|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 2, 2018 16:51:13 GMT -5
Shawn's main event run during '96 certainly was during a down period for the company, but should that be pinned on his shoulders or on WCW's growth in popularity? And he has main evented a bunch o PPVs that had great buyrates, just not during his '96 run. It should be pinned on his shoulders, because he couldn't turn the tide. Austin did. Then Rock pushed it even further. Shawn couldn't get the job done as a top guy. I don't think anyone would argue he's on Austin and Rock's level in terms of drawing power. But I don't think him vs. Bret is all that clear. |
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Jan 2, 2018 16:54:11 GMT -5
It should be pinned on his shoulders, because he couldn't turn the tide. Austin did. Then Rock pushed it even further. Shawn couldn't get the job done as a top guy. I don't think anyone would argue he's on Austin and Rock's level in terms of drawing power. But I don't think him vs. Bret is all that clear. I'm willing to admit that yeah, Shawn had a lot harder of a go of it in 1996, after his buddy bottomed out business as champ in 1995, but still... |
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Jan 2, 2018 17:14:52 GMT -5
It should be pinned on his shoulders, because he couldn't turn the tide. Austin did. Then Rock pushed it even further. Shawn couldn't get the job done as a top guy. I don't think anyone would argue he's on Austin and Rock's level in terms of drawing power. But I don't think him vs. Bret is all that clear. Even moreso it should be on his shoulders. Austin and Rock had to overcome dissatisfaction and resistance from the office to prove their worth. Shawn Michaels had Vince's ear, and even tried to hold Rock down and sabotaged many careers, yet couldn't cut it when put in the position he wanted - the top guy. |
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 2, 2018 17:28:00 GMT -5
I don't think anyone would argue he's on Austin and Rock's level in terms of drawing power. But I don't think him vs. Bret is all that clear. Even moreso it should be on his shoulders. Austin and Rock had to overcome dissatisfaction and resistance from the office to prove their worth. Shawn Michaels had Vince's ear, and even tried to hold Rock down and sabotaged many careers, yet couldn't cut it when put in the position he wanted - the top guy. No one is comparing HBK as a draw to Rock or Austin so not sure why those names are brought up. |
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Jan 2, 2018 17:35:51 GMT -5
Even moreso it should be on his shoulders. Austin and Rock had to overcome dissatisfaction and resistance from the office to prove their worth. Shawn Michaels had Vince's ear, and even tried to hold Rock down and sabotaged many careers, yet couldn't cut it when put in the position he wanted - the top guy. No one is comparing HBK as a draw to Rock or Austin so not sure why those names are brought up. You brought them up, dude. Edit: Actually, no, I did. To refute your point. You said that HBK failing as a draw wasn't his fault, because he was up against an on-a-roll WCW. So was Austin. He turned the tide. HBK failed as a draw with the office behind him. No matter how many "great matches" and "iconic moments" got hanged onto him, ultimately, he was a failure at the one goal of a top guy: To draw houses. |
|
Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,523
|
Post by Woo on Jan 2, 2018 17:38:59 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels had the best match of: -Undertaker's career. -Bret Hart's career. -Hulk Hogan's career (20 years past his peak, mind) -Mick Foley's career before the f*** finish. -Scott Hall's career. -Kevin Nash's career. -Agruably John Cena's career. Randy Savage had the best match of: -Ultimate Warrior's career. -DDP's career. ... and that's about it. Flair-Steamboat is superior to Savage-Steamboat and the build to Hogan-Savage was better than the actual match. Taker- Probably with the Bad Blodd match. Though you might argue Taker vs Angle at No Way Out was better. Bret- Which one do you mean? None of Bret's matches with Shawn would be in Bret's top 5 matches. Hulk Hogan- Could be Savage, Warrior, Rock, but it wasn't Shawn. Foley- Probably not. That goes to either HHH, Taker or Orton. Scott Hall- Yes Diesel- Probably. Him or Bret Cena- That would be CM Punk Savage has -Hogan -Warrior -DDP -Maybe Steamboat -Possibly even Flair Bret has -Austin -Owen -Bulldog -Mr Perfect -Bam Bam Bigelow Austin has -Bret -Rock -Maybe HHH Foley has -Orton -Probably HHH -Possibly Taker Angle has -Lesnar -Benoit -Maybe Taker -Maybe HBK |
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 2, 2018 17:45:56 GMT -5
