From The Observer

[Austin3164life 0]

I'm not trying to take anything away from him, but however, WAY too many people add WAY too much to his "legacy".

[slabinskia 0]

If there not going to have benoit vs hhh,make it a 3 way elimination match without the ladder.then have benoit pin hhh and hbk.that would definately put benoit over i think.

wrestlemania is 5 hours this year.thats a long time.will they add more matches/time to matches or just have 5 concert acts.

[Guest Goodear]

If Shawn Michaels is a top 5 worker in this company...

 

Shouldn't you be able to sell even the tiniest bit to make that list?

 

Paul London sold better on Velocity against Nunzio this week than HBK has EVER DONE IN HIS CAREER.

Why does everyone just sort of amnesia when it comes to Michaels? As a main event face, he's a cronic no selling babyface guy since it works into the whole 'most resiliant champion' thing. The guy tooks beatings, came back and hit the knock out equalizer. That was his whole character as a main event babyface... but hey, if you hate 'hulking up' then fine.

 

But as a heel and as a midcard face in The Rockers, Shawn Michaels sold perfectly well. Don't try to tell me that Shawn Michaels NEVER EVER EVER sold when I remember years where all he did was take shit kickings from The Orient Express and Twin Towers. The guy CAN sell just fine and has done so on numerous occasions. Perspective everyone.

 

Oh and BTW, if Shawn is AWEFUL SPIT PITOOEY for no selling why does Kurt Angle get this free pass for being this guy that can pop up at any moment and hit a superplex or transition to the anklelock from anywhere and immediately wash away everything that just happened?

[Austin3164life 0]

I also feel Kurt Angle is largely overrated as well. A lot of the 'net sites call him the best wrestler on the planet. While he had the potential (before his neck injuries), I think he still has things to work on (especially his psychology and selling).

[Damaramu 0]

So what makes someone a good football player is an opinion!? I didn't know that!

A football player's goal is to win games. A wrestler's goal is to...... entertain the hell out of the crowd.

 

I think HBK is entertaining as hell but I'd never call the guy a good wrestler....not in a million years. And I like him.

So put your personal bias aside and look at it objectively. Because it is cut and dry.

 

Dude, stop being such an asshole. Your opinions aren't facts. Listen to yourself.

 

1. Shawn (best match of the year with Jericho, best free TV match of the year with HHH. Don't like it? I don't give a shit.)

2. Benoit

3. Jericho

4. Eddie

5. Angle

What!? Then how can you determine who's good at what they do and not!? Not everything in life comes down to an opinion and this is one of them. You can use your opinion to justify who's entertains you but I'm sorry who's a good worker and not is NOT an opinion. I mean through this logic you could say "Nathan Jones is the best worker ever b/c I'm entertained by shitty moves that hurt people." It doesn't work that way. You gotta have some kind of set guideline and over my 14 years watching wrestling I've picked that up as the criteria. Sorry if you can't take the fact that HBK isn't a very good worker. And I've yet to see anyone come up with a reason why he is besides "He pops the crowd and entertains me." Sorry but that's not justification.

 

Also about the 50's-70's wrestlers.....what!? Those guys were probably better workers than a lot of the guys today! I don't get where you're getting that they didn't sell, they didn't work smart, and they didn't entertain the crowd.......they did all of those things and they did it good!

[Austin3164life 0]

A lot of people think the greatest workers of all time came after 1998. Which is why guys like Sammartino, Rodgers, Morales, etc. are ignored.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

 

And about Shawn Michaels, he was once a good wrestler who put on a string of good matches, but he is vastly overrated, especially by the WWE as being "One of the greatest wrestler's ever".

Amen to that, HBK was once a good and exciting wrestler, a breath of fresh air in the WWF main event, now he's only a shadow of his former self, a has-been, overrated and he's still is a locker room cancer, the way he was booked at Survivor Series IMO anybody else could've done it, but they got to make Shawn look good since he is HHHerpes BUTT buddy.

