Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905 
|
Post by Lila on May 16, 2012 16:02:00 GMT -5
I don't think there's much more to discuss here. I think majority of us here know that this indeed hype on WWE part. I'm not saying Michaels isn't great, he definately is to me, but even I know he's not the greatest of all time.
|
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on May 16, 2012 16:12:17 GMT -5
who won the monday night wars? Checkmate sir. Not really. WWE didnt win the Monday Night Wars because of HBK. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 16, 2012 18:15:11 GMT -5
Alright fine. I still think he's the greatest. I do want to see how many main event matches he was in when he came back just to enhance my point and maybe sway some you. I believe he did keep the company afloat though he was the champion through the worst of it.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 16, 2012 18:23:52 GMT -5
Alright fine. I still think he's the greatest. I do want to see how many main event matches he was in when he came back just to enhance my point and maybe sway some you. I believe he did keep the company afloat though he was the champion through the worst of it. Those main event matches were always against the person who was the main draw, not Michaels. Triple H, Cena, Orton and others were all given greater focus over their matches than Michaels was as they were seen as better draws. And his reign as Champion was a failure because he was through the worst of it. If you try to follow through with that logic, Diesel was a better Champion than Shawn because he did a slightly better job than Michaels at keeping the company afloat. |
|
|
|
Post by SkullTrauma on May 16, 2012 18:40:53 GMT -5
Diesel was a better Champion than Shawn because he did a slightly better job than Michaels at keeping the company afloat. imo, Diesel was a better champion than Michaels because he entertained me a hell of a lot more. Sid, too. |
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on May 16, 2012 19:28:32 GMT -5
Alright fine. I still think he's the greatest. I do want to see how many main event matches he was in when he came back just to enhance my point and maybe sway some you. I believe he did keep the company afloat though he was the champion through the worst of it. Those main event matches were always against the person who was the main draw, not Michaels. Triple H, Cena, Orton and others were all given greater focus over their matches than Michaels was as they were seen as better draws. And his reign as Champion was a failure because he was through the worst of it. If you try to follow through with that logic, Diesel was a better Champion than Shawn because he did a slightly better job than Michaels at keeping the company afloat. ] Just When I think I'm out, you pull me back in. Just asking, you say that all those others were the main focus of the matches, but why do you think Sean was always the "other" guy in the match. Could it be that because the company trusted him and his talent to make their chosen one look good? |
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 16, 2012 19:31:58 GMT -5
Those main event matches were always against the person who was the main draw, not Michaels. Triple H, Cena, Orton and others were all given greater focus over their matches than Michaels was as they were seen as better draws. And his reign as Champion was a failure because he was through the worst of it. If you try to follow through with that logic, Diesel was a better Champion than Shawn because he did a slightly better job than Michaels at keeping the company afloat. ] Just When I think I'm out, you pull me back in. Just asking, you say that all those others were the main focus of the matches, but why do you think Sean was always the "other" guy in the match. Could it be that because the company trusted him and his talent to make their chosen one look good? Could be. He had good matches but that doesn't have much to do with Shawn being seen as the guy to be the front of the company. Rather like why they have Ziggler wrestle a lot of people, he makes them look good, but he's not the one they're relying on to actually make money. |
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on May 16, 2012 19:32:37 GMT -5
Yes and no. It depends on who you ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 16, 2012 20:04:52 GMT -5
who won the monday night wars? Checkmate sir. Not really. WWE didnt win the Monday Night Wars because of HBK. Especially considering he wasn't even around once the tide began to turn. |
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on May 16, 2012 22:48:16 GMT -5
] Just When I think I'm out, you pull me back in. Just asking, you say that all those others were the main focus of the matches, but why do you think Sean was always the "other" guy in the match. Could it be that because the company trusted him and his talent to make their chosen one look good? Could be. He had good matches but that doesn't have much to do with Shawn being seen as the guy to be the front of the company. Rather like why they have Ziggler wrestle a lot of people, he makes them look good, but he's not the one they're relying on to actually make money. ] But that's not the question. The question is, is he the best IN-RING PERFORMER and to me the fact that they trusted him so many times to make their money-maker look good lends credence to that argument. |
|
tms
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by tms on May 16, 2012 22:51:23 GMT -5
I've thought this ever since I first saw him in WCW, and I'll say it now: there's not a single thing that HBK could do in the ring that Eddie Guerrero couldn't do better. Brawling, mat-wrestling, acrobatics, lucha-style, you name it. Eddie's the most talented in-ring wrestler I've ever seen, and I like Shawn's matches just fine.
