Shawn Micheals is he the greatest of all time???

[SlimTrip]

HBK is the GOAT

[Icecap]

Is he one of the best ever? Yeah. Is he the greatest of all time? No. He isn't.

Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Flair are all wrestlers I would rank higher then Michaels.
Then of course you have guys like Undertaker, Hart, Angle, Jericho, and Sting who I would say are roughly on the same level of HBK. Of that latter group Michaels is definitely on their level, but he's not notably better than any one of them.

A few things to remember in addition to all of this. Michaels' title reigns were all busts. You can say "yeah from a boxoffice perspective but I was entertained," and that's all well and good. Pro wrestling is subjective. At the same time, though, box office drawing power is a huge component of what makes a pro wrestler great. Michaels' lacklustre WWF title reigns from a box office perspective do hurt him there.
As for his 'Mania X ladder match with Hall, it did bring the ladder match into the mainstream. And both men deserve credit for that. On the other hand, ladder matches were around for decades prior to WrestleMania X, so I can't say he actually innovated that concept.

His "reputation" as "The Showstopper," "The Main Event," and "Mr. WrestleMania" is a manufactured reputation. They're the nicknames Vince and his marketing guys came up with. Now don't get me wrong, Shawn has lived up to those in some ways. Still though, they're just catchphrases.

Finally the argument that he the best "complete package" doesn't hold much water with me because Flair did everything Michaels did, and did it better.

So really, at the end of the day Shawn Michaels is without a doubt one of the best of all time. Is he the best though? No, he isn't.

Apr 22, 2010 17:53:04 GMT -5 allenfan69 said:

I have to wonder how much better the numbers would have been if he hadn't been virtually head-to-head with the nWo's hottest period for the bulk of his title run.

That's a weak argument, in my opinion. I could argue that the nWo wouldn't have been as hot as they were during the time if Shawn Michaels' title reign was more captivating.

[Piccolo]

He's the greatest of all time. This year. When, say, Jericho retires, we'll be having the same discussion about him. Same with Taker, etc.

That being said, I think Shawn's got a better case for it than most. But the #1 spot is always going to boil down to subjective style preference. It's probably better/more accurate to have a pool of a couple guys who are the greatest of all time, rather than trying to name one who tops them all.

[wcw]

In ring technically its probably Flair, Hart, and Kurt Angle in any order. Michaels is in that second tier of really really great but just shy of being the greatest.

[Paul Is Deadpool R.I.P]

No! Let me reiterate NO! Not even close. Michaels was pushed because of one thing: Loyalty to Vince. Think about it. Pretty much every top WWE name left Vince and the WWF for WCW. Nash, Savage, Hall, Hogan and many more. HBK stayed. Now I don't blame Vince for pushing him as the "best". But its no true.

One thing that makes me laugh is when people complain that Cena has been shoved down our throats, but never mention that the WWF/E did the same thing with HBK.

HBK didn't draw. Sure the nWo was around. But if he was truly the GOAT it wouldn't have mattered.

Knowing moves doesn't mean a damn thing. Which is why Hulk Hogan is/was/and always will be the Greatest Of All Time.

[boomhauer20055]

No but probably in the top 50

[repomark]

It is between Shawn and Austin for the best ever in my view. However, the best in ring performer of all time absolutely is Shawn without question. So many great five star matches - and it is such an impossible void to fill for WWE.

[Icecap]

Apr 26, 2010 15:04:44 GMT -5 Paul Is Deadpool R.I.P said:

No! Let me reiterate NO! Not even close. Michaels was pushed because of one thing: Loyalty to Vince. Think about it. Pretty much every top WWE name left Vince and the WWF for WCW. Nash, Savage, Hall, Hogan and many more. HBK stayed. Now I don't blame Vince for pushing him as the "best". But its no true.

One thing that makes me laugh is when people complain that Cena has been shoved down our throats, but never mention that the WWF/E did the same thing with HBK.

HBK didn't draw. Sure the nWo was around. But if he was truly the GOAT it wouldn't have mattered.

Knowing moves doesn't mean a damn thing. Which is why Hulk Hogan is/was/and always will be the Greatest Of All Time.

Truth. Except the Hogan thing. He's not my clear cut GOAT, but he's up there with Flair, Austin, and Rock.

