Hogan/Michaels Backstage gossip

[Guest Brian]

Who's going to be the first to post all of HBK's jobs, sorted by date?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Who's going to be the first to post all of HBK's jobs, sorted by date?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone with ten minutes to kill?

 

And that is one whiny little shit I've got on ignore.

[bob_barron 0]

At the Pit, I did a list of HBK's PPV matches post-Rocker split.

[chaosrage 0]

I'd like to point out that Raw's lowest rating ever came during Shawn's first WWF Title reign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's quite interesting. Do you happen to remember the date of that RAW?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

October 14th 1996, and it was a 1.8. The Nitro that night got a 3.3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ouch. You have to wonder why Vince was always such a big HBK mark if he never drew any money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please tell me this was a sarcastic response making fun of HTQ for blaming ratings on one person and you're not actually buying into the bullshit.

 

If not, check and see what happened to the ratings when he had the belt as a heel.

[CanadianChick 0]

The sad think is with all you fucking smarks is that Hart and Benoit drew shit but you don't want to admit that.  Your fucking blind anti-HBK hate is pathetic.  Get fucking lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahem.

 

Hart didn't draw that well. Barely better than HBK. Benoit drew no better, no worse than practically anyone else in the past few years.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges this. And "anti-HBK hate" is actually liking the guy, so I'm not too sure that's what you were going for.

 

Just so everyone is clear, is anyone going to dispute what I said in this post? Because if not, WrestlingFan4Ever's arguement is for nothing in this post.

[bob_barron 0]

Bryan Alvarez on Bret-

 

Flair’s argument that Bret never drew a dime is also ridiculous. He was the best-drawing WWF champion of the early 90s period (it could be argued that he saved the company from sinking even faster during the steroid trials) and outdrew Flair in that spot during that same period. He was one-half of the main event for the WWF show that drew the biggest legit crowd ever in the history of that company (Wembley SummerSlam). His Team Canada angle and storyline leading to Survivor Series in the summer of 1997 was one of the things that helped launch the Attitude era, and while it wasn’t planned, Vince’s role in screwing him out of the belt in Montreal led to McMahon’s heel turn and feud with Steve Austin that resulted in Vince ultimately being worth $1 billion for a short period of time. And even in WCW, a Souled Out PPV that everyone expected to tank (because Bret, almost from day one, was booked to fail) drew a huge buyrate for a very good match between Bret and Flair, which seems impossible seeing as to how one couldn’t draw and one couldn’t work.

[bob_barron 0]

The sad think is with all you fucking smarks is that Hart and Benoit drew shit but you don't want to admit that.  Your fucking blind HBK hate is pathetic.  Get fucking lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Benoit was never pushed as hard as HBK was in 1996.

 

Bret did draw money.

 

So just because people think HBK is a piece of trash lumps them in as smarks? That's nice. If you'd read the posts here, you'd see people don't have blind hate for HBK and have made some pretty well thought arguments. Why don't you attempt to refute them instead of going OMG HBK HATERS SUCKORZ!~

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

*whine whine whine*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hart didn't draw that well. Barely better than HBK. Benoit drew no better, no worse than practically anyone else in the past few years.

 

Just so everyone is clear, is anyone going to dispute what I said in this post? Because if not, WrestlingFan4Ever's arguement is for nothing in this post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are we talking just WWF/E or does WCW count?

 

WWF: For his first WWF Title reign, Bret didn't set any records, but he didn't bomb either, and for that time period that was probably the best he could hope for.

 

During his 1996-1997 run, Bret was undoubtedly one of the backbones of Raw, and feuds with Steve Austin and Shawn Michaels helped keep Raw ratings respectable against Nitro. For the most part, Raw did better when Bret was on top then when Shawn was, and this was when Nitro was building to Starrcade 97, which was WCW's biggest PPV of all time.

 

PPV buy rates were none too shabby with Bret around, and he did better than Shawn.