I'd also rate prime Savage and Steamboat ahead of him. I'd say Benoit, Malenko (though not during his WWE stint, so I'm not sure if he counts), and the Dynamite Kid were all more talented in-ring performers, although in the case of Malenko he hardly ever seemed to wrestle non-cruiserweights (which was probably due more to WCW politics than anything). Malenko's really underrated for his in-ring work when people mention the all-time greatest workers.
I'd say Bret, while not as talented physically, wrestled better matches top to bottom in terms of making everything look real and competitive. It really depends on what type of style you prefer.
Shawn's offense always looked very weak to me. He didn't have the velocity to his attacks that guys his size and smaller (Guerrero, Benoit) had to make him look believable as a brawler. He was a gifted acrobat and high-flyer, but again I think Guerrero had him beat there too.
He's pretty much a WWE guy through and through though, and you know how much loyalty is rewarded...
|
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 17, 2012 2:12:28 GMT -5
Alright fine. I still think he's the greatest. I do want to see how many main event matches he was in when he came back just to enhance my point and maybe sway some you. I believe he did keep the company afloat though he was the champion through the worst of it. Those main event matches were always against the person who was the main draw, not Michaels. Triple H, Cena, Orton and others were all given greater focus over their matches than Michaels was as they were seen as better draws. And his reign as Champion was a failure because he was through the worst of it. If you try to follow through with that logic, Diesel was a better Champion than Shawn because he did a slightly better job than Michaels at keeping the company afloat. Diesel was not around when the company was going down - he had left. The WWE Champion (HBK) was the main event the top star & since the company didn't fold in 1996. Shawn held it together. Sure he had help but if the main event was not enticing there would have been nothing to go back on... Austin wasn't made yet so it wasn't that. Bret was gone. So for a while it was just Shawn & Taker. I am sure when the history of the WWE is told that Vince himself will look back & say Shawn helped us stay afloat. People who bought those shows did not buy it for the other top main eventer - I will give two examples - Summerslam 2004 when Shawn returned --- Armageddon 2004 when Shawn was champion against top heel HHH everyone wanted Shawn to win both of those matches because it was HBK. I can give a more current example - The HBK vs. Jericho feud in the summer of 2007 over the world heavyweight title where HBK was a way over sympathetic babyface & true Jericho was at his best too but one has to be blind to not see Shawn's contributions there. Here's three more examples- Wrestlemania 21 - HBK vs. Kurt Angle one of the most highest praised matches in history that completely overshadows both main event championship matches on that card... it became the rivalry after that with countless rematches between the two before Angle left. Both Wrestlemania 25 & 26 were all about HBK vs. Taker. That was the best match top feud & most memorable moment. I also dare say Wrestlemania XX - HBK was brought in because Benoit vs. HHH was not enough of a draw. So please please stop spewing your hate. I get it you don't like HBK. I will keep it coming if you like but let's just call a spade a spade. |
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on May 17, 2012 2:41:49 GMT -5
You've blown any cred you thought you had on the last page.
Yes Shawn has had several great matches but it's mainly because he's one of only a handful of small guys given that spot. That's why he appears to be so versatile. TNA pushes smaller guys (or used to) and most of indies are smaller guys. They can do stuff HBK could only dream of. But Michaels is the only smaller guy to get a push of that magnitude, and it was because Vince had/has a hard on for him. It's certainly not because he was drawing as people have pointed out. He was shoved down our throats worse than Cena.
When you look at Shawn's career you have to compare him to guys of a similar size - Benot, Eddie, AJ, Flair, Savage, Steamboat, Lance Storm, Kaz, etc. all of whom can wrestle as good or better than him. If Vince loved any of those guys as much as Shawn they would've got the monster push.
