more edgy and showing more attitude, if you give credit to Bret there than give credit to Shawn as well. Don't place double standards. 2) Generally speaking everybody says HBK\Taker HIAC was superior even the man who was in both matches. To each its own if you think Foley\Taker was better I am stunned by anybody who does. 3) Hall was popular but the ladder matches is what everybody remembers him for as far as WWE is concerned. 4) I just was saying in terms of huge intimidating monsters, Shawn had beat Vader and Diesel but he made Undertaker look even stronger than both men. 1996 Vader was still getting a pretty good push. 5) Like I said, there wasn't anybody for Shawn Michaels to put over in the 90's until Austin was ready. Lets not forget that Shawn Michaels lost both his matches at WM10 and WM11 the biggest events of the year though. After that, he was top guy and nobody came close until WM14. 6) Shawn Michaels was more popular as a babyface than Undertaker or HHH ever was and Shawn was the actual guy, something Undertaker never was. I'd say HHH as a heel from 2000-2005 is as popular as any heel ever though. I consider HBK\HHH\Cena the lead of the pack of 2nd tier star power right behind Rock\Austin\Hogan when evaluating from the wrestlemania period only. There was a few things that happened in why business was slowing down in 1995\1996. 1) The steroid scandal killed a lot of endorsements and WWE took a while to recover. Parents didn't want there kids watching a bunch of steroid freaks. 2) Hogan on his way out didn't put anybody over besides Yokozuna. 3) 90's pop culture and the trend of gangster rap-rebels-grunge didn't fit into Vince's style of the way he was running the business. NWO would do the exact opposite and take advantage of the 90's pop culture. These things ^^ played a bigger part than Shawn Michaels failing to draw, if anything Shawn kept things respectable against very stiff competition while Vince was still stuck on his outdated ways of booking his company.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,905
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on May 21, 2018 15:44:21 GMT -5
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. Hogan didn’t play politics to get the belt off Taker. The switch was done to get them to This Tuesday in Texas. You know that event was planned ahead of time, right?? Texas got the belt held up and to the Rumble. You’re making insane statements to prove points.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,905
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on May 21, 2018 15:51:38 GMT -5
1. The ladder match came from Calgary. Bret first wrestled in them there. He took the idea to Vince. He wrestled in the first one. Hand picking Shawn as his opponent. 2. Awesome match. What the Undertaker prefers doesn’t mean shit, especially when you just compare two matches. Undertaker was plenty over without Shawn. 3. WWE star power defined by 3 IC titles and being the first guy ever to do that. 4. Awesome match. Again. Beating Vader in WWE wasn’t exactly an accomplishment. So did Edge in Vader’s last match. Edge was barely on TV then. Beating WCW Vader would be something. WWF Vader, not at all. He was still presented as a monster, but so far at only broken the leg of a immobile Yoko and injured a 80 year old Gorilla. 5. Really depends on how you look at it. Shawn actually dropped the title in the ring?? That IS a huge deal since through all his reigns he did it at that point, once?? Across tag, IC and WWF reigns. 6. People know I still watch wrestling. Over the years they’ve asked about guys, what they’re up to. They ask about Rude, Perfect, Yoko, Taker, Hacksaw, Triple H....you know who they never ask about?? The Rock because he’s the most famous person on the planet and HBK because, well, I don’t know why but I assume it has to do with his star power. Like I said earlier, almost everyone agrees Shawn is one of the best ever and has an impressive list of amazing matches but now you’re plugging him into things where he had no impact or his impact was minimal at best at the long term 1) Just like Shawn first told Vince about pushing the product into being more edgy and showing more attitude, if you give credit to Bret there than give credit to Shawn as well. Don't place double standards. 2) Generally speaking everybody says HBK\Taker HIAC was superior even the man who was in both matches. To each its own if you think Foley\Taker was better I am stunned by anybody who does. 3) Hall was popular but the ladder matches is what everybody remembers him for as far as WWE is concerned. 