Undertaker threatening HBK at WM 14

[UZI Suicide 0]

Where did the story of Undertaker threatening to kick HBK's ass at WM 14 if he didn't drop the belt to Austin originate from? And is it true?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It came from where all inside stories come from, and yes, it is true.

[Guest bigm350]

I think Taker confirmed this on an interview on TSN with Michael Landsberg.

[Dangerous A 0]

It was more that HBK was going to work the match, but not really put Austin over and dick with him like kicking out right at the count of 3 or popping right up after the stunner. The finish was already set in stone, it was just that Taker recognized that HBK might try to muck up Austin's ascension, so he not so subtltey threatened him before the match.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It was more that HBK was going to work the match, but not really put Austin over and dick with him like kicking out right at the count of 3 or popping right up after the stunner. The finish was already set in stone, it was just that Taker recognized that HBK might try to muck up Austin's ascension, so he not so subtltey threatened him before the match.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shawn was refusing to do the job. He was making noises all week up to WM 14 that he wasn't going to put Austin over, and was flat out saying that he wasn't going to do the job. Undertaker made it clear that he was going to do the job in the ring, or else he'd do the job for real when he got to the back.

[Black Lushus 0]

doesn't this sorta contradict his "not feeling it" moments?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

doesn't this sorta contradict his "not feeling it" moments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it does, but that's not exactly a rare thing in wrestling, or life in general.

[Dangerous A 0]

It was more that HBK was going to work the match, but not really put Austin over and dick with him like kicking out right at the count of 3 or popping right up after the stunner. The finish was already set in stone, it was just that Taker recognized that HBK might try to muck up Austin's ascension, so he not so subtltey threatened him before the match.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shawn was refusing to do the job. He was making noises all week up to WM 14 that he wasn't going to put Austin over, and was flat out saying that he wasn't going to do the job. Undertaker made it clear that he was going to do the job in the ring, or else he'd do the job for real when he got to the back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I heard it a little differently. I heard Shawn was refusing to job all the way up to the day of the show, and then Vince had finally convinced Shawn (or threatened him, who knows) to do the job on the day of WM14. Taker was just there to make sure Shawn actually did the job as well as put Austin over without any shenanigans.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It was more that HBK was going to work the match, but not really put Austin over and dick with him like kicking out right at the count of 3 or popping right up after the stunner. The finish was already set in stone, it was just that Taker recognized that HBK might try to muck up Austin's ascension, so he not so subtltey threatened him before the match.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shawn was refusing to do the job. He was making noises all week up to WM 14 that he wasn't going to put Austin over, and was flat out saying that he wasn't going to do the job. Undertaker made it clear that he was going to do the job in the ring, or else he'd do the job for real when he got to the back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I heard it a little differently. I heard Shawn was refusing to job all the way up to the day of the show, and then Vince had finally convinced Shawn (or threatened him, who knows) to do the job on the day of WM14. Taker was just there to make sure Shawn actually did the job as well as put Austin over without any shenanigans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shawn was protesting up until the very last minute, and made it clear he didn't want to do it, and wasn't going to. Undertaker convinced him it would be good for his health that he did do the job.

[chaosrage 0]

I think Taker confirmed this on an interview on TSN with Michael Landsberg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does anybody have a link to anything about this? Not saying it isn't true, I've heard it before, but I searched and couldn't find anything.

[Golgo 13 0]

Eh. Taker not feeling it is comparable, but when I say this, keep in mind that I'm not defending Undertaker in the least for the bullshit he pulled at any time, especially Unforgiven. Yeah, they're both pricks, but the circumstances of each were a bit different.

 

Taker eventually made right, with Brock coming back strong at No Mercy and going over in the HiaC, which is more than a win with awful build at Unforgiven could have ever done for him (keep in mind, I have no idea what the nature of Unforgiven's original finish was, or if the No Mercy end of things was ever the original intent). If Taker had been the one to unseat Brock, then let the rightful bitching commence... but the DQ finish aside, if Taker hadn't manhandled Brock it wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

 

All things considered, Shawn had no choice except to job to Austin. Yet up until Taker changed his mind for him, he was ridiculously stubborn in his refusal to do anything for him. If he got his way, who knows if he wouldn't have just ducked Austin or someone else completely, or even kept the belt to himself once he left and sat at home, which considering Shawn's disposition at the time, isn't out of the question. In either case, if Vince gave in and Shawn had actually gone over, I dare say it would have been the end of the WWF.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Taker eventually made right, with Brock coming back strong at No Mercy and going over in the HiaC, which is more than a win with awful build at Unforgiven could have ever done for him (keep in mind, I have no idea what the nature of Unforgiven's original finish was, or if the No Mercy end of things was ever the original intent). If Taker was the one to unseat Brock, let the rightful bitching commence, but the DQ finish aside, if Taker hadn't manhandled Brock it wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was meant to be Brock pinning Undertaker, with some sort of cheating leading to the finish. The exact nature of the finish was being debated all the way until showtime, but all the writers and agents were agreed that it would be a pinfall finish. However, on the day of the PPV, Undertaker decided he wasn't feeling the pinfall finish, even though it was never going to be clean, and refused to do it.

