Shawn Micheals the greatest or just WWE hype?

[Big L]

May 12, 2012 4:53:34 GMT -5 Marvelously Mediocre said:

Neither. Greatest Ever, especially in wrestling is purely a matter of opinion and Shawn Michaels has certainly done enough for me to be considered the best.

[The Legend of Groose]

I can't really say I can pick one superstar that is the greatest but I would put Shawn Stasiak Micheals in the top 10 easy.

[Bob Schlapowitz]

May 12, 2012 15:11:37 GMT -5 T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens said:

The guy has benefited from more manufactured hype than any wrestler I've seen in the 30 years that I've been a fan. Don't get me wrong, he's very good and probably one of the top ten performers ever, but he's also always had the machine behind him working overtime. Did he work hard? Of course. But he's also had more support and more company men working hard to protect him and sell him to the masses than anyone in history. Alot of his big moments, especially at the beginning, were forced upon us and so overtly created to"make" him the man that they're hard to ignore as anything other than manufactured hype. Alot of guys have talent. Shawn Michaels had talent AND the hype machine dialed up to 11. He's benefited greatly from both.

Buddy, you said it. You just said word for word pretty much entirely how I feel on the subject. Bravo, sir.

[cabbageboy]

This is interesting because HBK has had so much more longevity than most of these guys. In reality Austin's run was basically from about 1997-2001, with 2000 off. He was just sorta there in WCW and post 2001 he was complete crap. The problem with Bret is that both men were more or less around from 1988-97 in the WWF, but Shawn is younger and added another decade of work after Bret retired from the concussion.

I can't call him the best ever though. Frankly I can't give "best ever" to someone I find so totally unbelievable in the ring. If you really think about it...how exactly could Shawn Michaels beat The Undertaker? I mean what does he really have? A superkick?

[Wolf Hurricane]

May 13, 2012 1:39:05 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

May 12, 2012 13:30:25 GMT -5 SenorCrest said:

To me HBK is one of the greatest. There isn't a match I didn't like from him.

This statement just pisses me off. The only people that needs to be concern about ratings is wwe not the fans. Who gives a f*** about ratings?

So you're pissed off that I pointed out a fact, and because you love Shawn Michaels you think that fans shouldn't ever mention ratings. Got it.

No, rating someone based on how many ratings they bring in is kind of, well, stupid. More people have heard of Candace Michelle than have heard of Sara Del Rey, let alone seen in action; by that logic, I assume you'd consider Candace better than Del Rey, and no one would agree with you. Similarly, Brock Lesnar's name on a UFC poster probably attract more names than Tim Sylvia's, particularly from casual fans; but if you think, by that measure, Lesnar's better than Sylvia, you're delusional.

Simply put, I agree with Crest. This isn't about who drew more ratings or who was invited to more talk shows, it's who's the best wrestler; and based on his body of work, the fact that there aren't a lot of matches you can point to and say they were bad and no people you can point to and say he didn't click with them in the ring, it's very easy to make a case for HBK.

[PTBartman]

May 12, 2012 15:11:37 GMT -5 T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens said:

The guy has benefited from more manufactured hype than any wrestler I've seen in the 30 years that I've been a fan. Don't get me wrong, he's very good and probably one of the top ten performers ever, but he's also always had the machine behind him working overtime. Did he work hard? Of course. But he's also had more support and more company men working hard to protect him and sell him to the masses than anyone in history. Alot of his big moments, especially at the beginning, were forced upon us and so overtly created to"make" him the man that they're hard to ignore as anything other than manufactured hype. Alot of guys have talent. Shawn Michaels had talent AND the hype machine dialed up to 11. He's benefited greatly from both.

Hype Machine + Talent= HBK
Hype Machine - talent= Lashley

I' will say this about HBK, he could make every minute of an Iron Man match compelling and that's saying something. Of course he benfitted from the Hype Machine. Name one person on the list who didn't. Speaking of lists, take the first list of ten (the non japanese one). Did anyone else have as many great matches or memorable feuds with other people on that list as michaels did? That's got to account for something.

