Shawn Micheals the greatest or just WWE hype?

[Ginger Beer Man]

He is the greatest.

[Bruce Leroy]

It makes me wonder how many people are going over quantity over quality. Sure, he wrestled for a long time, and had some consistently good and sometimes great matches along the way, but the drawing comments do hold some value. Sure, the New Generation wasn't the greatest period, but sometimes, it takes a break-out star or a group of break-out stars to get things going. Shawn wasn't that star. It took Stone Cold with some back-up to really push things forward again for the WWE. You're really something if you can captivate people enough to cause the audience to grow, but Shawn didn't do that. Put me with the group that thinks it is mostly hype. Honestly, I was more captivated by Trip's first mania match with Taker than HBK's matches. I'm not the biggest Triple H fan, but he engaged me and actually made me think Taker would lose. HBK never did that for me. That's just one example, but a lot of people have made lists that include people better than HBK.

Austin, Rock, Hogan, Flair, Misawa, Inoki, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh/Muta, and Taker could all claim to be the greatest of all time before HBK.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Greatest sustained push of all time, yes. Greatest wrestler of all time, not so much.

People complain about Cena's push, but Michaels received a bigger push which was done in spite of him not being a draw, not being particularly popular with live crowds as a face and his habit of conveniently finding himself 'injured' when it came time to put someone over that wasn't one of his substance buddies. They released a DVD that buried Warrior for far less than what Michaels got away with back then.

He mended his ways, but his record remains tarnished. That said, not even his harshest critics can deny that he's one of the best of all time, just nowhere near being -the- greatest.

[woowoowoox]

He is in my mind.

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

May 14, 2012 9:06:57 GMT -5 Bruce Leroy said:

It makes me wonder how many people are going over quantity over quality. Sure, he wrestled for a long time, and had some consistently good and sometimes great matches along the way, but the drawing comments do hold some value. Sure, the New Generation wasn't the greatest period, but sometimes, it takes a break-out star or a group of break-out stars to get things going. Shawn wasn't that star. It took Stone Cold with some back-up to really push things forward again for the WWE. You're really something if you can captivate people enough to cause the audience to grow, but Shawn didn't do that. Put me with the group that thinks it is mostly hype. Honestly, I was more captivated by Trip's first mania match with Taker than HBK's matches. I'm not the biggest Triple H fan, but he engaged me and actually made me think Taker would lose. HBK never did that for me. That's just one example, but a lot of people have made lists that include people better than HBK.

Austin, Rock, Hogan, Flair, Misawa, Inoki, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh/Muta, and Taker could all claim to be the greatest of all time before HBK.

That the point I was making. NOBODY in 96 could have done a better job. If you think HBK was the problem. Then tell me, in that year. Who in the WWE could done that job "better". IMO nobody could. Because they didn't have a good angle going on. They had a poor mid card. They didn't have a great TV deal.

Because Austin was not Stone Cold until Summer of that year. Bret wouldn't fixed the problem. HBK was over, that was not an issue. He did deserve the push, attitude aside. But the ME picture was very weak. I mean look at the other guys. You had Bulldog who before his title shots, did a lot of nothing that said I'm a MEer. Then you have Vader, who you can made a case for. After Vader, you had Sid. Who is over but not very talented. The only time HBK had a problem being over as a face was Survivor Series in NY against Sid.

Yeah, Austin had a great run and had people like The Rock and HHH coming into there own with there own character over all in 97. HBK had the return of Jake Roberts and The Warrior backing him up. The only new talent he had helping him was Mankind and he didn't come until mid year.

[543Y2J]

May 14, 2012 10:03:21 GMT -5 woowoowoox said:

He is in my mind.

[Juice]

In my book HBK is easily the best ever.

[The Ichi]

May 14, 2012 9:06:57 GMT -5 Bruce Leroy said:

It makes me wonder how many people are going over quantity over quality. Sure, he wrestled for a long time, and had some consistently good and sometimes great matches along the way, but the drawing comments do hold some value. Sure, the New Generation wasn't the greatest period, but sometimes, it takes a break-out star or a group of break-out stars to get things going. Shawn wasn't that star. It took Stone Cold with some back-up to really push things forward again for the WWE. You're really something if you can captivate people enough to cause the audience to grow, but Shawn didn't do that. Put me with the group that thinks it is mostly hype. Honestly, I was more captivated by Trip's first mania match with Taker than HBK's matches. I'm not the biggest Triple H fan, but he engaged me and actually made me think Taker would lose. HBK never did that for me. That's just one example, but a lot of people have made lists that include people better than HBK.

Austin, Rock, Hogan, Flair, Misawa, Inoki, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh/Muta, and Taker could all claim to be the greatest of all time before HBK.