 

And yes, the DQ might not have been so bad had Undertaker not guzzled Brock up. Here you had Brock Lesnar, the young stud of the company, a monster with incredible strength and power, and he was being beaten all over the place by a 40-year old who was already falling apart even back then. Realistically and logically, it should have been Lesnar in the role of physically dominating the match. Instead, we got Undertaker flexing his political muscle, and deciding it was better that he sell almost nothing the whole match, treat Lesnar like a jobber, and tossing him through the entrance set-up like he was nothing. Even if a case could be made to defend the finish, nothing can defend how Undertaker treated Brock.

[cabbageboy 0]

If they were going to do that finish that match should have been in the middle of the show. Never end a PPV with a DQ.

 

As far as Michaels goes, what the fuck? The guy had a seemingly career ending back injury going into WM 14. Did he honestly think he wasn't going to be booked to job there, especially to Austin who flat out 100% was obviously going over? Hell, did he think he could just do a DQ and hold onto the belt without wrestling for months?

 

There are reasons why I hate Shawn Michaels and this shit is a major part of it.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

If they were going to do that finish that match should have been in the middle of the show.  Never end a PPV with a DQ.

 

As far as Michaels goes, what the fuck?  The guy had a seemingly career ending back injury going into WM 14.  Did he honestly think he wasn't going to be booked to job there, especially to Austin who flat out 100% was obviously going over?  Hell, did he think he could just do a DQ and hold onto the belt without wrestling for months?

 

There are reasons why I hate Shawn Michaels and this shit is a major part of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Abslutely.

 

Even though it was obvious Austin was going over, the build up feud was pretty good writing. Great promos by both, and I vividly remember how awesome it was when HHH and Chyna tied Austin in the ropes and HBK shoved the belt to his face and said 'this is as close as you're gonna get'

 

1998 kicked ass in the WWF. It was by far my favourite year in wrestling ever.

[cabbageboy 0]

More for your Michaels hating dollar: Didn't he also refuse to job to the British Bulldog at the One Night Only PPV? Bear in mind this was an English PPV that no one in the US even saw, Bulldog dedicated the match to his sister who was DYING OF CANCER, and fucking Michaels refused to job. I mean what, wasn't beating UT at the first HIAC the next month and getting the title in Montreal enough? He couldn't job to the hometown hero in what was essentially a match that meant nothing outside of the UK?

[snuffbox 0]

Nobody ever got around to telling Shawn Michaels that its fake. He really believes that his pride is at stake in a pro wrestling match. He is massively insecure and mildly retarded.

[Guest bigm350]

I think Taker confirmed this on an interview on TSN with Michael Landsberg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does anybody have a link to anything about this? Not saying it isn't true, I've heard it before, but I searched and couldn't find anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I also have searched for links to a transcript of this interview but never got anywhere. I beleive it though because I've seen posters here and elsewhere confirm that Taker admitted it.

[redbaron29 0]

My one friend can’t understand why it is I deplore Michaels. This thread has given me the idea to compile a list of all the bullshit things he did in the past and give it to here.

 

1. Refused to job Austin

2. Refused job to Bulldog

3. Montreal

4. MISSSING: Smile. If found please return to Shawn.

5. Synch/Hart affair

[cabbageboy 0]

Well I dunno what the deal is with him not wanting to job to Austin...I mean the guy was hardly active by that point and needed career ending (at that point) back surgery. Jobbing to Austin at WM 14 is a NON ISSUE. It had to happen. What else does it say about Shawn that the WWF was getting its ass kicked while he was on top, but the very second he had a career ending injury and Austin was on top the WWF turned it around and kicked WCW's ass?

 

My brother never understands what I'm talking about when I mention Michaels losing his smile. He honestly can't believe someone would be that much of a wuss on national TV as to say "I am giving up the title and going off to find my smile."

 

I dunno what that Sytch/Hart thing is all about but wasn't it Shawn accusing Bret of having an affair with Sunny behind his wife's back?

 

One thing I will say is that the trifecta of 1. Beating Bulldog in England, 2. Beating UT in HIAC, and 3. Montreal made Shawn the most hated man ever. Everyone tuned in to WM 14 to see Austin finally kick this shit out of this asshole, it was literally the only possibility. And Shawn didn't want to job. Fucking amazing.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

2.  Beating UT in HIAC made Shawn the most hated man ever. 

 

Shawn had to go over if he was going to be challenging for the title the next month...

[zyn081 0]

2.  Beating UT in HIAC made Shawn the most hated man ever. 

 

Shawn had to go over if he was going to be challenging for the title the next month...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think uve misquoted him there buddy.:

 

"2. Beating UT in HIAC, and 3. Montreal made Shawn the most hated man ever."

