Hogan/Michaels Backstage gossip

[Guest TheAustralian]

All I know is Shawn Michales = Wrestler of the year 2005.

 

Also, am I the only one who thinks that, besides being the jerk he was backsatge, that Michaels kept WWE from dieing in 1996?

 

You know, Nash, Hall and Hart were all absent during his reign, WWE roster was piss poor, and WCW had the revolutionary NWO angle going on.

 

 

I actually agree with you and remember Vince saying the same thing.

 

As for HBK being the wrestler of 2005, maybe in the WWE, but not overall.

[Guest JesusJuiced]

If Shawn had left, Bret could have carried the load till SummerSlam, where Vader would have rightfully won the WWF title. Of course, that would have probably led to a Vader/Sid title series but with Undertaker having the best matches of his career and Mankind and Stone Cold making huge strides, the main event would have worked itself out.

 

Shawn leaving would have hurt but it would have never killed WWE.

[Guest JoeJoe]

^ Very insightful Nostradamus.

[cabbageboy 0]

Could they really have done much worse without Shawn? Hell if anything they would have just been forced to push the same guys that they ended up pushing except doing it 2 years earlier. It's like hearing about the best player on a losing team who wants a new contract: "We can finish last without you."

[Guest TheAustralian]

If Shawn had left, Bret could have carried the load till SummerSlam, where Vader would have rightfully won the WWF title. Of course, that would have probably led to a Vader/Sid title series but with Undertaker having the best matches of his career and Mankind and Stone Cold making huge strides, the main event would have worked itself out.

 

Bret did carry the title straight after HBK.

 

And was the World champ in the 2 lowest drawing ppvs EVER so this bullshit that Bret Hart would of somehow saved the WWF is just that. BULLSHIT.

[Guest Y2DAYDAY]

I thought the whole Bret Hart never being a draw thing was already covered.

 

One of the most overrated top guys ever, in the ring and at the box office.

 

The man has had a lot of great matches but he is not in the league workrate wise of a Flair, Steamboat, or Michaels. He's damn good but not an all-time great.

 

Bret Hart was simply a placeholder champion. He was the best non-steroid scandal guy in 92, and in reality was only to be a transition guy to Yoko to Luger eventually, who was supposed to be the next Hogan.

 

Well, that didn't work out and Bret ended up on top again until Vince decided Diesel was the next Hogan, the next big star. That also did not work out so it went back to Bret.

 

Eventually, Vince decides to go with Michaels over Hart in 96, which pissed Hart off to no end(even though Michaels was hotter at the time, a better worker, a much more charismatic performer, and wasn't a proven failure on top like Hart was), resulting in a 6 month vacation that helped sabotage HBK's title reign.

 

Since people mentioned HBK's reign, look at his reign. He worked with Nash and did good enough business. Then they did the stupid HBK, Diana Hart, Bulldog feud that didn't draw(most probably because no one believed Bulldog in a top spot but the second match was very good). After that was Vader and that didn't draw either. Vader blamed Shawn and Vince blamed Vader. Then they went to Sid and he dropped the title.

 

Eventually, the title went to Undertaker while Hart was working main events with Austin.

 

 

Point is the only title reign that Hart got because Vince wanted to run with him, as opposed to having no other options, was his last in WWF and that reign was totally bigfooted by HBK. Nothing like only winning the title because of HBK and then working second from the top with the PATRIOT!!!

 

Bret Hart was always second choice, second fiddle, and honestly, Vince never saw him as the guy that could carry the company, though he went with him a few times because the other options failed. Hell, maybe that is why he never drew big money, who knows.

 

Hart was simply a guy that would stop the bleeding, or at least not make it any worse. But by no means was he the guy to turn things around and boom the business like Austin did.

 

His legacy is Montreal, whether he likes it or not. It made him a much bigger star than he ever was during his run on top.

