Is Shawn Michaels this generation's Ric Flair?

[Guest MrBriggs]

Where was that classic Shawn/Hennig match?  All I remember is a couple of decent matches when Shawn was with the Rockers and a lousy match at Summerslam 1993.  Certainly nothing as good as the Flair/Hennig Loser Leaves Town Match.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The only reason that was any good was because Rob Bartlett was on color

[cabbageboy 0]

The key problem I always had with Shawn matches is a lack of believability. For some reason I never really bought into Michaels being able to beat guys like Vader or Sid. Maybe it is the almost cartoonish bumping, or his total lack of credible offense that could defeat a man of that size. Let's face it, the guy's matches while champ (while amusing and entertaining) are fairly empty in terms of substance: Big fat heel kicks the shit out of Shawn, Shawn no sells and kips up, hits the superkick, finish. This formula was more effective during his heel run in 97-98 because it played off of how inherently unbelievable this is and he'd get lucky as hell via run ins or whatever.

 

I got the new UT DVD set and compared the Shawn stuff from 1997 and the Bret match from One Night Only. HIAC was a gimmick match so let's toss that out and focus on Ground Zero, same month as the Bret match and no gimmick in theory. The Ground Zero match mostly featured UT beating the shit out of Shawn and Shawn's theatrical bumps, and various refs getting knocked out. There was no time where I would really believe Shawn was a credible threat to the Taker (regardless of the actual outcome...Shawn simply wasn't physically a threat). The Bret match however focused on psychology as Bret periodically took out UT's leg, grounded him, etc. Watch those two matches back to back and ask yourself which match was more credible, had internal consistency and psychology, selling (not just wild bumping), and most importantly which guy (Bret or Shawn) you would perceive as being a legitimate opponent for a guy like UT.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Big fat heel kicks the shit out of Shawn, Shawn no sells and kips up, hits the superkick, finish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've often wondered how any so-called great is that great when he no-sells everything his opponent has done to him. Shawn did that in 99.99% of his matches; when it came time for his comeback, he'd kip-up, and it would be like the last 20 minutes or so never happened.

[Big McLargeHuge 0]

I agree with Cabbage. I like alot of Shawn's work, but the majority of his good work is due to his monster bumping. Which is great. But when he puts down guys with a kick to the face after Shawn spends the bulk of a match flipping around and not much else, I just don't buy it. It's almost Hogan like (without the bumping, natch). And also why I prefer Bret or Flair or even Hunter. I prefer their storytelling to Shawn's.

 

That's not to say I don't enjoy his matches, though.

[Guest Brian]

Shawn had great flair for both show and timing, good maneurisms, and bumped like a madman. It often covered up his shortcomings as a worker and in his work.

[Guest JoeJoe]

Ric Flair says Michaels is better than Hart. The smarks say he's crazy/jealous/whatever or he's saying that 'cause he's buddy-buddy with him.

Then by smartmark logic, Bobby Heenan must be crazy too. Who calls Michaels the greatest performer he's seen in the buisness, replacing Stevens name, which he said for years. Same for Cornette, who actaully hates Michaels, yet calls him the best performer of the 90's.

 

My original comparison was Flair to Michaels as an overall package..for all the points I stated (charisma, good matches with anybody, flamboyance etc). I don't get how Bret Hart's name got dragged in. Also, Michaels, for his ENTIRE career has been an US exclusive catch-as-catch-can worker. With his gimmick, if you're expecting him to do stiff matches, you're crazy. The guy is one of the three best overall packages of the last 20 years, and that would hardly be a point of argument on some other board.

 

Oh and Michales, while one of the best heel promos in the business, did pretty well for cutting babyface promos for 3 straight years, without saying a single curse word, which is sort of a cheap way to get the crowd going for you.

[Dark Age 0]

Just because a wrestler said it doesn't make it true.

[Guest JoeJoe]

How old are you. Did I say its true? But it just tells you that people who have been in the business 30-40 years, are not just some idiots. They have opinions which carry much more credibility than random, BIASED, intenet fanboys like you and me.

