Guest Human Fly Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 The Genius was great! The thing I always liked about the Genius was the fact that no matter who it was he would always sell like he was an old woman getting beat on by Ahmed Johnson. The Genius is who they should bring in for commentary.
Guest Shadow Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Okay, I'm starting to think that some people here never actually saw HBK wrestle, so here, let me go over some of his better matches from 96 on: (if you want to count it, HBK-Jarrett from one of the IYHs in 95, forget which one, for the IC Title, was a ***** and got on Keith's Best 20 Matches list): 96: We had Shawn-Owen at the IYH between Rumble and WMXII, we have what is probably my favorite wrestling match of all time, the Iron Man Match between HBK and Bret at WMXII that was ****3/4, Shawn carried Nash to his only really great match at IYH: Good Friends, Better Enemies, another ****3/4, and Shawn had a ***** match with Mankind at IYH: Mind Games that Foley says is his best match ever. His second match with the Bulldog at KOTR '96, his match with Vader at SummerSlam '96, and his match with Sid at Survivor Series '96 were all at least *** as well (and who else can say that they had a *** match with freaking Sid?). 97: He didn't work that many matches, but for the ones he did work: **** with Austin at KOTR '97, **** with Bulldog again at One Night Only, ****1/2 brawl with Undertaker at Ground Zero, ****3/4 (ending is the only thing that brings it down) orignial Hell in a Cell Match with Undertaker (who can say they had back-to-back over-****-matches with Taker, besides Shawn?) at Badd Blood. His match with Bret at Survivor Series '97 had a number of obvious factors that took it down- still wasn't that bad a match besides the ending, of course, and Shawn had a **1/2 with Shamrock at D-Generation X, which wasn't bad considering the circumstances. 98: In the match that started the end of his career, HBK had a ***1/2 Casket Match with Taker at Rumble '98 (which I personally would have rated higher, but that's what Keith gave it), and despite the fact that he could barely move, still managed to ahve a ***1/4 match with Austin at WMXIV. So, my point? Shawn deserves a lot more credit than everyone here is giving him. When you look at that list, Shawn's had more great matches than Austin, who's very hit-or-miss, and Shawn's best matches are better than Austin's best, so that should end that arguement. I am confident that HBK will step into the ring again, and when he does, you'll all see that even a 50% HBK is better than most wrestlers out there. (Note: The star ratings aren't mine- I'm obviously a bit biased- they are all directly from Scott Keith's rants.)
Guest Risk Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 I meant THE POSTER "The Genius." Am I the only one who remembers him?
Guest raptor Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Congratulations Shadow... Somebody actually backed up their opinions. NEAT.
Guest Human Fly Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 "I meant THE POSTER "The Genius." " Poffo still gets no love.
Guest papacita Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 The Genius...VINCE...SIGN HIM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! As for Michaels...I'm happy to see him back, but like I said, if WWE screws this one up, I'm done. In the past few weeks I've gone from never missing a Raw in 5 years to missing 2 and not even giving a shit about it. HBK's return gives me something to care about again, and that's all that matters to me. As for what kinda backstage trouble he causes, who gives a shit? It's not like I'm ever going back there, so what guys like the Kliq and Hogan do don't matter to me (especially when you can find so many on-camera reasons not to like some of these people). As for Michaels' best gimmick match...I didn't see he and Diesel, but I'll go with one of the ladder matches. Hell in a Cell was overrated IMO.
Guest Brian 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." Yeah, but Michaels didn't have a career threatening neck injury that was tearing away at him plus two bad knees, while having to carry a guy a year past that, working even slower. I remember how bad Taker was in 1998/9. Do you? For what limitations Austin had to wok with, I think he did better. Given a healthy Austin and Undertaker a year earlier, I think he could have surpassed what Michaels did. Moveset? What a poor point. Shadow's post later.
Guest El Psycho Diablo Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 It's just making excuses, really. Sure, Michaels wasn't the draw that Austin was. But you know one thing? Austin had his gimmick on his side. He got to kick the crap out of the boss, something back then, anybody would cheer for. Austin got one HELL of a break, and just happened to "revolutionize" wrestling along the way. What did he do? He's indirectly responsible for Vince being on TV, thank you. He got loads of airtime, and plenty of shock tv segments. (like the AA one Monday). Sure, Austin's great. But if he wasn't allowed to run rampant over the roster and never look weak, would he be what he is today? -Shiro
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Of course Michaels wasnt going to draw as well as Austin, Michaels had to work during the worst down period in WWE history, when cartoon gimmicks were still running rampant. Did u see Austin during the pre Attitude period, HBK was more over than he was prior to the Attitude change. And HBK and Bret both carried the WWF through the dark period, any show I went too (in canada in other words hart land), had tons of girls and guys dressed like HBK, with HBK signs, and were popping like mad for the Boy Toy. And if Michaels is an average wrestler, so is everyone else in the WWE right now, Michaels is a great wrestler and is a legend.
