Why is HBK considered the best ever by a lot of fans?

[psychokiller]

It seems a lot of the time when anyone mentions who the best wrestler of all time is, people say HBK. But why does anyone hardly mention Bret Hart? I think Bret was just as good or probably better than HBK was. Is it a case of where Michaels is fresher in the minds of wrestling fans since he only retired back in 2010 & Bret had to retire at the very start of the new Millennium? Than there’s a bunch of others that you can make a case that were better in the ring than him like Angle, Bryan or Styles to name a few. But it seems HBK’s name is always thrown around. He’s in my top 10 of all time, but I’m just wondering what the reason why it seems he’s mentioned a lot of the time over others for why he’s the best ever.

[Hit Girl]

As an in-ring performer, only Macho is on par with HBK.

[psychokiller]

Dec 30, 2017 15:13:41 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

As an in-ring performer, only Macho is on par with HBK.

Savage too you can make a case for as well. But everyone always says Michaels is the best.

[Deleted]

Yeah it's weird, its not like Vince loved the guy or anything.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2017 15:19:58 GMT -5 psychokiller said:

Dec 30, 2017 15:13:41 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

As an in-ring performer, only Macho is on par with HBK.

Savage too you can make a case for as well. But everyone always says Michaels is the best.

Savage had a great run for 5 or so years but Michaels performed at an elite level from 1992-2010 (save those 4 years he was out obviously).

[Deleted]

I love HBK and all but I want someone to break this down with examples. I'm not denying it, I actually think it might be true but we need someone to explain why he's so good and use that comparison with others because this isn't the first time it's been brought up. It's like the "Jay-Z is the GOAT" thing. Yeah Jay might be the greatest and people do say that but in the barbershop you need someone to break it down and explain why because you've got other comparisons coming from the woodworks. We need to know why rather than having blanket statement.

[The Ichi]

Shawn essentially had two runs. There was the run until his injury in 98 and the 2002 - 2010 run. There are basically two parts to his career. Not a lot of wrestlers can say that.

Plus while they're basically neck and neck in-ring wise, HBK could run circles around Bret on the mic.

[Gravedigger's Biscuits]

Dec 30, 2017 15:13:41 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

As an in-ring performer, only Macho is on par with HBK.

For me Savage doesn't even come close overall, he badly declined throughout the 90s while Shawn Michaels came back after a 4-year absence and was better than ever.

Hell, he could probably come out of retirement tomorrow and have a MOTY contender.

[ellisdee]

Shawn is the GOAT to me. I'd say what he had over Bret was charisma. I love Bret and grew up on the new generation, but HBK was a showman aswell as a great wrestler.

I'd also agree that Shawn has a legacy with modern fans while Bret went off the radar after his injury.

[Zombie Mod]

his body of work lends to the opinion of him being one of the best of all time.

90% of his matches fall in the good to great end of the scale. even probably his worst match of his last run in wwe (the Hogan summerslam match.) is memorable even if its because of him being a dick by overselling by a ridiculous amount.

[The Heartbreak TWERK]

I mean, honestly show me a match where he personally performed poorly.

That said, I would still put AJ and Bryan over him.

[2coldMack is even more baffled]

Because Shawn had the machine on his side longer. Whereas with Bret, a pretty good effort was spent for a lot of years to spin him as "bitter, conceited, egomaniacal, crotchety old Bret". Meanwhile, "conceited, egomaniacal, in-ring tantrum throwing years" Shawn largely gets swept under the rug.

[2coldMack is even more baffled]

Dec 30, 2017 16:16:44 GMT -5 The Heartbreak TWERK said:

I mean, honestly show me a match where he personally performed poorly.

That said, I would still put AJ and Bryan over him.

Pick a match where he decided to pitch a hissy fit mid-ring, including the time he was told to go home early, through no-one's fault, and just decided to be a  hugely unprofessional dick about it, ruining the match.

[Squirrel Master]

Shawn Michaels could take a good beating, see.

[Jokaine]

Dec 30, 2017 15:27:55 GMT -5 @kn said:

I love HBK and all but I want someone to break this down with examples. I'm not denying it, I actually think it might be true but we need someone to explain why he's so good and use that comparison with others because this isn't the first time it's been brought up. It's like the "Jay-Z is the GOAT" thing. Yeah Jay might be the greatest and people do say that but in the barbershop you need someone to break it down and explain why because you've got other comparisons coming from the woodworks. We need to know why rather than having blanket statement.

I'll take a shot, but let me start by saying this is all subjective shit. If a person lists Michael Hayes as the best in-ring worker ever and Dean Malenko as the best stick guy because that's who entertained him the most, there's no arguing that down because it's an opinion.

All that said, I feel safe calling HBK the best in-ring guy ever. Following reasons:

1) Catalogue.

He's had as many classic matches as pretty much anybody in the business.

2) Diversity of classic opponents/match styles.

