From The Observer

[Damaramu 0]

You can come up with that story but the matches actually all told the same story. They all told the story of the little guy getting his ass beat by the big guy. The only time it changed was when he face someone smaller like Jericho....so I'll give you that one. But the rest of them were typical HBK "I get beat up and then make a super man comeback" matches. So no I have yet to see an HBK match that is impressive or meets the criteria. Maybe his match with Jericho but that can be more attributed to Jericho than HBK since Jericho is a better worker in the first place.

Oh and for the last god damn time. PAUL LONDON HAS HAD GOOD MATCHES ELSEWHERE THUS MAKING HIM OVERALL A BETTER WORKER THAN HBK. I'M SURE IF HE WAS GIVEN A 26 MINUTE MAIN EVENT HE'D PRODUCE SOMETHING 10X BETTER THAN WHAT HBK CAN COME UP WITH BECAUSE HE'S DONE IT IN THE PAST. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!?

[Guest MikeSC]

Because I don't think HBK meets enough of the criteria to be considered a good wrestler. The only ones he meets is "entertains the crowd" as a matter of fact. His matches aren't realistic, they have no psychology, they all tell the same story, and the selling is just appalling.

 

Dama, you keep repeating this phrase over and over. Go back one or two pages where I went over all YOUR criteria and wrote a lengthy response to why I think Shawn Michaels fits those standards and thus, by your criteria, would be a good wrestler. Please don't keep stating that no one is justifying it to you when you're not even reading the posts of the people that ARE trying to justify it.

I have never seen an HBK match where he sold well or told a good story. All of his matches have the same story as a matter of fact "I get beat up for about 25 mintues then make a miracle comeback and one kick from my skinny leg kills the monster."

That is not a good story.

The small-guy trying to use speed to get past the monster: (HBK vs. Batista at Armageddon)

 

The wily veteran using different tactics to frustrate his opponent (HBK vs. Randy Orton at Unforgiven, HBK vs. Ric Flair at Bad Blood)

 

The allegedly past-his-prime superstar trying to keep up with his opponent to prove he still has it (HBK vs. Chris Jericho at WrestleMania XIX, HBK vs. Rob Van Dam on that Raw in November 2002)

 

A bloody, hate-filled, knock-down fight between two former best friends (HBK vs. HHH on Raw and at the Royal Rumble)

 

Shawn Michaels has actually USED stories in his matches.

 

Give me a Paul London WWE match that has told as well of a story.

Heck, look at the first HITC. The entire story --- told quite well --- was of Shawn being terrified of Undertaker. Everything he did had no real impact and it only scared him further as the match went along.

 

And, great worker IS subjective. I, personally, did not like the Japanese heavyweight scene ever. Misawa v Kawada et al didn't cause me to blow loads in my pants. They just didn't click for me.

 

For ME, they are decent matches. Not great --- and not terribly realistic, either.

 

Does that mean that the fans who feel that those are some of the greatest matches of all time are WRONG? Not to the fans, they aren't.

 

I'm not going to sit down and say that there is anything resembling concrete proof of what makes a wrestler great or not or proof that makes a match great or not.

 

I know people who think Jeff Jarrett is the greatest worker out there. Are they wrong simply because they disagree with you?

 

No.

 

I don't get the love, either, but they have it and think it's terrific.

-=Mike

[Michrome 0]

Does that mean that the fans who feel that those are some of the greatest matches of all time are WRONG?

 

Yes. The fact that someone is too dense to understand what makes a match great doesn't make it any less great.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I have never seen an HBK match where he sold well or told a good story. All of his matches have the same story as a matter of fact "I get beat up for about 25 mintues then make a miracle comeback and one kick from my skinny leg kills the monster."

That is not a good story.

 

Uh...yes it is.

 

Here's how wrestling works: The bad guy beats up the good guy. The fans all cheer for the good guy to make his comeback, because they want him to win. Then the good guy MAKES his comeback, and the fans go nuts, because it's what they wanted to see. Go watch ANY decent match and, barring a few execeptions, that's just how things work. Period.

 

Is it completely plausible? Hell no it's not. Does it have to be to be entertaining? No, it doesn't. If you want plausibility, go watch MMA. Either that, or find a wrestling fed that doesn't allow irish whips or other ridiculous things that would never happen in a real fight.