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 from earlier in this thread, there is no denying how awesome hiac with hbk was, but the brawl with diesel was fucking insane, and imo set as a blueprint for how the attitue era matches take place. Also the shots were stiff as hell, can't beat that shit. It's very close, but I will take good friends, better enemies still. --Rob
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 <Gimmick Match> For what it's worth, Before he became World Champion. I really liked his SECOND Ladder Match with Hall At SummerSlam 95.
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 the seoncd one did not touch the first, only for the fact that he blew the finish. The first was great for innovation, but I still like good friends, better enemies more. --Rob
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 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? Yes it can. There is no WWF, or WWE for that matter, if HBK wasnt there in 96/97. Bottom line. If he wasnt there, and ESPECIALLY if he had gone to WCW (Before WCW turned to complete shit), the WWF would be dead and gone, and Eric Bischoff would be the #1 guy.
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Micheals did create the attitude era with dx. Austin just took the ball when micheals was done and kept running, but hbk set the play in motion. --Rob
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Micheals did create the attitude era with dx. Austin just took the ball when micheals was done and kept running, but hbk set the play in motion. --Rob Yet another great point
Guest notJames Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Congratulations Shadow... Somebody actually backed up their opinions. NEAT. Yeah... with someone else's opinions. Not the best way to prove a point... And I don't recall Shadow comparing HBK's matches to all of Austin's, who, as was stated before, worked with both a bum neck and jelly knees, also worked with big stiffs, and still gave memorable matches. So if you're going to say: Shawn's had more great matches than Austin, who's very hit-or-miss, and Shawn's best matches are better than Austin's best, so that should end that arguement but not provide any comparison, you're preaching to your choir while ignoring the congregation. I'm not going to argue Michaels' past accomplishments. I've seen his matches. I know he had the goods. But that does nothing for me today, when the WWE is churning out crap on a stick and can think of nothing better to do than bring back old faces. And all the arguments over Michaels' wrestling prowess are moot if the reports are true about him not wrestling at all. Having yet another non-wrestler mouthpiece in an upper-card spot is both a waste of TV time and a slap in the face of wrestlers who desperately need the push. Like I've said before, if he's going to wrestle, he gets one match to prove he's still got it. If he's the godlike grappler everyone says he is, and can combat 5 years of ring rust, a broken back, and a diminished moveset (I'll eat my words if he pulls out a moonsault or a Savage elbow, but I doubt we'll ever see them), I will never utter a bad word about him ever and will pimp his awesome like Anglesault on MDMA. I, however, don't think it will happen. As for the argument over who started Attitude, it was Goldust. Seriously, Goldust wasn't just a cartoonish heel gimmick. He was a character that transcended traditional face/heel paradigms. Before him, you had good guys and bad guys clearly delineated by both their actions and demeanors. Then came Goldust. Was he a heel because he stalked Razor Ramon, or because he attacked societal norms by daring to portray a bizarre, left-of-center, and most importantly, effeminate character (historically the most "diabolical" of gimmicks)? After that, faces weren't always so straight-and-narrow, and heels weren't always so hated and despised. Regardless, even if Michaels and DX "created" Attitude, it was Austin's characterization, charisma, and talent that made it work, on the mainstream media, the entertainment-starved marks, and the hard-to-win-over smarks. Michaels never had that kind of crossover appeal. Sorry I rambled. I'll try to keep my smark ranting under 500 words next time
Guest Brian Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 "Sure, Austin's great. But if he wasn't allowed to run rampant over the roster and never look weak, would he be what he is today?" And what did it take for him to get that opportunity. If he hadn't run with the smallest opportunities he got, like KOTR 1996, he wouldn't have been anything. "the seoncd one did not touch the first, only for the fact that he blew the finish. The first was great for innovation, but I still like good friends, better enemies more." The second was uch better than the first. Stronger psychology, built off the other, and was still inovative with a gimmick that wasn't fresh. Isn't the latter reason why everyone basically likes the TLC matches so much? "Yes it can. There is no WWF, or WWE for that matter, if HBK wasnt there in 96/97. Bottom line. If he wasnt there, and ESPECIALLY if he had gone to WCW (Before WCW turned to complete shit), the WWF would be dead and gone, and Eric Bischoff would be the #1 guy." Same with Hart. Revisionist history will basically look at them as placeholders for Rock and Austin. As for attitude, when the WWF got into serious character development with guys like Golddust and Mankind, as well as Austin, and shaded the grey, that's what it took. It was not one person really.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 You know what is funny? Everyone is arguing that HBK created attitude directly with dx, but in reality, he created it indirectly with his backstage behavior. KOTR 96: HHH was scheduled to win it, but the infamous curtain call at MSG where the kliq broke the fabe cost HHH his crown, and gave Austin his. 3:16 was born. WM 13: This was supposed to be a rematch from WM 12 w/ Bret going over Shawn. SOMEONE lost his smile and Sid got the belt. Bret/Austin happened instead which created not only one of the best matches in WWF history, but an image which defined the up-coming attitude era. Survivor Series 97: HBK knowingly screws Bret. It is the catalyst for Austin/Mcmahon and created an uproar in the industry. The archetypical screw-job which became a signature of the WWF that is still going strong today.