 

I'm still convinced that Michaels saved the company big time in 96. Imagine if Vince would have kept Nash on top for 96 instead of him dropping the title in late 95. That one move would have changed the whole landscape of the business and would have probably resulted in Bret Hart going to WCW and doing the NWO angle.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm with you on this to a certain point, but you lose me on the stuff about Bret not being that great in the ring. In another thread I mentioned that Bret was the only guy to be a 5 time transition champion.

 

I have to seriously debate Michaels being a better wrestler though. The only thing he can do better is get his ass kicked and do wild bumping. That is it. And frankly that sort of thing isn't what a top face should be about....nobody would pay to see Ricky Morton main event as a singles wrestler, all he did was get his ass kicked. Shawn never had much credible offense either, not to put down guys like Nash, Vader, Sid, etc.

[Hoff 0]

It's all subjective, man. I'm a complete Michaels mark, but even I'll admit the guy has flaws, as far as it pertains to the ring...but, he also does what he does well, with the bumping, the quick comebacks, the fast offense...I dig it a lot and so do many, and a lot of people don't. But to say that a main eventer should or shouldn't work a certain way seems closed-minded to me. The only requisite for being the top guy is connecting to the fans, and hopefully the company can make money off of that. I don't know a lot about the business end of things, but all the guys mentioned here -- HBK, Bret, Benoit, Hogan -- they all get a big reaction from the crowd, and they have for years.

 

Remember, a huge part of the WWE's audience is kids, who are almost universally marks, and they don't care too much about psychology, or politics. I grew up on Bret, Owen, and Shawn, and I loved them then because they had a cool look, did cool moves, and were fast and brought the action. For kids, I think those are the main points. Case in point, see John Cena. Not a great "worker" (in my book), not great with the psychology, but he has a great look that plays to kids and teens today, he has cool signature moves, and he can talk. That's why he's over as balls, and that's why they want to build around him.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I'm with you on this to a certain point, but you lose me on the stuff about Bret not being that great in the ring.  In another thread I mentioned that Bret was the only guy to be a 5 time transition champion.

 

I have to seriously debate Michaels being a better wrestler though.  The only thing he can do better is get his ass kicked and do wild bumping.  That is it.  And frankly that sort of thing isn't what a top face should be about....nobody would pay to see Ricky Morton main event as a singles wrestler, all he did was get his ass kicked.  Shawn never had much credible offense either, not to put down guys like Nash, Vader, Sid, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like I'm not missing out on much by putting him on ignore.

 

As a showman Shawn was better than Bret, but when it came to wrestling Bret was better than Shawn. Both men had their flaws when it came to how they worked in the ring. It comes down to personal preference. If you wanted flashy showmanship then Shawn was the man for you. If you wanted credible wrestling then Bret was the man for you.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

And Bret's the man for me. Shawn is just not believable in the ring at all.

[haVoc 0]

Eventually, Vince decides to go with Michaels over Hart in 96, which pissed Hart off to no end(even though Michaels was hotter at the time, a better worker, a much more charismatic performer, and wasn't a proven failure on top like Hart was), resulting in a 6 month vacation that helped sabotage HBK's title reign.

 

How did Bret's vacation hurt HBK's title reign?

[Guest Brian]

You would think losing a bad draw would only help HBK's reign.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Eventually, Vince decides to go with Michaels over Hart in 96, which pissed Hart off to no end(even though Michaels was hotter at the time, a better worker, a much more charismatic performer, and wasn't a proven failure on top like Hart was), resulting in a 6 month vacation that helped sabotage HBK's title reign.

 

How did Bret's vacation hurt HBK's title reign?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It left Shawn to carry things on his own, and he flopped.

[Guest *KNK*]

Eventually, Vince decides to go with Michaels over Hart in 96, which pissed Hart off to no end(even though Michaels was hotter at the time, a better worker, a much more charismatic performer, and wasn't a proven failure on top like Hart was), resulting in a 6 month vacation that helped sabotage HBK's title reign.

