WON Hall of Fame voting results

[bob_barron 0]

Um, wasn't Hart knocked through a table in that match?

 

Yes- but his bump was to add to the intensity of the no-dq match and to make Diesel look like a bad motherfucker. Bret was able to accomplish all that without doing a superhuman bump.

 

 

HBK made Nash look like a monster by bumping like a madman. That is the best way to cover up for the deficiencies of a big guy.

 

Bret covered up Diesel's deficiencies by working a match with him and selling like a champ.

 

He did it all without taking a bunch of bumps

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

HBK didn't make Nash look like a monster, he just made himself look like a pinball. It's not "Did you see what Nash did to Shawn!" it's "Did you see how Shawn took that!"...

[Guest MikeSC]

Um, wasn't Hart knocked through a table in that match?

 

Yes- but his bump was to add to the intensity of the no-dq match and to make Diesel look like a bad motherfucker. Bret was able to accomplish all that without doing a superhuman bump.

 

 

HBK made Nash look like a monster by bumping like a madman. That is the best way to cover up for the deficiencies of a big guy.

 

Bret covered up Diesel's deficiencies by working a match with him and selling like a champ.

 

He did it all without taking a bunch of bumps

That's what HBK did for the entire match. Unlike Hart, the Diesel v HBK match was booked as a PERSONAL vendetta, not just a match for the World Title. So, Diesel would want to annihilate Shawn MORE than Bret --- and vice versa --- due to their histories.

 

Shawn sold like a champ --- even moreso than Bret did in their match.

-=Mike

[Damaramu 0]

Shawn sold like a champ? Is that why he was able to shake off all of Nash's offense and kill him with one shot?

[Guest MikeSC]

Shawn sold like a champ? Is that why he was able to shake off all of Nash's offense and kill him with one shot?

He took a pounding, ala Bret, and then hit his one-shot KO. It's not like he beat up Diesel all that badly.

 

I'm sorry, but Shawn bumping like mad for Nash worked better than Hart's sell job.

[Damaramu 0]

Yeah but Shawn does that in EVERY MATCH. That's why he's not so great...he literally had the same match everytime. And I'm not talking about "oh he does the same moves..." I'm talking about every match being painfully predictable.

Why would you care about the pounding Shawn is taking? You know he's going to leap to his feat and vanquish the enemy with one shot. That is how every match was. The body of the match was meaningless which made it even worse. Why watch a match where everything meant nothing? You might as well be watching your friends do some random dangerous moves in the backyard b/c that's basically what Shawn's matches were.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Of course it worked better..

 

RRR: Hey shawn!

HBK: Hey

RRR: All those bumps you took really worked better than those bumps Bret took, eh Shawn? He didn't have to fly all over the place to have a good match with Nash because he knew how to lay out a match and sell all those little things in a match rather - you know, like a great wrestler does...

HBK: I guess so.

RRR: Yeah, it kinda sucked that you fucked up your back and missed out on all those huge pay-jobs that came after WM 14.

HBK: Um..

RRR: But hey, at least Nash has the respect from all the fans for being a monster right? Made all that bumpin worth while.

HBK: Sure.

RRR: Yeah. Nice talkin to ya Shawn.

HBK: Jesus be with you.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

Um, wasn't Hart knocked through a table in that match?

 

Yes- but his bump was to add to the intensity of the no-dq match and to make Diesel look like a bad motherfucker. Bret was able to accomplish all that without doing a superhuman bump.

 

 

HBK made Nash look like a monster by bumping like a madman. That is the best way to cover up for the deficiencies of a big guy.

 

Bret covered up Diesel's deficiencies by working a match with him and selling like a champ.

 

He did it all without taking a bunch of bumps

That's what HBK did for the entire match. Unlike Hart, the Diesel v HBK match was booked as a PERSONAL vendetta, not just a match for the World Title. So, Diesel would want to annihilate Shawn MORE than Bret --- and vice versa --- due to their histories.

 

Shawn sold like a champ --- even moreso than Bret did in their match.

-=Mike

Yah nothing beats Shawn taking a Jackknife through a table and getting up in 30 seconds then pinning Nash with a superkick.

 

Unlike Bret who beat Diesel by luck showing how he's lucky he survived, let alone won.

