ECW Region, Los Angeles Subregion, Second Round:(3)Shawn Michaels vs.(14)Brock Lesnar

[Papa Pillman]

This is the ECW region... or as I'll choose to call it for this match-up, the Paul Heyman region.

Was Shawn clearly superior to Lesnar in every way, aside from the fact that Lesnar may be a more impactful PPV draw(say what you will about UFC not being pro wrestling, but drawing power is still drawing power)? Yes. In most ways Lesnar clearly doesn't stack up.

Would any of that matter if Heyman were booking this match? No. Brock is his monster. HBK would the perfect guy for him to use to put Brock over on a stage like this. In L.A. The world watching. A legendary opponent who makes bigger more powerful opposition look like gold. It's the recipe Heyman would love. Like it or not, Brock would go over as a result.

 

[nightmare]

Brock Lesnar.

Brock Lesnar.

Brock f'n Lesnar.


Shawn can dance, do his turnbuckle flip spot & hit a nice superkick all he wants. He has no damn chance. Remember what happened last time these 2 crossed paths? Someone was running around back stage-scared & then got a broken arm & it sure wasnt Brock.


HBK was great but I would hardly call him dominant. He is talented & good for some laughs, but since coming back from his injury in 98 he has essentially been a nostalgia act with a few matches that stole the show (Flair, Jericho, Angle, Taker)

Brock Lesnar = destruction.

Shawn can bring Chyna, HHH, Marty Jannetty or Jose Lothario & it wont make a bit of difference. Lesnar + Heyman in an ECW rules match means Brock will destroy Shawn. Broken bones, busted tables, bent chairs- all will result in Brock standing tall & smearing the blood of HBK across his chest like war paint.

 

[Brewski]

I'm not going to quote and pick through stuff because I frankly don't really care about arguments. These are two wrestlers that I would argue quit in their prime and returned and managed to continue on it. Shawn wins this for me. He has a career full of big matches and big wins. I don't think either really gets the advantage of an ECW match since both have experience in no DQ matches. Sure Lesnar might be a lot more brutal but it's not like I haven't seen a red faced HBK plenty of times either.

Durring brocks first run he did beat Undertaker which was a big win and did a lot for Cena's career when he was still young. In fact making Cena look good was the most important thing Brock ever did IMO. He split with Big show. He split with Benoit (IIRC). He lost to Eddie Guerrero. He lost to Goldberg (Two stars in their last match and the WCW guy wins?) Biggest matches of his were against Kurt Angle when brock first tapped out, then Brock won at WM (nearly killing himself), Then won again in that awesome Iron Man match, then lost in Japan. They split here which is important to me because of how highly I consider Angle.

He's beat a lot of big names but lost to them too, I really never considered Brock's run really that special. He often looked really dominant, but I think he could have done a lot more. I just think that Shawn has beat a lot bigger names for a lot longer than Brock has. Brock is more athletic absolutely but Shawn is a smarter wrestler and can come up with a strategy to beat Lesnar. I'm not going to breakdown HBK's whole career here but big wins against Diesel, Hart, Undertaker, Triple H, Angle, Batista, and JBL. I want to make not that most that I mentioned occurred late in his career, even out of his prime. Basically he's beaten everyone that Brock has and achieved way more than Brock has. Most importantly though is to be aware of HBK's CLEAN win over a prime John Cena in 2007. Cena almost never loses, let alone cleanly to an old Shawn Michaels. Great match and a huge win for Michaels there.

Brock lesnar lost an extreme rules match to Cena last year durring one of John's worst years coming right after losing to The Rock. I just don't understand how I can believe Brock beats a prime HBK when he can't beat a slightly off Cena?

For the guys who only care about who draws/star power more: Shawn Michaels is, was, and will forever be a bigger star than Brock Lesnar. UFC right now is a huge mainstream giant right now and Brock was a star there briefly. A lot of that popularity came over to WWE with him yet he was still booked to lose his first match back. Sure he's more of a household name than Shawn but what's the point if he's losing.