 

And some dude on here said Michales wasn't "believable" to him in the ring. Newsflash: You're a complete and utter moron to have been watching sports-entertainment pro-style all these years. Watch Puro or some old shooter tapes for "believability" you fool.

[chaosrage 0]

Big fat heel kicks the shit out of Shawn, Shawn no sells and kips up, hits the superkick, finish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've often wondered how any so-called great is that great when he no-sells everything his opponent has done to him. Shawn did that in 99.99% of his matches; when it came time for his comeback, he'd kip-up, and it would be like the last 20 minutes or so never happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is explained every single time the fucking kip-up comes up. There's no reason for anyone here to still not understand it.

 

Kip-up = burst of adrenaline.

 

It's not like the last 20 minutes never happened. It's like Shawn is fighting through the pain and putting up one last ditch effort to stay in the match. Usually it doesn't work and Shawn ends up right where he started, so what's the big deal?

[Guest Brian]

How old are you. Did I say its true? But it just tells you that people who have been in the business 30-40 years, are not just some idiots. They have opinions which carry much more credibility than random, BIASED, intenet fanboys like you and me.

 

And some dude on here said Michales wasn't "believable" to him in the ring. Newsflash: You're a complete and utter moron to have been watching sports-entertainment pro-style all these years. Watch Puro or some old shooter tapes for "believability" you fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's a difference between being believable and being stiff (and for the record, there's a lot more to puro than that, and it's ignorant to assume such), just as there's a difference between putting on a sports-entertainment pro-style match and exposing the business every time you get in the ring.

[Slayer 0]

Eric Bischoff's quote about the superkick being so bad it "wouldn't earn a green belt at the YMCA" was classic

[Guest JoeJoe]

How old are you. Did I say its true? But it just tells you that people who have been in the business 30-40 years, are not just some idiots. They have opinions which carry much more credibility than random, BIASED, intenet fanboys like you and me.

 

And some dude on here said Michales wasn't "believable" to him in the ring. Newsflash: You're a complete and utter moron to have been watching sports-entertainment pro-style all these years. Watch Puro or some old shooter tapes for "believability" you fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's a difference between being believable and being stiff (and for the record, there's a lot more to puro than that, and it's ignorant to assume such), just as there's a difference between putting on a sports-entertainment pro-style match and exposing the business every time you get in the ring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet Hogan made drew more than anybody else in history. My point is, its just sports-entertainment. The Flair flops/flips and chop woos have ALWAYS got reactions. Seriously, if you're looking for believability, your looking in the wrong wrestling culture.

[Dark Age 0]

How old are you. Did I say its true? But it just tells you that people who have been in the business 30-40 years, are not just some idiots. They have opinions which carry much more credibility than random, BIASED, intenet fanboys like you and me.

 

And some dude on here said Michales wasn't "believable" to him in the ring. Newsflash: You're a complete and utter moron to have been watching sports-entertainment pro-style all these years. Watch Puro or some old shooter tapes for

 

You implied. The stuff about having to be in the "biz" to have an opinion is bullshit, too, but hey, if you want to use that card, then I'm in the "biz". And, thus, my opinion is worth more than yours. Besides, you're acting as if I've been shitting on Shawn. I simply said that Austin was better than him. Which is true.

[KTID 0]

And some dude on here said Michales wasn't "believable" to him in the ring. Newsflash: You're a complete and utter moron to have been watching sports-entertainment pro-style all these years. Watch Puro or some old shooter tapes for "believability" you fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats an utterly terrible argument. Shawns not believable? "Oh, go watch Puro! This is SPORTZ-ENTERTAINMENT!"

[Guest Brian]

How old are you. Did I say its true? But it just tells you that people who have been in the business 30-40 years, are not just some idiots. They have opinions which carry much more credibility than random, BIASED, intenet fanboys like you and me.