[bob_barron 0]

I don't think you can draw parralells between Austin and Edge Bob, with Austin Benoit was just the first top notch guy he worked with on his comeback, Sure being with Benoit helped Austin work a great match (although since his comeback Austin has had to carry pretty much everything he's been in to protect the neck) but it wasn't like he made Austin as a worker or anything, It was all about Austin slowly getting back into his groove again

 

I think working with good-great workers helped Austin get his groove back. The next RAW he was facing Angle and he had another good match. I don't think it's too outlandish that working these guys helped Austin get his groove back

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't think you can draw parralells between Austin and Edge Bob, with Austin Benoit was just the first top notch guy he worked with on his comeback, Sure being with Benoit helped Austin work a great match (although since his comeback Austin has had to carry pretty much everything he's been in to protect the neck) but it wasn't like he made Austin as a worker or anything, It was all about Austin slowly getting back into his groove again

 

I think working with good-great workers helped Austin get his groove back. The next RAW he was facing Angle and he had another good match. I don't think it's too outlandish that working these guys helped Austin get his groove back

Maybe Benoit was the 1st good one he worked with whom he could actually really work with.

 

Rikishi was hardly a great guy to work with. And I seem to remember a rather good HHH v Austin match from NWO of that year --- but I could be mistaken.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

That was 4 months after the Benoit 11.20 match

[Guest Rob Edwards]

I'd say it was more a trust issue with the neck, when he's working with a guy with the record and experience Benoit has compared to say Rikishi, it stands to reason he'd want to wait until he wrestled Benoit to start tentativley testing the neck

[Guest Goodear]

RRR: Hey shawn!

 

HBK: Hey

 

RRR: All those bumps you took really worked better than those bumps Bret took, eh Shawn? He didn't have to fly all over the place to have a good match with Nash because he knew how to lay out a match and sell all those little things in a match rather - you know, like a great wrestler does...

 

HBK: I guess so. But since Nash was leaving the company and was already over by that point, that match was more about putting me over than him where as Bret was put in the poisition of trying to get Deisel over as a legitamite threat. Considering I didn't just go out there and dominate the guy though, he was able to still draw a ton of money for WCW for a few years.

 

RRR: Yeah, it kinda sucked that you fucked up your back and missed out on all those huge pay-jobs that came after WM 14.

 

HBK: Well injuries happen to everyone, including Bret and myself. I managed to get myself back together after a long lay off while Bret was sidelined forever with the multipule concussions.

 

RRR: But hey, at least Nash has the respect from all the fans for being a monster right? Made all that bumpin worth while.

 

HBK: Sure. The Outsiders angle drew huge in '96 and '97 and finally made WCW a profit for the first time ever. Making Razor and Diesel into bigger stars when I worked with them played a part in that if I may be so bold. Sure it didn't last forever, but what does?

 

RRR: Yeah. Nice talkin to ya Shawn.

 

HBK: Jesus be with you.

[Guest Loss]

If I'm picking nits, WCW made its first time ever profit in 1995, before the NWO. But the rest is probably true.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

RRR: Hey Shawn

HBK: Hey

RRR: Goodear totally misses the point!

HBK: I know.

 

Point 1: Shawns insane bumping from matches like his ones with Nash are the reason he had to retire. When Mike says that style "worked" better than Brets, in the end it clearly didn't as it prevented Shawn from missing out on the WWE's post-tyson success. Bret's injuries were not related to his matches with Nash nor his style of work, but moreso related to a freak kick and then stupid booking which followed. Two completely different things.

 

Point 2: What do we talk about today? Do we talk about how great Nash was in those matches, or do we talk about how great Shawn was? Does Nash get ANY credit? Did he even get any at the time? Besides, Nash was leaving by Mania 11 too? How come Shawns' carry-jobs didn't help Nash draw in the WWE? How come it was only until after he and Hall were packaged as 'invaders' and teamed up with Hogan -one of the biggest draws of all time- that the money started flowing in. I wouldn't exactly say that it was Shawns' carry jobs that made Nash successful, but rather smart booking by WCW.

[KTID 0]

and whoever called Zidane the best soccer player ever REALLY needs to watch more matches.

 

 

Its really getting off the point, but what the hey...

 

I really believe Zidane should be included in the list of the greatest all-round players of all time. He is one of those 'special' players, one who is great at every aspect of the game (passing, dribbling, shooting, tackling, heading). He is easily the greatest all-round player in the world right now and is, in my opinion, right up there with Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Eusabio etc as one of the greatest of all-time.

 

I know its off-topic but if you, or anyone else for that matter, disagree i'd like to hear why.

[Guest MikeSC]

RRR: Hey Shawn

HBK: Hey

RRR: Goodear totally misses the point!

HBK: I know.