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 As for the argument over who started Attitude, it was Goldust. Seriously, Goldust wasn't just a cartoonish heel gimmick. He was a character that transcended traditional face/heel paradigms. Before him, you had good guys and bad guys clearly delineated by both their actions and demeanors. Then came Goldust. Was he a heel because he stalked Razor Ramon, or because he attacked societal norms by daring to portray a bizarre, left-of-center, and most importantly, effeminate character (historically the most "diabolical" of gimmicks)? After that, faces weren't always so straight-and-narrow, and heels weren't always so hated and despised. Regardless, even if Michaels and DX "created" Attitude, it was Austin's characterization, charisma, and talent that made it work, on the mainstream media, the entertainment-starved marks, and the hard-to-win-over smarks. Michaels never had that kind of crossover appeal. That entire Goldust argument relies on the heel/face line being ripped apart as the equivalent of the "Attitude" era. Goldust/Ramon was STILL back in the "New Generation" era, not "Attitude" Michaels was one of the few who transcended both, however it was Michaels AND Austin during 1997 that really put the whole "Attitude" concept into play. In '97, their matches got bigger, badder, faster, bloodier, raunchier, and it wasnt who's the face who's the heel that caused that. Wrestlemania 13, Bret vs. Austin, The HBK/Mankind match, HBK's two matches against the Undertaker, and finally Bret vs. HBK. I think the Montreal screwjob, the entire mentality of that Survivor Series was the very last day of the "New Generation" of WWF superstars. With Austin alone, the buildup would not have the same meaning as it did when WM14 swung around again. Bret Hart was the last "classic" WWF Champion, (Hogan not counting, he's now a cartoon, not a champion) and Michaels ended up being the Table-setter for Austin. If not for his back injury, 1998 would have seen Austin and McMahon, HBK and Taker, HBK and Austin, and a continuation of that. Not to knock what DID happen in '98, which for the most part was really good. HBK ended up being the transitional champ from "New Generation" to "Attitude," and if he didnt sum up what 90% of the "New Generation" was, he sure as heck put his stamp on "Attitude"
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 WrestleMania XVII 2.18 No Way Out '01 1.6 Royal Rumble '01 1.35 Armageddon '00 1.15 Survivor Series '00 1.0 No Mercy '00 1.35 No Way Out '00 1.2 Royal Rumble '00 1.6 Armageddon '99 0.97 Survivor Series '99 1.14 No Mercy '99 0.88 Unforgiven '99 0.85 Summer Slam '99 1.47 Fully Loaded '99 1.07 King Of The Ring '99 1.13 Over The Edge '99 1.24 Backlash '99 1.06 WrestleMania XV 2.32 IYH: St. Valentine's Day Massacre '99 1.21 Royal Rumble '99 1.88 IYH: Rock Bottom '98 0.78 Survivor Series '98 1.30 IYH: Judgment Day '98 0.89 IYH: Breakdown '98 0.86 Summer Slam '98 1.48 IYH: Fully Loaded '98 0.90 King Of The Ring '98 1.10 IYH: Over The Edge '98 0.58 IYH: Unforgiven '98 0.85 WrestleMania XIV 2.3 IYH: No Way Out '98 0.52 Royal Rumble '98 0.97 IYH: DeGeneration X '97 0.44 Survivor Series '97 0.89 IYH: Badd Blood '97 0.60 IYH: Ground Zero '97 0.45 Summer Slam '97 0.80 IYH: Canadian Stampede '97 0.59 King Of The Ring '97 0.50 IYH: A Cold Day In Hell '97 0.57 IYH: Revenge Of The Taker '97 0.50 WrestleMania XIII 0.77 IYH: Final Four '97 0.50 Royal Rumble '97 0.70 IYH: It's Time '96 0.35 Survivor Series '96 1.30 IYH: Buried Alive '96 0.44 IYH: Mind Games '96 0.48 Summer Slam '96 0.58 IYH: International Incident '96 0.37 King Of The Ring '96 0.60 IYH: Beware Of Dog '96 0.45 IYH: Good Friends, Better Enemies '96 0.81 WrestleMania XII 1.2 In Your House VI 0.77 Royal Rumble '96 1.10 In Your House V 0.3 Survivor Series '95 0.57 In Your House IV 0.4 In Your House III 0.7 Summer Slam '95 0.9 In Your House II 0.7 King Of The Ring '95 0.65 In Your House I 0.83 WrestleMania XI 1.3 Royal Rumble '95 1.0 Survivor Series '94 0.9 Summer Slam '94 1.3 King Of The Ring '94 0.85 WrestleMania X 1.68 Note: Ratings started to go into the 1's on a consecutive basis a year after HBK left (credit:Steveswrestling.com)