No one is comparing HBK as a draw to Rock or Austin so not sure why those names are brought up. You brought them up, dude. Edit: Actually, no, I did. To refute your point. You said that HBK failing as a draw wasn't his fault, because he was up against an on-a-roll WCW. So was Austin. He turned the tide. HBK failed as a draw with the office behind him. No matter how many "great matches" and "iconic moments" got hanged onto him, ultimately, he was a failure at the one goal of a top guy: To draw houses. I was merely questioning whether HBK as a draw vs. Bret as a draw was more because of their respective drawing powers or because of the competition during their reigns on top. No one ever compares HBK to Austin and Rock. Guys like HHH, Bret, Diesel and Jericho are usually the ones compared for drawing purposes. I mean obviously you have some sort of personal animosity against Shawn I assume because of his attitude in the past, but even you would admit the comparison should be with the latter group and not Stone Cold and The Rock. |
|
Urethra Franklin
King Koopa
When Toronto sports teams lose, Alison Brie is sad
Posts: 11,113
|
Post by Urethra Franklin on Jan 2, 2018 17:48:15 GMT -5
Shawn Michaels isn’t my favourite wrestler ever.
That being said, I really grew to appreciate him over the years and he went from a guy who I disliked to one whose matches I actively looked forward to.
If somebody posits that Shawn Michaels is the greatest of all-time, I won’t fight it because I think the body of work that he amassed over the years is enough to make a compelling case.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Jan 2, 2018 17:51:32 GMT -5
You brought them up, dude. Edit: Actually, no, I did. To refute your point. You said that HBK failing as a draw wasn't his fault, because he was up against an on-a-roll WCW. So was Austin. He turned the tide. HBK failed as a draw with the office behind him. No matter how many "great matches" and "iconic moments" got hanged onto him, ultimately, he was a failure at the one goal of a top guy: To draw houses. I was merely questioning whether HBK as a draw vs. Bret as a draw was more because of their respective drawing powers or because of the competition during their reigns on top. No one ever compares HBK to Austin and Rock. Guys like HHH, Bret, Diesel and Jericho are usually the ones compared for drawing purposes. I mean obviously you have some sort of personal animosity against Shawn I assume because of his attitude in the past, but even you would admit the comparison should be with the latter group and not Stone Cold and The Rock. Why? Top guys should be compared against top guys. There's no "tier" here. Shawn was the top guy. He had the company's entire focus in 1996, just like Diesel had it in 95 and Bret in 94. It was his job to draw houses. He didn't. It hurts the argument for him being "The GOAT", as if such a thing could be scientifically quantified anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Jan 2, 2018 18:04:41 GMT -5
No one is comparing HBK as a draw to Rock or Austin so not sure why those names are brought up. You brought them up, dude. Edit: Actually, no, I did. To refute your point. You said that HBK failing as a draw wasn't his fault, because he was up against an on-a-roll WCW. So was Austin. He turned the tide. HBK failed as a draw with the office behind him. No matter how many "great matches" and "iconic moments" got hanged onto him, ultimately, he was a failure at the one goal of a top guy: To draw houses. I believe if we are talking about Shawn Michaels as the greatest ever, it is valid to bring into discussion his drawing power. To me, WWE is first and foremost a business. If your contribution isn't drawing houses, the business closes, and no amount of ring psychology etc matters then when there isn't a stage to showcase it. Bret Hart comparatively was an international star that could be relied upon to bring increasing revenue from foreign markets - Europe, India etc, even if domestic business wasn't as good as Hulkamania era or Attitude Era. Shawn Michaels wasn't a domestic or foreign market draw. Yes, he put on exemplary matches in 1996, but the paying audience declined. Vince McMahon in desperation brought back the Ultimate Warrior with the view of putting him in the top spot sooner rather than later. Also, if we are talking like for like comparisons, as good as Michaels was, did he build anyone but himself and his friends? Bret Hart in contrast saw something in Austin, rallied to get in a feud with him, and at Wrestlemania 13, changed the course of history. Being the greatest also needs a keen eye for the betterment of your employer. |
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Jan 2, 2018 20:12:53 GMT -5
I always felt in kayfabe, I would expect Bret to win Shawn in any match.
