Guest Risk Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 COME ON ! He is the one of the greatest of all time. Austin is washed up compared to what he was before, HBK used to be a LEGEND ! If ya compare HBK and Austin at their BEST, you will see that HBK is better. Why cant HBK come back from a career threatening injury and still be good. Why do you ppl have to be so cynical. Watch his 1996 stuff, drool and then tell us. He WILL be great and I hope to god he proves EVERYONE wrong ! IT'S THE GENIUS~! (only guys who have been here awhile we remember him. You can tell because he has a space before his exclamation points.
Guest Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 risk, I would not talk, you and your raw roster post. Thats was about the dumbest thing I ever read. --Rob
Guest Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 In the words of Scott Keith, "We already have enough Divas on TV without Shawn hogging the spotlight again."
Guest Risk Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 At least I use proper capitalization and spelling. Plus, I'm not universally hated, like you, Robert.
Guest Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 Thats what I want, I want to be popular on the internet, I could really give a shit what anyone thinks of me. For the most part, the only people on this board that I respect as posters are regulars in the sports and dvd forums. This board is basically for the bullshit. Also your a loser if you give a fuck what people think about you, especially on the internet. Thanks bud --Rob
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 I think that had TAKA been english and white, he would have gotten the same matches out of sid and nash that Michaels did. Or any other cruiser for that matter as all Shawn really did to 'make guys look good' was bump his ass off and oversell. Eddie could have, but who is to say that Sid or Nash would give him the freedom to control the match like they did Shawn? Hbk is going on 37. Average life-span of American Male: Aboot 75 Thus making him in the 'middle' of his life. I would 'exactly' call him middle-aged. Hell, what is the average lifespan of a professional wrestler? 70? 65? What would you say HBK's best match was? Is it better than Austins?
Guest Ravenbomb Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 Who cares how good he WAS??? A lot of ppl WERE good. Shouldn't it matter how good he is now? Apparently he isn't planning on wrestling (riiiiiiiiiiiiight) so it'll be a few weeks until we'll see. If he wrestles and is still good, I'll freely eat my words about him being washed up. But until then... I still say he's washed up, no matter how good he used to be.
Guest Risk Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 Thats what I want, I want to be popular on the internet, I could really give a shit what anyone thinks of me. For the most part, the only people on this board that I respect as posters are regulars in the sports and dvd forums. This board is basically for the bullshit. Also your a loser if you give a fuck what people think about you, especially on the internet. Thanks bud --Rob Well, maybe you should stop trolling here, and go back to the other folders, then.
Guest Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 hbk's best match with a gimmick was vs diesel no dq's. austins best match with a gimmick was i quit vs bret hart, advantage austin. Micheals ebst match without a gimmick vs mankind at mind games. austins best match wo a gimmick, vs dude love at unforgiven? advantage hbk. Those are just my opinions I could be wrong. God forbid I speak my mind and become unpopular on the forum. --Rob
Guest El Psycho Diablo Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 I don't get all the bitterness with HBK. Is it because he helped 'screw over' net favorite Bret? Or because he had the oh so evil 'backstage pull'? At least Michaels put on some damn good matches, unlike some others who I can name. Wrestlers all have their quirks. It's harder to name one that's perfect than most people think. Even "god" Benoit isn't a saint. But does that really matter if it dosen't show on TV? Not to me. If someone kept putting on great matches in the ring, they could be a psychopath in the back. I don't care. Backstage matters nothing to me as long as it's rightfully kept OFF tv. I marked out like a little kid when I heard the music hit. Personally, I'm glad to see him back. -Shiro
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 I won't comment much on this until it advances further. I will say that Michaels is completely useless if he doesn't wrestle, and he is mostly useless if we get 1997-1998 Michaels instead of 1995-1996 Michaels.
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 I forgot to mention, that if it IS 1995-1996 Michaels, it will be awesome.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 We would be LUCKY to get HBK of 97/98.
Guest TheyCallMeMark Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 I wish it was Genious ! He was hialrious... And I always loved it when he was right about stuff an other people got it rubbed in their faces... Ahh the good ol' days... SHUT UP !
Guest Brian Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 Actually Rob, Austin's best singles, non gimmick match was Hart at Survivor Series 1996.
Guest Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 brian, I thought of that, but I prefer, the dude love match, both were almost perfect, I just prefer one to the other. but I can see how you would say that, that match rocked in all sorts of ways. --Rob
Guest dreamer420 Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 COME ON ! He is the one of the greatest of all time. Austin is washed up compared to what he was before, HBK used to be a LEGEND ! If ya compare HBK and Austin at their BEST, you will see that HBK is better. Why cant HBK come back from a career threatening injury and still be good. Why do you ppl have to be so cynical. Watch his 1996 stuff, drool and then tell us. He WILL be great and I hope to god he proves EVERYONE wrong ! i'm not glad he's back. he's the biggest d-bag in the history of wrestling and guys like him cause trouble in the lockeroom.
Guest Cataclysm911 Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 I thought that HBK's best gimmick match was the Hell in a Cell with the Undertaker. To each their own.
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 I couldn't believe that some people on this site couldn't even wait for the segment to end before bitching on the board. It seems as there's almost a bit of pride here on not marking out when the WWEGH tries to create a mark-out moment. nWo, Hogan, HBK, and even the RVD swerve title win all had "I am not marking out right now but rolling my eyes and calmly waiting for the WWF to screw this up" posts. I can't believe people sit and bitch about how dead the crowd was and other little nuances when by their own admission they had trouble trying to watch the show instead of Everybody Loves Raymond or whatever. Well then, why do you care?