 

And some dude on here said Michales wasn't "believable" to him in the ring. Newsflash: You're a complete and utter moron to have been watching sports-entertainment pro-style all these years. Watch Puro or some old shooter tapes for "believability" you fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's a difference between being believable and being stiff (and for the record, there's a lot more to puro than that, and it's ignorant to assume such), just as there's a difference between putting on a sports-entertainment pro-style match and exposing the business every time you get in the ring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet Hogan made drew more than anybody else in history. My point is, its just sports-entertainment. The Flair flops/flips and chop woos have ALWAYS got reactions. Seriously, if you're looking for believability, your looking in the wrong wrestling culture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And how is Hogan's ringwork regarded? How is Flair's ringwork finally beginning to be examined?

[Guest JoeJoe]

I simply said that Austin was better than him.

Thats not even a point to argue as far as draws go. And if if you think Austin's better talent wise, good, ur opinion.

 

Which is true.

There you go shitting yourself again. So every person who thinks Michaels is better is WRONG huh 'biz'man? I mean really, its not something new, even for this board. Michaels being known as a grade A world class worker is part of the general conseus in a LOT of places, get out more often.

 

"And how is Hogan's ringwork regarded? How is Flair's ringwork finally beginning to be examined?"

 

You talked about exposing the business. If Hogan drawing the way he did is exposing the biz, I think exposing it what they should all do. Nobody even dared to rate Hogan's "ringwork" because he's literally in a class of his own. And Flair is quite possibly the epitomy of the catch-as-ctach-can pro-style. Difference is, while Flair was exclusively heel at the style, Michales has been able to master both, the Ricky Morton-esque face-in-peril style, and the Rogers, Funk, Flair heel style.

 

Oh and Morrissey's Quiff, yeah..this is sports-entertainmnet. Unless youre able to come at me with a better argument, keep it swallowed kid. If ur "believability" was what North Americans wanted to see, Inoki would be this lands richest man and UFC would be the hottest thing around. But Michaels' kip-ups get more reactions than those. Anyway, Angle and Michaels both have consistently managed to have the crowds TOTALLY into their matches, so this was a bullshit argument form the start.

 

You know what guys, think what you want. The Shawn bias on here is unbelievable.

[KTID 0]

The only "Shawn bias" on here is coming from you and the other HBK-fanboys. You're simply too blinded in your fandom that you won't listen to reasonable discussion about him and his many flaws as well as his strenghts.

 

Therefor, i'm going to give up even attempting to get through to you.

[Guest JMA]

The only "Shawn bias" on here is coming from you and the other HBK-fanboys.  You're simply too blinded in your fandom that you won't listen to reasonable discussion about him and his many flaws as well as his strenghts.

 

Therefor, i'm going to give up even attempting to get through to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good call. I'd recommend putting ALL fanboys on ignore (not just the HBK ones). It'll make reading threads like these a lot easier.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

The only "Shawn bias" on here is coming from you and the other HBK-fanboys.  You're simply too blinded in your fandom that you won't listen to reasonable discussion about him and his many flaws as well as his strenghts.

 

Therefor, i'm going to give up even attempting to get through to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's the problem with this board. If your a fan of Shawn Micheals ringwork it makes you a fanboy, and yet if you don't like HBK your an "unbiased fan whose only telling the truth and setting the fanboy straight". Right.

 

HBK had arguably the match of the year for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2004, and 2005. Nobody has a problem with talking about his negatives. Calling somebody a 'fanboy' cause they think he's a great worker is being a jackass. Nobodys opinion is fact, but from everything I've read the overall consensus from wrestlers/managers/fans is that HBK is a great worker and one of the all time greats at least in the WWE. The guy has a killer catalogue of quality matches under his belt.

 

Shawn's kip up is like some else said a burst of adrenaline and a way to start his comeback. Faces make comebacks and defeat the odds. If it's bad storytelling why are the fans so into his matches? Shawn getting beat up by the big guy and still coming back and winning is a story that he tells to perfection with great bumping and solid timing on his comeback. When he's a heel he still does it perfectly.