 

And though Mike beat me to it...HitC tells a great story, I think. Undertaker, the big face, finally gets his chance to exact revenge on the guy who cost him the title, in a match that, fittingly, is for a title shot.

 

HBK, locked in a cage with a guy he KNOWS is going to kick his ass, gets his ass kicked (duh) and then, in a spot of sheer brilliance, ends up beating the piss out of the cameraman, then running like hell when the door opens. Like, watching the match, it even makes sense for HBK to climb up the cage, as you can honestly believe that he's trying to get away from the Undertaker *that bad*.

 

Then, at the end of the match, the dastardly heel wins, through virtually none of his own effort (HBK just laid on the mat bleeding once Kane showed up, then barely got one arm on the 'Taker) pissing off EVERYONE in attendance, but in a very good way: They all wanted Undertaker to murder HBK, and he didn't. Now, they're going to pay money to see soeone else try to murder HBK.

 

I'd like to know where the fault in that match is exactly.

 

(For the record, this is my favourite match.)

 

And Mike makes another good point...if there's one defining criteria that determines what makes a good wrestler, then it would apply to ALL wrestlers logically, no?

 

It doesn't, because there are different styles of wrestling. Yeah, some people think Misawa is a great wrestler; I think he's a no-selling prick who thinks elbowing people in the face counts as bumping. What makes someone a great wrestler in the fed would not necessairly make them one in Japan, or in some hardcore fed, or on the independent circut...there are different ways to wrestle, so you really can't say "this is the ONLY way to be a good wrestler".

[NYU 0]

You can come up with that story but the matches actually all told the same story

 

How can the matches all tell the same story? I just told you what the stories were. Several different ones - and I didn't even go through many of his matches since his comeback.

 

They all told the story of the little guy getting his ass beat by the big guy. The only time it changed was when he face someone smaller like Jericho....so I'll give you that one.

 

The Randy Orton match consisted of him getting his ass beat by "the big guy"? The Ric Flair one? The Triple H one? The Rob Van Dam one? The other numerous matches he has wrestled? The Batista one is the only one that fits under your guideline right there - the rest of them don't.

 

But the rest of them were typical HBK "I get beat up and then make a super man comeback" matches.

 

Well, that IS part of his style. To look on the brink of exhaustion, then bounce back with a jolt of adrenaline, a kip-up, and a last-ditch effort to beat his opponent. He's done it for years. Time to accept it.

 

So no I have yet to see an HBK match that is impressive or meets the criteria. Maybe his match with Jericho but that can be more attributed to Jericho than HBK since Jericho is a better worker in the first place.

 

In what POSSIBLE way could you see Jericho carrying Shawn Michaels? In either one of their two matches? Please tell me, I'm quite interested. Because if there's no proof, then that was quite the idiotic statement to make.

 

Oh and for the last god damn time. PAUL LONDON HAS HAD GOOD MATCHES ELSEWHERE THUS MAKING HIM OVERALL A BETTER WORKER THAN HBK.

 

No need to scream. I'm sitting right here. Paul London having GOOD matches makes him a better worker than HBK? Shockingly, they have BOTH had good matches. So I don't think so....

 

I'M SURE IF HE WAS GIVEN A 26 MINUTE MAIN EVENT HE'D PRODUCE SOMETHING 10X BETTER THAN WHAT HBK CAN COME UP WITH BECAUSE HE'S DONE IT IN THE PAST.

 

Based on what? The Indies mentality is to go balls-to-the-wall everytime, in the hopes that they will be contacted by a major wrestling federation. Obviously, WWE has a different mentality. Most times, it's to put on a good match - but it's also to remain safe. HBK has been able to put on QUALITY Main-Events following that trend. I'm sure if he was promoted to go balls-to-the-wall like London had, he could handle that as well. But what makes you think London could handle a 26-minute Main Event WWE style? What proof have you seen that he could do that? Once again, stating things as if they are facts.

 

And just for my own personal interest...give me any London match that has been 10X BETTER than a Shawn Michaels match. I'd love to have the chance to watch it and see the gold standard of professional wrestling.

 

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!?

 

Understand what? What you're doing is a classic example of "The Big Lie." Say something loud enough, often enough, and eventually, people will believe you. Dama, you keep saying the same points.....ignoring other people's points.....going as far as to scream in this past post.....but you haven't convinced me of anything yet. I fail to see any proof behind your statements. You say "Shawn wrestles the same match all the time" and "PAUL LONDON HAS WRESTLED MATCHES 10X BETTER THAN SHAWN MICHAELS" but haven't backed it up. What is that supposed to solve?