For the guys that are about match ups: Brock is way faster, stronger, and bigger than Michaels absolutely but since when is this a simple enough reason to win a match? Michaels is smarter, he can fly, he has better technical ability, and is just as good with weapons. With that said I don't think Michaels wins outright but nobody has an edge. It's the intangibles.

I understand how you could vote either way here but HBK has had a lot more experience and is better in big matches. Brock is an incredible athlete but he comes up short here. Shawn Michaels wins this.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

HBK against Brock Lesnar under ECW rules, in my eyes, doesn't bode well for HBK.

HBK was great, greater than great. I have little doubt that he'd make Lesnar earn a victory. Michaels was someone who was deceptively tough and he was beyond tenacious during his matches, especially when he was the underdog heading into them.

In this environment though, I can't see myself voting against Brock Lesnar. It's been brought up numerous times but it's also true: during Lesnar's nearly 2 years in WWE, he beat everyone in WWE and in decisive, dominant fashions. Lesnar went over Taker at HIAC without the benefit of having Kane interfere for him and hand him the victory. It's impressive as Michaels is someone who, to my knowledge, never went over Taker without substantial interference and usually got the crap beaten out of him in the process.

Both men would bleed here, but I can see Lesnar catching Michaels foot during an attempt at Sweet Chin Music, hoisting him on his shoulders and delivering an F5, possibly the 2nd or 3rd one of the match, on HBK, this time through a table for the win.

 

[HBsam31]

Shawn is my favorite all time, and I know he has beaten bigger men before in situations like this, but I can't vote agasint lesner here with this being Extreme rules. He would just be way too much for Shawn. I really really wanted to vote HBK here, but Lesner gets my vote this time.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I want to vote for HBK, I want to really do it but all I can think about it is when HBK faced Batista in a stretcher match, a match where Batista basically abused HBK. Now don't get me wrong I think HBK could pull a good offensive/defensive against Lesnar, hitting him on the knees, applying his verison of the figure four leg lock etc.

It would be a bloody match involving tons of false matches, weapons, Sweet chin music and F-5s, yet at the end of the day Lesnar would applied one last F-5 on a table, on the floor, on chairs or something and win this.

Fuck Shawn...

 

[klunderbunker]

The main argument that I keep hearing is that Lesnar is too much for Shawn.

Here's the thing: can you name a match Shawn has had where that hasn't been said about his bigger opponent? Better yet, can you think of an opponent that was too much for Shawn that he didn't eventually beat? Shawn made arguably two great careers out of taking the beating of his life and making a superhuman comeback, usually by superkicking someone's head off out of nowhere to buy himself some time. Again, Shawn doesn't have to dominate Lesnar. He has to keep his shoulders down for three seconds. He's done it to Vader, Diesel, Undertaker, HHH, Chris Jericho, John Cena and a ton of other names that are far bigger than Lesnar. If anyone can pull this off in a miracle, it's Shawn Michaels.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this match but just looking at the comments I felt I had something that needed to be said. People keep looking at this match and peering over to Brock Lesnar and then to HBK and going 'umm, De big oNe wins'.

Since when the absolute fidgeting fuck has size been the over-riding factor in wrestling? Almost all of the absolute most successful guys in history have been of a fairly normal size. Sammartino, Thesz, Austin, Hart, Michaels, Flair, Cena, Punk, Sting and so on. All of these guys have been booked to beat big guys at one time or another. So what if it LOOKS like it might be a physical mis-match. This is professional wrestling, the people in the back decide what happens based on the people's reactions.

That means if it's time for Rey Mysterio to go over The Big Show, they find a way for him to go over the Giant. If they need Malenko to beat The Great Khali, it happens. Hell, if they want Jamie Noble to go over Andre The Giant, they'll make it happen. Size is only so important, but not as important in being the guy that draws money. Shawn might have been on top in a time when WWE was struggling financially, but he was still on top and making a lot of money and bringing in a lot too. Comparatively not as much, but still. And in that time he went over guys like Psycho Sid, The Undertaker, Diesel because WWE said he was the right man to do that for business. Who are we to argue. Who is anybody to say that because Brock Lesnar is a big wrecking machine he wins this match. That's real life, this is wrestling, in this match HBK has every chance of winning because in wrestling he's as big as Brock ever was.

