Is Shawn Michaels this generation's Ric Flair?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I mean just b/c he made one pro-HBK post doesn't make him an idiot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Making a pro-HBK post doesn't make you an idiot, that is true. Making a pro-HBK post where your argument is full of holes? That does.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

MQ has it right. It gets tiresome having to wade through drivel written by clueless people such as you chaos. You can only read the ramblings of people who don't know what they are talking and whose arguments are specious at best for so long before you just get sick of it and don’t want to waste the time on them anymore.

 

Exactly. There comes a point where you are so far off that there is no helping you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish more people would get that very simple point.

[Guest Ray]

This topic is lovely. One cop-out after another. You obviously have no answer for any of the points I made, so you try to dance around the issue by acting as if it's beneath you to answer.

 

Either debate the issue or leave and stop ruining the discussion for everyone else with your pointless, snarky, one-line posts.

[Guest Rrrsh]

We just got the post fo the thread.

 

Hey HTQ, how bout you start proving why everyone but you and 2 guys are morons here.

 

C'mon bigshot, walk the walk. Because you are getting owned in this thread due to them having points and you acting like your 13.

 

Step up or fuck off.

[Guest JoeJoe]

Did you even watch Austin prior to the WWF or do you just think his career started in 1996?

Am I missing on anything more than an unover technical midcard worker who did funny Hogan imitations??

 

I luv Steve. Even as a worker in the WWE who had to change his ring style to brawling, he was GOLD from 96-99 and then again as the heel in 01. But he isn't one you'd want to compare with Flair. Angle and Michales just make better choices. Hell, HHH does more than Austin.

 

And LMAO at the dude who threatens to put guys on ignore just to get outta debates.

[Dark Age 0]

You think Angle, Michaels and Triple H are three of the best wrestlers of all time. You are wrong. No debate.

[Guest JoeJoe]

Go back and read the very first post of this thread moron. Read it numrerous times if you still can't get it, it HAS to somehow get through.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Well see, the thing about that is, that when people make comparisons to Flair, many people treat it as a debate of who the best worker ever is. Which is funny, because Flair probably isn't even one of the best 20 in-ring workers of all time. Not saying that's the case with this thread, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to get that idea, what with so many people still believing the Flair myth.

[Dangerous A 0]

I concur, sir.

[KTID 0]

To answer the original question, Shawn Michaels being this generation's Ric Flair is a good comparison, in terms of showmanship. But this comparison only works if you accept that neither are world class workers.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ray is one of the more intelligent posters here though, even though I disagree with him a lot and find that he can be a prick sometimes. I mean just b/c he made one pro-HBK post doesn't make him an idiot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm stunned HTQ hasn't banned him yet. He has a habit of doing that to people who don't agree with him. And this comment will now lead to him attempting to ban me, yet again. Oh well. A petulant child who is incapable of handling disagreement is something worthy of mockery.

 

If somebody can't recognize that Shawn Michaels is a top notch worker, they are too far gone to be assisted. Just let him wallow in his puro minutiae.

[KTID 0]

If somebody can't recognize that Shawn Michaels is a top notch worker, they are too far gone to be assisted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nobody has, at any point in this thread, said that Shawn Michaels is anything other than a good wrestler and an excellent showman.

 

The problem is that some people are too blinded by their HBK markdom that they take this as an insult. Anything other than Michaels being considered a workrate god and ratings mega-draw results in "OMG SHAWN HATERZ! BRET HART SUX!".

[Guest MikeSC]

Then I'll be the exception.

 

Shawn was not a good ratings draw. As a huge benefit, I don't give the first version of a damn of what kind of ratings he drew, as that hardly constitutes quality. Shawn was a solid worker who would bump like a madman to try and make utter stiffs look good. If it didn't put butts in front of the TV, so be it. It entertanined me for the most part and that is the only thing I, personally, care about.

 

And I'm not a huge Bret Hart fan. When he was on, he was really on. But I've seen way too many matches of his that could generously be described as "pedestrian".

