Is Shawn Michaels this generation's Ric Flair?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

While that's true, I'm not really arguing preference. He is arguing talent. You either have it or don't. In the specific areas that Rrsh seems to think Shawn is good at, well he just isn't, preferences set aside. It's like someone saying RVD is the best talker on the mic. It'd be blatantly wrong, right, Mike?

[Guest Rrrsh]

What in particular are speaking of Porter?

[KTID 0]

Are you still arguing? I thought we settled this...

 

Shawn Michaels was/is a good, but not great, worker and an excellent showman, with non-existent drawing ability. He was also, by all accounts, a complete prick backstage who used his position to play politics (sabotging careers, refusing to lose matches/drop titles, threatening to walkout etc.) which had an often detrimental effect on the product. This is how I see him, how most other knowledgeable people on here/elsewhere see him and it is the legacy by which he will be rememered.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Are you still arguing?  I thought we settled this...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We had, but some people evidently aren't taking it very well that people don't agree with their opinion. If we ignore him and others of his ilk they’ll find something else to throw tantrums about.

[KTID 0]

I can only hope so. This has been one of the most pointless and repetitive "debates" i've ever seen on this board.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Are you still arguing?  I thought we settled this...

 

Shawn Michaels was/is a good, but not great, worker and an excellent showman, with non-existent drawing ability.  He was also, by all accounts, a complete prick backstage who used his position to play politics (sabotging careers, refusing to lose matches/drop titles, threatening to walkout etc.) which had an often detrimental effect on the product.  This is how I see him, how most other knowledgeable people on here/elsewhere see him and it is the legacy by which he will be rememered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HBK is a great worker, not a good worker. And nothing you have said even comes close to argueing that. The rest of your speel is completly irrelevant to anything and no one in this whole thread has ever disputed it.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Are you still arguing?  I thought we settled this...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We had, but some people evidently aren't taking it very well that people don't agree with their opinion. If we ignore him and others of his ilk they’ll find something else to throw tantrums about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fuck Off Loser.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Don't some people know when to call it a day? This debate has gone as far as it can. It's over. Let it go, and move on.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Thank you for proving the man's point Rrrsh.

[Dogbert 0]

Holy crap. Some people here aren't about to allow anyone to disagree with their opinion, huh? Wrestling isn't an exact science, guys. It's like music: everyone has their own taste.

 

I personally think that HBK is a great worker when he's motivated, and a good one when he isn't.

[Jericho2000Mark 0]

Shawn Michaels is cookie-cutter and wrestles the exact same boring match with everybody these days. So yeah, he is this generation's Ric Flair in that aspect.

[KTID 0]

Are you still arguing?  I thought we settled this...

 

Shawn Michaels was/is a good, but not great, worker and an excellent showman, with non-existent drawing ability.  He was also, by all accounts, a complete prick backstage who used his position to play politics (sabotging careers, refusing to lose matches/drop titles, threatening to walkout etc.) which had an often detrimental effect on the product.  This is how I see him, how most other knowledgeable people on here/elsewhere see him and it is the legacy by which he will be rememered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HBK is a great worker, not a good worker. And nothing you have said even comes close to argueing that. The rest of your speel is completly irrelevant to anything and no one in this whole thread has ever disputed it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rrrsh, what more do you want? You've had numerous faults pointed out about Michaels ring work (eg believability, long-term selling, weak moveset etc.). You've been given countless examples of wrestlers *better* than Michaels. In terms of pure in ring ability, Michaels is not a great worker. This is not a biased viewpoint, it is an objective overview of Michaels ability. You calling him "a Grade A world class worker" is pure fanboy worship.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

HBK is a great worker. It's my opinion. Stating that he isn't and giving reasons why does not make it a fact. It's all about personal taste. Get that through your heads.

[Guest JoeJoe]

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

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See, from 92-97, both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels have had matches that are easily interchangeable MOTYS. You making that list is based on one thing, and one thing only. And thats preference.

 

Lets start from 92 thru 97, for both men.

92 - Shawn/Bret

93 - Shawn/Marty

94 - Shawn/Razor

95 - Shawn/Razor, Jarret

96 - Shawn/Foley, Nash, Davey, Bret

97 - Shawn/Taker

 

92 - Bret/Davey, Shawn

93 - Bret/Hennig

94 - Bret/Owen, Owen

95 - Bret/Davey

96 - Bret/Austin, Shawn

97 - Bret/Austin, Taker (ONO)

 

These matches were so good, you can pick either and call it MOTY. Its all up to taste.

