Shawn Micheals the greatest or just WWE hype?

[Deleted]

I find the notion that "drawing money doesn't matter" to be absolutely ridiculous. Wrestling is fake. Grown men are simulating violence in the ring while not trying to hurt each other. How in the world can anyone quantify in-ring talent on something so subjective? Someone may find Michaels to be great, others may find his matches boring. No one is right or wrong, it is a matter of personal taste.

But what isn't subjective in wrestling? Money. Popularity. Numbers. Hulk Hogan took wrestling to heights no one ever imagined in the 80's. Austin (and later Rock) brought in a ton of new fans in the late-90's. What did Shawn ever do? He main evented an MSG matinee event in 1996 that drew 3,000 people and was the top star during one of the worst periods in the WWF. He main evented a highly successful event (WM 14) where he was the most irrelevant and replaceable person in the entire match (Austin and Tyson were the draws there). He blew out his back and was not active during the company's financial boom, and then he came back right as the company was heading south again. If he drew any money it was likely via merchandise and the DX brand, which ironically was at the height of its popularity WHEN SHAWN WASN'T EVEN AROUND (1998).

My point here is, if Shawn was the greatest of all-time, why was he not setting attendance and ratings records? Why were fans not tuning in to see him or paying money to buy his stuff? Why did 33 million people watch Hogan/Andre on free TV if neither of those guys "could work"? Why did Austin's character break out in 1997 to the point where his shirts were flying off the shelves? Some of you are giving the population too little credit. There are fads out there, no question about it, but for the most part, something that becomes hugely popular over a long period of time is generally based on some sort of redeemable talent, and something that is lauded as being great despite having nothing but subjective opinion to back it up is generally not going to be remembered fondly (i.e. people hyping up an independent band as the greatest thing ever despite the general public having no clue who the hell they are). Why try to paint the viewing public as idiots that don't appreciate "real talent" when trying to justify why Hogan, Austin, Rock, etc, were the big draws while Michaels, Hart, and others flopped? Maybe the fans saw talent in a different way (charisma, mic skills, ring psychology, etc).

Shawn is not the greatest of all-time. Not even close. In-ring talent is a matter of taste so there is really no point arguing that.

[nisidhe]

May 15, 2012 9:26:37 GMT -5 The Dark Order Inferno said:

So Michaels carried every worker you're not a fan of? Please. Lumping Jeff Jarrett, Rick Martel, Sean Waltman, Jeff Hardy and so on in with the likes of Sid, Diesel (Who was not a bad worker, just lazy) and Khali is just insulting, they're all more than capable in their own right, heck, even JBL, Kennedy and Tatanka weren't exactly useless. I don't think anyone consider what he did in the Hogan match to be professional, let alone carrying him to a great match.

I actually took a moment to watch a clip from the Summerslam match when I read your comment. That selling by Michaels was utterly ridiculous...and that was during Michaels's second run.

[T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens]

If you think his actions during the Hogan match were the height of professionalism, take a listen to his whiny rant on Raw after Summerslam. You know, 'cuz every other wrestler in the company is allowed to go out on live TV and bitch about the way their matches are booked for all the fans to hear. There would never be any consequences for somebody other than Shawn Michaels if they did that, right?

[nisidhe]

May 15, 2012 10:52:37 GMT -5 T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens said:

If you think his actions during the Hogan match were the height of professionalism, take a listen to his whiny rant on Raw after Summerslam. You know, 'cuz every other wrestler in the company is allowed to go out on live TV and bitch about the way their matches are booked for all the fans to hear. There would never be any consequences for somebody other than Shawn Michaels if they did that, right?

I hear ya, man.

I just have a very hard time justifying Shawn Michaels' place among the all-time greats. He didn't really help Vince's numbers at all; he wasn't the best technician, or even really good that way; anyone could have been a showman on his level; he was a complete and utter asshole in the locker room to all but his friends.

That he was permitted to continue with his misbehavior, and was pushed so incessantly despite the apathy from many fans at the time, suggests to me that he might have had something on Vince or someone high up in WWE, and I'm not talking about a jump to WCW, either.

I'm not necessarily going to get too deep into speculation here because I really have no way to know and there's enough tinfoil millinery in the world to exhaust the global aluminum supply. That said, there is no explanation from a business standpoint for so much energy and money to be expended on promoting someone when the fan base at the time wanted Hart, Austin and Undertaker at the top..

[The Ichi]

May 15, 2012 10:04:10 GMT -5 @conebone69 said:

I find the notion that "drawing money doesn't matter" to be absolutely ridiculous. Wrestling is fake. Grown men are simulating violence in the ring while not trying to hurt each other. How in the world can anyone quantify in-ring talent on something so subjective? Someone may find Michaels to be great, others may find his matches boring. No one is right or wrong, it is a matter of personal taste.