 

Guys like Austin/Foley/Flair/ and even BRET have said Shawn is a good/great worker. That holds more weight than anything we can say. And I'd definetly like to see someone put up HBK's top 20 matches vs Austins or Brets, and I think they'd hold up pretty well.

[Dark Age 0]

There you go shitting yourself again. So every person who thinks Michaels is better is WRONG huh 'biz'man?

 

Yes, that's right.

[World's Worst Man 0]

That's the problem with this board.  If your a fan of Shawn Micheals ringwork it makes you a fanboy, and yet if you don't like HBK your an "unbiased fan whose only telling the truth and setting the fanboy straight".  Right.

 

HBK had arguably the match of the year for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2004, and 2005.  Nobody has a problem with talking about his negatives.  Calling somebody a 'fanboy' cause they think he's a great worker is being a jackass.  Nobodys opinion is fact, but from everything I've read the overall consensus from wrestlers/managers/fans is that HBK is a great worker and one of the all time greats at least in the WWE.  The guy has a killer catalogue of quality matches under his belt.

 

This is just too nonsensical to even address. I would suggest going through the years you mentioned and comparing matches, then tell me if HBK was involved in the MOTYs in each of those years.

 

Shawn's kip up is like some else said a burst of adrenaline and a way to start his comeback.  Faces make comebacks and defeat the odds.  If it's bad storytelling why are the fans so into his matches?  Shawn getting beat up by the big guy and still coming back and winning is a story that he tells to perfection with great bumping and solid timing on his comeback.  When he's a heel he still does it perfectly.

 

No-selling isn't the same as making a comeback. Comebacks can be made while still selling the damage of the previous part of the match. But HBK makes his comebacks like it's only 5 minutes into the match, instead of 20 minutes in. He doesn't put over the previous 20 minutes of damage/fatigue at all. He's the same as Kurt Angle, neither guy has any idea what long-term selling is. Or they maybe they do know, but they just refuse to do it. Either way, the result is the same.

 

Guys like Austin/Foley/Flair/ and even BRET have said Shawn is a good/great worker.  That holds more weight than anything we can say.  And I'd definetly like to see someone put up HBK's top 20 matches vs Austins or Brets, and I think they'd hold up pretty well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Completely irrelevant. Completely. This is the oldest fallacy in the book. Just because other's think HBK is a great worker, doesn't mean he is. Doesn't matter who they are. Besides, even the most hardcore anti-HBK people will likely concede that he's at least a good worker, while many, including people who are accused of being biased, view him as a very good worker.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

This is just too nonsensical to even address. I would suggest going through the years you mentioned and comparing matches, then tell me if HBK was involved in the MOTYs in each of those years.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

1993- vs Marty Jannety

 

1994- Ladder match with Ramon

 

1995- vs Jeff Jarret

 

1996- vs Bret Hart, vs Mankind (both were big contenders)

 

1997- vs Undertaker (Bad Blood), vs Austin (king of the ring)

 

2004- vs Benoit/HHH

 

2005- vs Kurt Angle, vs Benjammin

 

You don't think those are arguable? Please list your MOTYs for those years. I know PWI voters at the time had him win in 93/94/96/97

[Shanghai Kid 0]

Completely irrelevant. Completely. This is the oldest fallacy in the book. Just because other's think HBK is a great worker, doesn't mean he is. Doesn't matter who they are. Besides, even the most hardcore anti-HBK people will likely concede that he's at least a good worker, while many, including people who are accused of being biased, view him as a very good worker.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes and YOUR opinion is more valid than theirs?

 

We're talking about wrestling, so why would you completely disregard what some of the BEST wrestlers have to say about it?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The only "Shawn bias" on here is coming from you and the other HBK-fanboys.  You're simply too blinded in your fandom that you won't listen to reasonable discussion about him and his many flaws as well as his strenghts.

 

Therefor, i'm going to give up even attempting to get through to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good call. I'd recommend putting ALL fanboys on ignore (not just the HBK ones). It'll make reading threads like these a lot easier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I swear the collective IQ level of the board drops with each post people like that make. I don't know how they manage to type anything at all from the pain they have to be in from their knuckles scraping along the ground.