Wait, who on Austin's team should have been put in that position:

 

Dudley Boyz: no

 

Booker T: no

 

RVD: no

 

 

Shawn is known for his late comebacks. Wrestling is not about technical skills and no selling. It's about entertaining the crowd and we lost our way. When people cheer for Austin more than Benoit, we say what the hell. This is about the people who watch wrestling. Not for the cynical masses who complain. Shawn Michaels was a low drawing champion who had good matches with Diesel, Razor Ramon, Bret Hart, HHH and others. I'm sick of this, I hate him... because of politcs. Let the wrestlers deal with the politics. If their sick of HHH or HBK then after the show they can be beaten up with the wrestlers. I guess if Benoit was HHH everything would be alright cause at least Benoit would be having *********** matches. Anyway, bottom line, every one has their favorite wrestler. (No, if Angle or Benoit aren't you're top 2 for US workers, you should just stop watching.

 

You know I like watching hockey, because I do not need to think about what pull Steve Rucchin has on the Ducks. Maybe that's Gerber is the net because Steve used his favor with Coach Mike Babcock. Oh, wait, the Ducks lost to Red Wings... Damn them.

 

 

There was a point here, I think.

[geniusMoment 0]

Damaramu, one of the ways to get your point across is to point out what credible sources confirm your opinion. Earlier I named the wrestling journalists who confirm my opinion that HBK is a great wrestler.

[NYU 0]

What!? Then how can you determine who's good at what they do and not!? Not everything in life comes down to an opinion and this is one of them. You can use your opinion to justify who's entertains you but I'm sorry who's a good worker and not is NOT an opinion. I mean through this logic you could say "Nathan Jones is the best worker ever b/c I'm entertained by shitty moves that hurt people."

 

Christ, you keep regurgitating the same points that didn't make sense the first time you said them.

 

The goal of a football player? To win. Simple. Wrestling is pre-determined so the goal would not be to win. So that's out.

 

The goal of a chef? To cook good food. Wrestlers don't cook in the ring so that wouldn't be a goal. Out.

 

The goal of a wrestler? What makes him a good wrestler? Much more complicated. Let me explain this again: different criteria for different folks. What makes someone a good wrestler IN YOUR EYES does not make someone a good wrestler in EVERYONE'S eyes. Wrestling is different from any other sport in that the goal is not to win. The criteria is much different in professional wrestling and, though you don't like to believe it, it's subjective.

 

Nobody would say Nathan Jones is the best wrestler ever because they enjoy seeing shitty moves. In that point, you're just being biased. However, and this may sound crazy, I'm sure there may be some fan in Australia that found Nathan Jones to be the best wrestler they've ever seen. They enjoy watching his high-impact moves, and feel that, with his skill and strength, he can beat almost anybody. Markish? Yes. But it's their opinion that Nathan Jones is the best wrestler. Who are you to say they're wrong?

 

Sorry if you can't take the fact that HBK isn't a very good worker. And I've yet to see anyone come up with a reason why he is besides "He pops the crowd and entertains me." Sorry but that's not justification.

 

I'm not going to get into this long argument with you where you try to prove me wrong, so let me put this way. I will use YOUR criteria to prove Shawn Michaels is a good wrestler.

 

Every wrestlers should be able to: sell good

 

Many times, Shawn truly looks hurt when he's in the ring. Rent Survivor Series 2003 and watch the 5-on-5 match. Rent Royal Rumble 2004 and watch the Last Man Standing match. He looks like he's ready to collapse in the ring. When somebody attacks a certain body part for a prolonged period of time, he starts screaming and REALLY looks like he's in pain. Later on, he'll kip-up so he can whip the fans into a frenzy. But it can't be denied that he makes the moves LOOK GOOD when he takes them.