4) I just was saying in terms of huge intimidating monsters, Shawn had beat Vader and Diesel but he made Undertaker look even stronger than both men. 1996 Vader was still getting a pretty good push. 5) Like I said, there wasn't anybody for Shawn Michaels to put over in the 90's until Austin was ready. Lets not forget that Shawn Michaels lost both his matches at WM10 and WM11 the biggest events of the year though. After that, he was top guy and nobody came close until WM14. 6) Shawn Michaels was more popular as a babyface than Undertaker or HHH ever was and Shawn was the actual guy, something Undertaker never was. I'd say HHH as a heel from 2000-2005 is as popular as any heel ever though. I consider HBK\HHH\Cena the lead of the pack of 2nd tier star power right behind Rock\Austin\Hogan when evaluating from the wrestlemania period only. There was a few things that happened in why business was slowing down in 1995\1996. 1) The steroid scandal killed a lot of endorsements and WWE took a while to recover. Parents didn't want there kids watching a bunch of steroid freaks. 2) Hogan on his way out didn't put anybody over besides Yokozuna. 3) 90's pop culture and the trend of gangster rap-rebels-grunge didn't fit into Vince's style of the way he was running the business. NWO would do the exact opposite and take advantage of the 90's pop culture. These things ^^ played a bigger part than Shawn Michaels failing to draw, if anything Shawn kept things respectable against very stiff competition while Vince was still stuck on his outdated ways of booking his company. 1. I never said anything of the sort. In fact up there you have two near identical replies to the ladder match/talking to Vince thing. 2. Taker’s preference has nothing to do with anyone besides Taker. 3. Fair enough. 4. Yup he beat those guys in matches no one remembers except throwing a bitch fit in his match with Vader. 5. He was the top guy. No question. Though Sid and Bret were still plenty over. Though Vince just about had to shutter the company or go back to a territory during Shawn’s time at the top, he was main eventing those high school gyms. 6. More over than Taker???!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 16:58:20 GMT -5
1) Just like Shawn first told Vince about pushing the product into being more edgy and showing more attitude, if you give credit to Bret there than give credit to Shawn as well. Don't place double standards. 2) Generally speaking everybody says HBK\Taker HIAC was superior even the man who was in both matches. To each its own if you think Foley\Taker was better I am stunned by anybody who does. 3) Hall was popular but the ladder matches is what everybody remembers him for as far as WWE is concerned. 4) I just was saying in terms of huge intimidating monsters, Shawn had beat Vader and Diesel but he made Undertaker look even stronger than both men. 1996 Vader was still getting a pretty good push. 5) Like I said, there wasn't anybody for Shawn Michaels to put over in the 90's until Austin was ready. Lets not forget that Shawn Michaels lost both his matches at WM10 and WM11 the biggest events of the year though. After that, he was top guy and nobody came close until WM14. 6) Shawn Michaels was more popular as a babyface than Undertaker or HHH ever was and Shawn was the actual guy, something Undertaker never was. I'd say HHH as a heel from 2000-2005 is as popular as any heel ever though. I consider HBK\HHH\Cena the lead of the pack of 2nd tier star power right behind Rock\Austin\Hogan when evaluating from the wrestlemania period only. There was a few things that happened in why business was slowing down in 1995\1996. 1) The steroid scandal killed a lot of endorsements and WWE took a while to recover. Parents didn't want there kids watching a bunch of steroid freaks. 2) Hogan on his way out didn't put anybody over besides Yokozuna. 3) 90's pop culture and the trend of gangster rap-rebels-grunge didn't fit into Vince's style of the way he was running the business. NWO would do the exact opposite and take advantage of the 90's pop culture. These things ^^ played a bigger part than Shawn Michaels failing to draw, if anything Shawn kept things respectable against very stiff competition while Vince was still stuck on his outdated ways of booking his company. 1. I never said anything of the sort. In fact up there you have two near identical replies to the ladder match/talking to Vince thing. 2. Taker’s preference has nothing to do with anyone besides Taker. 3. Fair enough. 4. Yup he beat those guys in matches no one remembers except throwing a bitch fit in his match with Vader. 