[World's Worst Man 0]

This is just too nonsensical to even address. I would suggest going through the years you mentioned and comparing matches, then tell me if HBK was involved in the MOTYs in each of those years.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

1993- vs Marty Jannety

 

1994- Ladder match with Ramon

 

1995- vs Jeff Jarret

 

1996- vs Bret Hart, vs Mankind (both were big contenders)

 

1997- vs Undertaker (Bad Blood), vs Austin (king of the ring)

 

2004- vs Benoit/HHH

 

2005- vs Kurt Angle, vs Benjammin

 

You don't think those are arguable? Please list your MOTYs for those years. I know PWI voters at the time had him win in 93/94/96/97

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1993 - Shinobu Kandori vs. Akira Hokuto (04/02) or Kenta Kobashi vs. Stan Hansen (07/29) Both of these in a compete walk. The Jannetty match isn't even in the same universe.

 

1994 - Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Toshiaki Kawada (06/03) This might be the best match ever. Again, this kills the ladder match. Absolutely kills it.

 

1995 - Misawa & Kobashi vs. Kawada & Taue (06/09)

 

1996 - Misawa & Akiyama vs. Kawada & Taue (12/06)

 

1997 - Misawa vs. Kobashi (01/20)

 

2004 - Samoa Joe vs. CM Punk (12/04)

 

2005 - Angle vs. HBK would be at or near the top of my list. The Benjamin match wasn't even as good as Angle-Jannetty or Angle-Benjamin.

 

Now, it's not meant to be a slight against HBK. The 1993-1997 matches are probably 6 of the top 10 matches ever, so it's pretty tough competition. But based on the criteria I use, none of HBKs matches are even arguable from 1994-2004. That criteria being selling/stiffness/execution/story(which includes build, body-part work, etc). Then again, I'd imagine you and I have different criteria for what makes a match good, so it might not even be worth arguing (and that isn't meant to be insulting).

 

Yes and YOUR opinion is more valid than theirs?

 

I didn't say my opinion was more valid than theirs.

 

We're talking about wrestling, so why would you completely disregard what some of the BEST wrestlers have to say about it?

 

Because it proves nothing. If a bunch of wrestlers say "HBK is a great worker" then provide no points to back that up, what does it really prove? In general, I tend to think an opinion with supportable points is more valid than an opinion with no support at all. It doesn't matter how qualified someone might be. If they don't support their opinion, it's not worth a whole lot. And even if they did, using their opinion to prove your own opinion is not a valid argument.

[Dark Age 0]

Well, in WWE...

 

 

93 - Bret Vs. Hennig - KOTR

94 - Bret Vs. Owen - WM

95 - Diesel Vs. Bret - SurSer

96 - Bret Vs. Austin - SurSer

97 - Bret Vs. Austin - WM

04 - Eddie Vs. JBL - JD and Eddie Vs. Brock - NWO

05 - Eddie Vs. Rey - SD!

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The PWI Awards are worked anyway.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

1993 - Shinobu Kandori vs. Akira Hokuto (04/02) or Kenta Kobashi vs. Stan Hansen (07/29) Both of these in a compete walk. The Jannetty match isn't even in the same universe.

 

1994 - Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Toshiaki Kawada (06/03) This might be the best match ever. Again, this kills the ladder match. Absolutely kills it.

 

1995 - Misawa & Kobashi vs. Kawada & Taue (06/09)

 

1996 - Misawa & Akiyama vs. Kawada & Taue (12/06)

 

1997 - Misawa vs. Kobashi (01/20)

 

2004 - Samoa Joe vs. CM Punk (12/04)

 

2005 - Angle vs. HBK would be at or near the top of my list. The Benjamin match wasn't even as good as Angle-Jannetty or Angle-Benjamin.