 

WCW: It's hard to really tell, because Bret was undercut from the beginning, but his match with Flair was the prime attraction for Souled Out, and did a far better buy rate than most expected, which backfired on Bret as it gave Hogan and company more reason to bury him

 

 

As for Benoit, when he and Rock headlined Fully Loaded in 2000 it did a far better number than expected, around the 475,000 mark, and while The Rock deserves most of the credit for the number, to put it all down to Rock would be silly, because if nobody bought Benoit as a challenger, it wouldn't have done that much.

 

When Benoit was World Champion, and during the month or so he was actually part of the main focus, Raw was pretty steady in the ratings, and it actually started to fall when it was built around Hunter and Shawn.

 

His PPV numbers were decent too. Moreso when compared to what they are getting now.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

I doubt Bret Hart was the reason for the Wembley Stadium crowd. It was SummerSlam in England, a place which has consistently always drawn big crowds for the WWE since they've always been loved in non-domestic markets.

 

And for the record, I like Bret Hart.

[CanadianChick 0]

Sorry, I should have clarified this: by "drawing", I'm talking PPV buyrates. On average, Bret's PPV buyrates weren't too much better than HBK's.

 

HTQ, I was just talking WWE, because I, admittingly, don't know too much on WCW.

[Fökai 0]

As for Benoit, when he and Rock headlined Fully Loaded in 2000 it did a far better number than expected, around the 475,000 mark, and while The Rock deserves most of the credit for the number, to put it all down to Rock would be silly, because if nobody bought Benoit as a challenger, it wouldn't have done that much.

 

OT: Did it have a head-and-shoulders build over the other two big matches? I don't recall much fom that month, but it's just revisionist history that allows people to put the matches on the same plane.

 

doubt Bret Hart was the reason for the Wembley Stadium crowd. It was SummerSlam in England, a place which has consistently always drawn big crowds for the WWE since they've always been loved in non-domestic markets.

 

I doubt that they could've sold tickets to EIGHTY-THOUSAND PEOPLE without Bulldog facing his brother-in-law as the main event.

 

Unless we're talking about the drawing ability of Nailz. Which I guess we can save for another thread...

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

Listen, why can't we just all end these arguments and realize that both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were tremendous workers and two of the best in the WWE during the 90's. Politics aside.

[cabbageboy 0]

Bret vs. Shawn is like the Beatles/Stones argument of wrestling fans. Except neither drew anywhere near the money either of those bands did, haha.

 

Here is one argument that I can put in Bret's favor: When he was on top the WWF was at least not #2. I'm ignoring the Aug.-Nov. 97 time period since WCW was already well ahead in the ratings when he got the title. I refer more to the late 1992 to WM 12 time period.

 

It's difficult to really gauge Bret's drawing ability because he was NEVER the guy it seemed like. During the 1993-96 time period it seemed that Vince was constantly looking for the next big star and he just put the title on Bret for lack of a better idea. Warrior/Flair tanking? Put the title on Bret to stabilize things. Yokozuna sucks dick and Luger isn't connecting with fans as much as hoped? Put it back on Bret. Diesel's run is killing the company? Put it back on Bret.

 

Bret mostly got the title when Vince couldn't think of anything else to do. He was never booked as THE MAN, but was a guy who was essentially a transition champion about 5 different times.

 

Michaels however was flat out given the ball in 1996 and he pretty much tanked. Take a look at the buyrates from that period of time with Shawn as champ, they are pretty crappy. Even SummerSlam that year did a really crap buyrate.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

Well I don't personally think that one can look at PPV buyrates when Shawn was champ and then blame them just on him. WWE as a whole had a depleted roster and their PPV cards were not that great. HBK's opponents when he got the title were Diesel, British Bulldog, Mankind, Vader and Sid. Some of the blame has to be put on them too as well as the overall WWE product during 1996.

 

I do agree with CabbageBoy. Bret/HBK is like the who was better, Beatles or Stones thing. It's just a matter of personal taste. They both have produced great classic matches.

