HBK: The Wrestler

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

And another thing, Hogan's matches did have the 'Hulk up, Big Boot, Leg drop" formula at the end, but he great matches each told a different story.

 

Hogan vs. Andre - from a storytelling perspective - was Amazing. Hogan hulking up at the start because he knew that in his "Human" state he couldn't get the job done, but if he kicked it up a notch, that maybe he could end it early. It failed and he had to work his way up.

 

(I will get to others later)

[Guest Choken One]

Yeah...That's true...also look at Savage from WMV...Classic storytelling there...and same with his match with Warrior a year later...

[Guest Brian]

Which is why Patterson is a genius.

[Guest Brian]

Every match Hogan and Savage had was great. Savage brough out the best in Hogan.

[Guest Choken One]

Savage brought the best out of alot...

[Guest BionicRedneck]

I agree that Michaels wouldn't want to work a Japanese style in the WWF, but that doesn't mean you can't compare Japanese wrestlers to WWF wrestlers.

 

Wrestling is wrestling. The basic components are the same regardless of the style, and Michaels is brutally overrated.

 

Sure he made Sid watchable. Watchable. People make Shawn Michaels out to be superman who could carry anyone. Not the case. Bret Hart carried Undertaker to a better match (At One Night Only) than Michaels could even with all the gimmicks of Hell In The Cell.

 

What I notice is the "classic" Michaels matches usually involve aload of gimmicks and shortcuts. The WWF propaganda that tells people Michaels is the best of all time is the same shit they say about HHH. That should tell you something.

[Guest razazteca]

I really disliked the fake patriotism story that was used in the match vs the trader Sgt Slaughter and in the I can lift fat bastards spot vs Yokozuna.

 

I prefer watching HBK go to the top rope for a spot than watch Hogan poke somebody in the eye or rake the back as offense.

[Guest creativename]

Sure it can, you just aren't trying.

If you want to get condescending, then don't bother continuing this discussion.

 

No, there are universal qualities that make something good and make it bad.

That statement is not true (unless, as I said, you are speaking about them relative to an objective function). I actually agree more than most would however.

 

But there are elements in shakespeare that people can say make it good.  People can take things from shakespeare, be it wordplay, build, dialogue, character development, etc. and say "this is what makes it good".  The main reason people don't like shakespeare is because it's hard to read, which really isn't a viable criticism because it doesn't really relate to the content, but rather the format.  Then you could map Shakespeares influence on other writers and his overall success as a secondary source for his 'greatness'.  I personally don't like Shakespeare, but I will say that he was a good writer and that he wrote good work.  Me not liking it is based on taste and opinion - which is based on feeling.  It being good is based on evidence and substance and actual tangilble things.

Those elements themselves are entirely up to opinion. No doubt there is someone Enlgish professor, somewhere, with credibility who believes Shakespeare's dialogue simply pandered to the masses of his day and was quite crude and overrated. Also, there are likely many people who believe any influence Shakespeare had was entirely negative (Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys have had a lot of influence on the music scene, but this isn't really considered a good thing).

 

Here is the problem - what if everyone is wrong?  If you have 1000 people saying "Wow this is good" but their only justification is "i liked it, so its good" and 1 person saying "this is bad" and providing evidence and points for his case, then who is really right?

I knew this point would be brought up, but I didn't bother to address it the first time around.

 

The simple fact is that if 300 years from now, 999 out of 1,000 thought that Tom Clancy was a better author than Shakespeare (assuming they had all the relevant works readily available, and also understood what each work meant in the contex of its period), then there is almost no question that it was indeed the case--it would mean that, at some point in time, Tom Clancy wrote a book or a series that transcended anything Shakespeare wrote.

 

As it is, there is no chance whatsoever of a consensus opinion developing that Tom Clancy > Shakespeare. Thus this is a meaningless point.

 

EDIT: This also ties in with the whole "if everyone was jumping off a bridge..." thing, which I always loathed as it was just a terrible statement. If everyone was indeed jumping off a bridge, either they were all behind manipulated somehow, or more likely they were running from a greater disaster (Godzilla, anyone?). While the "appeal to popularity" argument is often inappropriate, if everyone were jumping off a bridge, it is almost assured that they would have a very valid reason to be doing so--jumping off a bridge is not something so trivial as Hula hoops, pet rocks, or Pokemon.

 

How exactly was HBK successful enough to be great?  He was on top when the WWF was at its lowest.

HBK is one of the most famous wrestlers of all-time, and had incredible success in the ring. His relative level of success is undebatable, behind only the success of a handful in the NA industry (Hogan, Flair, Rock, Austin, Savage, maybe a few others).

 

(NOTE: I will not get into a discussion about Hogan's abilities as a worker)

 

How is it an opinion that HBK bumped a lot and that his 'carry jobs' consisted of him getting his ass kicked?

Of course that's not opinion. That's exactly why I don't think he was so great. However, many other people either think he's a great worker despite this, or even because of it. He did get the fans into his matches. Again, I would say this was more of a performer thing, but it would not be entirely inappropriate to classify it as a worker thing.

 

 

What I notice is the "classic" Michaels matches usually involve aload of gimmicks and shortcuts.

YES!!! I agree wholeheartedly, that goes with my earlier point. More effort was put into making sure HBK's matches were memorable (and, perhaps, more effort by the propaganda machine to make sure they stayed there). He was given opportunity. Throughout WWF/E's history, most are not given the opportunity to show what they are really capable of.

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

Hey about the Shakespeare/Tom Clancy thing. Try this one. Most people will say that Jurassic Park is a more entertaining movie than Citizen Caine and like it a lot better. Does that make it a better movie? No.