 

Of course, Shawn's comeback stuff puts him ahead of Austin and Bret on "points", and then theres no longer a question of perference.

 

Fuck Off Loser.

Yea pal, real logical rebuttal right there.

 

Oh and Morrissey's Quiff is 8. And retarded. And truly worthy of being on YOUR ignore list.

[Golgo 13 0]

Stating that he isn't and giving reasons why does not make it a fact.

 

No, but actual reasons given to a particular stance makes the argument more credible, more so than sticking one's fingers in their ears and screaming "It's my opinion! It's my opinion!" over and over again.

[KTID 0]

Oh and Morrissey's Quiff is 8. And retarded. And truly worthy of being on YOUR ignore list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can't someone close this thread and/or ban this guy?

[KTID 0]

One more point, though. Since they are obviously new concepts to you, let me explain to you the difference between FACT and OPINION.

 

If I say to you "Rob Van Dam is my favourite wrestler" or "I find RVD the most entertaining guy in WWE" then I am expressing an opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't say I'm wrong.

 

If I were to say "Rob Van Dam is a world class worker" or "RVD is one of the best wrestlers of all time" then I am making a statement. This statement is, and can be proved to be, factually wrong.

 

Same applies to you, substituting your favourite wrestler in place of mine.

[Guest JoeJoe]

One more point, though.  Since they are obviously new concepts to you, let me explain to you the difference between FACT and OPINION.

 

If I say to you "Rob Van Dam is my favourite wrestler" or "I find RVD the most entertaining guy in WWE" then I am expressing an opinion.  You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't say I'm wrong.

 

If I were to say "Rob Van Dam is a world class worker" or "RVD is one of the best wrestlers of all time" then I am making a statement.  This statement is, and can be proved to be, factually wrong.

 

Same applies to you, substituting your favourite wrestler in place of mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^Yup. Just as you saying Michaels is only a good worker, not great, being purely and entirely a biased, opinionated understanding and perception.

 

You see, the thing about opinion, when you have one that strays, and in your case, strays a long way, from the one which is generally accepted by a large mass of people, and more importantly, by people whose statements hold gravity, then your opinion becomes restricted. Restricted only to you and that little lot with the same understanding as yours. AKA, the minorities. And let me tell you, 90% of such opinions are a result of bias. While the other 10% can be attributed to the person not being properly aware of the subject on which he's giving an opinion on, or his inability/willingness to properly understand it. Casablanca is a landmark, critically acclaimed film. You saying otherwise not only restricts you to your own delimited "personal" opinion, but also makes you part of that minority I just talked about.

 

Oh, and luv the childish attacks at people who present you with something that defends Michaels in the face of your hateful bullshit, illogically dismissing them as blinded marks and fanboys. I guess that makes Bobby Heenan a gay lover of Shawn , as he calls him the greatest performer he's seen all his years in the business.

 

Thankyou.

[Guest JMA]

Oh and Morrissey's Quiff is 8. And retarded. And truly worthy of being on YOUR ignore list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can't someone close this thread and/or ban this guy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question.

[Guest *KNK*]

One more point, though.  Since they are obviously new concepts to you, let me explain to you the difference between FACT and OPINION.

 

If I say to you "Rob Van Dam is my favourite wrestler" or "I find RVD the most entertaining guy in WWE" then I am expressing an opinion.  You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't say I'm wrong.

 

If I were to say "Rob Van Dam is a world class worker" or "RVD is one of the best wrestlers of all time" then I am making a statement.  This statement is, and can be proved to be, factually wrong.

 

Same applies to you, substituting your favourite wrestler in place of mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^Yup. Just as you saying Michaels is only a good worker, not great, being purely and entirely a biased, opinionated understanding and perception.

 

You see, the thing about opinion, when you have one that strays, anbd in your case, strays a long way, from the one which is generally accepted by a large mass of people, and more importantly, by people whose statements hold gravity, then your opinion becomes restricted. Restricted only to you and that little lot with the same understanding as yours. AKA, the minorities. And let me tell you 90% of such opinions are a result of bias. While the other 10% can be attributed to the person not being properly aware of the subject on which he's giving a opinion on, or his inability/willingness to properly understand it. Casablanca is a landmark, critically acclaimed film. You saying otherwise not only restricts you to your own delimited "personal" opinion, but also makes you part of that minority I just talked about.