[cabbageboy 0]

Bret's hiatus in 1996 post WM hurt the WWF I think. There could have been rematches that might have drawn better. This argument is dubious however since for example Hogan could have faced that same heel roster at his peak and drawn great.

 

Michaels lacked a certain...credibility that Bret had. I remember at school it was like everyone knew Shawn was winning at WM and was resigned to it, not happy about it. Sorta like "Yeah can you believe they're going to give the title to him?" I also question him going against guys like Diesel, Vader, and Sid to build his rep as a giant killer. Let's face it, there is simply nothing Shawn can do to credibly defeat such huge men...him beating those guys merely reinforces the notion of wrestling being fake. That "Good Friends" match with Nash produced the following rant from a HS classmate of mine: "Yeah that match was bullshit. Diesel kicked Michaels' ass the whole time, then bam one superkick and he just pins him. It was lame." Bear in mind this gets ****3/4 in the Keith rant, so it's a highly regarded match...thing is casual fans simply never bought into Shawn as credibly being able to defeat such foes.

 

Bret never had this problem with casual fans....even the dumbest fan could tell Bret had a gameplan against a huge dude like Nash, to take him to the mat and ground him, work on the leg or back, etc. What was Shawn's M.O.? Get his ass kicked most of the match, oversell, do a theatrical kip up (thus no selling the entire match), hit a superkick, and win.

 

The idea of "This is so fake" should never enter someone's head during a major match. One guy should believably be able to beat another in a fight, or else it's not credible to the audience. There is simply no way Shawn Michaels could beat Vader in a fight, so when he does in a booked wrestling match it only sets a glaring example that "This stuff is fake."

[4hartthreat 0]

Listen, why can't we just all end these arguments and realize that both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were tremendous workers and two of the best in the WWE during the 90's.  Politics aside.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with you about that and I think a majority would here as well. The problem I have with all the stuff you keep saying is that you keep acting like we should just ignore Shawn's politics in A THREAD ABOUT SHAWN'S POLITICS. I think you are the one who needs to accept that you can respect a man's in-ring work and enjoy his matches, but hate him for his outside of the ring antics and thus just not like the guy. You don't have to seperate two things in order to "appreciate" both.

[Sass 0]

Listen, why can't we just all end these arguments and realize that both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were tremendous workers and two of the best in the WWE during the 90's.  Politics aside.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, I can agree with this.

 

Just don't run away with your tail tucked in between your legs the next time your favorite wrestler is getting (rightfully) called out onto the floor by fans. There's nothing wrong with that. This can also apply to Hart and Benoit fans too.

[Guest JMA]

And that is one whiny little shit I've got on ignore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same here. Thank God for the ignore feature.

[Guest TheAustralian]

Sorry, I should have clarified this: by "drawing", I'm talking PPV buyrates. On average, Bret's PPV buyrates weren't too much better than HBK's.

 

Infact Bret was the in the champ and in the main event of the 2 lowest drawing ppv's ever.

 

But hey hating HBK is cool.

 

When comparing HBK and Bret ratings wise its almost exactly even but its important to note the moment Bret left the wwe the rating steadily increased.

 

Personally I agree with the statement below, it just seems some poeple cant get over the fact that HBK wasnt nice to their Hero Bret Hart.

 

Get over it.

 

Listen, why can't we just all end these arguments and realize that both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were tremendous workers and two of the best in the WWE during the 90's.  Politics aside.

 

Absolutely agree.

[Guest JMA]

Just don't run away with your tail tucked in between your legs the next time your favorite wrestler is getting (rightfully) called out onto the floor by fans.  There's nothing wrong with that.  This can also apply to Hart and Benoit fans too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. People aren't putting down Shawn because they're Hart or Benoit marks, they're doing it because he's done some shitty stuff in the past. I'm always kind of annoyed when a thread about Shawn Michaels' politics turns into something about Bret Hart.

[Guest Y2DAYDAY]

Bret Hart, HBK, Benoit, etc ALL are not, were not draws unless working against money drawing opponents.