But what isn't subjective in wrestling? Money. Popularity. Numbers. Hulk Hogan took wrestling to heights no one ever imagined in the 80's. Austin (and later Rock) brought in a ton of new fans in the late-90's. What did Shawn ever do? He main evented an MSG matinee event in 1996 that drew 3,000 people and was the top star during one of the worst periods in the WWF. He main evented a highly successful event (WM 14) where he was the most irrelevant and replaceable person in the entire match (Austin and Tyson were the draws there). He blew out his back and was not active during the company's financial boom, and then he came back right as the company was heading south again. If he drew any money it was likely via merchandise and the DX brand, which ironically was at the height of its popularity WHEN SHAWN WASN'T EVEN AROUND (1998).

My point here is, if Shawn was the greatest of all-time, why was he not setting attendance and ratings records? Why were fans not tuning in to see him or paying money to buy his stuff? Why did 33 million people watch Hogan/Andre on free TV if neither of those guys "could work"? Why did Austin's character break out in 1997 to the point where his shirts were flying off the shelves? Some of you are giving the population too little credit. There are fads out there, no question about it, but for the most part, something that becomes hugely popular over a long period of time is generally based on some sort of redeemable talent, and something that is lauded as being great despite having nothing but subjective opinion to back it up is generally not going to be remembered fondly (i.e. people hyping up an independent band as the greatest thing ever despite the general public having no clue who the hell they are). Why try to paint the viewing public as idiots that don't appreciate "real talent" when trying to justify why Hogan, Austin, Rock, etc, were the big draws while Michaels, Hart, and others flopped? Maybe the fans saw talent in a different way (charisma, mic skills, ring psychology, etc).

Shawn is not the greatest of all-time. Not even close. In-ring talent is a matter of taste so there is really no point arguing that.

Nobody is saying that drawing doesn't matter, stop trying to spin it that way. All we're saying is that it's irrelevant to the discussion of in-ring talent, which is what we're discussing here.

And yes, it is subjective and down to opinion, nobody is saying otherwise. It just so happens that a LOT of people share the same opinion that HBK is the best in that regard.

I honestly have no idea why drawing ability keeps worming its way back into a discussion that has nothing to do with it.

[Juice]

May 15, 2012 10:04:10 GMT -5 @conebone69 said:

I find the notion that "drawing money doesn't matter" to be absolutely ridiculous. Wrestling is fake. Grown men are simulating violence in the ring while not trying to hurt each other. How in the world can anyone quantify in-ring talent on something so subjective? Someone may find Michaels to be great, others may find his matches boring. No one is right or wrong, it is a matter of personal taste.

But what isn't subjective in wrestling? Money. Popularity. Numbers. Hulk Hogan took wrestling to heights no one ever imagined in the 80's. Austin (and later Rock) brought in a ton of new fans in the late-90's. What did Shawn ever do? He main evented an MSG matinee event in 1996 that drew 3,000 people and was the top star during one of the worst periods in the WWF. He main evented a highly successful event (WM 14) where he was the most irrelevant and replaceable person in the entire match (Austin and Tyson were the draws there). He blew out his back and was not active during the company's financial boom, and then he came back right as the company was heading south again. If he drew any money it was likely via merchandise and the DX brand, which ironically was at the height of its popularity WHEN SHAWN WASN'T EVEN AROUND (1998).

My point here is, if Shawn was the greatest of all-time, why was he not setting attendance and ratings records? Why were fans not tuning in to see him or paying money to buy his stuff? Why did 33 million people watch Hogan/Andre on free TV if neither of those guys "could work"? Why did Austin's character break out in 1997 to the point where his shirts were flying off the shelves? Some of you are giving the population too little credit. There are fads out there, no question about it, but for the most part, something that becomes hugely popular over a long period of time is generally based on some sort of redeemable talent, and something that is lauded as being great despite having nothing but subjective opinion to back it up is generally not going to be remembered fondly (i.e. people hyping up an independent band as the greatest thing ever despite the general public having no clue who the hell they are). Why try to paint the viewing public as idiots that don't appreciate "real talent" when trying to justify why Hogan, Austin, Rock, etc, were the big draws while Michaels, Hart, and others flopped? Maybe the fans saw talent in a different way (charisma, mic skills, ring psychology, etc).

Shawn is not the greatest of all-time. Not even close. In-ring talent is a matter of taste so there is really no point arguing that.

For the same reason that mad men is the best show on tv, but still one of the lowest rated.

[nisidhe]

If we're going to make any discussion of a wrestler's "greatness" as complete as possible, we need to consider every possible angle, including their impact on business, if we want to consider such things. Drawing power has an impact, I feel, because an individual's drawing power dictates to some degree the success of a promotion. Hulk Hogan made WWE, for example, while Austin and Rock kept expanding on it.