 

Oh, and luv the childish attacks at people who present you with something that defends Michaels in the face of your hateful bullshit, illogically dismissing them as blinded marks and fanboys. I guess that makes Bobby Heenan a gay lover of Shawn , as he calls him the greatest performer he's seen all his years in the business.

 

Thankyou.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bobby isn't wrong there, There's a great arguement that Shawn is the greatest performer. It's just shawn is no where near the legitimate list of greatest workers, which has been the issue here.

 

Nobody here denies Shawn's performence abilities the arguement is his merit as a worker and that, is limited especially placed in comparisons of other name whom have been dicussed here.

[Guest Anticrombie]

Can somebody put up a list of people Bobby Heenan has called the greatest performer he's seen all his years in the business. I swear I've heard him say that about Benoit, Hart, Flair, Hennig....

[Guest *KNK*]

Can somebody put up a list of people Bobby Heenan has called the greatest performer he's seen all his years in the business. I swear I've heard him say that about Benoit, Hart, Flair, Hennig....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Add CM Punk to that list.

[Guest JoeJoe]

I'd like to know what does NOT make Shawn a "legitimate" great worker. The guy has made solid peices of shit look like solid peices of gold throughout his career. His utilization of his total package is undeniable and even uncanny. Had the best matches of the year in 1995, and now again in 2005. I surely must be missing something here.

 

Can somebody put up a list of people Bobby Heenan has called the greatest performer he's seen all his years in the business. I swear I've heard him say that about Benoit, Hart, Flair, Hennig....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To my knowledge, the only ones he's singled out as the best in terms of who he's watched over the years have been Rey Stevens and Michaels.

 

A credible source that proves otherwise wouldn't hurt at all though.

[World's Worst Man 0]

One more point, though.  Since they are obviously new concepts to you, let me explain to you the difference between FACT and OPINION.

 

If I say to you "Rob Van Dam is my favourite wrestler" or "I find RVD the most entertaining guy in WWE" then I am expressing an opinion.  You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't say I'm wrong.

 

If I were to say "Rob Van Dam is a world class worker" or "RVD is one of the best wrestlers of all time" then I am making a statement.  This statement is, and can be proved to be, factually wrong.

 

Same applies to you, substituting your favourite wrestler in place of mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^Yup. Just as you saying Michaels is only a good worker, not great, being purely and entirely a biased, opinionated understanding and perception.

 

You see, the thing about opinion, when you have one that strays, and in your case, strays a long way, from the one which is generally accepted by a large mass of people, and more importantly, by people whose statements hold gravity, then your opinion becomes restricted. Restricted only to you and that little lot with the same understanding as yours. AKA, the minorities. And let me tell you, 90% of such opinions are a result of bias. While the other 10% can be attributed to the person not being properly aware of the subject on which he's giving an opinion on, or his inability/willingness to properly understand it. Casablanca is a landmark, critically acclaimed film. You saying otherwise not only restricts you to your own delimited "personal" opinion, but also makes you part of that minority I just talked about.

 

Thankyou.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How long is it going to take you to learn that the opinion of the masses doesn't make that opinion correct? Go look up what a fallacy is and then you'll realize why your argument completely sucks.

 

You know, who's right and wrong doesn't really matter. Afterall, someone could seriously bastardize the meaning of "great worker" and then claim HBK is one. That's pretty much what's happening anyway. So then it becomes a matter of who presents the strongest argument. And well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which arguments totally suck and which are actually supported by legitimate points.

 

Edit -

Oh, and luv the childish attacks at people who present you with something that defends Michaels in the face of your hateful bullshit, illogically dismissing them as blinded marks and fanboys. I guess that makes Bobby Heenan a gay lover of Shawn , as he calls him the greatest performer he's seen all his years in the business.

 

This coming from a guy who's been responsible for -

 

"Its because I'm not stupid enough like you to just throw my opinions at others like its all facts"

 

"Oh, so I WAS delaing with a 8 yr old all along. *hits head against wall*"

 

How ironic.

[KTID 0]

One more point, though.  Since they are obviously new concepts to you, let me explain to you the difference between FACT and OPINION.