5. He was the top guy. No question. Though Sid and Bret were still plenty over. Though Vince just about had to shutter the company or go back to a territory during Shawn’s time at the top, he was main eventing those high school gyms. 6. More over than Taker???!!!!! Your opinion loses credibility to me if you think Taker-Foley hiac was better or more influential than taker hbk hiac, ive rarely if EVER have come across someone say such a thing. It just shows your biased dislike for shawn michaels as you said he was being a bitch as well. The only highschool gym was Wrestlemania 13 when Shawn Michaels didn't wrestle despite having bret taker austin all on the card. If anything, wrestlemania 13 buyrate proves Undertaker wasn't quite a huge star just yet until his feud with Shawn Michaels in 1997 that would later pop the buyrate in 1998 royal rumble. Shawn Michaels facing Nash or facing Bret at wrestlemania outdrew both taker-sid and austin-bret at wrestlemania 13, which proves Michaels was a draw on a very thin roster. Wcw product fit 90s style and pop culture, vinces company did not end of story. Put any pure babyface in shawns role in 1996 and they all fail when competing vs a company that consisted of a thug type culture in the 90s thug rap music boom with 2 pac and biggie. Shawn Michaels would again prove his great drawing power wm23, ss2005, ss2006, even wm26 drew a solid buyrate with his retirement match. Thats two wrestlemanias and two Summerslams as the main attraction in the 2000s plus his drawing differences on the 90s wrestlemanias have already been explained. You have shown very high bias towards shawn Michaels in an unflattering way so i guess you can just overlook all those ppv draws, most over guy in company 1995, 1996,2008, 2003.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,905
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on May 21, 2018 17:13:33 GMT -5
I have made no statement on Taker v. Foley in this thread at all.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 21, 2018 17:15:37 GMT -5
Would have been amazing.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,905
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on May 21, 2018 17:24:00 GMT -5
What would have been amazing?
|
|
|
Post by Defrebel - White Pony on May 21, 2018 17:31:56 GMT -5
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. Foley's "few big bumps" are probably the most iconic highspots in history, while Shawn/Taker is most remembered for the dude that lumbered out at the end.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 17:44:49 GMT -5
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. Foley's "few big bumps" are probably the most iconic highspots in history, while Shawn/Taker is most remembered for the dude that lumbered out at the end. Lumbered out thank you for proving my point how much Shawn Michaels elevated Taker even with beating him. Most fans from what I've seen remember it as the beginning of the hell in a cell and the greatest match of all time, if you want to remember it for a guy lumbering it, to each its own. Just remember that guy lumbering out was the one who elevated Undertaker into the best story and the best rub he's ever received at that point of his career and that's one of my main points I was trying to make.
|
|
|
Post by hbkwrestlinggod on May 21, 2018 17:47:23 GMT -5
I have made no statement on Taker v. Foley in this thread at all. My mistake, intended for frosty.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,428
|
Post by FinalGwen on May 21, 2018 17:55:35 GMT -5
Foley's "few big bumps" are probably the most iconic highspots in history, while Shawn/Taker is most remembered for the dude that lumbered out at the end. Lumbered out thank you for proving my point how much Shawn Michaels elevated Taker even with beating him. Most fans from what I've seen remember it as the beginning of the hell in a cell and the greatest match of all time, if you want to remember it for a guy lumbering it, to each its own. Just remember that guy lumbering out was the one who elevated Undertaker into the best story and the best rub he's ever received at that point of his career and that's one of my main points I was trying to make. I think you misinterpreted the post there, and that it was referring to Kane's debut. Y'know, the only reason 90% of people remember that first HIAC match.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on May 21, 2018 17:59:39 GMT -5
Well, this thread has certainly been an experience but I think the circles we're going in lead nowhere.
|
|