[Guest CubbyBear]

And though Mike beat me to it...HitC tells a great story

 

To add to this, look at the Mind Games match with Mankind. IT told a tremendous story. IT was all about HBK having to go balls to the wall and do sometihng completely different to survive against a complete maniac. We saw Shawn realize that he has to take it to the brutal side and he put on a helluva match with Mankind that saw Shawn more the aggressor. It told a completely different story and, Dama, since that's what you keep bitching about...there's you're proof. I'm sure you'll try to deny it but it's a fact.

 

As far as the criteria thing...I'll say it one more time even though I know it will go in one ear and out the other. How great a wrestler is, is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone judges how well they like a certain wrestler based on their own little criteria of what they like in a wrestling match. There is no universal criteria and it's ridiculous to think there is.

[Guest Ray]

HitC tells a great story

Not.

 

I'd like to know where the fault in that match is exactly.

Boring shitty Undertaker offense. Ridiculous bumping and overselling from Shawn. No-selling from Taker.

 

Yeah, some people think Misawa is a great wrestler; I think he's a no-selling prick

NEWS FLASH- you shouldn't judge All-Japan on post-97 no-selling shit fests.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

1. What's wrong with the story then? Obviously you believe there's something wrong with it - so what is it?

 

2. HBK overselling was the point. He was in the cage to get the everlovin' shit beaten out of him. It woulda looked silly if he had done anything but.

 

3. Undertaker no-selling is part of his character, and always has been. Besides that, it told a critical part of the story. When HBK superkicked the 'Taker, he thought he had won, but when 'Taker got back up, HBK realized he was totally fucked (even his best weapon couldn't put the 'Taker away) and thus, he ran like a bat outta hell through the open door, with Undertaker in quick pursuit.

 

4. I wouldn't exactly call offense that involves a gorilla press on top of the cell and a top-rope chokeslam boring, but that's just me. Besides, it wasn't like 'Taker's intention was to dazzle people; it was to beat the piss out of HBK.

 

5. I never judged All Japan; just Misawa.

[Guest Ray]

1. What's wrong with the story then? Obviously you believe there's something wrong with it - so what is it?

Cartoony shit. Boring.

 

2. HBK overselling was the point. He was in the cage to get the everlovin' shit beaten out of him. It woulda looked silly if he had done anything but.

Overselling is shit. A wrestler can look like he's getting his ass kicked without flopping around like an idiot.

 

3. Undertaker no-selling is part of his character, and always has been.

Shit character.

 

Besides that, it told a critical part of the story. When HBK superkicked the 'Taker, he thought he had won, but when 'Taker got back up, HBK realized he was totally fucked (even his best weapon couldn't put the 'Taker away) and thus, he ran like a bat outta hell through the open door, with Undertaker in quick pursuit.

Yeah, then he climbed the cage instead of running away. Just like those idiots in horror films who run upstairs instead of running out the door to escape the serial killer. Stupid.

 

4. I wouldn't exactly call offense that involves a gorilla press on top of the cell and a top-rope chokeslam boring, but that's just me.

You're easily amused then?

 

Besides, it wasn't like 'Taker's intention was to dazzle people; it was to beat the piss out of HBK.

If it was, then he should have used some offense that didn't look like shit. meandering, shitty offense doesn't = ass kicking.

 

5. I never judged All Japan; just Misawa.

Same thing.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I think we just proved a point; wrestling is heavily based on opinion, period.

 

Is there a somewhat standard set of criteria to look at? Yes, because there are factors that you can easily contrast and compare. BUT, that doesn't mean that from that, you can derive an exact list of who's good, who isn't, and exactly what order of goodness they're in.

 

Hell in the Cell entertains me, and a lot of others. Ray's arguments against it seem to amount to the fact that he finds the match boring and cartoonish. Well, what's boring to one is not always boring to another (that IS a fact), and as far as some people are concerned (like me) wrestling is cartoonish to begin with, so a little bit of extra bounce in your bump when you're supposed to be getting the biggest shit-kicking of a lifetime isn't a problem.

 

I mean, there's nothing wrong with debating who's a better wrestler...but it's both silly and pretentious to say that (X) wrestler is the best ever, period, can't question it, because what it all boils down to, in the end, is opinion. And for the record, I perfer Benoit to HBK.