 

How did Bret's vacation hurt HBK's title reign?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some believe a rematch would have helped and that Bret being on the mid-card would have added to Shawn's "draw".

 

That Bret purposely left so Shawn would have to carry the WHOLE promotion.

 

It's a horrible arguement from the Pro-Shawn/Anti-Bret crowd.

 

Why does every topic always end up in a Bret/Shawn debate?

 

The facts are clear

 

Bret WAS a better draw (marginally) then Shawn was.

 

You can argue for years, who was the "better" wrestler but it's always going to an unresolved issue.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Really? I thought it was made pretty clear a while back that Bret was the better wrestler.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Really? I thought it was made pretty clear a while back that Bret was the better wrestler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bret was the better wrestler. Shawn was the better showman.

[Guest *KNK*]

Really? I thought it was made pretty clear a while back that Bret was the better wrestler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wrestler/entertainer/performer/star...whatever techical term you use to define these 2, it will always be debated.

 

"Bret was a btter wrestler, Shawn was better performer"...that should be the accepted belief but some people insist Shawn was better in the ring and some insist Bret was more entertaining.

 

It's a debate that started in 1995 and continues in 2005 and will never die. Nothing new is ever added to the debate but people usually take someone's side here so intensely, it leads to long drawn out arguements.

 

Which isn't a bad thing, it's just boring.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Really? I thought it was made pretty clear a while back that Bret was the better wrestler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bret was the better wrestler. Shawn was the better showman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But wrestling is a part of showmanship and showmanship a part of wrestling, no?

 

Sorry, I'm being silly.

[Guest www.theunprettier.com]

hogan shouldnt be brought back ever again. i dont like hall of famers still wrestling. he needs to put over the guys that are here week in and week out. he only comes back for the pay.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Duh.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Bret did carry the title straight after HBK.

 

And was the World champ in the 2 lowest drawing ppvs EVER so this bullshit that Bret Hart would of somehow saved the WWF is just that. BULLSHIT.

 

Bret didn't hold the belt until Summerslam of the next year, other than the one day reign and Shawn's reign ended in November.

 

Bret was WWF in one of the three lowest buyrates in WWF history, IYH 6. For the others, Its Time and International Incident, Sycho Sid & Shawn Michaels were the champions respectively.

 

As far as ratings go. In the last two months of Bret's title reign and the first month of Shawn's in 1996, RAW drew an average of 3.2 with a low of 2.8 and a high of 4.7. During Shawn's last three months as champion, RAW drew an average of 2.21 with a high of 2.6 and a low of 1.8 (for the Oct 14 RAW, the lowest in the history of the show). With a business that is usually (and in this case was) built largely around the champion of the promotion, that is not a good sign. The highest rating during Shawn's last three months as champion was lower than the lowest during the spring and the average was a full point lower.

 

In terms of PPVs, IYH 6 in February drew a 0.77 for Bret Hart/Diesel. Shawn's last non-Big 5 PPV main event was Mind Games in September which drew a 0.48. In addition, Summerslam, traditionally the second biggest PPV of the year, built around Shawn Michaels drew only a 0.58, less than what Bret drew in February for a non-Big 5. It wasn't all WCW either. Their PPVs those same months drew a 0.63 (Superbrawl, pre-NWO), 0.62 (Hog Wild, Hogan's big title win after the heel turn), and 0.65 (Fall Brawl, WCW vs. NWO WarGames). WCW actually didn't get a big buyrate until the 0.95 it got at Starrcade 1995, opposite Sid's It's Time. The NWO didn't really start paying off until after Shawn lost the belt. So basically, a WWF that revolved around Shawn Michaels as champion, were losing viewers not to WCW, but to somewhere outside the wrestling industry. That is not a good drawing champion.