[Dr. Bunsen Honeydew]

May 13, 2012 5:47:58 GMT -5 Jedi-El of Tomorrow said:

May 13, 2012 1:26:04 GMT -5 mauled said:

People talked about drawing but if you look at it he main evented 4 wrestlemanias (thats not counting all the other ppv's) in a row before he had his back injury. To put that into context the Rock only did 5 (not including 28) and 4 for Austin. Even WM 13 (where Shawn would have been in the title match before he lost his smile) where he does not wrestle they literally stop the title match so he and Bret can yell at each other for a bit.

I only count 2 Manias in a row main evented by HBK. Wrestlemanias 11 (and even then that Mania was all about LT vs Bam Bam) and 12. He wasn't on the card for 13, so that doesn't count. While Shawn did main event 14, the focus of that Mania was Tyson and Austin, HBK was an afterthought.

I hate the Mr Wrestlemania hype. To me Hogan is Mr Wrestlemania. Look at how many Manias are built around Hogan's matches. Hogan is Mania, without him, it doesn't take off.

It's obvious you don't know the criteria for why Shawn is called Mr. Wrestlemania. It has nothing to do with what manias he main evented. It has to do with putting on the match of the night, or stealing the show. By that measure, Hogan doesn't come close to Shawn.

[Vince's Torn Quads]

Hype or no hype, Shawn is well worthy of being called the greatest ever in-ring performer. Of course there are other components that make up the complete package of the 'pro-wrestler', mic work, charisma, drawing power, blah blah blah, areas in which there are others better than he.

[Arrow]

May 13, 2012 10:34:15 GMT -5 Wolf Hurricane said:

May 13, 2012 1:39:05 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

So you're pissed off that I pointed out a fact, and because you love Shawn Michaels you think that fans shouldn't ever mention ratings. Got it.

No, rating someone based on how many ratings they bring in is kind of, well, stupid.

I don't think so. Ratings and, more importantly, the money one draws is a big part of professional wrestling, isn't it? It can't be a coincidence that the biggest stars we always hear about (Hogan, Austin, Rock) are usually guys who drew the most money.

Not that it should be the only criteria, mind you, or that it needs to influence anyone's personal opinions, but if we're going to try and objectively judge someone as the "greatest" then I would think that people would have to bring it up at some point.

[Allie Kitsune]

I don't think it's really fair to hold it against Shawn that he never left WWE to go learn the King's Road style or the Super Junior style in Japan.

I haven't seen much Puro (which is made all the more obvious when you realize my favorite Japanese wrestler was Kojima, and I only got to see a few matches of his, all of them over the internet long after the fact), but even if I had, I still don't think I could hold it against him for not spending a long period (or in his case, ANY period) of his career there.

[machomuta]

May 12, 2012 5:32:00 GMT -5 Arthur Digby Stamp said:

. Shawn Michaels has the greatest body of work of any wrestler past or present.

Not really.

Ric Flair was way better. A guy like Eddie Guerrero was also better then HBK.

[nisidhe]

May 13, 2012 12:57:17 GMT -5 Vince's Torn Quads said:

Hype or no hype, Shawn is well worthy of being called the greatest ever in-ring performer. Of course there are other components that make up the complete package of the 'pro-wrestler', mic work, charisma, drawing power, blah blah blah, areas in which there are others better than he.

Shawn Michaels was certainly entertaining, but as we're seeing from Dolph Ziggler, you need more than posing and selling like death to be considered even good in the ring. Even the weakest Dungeon alumnus could out-wrestle Michaels at his peak. Heck, you can't even make the claim that he was the greatest aerialist in the business. Do not even attempt to suggest that Michaels was the best technician even to enter a WWE ring.

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

In my Opinion its both. In some ways Shawn up there. In other ways he isn't. Shawn is better then Bret when it comes too match types. Yes Bret was one of the greatest Technical wrestlers in history. But if Bret was in the ladder match with Hall at WM. Would that match been as memorable? Or if Bret faced The Undertaker in HIAC. Would HIAC been as successful? Because what is remembered and high lighted in both of those matches? HBK ladder splash. HBK bumps in HIAC. Things that Bret never was known too do.