 

Point 1: Shawns insane bumping from matches like his ones with Nash are the reason he had to retire. When Mike says that style "worked" better than Brets, in the end it clearly didn't as it prevented Shawn from missing out on the WWE's post-tyson success. Bret's injuries were not related to his matches with Nash nor his style of work, but moreso related to a freak kick and then stupid booking which followed. Two completely different things.

 

Point 2: What do we talk about today? Do we talk about how great Nash was in those matches, or do we talk about how great Shawn was? Does Nash get ANY credit? Did he even get any at the time? Besides, Nash was leaving by Mania 11 too? How come Shawns' carry-jobs didn't help Nash draw in the WWE? How come it was only until after he and Hall were packaged as 'invaders' and teamed up with Hogan -one of the biggest draws of all time- that the money started flowing in. I wouldn't exactly say that it was Shawns' carry jobs that made Nash successful, but rather smart booking by WCW.

1) Shawn's style did lead to his retirement --- does not make his style any less entertaining. Bret worked a far safer style, but he had an annoying habit of just going through the motions and having very similar matches night in and night out. Shawn's style in the ring worked far better for me than did Bret's by and large. That Hart's style kept him rather healthy for most of his career is nice, but it does not make his matches more entertaining.

 

2)Do you discuss how great Nash was against Bret? No, just as with Shawn, you marvel that Bret carried such a slug to a good match (and, yes, their SSeries match WAS good). Shawn's carry job didn't help Diesel draw in the WWF --- but Nash has NEVER drawn (honestly, nWo would have worked with any 2 WWF stars: Hall and Nash just happened to be there. The money flowed because, and this is a shocker, WCW played the angle perfectly for a while. They drew because of the angle they were in.

 

-=Mike

[bobobrazil1984 0]

My take on it is...

 

HBK has been in some incredible matches and has carried people to some great matches. No I dont think he's the greatest of all time or anything, but I think he's pretty high up.

 

He was also an unprofessional prick asshole.

 

Now, if the Hall of Fame entry rules guidelines whatever take into account what kind of person HBK is... then there's debate. maybe he shouldn't be in.

 

If not, then HBK should be in. Easily.

[Guest Loss]

"Professionalism" is more the issue than "quality as a human being". While they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, they're not always one and the same either.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

But Mike, you said that Shawns style of match "worked better" than Brets, that it was a "better way"... though it eventually led Shawn to retirement thus missing off on the huge paydays. How is that a "better style" when the two wrestlers were able to accomplish the same thing and that is pull a good match out Nash?

[Damaramu 0]

Plus if you look overall at the elements that makes a match good. And don't try to say it's subjective because there's pretty much a universal standard. HBK's matches weren't very good at all.

[Guest MikeSC]

But Mike, you said that Shawns style of match "worked better" than Brets, that it was a "better way"... though it eventually led Shawn to retirement thus missing off on the huge paydays. How is that a "better style" when the two wrestlers were able to accomplish the same thing and that is pull a good match out Nash?

Because my concern is not their concern, but my entertainment, and Shawn did it for me more often than Bret did.

-=Mike

[Damaramu 0]

Shawn may have "entertained" you more but that doesn't mean that he had better matches.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Ok.

 

But when using terms like as "best" and "better", it takes away the personal preference and makes it a statement of comparison. To say that dying to make someone look good is the best way of doing things is just wrong and HBK's body is the proof. There are other, smarter, ways of doing things.

[Guest wildpegasus]

It looks like this thread will never die!

 

My $.02

 

Anyway, the problem we have here when comparing Bret to Michaels and a lot of other similar debates is that we have two threads of thought on what makes a match good. On one side we have the people that don't care so much about logic or sense in a match while on the 2nd side we do. With the 1st side they rate a match on the overall entertainment value it gives them and if that includes spotfests, semispotfests or logic holes, so be it. The 2nd side seem to like the wrestlers that make a match the most logical it can be. This is what gives these fans their entertainment value and what makes a great match for them but not neccessary the 1st set of fans.

 

So, the question is this. When you think about, the point of a wrestler wrestling is to make everyone like your match watching on TV or in the arena. This makes them come back and spend money on your product. Let's ponder here if a wrestler like Michaels or say Sabu for instance can theoretically make more people overall enjoy the product (just concentrating solely on what happens in the ring) than say a more logical wrestler like Bret or Kawada does that make them a better wrestler? (all other things being equal)

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

But "entertainment-value" is subjective and external factors may effect it. An entertaining match 5 years ago may not be entertaining now. Your mood will effect how entertaining a match is. While the "technical-value" of a match is much more objective and doesn't change at all - so if a match is good 10 years ago it will still be good today. You don't have to like the match, but if the elements are there it still can be good. They offer tangible things which you can show to others. They may not like it, but if they don't let their own personal gratification cloud their judgement, they should be able to recognize and respect these technical aspects.