The drawing comments hold no value for me because when I'm thinking about greatest ring worker, it's in the literal sense, and amount of money drawn has nothing to do with what I'm seeing on the screen.

Nobody claims HBK was a top draw, and it shouldn't matter in the argument of best in-ring worker. It's a non-factor.

[Hawk Hart]

Nope, that title goes to Mr. Ric Flair.

[Juice]

May 14, 2012 12:15:11 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

May 14, 2012 9:06:57 GMT -5 Bruce Leroy said:

It makes me wonder how many people are going over quantity over quality. Sure, he wrestled for a long time, and had some consistently good and sometimes great matches along the way, but the drawing comments do hold some value. Sure, the New Generation wasn't the greatest period, but sometimes, it takes a break-out star or a group of break-out stars to get things going. Shawn wasn't that star. It took Stone Cold with some back-up to really push things forward again for the WWE. You're really something if you can captivate people enough to cause the audience to grow, but Shawn didn't do that. Put me with the group that thinks it is mostly hype. Honestly, I was more captivated by Trip's first mania match with Taker than HBK's matches. I'm not the biggest Triple H fan, but he engaged me and actually made me think Taker would lose. HBK never did that for me. That's just one example, but a lot of people have made lists that include people better than HBK.

Austin, Rock, Hogan, Flair, Misawa, Inoki, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh/Muta, and Taker could all claim to be the greatest of all time before HBK.

The drawing comments hold no value for me because when I'm thinking about greatest ring worker, it's in the literal sense, and amount of money drawn has nothing to do with what I'm seeing on the screen.

Nobody claims HBK was a top draw, and it shouldn't matter in the argument of best in-ring worker. It's a non-factor.

I agree, and additionally those who say HBK isn't because he couldn't draw the same numbers should also take into affect those who idd draw, but have consistently stagnant matches. Hogan is seriously a very shitty wrestler, who does not have the "work rate" (hate the IWC term) of HBK who always brought out the best in whomever he was working with, for 20 years.

[mauled]

May 14, 2012 10:05:23 GMT -5 Can you afford to pay me, Gah said:

May 14, 2012 9:06:57 GMT -5 Bruce Leroy said:

It makes me wonder how many people are going over quantity over quality. Sure, he wrestled for a long time, and had some consistently good and sometimes great matches along the way, but the drawing comments do hold some value. Sure, the New Generation wasn't the greatest period, but sometimes, it takes a break-out star or a group of break-out stars to get things going. Shawn wasn't that star. It took Stone Cold with some back-up to really push things forward again for the WWE. You're really something if you can captivate people enough to cause the audience to grow, but Shawn didn't do that. Put me with the group that thinks it is mostly hype. Honestly, I was more captivated by Trip's first mania match with Taker than HBK's matches. I'm not the biggest Triple H fan, but he engaged me and actually made me think Taker would lose. HBK never did that for me. That's just one example, but a lot of people have made lists that include people better than HBK.

Austin, Rock, Hogan, Flair, Misawa, Inoki, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh/Muta, and Taker could all claim to be the greatest of all time before HBK.

That the point I was making. NOBODY in 96 could have done a better job. If you think HBK was the problem. Then tell me, in that year. Who in the WWE could done that job "better". IMO nobody could. Because they didn't have a good angle going on. They had a poor mid card. They didn't have a great TV deal.

Because Austin was not Stone Cold until Summer of that year. Bret wouldn't fixed the problem. HBK was over, that was not an issue. He did deserve the push, attitude aside. But the ME picture was very weak. I mean look at the other guys. You had Bulldog who before his title shots, did a lot of nothing that said I'm a MEer. Then you have Vader, who you can made a case for. After Vader, you had Sid. Who is over but not very talented. The only time HBK had a problem being over as a face was Survivor Series in NY against Sid.

Yeah, Austin had a great run and had people like The Rock and HHH coming into there own with there own character over all in 97. HBK had the return of Jake Roberts and The Warrior backing him up. The only new talent he had helping him was Mankind and he didn't come until mid year.

Thats not quite true from the draw standpoint as he worked with Nash and his buddies at the start before they left. Bret was gone from WM12 till Survivor 96. Austin only really got over at King of the Ring. Vader flopped as much to Shawn as anyone according to Cornette. Literally breaking charachter in there Summerslam match to stomp him.
Shawn even admits it wasnt till he started working with Foley and his style that started to get over.

[Bruce Leroy]

May 14, 2012 12:45:55 GMT -5 Juice said:

May 14, 2012 12:15:11 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

The drawing comments hold no value for me because when I'm thinking about greatest ring worker, it's in the literal sense, and amount of money drawn has nothing to do with what I'm seeing on the screen.