 

If I say to you "Rob Van Dam is my favourite wrestler" or "I find RVD the most entertaining guy in WWE" then I am expressing an opinion.  You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't say I'm wrong.

 

If I were to say "Rob Van Dam is a world class worker" or "RVD is one of the best wrestlers of all time" then I am making a statement.  This statement is, and can be proved to be, factually wrong.

 

Same applies to you, substituting your favourite wrestler in place of mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

^Yup. Just as you saying Michaels is only a good worker, not great, being purely and entirely a biased, opinionated understanding and perception.

 

You see, the thing about opinion, when you have one that strays, and in your case, strays a long way, from the one which is generally accepted by a large mass of people, and more importantly, by people whose statements hold gravity, then your opinion becomes restricted. Restricted only to you and that little lot with the same understanding as yours. AKA, the minorities. And let me tell you, 90% of such opinions are a result of bias. While the other 10% can be attributed to the person not being properly aware of the subject on which he's giving an opinion on, or his inability/willingness to properly understand it. Casablanca is a landmark, critically acclaimed film. You saying otherwise not only restricts you to your own delimited "personal" opinion, but also makes you part of that minority I just talked about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What? That doesn't even make sense. Try writing in *sentences*. It' really hard to argue with someone not making sense.

 

I'm not talking about opinions. A wrestlers ability as a worker is inarguable fact. Michaels ability is, for the last time, *good*. Every single person on here, and elsewhere, who is considered knowledgeable about, and possesing an understanding of, wrestling will already know that. By stating this fact, I am not expressing an opinion.

 

 

Oh, and luv the childish attacks at people who present you with something that defends Michaels in the face of your hateful bullshit, illogically dismissing them as blinded marks and fanboys.

 

Thankyou.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What the hell are you taking about? What "hateful bullshit"? I refer to you as a blind fanboy because thats all that you are. You think anyone who doesn't see things from your blind perspective is "hateful" or "biased". I do not hate Shawn Michaels, or have any bias against him. The only bias here is the one that you have for Michaels. Also, why do you keep using the term "minority" to describe me and every unbiased, knowledgeable wrestling fan? By definition of the word, you - and the one or two other marks on here arguing against everyone else - are the ones in the minority.

[Guest JoeJoe]

How long is it going to take you to learn that the opinion of the masses doesn't make that opinion correct? Go look up what a fallacy is and then you'll realize why your argument completely sucks.

I wish the world were that absolutele, but hey, its not. Lets not get into "ok, this opinion by the masses is correct, and this ones not". I did not say ALL such general conseus has to be swallowed in and not argued upon. I said that saying Casablanca is not a great movie, or Michaels is not a great worker, is wrongful opinion, either because of bias, or misnformed knowldge. Also note, preference and taste comes from bias.

 

You know, who's right and wrong doesn't really matter. Afterall, someone could seriously bastardize the meaning of "great worker" and then claim HBK is one. That's pretty much what's happening anyway.

When you argue with me, you argue with me. Tell me who has bastardized the definition of a great worker. I know for sure it wasn't me.

 

So then it becomes a matter of who presents the strongest argument. And well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which arguments totally suck and which are actually supported by legitimate points.

Actually, it becomes more of a battle between numbers. You have this place, overflowing with HBK bias. And then you blindly take the rest of the world to be like that. And then you create your own meanings of "strong arguments" (you know, the ones which are in line with YOUR preferences and tastes) and ones those suck. How truly wondeful. ;/

 

This coming from a guy who's been responsible for -

 

"Its because I'm not stupid enough like you to just throw my opinions at others like its all facts"

 

"Oh, so I WAS delaing with a 8 yr old all along. *hits head against wall*"

 

How ironic.

Ok. Now. How in the blue HELL are those to prove ANYTHING in your favor???

 

Every single person on here, and elsewhere, who is considered knowledgeable about, and possesing an understanding of, wrestling will already know that.

Oh really!!!! *puts Dominic on ignore*

[KTID 0]

I said that saying Michaels is not a great worker is wrongful opinion, either because of bias, or misnformed knowldge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is neither wrongful nor opinion. Shawn Michaels is a good wrestler, but there are many better than him. This is a truthful statement.

 

 

Someone could seriously bastardize the meaning of "great worker" and then claim HBK is one. That's pretty much what's happening anyway.