Guest RickyChosyu Posted June 4, 2002 Report Posted June 4, 2002 Michaels will not be in full form, or even anything compared to what he used to be. His back injury is really bad, and I think he's going to stay a mouthpiece. He wasn't too bad at that, with the Corperation, but nWo just doesn't fit him. I have a feeling this is going to be another DX incarnate, and I'm afraid it's just not interesting anymore.
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Well, put me in a figure four and call me Mark, but I did mark out when the music hit....But then HBK didn't talk, and I also wondered if a) he's going to wrestle and b) what kind of form he's in. I guess we just have to wait and see. I'm cynical to the WWEEEEEEEEEE these days, but there is still that 10 year old kid in me that truly wants to enjoy wrestling. So I hope that Micheals does wrestle, whether he can still do those insane bumps or not...at least get out there and work. On the other hand, I agree with the whole rehashing of DX thing too. DX in any color or combination has been done to death.
Guest RetroRob215 Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 What about HBK-Undertaker from Ground Zero? No gimmick there and it was better than any Undertaker-Austin match. Whether you want to believe it or not, more than half of the WWE's wrestlers suck. If Michaels is still able to wrestle as well as he did in 97 the company should be happy to have him back. I think Shawn Michaels is a better wrestler than Steve Austin because Shawn is more well-rounded. Shawn could work a decent-->good match with ANYONE. Austin's matches are hit-and-miss, there is NO denying that.
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 HBK wasn't anything special. He had charisma and was a decent wrestler. He is in no way shape or form a legend. Now he's back. Good for the WWF, he can draw in some money now, people will want to see what kind of trouble he will stir up. He might wrestle and he might not. Either way he will be what he's always been: Average.
Guest AnnieEclectic Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Just adding my two cents: Who... in their right mind, honestly sees Austin being a good wrestler? He's a great psychologist and promo man, but have you *seen* him wrestle? Name five moves of Austin's that don't involve some sort of punch-kick. Do the same for Michaels. I win. Please give your coat to the Coat Check Girl as you leave. I mean please, even with the nauseating *boy-toy* gimmick and the 'I'm a closet homosexual' dancing (we -are- pretty good at noticing our own kind) Shawn Michaels blows Austin out of the water, and barely beats the Rock, as Shawn has a much better move set. Bret is a better wrestler, but didn't quite have HBK's promo stylings. so blah. -Annie p.s. I marked like I was a little 10 year old schoolgirl again.
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 If Michaels is still able to wrestle as well as he did in 97 the company should be happy to have him back. The quality of matches wasn't the problem. It was the fact that he wrestled like five matches all year.
Guest notJames Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 I couldn't believe that some people on this site couldn't even wait for the segment to end before bitching on the board. It seems as there's almost a bit of pride here on not marking out when the WWEGH tries to create a mark-out moment... You know what I mark out for? Good wrestling. Until Michael Shawn Hickenbottom gives me that, he's just another Jurassic Park rehashed dinosaur waiting to cause trouble. And there is no comparison between Austin and HBK when it comes to their impact on wrestling. Austin revolutionized the sport. HBK was barely able to keep his company afloat.
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 hbk's best match with a gimmick was vs diesel no dq's. austins best match with a gimmick was i quit vs bret hart, advantage austin. Micheals ebst match without a gimmick vs mankind at mind games. austins best match wo a gimmick, vs dude love at unforgiven? advantage hbk. Those are just my opinions I could be wrong. God forbid I speak my mind and become unpopular on the forum. --Rob Dude. HBK? Best gimmick match? Diesel? Hello, Hell In a Cell? Give me a break Diesel is his best match
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 And there is no comparison between Austin and HBK when it comes to their impact on wrestling. Austin revolutionized the sport. HBK was barely able to keep his company afloat. Wrestling was in a downturn. Without Shawn Michaels, the WWF goes under, Austin never hits the scene, and we'd all be bitching about Eric Bischoff getting too much TV time instead of Vince
Guest notJames Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 And there is no comparison between Austin and HBK when it comes to their impact on wrestling. Austin revolutionized the sport. HBK was barely able to keep his company afloat. Wrestling was in a downturn. Without Shawn Michaels, the WWF goes under, Austin never hits the scene, and we'd all be bitching about Eric Bischoff getting too much TV time instead of Vince I can't argue with the validity of that statement since I don't have figures to prove how big a draw Michaels was in that time, but I'd bet my left nut that Austin proved to be 100x the draw Michaels ever dreamed of being. Not only that, Austin brought major mainstream recognition to wrestling. He became a household name seemingly overnight. You might argue it was his feud with Michaels prior to WM14 that did it, but I don't remember the mainstream news reporting about "Austin vs. Michaels" so much as "Austin and Mike Tyson go toe to toe". As for the WWF going under, McMahon may be many things, but he's no dummy. He's proven himself to be very resilient, and if Austin hadn't come along, another wrestler would have stepped in to take his place. It's like cutting one of the heads off a hydra, only to have 2 or 3 others take its place. Regardless, without Austin, everyone in the wrestling business would not have tasted as much success as they have. Can the same be said about Michaels?
Guest Risk Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 The Kane gimmick kind of took a lot away from HITC, but otherwise it was good. I would have prefered a clean finish, though. Tell me I'm not the only one who remembers the Genius...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now