Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
UZI Suicide

HBK is a little unhappy

Recommended Posts

Baseball is a sport where merit is based on results. Wrestling is a form of entertainment, especially in the WWE, where merit is based on aesthetics. Roger Clemens striking someone out is "believable" because he actually strikes them out. Don't talk about a flawed argument when you can't even make the distinction between work and shoot, not to mention comparing baseball to wrestling as if it's even in the same realm. A 40-year-old Shawn Michaels, looking as he does, cannot believably beat a 20-something John Cena.

 

Besides, my "argument" in all this is that you are not holding the same standard used to judge Hulk Hogan on Shawn Michaels. That you think -old- HBK can be champ, but not any more because he lost to -older- Hulk Hogan is silly, even for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest panthermatt7

I think we're digging into the issue a little much here.

 

Most fans will believe pretty much anything if you build it well. HBK could have still been credible, its only smarks such as us that really look into the wins/losses column and analyze it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point's simple as is the comparison.

 

In professional athletics, athletes usually compete well through their early 40s, but almost never compete even at the lowest levels in their 50s.

 

Thus, in the WWE (which pretends to be an athletic endeavor), it is reasonable and realistic for someone in their 40s to be on top, but not so for someone in their 50s, especially someone whose body is as obviously broken down as Hulk Hogan. He looks much worse than Shawn Michaels, and I have even talked to friends who wouldn't believe that he was under 60.

 

Furthermore, the other important point which I didn't even get into is that Hulk Hogan is a retired wrestler. For him to come in and build himself up by winning a PPV main event does nothing to help the WWE because he won't be wrestling again for the next six months. Meanwhile, HBK had a well-built character, and could have easily carried Raw for the next six months if he hadn't been jobbed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By George, I think he's got it.

 

There are two ways to look at this:

 

1. Old Wrestlers can't beat younger Wrestlers because they are Old - and apply this to both Hogan vs. Michaels, with the thought that Michaels should have won, and with Michaels vs. Cena with the thought that Cena should win.

 

or.

 

3. Any wrestler can beat any wrestler if the build and context is right.

 

Trying to have it both ways doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this. If the build's right, then older wrestlers can beat younger wrestlers.

 

However, retired wrestlers that look like they're 60 shouldn't beat people that the WWE could potentially build a brand around.

 

Is that simple enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In professional wrestling, whether or not someone can compete is based on their look. The WWE has been based on this forever. Hulk Hogan was their champion for many years because he was big and strong. It was believable for this 6'6, 300 lbs. to beat anyone, because he was so big and strong.

 

How can you say it's realistic, in 2005 with all the huge guys the WWE has, for someone who is as small as a cruiserweight and in his 40's, who was also once retired, to beat someone in his 20's, who is also much bigger and stronger? Not to mention Shawns shitty moveset.

 

Randy Couture won the UFC lightheavyweight title in his 40s. Fighting and Wrestling are a lot closer than Baseball and Wrestling. But Randy Couture was (1)Big and Ripped, and (2)Had the moves and skills to get it done. And even then, going into his big fights, Randy was generally considered the underdog on the basis of his age. It was considered astonishing that -at his age- he could be so competative. Shawn Michaels does not look like Randy Couture, nor does he have the skill of Randy Couture, nor does he have the benefit of being in a shoot to prove he belongs in the ring with younger guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, you're argument isn't that HBK's too old to beat Cena; it's that he's too small. If you were talking about Batista or Brock Lesnar, I might be able to see that argument, but Cena really doesn't look all that strong. I don't think that the WWE fanbase would see that as a mismatch based on size at all. I mean Angle looks bigger and tougher than Cena, and no one complained that Angle/HBK was a mismatch due to size, and that it was unbelievable for HBK to compete with him. I think HBK/Cena would work just fine.

 

Besides, if I was booking, and HBK had beat Hogan at Summerslam, I still wouldn't have him go over Cena clean at Unforgiven. If HBK's going to work as a legitimate heel over the next few months, the fans have to have some reason to think he's undeserving. I probably would have tried to lay out the match somewhat like Rock/Jericho from No Mercy 2001. Go ahead and let HBK play the face for the early part of the match since he'd get cheered over Cena anyway, and then at the end, let him realize that he can't put Cena down with Sweet Chin Music, and that he needs to cheat to get the job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this. If the build's right, then older wrestlers can beat younger wrestlers.

 

However, retired wrestlers that look like they're 45 shouldn't beat people that the WWE could potentially build a brand around.