What does it mean to be a great in-ring performer? People that say HBK is the GOAT seem to count being acrobatic as the main criteria, even though others think it's not that important. It's why indie promotions aren't huge or why WWE ditched the cruiserweight division. It's why it didn't matter one lick why Hogan and post-neck injury Austin became the biggest stars. Sure Hogan couldn't do moonsaults but it's the little things he did in the ring that had him drawing huge - the selling, the expressions, the posing, the hulking up, etc. It all has to be taken into account. HBK was just an acrobatic small guy given the ball over and over again. He didn't even name himself. Mr. Perfect did.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 17, 2012 3:21:11 GMT -5
I will agree when you mention Eddie -- then you make me think sir. I can honestly disagree with the rest for a variety of reasons.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 17, 2012 6:02:30 GMT -5
Those main event matches were always against the person who was the main draw, not Michaels. Triple H, Cena, Orton and others were all given greater focus over their matches than Michaels was as they were seen as better draws. And his reign as Champion was a failure because he was through the worst of it. If you try to follow through with that logic, Diesel was a better Champion than Shawn because he did a slightly better job than Michaels at keeping the company afloat. Diesel was not around when the company was going down - he had left. The WWE Champion (HBK) was the main event the top star & since the company didn't fold in 1996. Shawn held it together. Sure he had help but if the main event was not enticing there would have been nothing to go back on... Austin wasn't made yet so it wasn't that. Bret was gone. So for a while it was just Shawn & Taker. I am sure when the history of the WWE is told that Vince himself will look back & say Shawn helped us stay afloat. People who bought those shows did not buy it for the other top main eventer - I will give two examples - Summerslam 2004 when Shawn returned --- Armageddon 2004 when Shawn was champion against top heel HHH everyone wanted Shawn to win both of those matches because it was HBK. I can give a more current example - The HBK vs. Jericho feud in the summer of 2007 over the world heavyweight title where HBK was a way over sympathetic babyface & true Jericho was at his best too but one has to be blind to not see Shawn's contributions there. Here's three more examples- Wrestlemania 21 - HBK vs. Kurt Angle one of the most highest praised matches in history that completely overshadows both main event championship matches on that card... it became the rivalry after that with countless rematches between the two before Angle left. Both Wrestlemania 25 & 26 were all about HBK vs. Taker. That was the best match top feud & most memorable moment. I also dare say Wrestlemania XX - HBK was brought in because Benoit vs. HHH was not enough of a draw. So please please stop spewing your hate. I get it you don't like HBK. I will keep it coming if you like but let's just call a spade a spade. I don't hate HBK and find he's a good wrestler. The fact you're taking it that way just shows how much of a blind mark you are to the man that the tiniest bit of criticism comes across that way. And by pointing out Diesel, you're generally proving my point, the company wasn't going down when he was on top, but it was when Shawn was. He wasn't a draw when he needed to be and the company suffered for it. Vince won't look back and say the company survived because of Shawn, he'd most likely say "Thank God Austin and the Rock turned up when they did." And once again, your examples just go to prove my point as Shawn was facing against a draw. Especially against Triple H as he was the that was the face of the company at the time. The company didn't see Shawn as being anything like what Batista was as the future of the company. Jericho, a proven draw as well and put in the place that Shawn couldn't do well in. As for the Undertaker feud, his first match at WrestleMania was below the card with the World titles higher up, once again showing that Shawn was never the main draw and even the next year, he shared the focus with the Cena vs. Batista bout and a returning Bret Hart with only the retirement stipulation adding to the drama along with sharing the match with a proven draw, the Undertaker. Again with the Kurt Angle match, not the top of the card and Angle was given the win because the company saw more in him. You're a mark for the guy but just face facts and admit he was never the draw he needed to be as Champion. When on top in '96, business actually failed because he wasn't a draw as Champion as he needed to be and the company relied on people who could pull in money that Shawn never could. Actually, it was part of the debate I was having with KBM so that's why I brought it up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 8:13:01 GMT -5
Those main event matches were always against the person who was the main draw, not Michaels. Triple H, Cena, Orton and others were all given greater focus over their matches than Michaels was as they were seen as better draws. And his reign as Champion was a failure because he was through the worst of it. If you try to follow through with that logic, Diesel was a better Champion than Shawn because he did a slightly better job than Michaels at keeping the company afloat. Diesel was not around when the company was going down - he had left. The WWE Champion (HBK) was the main event the top star & since the company didn't fold in 1996. Shawn held it together. Sure he had help but if the main event was not enticing there would have been nothing to go back on... Austin wasn't made yet so it wasn't that. Bret was gone. So for a while it was just Shawn & Taker. So when the WWF was drawing 3,917 paid for MSG house shows main evented by Michaels, or 8,308 at CoreStates Spectrum in Philly for Michaels/Diesel, or 5,930 at Joe Louis Arena for Michaels/Vader, or 6,264 at the Civic Arena in Pittsburgh for Michaels/Vader, or 5,501 at Market Square Arena in Indiana for Michaels/Vader, or 7,309 at the Meadowlands for Michaels/Vader, etc, etc, etc, who was to blame for those low attendance figures? Everyone other than the WWF champion? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The reason Hogan gets praised for his drawing ability is because it is undeniable that he was the main draw for the company's huge expansion and record numbers in the 80's. The reason Austin/Rock get praised for their drawing ability is because it is undeniable that they were the main cogs in the Attitude Era. The top guys get the praise when business is good, and the blame when business is bad. Michaels was on top when they were drawing crap. If your argument is they would have drawn LESS with someone else in 1996, I find that hard to believe. You could make that argument with anyone during a down period. |
