Is HBK over-rated

[The Decemberists 0]

Many consider "The Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels to be the greatest professional wrestler in the history of the business

 

 

Surely no one thinks this? If they do I've never heard anyone admit it.

 

I would say he's overrated about as much as anyone else in the WWE in terms of how he's pimped by the company, but he's still had some awesome matches when against good workers and he was a good enough bumper to get more than watchable matches against the Sid's and Nash's of the world.

 

But certainly not the "greatest professional wrestler in the history of the business".

 

And to krazykat72 who said

My favorite is the person who put Ted Dibiase ahead of him, since looking back, it's hard to pick out *any* great Dibiase matches, save a few with Savage (maybe) and a great angle he did with Flair (the less than 10 minute match isn't the total classic it's pimped to be).

 

You really need to get some old mid-south tapes, Dibiase was awesome when allowed to really go rather than perform WWF 1980s stlye.

[Guest krazykat72]

You really need to get some old mid-south tapes, Dibiase was awesome when allowed to really go rather than perform WWF 1980s stlye.

That's where I saw the Flair match and some of the stuff with Duggan. It's decent, but nothing to go out of anyone's way to see. Then again, maybe it's 'cause he was in with Duggan. I am open to any recommended matches that may change my mind though.

 

 

-Paul Jacobi-

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Shawn may very well be one of the most overrated wrestlers of all time. Sure, he's a great performer, and can get the crowd going, but for the all round package, he's nowhere near the top 10, or even the top 20. His selling his top notch, when he does decide to sell, but when he's on offence, he has to rely on the other guy to look good, because he has Sid-level punches, in that they don't look like they could break an egg. And his selling, which is his undoubted strong point, isn't as great as his fanboys make it out to be, because, in numerous matches, when he's selling his back like crazy while it gets worked on, once he starts his comeback, he does his kip-up, and the back never gets sold again. How someone who can't follow the basic precepts of selling so often can get called an all-time great is beyond me. As for his offence, that's pretty much a joke. He can't work the mat, and no, a few chinlocks and headlocks here and there don't count. His aerial stuff is fine, but, again, he always goes for moves that, given what his opponent has done, he shouldn't logically go for; even if his back has been worked on, he'll still do the big elbow off the top, not sell the back at all, preferring to keep the kip-up in his routine, regardless of how little sense in makes in the body of the match. His mic work is ok, but he's only ever done a couple of interviews that I've thought were really good, with the rest being a mishmash of clichés and formulaic lines. I've always considered him a highspot artist who usually sells like crazy, and I've never yet seen him put on any kind of consistent performances that would make me think any different.

[Guest Loss]

I would call Shawn an excellent performer who was great at times and good most of the time. He has a large body of ***+ matches that have stretched nearly 20 years, which is impressive in itself. In some ways, he's underrated. He's great at constructing an exciting match, generating heat within the confines of a match and has shown himself capable of playing both a strong heel and a strong face. He has excelled in the face-in-peril role, the underdog champion role and the asshole role.

 

Shawn is overrated as a seller. He's great when he wants to do it, but he's inconsistent. People like to refer to the "backstage shit" not mattering in terms of Shawn's attitude, and quite frankly, I don't care about that either. But Michaels' attitude often reared its ugly head during matches. He was all about putting on The Shawn Show, even in matches that weren't necessarily all about him. Want a good example? Compare these matches:

 

04/02/95 - Shawn Michaels v Diesel

04/28/96 - Shawn Michaels v Diesel

 

01/22/95 - Bret Hart v Diesel

11/19/95 - Bret Hart v Diesel

 

You could argue that these are Nash's four best matches. What's interesting is that Nash looks better in losing to Bret than he does in winning against Shawn, and that's not all booking either. Shawn's tenacity and constant straightforward approach in the Diesel match at Wrestlemania did wonders to turn himself babyface and make himself seem at that level, but that match was about Diesel, not Shawn. Nash had trouble garnering heat after that match and his reign as champ is looked at very poorly. I'm not attempting to blame Shawn for that, but Diesel's biggest defense was at Mania, and Michaels sandbagged him in many ways. That match was laid out to make Michaels look as strong as possible, even at the expense of the champ.

 

Compare that to the SurSer '95 match with Bret Hart, where Nash lost the belt and looked far better taking a pinfall. Bret tried to use many of the same tactics he used in the Rumble match earlier in the year, some of which worked and some of which didn't at all. Bret laid out a match that showed that strategically, Nash had improved as champion and was a better worker than he was months earlier. He made him look smart, effective and dangerous. While the HBK match at Mania made Shawn look like the uncrowned champ, the SurSer match made it apparent that Diesel had grown smarter, but had lost some of his killer instinct, and the post-match angle brought that back into place and he finished out his WWF run more over than he ever was as champ. I credit this match entirely for that.

 

The biggest problem with Shawn is the poor psych of his "hulking up" routine. It makes for an exciting performance, but not necessarily a great one.

