|
|
Post by mauled on May 16, 2012 13:33:13 GMT -5
Because WCW dominated with all the old hasbeens from the 80s and WWE stars they stole, not because Shawn did not have good matches. For me Shawn didnt really get interesting until he wrestled Mick Foley. When he started to wrestle somone different. I suppose you could include Vader as different but he killed that off. He wrestled his buddies which he had done a 1000 times and squashed the Bulldog repeatedly and it was'nt they were bad boring and samey. With him and Mick it was different and exciting just a shame about the dq finish. Though to be fair that can be true with any wrestler. Hogan and Andrea wrestled repeatedly post WM3 ditto with him and Savage wm5 but there not talked about .... why cause they were really just the same thing. As for being on top I'd also include 95 as he and the Clique were pretty much the main attractions then at the time even if he wasnt world champ. Watch his Summerslam 95 match there advertising HBK products in the middle of it !!!!!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2012 13:53:38 GMT -5
Because WCW dominated with all the old hasbeens from the 80s and WWE stars they stole, not because Shawn did not have good matches. You just proved the point of your opposition. 1. As I said before, good matches are subjective. What you find entertaining may not appeal to the masses, and vice versa. 2. If "old has beens" as you call them were drawing over a guy constantly putting on "great matches", then how great were those matches? If a tree falls in the forest..... 3. The WWF almost went under in 1996. They were not in good shape financially. They drew around 3,000 (forgot the exact number) for an MSG show with Shawn main eventing that year. He was the guy shoved down everyone's throats that year. He gets the blame for that. He was the top guy. He was the guy main eventing all the shows. When he came back in 2002-onwards, he was never "the guy". He was never counted on to draw for the company, outside of main eventing with Cena at WM replacing an injured HHH (WM pretty much sells itself nowadays) and main eventing against Hogan at Summerslam (which Hogan deserves more credit for in terms of the improved buyrate since it was his first singles match in a couple of years). Other than that, where was he ever counted on to be a huge draw for any significant period of time? Wrestling is a business that promots fake fighting. If anyone can seriously sit here and say that "good matches" can be universally explained is kidding themselves. I thought Hogan/Andre was great, while others see it as an immobile Andre on offense for 95% of the match. I found Shawn/Bret at WM 12 to be agonizingly bad, while others point to it as greatness personified. You can't universally rate something that comes with so much bias and subjective opinion. You can, however, rate how well someone did from a business standpoint based on the information available. Shawn was awful where it mattered, therefore he is no where near the greatest. |
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,706 
|
Post by The Ichi on May 16, 2012 14:09:52 GMT -5
Because WCW dominated with all the old hasbeens from the 80s and WWE stars they stole, not because Shawn did not have good matches. You just proved the point of your opposition. 1. As I said before, good matches are subjective. What you find entertaining may not appeal to the masses, and vice versa. 2. If "old has beens" as you call them were drawing over a guy constantly putting on "great matches", then how great were those matches? If a tree falls in the forest..... 3. The WWF almost went under in 1996. They were not in good shape financially. They drew around 3,000 (forgot the exact number) for an MSG show with Shawn main eventing that year. He was the guy shoved down everyone's throats that year. He gets the blame for that. He was the top guy. He was the guy main eventing all the shows. When he came back in 2002-onwards, he was never "the guy". He was never counted on to draw for the company, outside of main eventing with Cena at WM replacing an injured HHH (WM pretty much sells itself nowadays) and main eventing against Hogan at Summerslam (which Hogan deserves more credit for in terms of the improved buyrate since it was his first singles match in a couple of years). Other than that, where was he ever counted on to be a huge draw for any significant period of time? Wrestling is a business that promots fake fighting. If anyone can seriously sit here and say that "good matches" can be universally explained is kidding themselves. I thought Hogan/Andre was great, while others see it as an immobile Andre on offense for 95% of the match. I found Shawn/Bret at WM 12 to be agonizingly bad, while others point to it as greatness personified. You can't universally rate something that comes with so much bias and subjective opinion. You can, however, rate how well someone did from a business standpoint based on the information available. Shawn was awful where it mattered, therefore he is no where near the greatest. I really don't think you understand the point of this thread. Go back to the opening post. The OP has made it clear that this is about people saying in interviews that HBKs ring work is the best. Nothing else. Yes, drawing is the key ingreidient to making an all-time great, NO-ONE IS DISPUTING THAT. But there are smaller catergories too (ring skill, promo skill etc) that some wrestlers excell at. Why can't people find HBKs ring skills the best, the same way they might find Roddy Pipper the best on the mic? They're not saying that he was the best at drawing, they're saying he was the best at this particular catergory. I hope you understand this better now. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 16, 2012 14:10:13 GMT -5
I disagree, because of all the headline main event matches he had when he returned. If you really want me to - I can write down all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 16, 2012 14:11:50 GMT -5
WCW capitalized only on casual fans. Real wrestling fans stuck with WWE because HBK was having 5 star matches ever week. Sorry fellow posters there is a right answer here and the right answer is HBK is the greatest of all time.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 16, 2012 14:21:53 GMT -5
WCW capitalized only on casual fans. Real wrestling fans stuck with WWE because HBK was having 5 star matches ever week. Sorry fellow posters there is a right answer here and the right answer is HBK is the greatest of all time. Well that's a ridiculous thing to say as you can't prove it at all. What constitutes a 'real wrestling fan' anyway? Business was down from absolutely all sectors and as others have said, the WWE almost went out of business when Michaels was on top. 'Real wrestling fans' were being drawn away by Mysterio, Benoit, Flair and many others in WCW whose in ring work was as good, if not better in some respects to Michaels himself. With other people who were regarded as the greater emphasis in the company. As others said, Michaels was never the guy when he returned. That was down to Cena, Batista, Orton and the others. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 16, 2012 14:37:43 GMT -5
Not True.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2012 14:40:33 GMT -5
HBK is definitely a helluva performer, absolutely, no quesions about that - but his status as the GOAT is well crafted WWE hype.