 

Now, it's not meant to be a slight against HBK. The 1993-1997 matches are probably 6 of the top 10 matches ever, so it's pretty tough competition. But based on the criteria I use, none of HBKs matches are even arguable from 1994-2004. That criteria being selling/stiffness/execution/story(which includes build, body-part work, etc). Then again, I'd imagine you and I have different criteria for what makes a match good, so it might not even be worth arguing (and that isn't meant to be insulting).

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well actually I was just talking about America since I pretty much lack any extensive knowledge on Puro and all non North American wrestling. I'd like to see your list for just American matches.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

Well, in WWE...

 

 

93 - Bret Vs. Hennig - KOTR

94 - Bret Vs. Owen - WM

95 - Diesel Vs. Bret - SurSer

96 - Bret Vs. Austin - SurSer

97 - Bret Vs. Austin - WM

04 - Eddie Vs. JBL - JD and Eddie Vs. Brock - NWO

05 - Eddie Vs. Rey - SD!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Those are all very arguable, some it seems like you just put a Bret Hart match there.

 

Bret vs Hening from KOTR was good, but I have never seen it put in as high regard as HBK/Jannetty.

 

Bret vs Owen is a classic, and it's always been debated on which is the best match of WM 10.

 

Diesel vs Bret, I like Bret Hart but I would take HBK/Jarret over that any day of the week. This just seems like a random pick in order to not have an HBK match on there.

 

Bret vs Austin from 96- Great match, lot of people are extremely high on it, and I agree that it was the best match of 96. Even though I agree, I think it's arguable that HBK/Mankind and HBK/Bret Hart were both on that level. Foley thinks that's the best match of his career, and Bret thinks its the best match of his career. Funny that guys think the best matches of their career are with HBK.

 

Bret vs Austin from 97- It's clearly between this and HBK/Undertaker. But you'd be biased if you said that everybody would take Bret/Austin. Both matches were groundbreaking.

 

04- Eddie vs JBL? I don't think so. It's arguable though.

 

05- I would take both HBK/Angle and HBK/Benjammin over Rey/Angle.'

[World's Worst Man 0]

 

1993 - Shinobu Kandori vs. Akira Hokuto (04/02) or Kenta Kobashi vs. Stan Hansen (07/29) Both of these in a compete walk. The Jannetty match isn't even in the same universe.

 

1994 - Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Toshiaki Kawada (06/03) This might be the best match ever. Again, this kills the ladder match. Absolutely kills it.

 

1995 - Misawa & Kobashi vs. Kawada & Taue (06/09)

 

1996 - Misawa & Akiyama vs. Kawada & Taue (12/06)

 

1997 - Misawa vs. Kobashi (01/20)

 

2004 - Samoa Joe vs. CM Punk (12/04)

 

2005 - Angle vs. HBK would be at or near the top of my list. The Benjamin match wasn't even as good as Angle-Jannetty or Angle-Benjamin.

 

Now, it's not meant to be a slight against HBK. The 1993-1997 matches are probably 6 of the top 10 matches ever, so it's pretty tough competition. But based on the criteria I use, none of HBKs matches are even arguable from 1994-2004. That criteria being selling/stiffness/execution/story(which includes build, body-part work, etc). Then again, I'd imagine you and I have different criteria for what makes a match good, so it might not even be worth arguing (and that isn't meant to be insulting).

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well actually I was just talking about America since I pretty much lack any extensive knowledge on Puro and all non North American wrestling. I'd like to see your list for just American matches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1993 - Henning vs. Bret at KOTR

1994 - Bret vs. Owen at WMX

1995 - This year was so bad, I don't even know. I guess the previously mentioned Bret Hart vs. Diesel match was as good as any.

1996 - Bret vs. Austin SurvivorSeries

1997 - Bret vs. Austin WMXIII

2004 - Joe vs. Punk III Eddy vs. Brock for WWE.

 

I would say HBK vs. Vader in 1996 would be a good candidate. I suppose HBK vs. UT in 97 too perhaps, although Bret vs. Austin is pretty tough competition. The WMXX 3-way wasn't too far behind Eddy vs. Brock, although for my money, neither match holds a candle to the 2nd and 3rd Joe-Punk matches.