[KTID 0]

I completely agree with you on Michaels. A solid worker who bumped like hell and was entertaining to watch. Unfortunately, most HBK marks (Rrrsh, JoeJoe etc) can't have him be called anything other than "a grade A world class worker".

 

And I also agree that ratings have no bearing on my enjoyment of a wrestler. I can enjoy watching Shawn Michaels in the ring, even though he wasn't/isn't a ratings draw. However, the same HBK fanboys won't accept that he was anything other than a ratings god.

 

 

And as another point, is no one else disturbed by this?...

 

What has Michaels ever done for Vince?  The guy has always been a terrible draw.

 

Bret Hart never drew shit. Undertaker never drew shit either. All this Michaels hate is fucking pathetic on this board. The man busts his ass in that ring for the fans. Seriously, you all need to stop looking at all this political bullshit. And add the Smarts God Benoit himself to the list of people who didn't draw shit.

 

Faced with a criticism of Shawn that you can't defend, simply bash Bret Hart and others who have *absolutley* nothing to do with the discussion.

[Guest MikeSC]

I do think A LOT of people use their disdain for Michaels' backstage antics to attack him. I don't fault him too much because I do suspect just about every top guy has pulled the same type of crap when they had power.

 

Bret Hart and Chris Benoit don't belong in a debate of Michaels' skill, outside of his matches involving them.

[Perfxion 0]

My two cents are summed up this way...

 

HBK is the 90's Flair and Angle is the 00's Flair. But that is only on the level of being entertainment workers who are good. However, this does not say that all three are the best. Flair isn't in my 10 best workers of all time. He gets high marks only because of how good of a total package he is.

 

As for what JustJoe stated, by total package he is great all around because he is a par worker with great mic skills and crisma levels second only to Hogan. Total package is a term used to call someone great despite not being all that great.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

See, the difference between Mike and some blind worshipper like Rrsh is that Mike doesn't go overboard. Mike likes Shawn as a wrestler and will defend him on those basis. I have absolutely no problem with someone thinking Shawn was a great wrestler (I agree), or even the greatest wrestler ever (I disagree), but as long as you accept certain inarguable facts an acknowledge the other side of the argument.

 

Instead a lot of the HBK fans around here are off the...'HBK DREW MORE THAN STONE COLD OR HULK!!!' types. He was an abysmal draw and the numbers are there in black and white, regardless of what you may think of him as a worker. I really don't know how that whole argument came up in this thread to begin with, since we are comparing Flair/HBK in a strictly wrestling compacity.

 

I should add that arguing that HBK is a great draw because someone else was awful, is not a good way to prove your point. That's like me saying Koren Robinson is the greatest WR in NFL history because Peter Warrick is worse. Bret Hart, Undertaker, etc., have nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

 

If you think that HBK is the 90s Ric Flair, then that is your opinion. My opinion is that Steve Austin fits that role better. And he also had MOTYCs for WCW/WWF in most of the years he has been wrestler, just like Shawn (and he's actually had more actual MOTYs than Shawn has by my count).

 

1992 - WarGames

1993 - w/ Brian Pillman vs. Flair/Anderson, w/ Pillman vs. Steamboat/Douglas

1994 - vs. Steamboat

1996 - vs. Bret Hart

1997 - vs. Bret Hart, Canadian Stampede

1998 - vs. Dude Love

1999 - vs. Rock (Backlash), vs. HHH (No Mercy) - It was a pretty lousy year for WWF.

2000 - vs. Chris Benoit, RAW December

2001 - vs. Rock, vs. Chris Benoit, vs. Kurt Angle

 

Here are my actual WCW/WWF MOTYs from 1992-2004, in this case it will be for both promotions, rather than just the one Austin was with at the time.