 

Since the 80's, the 5 biggest money drawers in the US business.

 

1. Austin-Broke all records and drew 10 time more in 4 years than Hogan did in 20. Drew Monster money against Taker(SS 98), Rock, HHH, and Rikishi(No Mercy 00)

 

2. Hogan-

Drew with the most people ever, a true sign of a huge draw. Is #2 because Austin's stuff is just too big to compete with. Drewmonster money with Andre, Savage, Paul Orndorft, Warrior, Sting, and Rock(and I may be missing more)

 

3. Rock

Has less time than Austin but a huge draw as well. Not enough to take over Hogan though because a lot of his main event shows were really headlined by Austin. Drew Monster with HHH, Austin, and Hogan.

 

4. HHH

Has periods of bad business the other 3 don't(Hogan has down periods as well but the money he drew makes up for it). However, the BIG draw in 2000 and part of 2001. He was the top program on every PPV but 2 in 2000, and one show didn't draw(with Rock on top with Benoit), and the other was Austin vs Rikishi. HHH vs Foley to HHH vs Rock to HHH vs Angle to HHH vs Austin. He was the true top draw in 2000 with Rock a close second. Was the draw at Rumble 2002 and his success against Batista, a guy he pretty much created, is the ultimate success at WM 21.

 

5. Ric Flair. Drew a lot of money in the last 25 years and like Hogan had down times. Ultimately, as portrayed on TV, he is a lower scale Hogan. Hogan drew monster. He drew very good. Flair is below HHH because HHH drew buyrates that Flair can never touch. No program Flair had ever drew close to HHH vs Angle or HHH vs Batista.

 

6. to Everybody else from 1980's to present day-- Everybody else. No one else is even close. Savage never drew monster money outside of working with Hogan. Ditto for Warrior. HBK only did with Austin and Hart only did with Bulldog in England. Dusty drew for Crockett but not like Flair did and drew because of Flair. Sting really only drew monster against Hogan. Goldberg drew ratings but never buyrates. Foley drew against HHH, Rock, and Austin but they all drew much better against each other. Kevin Nash never drew except a big house in MSG in May 96 against HBK.

 

People will argue against HHH but the proof is in the pudding. Rumble 02 did 700,000 buys for his return. Angle only drew huge once in his career and it was against HHH. HHH drew against Batista, a new headliner, numbers only 3 other men can touch. His numbers against Foley are about the same as Austin's(Rock's don't count because Austin always headlined the Rock vs Foley shows). He outdrew Foley, Angle, and Taker against Rock and Austin easily. I like how people always say HHH only drew against Rock and Austin when Kane, Foley, Angle, Jericho, Benoit, and Undertaker's numbers against them are not even close to the monster numbers HHH drew against Austin and Rock.

 

An argument against Rock is that he only drew huge against Hogan, Austin, and HHH but when you draw the huge numbers they did, it takes 2 guys to draw those numbers.

 

HHH has had his down times but his monsterous successes easily outweigh the weaknesses.

 

Point of this was to illustrate what drawing money is. Those 5 men have done it. Others have done it working with them or on a much smaller scale.

 

For Benoit, he has never done it.

 

For Michaels and Hart, they have done it once or twice.

 

It is like arguing who is better, the 04-05 Raven or the 04-05 Bengals. The top 5 men are last years Patriots, Eagles, Colts, and Steelers. Hart, HBK, and Benoit are the Raven and Bengals in comparison in terms of drawing money.

[Guest JMA]

The interesting thing about Flair is that he drew everywhere EXCEPT the WWF. 1992 (a year when he was champion twice) was the WWF's worst financial year. However, this has less to do with Flair drawing and more to do with Hogan not being champion at all that year. Hogan's drawing ability dwarfed Flair's and everyone else's during the time period--no one else was even close. It wasn't until Austin came around that he was surpassed in this area.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

Honest question-

 

From the perspective of a wrestling fan, what should be more important? The financial and political situations of 1996 and how that relates to Shawn Micheals, or the fact that he was putting on great matches all through out the year? I'm not too enamored with backstage politics and smarks acting like they know the wrestlers personally and going to as far as to assume what their thinking. Then again I know if your on an in internet wrestling site your here to read about all the politics and backstage gossip, cause thats just the world we've become addicted too.