 

incorporate psychology into every match

 

Shawn incorporates psychology into nearly every match he has. The last Raw of 2003, he targeted Triple H's knee throughout the match and had the crowd on its feet with a figure-four at the end of the matchup. His matches always have a point. Whether he's the underdog battling back (against Batista at Armageddon, 3-on-1 at Survivor Series 2003), the wily veteran trying to frustrate his opponent (Randy Orton at Unforgiven, Ric Flair at Bad Blood), the allegedly past-his-prime superstar trying to keep up in the ring (Chris Jericho at WrestleMania XIX), his matches always seem to tell a story. In fact, he's one of the few guys that actually DO tell a story in the ring.

 

protect his opponent

 

Since he's returned, I haven't heard of one person getting seriously injured in a match with him. So I'll say he's doing a damn good job of that.

 

put on a believable match

 

Up until the kip-up that bothers some people, Michaels DOES put on a believable match. 20 minutes into the match, until he gets an adrenaline boost, he'll look like he's ready to collapse. This is how most people would be. Against a younger athlete like Chris Jericho or Randy Orton, he doesn't try to outdo them in speed. He knows that he must stick to the basics to have an advantage. Against Batista in a big man vs. small man match, he knew his limits. He couldn't very well gorilla-press Batista over his head. He had to pick his spots and try to frustrate him since, in that instant, Michaels WAS quicker than Batista. Once again, Michaels is good at putting on a believable match.

 

make it look as real as possible

 

Believe this has been covered already.

 

entertain the crowd

 

He's literally one of the few guys that can whip the crowd into a frenzy. WrestleMania XIX, Survivor Series 2003, Last Raw of 2003 with HHH, Last Man Standing, shall I go on? He knows how to have the crowd in the palm of his hand.....and sometimes he can do it with nothing more than chops and punches. I would go as far to say that out of all the wrestlers in the entire company, Michaels can work the crowd the best.

 

have some substance to his matches. matches and moves should make sense.

 

Again, I believe this has been covered. His matches do make sense. People often get distracted by the kip-up and throw the rest away. The kip-up is an adrenaline rush. Like if you're playing a football game, get tired during the middle, then get a second wind and burst of energy. Same concept. Michaels gets fatigued, at the point of exhaustion. Gets a second wind and bounces back with a last-ditch effort. His moves DO make sense. If he targets a body part in a match, he'll exploit it and most times, wind up executing a move that hurts that body part and gets the crowd on its feet. His matches make sense. His moves make sense. Upon his return in 2002, I can't recall ever seeing him lost in the ring. So let's add being a ring general to the list as well.

 

Hopefully, using your criteria, I've justified why I feel Shawn Michaels is not only a good entertainer, but a good WRESTLER. However, the thing is.....someone might not agree with me. They might use different criteria in their checklist. Then guess what.....*gasp* in their opinion, Shawn Michaels isn't a good wrestler. I've gone down your list and told you why I find him a good professional wrestler. You'll wind up disagreeing with me. This is what makes determining who's a good wrestler and who's not an OPINION!!

 

Once again, it's all an opinion. It's not a fact. A fact would be that HHH has held the World Heavyweight Title since December 2003. This is a FACT. It can be PROVEN. There is NO ARGUING. Saying that HHH is a good wrestler....all a matter of one's specific thoughts. It can be argued back and forth with different proofs. Once again, that would make it an OPINION!! It's all subjective.

[Austin3164life 0]

The Rock>Shawn Michaels in terms of working the crowd.

[Guest MikeSC]

A lot of people think the greatest workers of all time came after 1998. Which is why guys like Sammartino, Rodgers, Morales, etc. are ignored.

I've seen numerous Bruno matches --- and the man, to be gentle, sucked the meat missile. Horrid. Today's workers are SIGNIFICANTLY better than Bruno.

 

Heck, better than MOST of the workers of yesteryear.

 

I could care less if the older guys were tougher back in the day --- this is about entertainment value and a lot of them had SERIOUS issues with working entertaining matches.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

The Rock>Shawn Michaels in terms of working the crowd.

The Rock's matches get its heat simply because he's THE ROCK.