I also think it's a little unfair, because some of Brets greatest matches, such as vs perfect or vs piper, aren't a spectacle of a match like Shawn vs taker or Shawn vs hogan. Whether the actual matchwork is better is irrelevant.
Shawns matches had the machine behind them once they knew how to really rev up and hype big feuds. Some people think Shawn is better simply due to his entrances, such as the zipline thing at WM12.
Even against taker in 1997, I would argue Bret at ONO and SS had better matches than Shawn did at hitc or rumble 98. Yet people remember the debut of the cell, the debut of kane, the 'debut' of piledriver on the steps (though i think Bret might have used it prior), casket on fire, etc. Not to mention ONO was a dq finish and not a main ppv, diminishing the match.
I can't argue with that spectacle. Even though i really dislike Shawns character in dx 97. 98 was a little better as he was forced to meet his match in Austin.
Plus, Bret had to retire much earlier than Shawn. Who knows how he would have done if WCW had used him correctly?
I prefer Bret to Shawn as a person and a wrestler, but Shawn is so talented and can still go, and got to leave at the top or his game, and apologized.....whereas Bret at the time had a terrible match with Vince.
Shawn is probably a better all rounder than Bret.
I also do like Shawns promo skills, but I think sadly Bret, like Sid, gets remembered only for the 3 or 4 bad promos he made, rather than the good ones.
The more I hear about Bret going over psychology and trying to innovate, such as bringing the ladder match to wwe, figure 4 round the post, selling both Vince and Nash on the table spot at Survivor Series 95..... I respect Bret more.
That being said, I will not argue anyone who wants to place Shawn above him. And this is coming from a Bret fan who takes his side at Montreal.
Anyway back to Shawn.
Despite never having that megastar recognition and charisma unlike Rock or Austin, he was always respected as a legend in the business by fans.
Had Macho returned to the ring in wwe 1994 however, I would argue he could have perhaps eclipsed Shawn easily if used right.
Finally, the finshing moves of Shawn. Having the big elbow from the top ropes as well as SCM was such an advantage of two super iconic moves, a top rope spectacle as well as a move that could hit out of nowhere, but fans could also anticipate a big impact as he tuned up the band. They can't do that with the stunner, they can't quite get the same tension when Randy gets into position for the rko or Cena or even I'd argue Razor Ramon. Those guys make one gesture before going for their move, not continous, and others are usually submissions like mankind sneaking up for the mandible claw etc, not big impact, and not usually leading to a pinfall. Off the top of my head, only Earthquakes splash where he would jump up and down to create anticipation before going for the splash had the same kinda style to it. That psychology helps.
Bottom line, Shawn has a ton of things going for him. He's well placed to be in the top 3 or 5 of wwe wrestlers.