Nobody claims HBK was a top draw, and it shouldn't matter in the argument of best in-ring worker. It's a non-factor.

I agree, and additionally those who say HBK isn't because he couldn't draw the same numbers should also take into affect those who idd draw, but have consistently stagnant matches. Hogan is seriously a very s***ty wrestler, who does not have the "work rate" (hate the IWC term) of HBK who always brought out the best in whomever he was working with, for 20 years.

I guess you guys missed the in-ring factors in my discussion, but go ahead. Pick and choose what parts you want to discuss. It'll make your argument that much more credible..

I suppose I'll further elaborate. Even when it comes to the in-ring factors involved in making someone the best ever, There are many on that list I posted that could claim that they are better than HBK. Keep in mind that a lot of this is opinion, but there would be consensus within this group. Austin, Flair, Misawa, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh, and Taker can all say that they have had lengthy careers that include a body of work that rivals or even surpasses HBK's.

Some would even argue Bret is a more consistent in-ring performer than HBK. Bret managed to at least stay professional in the ring, regardless of personal feelings and work to produce good to great matches. HBK even in the phase where he was supposed to be more humble let his ego get the best of him. See: that hogan match. He's one of the greats, but as for the greatest in any category, that's just buying into the hype. Making excusing like, "Oh, drawing isn't all that matters," or "Lets focus on the workrate/performance aspect," don't work here because in both areas, he's not the greatest ever.

As for my other views on the situation, including the New Generation, see mauled's commentary.

[mauled]

May 14, 2012 13:30:29 GMT -5 Bruce Leroy said:

May 14, 2012 12:45:55 GMT -5 Juice said:

I agree, and additionally those who say HBK isn't because he couldn't draw the same numbers should also take into affect those who idd draw, but have consistently stagnant matches. Hogan is seriously a very s***ty wrestler, who does not have the "work rate" (hate the IWC term) of HBK who always brought out the best in whomever he was working with, for 20 years.

I guess you guys missed the in-ring factors in my discussion, but go ahead. Pick and choose what parts you want to discuss. It'll make your argument that much more credible..

I suppose I'll further elaborate. Even when it comes to the in-ring factors involved in making someone the best ever, There are many on that list I posted that could claim that they are better than HBK. Keep in mind that a lot of this is opinion, but there would be consensus within this group. Austin, Flair, Misawa, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh, and Taker can all say that they have had lengthy careers that include a body of work that rivals or even surpasses HBK's.

Some would even argue Bret is a more consistent in-ring performer than HBK. Bret managed to at least stay professional in the ring, regardless of personal feelings and work to produce good to great matches. HBK even in the phase where he was supposed to be more humble let his ego get the best of him. See: that hogan match. He's one of the greats, but as for the greatest in any category, that's just buying into the hype. Making excusing like, "Oh, drawing isn't all that matters," or "Lets focus on the workrate/performance aspect," don't work here because in both areas, he's not the greatest ever.

As for my other views on the situation, including the New Generation, see mauled's commentary.

Bret in his book always said that he thought Dynamite was pound for pound the best wrestler ever but he also rated Shawn and Curt Henning up there with him in taking those sort of bumps and moves.
Strange to say but when Shawn worked with Curt as even he admits (in his book) it was a flop because they did the same stuff.

Personaly I think the Rock is my fave. The fact he gave an over the hilll Hogan his last great match and Carried a hospitalised Austin through 19 shows he was much more than just catch phrases and promo's

[The Ichi]

May 14, 2012 13:30:29 GMT -5 Bruce Leroy said:

May 14, 2012 12:45:55 GMT -5 Juice said:

I agree, and additionally those who say HBK isn't because he couldn't draw the same numbers should also take into affect those who idd draw, but have consistently stagnant matches. Hogan is seriously a very s***ty wrestler, who does not have the "work rate" (hate the IWC term) of HBK who always brought out the best in whomever he was working with, for 20 years.

I guess you guys missed the in-ring factors in my discussion, but go ahead. Pick and choose what parts you want to discuss. It'll make your argument that much more credible..

No need for the ridiculous eye rolling smiley. I was ignoring your in-ring opinions because they're just that, and I respect them. My point was that drawing is irrelevant to this discussion because no-one is claiming that HBK was a huge draw. This thread is clearly about ringwork, and many, many people feel that he was the best in that department.

[Juice]

May 14, 2012 13:30:29 GMT -5 Bruce Leroy said:

May 14, 2012 12:45:55 GMT -5 Juice said:

I agree, and additionally those who say HBK isn't because he couldn't draw the same numbers should also take into affect those who idd draw, but have consistently stagnant matches. Hogan is seriously a very s***ty wrestler, who does not have the "work rate" (hate the IWC term) of HBK who always brought out the best in whomever he was working with, for 20 years.