 

cabbageboy (2005)

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

He listed 3 reasons why Shawn Michaels was the most hated man. He listed reason 2 as Shawn beating Taker in the cell. I pointed out that he HAD to win, thus that was an invalid reason to hate him.

[cabbageboy 0]

He didn't HAVE to win though, in fact it did nothing but set up a bizarre heel vs. heel matchup at Survivor Series 97. People who obsess about Montreal tend to forget that part. I suppose Bret was the face in Canada there, but who gives a shit about that? In the US it was seen as two guys who were both leaders of heel factions.

 

In fact the same results could come from UT beating Shawn with no Kane run in at HIAC, beating Bret (since Bret would be fine with jobbing to UT) since that would pay off that angle from SS 97. UT would have the title, Kane could taunt and threaten, he refuses, then Kane costs him the title at RR 98 vs. Shawn. There was no need to screw Bret Hart, though in the end it brought more interest in the WWF whether it was meant to happen.

 

That said, yes the 2nd reason is more of a storyline reason to hate Michaels (as in he's lucky as fuck and didn't deserve to beat UT). The other two are more real life "I won't lose to this guy" type reasons. They tend to blend together when discussing Shawn.

[Dangerous A 0]

Actually, WWF was in their whole "shades of grey" dealie since a lot of the factions like DOA, Los Boricuas, and the Nation were all heels as well and they were all feuding with each other at the time.

 

WWF stayed that way for awhile too because when they started up the DX/Nation feud, DX had were still heels. The crowd was actually starting to babyface them a bit before they started up with the Nation.

 

Of course they would, who wouldnt get behind guys percieved as rebels who don't give a fuck and don't lose very often?

[claydude14 0]

Still in my markdom age; I never ever even thought about the possibility of HBK and DX being heels. HBK hitting Taker with the chair at Summerslam 97 to start it all just seemed to me like HBK obviously was aiming for Bret; but misfired and dealt with his consequences up front by being a man and counting the 3 to crown the man he hates new WWF champ. Then of course DX forms and they were doing all kinds of funny shit; while the Hart Foundation is pushed as the #1 heels of the Federation(in the USA at least). So of course the marks would beliveve DX are still the faces, right? That's how me and at least 6-7 of my then "casual watching" friends thought that way, so I don't know if it's necessarly true that SuSeries97 was booked as heel vs. heel.

[zyn081 0]

He listed 3 reasons why Shawn Michaels was the most hated man. He listed reason 2 as Shawn beating Taker in the cell. I pointed out that he HAD to win, thus that was an invalid reason to hate him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, I misread it.

 

UT was known for standing up for what he believed it. He stayed banging on Vinces door after Montreal.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

UT was known for standing up for what he believed it. He stayed banging on Vinces door after Montreal.

 

I think the best way to describe Undertaker is that he will stand up for other people like Austin or Bret, but when it comes to HIMSELF putting people over, he's not gonna be feelin' it.

[cabbageboy 0]

As far as the whole shades of grey thing goes, I'd say DOA were the closest to faces in that whole deal. The Nation were of course heels, and Los Boriquas were tweeners leaning towards heels. Thing is, was this angle at all a success? Not really. Know why? No one knew who to cheer.

 

For all the talk about shades of grey, has it ever really drawn money? I mean yeah the whole DX, Harts, whoever stuff was complex in terms of who was good, evil, etc. Thing is, the WWF didn't start drawing huge until Austin was firmly position as a top FACE against Vince's evil heel. DX were most certainly the faces against the Nation.

 

As far as Montreal goes, I certainly liked Bret better but I had no idea what they were trying to accomplish. The early DX was incredibly annoying I thought, at times funny but mostly revolting. I assume since it was in Montreal Bret was the de facto face.

[Guest TheGreatWesuke]

I believe UT said this on TSN in a pre-WM x8 interview. I think I still have it on tape.

[zyn081 0]

UT was known for standing up for what he believed it. He stayed banging on Vinces door after Montreal.

 

I think the best way to describe Undertaker is that he will stand up for other people like Austin or Bret, but when it comes to HIMSELF putting people over, he's not gonna be feelin' it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, that sounds better.

 

Thing is, the WWF didn't start drawing huge until Austin was firmly position as a top FACE against Vince's evil heel. 

 

As far as Montreal goes, I certainly liked Bret better but I had no idea what they were trying to accomplish.  The early DX was incredibly annoying I thought, at times funny but mostly revolting.  I assume since it was in Montreal Bret was the de facto face.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is one thing ive never gotten, for me Austin was never a de facto face. I saw him more as a tweener. Still do actually. What he does most of the time is pushing the ticket for what a face would do.

 

Why do you think people, for example especially Bret, were pissed about the way it was turning out and eventually panned out.