 

Shawn Michaels's matches get its heat because of the psychology of it. The best proof of this is documented in WrestleMania XIX or the Royal Rumble. (Not including Last Raw of 2003, because that match had Insta-Heat.). In his matches vs. Jericho and vs. HHH, the crowd was relatively quiet at the beginning. Then, the action in the match continued to escalate until the fans were absolutely ENTHRALLED with the match. They begin to pop for every near-fall, give it some great heat.....that's working the crowd. Shawn is the best at that, I think.

 

Rock gets heat in all his matches, agreed. But he doesn't really WORK the crowd like Shawn does.

[Austin3164life 0]

I appreciate Shawn Michaels and I usually enjoy watching his matches, but I don't think he's as great as most make him out to be. He's a solid wrestler with a good sense of psychology, but I don't know about top 5. In his prime (96), I think both Bret Hart and Austinw were better than him.

[Guest Goodear]

The goal of a wrestler? What makes him a good wrestler? Much more complicated. Let me explain this again: different criteria for different folks. What makes someone a good wrestler IN YOUR EYES does not make someone a good wrestler in EVERYONE'S eyes. Wrestling is different from any other sport in that the goal is not to win. The criteria is much different in professional wrestling and, though you don't like to believe it, it's subjective.

 

I really think people would do better in their discussions if they didn't ever bring up the subjective argument simply because of the negative counters to it that I think we all know by heart by now. Let me be more specific, I think they should use the subjective argument and just not say 'it's subjective'. People seem to make much more headway discussing things on a point-by-point basis talking about the details rather than the over reaching totals. It's easy to make the point that Michaels is a more charismatic performer and that you think thats the most important thing a worker can do than be all 'we can't even really discuss this because everything is out there in subjective land'.

[NYU 0]

The goal of a wrestler? What makes him a good wrestler? Much more complicated. Let me explain this again: different criteria for different folks. What makes someone a good wrestler IN YOUR EYES does not make someone a good wrestler in EVERYONE'S eyes. Wrestling is different from any other sport in that the goal is not to win. The criteria is much different in professional wrestling and, though you don't like to believe it, it's subjective.

 

I really think people would do better in their discussions if they didn't ever bring up the subjective argument simply because of the negative counters to it that I think we all know by heart by now. Let me be more specific, I think they should use the subjective argument and just not say 'it's subjective'. People seem to make much more headway discussing things on a point-by-point basis talking about the details rather than the over reaching totals. It's easy to make the point that Michaels is a more charismatic performer and that you think thats the most important thing a worker can do than be all 'we can't even really discuss this because everything is out there in subjective land'.

That wasn't my point.

 

Damaramu's saying that Chris Benoit is a GOOD wrestler and Shawn Michaels is a POOR wrestler, as if it's fact. Well, if those are the facts, then there's nothing to argue.

 

I'm trying to convince him that it's all subjective. In someone's opinion, Chris Benoit could be the best wrestler. In another person's opinion, The Big Show can be the best wrestler. It's all subjective - which leaves room for discussion on why these people feel the way they do. However, that requires people actually believing that one could have a differing opinion. Looking at these things as being subjective actually promotes continued discussion. Acting as if there's nothing to discuss is only hurting things.

[Downhome 0]

That wasn't my point.

 

Damaramu's saying that Chris Benoit is a GOOD wrestler and Shawn Michaels is a POOR wrestler, as if it's fact. Well, if those are the facts, then there's nothing to argue.

 

I'm trying to convince him that it's all subjective. In someone's opinion, Chris Benoit could be the best wrestler. In another person's opinion, The Big Show can be the best wrestler. It's all subjective - which leaves room for discussion on why these people feel the way they do. However, that requires people actually believing that one could have a differing opinion. Looking at these things as being subjective actually promotes continued discussion. Acting as if there's nothing to discuss is only hurting things.

You are exactly right, some people love the Bret/Shawn Iron Man match and others think it's horrible.

 

I'm in the latter.