 

Is that simple enough?

 

Edited. You're a schmuck.

 

HBK's not retired, dumb fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow.  What point in his career?  You're talking like he's as old as Hogan or Flair.  When Flair was as old as Shawn, it was 1989.  I wouldn't be surprised if Shawn had another 10 years left and was still having good matches when he's 50.  Hell, Batista is only a few months younger than Shawn and he's just getting into the title picture.  What exactly, other than a bias against Shawn, makes you think he's almost finished and should never go near the title again? 

 

Shawn, as a heel this past month, was by far the most entertaining character on Raw.  That alone should have been more than enough reason for him to get a title run.  Nevermind that at 40 he's also arguably still the best wrestler on Raw, easily better than Cena could ever hope to be.  But.. THEN there's the fact that if he's seen as someone at the top level, someone that could beat Hogan, someone that could win a world title instead of a has-been, he'd be in a better position to put over other wrestlers. It's kinda hard to make new stars when you're known as the guy that gets beat by everybody, just look at Foley or Flair. Or when you're the guy that gets his ass handed to him by a 52 year old with an artificial hip.  If there's anything Raw needs, it desperately needs someone that can make new stars.  Someone that can make main eventers.  Right now, HHH is the only one that can do it.  Shawn can't.  If Masters completely dominates Michaels and pins him clean, he won't be a main eventer.  Not even close to one.  A win over Hogan and a world title run could have maybe changed that and kept his heel character alive, continuing to make Raw exciting for months.  But I guess Cena doing nothing with the title and turning Shawn face and wasting him on Masters is smarter than that.

 

Amen.

 

I also like how mature the moderator around here is :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is that HBK, based on "objective analysis" using "physical factors" (as used when saying Hogan shouldn't have beaten HBK - age, proximity to retirement, physical ability) can't believably beat Cena, period. Angle is pretty small too, and is a physical wreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HBK's not retired, dumb fuck.

 

So that whole period between 1998 and 2002 was what??

 

The same thing he was doing for almost all of 1997. And 1995. And 1994. In fact, come to think of it, he's never been that active a wrestler, has he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HBK's not retired, dumb fuck.

 

So that whole period between 1998 and 2002 was what??

 

That was the time when he thought he was going to have to retire due to injury. Now, that he's recovered, he's not retired. I mean, honestly, he's been doing a full-time schedule for over three years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
HBK's not retired, dumb fuck.

 

So that whole period between 1998 and 2002 was what??

 

The same thing he was doing for almost all of 1997. And 1995. And 1994. In fact, come to think of it, he's never been that active a wrestler, has he?

That bears some investigation. What have HBK's most consistent years been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HBK's not retired, dumb fuck.

 

So that whole period between 1998 and 2002 was what??

 

That was the time when he thought he was going to have to retire due to injury. Now, that he's recovered, he's not retired. I mean, honestly, he's been doing a full-time schedule for over three years now.

 

He spent 4 years thinking about retiring?

 

And, no, he's not full-time and hasn't done a full-time schedule in 9 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HBK's not retired, dumb fuck.

 

So that whole period between 1998 and 2002 was what??

 

The same thing he was doing for almost all of 1997. And 1995. And 1994. In fact, come to think of it, he's never been that active a wrestler, has he?

That bears some investigation. What have HBK's most consistent years been?

As a singles wrestler, either 1993 or 1996. He was off for a lot of 1994 and 1995. He was off for a few months in 1997 after 'losing his smile', and when he did come back he would only work major house shows and refused to work a full schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michaels works more shows than HHH. More than Taker. That's the WWE's big three of firmly established stars. He was retired. Now he's not, it just feels like he is because his character acts like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Hogan was _ever_ on a full-time schedule. So saying *he's* "retired" when he does 2 or 3 matches a year, is a bit off. Growing up, I'd see Hogan as much as I saw him this year. If that.

 

The point is still the same with Michaels, the guy was once retired for a reason, meaning that his "best days" are long behind him.

 

But let's continue to hold HBK at a different standard because um... err...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you were talking about Batista or Brock Lesnar, I might be able to see that argument, but Cena really doesn't look all that strong.

Cena definitely looks stronger than HBK. Also, Cena has FU'd: Big Show, Rikishi, A-Train, and Undertaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair though, Cena is like HHH: Yes, they are both pretty big guys. And yes, they are strong. But neither wrestle like they are strong or big. Triple H tries to be Flair while Cena's main thing is getting the crap beaten out of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×