[rusty]

Apr 22, 2010 21:05:27 GMT -5 Captain Charisma said:

Hogan is. Did you not see the Hulkster smack HBK around the ring during Summer(fest) a few years back. Michaels couldn't match that raw power.

That's nothing! Kurt Angle made him tap at WM. Kurt's the greatest!

[stinger]

Yes he is. If you have any appreciation for match chemistry and in-ring storytelling, all you have to do is watch an HBK match to see it. At Wrestlemania X, Shawn had a match with a ladder and it is one of the most influential matches of all-time. Scott Hall contributed very little there, in my opinion.

This crap about not being able to draw is both incorrect and misguided. First of all, almost every one of WWF's stars had left during the time Shawn was champ. Of course people were gonna watch WCW...it was a better overall product. I've also never had much respect for drawing potential. Batista draws and is one of the worst wrestlers I've ever seen. Warrior drew like hell and people around here love to crap on him.

Also, just because someone is the most well-known doesn't make them best. See: Hogan, Hulk.

[Icecap]

Apr 26, 2010 19:17:13 GMT -5 stinger said:

Yes he is. If you have any appreciation for match chemistry and in-ring storytelling, all you have to do is watch an HBK match to see it.

Everything that Shawn did in the ring (and out for that matter) Flair did better. This talk about Shawn being the best "complete package" of in-ring work, story telling ability, and charisma doesn't hold much water with me. Again Flair. Yes, Shawn was very good on the mic, very good in the ring, and could tell a great story. Flair was just that much better then he was though. As far as the complete package wrestlers go, Shawn's #2 behind Slick Ric.

At Wrestlemania X, Shawn had a match with a ladder and it is one of the most influential matches of all-time. Scott Hall contributed very little there, in my opinion.

First off, it's not that influential. Ladder matches were being done 20 years prior to 'Mania X.
Second of all, while the 'Mania X match was great, you're REALLY selling Scott Hall short. Hall gets a lot of (deserved) crap these days, but the fact is that he was still a fantastic in-ring talent and had his fair share of charisma and story telling abilities as well. Shawn Michaels didn't carry Hall in that match. It was an equal effort by two great talents.

This crap about not being able to draw is both incorrect and misguided. First of all, almost every one of WWF's stars had left during the time Shawn was champ. Of course people were gonna watch WCW...it was a better overall product.

You know what's hilarious about this? Back when Bret vs Shawn threads were all the rage (before Bret, Shawn, and Vince put it all behind them, sadly the fans can't seem to) all of the HBK supporters would point to the down period during Hart's reign as champ and say "he couldn't draw!" Never mind the fact that Hart was dealing with a surging WCW and the aftermath of the steroid trials, the HBK marks would point to the fact that business was low when Hart was on top as "proof" that he was a poor champion.
Now that people are starting to point to the fact that Shawn was no great shakes as a draw as champ those same HBK fans are throwing out excuses left and right as to why the low business at the time shouldn't be counted against Michaels.
Look, if Shawn Michaels was truly the GOAT bar none it wouldn't have mattered what WCW was doing. If Shawn was the best of all time people would have wanted to see him as champion. Instead they tuned into Turner to watch Hulk Hogan.

I've also never had much respect for drawing potential. Batista draws and is one of the worst wrestlers I've ever seen. Warrior drew like hell and people around here love to crap on him.

Really? Now you're just being blinded by your HBK markishness (?). I have news for you. Wrestling's fake. How well a champion draws is just as important of what they do in the ring. Shawn Michaels simply didn't draw enough when he was pushed as the guy to be seriously considered as the GOAT. I would argue that drawing power is just as important as in-ring work/skill and charisma. You can be the best technical wrestler alive. You could be awesome on the mic. If you can't get people to watch your shows and buy tickets to events to see you, you're lacking something as a pro wrestler.
For all the crap Batista and Warrior get (most is deserved in Warrior's case), they accomplished something that HBK never did, they drew money, sold tickets, and brought in ratings when they were Champion. Shawn didn't.

Also, just because someone is the most well-known doesn't make them best. See: Hogan, Hulk.

