Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I disagree. Shawn would've done FANTASTIC in a southern promotion like say, SMW. He could've gone two ways: Pretty boy blond babyface the fans love, Ala the RNRs. Or, Smarmy pretty boy heel who fights like a total coward but makes the fans go batshit when the face finally throws him all over the arena.
Guest BionicRedneck Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I disagree. Shawn would've done FANTASTIC in a southern promotion like say, SMW. He could've gone two ways: Pretty boy blond babyface the fans love, Ala the RNRs. Or, Smarmy pretty boy heel who fights like a total coward but makes the fans go batshit when the face finally throws him all over the arena. I was talking about on in-ring ability, not how good his character would have been or the reaction the crowd would have given him. I agree, though.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 In-ring as well. His style is the type to either get hammered on the entire match, bumping like a pinball, and come back with the big highspots for the win, or else the cheatin' heel that gets his ass whipped the whole match, and uses nefarious tactics to get the win, mixing in a spot or two. Picture something like Rockers/Midnights, or Windham/Shawn. He would've fit in very well in NWA, or a southern territory. EDIT: Granted, guys like Windam and the MX can pull great matches out of their ass, but one should look at the closest things to that style that HBK has done. Namely, his match with JJ at IYH 2. A fantastic blend of old school face/heel southern style, mixed with the up and coming Sportz EnTeRtAiNmEnT aspect. He pulled of a barnburner with JARRETT, who was nothing more than a solid athlete and flawed/mediocre worker at the time. Imagine what Shawn could've done with a better, smarter worker.
Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I thought HBK was the cause of AIDS in africa, and that HHH was the cause for world hunger... And isn't Taker the cause of dead puppy dogs? (did I get it right?) You know what - people like yourself and Flea from 411 are correct. There is absolutely NO reason HHH has been the champ on RAW in spite of being in poor health and thus not being able to defend it at house shows OTHER THAN COINCIDENCE. There is NO reason the only other person to hold that belt WAS HIS BEST FRIEND WHO ALSO COULD NOT defend it at house shows. HHH in fact puts on great ***** matches all the time since his return. The Undertaker IS an exciting character who drew lots of people to buy the PPV and attend the shows he main-evented in 2002. He does NOT receive a push solely because he drew in 1995 and is a hoss. The Undertaker, HHH, and Shawn Michaels ALWAYS build up new stars by working extensive programs - and make sure to job cleanly to make credible new main event stars! HHH does NOT have an entire show centered around him which is a ratings black hole and only getting worse. He does NOT have this show centered around him because he provides the HEAD WRITER WITH GREAT PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL PLEASURE. HHH has 0 influence backstage and he and Stephanie maintain a totally professional relationship not mixing their business and personal life whatsoever. Chris Jericho DID INDEED look strong through his program with HHH and was NOT made to look like a joke and a non-threat. Marks all believed HHH was the face in peril and saw Jericho as a champion. Chris Jericho did get at least 1 clean win over HHH but you just didn't see it because it was a secret show. I didn't want to do a HHHater post - but I just couldn't take it anymore...I hate assholes who talk like they're sooooooooooo mature and even though they post on a wrestling news forum, and read wrestling news and sites, and are absorbed by it - consider themselves so above the entire "zit faced fat cretin" IWC even though they are a fucking member their damn selves.
Guest humongous2002 Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Forgive those HHH marks, they've been brainwashed by Vince's marketing machine and their gullible minds donh't know what's right or wrong anymore.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I disagree. What is good is not up to opinion, there are defined elements that make something good.
Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Forgive those HHH marks, they've been brainwashed by Vince's marketing machine and their gullible minds donh't know what's right or wrong anymore. Crowd pops do not a "draw" make. HHH has a superstar physique - I mark out for him still sometimes like other marks do - for his entrance and said look. I marked for Batista just because I'm a weightlifter myself and I admire the hard work it takes to get a look like that. HHH pops the crowd big (for his entrance and look, not his in ring action - but for the sake of argument I'll pretend like that's not the case). Crowd pops do not translate into money. HHH t-shirts don't move like Austin 3:16, What? or hell, even nWo tie-dye. People do not buy PPVs because HHH is headlining. Same with the Undertaker. Dynamite Kid had enormous respect for Giant Baba because when the latter's drawing power diminished, he went down to the midcard. It's time for HHH, The Undertaker, and Shawn Michaels to work programs in the midcard to put over new stars. If shawn is too crippled and delicate to only work with his very very bestest buddy - then he will kill buyrates and must go.-
Guest creativename Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I disagree. What is good is not up to opinion, there are defined elements that make something good. As I said, there must exist a consensus. Otherwise, since there will always be differing views on what is good, it cannot be defined. Good and bad are terms that are simply too abstract and complicated to be defined in an absolute sense when there is no general agreement on the matter. (The only time they can be defined in an absolute sense is when discussing them relative to some objective function--for instance, money is good if I want to buy something expensive; it helps me to achieve my goals.) Shakespeare is almost universally acclaimed to be a great writer, and this is what validates the point--without that validation, anyone claiming Shakespeare was a great writer would only be expressing a personal opinion. There are no doubt many tens of thousands of people who have read Shakespeare's work, and loathe it; either they find it terribly overrated, just plain old boring, or simply the work of a hack. Others may say he paled in comparison to, say, Chaucer or something (or even Tom Clancy). These people's views cannot alter the fact that the overwhelming consensus is that Shakespeare was great, which makes him so. Shakespeare > Tom Clancy, the views of some individuals aside. In terms of wrestling, this is why Hogan and Shawn Michaels are great wrestlers--they are considered to be such by the vast majority of wrestling fans, because of their success. Of course when you change the definition to "worker", it is agreed just as universally that Hogan was terrible. When it comes to Shawn Michaels however, the views are far more divergent. Some consider him one of the all-time great North American workers, rivaling Flair. Others say that's bullsh*t and that he really wasn't so great. Obviously I'm in the 2nd camp, for the same reasons that most have already stated (formulaic matches, match value comes mainly from bumping, etc.) Still, it is not possible for me to pass this off as fact. It is only an opinion in this case, because many other people just as knowledgebale as I (and no doubt some more knowledgeable) would vehemently disagree and say that I was completely off my rocker, had no idea what I was talking about, etc. The discussions going on in this thread about HBK's abilities as a worker thus represent a debate of opinions, where one side presents arguments and then the other--and while the debate seems one-sided in this particular thread, it would certainly not be in general. Thus, the views expressed here are opinions, not absolute judgements.
Guest Shanghai Kid Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I think Creativename said it best. I still have lots of matches in my mind that I consider "good" but other people might not. Shawn Micheals, the wrestler, is hugely debatable. Tons of people will say he's a top 10 worker in the 90's, and one of the best WWF workers ever, and tons of people will say he's overrated and that he's not that good. I need to find this guy Optimus Schwab, he seriously is the most knowledgeable wrestling guy i've ever seen. He could set the record straight me thinks.
Guest Rob Edwards Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 He's a good wrestler from the excitment point of view but has some serious flaws from a realism point of view and thats about it Me? Well I enjoy a lot of his matches but non stand out as absolute iron clad classics
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 As I said, there must exist a consensus. Otherwise, since there will always be differing views on what is good, it cannot be defined. Sure it can, you just aren't trying. Good and bad are terms that are simply too abstract and complicated to be defined in an absolute sense when there is no general agreement on the matter. No, there are universal qualities that make something good and make it bad. Shakespeare is almost universally acclaimed to be a great writer, and this is what validates the point--without that validation, anyone claiming Shakespeare was a great writer would only be expressing a personal opinion. There are no doubt many tens of thousands of people who have read Shakespeare's work, and loathe it; either they find it terribly overrated, just plain old boring, or simply the work of a hack. Others may say he paled in comparison to, say, Chaucer or something (or even Tom Clancy). 