[Guest]

I appreciate Shawn Michaels and I usually enjoy watching his matches, but I don't think he's as great as most make him out to be. He's a solid wrestler with a good sense of psychology, but I don't know about top 5. In his prime (96), I think both Bret Hart and Austinw were better than him.

I don't agree with you for 2 reasons....

 

1.)Bret Hart did not wrestle from WM XII until Survivor Series 96'...How can you say that he was better when he didn't wrestle?

 

2.)Last time I checked Austin had 1 great match in 1996....now how many did HBK have?

 

96 was HBK's only great year. Don't shit on him after he broke his back...It shouldn't be expected of him to be the greatest wrestler in the world after that.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

In someone's opinion, Chris Benoit could be the best wrestler. In another person's opinion, The Big Show can be the best wrestler. It's all subjective - which leaves room for discussion on why these people feel the way they do.

 

The reasons behind those opinions, however, is not subjective. There are certain elements that make up a good match, a good promo, and a good wrestler. If the reasons for why Big Show is the best wrestlers are poor (He's Big! I like his hair! His music rox!), then that persons opinion is poor. I believe that you can effectively measure a wrestling match by judging various elements in it - is it an exact science? No. But I believe it can be effective and put to good use. "What is Good" is a universal discussion, I've had it in a creative writing class a few years ago, and essentially you CAN determine from a work of art (literature, film, wrestling) what is good and what isn't.

 

However, that requires people actually believing that one could have a differing opinion. Looking at these things as being subjective actually promotes continued discussion. Acting as if there's nothing to discuss is only hurting things.

 

You can like Big Show. You can say that Big Show is your favourite wrestling. To say that Big Show is the best wrestler in the WWE is wrong.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

You are exactly right, some people love the Bret/Shawn Iron Man match and others think it's horrible

 

"Love" can involve external factors. That night, during that match, a man may have proposed to his girlfriend and she said yes and they live happily together. Whenever he watches that match he gets this warm feeling deep inside. He loves that match. Is it because of the content of the match? Is it because of the effort Bret and Shawn put it? Of course not. Then he gets a divorce and when he sees that match he gets deep feelings of pain, anger and regret. He hates that match. Has anything *in* that match changed? Nope.

[Guest]

It's pretty hard to have an opinion on who is the best wrestler in the WWE when no one can prove their point.

[Downhome 0]

Oh yeah, it's all just personal preference. I've said stuff like this before. It's cool to say that The Big Show is your favorite wrestler in WWE, but it's not cool to say that he is actually the best...the most talented.

 

Just like people can say that their favorite movie is The Stupids, but to say it is actually the best film ever made, that's just flat out wrong.

 

It's like topics "Who is better, Benoit or The Dynamite Kid". That is something you can actually get down with and discuss.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

But... The Stupids IS the best movie ever.

 

"I'm my own grandpa..."

 

 

Ultimately, when you're comparing say - Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit - it comes down to personal taste. But that's a rare occasion where the "Personal Pref" rule comes into effect. Most of the time you can effectively judge and compare the quality of wrestlers or wrestling matches.

 

It's pretty hard to have an opinion on who is the best wrestler in the WWE when no one can prove their point.

 

By "prove" do you mean that you can't prove who the best wrestler is like you can, say, the fastest person in the world is (time) since there is no exact, scientific, way of measuring who the "best" is? Or do you mean that no one here can present an objective viewpoint with credible "proofs"??

[Guest Ray]

2.)Last time I checked Austin had 1 great match in 1996

Did you even stop to think that Austin was wrestling jobbers for most of the year? Austin was wrestling Yokozuna in a two minute dark match at Summerslam. Do you expect him to have great matches when he's booked like that? When he was allowed to show his talent, he put on the best WWF match ever. He also carried Savio Vega to a very good, underrated match.

 

....now how many did HBK have?

Far fewer than all the Shawn fans think...

 

It shouldn't be expected of him to be the greatest wrestler in the world after that.