HBK has had all-timers with Scott Hall, Mankind, Bret Hart, Undertaker, Triple H, etc. Those are all great wrestlers, but all are different types of wrestlers. Michaels could work with anybody in any kind of a match and deliver. Most others have some kind of opponent or match in which they would struggle.

3) Length of run.

This might be what sets HBK apart from most. My five favorite matches from Michaels include a tag match against a fat guy from 1986 and a match against the Undertaker from 2010. For a pro wrestler to have bookends like that is crazy.

4) Innovative.

He put the ladder match on a big stage. He put he iron man match on a big stage. He put Hell in a Cell on a big stage. He put the elimination chamber on a big stage.

It's as if every time a new gimmick match was created the thought was to give it to HBK and let him lay out the blueprint.

After laying out those points, I guess the Jay argument could be similar in a couple areas.

Jay's early stuff was incredible. In fact, the argument could be made that the only hiccups in his catalogue from Reasonable Doubt through the Black Album was when he insisted on using a bunch of guest appearances. That's a lot of music to drop without any wack shit.

He was innovative in the sense he didn't write shit down but actually sounded like he did. He also had a grasp of wordplay that was well in-front of most of his peers.

Finally, much like HBK, a lot has to be said for his longevity. 4:44 is, in my opinion, one of his top 4 releases. That's pretty strong considering it's 21 years after his debut.

[ASYLUMHAUSEN]

Because he could get in the ring with literally ANYONE (you, me, a cup of chocolate pudding...) and there was at least a 75% chance it would make Meltzer lose his mind like it was an Okada match in the Dome.

Dude just had everything you could hope for and he had it in bunches.

His heel work (original DX run up to Mania 14 & “who’s your DAAAAADDY, Montreal!” being the 2 best examples from both halves of his career) was so far ahead of everyone not named Flair that it’s not even close.

Basically...he just is. That’s why.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2017 16:26:47 GMT -5 Jokaine said:

Dec 30, 2017 15:27:55 GMT -5 @kn said:

I love HBK and all but I want someone to break this down with examples. I'm not denying it, I actually think it might be true but we need someone to explain why he's so good and use that comparison with others because this isn't the first time it's been brought up. It's like the "Jay-Z is the GOAT" thing. Yeah Jay might be the greatest and people do say that but in the barbershop you need someone to break it down and explain why because you've got other comparisons coming from the woodworks. We need to know why rather than having blanket statement.

I'll take a shot, but let me start by saying this is all subjective shit. If a person lists Michael Hayes as the best in-ring worker ever and Dean Malenko as the best stick guy because that's who entertained him the most, there's no arguing that down because it's an opinion.

All that said, I feel safe calling HBK the best in-ring guy ever. Following reasons:

1) Catalogue.

He's had as many classic matches as pretty much anybody in the business.

2) Diversity of classic opponents/match styles.

HBK has had all-timers with Scott Hall, Mankind, Bret Hart, Undertaker, Triple H, etc. Those are all great wrestlers, but all are different types of wrestlers. Michaels could work with anybody in any kind of a match and deliver. Most others have some kind of opponent or match in which they would struggle.

3) Length of run.

This might be what sets HBK apart from most. My five favorite matches from Michaels include a tag match against a fat guy from 1986 and a match against the Undertaker from 2010. For a pro wrestler to have bookends like that is crazy.

4) Innovative.

He put the ladder match on a big stage. He put he iron man match on a big stage. He put Hell in a Cell on a big stage. He put the elimination chamber on a big stage.

It's as if every time a new gimmick match was created the thought was to give it to HBK and let him lay out the blueprint.

After laying out those points, I guess the Jay argument could be similar in a couple areas.

Jay's early stuff was incredible. In fact, the argument could be made that the only hiccups in his catalogue from Reasonable Doubt through the Black Album was when he insisted on using a bunch of guest appearances. That's a lot of music to drop without any wack shit.

He was innovative in the sense he didn't write shit down but actually sounded like he did. He also had a grasp of wordplay that was well in-front of most of his peers.

Finally, much like HBK, a lot has to be said for his longevity. 4:44 is, in my opinion, one of his top 4 releases. That's pretty strong considering it's 21 years after his debut.

Great response. This is what I was talking about. When you read it like this it's hard to think of anyone who comes close to him. Not just being the GOAT but straight up comes close.

As for Jay I agree with you although I'm having a hard time deciding which is better, 4:44 or American Gangster. Still I consider both of them classics but that's just me.

[bootytea]

I used to wonder that, then I watched his work in 1996.

The main event scene at that time really was must see.



Problem with Bret's work was that it was a bit formulaic, good, but you knew what you were getting. Just my opinion.

[Fade]

Dude was just a jack of all trades. AJ is the closest I think that matches him. AJ's better wrestling-wise, but Shawn was superior in storytelling, bring emotive, charisma and having fans invest in his shit. Especially in his second run.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Michaels entertained me way more than Bret did. That's my criteria, even while recognizing Bret's skills with a tear in my eye.