[Guest wildpegasus]

On RRR's post:

"but if the elements are there it still can be good. They offer tangible things you can show to others."

 

I agree with everything you say but just want to say a match that doesn't neccassary have technical value can still have elements and tangible things that can be shown to others. For example, let's take a famous match like the 95 Toyota/K.Inoue draw. This match often doesn't make the most sense but has elements such as work ethic that surpsdd any other match out there. Even if you don't like the match you have to consider that aspect of the match as good. Or even take a TLC match. The bumping aspect of that match has to be considered good as well. It has that element where in the future you'd have to say that part of the match was good even though you might personally hate TLC matches.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

That depends as the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher in regards to spots. What was a huge bump 10 years ago may seem tame today. What gives those bumps any sort of relevance is the placement in the match. The "why". Which is the same for any move done in wrestling. Mindless spotfests, no matter how entertaining or jaw dropping, still won't be "good wrestling". If I wanted to watch effort without substance why wouldn't I just watch a Hockey game or a Marathon? An individual match can have it's pro's and con's, selling, bumping, moveset, psychology, story, etc. and appreciation can be given to each just as it can be buried for each. Just like a movie can have great acting but bad scriptwriting and cinematography. A good spotfest, without substance, is ultimately still a spotfest. Which doesn't mean you can't enjoy it all the less, it just means realize it is what it is and nothing more.

[Guest Goodear]

Point 1: Shawns insane bumping from matches like his ones with Nash are the reason he had to retire. When Mike says that style "worked" better than Brets, in the end it clearly didn't as it prevented Shawn from missing out on the WWE's post-tyson success. Bret's injuries were not related to his matches with Nash nor his style of work, but moreso related to a freak kick and then stupid booking which followed. Two completely different things.

 

The reason Shawn had to retire is generally attributed to the fluke bump he ended up taking against the casket when he faced The Undertaker although the bumping he took before hand on a daily basis probably didn't help matters. On the other side of the coin, Bret's concussion against Goldberg was something like his tenth while at the same time he was battling knee trouble. The fact that Shawn missed a profitable period for the WWF is more a lack of good luck on his part than a direct effect of his bumping. We aren't talking about a five year career here Rick, Shawn was in the business something like ten years before his back gave out. That's kind of typical to be honest...

 

Point 2: What do we talk about today? Do we talk about how great Nash was in those matches, or do we talk about how great Shawn was? Does Nash get ANY credit? Did he even get any at the time? Besides, Nash was leaving by Mania 11 too? How come Shawns' carry-jobs didn't help Nash draw in the WWE? How come it was only until after he and Hall were packaged as 'invaders' and teamed up with Hogan -one of the biggest draws of all time- that the money started flowing in. I wouldn't exactly say that it was Shawns' carry jobs that made Nash successful, but rather smart booking by WCW.

 

Did Nash ever get credit for anything he ever did? No one has ever looked at a Nash match and been all "WOW HE'S SUPER" ... Bret couldn't do that. Shawn couldn't do that. But the fact that those two got something out of Nash that was completely watchable is still impressive. I don't know how anyone else not in angle is supposed to make Nash a draw against Mable and Tatanka anyway so maybe you can learn me how that could happen. Sure the Nash reign as WWF champion was a failure... but the WHOLE FREAKING CARD was a mess filled with Doink the Clowns and Luna Vachons. It's not like things turned right around the second Nash lost the belt either.

 

The nWo angle worked for three reasons...

1) The shock of Hulk Hogan turning heel for the first time in something like 15 years

2) The question of who was going to join the group next

3) Hall and Nash acting like themselves and getting a whole lot more over than they did as cartoon characters in the WWF. Please, lets not revise history so much that Nash and Hall didn't get over like gangbusters.

[Guest Loss]

Nash could have been a major singles draw for years to come had they done the NWO breakup in 1997 and built toward Hogan v Nash. But it didn't happen because neither guy wanted to job and by the time they pulled the trigger on the breakup, the crowd wanted Goldberg on top, not the Outsiders, even though they were still over.

 

So yeah, Nash was a major part of WCW's success in the boom period and all, but as far as meaning something to the company in the long run, his ego was his own undoing.

 

Then again, I think I'm having an argument no one else is having.