 

I'm going into the realm of speculation here, but based on what happens afterwards the man who probably should have led the WWF in 1996 was the Undertaker. As champion in 1997 he started sloooowwwwllly turning things around at a time when the NWO angle was really starting to pay dividends for WCW. He got the belt at a time where the WWF name was in the sewer and had helped (along with the Hart Foundation) to bring the buyrates back up to a 0.57 for his title defence against Austin at A Cold Day in Hell and an incredible for 1997 0.80 at Summerslam, one year after Shawn drew the worst buyrate in the history of the show. That Summerslam main evented by Bret Hart & Undertaker actually beat Wrestlemania that year, which shows you how bad business was when he got the belt. His drawing power at his peak was greatly underappreciated. He wasn't Steve Austin, but things were looking up after the WWF was quite close to bankruptcy for the previous two years.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

hogan shouldnt be brought back ever again. i dont like hall of famers still wrestling. he needs to put over the guys that are here week in and week out. he only comes back for the pay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And his ego.

[Guest netslob]

i agree. it's not as if he needs the money. his great, great, great grandchildren will never have to do a days work in their lives. he does it because the fans still kiss his neon orange ass and Vince keeps bringing him back to "improve" buyrates. he just can't get enough of the verbal fellatio. it's sad really. but hey, i don't pay to see him, and just flip the channel when he comes on so, whatever.

[Guest Biggles]

edit.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

Meltzer had a nice paragraph in the Observer this past week, pointing

out that Bret Hart and Lex Luger were the two top babyface choices

for the WWF when Hulk Hogan ran out on the WWF. In every category

-- work rate, charisma, psychology, interviews, crowd appeal --,

Bret Hart has the advantage over Luger. Hart didn't make tons of

money on his first run on top, though, which might be attributable

to the choice of opponents, save Ric Flair. On the other hand, Luger

didn't get over as a drawing card with his massive heel push, so

there is some balance there. The only real advantage that Luger

has is "The Look." A sad moment for wrestling, please.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

Fall 93: Talk in one of "local" wrestling columns has Bret Hart being

unpopular amongst his peers, due to Hart's enormous ego (displayed

many times recently in discussions about Ric Flair, who most

wrestlers generally view as the best guy to work with). Hart's

growing ego outside of the ring has sparked talk that he will

turn heel again in the future. Hart is in the process of renegotiating

his WWF contract.

[KTID 0]

I thought the whole Bret Hart never being a draw thing was already covered.

 

One of the most overrated top guys ever, in the ring and at the box office.

 

The man has had a lot of great matches but he is not in the league workrate wise of a Flair, Steamboat, or Michaels. He's damn good but not an all-time great.

 

Bret Hart was simply a placeholder champion. He was the best non-steroid scandal guy in 92, and in reality was only to be a transition guy to Yoko to Luger eventually, who was supposed to be the next Hogan.

 

Well, that didn't work out and Bret ended up on top again until Vince decided Diesel was the next Hogan, the next big star. That also did not work out so it went back to Bret.

 

Eventually, Vince decides to go with Michaels over Hart in 96, which pissed Hart off to no end(even though Michaels was hotter at the time, a better worker, a much more charismatic performer, and wasn't a proven failure on top like Hart was), resulting in a 6 month vacation that helped sabotage HBK's title reign.

 

Since people mentioned HBK's reign, look at his reign. He worked with Nash and did good enough business. Then they did the stupid HBK, Diana Hart, Bulldog feud that didn't draw(most probably because no one believed Bulldog in a top spot but the second match was very good). After that was Vader and that didn't draw either. Vader blamed Shawn and Vince blamed Vader. Then they went to Sid and he dropped the title.

 

Eventually, the title went to Undertaker while Hart was working main events with Austin.

 

 

Point is the only title reign that Hart got because Vince wanted to run with him, as opposed to having no other options, was his last in WWF and that reign was totally bigfooted by HBK. Nothing like only winning the title because of HBK and then working second from the top with the PATRIOT!!!

 

Bret Hart was always second choice, second fiddle, and honestly, Vince never saw him as the guy that could carry the company, though he went with him a few times because the other options failed. Hell, maybe that is why he never drew big money, who knows.