 

Yeah, then he climbed the cage instead of running away.

 

Actually, you could even argue that makes sense in the context of the match. Had HBK been quick enough, he could've made it to the top of the cage, and then, knowing the 'Taker would be behind him, turned around and stomped on his hands.

 

Running away would have acheived nothing except throwing the match, and with it, the title shot.

 

And I didn't realize that judging someone who wrestles for NOAH was the same as judging All Japan. Silly me.

[Guest Brian]

He's not just saying it's boring. He's saying that some of those spots were completely ridiculous even given the spectrum of entertainment were dealing with. You might as well had HBK hand Undertaker an anvil on top of the cage. Michaels was scared. He was dealing with the unbeatable, the unhurtable. He had no chance. Then why stick around.

 

That said, it was a better than average HBK selling performance, mainly because he weasn't allowed to make that comeback. When you no sell totally, you spoil it. Noted that we are allowed to suspend disbelief, but sometimes it goes too far. And that's where you draw a line between good sellers and great sellers.

 

Why am I not surprised Foley gets absolutely no credit for that match.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

He's not just saying it's boring. He's saying that some of those spots were completely ridiculous

 

I know.

 

Ray's arguments against it seem to amount to the fact that he finds the match boring and cartoonish.

 

See?

 

Out of curosity though...

 

He's saying that some of those spots were completely ridiculous even given the spectrum of entertainment were dealing with.

 

Which ones? Some I can probably guess, but I'm honestly curious.

[Damaramu 0]

You can come up with that story but the matches actually all told the same story

 

 

 

How can the matches all tell the same story? I just told you what the stories were. Several different ones - and I didn't even go through many of his matches since his comeback.

 

No they were all pretty much the same. I didn't feel any of this supposed drama. Actually HBK does the same story everytime and the only time I've actually seen it entertain me was when he had to fight off Christian, Jericho, and Orton.

 

They all told the story of the little guy getting his ass beat by the big guy. The only time it changed was when he face someone smaller like Jericho....so I'll give you that one. 

 

 

 

The Randy Orton match consisted of him getting his ass beat by "the big guy"? The Ric Flair one? The Triple H one? The Rob Van Dam one? The other numerous matches he has wrestled? The Batista one is the only one that fits under your guideline right there - the rest of them don't.

 

The Randy Orton one was Shawn taking control and smacking the new guy around. The Ric Flair one had no damn story.....it was one of the most boring and pointless matches I've ever seen along with the RVD match. And yes the matches with HHH were HHH beating up Shawn and HHH is a big guy.

 

But the rest of them were typical HBK "I get beat up and then make a super man comeback" matches.

 

 

 

Well, that IS part of his style. To look on the brink of exhaustion, then bounce back with a jolt of adrenaline, a kip-up, and a last-ditch effort to beat his opponent. He's done it for years. Time to accept it.

His style sucks. He does a bunch of flashy moves with no substance and no reason. I've watched it for years and hated it for years. It makes zero sense in the context of the match leads to huge amounts of no selling and it's repetitive......you know how every HBK match is going to turn out. I've gotten to the point where I can call the kip-up. Every HBK match watched at my house between me and my friends is full of "OH GOD DAMMIT!" right before and after the kip-up b/c we know what's coming.

 

So no I have yet to see an HBK match that is impressive or meets the criteria. Maybe his match with Jericho but that can be more attributed to Jericho than HBK since Jericho is a better worker in the first place.

 

 

 

In what POSSIBLE way could you see Jericho carrying Shawn Michaels? In either one of their two matches? Please tell me, I'm quite interested. Because if there's no proof, then that was quite the idiotic statement to make.

The match wasn't a typical HBK affair. Not to mention the fact that Jericho has been known to carry just about everybody he faces(kane, hhh, mark henry, etc.). The match made more sense than a typical HBK match and was much easier to watch without having to drive trucks through the logic hole. So please tell me, I'm quite interested in how you think HBK carried the match. Because if you have no proof(like you have no proof that he's a good wrestler) then you are making quite the idiotic statement.

 

Oh and for the last god damn time. PAUL LONDON HAS HAD GOOD MATCHES ELSEWHERE THUS MAKING HIM OVERALL A BETTER WORKER THAN HBK.

 

 

 

No need to scream. I'm sitting right here. Paul London having GOOD matches makes him a better worker than HBK? Shockingly, they have BOTH had good matches. So I don't think so....