 

1992 - WarGames, Wrestlewar

1993 - Bret Hart vs. Mr. Perfect, KOTR

1994 - Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart, Wrestlemania

1995 - Shawn Michaels vs. Jeff Jarrett, IYH 2

1996 - Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin, Survivor Series

1997 - Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin, Wrestlemania

1998 - Chris Benoit vs. Raven, Souled Out

1999 - Chris Benoit vs. Bret Hart, Owen Hart Tribute

2000 - HHH vs. Cactus Jack, Royal Rumble

2001 - Steve Austin vs. The Rock, Wrestlemania

2002 - Chris Benoit & Kurt Angle vs. Edge & Rey Misterio, No Mercy

2003 - Chris Benoit vs. Kurt Angle, Royal Rumble

2004 - Chris Benoit vs. HHH vs. Shawn Michaels, Wrestlemania

 

Number of appearances:

 

Bret Hart - 5 Times

Chris Benoit - 5 Times

Steve Austin - 4 Times

Shawn Michaels - 2 Times

Kurt Angle - 2 Times

HHH - 2 Times

 

Nobody else appears more than once. Kurt & Shawn will each go up to three, depending on what happens later in the year. So you can see from my perspective, why Austin rates more highly than Shawn as a wrestler. In terms of mic skills, I don't even see where it is close. Austin revived the WWF largely around what he was doing outside of the ring.

[pochorenella 0]

Shawn was not a good ratings draw. As a huge benefit, I don't give the first version of a damn of what kind of ratings he drew, as that hardly constitutes quality. Shawn was a solid worker who would bump like a madman to try and make utter stiffs look good. If it didn't put butts in front of the TV, so be it. It entertanined me for the most part and that is the only thing I, personally, care about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed on all counts. I don't believe anybody has actually tried to pass over as fact that Michaels was a ratings god. He clearly wasn't. Neither is he a monster box-office draw. What I think is that he wasn't as terrible a ratings/box-office draw as most here would like to think. There are some pretty good examples of this throughout this thread that can back that up. He was most definitely NOT ratings/box-office death. I think he did the best he could (when he was on top as Champ) given the situation of a depleted WWF roster and stiff competition from WCW. He certainly provided the best matches on the cards (Hell, he still does most of the time.)

 

For the record, being as much of a fan of Shawn Michaels as Rrrsh and maybe JoeJoe doesn't blind me to the fact that he's not Hogan/Austin/Rock level money-maker. But he's not as crappy as most here would like to state.

 

And returning to the actual TOPIC at hand, I already said it but I think HBK is a favorable comparison to Flair in the overall aspect of skills. That being, he's not particularly THE BEST on one single skill (maybe bump-taking but still arguable), but he's good enough or better on almost all, making him great all-around. Adding up his longevity is also a big plus over others. So I may not agree completely, but it does make a good comparison to Flair.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I really don't understand the longevity argument with Shawn.

 

Pre-1992 he was one half of the AWA Tag Team Champions and a JTTS tag team in the WWF doing jobs to the likes of the Twin Towers, Powers of Pain, Fabulous Rougeaus, Power & Glory, Brainbusters & Nasty Boyz.

 

From 1992-1994 he was an IC level competitor who got suspended for three months at the end of 1993 and managed to make a name for himself in the Ladder Match in March.

 

From Wrestlemania X until after Survivor Series he was a manager of Diesel, commentator on RAW and wrestled maybe one real match in that entire period (the rest of the time was him standing on the apron letting Diesel do all the work).

 

Now's when he really begins to rise as 1995 features Shawn as the most over face on the roster and the man who should have been World Champion that year and in 1996 he was the Undisputed top of the promotion. But after his win against Sid at Royal Rumble 1997, he disappeared for a few months. He came back for a month in the spring before leaving again after KOTR, and making his big return at Summerslam. From that point he wrestled until Royal Rumble when he got injured in the casket match. After that he just had the Wrestlemania match where he put over Austin.

 

From 1998-2002 he was out injured. This injury time was longer than his entire run on top of the promotion from 1995-1997.

 

From 2002-2003 he wrestled a part-time schedule with only a handful of matches a year and long periods off due to injury. Since late 2003 he's been wrestling more often, but he still misses a lot of time with injury, including two this year. The one after Taboo Tuesday that kept him out of the ring until the Royal Rumble, and the one in the spring that caused him to miss a couple of months.