 

When you argue with me, you argue with me. Tell me who has bastardized the definition of a great worker. I know for sure it wasn't me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are. By the definition of what makes a great worker (a mix of story telling, moveset, believability, psychology, bumping, pacing etc.), Shawn Michaels is not one. He's only great at one aspect (bumping). You're trying to change (bastardize) the definition of a great worker in order to call HBK one.

 

 

So then it becomes a matter of who presents the strongest argument. And well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which arguments totally suck and which are actually supported by legitimate points.

 

Actually, it becomes more of a battle between numbers. You have this place, overflowing with HBK bias. And then you blindly take the rest of the world to be like that. And then you create your own meanings of "strong arguments" (you know, the ones which are in line with YOUR preferences and tastes) and ones those suck. How truly wondeful. ;/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're delusional, and you're not listening. So we're "overflowing with HBK bias"? Where? The worst that has been said of him is he's "good, but not great" or "not one of the best of all time". Show me the bias against him. You're making it up. I'll accept that many people dislike him, but no one has let this get in the way of honestly and objectively rating him as a worker. You, on the other hand, adore him and blatantly refuse to look at his work objectively.

 

 

This coming from a guy who's been responsible for -

 

"Its because I'm not stupid enough like you to just throw my opinions at others like its all facts"

 

"Oh, so I WAS delaing with a 8 yr old all along. *hits head against wall*"

 

How ironic.

 

Ok. Now. How in the blue HELL are those to prove ANYTHING in your favor???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They prove that you are utterly incapable of arguing the points, and instead resort to throwing childish insults.

 

 

Shawn Michaels ability is *good*.  Every single person on here, and elsewhere, who is considered knowledgeable about, and possesing an understanding of, wrestling will already know that.

 

Oh really!!!! *puts Dominic on ignore*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have no idea what this means.

[iggymcfly 0]

By the definition of what makes a great worker (a mix of story telling, moveset, believability, psychology, bumping, pacing etc.), Shawn Michaels is not one. He's only great at one aspect (bumping). You're trying to change (bastardize) the definition of a great worker in order to call HBK one.

 

Wait a minute, on that list of traits, the only one you're going to call HBK great at is bumping? Who paces a match better than Shawn Michaels? I'd say probably no one in the last ten years. His story telling is likewise awesome whether he's doing a simple match to see who's the best against Shelton Benjamin or an all out war against someone like Diesel or Undertaker. His moveset's not what it one was, but before the back injury, it was one of the best in the business. Honestly, on that list the only quality that Shawn suffers on is psychology.

 

Everyone has some weakness; it doesn't mean they're not a great worker. For instance, Bret Hart's moveset was limited at times, but he excelled in the other categories and he was still a great worker. Likewise, Benoit's pacing is off a little bit, and so was Flair's believability. That doesn't mean that all those men haven't put on mountainloads of tremendous matches, and it doesn't mean they're not all great workers. I don't know quite how narrow your definition of "great" is, but to say that Shawn's anything less than one of the top ten workers of the last 15 years is just completely wrong.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

You're right about pacing, but Michaels' storytelling and moveset were/are pretty poor. Especially in relation to his peers in the 90's (not really in the WWE, though Austin, Bret, and Foley were better at telling stories in the ring. Taker... hmm... that's a tough one. In the bottom part of the top 5 in the WWE for Michaels isn't a plus). Moveset-wise, I wouldn't call a few low-rent cruiserweight moves to be "one of the best in the business". His high spots were the elbow drop and the superkick. Variations of a cross-body (top rope, over the top rope, off the ropes) and a moonsault were the extent of his high flying. You have no idea what guys were doing at the time if you think that moveset is "one of the best in the business". Let's not even get into Japan, but Benoit, Guerrero, Mysterio, 2 Cold, Psicosis... you'd be hard-pressed to put Michaels in the top 20 in North America, let alone in the top 5.

 

Benoit's pacing is excellent. Angle/Benoit RR03 was made on great pacing and is one of the best examples I can think of to show anyone how to pace. I'd put Benoit up with Michaels in terms of pacing, and I think very highly of Michaels' pacing.

[CanadianChick 0]

Shawn's really good at getting the crowd behind his moves. It's actually Hogan-ish in that respect. Of course, he doesn't do the whole "less is more" approach Hogan does, even though I think he could with his charisma.