Hulk Hogan is the reason wrestling is as big as it is. He was the first wrestler since the "golden age" of the 1950s to transcend the business. He set the template for what most people thought a pro wrestler should be. Not only that, but he managed to get two, TWO, separate, incredibly successful runs at top. One as the babyface super hero, another as the smug jackass. Shawn didn't even have one successful run at top as far as business goes, Hogan had two.
Austin was the next Hulk Hogan. He connected with fans, and made more money. His matches were entertaining and revolutionized the WWF/E's in-ring style.
Rock was, arguably, bigger then both Hogan and Austin. He drew insane money, was FANTASTIC on the mic, and was pretty good in the ring. As far as transcending the business goes, he so popular as a wrestler he managed to carve out a successful film career for himself.
Flair, well Flair was the best complete package. He was a fantastic draw, both as champ and not. He had immense in-ring talent. He could carry almost anyone. And he was gold on the mic.

The fact is that being well-known IS a very important factor when trying to determine the GOAT of professional wrestling. Because the sport is worked mainstream popularity and drawing power matter just as much as in-ring skill and charisma.

Shawn's good, don't get me wrong. And if he's your personal favourite, cool. Objectivley speaking, he isn't the GOAT and isn't really on the same level as those who could be considered contenders for that honour.

[Dr. T is an alien]

No, but he at least deserves to be in the conversation.

[rapidfire187]

HBK had more consistently good matches than anybody else in WWE's history. While guys like Angle, Benoit, Eddie, Jericho etc. have more good matches than bad, there's not too many HBK matches that have disappointed. When it comes down to putting on a good long match, HBK could have a great one with just about anybody. Most of his less than stellar matches are from earlier in his singles career, but I can't say that the guy has had a bad match since 1996-1997. Even his worst matches were better than most of the card.

I believe that HBK is what any WWE wrestler should aim to be. Not saying they should emulate him, but they should try to show the same strengths that he did. The guy could wrestle, cut promos, take big bumps, be controversial, be conservative, and most importantly keep himself insanely over with the fans. The fact that HBK did not have a singles title run from the end of 2002 all the way until his retirement, yet he was still one of the most over guys in the company speaks volumes about his appeal.

So while I wouldn't say he's the greatest wrestler ever, I'd definitely say he's had the greatest WWE career ever.

[bob]

he is clearly one of the best ever......but I think Flair is the best ever

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2010 19:17:13 GMT -5 stinger said:

This crap about not being able to draw is both incorrect and misguided. First of all, almost every one of WWF's stars had left during the time Shawn was champ. Of course people were gonna watch WCW...it was a better overall product. I've also never had much respect for drawing potential. Batista draws and is one of the worst wrestlers I've ever seen. Warrior drew like hell and people around here love to crap on him.

Wrestling is fake. What one person considers a "good match", someone else may find boring. Neither one is wrong, it is a matter of personal taste. How a wrestler draws far exceeds his perceived in-ring ability because a lot of times the latter is subjective. I thougth Warrior from 1989-1991 was a very good worker. The quality of his matches from that time show that, IMO. Others may disagree. Fine. But he drew money, was popular, and still to this day is remembered as one of the top stars of his era.

How great is a wrestler if no one wants to pay to watch him in his prime? Using that logic you can pluck any Indy wrestler and say he is the greatest. It's pointless. Shawn should be remembered for his work, but really, he was not a big star. From what I remember he was basically begging to go to WCW to be with his buddies in 1996-97 but Vince held on to him.

Also, just because someone is the most well-known doesn't make them best. See: Hogan, Hulk.

In wrestling, the most important aspect is drawing money and bringing wrestling to the mainstream. Hogan is the greatest ever for that reason. He took NOTHING and turned it into something. There were no PPV's, there was no established international market, there was no WrestleMania......Hogan was the man when all of those things had to be established, and guys like Austin and Rock simply took advantage of what Hogan helped build in the first place. It is not hyperbole to say that without Hogan wrestling would have died a long time ago (at least the wrestling we have come to know today).

Hogan was not only the most popular wrestling in his prime, he was one of the most popular celebrities in the world. He was popular in Japan and the AWA before Vince Jr. took advantage of his popularity. He was not a flash in the pan or "right place, right time" guy. He had every conceivable talent required in wrestling to be a top star, and that's why he was one.

Again, a wrestler's in-ring ability is really subjective in many cases (unless he really sucks and everyone can see it). Shawn was very good in the ring and with the mic, but ultimately, he was not a big star and that hurts his overall legacy.