HBK held his own as a Technical wrestler but he was very good at doing other styles when the match called for it. Bret always tried too make every match Technical.

Now, I'm not taking anything from Bret. He was great at what he did. I always liked him against big men because how he broke down the big guys.

We can judge HBK drawing power but lets face it. NOBODY could draw at that time. The reason had nothing too do with HBK as champion. It was the writing and what they where up against overall. . WCW had a white hot angle. That a lot of guys saw it at the start as WWE guys invading. The NWO was something special. Plus on top of the NWO they had a stacked under card with the Cruiserweights. Two hour live show. Raw in 96 was one hour. tapped.

The WWE didn't have HBK in a hot angle or even a great angle. Bret was gone. Outside of Taker and Mankind. The undercard was horrible. No matter who was WWE champion. It wasn't going too draw against what WCW had at the time.

But there was things others did better overall then him.

But IMO the best ever is the Undertaker. This guy turned what anybody else playing it Wrestlecrap into one of the greatest characters of all time.

When it comes too put it ALL together. This guy is it. He can draw. Everytime he shows up since returning as the deadman. Had this special energy from him. Something very few in this business has. When that gong hits. All attention is on him. Everyone stops what there doing and goes nuts for him.

I can recall. A supershow here in St. Louis. The dark match ME. Was Cena vs. Taker. Most fans didn't know it was comming. After Raw ended everyone started too leave. Then boom. That gong hits and the lights went out. Everyone stop dead in there tracks and sat down wherever and went nuts for him. This guy is so respected by everyone. Hell the WWE talent all look up too this guy. The fans hardly every say bad things about him.

This guy can work a match like no other. Gets the crowd going like no other. So IMO the best ever is the Undertaker.

[perpetualn00b]

May 12, 2012 3:37:24 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Basically, the true options for "greatest of all time" are any combination of Hogan, Austin, Flair, and Rock. Anyone else is just hyperbole.

There are... a few names missing off that list, first and foremost being Gorgeous George. It's "greates of all time", not "greatest since the mid-eighties".

[rnrk supports BLM]

May 12, 2012 3:37:24 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Basically, the true options for "greatest of all time" are any combination of Hogan, Austin, Flair, and Rock. Anyone else is just hyperbole.

Flair is vastly overrated to be named among those guys if we're talking about starpower and mainstream popularity rather than in-ring ability. The '80s NWA was never serious competition to WWF outside the southern US, and by the time WCW hit the late '90s boom, Flair was overshadowed by the nWo/Sting/Goldberg.

[flatsdomino]

May 12, 2012 3:37:24 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Basically, the true options for "greatest of all time" are any combination of Hogan, Austin, Flair, and Rock. Anyone else is just hyperbole.

Savage.

[Yami Daimao]

May 12, 2012 6:20:23 GMT -5 Dr. Bunsen Honeydew said:

May 12, 2012 3:37:24 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Besides, if it were based soley on in-ring skills, he's still outclassed by Bret Hart.

Completely false. Shawn was way better than Bret.

While Bret is more "technical" than Shawn, the former used to bore me to tears. Shawn was entertaining as hell to watch, and that's why he's considered one of the greatest.

[Welfare Willis]

Yes. It's arguable, but he is top teir.

[MichaelMartini]

I don't think he's the greatest ever. Big elbow, kip up, moonsaults, figure four, stupid corner flip, superkick. Every time. No psychology, just flash. The only reason I think he's top teir is because of longevity.

[HBL]

May 14, 2012 2:25:08 GMT -5 MichaelMartini said:

I don't think he's the greatest ever. Big elbow, kip up, moonsaults, figure four, stupid corner flip, superkick. Every time. No psychology, just flash. The only reason I think he's top teir is because of longevity.

Yeah,screw him for having a moveset like everyone else.