 

To those who think SurSer '96 was Sid's best match ever, watch these two matches and compare sometime:

 

11/17/96 - Shawn Michaels v Sid

02/17/97 - Bret Hart v Sid

 

The second match is less-remembered simply because it took place on television instead of on PPV, but it speaks for itself, and by comparison, the Michaels carry job looks far less impressive. Shawn Michaels was booed out of the garden and insisted on playing the babyface in the match anyway instead of improvising. The crowd was solidly behind Sid. Compare that to the Bret match, which saw the crowd solidly on Sid's side. Bret worked as the subtle heel throughout the match as a result, built a story around attacking Sid's knee, and the comeback got a huge pop. Sid won the SurSer match cleanly (fairly) and won the Bret match because of outside interference. But he *still* managed to come out of the Bret match looking like a far more deserving champion.

 

In terms of carrying slugs, Shawn is good at getting something entertaining out of them. I would never say he was really good at carrying said slugs to ****+ matches though. I'd place guys like Bret and Flair far ahead of Shawn in terms of being able to have a match with anyone. I'd put Bret over Shawn as a worker just because Bret was more willing to adapt to his opponent while Shawn made his opponents adapt to him.

 

Where does he stand among American workers of the past 20 years? I'd say his standing is quite impressive, but I wouldn't put him in the top ten of even that group most likely. That, in many ways, is less of an insult to Shawn and more of a compliment to the rest of the crop.

 

As an interview and character, Shawn's peak was in the early days of DX. He was more hated than any heel I can remember in the history of the company. I remember watching shows seeing him getting pelted with garbage, and I remember fans chanting for his death. Bret was a far more consistent role player, in that he was good in all roles, but Shawn, at his best, was probably better. His best just came too rarely.

 

I don't think Shawn is overrated. I don't think Shawn is underrated. I think his strengths are misdiagnosed and I think his weaknesses are misdiagnosed.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

It's hard to argue great success, you know? For instance, I think Hogan absolutely sucks, but obviously not everyone agrees with me. After 30 years of incredible success, I have to admit that I may not understand it, but Hogan obviously had something, and to most, he was great.

 

The same can be said for Shawn. I've never been a fan, but the guy has consistently had really good matches over the last twenty years, and has for the most part stayed over with the crowds. Who am I to say he's not a great worker?

 

I think sometimes we smarks think we know a little more about the business than we actually do, and dogging a nearly-legendary performer despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary, is just one example of that.

[Guest Loss]

I think sometimes we smarks think we know a little more about the business than we actually do, and dogging a nearly-legendary performer despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary, is just one example of that.

I disagree with this. Wrestling fans are the ones who determine what there is to know about the business, because we're the ones who react to everything. Everything in wrestling is done to get some type of reaction from the fan.

[Black Lushus 0]

well, as said earlier, i think it's ludacris to not have him at at least the midpoint of a top 25 American Wrestler List...overrated, sure, but aren't pretty much all of them overrated to a degree?

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I think sometimes we smarks think we know a little more about the business than we actually do, and dogging a nearly-legendary performer despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary, is just one example of that.

I disagree with this. Wrestling fans are the ones who determine what there is to know about the business, because we're the ones who react to everything. Everything in wrestling is done to get some type of reaction from the fan.

True, but we are in the majority of the larger group of wrestling fans. That large group of fans saw something great in Hogan that I don't see. They also see something in Shawn.

[Guest Loss]

I see what they saw in both of them actually. Hogan wasn't a great worker, but he was a great performer with loads of charisma and the cool factor. He was also a consistent winner and was (supposedly) a wholesome role model.

[The Decemberists 0]

You really need to get some old mid-south tapes, Dibiase was awesome when allowed to really go rather than perform WWF 1980s stlye.

That's where I saw the Flair match and some of the stuff with Duggan. It's decent, but nothing to go out of anyone's way to see. Then again, maybe it's 'cause he was in with Duggan. I am open to any recommended matches that may change my mind though.

 

 

-Paul Jacobi-

Yes, that's a good point. You must've done that to see the Flair match.

 

I'll look into it and if I remember I'll pm you some suggestions.

[Guest Loss]

I tend to think DiBiase was more consistent, but he never had that one career-defining match. Shawn has had several of those. Take that however you want.

[hbkhhhmark4life 0]

well i guess imma say something in defense of hbk, well he is my favorite of all time because of his entertainment value, i like the guy so i will always be grateful for his contributions to the industry, oh yeah, He is if not the greatest, he is one of them, u cannot fight that even though some people are convincing themselves they are

[SuperJerk 0]

I think sometimes we smarks think we know a little more about the business than we actually do, and dogging a nearly-legendary performer despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary, is just one example of that.

I disagree with this. Wrestling fans are the ones who determine what there is to know about the business, because we're the ones who react to everything. Everything in wrestling is done to get some type of reaction from the fan.

So you're only as great as you are popular?

[Guest Loss]

To a certain degree, yes. If your matches get no heat, you're not a great worker. I wouldn't say it's quantitative, meaning the more heat your matches get, the better worker you are. But it's like the Benoit argument about him not having charisma, because the crowd would be silent during his matches if he didn't.

[SuperJerk 0]

To a certain degree, yes. If your matches get no heat, you're not a great worker.

*Remembers examples of no-reaction for Benoit and Guerrero just a couple of years ago...**

 

 

Yeah, I see you're point.