 

Anyways, I can definetly understand HBK hate. He didn't draw and did some shitty things. Make no mistake, Benoit is not as charismatic as Shawn, if we're assuming things theirs no reason to think Benoit would of drawn in 96. The WWE was depleted and coming off Diesels disasterous run.

 

Still, how important is it to you as a wrestling fan that he didn't draw? Cause some people are kind of acting like it's the be all/end all, as if that double standard doesn't apply to other smark darlings who haven't drawn. I look back at Shawn's career and I go "ha, the asshole didn't draw, screw him, his legacy is tarnished". No, that's what some of the posts in this thread seem like. I think the whole Shawn vs Hogan feud was built around the idea that Hogan is a much bigger draw/star while Shawn is just out here putting on good matches every week. And that's how I look at Shawn, as a great wrestler whose put on classic matches for over a decade. Of course you take politics into account, but it's true ALOT of guys have done it, Hogan/Flair/HHH/Angle, it's just the nature of a main eventer doing what he has to do to stay on top. For me at least I can only go by what I see not what I read, and what I see is good matches.

 

I know willingly or not he's jobbed on the two biggest shows this year clean. He's definetly not making any attempts at dominating the World Title picture. No, he's just going out there and putting on solid matches. Would people rather Shawn not be involved with the WWE?

[nl5xsk1 0]

Bryan Alvarez on Bret-

 

Flair’s argument that Bret never drew a dime is also ridiculous. He was the best-drawing WWF champion of the early 90s period (it could be argued that he saved the company from sinking even faster during the steroid trials) and outdrew Flair in that spot during that same period. He was one-half of the main event for the WWF show that drew the biggest legit crowd ever in the history of that company (Wembley SummerSlam). His Team Canada angle and storyline leading to Survivor Series in the summer of 1997 was one of the things that helped launch the Attitude era, and while it wasn’t planned, Vince’s role in screwing him out of the belt in Montreal led to McMahon’s heel turn and feud with Steve Austin that resulted in Vince ultimately being worth $1 billion for a short period of time. And even in WCW, a Souled Out PPV that everyone expected to tank (because Bret, almost from day one, was booked to fail) drew a huge buyrate for a very good match between Bret and Flair, which seems impossible seeing as to how one couldn’t draw and one couldn’t work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is there any chance that a lot of Hart's popularity and draw was the fact that he was Canadian? And, as has been reinforced on TSM more than once, Canadians have a huge amount of pride in Canadian wrestlers? Could someone else have been in that position and done reasonably well as well?

 

Basically, how much of Bret's success was because of Bret and how much was because he was a Canadian in the right place at the right time?

[slabinskia 0]

For the record,I think hbk the wrestler is great and has been one of the best this year.

However,after watching a vader shoot, let me tell this story about hbk.

 

Vader was wrestling shawn at a house show prior to thier summerslam match.They planned most of the spots in the back.Vader missed a spot during the match.Shawn decided to break kcharacter and start yelling at vader telling him how the spot was suppose to go.

 

In another match they had,vader picked shawn up and gave him a few puntches.Shawn told vader if he ever tried to work stiff again he would have him fired and sent home immediately.Vaders' argument was that he was hardly working stiff and if shawn thought he was too stiff in the match he should ask stan hansen about thier matches.

[humongous2002 0]

Bret's hiatus in 1996 post WM hurt the WWF I think.  There could have been rematches that might have drawn better.  This argument is dubious however since for example Hogan could have faced that same heel roster at his peak and drawn great.