Everone's the greatest at some point or another depending on how many tickets/dvds/blurays/shirts they want to sell.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 16, 2012 14:42:16 GMT -5
Then prove it. You make such ridiculous statements as 'real wrestling fans' staying with WWF only because of Michaels without one shred of proof and failing to mention the outstanding talent in WCW or even the other talent on the WWF roster. Either back up such claims or don't make them. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 16, 2012 14:44:40 GMT -5
I already made my point. Which is right by the way.
Disagree if you want. You're still wrong.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 16, 2012 14:49:30 GMT -5
I already made my point. Which is right by the way. Actually, you failed to do so. You made an outrageous claim while failing to back it up showing a disconnect from reality and common sense. Michaels isn't the greatest and your claim that 'real wrestling fans' stuck with the WWF simply because of him is laughable and without a single shred of evidence. If you can't back up what you say, then don't say it. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 16, 2012 14:51:02 GMT -5
I can because remember everyone... who won the monday night wars? Checkmate sir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2012 14:54:15 GMT -5
WCW capitalized only on casual fans. Real wrestling fans stuck with WWE because HBK was having 5 star matches ever week. Sorry fellow posters there is a right answer here and the right answer is HBK is the greatest of all time If there was ever a time for a "Not sure if serious" picture, this would be it. So "real wrestling fans" stuck with the WWF in 1996 (despite the company nearly going under) despite their gimmicky stable of characters, while casual fans went to WCW? You do realize that outside of the big stars (Hogan, Sting, Outsiders, Luger, Savage, Piper, Flair, etc) that WCW was also giving the "real wrestling fans" something to watch as well? The roster at the time included Guerrero, Benoit, Jericho, Mysterio, Malenko, Syxx (pre-injuries), the rest of the cruiserweights, and so on. But I guess the "real wrestling fans" only cared to watch Shawn wrestle the workrate freaks known as Diesel, Bulldog, Vader, Mankind, and Sid during his first title run. |
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 16, 2012 14:57:59 GMT -5
I can because remember everyone... who won the monday night wars? Checkmate sir. That really has nothing to do with Michaels at all as he was out from the WWF from 1998 onwards. The entire focus was on the wrestlers at the time and that was Austin, Rock, Triple H and people who were actually in the ring. When Michaels was on top, the WWF was losing the ratings war and it wasn't until he was out of the ring that the WWF actually managed to win with Rock and Austin being the focus. The WWF winning the Monday Night Wars has very little to do with Michaels. Looking at the early days, he failed to do much of any good whatsoever. So your claim doesn't hold up at all, again. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 16, 2012 15:00:15 GMT -5
If Shawn hadn't kept it afloat there would be no WWE. End of discussion.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,706
|
Post by The Ichi on May 16, 2012 15:01:32 GMT -5
If Shawn hadn't kept it afloat there would be no WWE. End of discussion. Okay even I have to disagree with that. |
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on May 16, 2012 15:04:28 GMT -5
If Shawn hadn't kept it afloat there would be no WWE. End of discussion. As mentioned, he failed to do even that as the WWF was closest to bankruptcy when Michaels was on top. Going by your logic in that post, Diesel and Hart are the superior wrestlers as they managed to keep the company afloat to a better degree. |
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on May 16, 2012 15:21:33 GMT -5
the previous blindmark at least wasn't completely annoying
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorthug4edge on May 16, 2012 15:33:32 GMT -5
Precisely.
Ringwork wise, I love HBK, and I think the fact that he was able to have as many good matches even after a 4 year hiatus says something for him. But, I'd submit that Flair was at least as great, if not greater, for a longer period of time, Bret Hart's style had its merits, and that's to say nothing of the Guerreros, Benoits, and Jerichos who drew in several other companies as well.
Do I think Shawn is one of the best in-ring workers of all-time? Absolutely. Do I think he's the be-all, end-all of all aspects of wrestling? Absolutely not.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,554 
Member is Online
|
Post by FinalGwen on May 16, 2012 15:40:13 GMT -5
If Shawn hadn't kept it afloat there would be no WWE. End of discussion. What discussion? You're ignoring every point people make and calling anyone with a different opinion wrong. That's not discussion, that's... Well, politics. |
|
