RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted February 9, 2004 I don't think that HBK is a bad worker. And I *hate* HBK. I think, however, that HBK as elements of a bad worker and has formed some very bad habits over the years and since returning. I also don't think he's one of the greatest wrestlers ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted February 9, 2004 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. No it's not just MY criteria. Like I said over the years I've learned that just about everyone that follows wrestling closely judges workers on THOSE guidelines. You can cry that it's subjective all you want but the fact is........it's not. The subjective argument is a weak argument for someone that can't actually defend why someone is better than someone else. "Why is he better?"......."Well it's all subjective! Yeah that's it.....it's all my personal preference!" Sorry but it doesn't work that way. I still have yet to hear any solid reasons as to WHY HBK is a Top 5 worker. Hey I'm not saying the guy didn't put on some entertaining matches but he definetly doesn't belong in a Top 50 of all time let alone a Top 5 right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 I still have yet to hear any solid reasons as to WHY HBK is a Top 5 worker. You said HBK wasn't even a GOOD wrestler. Go back and read one of my previous posts. I went through all your criteria to show why he WAS a good wrestler - and why he probably would be Top 5. If not top 5, at least Top 10. It's unfair to include Ultimo Dragon or Paul London on your list because, WWE wise, they haven't had any memorable matches at ALL. Even Chavo Guerrero hasn't had many memorable or above-average singles matches, and I recall seeing him on one of your lists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 HBK was never and will never be a top 5 worker......but you don't have to be a great worker to be a great wrestler. You have to be really over and decent. See: 1987 Hogan, Hulk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ISportsFan 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 It's unfair to include Ultimo Dragon or Paul London on your list because, WWE wise, they haven't had any memorable matches at ALL. Even Chavo Guerrero hasn't had many memorable or above-average singles matches, and I recall seeing him on one of your lists. Paul London had an awesome singles match Saturday night on Velocity with Nunzio. Ultimo Dragon had a pretty dang good match the week before with Shannon Moore. And Chavo had a very good match with Rey Mysterio in Rey's debut match. Don't say that they haven't had one above-average match when they all have. You just have to watch the right stuff. Jason EDIT: Not saying they're top 5 workers when they have good 7 minute Velocity matches, but they have shown how they can work on WWE programming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 And that just shows that we need moderators. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Paul London had an awesome singles match Saturday night on Velocity with Nunzio. Ultimo Dragon had a pretty dang good match the week before with Shannon Moore. And Chavo had a very good match with Rey Mysterio in Rey's debut match. Don't say that they haven't had one above-average match when they all have. You just have to watch the right stuff. Jason Does a Velocity match count as memorable? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ISportsFan 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Paul London had an awesome singles match Saturday night on Velocity with Nunzio. Ultimo Dragon had a pretty dang good match the week before with Shannon Moore. And Chavo had a very good match with Rey Mysterio in Rey's debut match. Don't say that they haven't had one above-average match when they all have. You just have to watch the right stuff. Jason Does a Velocity match count as memorable? It depends on your definition of memorable. I tend to remember when good matches take place, mainly because I tape every WWE show, so I have to have an idea when a good match took place so I can rewatch it. So to me, they're memorable. Probably not to you, but to me. Jason Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest wildpegasus Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Paul London had an awesome singles match Saturday night on Velocity with Nunzio. Ultimo Dragon had a pretty dang good match the week before with Shannon Moore. And Chavo had a very good match with Rey Mysterio in Rey's debut match. Don't say that they haven't had one above-average match when they all have. You just have to watch the right stuff. Jason Does a Velocity match count as memorable? If it's good enough, yes. A memorable match is just a match that sticks out to you for whatever reasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 In some cases, but a match that doesn't truly mean anything on a Velocity can not be memorable. Memorable is something you will always remember. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Use Your Illusion 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Thank you very much for your contribution. You really proved to some of the moderators that WWE posters DO bring up intelligent posts, and that the folder isn't nearly as bad as they like to perpetuate. Congratulations, you win Post of the Year. Would you prefer a trophy or plaque? If you have nothing intelligent to say, then just avoid pressing that reply button. It really isn't too difficult. Oh shut the fuck up, you tightass little bitch. Get over it. UYI EDIT: Reported to Mods for action by Goodear. Calling someone a tightass little bitches is not going to fly... especially if you have nothign else to say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Oh shut the fuck up, you tightass little bitch. Get over it. UYI I'm not about to have a flaming war with you. But seriously, open up your fucking eyes. There are people in "Site Feedback" arguing that the WWE folder is not in bad shape - that intelligent conversation IS going on. Then you go and make a stupid post like that, making all those things that everyone said look meaningless. "Tight-ass, little bitch?" Nope, I don't think so. I've been arguing for posts going off-topic as long as they are still intelligent, and don't make a complete mockery of the board. I'm all for making humorous, off-color remarks in topics. But then you go and make a comment in a topic that had GOOD CONVERSATION for absolutely no reason except to look funny and failing miserably at it. So once again, I say congratulations. Go pick up your award. But if you have nothing else intelligent to say, then just avoid pressing the Reply button. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Take it to HD if you are gonna start that. You are ruining our argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Um, my post DID have a point. It was reflecting EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD. Pointless, repetitive, 'my opinion is better than yours' bullshit. Why don't you open *your* eyes, New Yawker. UYI Have you been reading ANYTHING?! This thread has people saying that the definition of a good wrestler is subjective, some saying that certain criteria need to be filled, some including their top 5 list, some arguing why one wrestler may be better than another wrestler......and nearly all of them included VALID POINTS. You come in saying "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH". Did that add anything to the topic? Nope. Did that make somebody laugh? I hope not. All I'm doing is giving you some simple advice....read the friggin thread before you comment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Use Your Illusion 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 This isn't a flame war, just making my point. Carry on, lads. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 I'm all done with my comments. Something like that needed to be said though. Sorry to everyone else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest wildpegasus Report post Posted February 10, 2004 In some cases, but a match that doesn't truly mean anything on a Velocity can not be memorable. Memorable is something you will always remember. Not to the masses overall but to a few select people, yes. I have found some Velocity matches memorable. This seems to be a vicious cycle that keeps on repeating itself here in the smartmarks board. The point of being a great worker (wrestler) is to put on a match as realistic as possable using professional wrestling guidlines while telling a story in the squared circle. Some people are better than others at this. Others are pretty close and it is arguable to select either one over the other. Given these rules, I think everyone can come to the conclusion that Benoit's better than Michaels. Now some people prefer what MIchaels brings into the ring. They find him more entertaining. Maybe they have a more emotional attachment to him after watching him for his whole career. That's cool and all but that doesn't make him a better wrestler. Think about it this someway -- Theoretical situation -- all Michaels fans get gagged up and tied up to a chair in front of a big TV and are forced to watch match after match. They have a selection of Benoit amd Michaels matchups. Overtime, I bet you a lot of those Michaels fans would be selecting the Benoit matches to watch. Why? They hold up better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 I personally prefer Benoit's matches....I was just bringing the perspective that HBK is a great wrestler. But not on the level of Benoit, Guerrero or Angle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BionicRedneck Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Oh, I'd say he's better than Angle probably. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest wildpegasus Report post Posted February 10, 2004 I personally prefer Benoit's matches....I was just bringing the perspective that HBK is a great wrestler. But not on the level of Benoit, Guerrero or Angle. The second comment wasn't meant to refer to you. It was a general thing. I suspose it depends somewhat on what you think great is. Maybe you think Michaels is great and say Eddie is super great. I remember defending a bunch of wrestlers one time by saying they were good but the person arguing with me said they weren't. The funny thing is, we probably had them on the same level on how good we thought they were compared to the rest of the roster. My feeling on what good really is was obviously different than his. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 I knew it was general, and ever since that bad attempt at flaming, it seems as if this thread is almost over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 I still have yet to hear any solid reasons as to WHY HBK is a Top 5 worker. You said HBK wasn't even a GOOD wrestler. Go back and read one of my previous posts. I went through all your criteria to show why he WAS a good wrestler - and why he probably would be Top 5. If not top 5, at least Top 10. It's unfair to include Ultimo Dragon or Paul London on your list because, WWE wise, they haven't had any memorable matches at ALL. Even Chavo Guerrero hasn't had many memorable or above-average singles matches, and I recall seeing him on one of your lists. 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. Oh and once again......you say Michaels is one of the Top 5 in the WWE. Then you say we can't say Ultimo and London b/c they haven't done anything as good in the WWE. But you are still saying that Michaels is a better worker. But looking at the work these men have provided in the past we KNOW they are better than Michaels. Just because they don't get the same chance to put on a 20 minute match as Michaels doesn't automatically make him better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 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. Are any matches in the WWE realistic? EX: Buried Alive (Who the hell believes that shit) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Use Your Illusion 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Wasn't *I* the one who said that about London/Ultimo, Dama? Just making sure you don't throw any unncessary heat on anyone else over that... UYI Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 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. Are any matches in the WWE realistic? EX: Buried Alive (Who the hell believes that shit) And that's why that match sucks. You know what I mean by realistic. I'm not saying that every moment has to look like a real fight(if that was true it'd be over after a few punches) but the match should following a logical progression and you should sell the body parts that are being worked over...not magically be unhurt because you've got this surge of jesus in you or something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 Wasn't *I* the one who said that about London/Ultimo, Dama? Just making sure you don't throw any unncessary heat on anyone else over that... UYI No.....read the post I quoted. He said something about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted February 10, 2004 But even still, that never happens. Every face always makes this magical comeback as if they are immortal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted February 10, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