 

Hart was simply a guy that would stop the bleeding, or at least not make it any worse. But by no means was he the guy to turn things around and boom the business like Austin did.

 

His legacy is Montreal, whether he likes it or not. It made him a much bigger star than he ever was during his run on top.

 

I'm still convinced that Michaels saved the company big time in 96. Imagine if Vince would have kept Nash on top for 96 instead of him dropping the title in late 95.  That one move would have changed the whole landscape of the business and would have probably resulted in Bret Hart going to WCW and doing the NWO angle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is truly some incredibly biased nonsense. You can't really believe a word of that can you?

[Guest MikeSC]

Why can't somebody believe it?

 

Hart was a decent enough worker, but a world beater he was not. I always preferred HBK's work.

[KTID 0]

He's didn't say he *slightly* preferred one or the other. He seems to think Hart was an average mid-carder while Shawn was a world class worker. Neither of which is anywhere near to being true.

[snuffbox 0]

Bret did carry the title straight after HBK.

 

And was the World champ in the 2 lowest drawing ppvs EVER so this bullshit that Bret Hart would of somehow saved the WWF is just that. BULLSHIT.

 

Bret didn't hold the belt until Summerslam of the next year, other than the one day reign and Shawn's reign ended in November.

 

Bret was WWF in one of the three lowest buyrates in WWF history, IYH 6. For the others, Its Time and International Incident, Sycho Sid & Shawn Michaels were the champions respectively.

 

As far as ratings go. In the last two months of Bret's title reign and the first month of Shawn's in 1996, RAW drew an average of 3.2 with a low of 2.8 and a high of 4.7. During Shawn's last three months as champion, RAW drew an average of 2.21 with a high of 2.6 and a low of 1.8 (for the Oct 14 RAW, the lowest in the history of the show). With a business that is usually (and in this case was) built largely around the champion of the promotion, that is not a good sign. The highest rating during Shawn's last three months as champion was lower than the lowest during the spring and the average was a full point lower.

 

In terms of PPVs, IYH 6 in February drew a 0.77 for Bret Hart/Diesel. Shawn's last non-Big 5 PPV main event was Mind Games in September which drew a 0.48. In addition, Summerslam, traditionally the second biggest PPV of the year, built around Shawn Michaels drew only a 0.58, less than what Bret drew in February for a non-Big 5. It wasn't all WCW either. Their PPVs those same months drew a 0.63 (Superbrawl, pre-NWO), 0.62 (Hog Wild, Hogan's big title win after the heel turn), and 0.65 (Fall Brawl, WCW vs. NWO WarGames). WCW actually didn't get a big buyrate until the 0.95 it got at Starrcade 1995, opposite Sid's It's Time. The NWO didn't really start paying off until after Shawn lost the belt. So basically, a WWF that revolved around Shawn Michaels as champion, were losing viewers not to WCW, but to somewhere outside the wrestling industry. That is not a good drawing champion.

 

I'm going into the realm of speculation here, but based on what happens afterwards the man who probably should have led the WWF in 1996 was the Undertaker. As champion in 1997 he started sloooowwwwllly turning things around at a time when the NWO angle was really starting to pay dividends for WCW. He got the belt at a time where the WWF name was in the sewer and had helped (along with the Hart Foundation) to bring the buyrates back up to a 0.57 for his title defence against Austin at A Cold Day in Hell and an incredible for 1997 0.80 at Summerslam, one year after Shawn drew the worst buyrate in the history of the show. That Summerslam main evented by Bret Hart & Undertaker actually beat Wrestlemania that year, which shows you how bad business was when he got the belt. His drawing power at his peak was greatly underappreciated. He wasn't Steve Austin, but things were looking up after the WWF was quite close to bankruptcy for the previous two years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great post...thanks for writing that. I never actually checked that much info out and had never given Undertaker enough credit in helping the WWF at that time.