Well you can't seem to get it through your thick skull. Paul London's best match is better than HBK's best match. His matches from ROH with the other workers who are better than HBK(Daniels, Dragon, etc.) are better than anything that HBK has put together. Paul London's matches are just flat out better than HBK's.

 

I'M SURE IF HE WAS GIVEN A 26 MINUTE MAIN EVENT HE'D PRODUCE SOMETHING 10X BETTER THAN WHAT HBK CAN COME UP WITH BECAUSE HE'S DONE IT IN THE PAST.

 

 

 

Based on what? The Indies mentality is to go balls-to-the-wall everytime, in the hopes that they will be contacted by a major wrestling federation. Obviously, WWE has a different mentality. Most times, it's to put on a good match - but it's also to remain safe. HBK has been able to put on QUALITY Main-Events following that trend. I'm sure if he was promoted to go balls-to-the-wall like London had, he could handle that as well. But what makes you think London could handle a 26-minute Main Event WWE style? What proof have you seen that he could do that? Once again, stating things as if they are facts.

 

And just for my own personal interest...give me any London match that has been 10X BETTER than a Shawn Michaels match. I'd love to have the chance to watch it and see the gold standard of professional wrestling.

 

Well first of all you're argument is flawed because the WWE style SUCKS and it is nearly impossible to produce a truly classic match under that style. Only the true greats such as Benoit can really squeeze 5-stars out of that style. So yes if given 26 minutes and the WWE Main Event style Paul London would probably not have as good of a match because his legs would be cut out from under him.......the style sucks...plain and simple.

Good London matches!? Get yourself some Ring of Honor son! His street fight with Michael Shane puts the HHH/HBK street fight to shame.

 

 

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!?

 

 

 

Understand what? What you're doing is a classic example of "The Big Lie." Say something loud enough, often enough, and eventually, people will believe you. Dama, you keep saying the same points.....ignoring other people's points.....going as far as to scream in this past post.....but you haven't convinced me of anything yet. I fail to see any proof behind your statements. You say "Shawn wrestles the same match all the time" and "PAUL LONDON HAS WRESTLED MATCHES 10X BETTER THAN SHAWN MICHAELS" but haven't backed it up. What is that supposed to solve?

 

I don't know why you're trying to turn this into a Paul London argument. The argument is that HBK is not a Top 5 worker in the company. And I think that's been proven. He can't sell, his matches make zero sense, the psychology is non-existent!

I've backed it up plenty but you haven't backed up why Shawn Michaels is so great yet besides saying "His matches entertain me! WHOO! It's all subjective! Everything is subjective!"

Despite the fact that it's not subjective. Saying it's subjective is just a way of admitting defeat because you can't take the fact that your guy isn't as good as you think he is.

Sorry.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Oh wait, I'm sorry. How cartoony was HIAC match? I mean the Undertaker who was getting into his darker character, beats Shawn pillar to post and no sells.

 

 

Look, what do you people want? Amateur wrestling.

 

The Undertaker was one if my favorite wrestlers and I think the only way you can get into the match is by being a fan of HBK or Undertaker.

 

I'm sick of this... I think you need a suspension of disbelief in order to watch wrestling. Wrestlers are just like actors (except without the money, union,etc). Treat characters like movie characters and shows just like a movie.

 

 

Let's change directions here: Name your favorite match or wrestler and why? I want know where people come from.

 

I like Jericho/Malenko from Slamboree '98 because it told a good story and Dean was very emotional after he won just like Benoit during the Royal Rumble. Nobody, complained about how Malenko got Cyclope's costume or if Cyclope has ever existed. Suspension of disbelief.

 

 

 

( I have not seen Paul London yet, but usually when the net says they're a good worker, they are over rated.)

[NYU 0]

Damaramu, please read. You keep ignoring this:

 

Shawn Michaels Criteria

 

If I have to repeat myself one more time, I'm probably going to wind up banging my head against the wall.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

And, great worker IS subjective. I, personally, did not like the Japanese heavyweight scene ever. Misawa v Kawada et al didn't cause me to blow loads in my pants. They just didn't click for me.

 

For ME, they are decent matches. Not great --- and not terribly realistic, either.