A previous thread here discussed a rubric for gauging the merits of each wrestler. It'd be nice to get a thorough discussion going on the subject, those this thread may not be the best place.

[Jonathan Michaels]

As for drawing power, does anyone have Nash's charts?

[Mochi Lone Wolf]

He's one of the best, but not The best in my opinion. I see why WWE would go out of their way to hype him up though. He's always in the discussion and he is their guy so it makes sense for them to hype him as the best of all time.

[Tiiulicious]

I think it's impossible to say who is the greatest ever. Unlike legimate sports you can look at stats and achievements to make that call but in wrestling, it's really impossible to say. People value different things.

Shawn had an amazing career but I never personally found him half as entertaining as Angle, Rock, Foley or Austin were.

I personally consider Kurt Angle to be the greatest ever since I have enjoy nearly every one of his matches, laughed myself silly at his promos and because Kurt is an excellent storyteller in the ring who can adapt to any style.

[mauled]

May 15, 2012 12:47:12 GMT -5 nisidhe said:

May 15, 2012 10:52:37 GMT -5 T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens said:

If you think his actions during the Hogan match were the height of professionalism, take a listen to his whiny rant on Raw after Summerslam. You know, 'cuz every other wrestler in the company is allowed to go out on live TV and bitch about the way their matches are booked for all the fans to hear. There would never be any consequences for somebody other than Shawn Michaels if they did that, right?

I hear ya, man.

I just have a very hard time justifying Shawn Michaels' place among the all-time greats. He didn't really help Vince's numbers at all; he wasn't the best technician, or even really good that way; anyone could have been a showman on his level; he was a complete and utter asshole in the locker room to all but his friends.

That he was permitted to continue with his misbehavior, and was pushed so incessantly despite the apathy from many fans at the time, suggests to me that he might have had something on Vince or someone high up in WWE, and I'm not talking about a jump to WCW, either.

I'm not necessarily going to get too deep into speculation here because I really have no way to know and there's enough tinfoil millinery in the world to exhaust the global aluminum supply. That said, there is no explanation from a business standpoint for so much energy and money to be expended on promoting someone when the fan base at the time wanted Hart, Austin and Undertaker at the top..

To be fair its said that at one time he did try and jump ship and join his buddies Hall and Nash inWCW but Vince wouldnt let him out of his contract.
But the thread was about his in ring ability and whether the title of best in ring peformer of the WWE is hype or is there some truth to it. On his 2nd DVD set guys like Dibease says that he was really arrogant at the time but talnt wise he was knocking it out the park etc.

Foley has said in his book the reason he did the leap of the cage in the Hell in a Cell was cause Shawns match was so good he didnt think he could top it.

Everything is subjective even Hogan after all the WWE was not doing Raw (and Smackdown) every wekk and they did not have as many PPV's as they do now. While Hogan made sure his opponents were big monsters for him to knock down and by WM6 his time was pretty much over. After that it was as much him spinning ways to last at the top as long as he could.
Jake on his DVD says the reason he didnt get a run with Hogan was because when he DDT'd him the crowd were chanting DDT. While Savage despite his popularity was Hogans jobber bitch

[rdarkholme]

I think he is. He had the look, he could talk the talk and he could bring it in the ring. If you look at some firsts in WWE (Ladder Match, Iron Man Match, Hell in the Cell) you see his name. His second run gave him longevity, and a serious run of awesome matches with lots of different opponents. I think he's the most complete package there's ever been.

As to this notion of, oh he didn't draw when he was on top- I would submit that as you all hail Austin and the business he did, you're overlooking something- rather someones.

Vince McMahon and his evil authoritative everyboss character played a big role in making Austin as huge as he was. I didn't just tune in to watch Austin every week, I watched to see how Vince would try to screw him over and how he would overcome it.

This is not to take anything away from Austin, it would not have caught like it did if say it was someone else in his place. But to ignore Vince, and the work of others (The Rock, Mankind, et al.) as his foils is painting an incomplete picture.

When HBK was on top, he didn't have near the talent to work with that Hogan before him did, or Austin later. Certainly some of this was his own fault, his penchant for being "injured" rather than put people over to help build them and his penchant for working only with his friends caused a good bit of problems.

But if you say HBK can't be the greatest because he didn't draw, you can argue it can't be Hogan cause he wasn't a great worker, or Austin or the Rock because they lacked longevity and so on and so forth. It's always going to be a matter of opinion and someone's answer is always going to reflect what they view as what makes the greatest wrestler.

[kingbookermark]

Shawn didn't draw money? Wow okay. Then the WWE was real stupid to put him in main event quality matches at every wrestlemania since he came back. Some people just don't know what they are talking about.