 

Michaels lacked a certain...credibility that Bret had.  I remember at school it was like everyone knew Shawn was winning at WM and was resigned to it, not happy about it.  Sorta like "Yeah can you believe they're going to give the title to him?"  I also question him going against guys like Diesel, Vader, and Sid to build his rep as a giant killer.  Let's face it, there is simply nothing Shawn can do to credibly defeat such huge men...him beating those guys merely reinforces the notion of wrestling being fake.  That "Good Friends" match with Nash produced the following rant from a HS classmate of mine:  "Yeah that match was bullshit.  Diesel kicked Michaels' ass the whole time, then bam one superkick and he just pins him.  It was lame."  Bear in mind this gets ****3/4 in the Keith rant, so it's a highly regarded match...thing is casual fans simply never bought into Shawn as credibly being able to defeat such foes.

 

Bret never had this problem with casual fans....even the dumbest fan could tell Bret had a gameplan against a huge dude like Nash, to take him to the mat and ground him, work on the leg or back, etc.  What was Shawn's M.O.?  Get his ass kicked most of the match, oversell, do a theatrical kip up (thus no selling the entire match), hit a superkick, and win. 

 

The idea of "This is so fake" should never enter someone's head during a major match.  One guy should believably be able to beat another in a fight, or else it's not credible to the audience.  There is simply no way Shawn Michaels could beat Vader in a fight, so when he does in a booked wrestling match it only sets a glaring example that "This stuff is fake."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And not for nothing Bret looked like he could really take a huge guy out just because he looked tough. When I stopped watching the WWF back in 95 and somehow I foud out that Shawn was the WWF champ, the first thought that went through my head was that this pretty boy, former Rocker, HBK, weighing in @ barely 200 lbs didn't look like a credible champion.

[cabbageboy 0]

Yeah I mean if you look at Michaels in 1989 for instance he was getting the shit kicked out of him by huge dudes like Bossman and Akeem. Those guys were huge, the Rockers had no real chance. 6 years later Shawn hadn't really put on too much more muscle really, but now we're supposed to believe he can beat those same type guys?

 

The one Shawn vs. Big dude feud that made sense was the UT feud. At least there they made no pretense Shawn could actually beat UT, so there were massive run ins from Kane...but for the most part Shawn got the shit beat out of him there.

 

I think it was in Foley's book where he said things in wrestling need to seem somewhat feasible in real life. As in if Ken Shamrock said "I'm going to break your ankle" that is feasible. But if someone says "I'm going to rip your head off and shit down your throat" that isn't feasible.

 

I think that was the main problem I always had with Michaels, even more than his politics: He simply couldn't feasibly do the stuff he did.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

My problem with Shawn Michaels in 1996 had a lot more to do with his character than any particular problem in the ring. Shawn Michaels first got over by playing the arrogant underdog heel who ended up becoming sympathetic because of it. At a time where there were wrestlers like Lex Luger who were the same stale babyfaces and cowardly heels, Shawn was someone who would talk shit and then either back it up or die or trying. This especially started to catch on in 1995 where he had the advantage of feuding with Diesel, one of the biggest failures as WWF Champion in history and Shawn was thus able to get a lot of cheers a bit easier. Regardless, he turned face after Wrestlemania XI and pretty much played the same dick as before only now he was a face. Watch Shawn & Jarrett trying to one up each other at IYH II or Shawn dicking around at KOTR 95 for examples. But once they decided to give him the title at Wrestlemania XII they completely changed his character to this stupid 'lifelong dream to win the WWF Title' thing and nobody bought it for a second because it was completely phony to believe that the Shawn Michaels character that people had been cheering for the past year would behave like that. It would be like having Austin come out before Wrestlemania XIV and say that maybe Vince isn't such a bad guy after all and hugs him. It was a complete violation of Shawn's character and it ruined his face run right out of the gates. They turned him into the exact same stale babyface character that fans were sick of. He continued to play this character until Survivor Series when his reign limped to a conclusion by him getting booed out of the building against Sid. Maybe if the marine thing never happened he would have been booked differently. I don't know. But the WWF, and possibly Shawn himself if he was pushing for the change, really screwed that up.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

QUOTE(Sass @ Aug 25 2005, 12:22 AM)

Just don't run away with your tail tucked in between your legs the next time your favorite wrestler is getting (rightfully) called out onto the floor by fans.  There's nothing wrong with that.  This can also apply to Hart and Benoit fans too.