And just because something is a bad match doesn't mean that it can't be entertaining. I mean an example I'll use is "Dude Where's My Car". I laughed my ass off and was entertained as hell. When I got done I asked myself "Was that a good movie" and my answer was no. It was a terrible movie. But it was still entertaining.

Shawn Michaels could put on a show. But when it came to actually working a match he sucked terribley.

And about Hogan......maybe he had it in him. But he was one of the laziest wrestlers this side of Mutoh.

[Guest My Eyebrow is on fire]

Every match Hogan and Savage had was great. Savage brough out the best in Hogan.

are you fuck INSANE?? superbrawl 96 or wherever hogan fought savage was an ABORTION

[Guest Choken One]

Umm...I know you likely never watched wrestling until 1996...but um...Savage and Hogan tore the house down in the 80's....

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

I think he meant in the 80's........

[Guest creativename]

Hey about the Shakespeare/Tom Clancy thing. Try this one. Most people will say that Jurassic Park is a more entertaining movie than Citizen Caine and like it a lot better. Does that make it a better movie? No.

And just because something is a bad match doesn't mean that it can't be entertaining. I mean an example I'll use is "Dude Where's My Car". I laughed my ass off and was entertained as hell. When I got done I asked myself "Was that a good movie" and my answer was no. It was a terrible movie. But it was still entertaining.

Shawn Michaels could put on a show. But when it came to actually working a match he sucked terribley.

And about Hogan......maybe he had it in him. But he was one of the laziest wrestlers this side of Mutoh.

I never mentioned anything about entertainment value. If 999/1,000 people 300 years from now think Clancy > Shakespeare (given that they know all the relevant facts and thus can form valid views), then this would imply that Clancy's writing somehow ended up being better overall than Shakespeare's.

[Guest Brian]

Yeah, I meant pre-WCW. Every Spectrum, MSG, wherever match you can find from there is Savage being awesome.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

If you want to get condescending, then don't bother continuing this discussion.

 

No, I meant it. You aren't trying. There are elements that make things 'good' - look for them rather than brushing it off like "everything is opinion".

 

That statement is not true (unless, as I said, you are speaking about them relative to an objective function). I actually agree more than most would however.

 

Again, not looking. Am I going to have to break every single thing down?

 

Those elements themselves are entirely up to opinion.

 

How is it opinion?

 

No doubt there is someone Enlgish professor, somewhere, with credibility who believes Shakespeare's dialogue simply pandered to the masses of his day and was quite crude and overrated. Also, there are likely many people who believe any influence Shakespeare had was entirely negative (Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys have had a lot of influence on the music scene, but this isn't really considered a good thing).

 

This is funny because where I got the "What is Good" thing from is an english prof. When you are writing you have to know what makes a story good - you can't just throw your hands up and say "well, I hope they find this entertaining" - because that is way too subjective. First be good, then everything can come from that.

 

The simple fact is that if 300 years from now, 999 out of 1,000 thought that Tom Clancy was a better author than Shakespeare (assuming they had all the relevant works readily available, and also understood what each work meant in the contex of its period), then there is almost no question that it was indeed the case--it would mean that, at some point in time, Tom Clancy wrote a book or a series that transcended anything Shakespeare wrote.

 

What are you going on about? 300 years from now? Whuh? Did you even answer my question? All you did was provide a possible way that Clancy could be better than Shakespeare...

 

As it is, there is no chance whatsoever of a consensus opinion developing that Tom Clancy > Shakespeare. Thus this is a meaningless point.

 

But it IS possible to take elements from Shakespeare and compare it to Clancys and say "hey, this is better"

 

EDIT: This also ties in with the whole "if everyone was jumping off a bridge..." thing, which I always loathed as it was just a terrible statement. If everyone was indeed jumping off a bridge, either they were all behind manipulated somehow, or more likely they were running from a greater disaster (Godzilla, anyone?). While the "appeal to popularity" argument is often inappropriate, if everyone were jumping off a bridge, it is almost assured that they would have a very valid reason to be doing so--jumping off a bridge is not something so trivial as Hula hoops, pet rocks, or Pokemon.

 

Are you agreeing with me? My whole point was "One person with reason weights more than 999 people with nothing but "I liked it" when evaluating what is good.

 

HBK is one of the most famous wrestlers of all-time, and had incredible success in the ring.

 

You go out on the street and ask 10 people who Shawn Michaels is and test that theory...

 

His relative level of success is undebatable, behind only the success of a handful in the NA industry (Hogan, Flair, Rock, Austin, Savage, maybe a few others).

 

"How exactly was HBK successful enough to be great? He was on top when the WWF was at its lowest"

 

(NOTE: I will not get into a discussion about Hogan's abilities as a worker)

 

You were the one who brought up the point.

 

Of course that's not opinion. That's exactly why I don't think he was so great. However, many other people either think he's a great worker despite this, or even because of it.

 

And they are morons. They aren't thinking enough. They are basing their opinions on 'oooh that looks purdy!" rather than 'hmm, that made sense". Am I saying you should watch wrestling with a magnifiying glass and a notebook? No, watch first for enjoyment. But when it comes down to "greatest of all time" and crap like that, then you have to be tougher.

 

He did get the fans into his matches. Again, I would say this was more of a performer thing, but it would not be entirely inappropriate to classify it as a worker thing.

 

But HBK was never a significant draw. Again "On top at the lowest period". It's sorta like "if a tree falls"

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Give a lil up to Hogan - in the WM 5 match there was an odd spring in his step.