 

So basically, the longest he's been around has been two consecutive years, and about three and a half total if you add up all his time on top of the promotion. Kurt Angle since his debut in 1999 has been a top level performer since 2000. If you count his injury time, he's been on top for as long, if not longer than Shawn. And nobody would argue that Kurt Angle has longevity on his side.

[Guest MikeSC]

But, Shawn's tag work was excellent in the WWF. His match with Orient Express at Rumble '91 was truly terrific. Ditto all of their matches with The Hart Foundation and Anderson & Blanchard. I thought the Rockers came closer than anybody to making a match with the Twin Towers watchable at WM V.

 

Him not being a ME level star for a long time is a valid complaint --- but he was a very good worker for all of those years in the WWF.

[pochorenella 0]

Point taken, Kahran. But Angle has also wrestled quite sporadically for the past couple of years, granted, due to his neck problems. This year he really stepped up on his game, but before that he was doing those Angle Invitationals, doing the occasional big PPV or SD! match. Just last year when he was in that awful GM role on wheelchair. By SSlam time it looked like he was back to full speed but that didn't last long. Still, you make a valid argument, if you add all up it might seem like similar timeframes.

 

Instead a lot of the HBK fans around here are off the...'HBK DREW MORE THAN STONE COLD OR HULK!!!' types

 

BTW, who in their right minds could ever imply something like this? Is there an actual poster who could defend this?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

But, Shawn's tag work was excellent in the WWF. His match with Orient Express at Rumble '91 was truly terrific. Ditto all of their matches with The Hart Foundation and Anderson & Blanchard. I thought the Rockers came closer than anybody to making a match with the Twin Towers watchable at WM V.

 

Him not being a ME level star for a long time is a valid complaint --- but he was a very good worker for all of those years in the WWF.

 

Absolutely. But I was specifically referring to his push and stature in the company.

 

But Angle has also wrestled quite sporadically for the past couple of years, granted, due to his neck problems.

 

Yes, he has. I believed I mentioned that and if I didn't I apologize because I meant to. The point was that those hiccups don't amount to much more than Shawn's hiccups during his career. Even in 1995, Shawn missed a couple of months in the spring (to sell the Sid beatdown on RAW, was he really hurt then?), some time in the late summer/early fall after the Marine incident, and all of December to sell the relapse on RAW. 1996 is the only year since 1992 that Shawn made it through the entire year without missing time. He happens to be quite injury-prone, just like Angle.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

My personal opinion is that out of every wrestler I have ever seen Shawn Michaels is the one who I feel is the best. This is not a fact but just my opinion. No other wrestler has captivated me in the ring as much as he has or provided me with as many special moments in wrestling than him. Once again just MY OPINION.

 

And as far as being injury prone, I think with his crazy bumping style in the 90's injuries were inevitable.

[Guest Rrrsh]

See, the difference between Mike and some blind worshipper like Rrsh is that Mike doesn't go overboard.  Mike likes Shawn as a wrestler and will defend him on those basis.  I have absolutely no problem with someone thinking Shawn was a great wrestler (I agree), or even the greatest wrestler ever (I disagree), but as long as you accept certain inarguable facts an acknowledge the other side of the argument. 

 

Instead a lot of the HBK fans around here are off the...'HBK DREW MORE THAN STONE COLD OR HULK!!!' types.  He was an abysmal draw and the numbers are there in black and white, regardless of what you may think of him as a worker.  I really don't know how that whole argument came up in this thread to begin with, since we are comparing Flair/HBK in a strictly wrestling compacity. 

 

I should add that arguing that HBK is a great draw because someone else was awful, is not a good way to prove your point.  That's like me saying Koren Robinson is the greatest WR in NFL history because Peter Warrick is worse.  Bret Hart, Undertaker, etc., have nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When the fuck did I say Shawn drew? Shawm drew shit.

 

My arguement has always been he is underrated around here because people LOATHED what he did backstage and his role was did not always appeal to men. So when people were growing up, he didn't like him. Its so hard argueing with poeple who cant remove themsleves from there markish states when they were growing up.

 

And for the record, I watched the most wrestling around 00 into 01. I am too young for HBK heyday to be when I was the biggest fan.