*

 

 

Agreed. People aren't putting down Shawn because they're Hart or Benoit marks, they're doing it because he's done some shitty stuff in the past. I'm always kind of annoyed when a thread about Shawn Michaels' politics turns into something about Bret Hart.

 

 

OK I agree with you there. I didn't mean to come across the way I did but Shanghai Kid expressed my feelings when he said-

 

Still, how important is it to you as a wrestling fan that he didn't draw? Cause some people are kind of acting like it's the be all/end all, as if that double standard doesn't apply to other smark darlings who haven't drawn. I look back at Shawn's career and I go "ha, the asshole didn't draw, screw him, his legacy is tarnished". No, that's what some of the posts in this thread seem like. I think the whole Shawn vs Hogan feud was built around the idea that Hogan is a much bigger draw/star while Shawn is just out here putting on good matches every week. And that's how I look at Shawn, as a great wrestler whose put on classic matches for over a decade. Of course you take politics into account, but it's true ALOT of guys have done it, Hogan/Flair/HHH/Angle, it's just the nature of a main eventer doing what he has to do to stay on top. For me at least I can only go by what I see not what I read, and what I see is good matches.

 

I would rather ignore politics because the majority of the main eventers have been a part of it. I would rather just focus on what the wrestlers do IN the ring. HBK, Benoit, and Bret Hart are three of the best. And if you watch HBK's Shoot Interview that RF Video did, he explains that coming up in the WWE people were telling him he was too small and wouldn't amount to being a main eventer. A few people in the early 90's even refused to sell for him which pissed off Sensational Sherri. So when he finally became the top guy he was "angry" as he put it and that may have translated into a lot of the dickish things that he did.

[naiwf 0]

Still, how important is it to you as a wrestling fan that he didn't draw? Cause some people are kind of acting like it's the be all/end all, as if that double standard doesn't apply to other smark darlings who haven't drawn. I look back at Shawn's career and I go "ha, the asshole didn't draw, screw him, his legacy is tarnished". No, that's what some of the posts in this thread seem like. I think the whole Shawn vs Hogan feud was built around the idea that Hogan is a much bigger draw/star while Shawn is just out here putting on good matches every week. And that's how I look at Shawn, as a great wrestler whose put on classic matches for over a decade. Of course you take politics into account, but it's true ALOT of guys have done it, Hogan/Flair/HHH/Angle, it's just the nature of a main eventer doing what he has to do to stay on top. For me at least I can only go by what I see not what I read, and what I see is good matches.

 

I would rather ignore politics because the majority of the main eventers have been a part of it. I would rather just focus on what the wrestlers do IN the ring. HBK, Benoit, and Bret Hart are three of the best. And if you watch HBK's Shoot Interview that RF Video did, he explains that coming up in the WWE people were telling him he was too small and wouldn't amount to being a main eventer. A few people in the early 90's even refused to sell for him which pissed off Sensational Sherri. So when he finally became the top guy he was "angry" as he put it and that may have translated into a lot of the dickish things that he did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The simple fact that Shawn basically gave up more titles than anyone in the history of pro wrestling, mainly for bullshit reasons, makes it impossible for me to overlook that he was a major cock backstage. Since I never really enjoyed his work as a performer, all I see of his "legacy" was the politics he played to get out of doing what was best for the business. While Austin, Hart & Hogan were no saints, I don't ever recall them "losing their smiles", or "getting assaulted by Marines" just to avoid doing a job. Even now, Michaels' intentions were that he was going to come back to put new talent over, and he's rarely if ever lost a match to someone below him on the totem pole. His most egregious offense was beating Jericho at WM XIX when Jericho absolutely NEEDED to win that match.