 

All Japan is not terribly realistic, but HIAC 1 is? I know this is a generalization about All Japan, but have you seen Kawada vs. Albright? Kobashi/Hansen? Hell, I wrote an essay on Akiyama/Hase on this very topic of "what is good" and broke it down into definable elements which made it good... and that's not even regarded as a top 100 match in AJPW history.

 

You are using all these words to relate a personal experience, are you not able to jump "outside" yourself and recognize certain elements on their own; despite not "clicking" for you? And not to play the word game, but "Great" "Worker" is different from "Good" "Wrestller".

 

Does that mean that the fans who feel that those are some of the greatest matches of all time are WRONG? Not to the fans, they aren't.

 

Great is different from Good and Good is different from Favourite. Favourite is personal, Good is objective, Great has surrounding factors (influence, for example).

 

I'm not going to sit down and say that there is anything resembling concrete proof of what makes a wrestler great or not or proof that makes a match great or not.

 

That requires analysis and thought... I know. It's wrestling, you can't actually *do* that with Wrestling... I guess.

 

I know people who think Jeff Jarrett is the greatest worker out there. Are they wrong simply because they disagree with you?

 

No, they are wrong because Jeff Jarrett has done nothing to support that claim.

 

I don't get the love, either, but they have it and think it's terrific.

 

Love is personal, Good is not.

[Guest ManKinnd]

To those arguing about London's greatness:

If Kawada came to the WWE and did a 30 second match every week, would he still be the best worker in the WWE because of what he did in Japan?

[Michrome 0]

He's no longer that great, but in 95? Hell yes, without a doubt.

[Michrome 0]

Paul London vs. American Dragon (4/12/03) is worlds better than anything Shawn has ever done. Maybe if you'd watch his pimped Indy matches, you'd know that they were completely psychology-based, and had better selling than Shawn has ever done. In the beginning, he was an average Indy spot guy, but by the end, he was awesome.

 

What exactly do you mean by WWE style, anyway? Watered down wrestling that uses ref bumps to create drama for nearfalls?

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

"What exactly do you mean by WWE style, anyway? Watered down wrestling that uses ref bumps to create drama for nearfalls? "

 

I actually figured this one out.

 

Everyone falls the same. Thus...every move looks the same.

[Guest ManKinnd]

Paul London vs. American Dragon (4/12/03) is worlds better than anything Shawn has ever done. Maybe if you'd watch his pimped Indy matches, you'd know that they were completely psychology-based, and had better selling than Shawn has ever done. In the beginning, he was an average Indy spot guy, but by the end, he was awesome.

 

What exactly do you mean by WWE style, anyway? Watered down wrestling that uses ref bumps to create drama for nearfalls?

Did you read my post?

[geniusMoment 0]

Guess what, the reason why HBK used the Big man dominates little man concept so much is because in WWF/WWE that is who you fight. Nothing looks worse than a little man dominating a big man. You need that big man dominates the little guy storyline for the match to make sense. Look at HBK/Hart from their battles in the early to mid 90's, the HBK/Jannetty series and the HBK/Steve Austin (as the ringmaster) series to see HBK working a different style.

[Guest Trivia247]

not to be flayed here...

 

but um.... Bret Hart hasn't been in the WWF sine 97...

 

and due to his accident he has been out of wrestling all together for a while now.

 

so...

 

What would he be saying farewell for?

 

To say farewell to all the wrestling fans? that he hasn't seen in years?

 

or say goodbye to those Die Hard Bret Hart Marks who still keep the spirit of Montreal alive for all of us.....

[Guest]

Do you know how to fucking type?

[Guest Trivia247]

Do you know how to fucking type?

daww not up to your standards.....

 

Purposely makes Grammar and Spel ink mistakes...

 

JUST FOR YOU..

[MrRant 0]

--Dave says the 3-way is now much more likely to be a ladder match at Mania.

Seriously, this is the WORST idea ever. Not only that, it's the stupidest idea of all time in wrestling in ANY league ever. There's nothing that comes even remotely close. Forget wrestling, this is the most idiotic idea in the history of humanity.

I think Hitler fighting a war on two fronts was a worse decision.