[Guest *KNK*]

See, the difference between Mike and some blind worshipper like Rrsh is that Mike doesn't go overboard.  Mike likes Shawn as a wrestler and will defend him on those basis.  I have absolutely no problem with someone thinking Shawn was a great wrestler (I agree), or even the greatest wrestler ever (I disagree), but as long as you accept certain inarguable facts an acknowledge the other side of the argument. 

 

Instead a lot of the HBK fans around here are off the...'HBK DREW MORE THAN STONE COLD OR HULK!!!' types.  He was an abysmal draw and the numbers are there in black and white, regardless of what you may think of him as a worker.  I really don't know how that whole argument came up in this thread to begin with, since we are comparing Flair/HBK in a strictly wrestling compacity. 

 

I should add that arguing that HBK is a great draw because someone else was awful, is not a good way to prove your point.  That's like me saying Koren Robinson is the greatest WR in NFL history because Peter Warrick is worse.  Bret Hart, Undertaker, etc., have nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When the fuck did I say Shawn drew? Shawm drew shit.

 

My arguement has always been he is underrated around here because people LOATHED what he did backstage and his role was did not always appeal to men. So when people were growing up, he didn't like him. Its so hard argueing with poeple who cant remove themsleves from there markish states when they were growing up.

 

And for the record, I watched the most wrestling around 00 into 01. I am too young for HBK heyday to be when I was the biggest fan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hate everything about Hulk Hogan. His character and his true identity and every piece of shit political action he did over the years and I was always against him as a youngster but that doesn't keep me from giving Hogan the credit for being the best at what he does.

 

I hate Shawn for everything he was and everthing he pretends to be today but I don't dis-credit his ability to perform.

 

People with true subjective and logical sound of mind (something that is sorely missing here for a lot of people) are capable of putting aside personal feelings to logically and correctly examine the puzzle.

 

My disdain for Shawn as a person has no effect on my honest feelings that he simply doesn't match up with Flair, Austin and Hart (just to use the popular examples used here).

 

 

To accuse people of using personal bias in their arguement against Shawn is a cop-out. An excuse to hold onto because you can't accept that someone has legitimate reasons not to credit Shawn Michaels in the way you would rather others perceive him.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

To accuse people of using personal bias in their arguement against Shawn is a cop-out. An excuse to hold onto because you can't accept that someone has legitimate reasons not to credit Shawn Michaels in the way you would rather others perceive him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to remember you're talking to Rrrsh here. You should expect that kind of thing from him when it comes to Shawn.

[Guest *KNK*]

To accuse people of using personal bias in their arguement against Shawn is a cop-out. An excuse to hold onto because you can't accept that someone has legitimate reasons not to credit Shawn Michaels in the way you would rather others perceive him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to remember you're talking to Rrrsh here. You should expect that kind of thing from him when it comes to Shawn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's my biggest problem with him and many of his kind.

 

They tell us not to use personal bias but then turn it around and use their own bias FOR their arguement.

[Guest Rrrsh]

HTQ: U still havn't justified your commenst about Ray, so fuck off.

 

KNK: Bottom line Choken, wether it comes to you or not, lots of people have massive biased agianst HBK around here because of what he did. Many have admitted such. And its stupid to claim "you think he is so good, thats why you are sticking up for him." No shit, anyone who think Benoit is the greatest wrestler is biased towards him BECAUSE THEY THINK HE IS THE BEST. Your arguemnet it inherantly flawed.

 

I have said many a times that Shawn didn't draw shit, and there are many matches that he has had that I did not like. But I think he is one of the best ever. And I will stand by that there are doznes and dozens of **** macthes he has had with dozens and dozens of diffrent wrsetlers.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

But the reasons you think Shawn is so good for.... well he isn't.

[Guest MikeSC]

And now you're simply arguing tastes. He --- as do I --- simply enjoys Shawn's ring work. It works for him. It does not make him "wrong".

 

I, personally, find MMA to be, quite possibly, the dullest spectacle on Earth. Doesn't mean those souls who happen to enjoy it are wrong. Just that they like something I find to be horrendously dull.