[Bo Rida]

While it could be argued that HBK didn't draw as champion he must have made WWE a fortune in merchandise sales down the years, in the past few years many crowds have been a sea of DX shirts and glowsticks

I'm sure some would argue that doesn't count as it's not him on his own.

[Das Einhorn]

Great? Indisputable. The best? I can't say that.
My top five:
1. Ric Flair
2. Bret Hart
3. Undertaker
4. HBK
5. HHH

[metylerca]

I'd say so, but only for today. Tomorrow, it'll probably be HHH or Bret Hart.

[Icecap]

May 5, 2010 16:59:00 GMT -5 Bo Rida said:

While it could be argued that HBK didn't draw as champion he must have made WWE a fortune in merchandise sales down the years, in the past few years many crowds have been a sea of DX shirts and glowsticks

I'm sure some would argue that doesn't count as it's not him on his own.

On the "reborn" D-X I'll quote Spoony;
"Revolutionaries do not shill for green glow sticks!"

May 5, 2010 16:12:10 GMT -5 @conebone69 said:

Apr 26, 2010 19:17:13 GMT -5 stinger said:

This crap about not being able to draw is both incorrect and misguided. First of all, almost every one of WWF's stars had left during the time Shawn was champ. Of course people were gonna watch WCW...it was a better overall product. I've also never had much respect for drawing potential. Batista draws and is one of the worst wrestlers I've ever seen. Warrior drew like hell and people around here love to crap on him.

Wrestling is fake. What one person considers a "good match", someone else may find boring. Neither one is wrong, it is a matter of personal taste. How a wrestler draws far exceeds his perceived in-ring ability because a lot of times the latter is subjective. I thougth Warrior from 1989-1991 was a very good worker. The quality of his matches from that time show that, IMO. Others may disagree. Fine. But he drew money, was popular, and still to this day is remembered as one of the top stars of his era.

How great is a wrestler if no one wants to pay to watch him in his prime? Using that logic you can pluck any Indy wrestler and say he is the greatest. It's pointless. Shawn should be remembered for his work, but really, he was not a big star. From what I remember he was basically begging to go to WCW to be with his buddies in 1996-97 but Vince held on to him.

Also, just because someone is the most well-known doesn't make them best. See: Hogan, Hulk.

In wrestling, the most important aspect is drawing money and bringing wrestling to the mainstream. Hogan is the greatest ever for that reason. He took NOTHING and turned it into something. There were no PPV's, there was no established international market, there was no WrestleMania......Hogan was the man when all of those things had to be established, and guys like Austin and Rock simply took advantage of what Hogan helped build in the first place. It is not hyperbole to say that without Hogan wrestling would have died a long time ago (at least the wrestling we have come to know today).

Hogan was not only the most popular wrestling in his prime, he was one of the most popular celebrities in the world. He was popular in Japan and the AWA before Vince Jr. took advantage of his popularity. He was not a flash in the pan or "right place, right time" guy. He had every conceivable talent required in wrestling to be a top star, and that's why he was one.

Again, a wrestler's in-ring ability is really subjective in many cases (unless he really sucks and everyone can see it). Shawn was very good in the ring and with the mic, but ultimately, he was not a big star and that hurts his overall legacy.

Very well said.

[cabbageboy]

I can't say Michaels is the best ever. Maybe it's due to detesting him for so many years (roughly his entire 1992-98 singles run) but I can't say it. Here are some reasons:

1. He didn't draw. What was the only time the WWF was the #2 promotion? When HBK was on top. Note that Austin beat him at WM in 1998 and two weeks later the WWF was back on top of WCW in the ratings. Just saying.

2. He has no serious moves. I watched WM 26 on DVD last night and thought about something during the main event. Even in kayfabe terms, how exactly can Shawn Michaels BEAT The Undertaker? As in, what are his moves that could put the man away? Answer: He has none. That's a big problem I've always had with Shawn compared to Bret. Given Shawn's offense how can he beat men like Sid, Nash, or Vader? Bret at least focused an attack on Nash's leg and tied him to a corner..you know, a strategy.

Honestly, how would HBK beat the Undertaker barring a ridiculous amount of run ins? One guy has a Tombstone, Last Ride, the Hell's Gate, and so on.....the other guy has a wimpy super kick.