I guess you guys missed the in-ring factors in my discussion, but go ahead. Pick and choose what parts you want to discuss. It'll make your argument that much more credible..

I suppose I'll further elaborate. Even when it comes to the in-ring factors involved in making someone the best ever, There are many on that list I posted that could claim that they are better than HBK. Keep in mind that a lot of this is opinion, but there would be consensus within this group. Austin, Flair, Misawa, Hashimoto, Kobashi, Mutoh, and Taker can all say that they have had lengthy careers that include a body of work that rivals or even surpasses HBK's.

Some would even argue Bret is a more consistent in-ring performer than HBK. Bret managed to at least stay professional in the ring, regardless of personal feelings and work to produce good to great matches. HBK even in the phase where he was supposed to be more humble let his ego get the best of him. See: that hogan match. He's one of the greats, but as for the greatest in any category, that's just buying into the hype. Making excusing like, "Oh, drawing isn't all that matters," or "Lets focus on the workrate/performance aspect," don't work here because in both areas, he's not the greatest ever.

As for my other views on the situation, including the New Generation, see mauled's commentary.

Touchy touchy, I just quoted him to agree, not to slight you for a different opinion.

I think in the context of it all yes HBK is the best. Bret didn't draw draw Hogan numbers, but Hogan couldn't do half of what bret or HBK did in the ring. Diesel didn't draw shit, Sid didn't Draw shit, and Flairs drawing power has faded for the past two (possibly 3) decades. HBK was still putting on 5 star classics and stealing the show main eventing wrestlemanias even in his retirement match.

You know who else doesn't draw like Hogan or Stone Cold and Rock? every champion since the post attitude/beginning of the new generation. There's a lot of exceptional people who couldn't draw more than a 3.0 including Cena, Punk, HHH, Undertaker, Daniel Bryan, Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle the list goes on and on.

Furthermore as far as Japanese talent, they aint the best in the world if they haven't worked for best company in the world. I know that statement is a can of worms on these boards, but it's the truth as far as I am concerned. Guys like Muta are great and will be remembered for the right reasons, but throwing out japanese names who have never worked for NWA/WCW/WWE to an extent ECW or TNA. For one the styles are just to different, the cultures different and many top stars and excellent wrestlers spent time in Japan and were able to transcend to the major companies without any trouble. The Benoits, Guerreros, Bryan Danielson, another list that goes on and on. But the inability to connect with ALL audiences and styles around the world should keep any of them near the top of the best of all time.

[Arrow]

I think when discussing the "greatest", one should take into account everything about wrestling (including the drawing aspect), and not just the ring work. Judging by ring work alone is too subjective to really answer the question.

[Juice]

May 14, 2012 14:14:11 GMT -5 Arrow said:

I think when discussing the "greatest", one should take into account everything about wrestling (including the drawing aspect), and not just the ring work. Judging by ring work alone is too subjective to really answer the question.

and although I agree, that also means the huge draws like Hogan are also far from the top of the list cause they couldn't work more than one match their entire career.

[icemansiva]

i think he's the greatest.. in wwe atleast.

he has had the best matches with almost all types of opponents.

[Squirrel Master]

I've been watching wrestling since just before the first Wrestlemania, and my older brother and his buddies would watch it at my house before then, and let me tell you there are dozens of guys from the various eras who could wipe the mat with HBK.

His greatness was apparent during the Midnight Rockers vs. Playboy Buddy Rose & Doug Summers feud in late '80s AWA. I knew that the kid was destined for big things.

Shawn's size hindered his rise in early '90s WWF.
However, this is not to diminish how he upped his game since his original heel turn.
HBK is one of the best ever in WWE and cannot put on a s***ty match, but "the greatest"?
Nah.

[nisidhe]

For the life of me, I have no idea how one can point to Shawn Michaels and describe his body of work as that of the greatest in-ring performer at all time. It's just beyond me.

Entertaining as an entertainer goes? He did that. His stunts were something to behold. He wore shiny costumes, he had a decent look that many women found attractive. He was okay on the mike; he could be funny in whatever parodies he was in.

Between the bells, though? I was never impressed. His moveset was generic and showed no real growth or variation between the beginning and the end of his career. Kip-ups that were meant to dazzle were done better and earlier by others; he exercised little control with his moves and demonstrated little of the purported influence from lucha libre. Any "classic matches" he had were either against those with whom he was friends or against those who carried him and were charged with making him look good. He was never a leader in the ring.

For whatever reason that may escape me for now, Shawn Michaels was hyped and protected professionally far beyond his merits as a wrestler and, to some eyes, far beyond the point at which it was obvious. He was the perfect, textbook example of style over substance, one to which history may not be kind.