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Yeah.. Before last RAW RVD v. Eddy ladder match got a 3.7. This last RAW Austin/Flair got a 4.1. Coincedence? People don't just tune in when they think of it. They had to have heard something or gotten interested into watching it. Whether or not Shawn did something for buyrates, they didn't just hear the name of some guy named Steve and start watching WWF religiously.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Let it be noted that there is a significant difference between a week and a year.
Guest papacita Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 There's also a big difference between The Rock and TL Hopper.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 There is a difference. However we are talking about impact, not circumstance. Do you honestly think that it was HBKs impact that lead to the Wwfs success a year later? There was nothing in HBK that lead to Mcmahon/Austin, which was for all intents and purposes the biggest reason for the Wwfs success. DX maybe, but Road Dogg can be credited more for that than HBK. Tyson at WM 14 brought in a lot of chatter, it could probably be seen as the main factor in bringing fans in. WWf had nationwide exposure and a lot of people watched just to see Tyson. They became interested. HBK wasn't in top form, Austin was, would it not be reasonable to conclude that it was Austin impact that kept the fans watching rather than HBKs?
Guest Some Guy Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 I've read a lot of SHawn wasn't that great and what not, yet he had Diesel's, Sid's, Foley's, Taker's etc... best match of their carreers. He was basically the only thing worth watching in 1996 WWF and held the dying promotion together and then helped to jump start it to it's huge heights in 98-2000. Shawn put Austin other clean as a whistle while very injured and then left (with the injury) this enabled Austin to shine on his own, simalar to how Rock did in 2000 with Austin out. HBK was the best performer in the WWF in the 90s period. Even better than Bret, Flair, Hogan, Savage, etc... No one of those guys in the WWF combined workrate, athletics and charisma on HBK's level.
Guest papacita Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 No, I would never say attribute the WWF's 98 turn-around to HBK. It just bugs me that a lot of people have the believe that just because the WWF wasn't selling as well during Shawn's title reigns that it was somehow his fault...saying that he's not a draw when 90% of the WWF's problems were caused by shoddy, outdated booking. 2001 alone should've proven that a fed's success of failure isn't determined by the quality (or even the popularity) of it's World Champion/top star, but quality of the overall product. I mean, honestly, I don't care how many 5 star matches Michaels put on, one of the major storylines of the period centered around a lovesick Hillbilly. With angles like Taker/Kane, Austin/McMahon, DX/Nation...hell, even Sable and Jackie...I'd choose the 98 product anyday. As for DX...I'd give X-Pac more credit than I would Road Dogg. DX never would've gotten face pops post-WM if not for his return.
Guest notJames Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 As for DX...I'd give X-Pac more credit than I would Road Dogg. DX never would've gotten face pops post-WM if not for his return. Wow... never thought of it that way. Good point. And DX definitely hit its stride after Michaels left.
Guest Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 the orginal dx, with micheals was the best faction ever, those 5 months of tv were the best tv the wwf ever put on. And as for those buyrates, thats not justafiable because wcw was destroying them. As much as I am a flair fan, and he is my favorite wrestler, the best shit was the original dx, not the 4 horsemen. You guys remember the face guards with the wipers, hahaha --Rob
Guest Posted June 6, 2002 Report Posted June 6, 2002 Let it be noted that there is a significant difference between a week and a year. It's called an analogy. Look it up.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 6, 2002 Report Posted June 6, 2002 It's called an accurate analogy, use one next time. RVD/Guerrero = direct effect on ratings. HBK = No effect. Why? Cause HBK was too far removed from the success the Wwf had after he left.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now