Now maybe Japan or Mexico can claim someone better, I don't know.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,726 
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 3, 2018 15:53:45 GMT -5
You brought them up, dude. Edit: Actually, no, I did. To refute your point. You said that HBK failing as a draw wasn't his fault, because he was up against an on-a-roll WCW. So was Austin. He turned the tide. HBK failed as a draw with the office behind him. No matter how many "great matches" and "iconic moments" got hanged onto him, ultimately, he was a failure at the one goal of a top guy: To draw houses. I believe if we are talking about Shawn Michaels as the greatest ever, it is valid to bring into discussion his drawing power. To me, WWE is first and foremost a business. If your contribution isn't drawing houses, the business closes, and no amount of ring psychology etc matters then when there isn't a stage to showcase it. Bret Hart comparatively was an international star that could be relied upon to bring increasing revenue from foreign markets - Europe, India etc, even if domestic business wasn't as good as Hulkamania era or Attitude Era. Shawn Michaels wasn't a domestic or foreign market draw. Yes, he put on exemplary matches in 1996, but the paying audience declined. Vince McMahon in desperation brought back the Ultimate Warrior with the view of putting him in the top spot sooner rather than later. Also, if we are talking like for like comparisons, as good as Michaels was, did he build anyone but himself and his friends? Bret Hart in contrast saw something in Austin, rallied to get in a feud with him, and at Wrestlemania 13, changed the course of history. Being the greatest also needs a keen eye for the betterment of your employer. The question was why we, as fans, consider him to be the best. Drawing power has nothing to do with it. Much like how The Godfather is considered by many to be the best movie, even if it isn't the highest ever grossing. The business side of things isn't our concern. The question was who we, an fans, like most. |
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Jan 3, 2018 16:34:51 GMT -5
I believe if we are talking about Shawn Michaels as the greatest ever, it is valid to bring into discussion his drawing power. To me, WWE is first and foremost a business. If your contribution isn't drawing houses, the business closes, and no amount of ring psychology etc matters then when there isn't a stage to showcase it. Bret Hart comparatively was an international star that could be relied upon to bring increasing revenue from foreign markets - Europe, India etc, even if domestic business wasn't as good as Hulkamania era or Attitude Era. Shawn Michaels wasn't a domestic or foreign market draw. Yes, he put on exemplary matches in 1996, but the paying audience declined. Vince McMahon in desperation brought back the Ultimate Warrior with the view of putting him in the top spot sooner rather than later. Also, if we are talking like for like comparisons, as good as Michaels was, did he build anyone but himself and his friends? Bret Hart in contrast saw something in Austin, rallied to get in a feud with him, and at Wrestlemania 13, changed the course of history. Being the greatest also needs a keen eye for the betterment of your employer. The question was why we, as fans, consider him to be the best. Drawing power has nothing to do with it. Much like how The Godfather is considered by many to be the best movie, even if it isn't the highest ever grossing. The business side of things isn't our concern. The question was who we, an fans, like most. That's subjective matter isn't it 😊? Me, I will always say Ultimate Warrior. I really don't care if his in-ring work wasn't the best. I bought into the character, the mannerisms, the muscles, the intensity. Warrior's 2 minute bout with Honky Tonk Man had me more pumped and excited than 60 minutes of Shawn Michaels clinics against Hart and then Cena. But I digress... |
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,726
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 3, 2018 17:06:10 GMT -5
The question was why we, as fans, consider him to be the best. Drawing power has nothing to do with it. Much like how The Godfather is considered by many to be the best movie, even if it isn't the highest ever grossing. The business side of things isn't our concern. The question was who we, an fans, like most. That's subjective matter isn't it 😊? Me, I will always say Ultimate Warrior. I really don't care if his in-ring work wasn't the best. I bought into the character, the mannerisms, the muscles, the intensity. Warrior's 2 minute bout with Honky Tonk Man had me more pumped and excited than 60 minutes of Shawn Michaels clinics against Hart and then Cena. But I digress... And that's fine, I'm just explaining why lots of people say HBK. DA BIZNESS doesn't factor for this type of question. |
|
Shark
Hank Scorpio
The world's only Samurai Ninja Pirate
Posts: 7,045
|
Post by Shark on Jan 3, 2018 17:40:17 GMT -5
Regarding the subject of drawing power, few of the biggest draws were known for their in ring ability. Hogan has always been knocked for it, Austin was good, but he didn't become a draw based on the caliber of matches he was having. To be fair, Austin's in ring ability took a major hit after the knee and then neck injuries. We've gone on at length about Cena's in ring skill. So while others were bigger draws than HBK, he had them beat in several other categories. He wasn't an all time huge draw, but that alone can't disqualify him from GOAT discussion. A lot of factors go into something like that.
|
|