You shouldn't expect him to be that since he was never even close to it. In Shawn's best year, 1996, the work of Benoit, Ohtani, Guerrero, Kawada, Misawa, Kobashi, Ultimo, all blew Shawn's work away.

[Guest]

The latter.

[Guest CubbyBear]

What!? Then how can you determine who's good at what they do and not!? Not everything in life comes down to an opinion and this is one of them. You can use your opinion to justify who's entertains you but I'm sorry who's a good worker and not is NOT an opinion. I mean through this logic you could say "Nathan Jones is the best worker ever b/c I'm entertained by shitty moves that hurt people." It doesn't work that way. You gotta have some kind of set guideline and over my 14 years watching wrestling I've picked that up as the criteria. Sorry if you can't take the fact that HBK isn't a very good worker. And I've yet to see anyone come up with a reason why he is besides "He pops the crowd and entertains me." Sorry but that's not justification.

 

That's the thing...it's YOUR criteria. You judge a wrestler based on that criteria. Doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same. Like someone mentioned earlier, if there's a universal criteria you won't find anyone with a better grasp on it then guys like Meltzer, Keller, etc. And they all are pretty much in the opinion that Shawn is one of the greatest.

[Guest]

\

....now how many did HBK have?

Far fewer than all the Shawn fans think...

 

It shouldn't be expected of him to be the greatest wrestler in the world after that.

You shouldn't expect him to be that since he was never even close to it.

First of all, I'm not a Shawn fan. But he did have some great matches in 1996, it doesn't have to be ***** on the SK scale to be great. I think he is one of the greatest ever...it depends on your definition of great and what category you want to place him in (brawler, technical and the like). By the way, I would say Austin's years were from 1997 to 1999 and then 2001 was his...get over it.

[Guest Ray]

First of all, I'm not a Shawn fan.

Good!

 

But he did have some great matches in 1996,

I can only think of one that's worthy of consideration (vs Foley - Mind Games), and I think it's pretty overrated anyway.

 

it doesn't have to be ***** on the SK scale to be great.

Keith hands out ****+ like candy.

 

I think he is one of the greatest ever...

Wouldn't make my top 50...

 

By the way, I would say Austin's years were from 1997 to 1999 and then 2001 was his...

Austin was at his best in late 1996. His Survivor Series match was the best of his career. His promos on Bret and Pillman were outstanding.

 

get over it.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

That's the thing...it's YOUR criteria. You judge a wrestler based on that criteria. Doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same.

 

You're acting like this criteria is a very personal thing; it's not. It's based on objective things. Story and Technique are the two "big" factors and they both have subfactors. If you want me to get into the details of what constitutes each, I will. One can effectively rate each of these (Figure Skating, for example, has a set of standards to properly judge a performance; so this concept is not exactly foreign.)

 

Like someone mentioned earlier, if there's a universal criteria you won't find anyone with a better grasp on it then guys like Meltzer, Keller, etc. And they all are pretty much in the opinion that Shawn is one of the greatest.

 

I can most certainly find people better than guys like Meltzer and Keller. Meltzer, while a good source for news, isn't exactly the first person I would go to for objective analysis on matches or wrestlers (I believe he praised the Angle/Lesnar feud) and Keller gave Angle/Lesnar *****.

[ISportsFan 0]

He [Austin] also carried Savio Vega to a very good, underrated match.

Agreed. The strap match at Beware of Dog 2 was fantastic. The WrestleMania XII match was no slouch either, but it was only shown on half a screen while an OJ Bronco joke was going on.

 

Not only that, but he had good matches in 1996 with Hunter Hearst Helmsley (who was not good in 1996) at Buried Alive and Marc Mero at International Incident, let alone miscallaneous TV matches that I can't remember offhand.

 

Jason

 

EDIT: He also had another good match with Mero at King of the Ring 1996 in the semifinal.

[geniusMoment 0]

I never argued HBK was better than the crippler. What I find to be a joke is that some people consider HBK to be a bad or average worker. As has been mentioned above their are certain elements that make up a good worker and HBK has many of them.