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by nisidhe on May 17, 2012 11:46:47 GMT -5
So when the WWF was drawing 3,917 paid for MSG house shows main evented by Michaels, or 8,308 at CoreStates Spectrum in Philly for Michaels/Diesel, or 5,930 at Joe Louis Arena for Michaels/Vader, or 6,264 at the Civic Arena in Pittsburgh for Michaels/Vader, or 5,501 at Market Square Arena in Indiana for Michaels/Vader, or 7,309 at the Meadowlands for Michaels/Vader, etc, etc, etc, who was to blame for those low attendance figures? Everyone other than the WWF champion? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The reason Hogan gets praised for his drawing ability is because it is undeniable that he was the main draw for the company's huge expansion and record numbers in the 80's. The reason Austin/Rock get praised for their drawing ability is because it is undeniable that they were the main cogs in the Attitude Era. The top guys get the praise when business is good, and the blame when business is bad. Michaels was on top when they were drawing crap. If your argument is they would have drawn LESS with someone else in 1996, I find that hard to believe. You could make that argument with anyone during a down period. Here's the kicker: on a month-to-month basis, Bret Hart was drawing more money as champion in 1995-96 (up to WM12) than Shawn was during his first run. Meltzer had pointed out the numbers in his report about the Screwjob; and similarly numbers were posted here during a thread sometime ago. Bret was also drawing considerably more than Michaels outside the United States, particularly in Europe where WWF/E was making inroads. As I've told Juice and now KingBookerMaker, I've not received any valid argument about any basis on which Shawn Michaels could be considered the absolute top-notch. His appeal was very much more based on a very concerted, yet misdirected in my opinion, to sell him than on any merits he brought to the business. Heck, Marty Jannetty in teaming with Waltman to win the tag titles demonstrated more professionalism and "willingness to play with others" than Michaels ever did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 12:29:39 GMT -5
I can name more great matches featuring Shawn Michaels than I can for any other individual in WWE/F history.
So for my money he's absolutely the greatest in-ring performer the company has ever had.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,706 
|
Post by The Ichi on May 17, 2012 12:43:38 GMT -5
So when the WWF was drawing 3,917 paid for MSG house shows main evented by Michaels, or 8,308 at CoreStates Spectrum in Philly for Michaels/Diesel, or 5,930 at Joe Louis Arena for Michaels/Vader, or 6,264 at the Civic Arena in Pittsburgh for Michaels/Vader, or 5,501 at Market Square Arena in Indiana for Michaels/Vader, or 7,309 at the Meadowlands for Michaels/Vader, etc, etc, etc, who was to blame for those low attendance figures? Everyone other than the WWF champion? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The reason Hogan gets praised for his drawing ability is because it is undeniable that he was the main draw for the company's huge expansion and record numbers in the 80's. The reason Austin/Rock get praised for their drawing ability is because it is undeniable that they were the main cogs in the Attitude Era. The top guys get the praise when business is good, and the blame when business is bad. Michaels was on top when they were drawing crap. If your argument is they would have drawn LESS with someone else in 1996, I find that hard to believe. You could make that argument with anyone during a down period. Here's the kicker: on a month-to-month basis, Bret Hart was drawing more money as champion in 1995-96 (up to WM12) than Shawn was during his first run. Meltzer had pointed out the numbers in his report about the Screwjob; and similarly numbers were posted here during a thread sometime ago. Bret was also drawing considerably more than Michaels outside the United States, particularly in Europe where WWF/E was making inroads. As I've told Juice and now KingBookerMaker, I've not received any valid argument about any basis on which Shawn Michaels could be considered the absolute top-notch. His appeal was very much more based on a very concerted, yet misdirected in my opinion, to sell him than on any merits he brought to the business. Heck, Marty Jannetty in teaming with Waltman to win the tag titles demonstrated more professionalism and "willingness to play with others" than Michaels ever did. ...Why do you even NEED a valid argument? The people that think he's the best (in the ring, for the record, not at drawing numbers which, yet again, this thread has steered in the direction of) think so because in their mind, he is. You're asking for proof of something that can't be proven, an opinion. Do you ask someone who thinks The Godfather is the greatest movie ever for proof, or do you just tell them they're wrong because Titanic drew a bigger box office? Wrestling fans, man. Such a strange breed. |
|
|
|
Post by That Mickie Fan on May 17, 2012 12:47:01 GMT -5
I think he's the greatest. He's entertained me a lot over the years.
|
|