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. These people's views cannot alter the fact that the overwhelming consensus is that Shakespeare was great, which makes him so. Shakespeare > Tom Clancy, the views of some individuals aside. 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? In terms of wrestling, this is why Hogan and Shawn Michaels are great wrestlers--they are considered to be such by the vast majority of wrestling fans, because of their success. How exactly was HBK successful enough to be great? He was on top when the WWF was at its lowest. Of course when you change the definition to "worker", it is agreed just as universally that Hogan was terrible. Did Hogan ever hurt anyone in the ring? Did he poorly execute moves? Did he not 'work' the crowd? Did he not have great matches? I don't follow you here. People say that hogan was a bad worker because they just don't like Hogan. I can give you matches where Hogan showed he was a good worker, give you evidence to back up my claim. Hogan was trained by Hiro Matsuda, that means something. Matsuda was trained by Karl Gotch - who trained Inoki, Maeda, Sayama, Fujiwara, and a host of others. Lance Storm says that he enjoyed working with Hogan, that he would love to do it again. I haven't heard any complaints from the workers of Hogan being poor in the ring. Obviously I'm in the 2nd camp, for the same reasons that most have already stated (formulaic matches, match value comes mainly from bumping, etc.) Still, it is not possible for me to pass this off as fact. It is only an opinion in this case, because many other people just as knowledgebale as I (and no doubt some more knowledgeable) would vehemently disagree and say that I was completely off my rocker, had no idea what I was talking about, etc. The discussions going on in this thread about HBK's abilities as a worker thus represent a debate of opinions, where one side presents arguments and then the other--and while the debate seems one-sided in this particular thread, it would certainly not be in general. Thus, the views expressed here are opinions, not absolute judgements. How is it an opinion that HBK bumped a lot and that his 'carry jobs' consisted of him getting his ass kicked?
Guest Goodear Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I can't believe people can't say that Michaels was a good worker... it really amazes me to know end. Here's a guy who made SID freaking watchable in the match that went more than five minutes... but because he does a kip up, he sucks. First off, the Shawn couldn't work in Japan argument is completely ridiculous since Shawn was employeed in WWF since the 80s. There was never an attempt by Shawn to work that flavor, and hence, he never failed to do it. Why the hell should he be working an All Japan style anyway in the WWF of all places? I don't expect Misawa to be breaking out People's Rolling Elbows anytime soon... why should Shawn be using a Tiger Driver? The 'realism' thing also holds no water anywhere in wrestling... anywhere. Foley used a damn sock as his finisher. He got tossed 15 feet off stuff in the middle of matches. That's realistic? Benoit using a flying headbutt after getting serious neck surgery is realistic? Kawada getting up to kick someone in the face and then sell the release German suplex he just took is realistic. Workers are performers ... if they weren't performing on some level, no one would be watching the show. Making it sound like Kobashi isn't trying to do the same things Shawn is flawed and incorrect.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Realism effects Suspension of Disbelief. Selling effects believability. Believablity also effects suspension of disbelief Diversity, adaptibility, working a variety of styles is always good.
Guest Goodear Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Working a variety of styles may be good... but its not everything. There is no evidence that Kawada could work a WWF or Mexican style match, but the vast amount of people think he's a great worker anyway. The realism of wrestling is simply nonexistant ... looking at any match in any federation you're going to see about 15 things that will blow your disbelief if you think about them. A kip up by a wrestler whose entire gimmick was based on him being a showman is not that bad.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Variety of styles isn't the be-all/end-all but it is a reflection of being a truly great worker. Which is why I think there is a huge gap between Benoit/Guerrero and everyone else on the roster. Kawada worked UWF-i style. The WWE style isn't really a difficult style to perform, I am sure Kawada could have worked it. He travelled to NA to learn how to wrestle the NA style which is more than HBK did to learn the Japanese style... Kawada's being a great worker involves the way he used his moves in the ring - he was sort of an anti-hbk. Lucha is a completely different animal, I don't hold it against people who don't work in Mexican Promotions. However, you get bonus marks if you can A kip up after 20 minutes worth of damage to the back is bad. Because it basically says "you know all that stuff that just happened? Well, it didn't happen. It was pointless... And you know what? Maybe the next 10 minute will be pointless too? Who knows? Why should you watch this if we are just going to waste your time?"