HBK brought up PPV buys every time he was in the spotlight.

[kingbookermark]

If someone could actually prove that Shawn didn't draw money, I'd like to see it. His dvd sales, tshirt sales, ppv buys, & not to mention his countless amazing matches make him the greatest of all time.

[kingbookermark]

May 12, 2012 14:25:59 GMT -5 Todd's crazy , Man. said:

1.Misawa
2.Kobashi
3.Kawada
4.Mutoh
5.Akiyama
6.Taue
7. Tenryu
8.Liger
9. Hashimoto
10.Chono


That's just when he was wrestling and I didn't even put Vader in there (though he should be in all honesty) because most only remember him from his WWE/WWF run which admittedly was pretty bad. On top of those names you also have Inoki , Baba , Jumbo , Hansen and guys like Takayama , Sasaki , Nagata and Tenzan who are somewhat debatable.


I love HBK , I adore the man. He was an all time great worker , top thirty? No doubt but the greatest of all time in-ring ? No!!! How? Misawa and Kobashi both Invented more moves then Shawn! Literally what could Shawn do that Misawa couldn't or hadn't? Those guys made Vader look like a million bucks yet Shawn could barley work with the guy. Vader who mind you , could legitimately be the greatest big man of all time or is only perhap second to the undertaker.

Hell , How many companies did Shawn hold the top belt in? The WWE? Vader alone held it in WCW , New Japan and All Japan Muto held the NWA World Title , The IWGP Title and The AJPW Title. You want to go by Meltzer? ( I know some don't trust the guy but he's still pretty damn respected) We can do that to , Shawn has had Four matches of the year to Misawa's four and Kobashi's five yet both Misawa and Kobashi have been wrestler of the year three times to HBK's NONE and don't even get me started on Five Star Matches.



Seriously HBK could be the greatest WWE wrestler of all time , The Greatest Wrestlemania wrestler of all time and the greatest Royal Rumble winner of all time but pound for pound the best in ring worker? No. This isn't me having a hard on for Japanese wrestling , I'll admit that Baba wasn't as good as Taker or that right now hands down far and away Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler then KENTA and Marufuji or that see a Brock Lesnar match then a Nagata one but I will not sit here and say that HBK is the greatest in ring performer of all time because there's no objective way to watch HBK wrestle and say that.

Now I'm out because this thread is probably going to devolve quickly into the classic IWC Feud of Japanese Wrestling Vs American where both sides refuse to come down off their high horse and admit that both have their own negatives and positives and that's it possible to enjoy both for what they are.

Okay. You like Japanese Wrestling which unfortunately doesn't make as much money as American Wrestling or sell out around the world. So your argument, while perhaps sound to you, is invalid.

[dav]

May 16, 2012 11:47:13 GMT -5 kingbookermark said:

If someone could actually prove that Shawn didn't draw money, I'd like to see it. His dvd sales, tshirt sales, ppv buys, & not to mention his countless amazing matches make him the greatest of all time.

We're generally talking about when Shawn was on top in 1996 when business was pretty awful. Since his return, he hasn't been 'the' guy for the company, having never been put into the position as the face of the WWE at all as the business itself has relied on Cena, Orton, Batista and various others to be on top while Shawn was more of a special attraction role. He isn't really responsible for the success of PPV's when instead the focus was on people higher up the card.

[warriorthug4edge]

May 16, 2012 11:47:13 GMT -5 kingbookermark said:

If someone could actually prove that Shawn didn't draw money, I'd like to see it. His dvd sales, tshirt sales, ppv buys, & not to mention his countless amazing matches make him the greatest of all time.

The WWE, according to Vince, nearly went bankrupt in 1996, when Shawn was THE top dog (Bret was gone from late March until October, remember)

[kingbookermark]

Because WCW dominated with all the old hasbeens from the 80s and WWE stars they stole, not because Shawn did not have good matches.

[amaron]

May 16, 2012 11:59:41 GMT -5 warriorthug4edge said:

May 16, 2012 11:47:13 GMT -5 kingbookermark said:

If someone could actually prove that Shawn didn't draw money, I'd like to see it. His dvd sales, tshirt sales, ppv buys, & not to mention his countless amazing matches make him the greatest of all time.

The WWE, according to Vince, nearly went bankrupt in 1996, when Shawn was THE top dog (Bret was gone from late March until October, remember)

There could be 100 reasons why they almost went under.

[dav]

May 16, 2012 13:06:04 GMT -5 kingbookermark said:

Because WCW dominated with all the old hasbeens from the 80s and WWE stars they stole, not because Shawn did not have good matches.

They're not exactly has beens when they're beating a young star really. The fact of the matter us that at his top position in the card, Shawn failed to be the draw that the company needed. Good matches doesn't equal good business.