[Austin3164life 0]

I, too, found the HIAC I to be a cartoon segment, like Ray stated previously. Yeah, sure, it's complete with mark-out moments, but let's get serious here. A lot of sites called it the MOTY for 1997. That is absolutely prepostorous. To say that match eclipsed Austin/Hart, Bulldog/Owen (Raw, Euro Title), or HBK/Austin vs. Bulldog/Owen is stupid. All the match was was Shawn flippy-flopping all over the place while a blown up Undertaker was walking like he had a stick up his ass. Not to mention the fact that he no-sold Shawn's finisher, which had been built up as a "Giant killer" (put Sid and Diesel down, why not 'Taker?). Then you have the completely anti-climactic finish that the WWE practices so much these days. I'm not trying to shit on Shawn Michaels, because he did have a good career in the WWE, but calling him one of the greatest EVER is just wrong. Bret Hart and others have even said the same thing. I believe Bret once said that while Shawn was a great worker, Steve Austin is by far a greater wrestler (one of his SLAM! columns). Look at Shawn Michaels' best matches, and then look at the best matches of guys like Hart, Benoit, Austin, etc. and then tell me Shawn Michaels is better.

[KTID 0]

Look at Shawn Michaels' best matches, and then look at the best matches of guys like Hart, Benoit, Austin, etc. and then tell me Shawn Michaels is better.

 

 

Call this Mission Impossible 3.

[Damaramu 0]

Fine NY here's your response:

 

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?

I gave you what the goal of a good wrestler is. What things go into making a match and wrestler good. It's not my fault if you can't accept that.

I will tell that person that they are a moron for thinking that. There opinion can be that Jones is their favorite wrestler and he entertains them the most but to say that he is the best wrestler is a fallacy.

Hey guess what? I like football teams that lose. That entertains me. So The San Diego Chargers are the best football team in the NFL. And you can't tell me I'm wrong because it's all subjective and my opinion anyways. SEE!? It doesn't work like that.

 

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.

 

All of that sellling means nothing if he can't sell it longterm. I mean if I were to get into a car wreck and scream in pain because my leg is hurt then suddenly kip up and forget that I'm hurt people would be looking at me like I'm a monster....so why is it any different for Shawn? Just once I'd like to see his back worked over the entire match and then him go for his miracle kip-up and suddenly fall back flat on his back b/c his back is to injured to do such a thing. The fans would shit themselves and I'd shit myself that HBK actually just did smart work.

 

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.

 

All of his matches tell the same story or a shitty story. Yeah he targeted HHH's knee but in the end it went nowhere. That's the point......the bulk of HBK's matches have no point. They're just Shawn getting beat up and then making flashy comebacks to pop the crowd. That's not a story, that's an entertainment exhibition. Hell I give him credit for the Survivor Series match but I think anyone could've pulled that off given the circumstances.

 

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.

Yes he does meet this criteria. Unless you mean protect his opponent's heat...which he doesn't. They call him the showstealer for a reason.....all the focus goes on him.

 

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.

 

Oh he didn't try to gorilla press Batista! By all means that makes him the smartest worker in the world! Get real. Michales matches aren't believable because he should by all means be dead after the ass beating he recieves. He could put on the best match ever and then totally destroy it all with that silly kip-up. That destroys the ENTIRE match. It makes what we just watched meaningless.

 

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.

Yes Michaels can work the crowd. I have said this before. However just meeting that one thing does not make him a good wrestler. I knew another guy that could whip the crowd into a frenzy better than Michaels and he wasn't a good worker at all. His name was Hulk Hogan I believe.

 

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.

 

And I've already covered that his matches aren't believable and they don't make any sense at all. I've never seen a football player injure himself and then get a second wind and suddenly rush for 100 more yards. That's pretty much what HBK does.

 

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!!

That's why you think he's a good wrestler but as me and others have shown....you're wrong. Who your favorite wrestler is *is* an opinion. But what makes a wrestler good or not is GASP not an opinion! Get it through your head!

 

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 subj

It's not all subjective. That's a crutch for someone that can't take the fact that their wrestler isn't as good as they think he is. Yes he can entertain you and nobody can take that away from you because it's your opinion but what makes a good wrestler is GASP not an opinion!

[CanadianChris 0]

Why does every discussion in this damn folder end up this way:

 

Person A makes subjective statement.

 

Person B refutes points made in subjective statement.

 

Person A reiterates subjective statement, and says that by repeating subjective statement, Person B's arguments are null and void.

 

Person B says person A doesn't get the point.

 

Person A says person B doesn't get the point.

 

Etc, etc, etc.

 

This is tiresome...nothing new has been said for three pages; it's the same damn points being made over and over. Just agree to disagree and move on with your lives.