Guest razazteca Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Of course when you change the definition to "worker", it is agreed just as universally that Hogan was terrible. Did Hogan ever hurt anyone in the ring? Did he poorly execute moves? Did he not 'work' the crowd? Did he not have great matches? I don't follow you here. People say that hogan was a bad worker because they just don't like Hogan. I can give you matches where Hogan showed he was a good worker, give you evidence to back up my claim. Hogan was trained by Hiro Matsuda, that means something. Matsuda was trained by Karl Gotch - who trained Inoki, Maeda, Sayama, Fujiwara, and a host of others. Lance Storm says that he enjoyed working with Hogan, that he would love to do it again. I haven't heard any complaints from the workers of Hogan being poor in the ring. Hogan is not a good worker in North America. Just because he was trained by a legend who has pedigree does not make Hogan a great worker. All majority of his matches are formulated so much that the crowd is trained in a Pavlovian response to cheer when he does the Hulk Up move and can expect the 3 punches big boot and leg drop. This is not good work this is just a performance that gets a big response.
Guest The Hamburglar Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Again, I have to ask - Mitsuharu Misawa, why is his rampant no-selling never picked upon in arguments like this? One of the big arguments against Michaels here is this whole thing of his where he gets the crap kicked out of him but then kips up and wins with a superkick. So why is this bad, but when Misawa no-sells the entire match and does a superman elbow-flurry comeback, no-one minds? Hell, two of the most highly regarded Misawa matches(6/3/94 vs Kawada and 1/20/97 vs Kobashi) feature exactly this type of superman comeback right at the end of the match, especially the Kobashi one, which to my mind was faintly ridiculous but didn't take away from the match's greatness. Why can't people recognise that the superhuman face comeback is a natural thing in wrestling? Realism sucks balls. Michaels' problem IMO was that his offense was a little weak, but his bumping was great, very fun to watch. BTW, not really taking anything away from Misawa. He's way better than Michaels and certainly one of the greats, but that's simply because, out of all the wrestlers I've ever seen, Misawa is easily the best on offense. He was a great bumper, but his selling wasn't the greatest, but of course it can be argued that as the Main Man Misawa couldn't afford to do the kind of long-term selling Kawada could. But still, he is a prime example of how no-selling can be good, when timed right.
Guest Brian Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Actually, there is some evidence that Hogan could have been a better worker, but it was just so short and quick, literally like fuse.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Hogan being trained by a good trainer could be an indication of being a good worker. I never said Hogan was a great worker, I just said he wasn't a 'terrible one'. It was a formula match that WORKED. It worked the fans, and it made the WWF a lot of money. Hogan didn't do moonsaults or sharpshooters or german suplexes, but he got the most out of every move he did and is still working today.
Guest razazteca Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Hogan is the prototype of what a Sport Entertainer is, no workrate needed to get a crowd response. The Hulk Up move is just as bad as the Kip Up in making the match pointless.
Guest Choken One Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 <- Stunned How have you guys gone this long and STILL kept a legit and sound arguement...usually you guys break down after about 2 pages and resort to name calling... I seriously agree with about each one of you...
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Hogan was a superhero, HBK wasn't. It's all in the context.
Guest razazteca Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Also the Hulk character got boring quick as its life span lasted about 4 years before he had to start taking sabaticals to make movies or just sit on the couch to build up to a glorious return so the fans can relive nostoglia.
Guest razazteca Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 HBK was the heel puppet that always taunted Brett Hart, Hogan was always the uber-face if you will.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Hulkamania lasted a bit longer than 4 years. Up until about WM 7 people were still buying what Hogan was selling.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 I don't expect Misawa to be breaking out People's Rolling Elbows anytime soon... THAT's fuckin' classic.
Guest razazteca Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Hulkamania died and was reborn WCW more than once as Hogan did not know what color to where anymore. Back to subject at hand here about HBK, at least Shawn started to add new moves or change up some moves in the big matches so that not every match was the same ol formula. Yeah he still used the Super Kick finisher but at least there was more offense than just punch and kick.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 HBKs offense was weak.
Guest notJames Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 Correction: HBK's offense IS weak.
Guest razazteca Posted February 20, 2003 Report Posted February 20, 2003 HBKs offense was weak. in 10 year old mode: Yeah well Hogan Sucked Also Hogan really had no offense to speak of in North America
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now