[Guest Loss]

You could call those poor performances or you could call it a tough crowd. There are going to be exceptions, obviously, but the last thing any wrestler wants in front of an audience is silence.

 

Besides, those are poor examples. You take the majority of Benoit and Guerrero matches that have ever happened and the crowd has reacted quite strongly. There are exceptions to the rule, but you act as if it's the norm for fans to sit on their hands during their matches, when that's definitely not the case.

[Black Lushus 0]

to add to that aren't there several venues (Nassua Coliseum comes to mind) that generate no heat whatsoever? The divas could have a orgy in the middle of the ring and all you would hear are the crickets in the audience? That certainly doesn't help a great worker...

[Guest Loss]

I did say, twice, that there would always be exceptions. Besides, some matches have gotten great heat in Nassau. Look at pretty much the entire Summerslam 2002 card.

[Guest LooneyTune]

I was unaware in an opinions list of wrestlers I'd rather watch than Shawn Michaels, that Christopher Daniels is wrong. Hell, I'd rather watch Mabel over Shawn Michaels, mainly for the suck factor.

 

Saying Daniels isn't in Michaels league as a worker is bullshit. At least the guy knows how to fucking sell injuries instead of dancing around like a fag (like Shawn does), and can actually do something other than the 5 moves of doom (Michaels is just as repetitive as Bret was with signature moves).

 

Ted Dibiase is a "on the fence" person, mainly because I found his stuff to be good wrestling, and let's not forget when he came to the WWF, he was the most over heel by miles. When rings are filled with trash for your matches before it even begins, THATS getting heel heat.

[Guest Loss]

At least the guy knows how to fucking sell injuries instead of dancing around like a fag (like Shawn does)

Your point is noted, but let's try to refrain from gay bashing in the folder.

 

Thank you.

 

[Guest LooneyTune]

Sorry, dancing around like he has ants in his pants.

[Black Lushus 0]

Loss i wasn't tryin to debate you with what i said about heat like you always seem to think I do, I was actually agreeing with you and just adding that in...

[Guest Loss]

Loss i wasn't tryin to debate you with what i said about heat like you always seem to think I do, I was actually agreeing with you and just adding that in...

My apologies.

[SuperJerk 0]

You could call those poor performances or you could call it a tough crowd. There are going to be exceptions, obviously, but the last thing any wrestler wants in front of an audience is silence.

This just shows that not getting a great reaction doesn't necessarily make you a bad worker.

 

This point is moot anyways, since the person we're talking about does get great reactions. If you want to judge someone based on crowd reactions, then you shouldn't be judging Shawn Michaes poorly.

 

 

Like I said before, the reason HBK's great isn't that he's the best at something, but that he's really good at almost everything.

 

 

I'd rather watch Mabel over Shawn Michaels, mainly for the suck factor.

 

And thus the Michaels bashing reaches the apex of ridiculesness.

[Guest Loss]

If you want to judge someone based on crowd reactions, then you shouldn't be judging Shawn Michaes poorly.

Read my post. I was very complimentary toward him for the most part.

[SuperJerk 0]

If you want to judge someone based on crowd reactions, then you shouldn't be judging Shawn Michaes poorly.

Read my post. I was very complimentary toward him for the most part.

Not in the post that I read.

 

I think sometimes we smarks think we know a little more about the business than we actually do, and dogging a nearly-legendary performer despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary, is just one example of that.

I disagree with this. Wrestling fans are the ones who determine what there is to know about the business, because we're the ones who react to everything. Everything in wrestling is done to get some type of reaction from the fan.

[Guest LooneyTune]

I'd rather watch Mabel over Shawn Michaels, mainly for the suck factor.

 

And thus the Michaels bashing reaches the apex of ridiculesness.

Do I have to mark ALL my sarcastic posts with sarcasm? Maybe a smilie with the tongue hanging out would be better fit.

[Guest Loss]

I would call Shawn an excellent performer who was great at times and good most of the time. He has a large body of ***+ matches that have stretched nearly 20 years, which is impressive in itself. In some ways, he's underrated. He's great at constructing an exciting match, generating heat within the confines of a match and has shown himself capable of playing both a strong heel and a strong face. He has excelled in the face-in-peril role, the underdog champion role and the asshole role.

 

Pretty glowing, wouldn't you say?

 

I didn't even mention Michaels in what you quoted. I was discussing Hogan.

[SuperJerk 0]

D'oh!

 

<--egg on face

 

 

I'd rather watch Mabel over Shawn Michaels, mainly for the suck factor.

 

And thus the Michaels bashing reaches the apex of ridiculesness.

Do I have to mark ALL my sarcastic posts with sarcasm?

I didn't take it as sarcastic since it fit with your serious comment in the sentence before. If you were being sarcastic, you shouldn't have added "for the suck" factor, since you were qualifying the statement to a more plausible level.

[Guest LooneyTune]

Alright, I could probably make a case of wanting to watch Mabel/Viscera more than Michaels, mainly for the suck factor though.

 

In no state of mind will I ever choose MABEL over Michaels in a "terms of good quality" match though.