I'm not necessarily voting for Michaels but I'm just sick of this size-based voting everyone is going on in this tournament. It's almost like everybody is forgetting what we're discussing. Fake matches and fake decisions and fake outcomes, and what makes it all happen is behind the scenes stuff, and in that respect HBK and Brock Lesnar are not world's apart.

 

[8thwotwATG]

After a lot of thought, I gave this match to Shawn Michaels. What put me over to give Shawn the victory was Shawn's overall career in pro wrestling as opposed to Lesnar's overall career. Don't get me wrong, if this were a shoot, Lesnar would feed Michaels his balls, but in the realm of sports entertainment, Shawn trumps Lesnar. KB has stated numerous times in this thread about the ability of Michaels to overcome impossible odds to achieve victory, and after revisiting some of Shawn's matches via youtube, I'm inclined to agree. Shawn's stuff always looked good, Shawn always gave 5 star matches at big events, and Shawn could make virtually anyone look good, even if they weren't. Lesnar is more of a speciman, Lesnar was an NCAA amateur champ, and had success as a competitor in UFC. There is NO DOUBT that Brock is a legitimate badass. What Brock Lesnar wasn't was a better professional wrestler. Shawn, in spite of how I feel about him, is one of the greatest to ever grace the squared circle. Lesnar will be booked as a monster,(rightfully so) and will beat Shawn to within an inch of his life, but HBK , on the absolute brink of defeat, nails Lesnar with sweet chin music and pins him , barely able to stand up at the matches conclusion. Shawn moves on. Again, the main reason i give this to Shawn is that he was the better professional wrestler than Brock, delivering more quality matches, and making more fans get invested in his activities as opposed to Mr. Lesnar. To restate, Shawn wins by an eyelash.

 

[Bdubbs]

Better yet, can you think of an opponent that was too much for Shawn that he didn't eventually beat?

The only two names that come to mind are Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin. Lesnar obliterated Hogan, and not only did he score the victory, he KO'd arguably the biggest draw of all time. Lesnar and Austin never had a match because Vince wanted SCSA to do the job. We all know the story about "Austin taking his ball and going home."

I've been a fan of HBK throughout his stellar career, but I just can't vote him over Lesnar. Yes, HBK has scored a win over almost everybody, but he's had more opportunity with his long, storied career. Lesnar came on the scene, and in 2 years, he destroyed nearly everyone on the roster.

HBK wouldn't make it easy for Brock, but I see an F5 inevitably ending this. For me, Lesnar moves on to the next round.

 

[klunderbunker]

The only two names that come to mind are Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin. Lesnar obliterated Hogan, and not only did he score the victory, he KO'd arguably the biggest draw of all time. Lesnar and Austin never had a match because Vince wanted SCSA to do the job. We all know the story about "Austin taking his ball and going home."

I've been a fan of HBK throughout his stellar career, but I just can't vote him over Lesnar. Yes, HBK has scored a win over almost everybody, but he's had more opportunity with his long, storied career. Lesnar came on the scene, and in 2 years, he destroyed nearly everyone on the roster.

HBK wouldn't make it easy for Brock, but I see an F5 inevitably ending this. For me, Lesnar moves on to the next round.

I'd be very skeptical about considering the Hogan win to mean anything. It was 2002, not 1989. Hogan was a shell of his former self at that point and a win over him only meant so much. Also, I'd hardly worry about a loss to Austin when he was wrestling with a broken back.

I'd hardly say Lesnar destroyed everyone. He didn't destroy Angle, he didn't destroy Big Show, he never destroyed any of the bigger stars on Raw.

On top of that, in Shawn we have a guy who is a speedy high flier who can be tricky when needed. This would be the same kind of guy that took the title from Lesnar in 2004: Eddie Guerrero. Lesnar has had problems with smaller guys who are crafty (Eddie, Angle, Benoit) and Shawn fits that mold perfectly well and is arguably the best ever to work that style.

Shawn wins, just as he should.

 

[Bdubbs]

I'd be very skeptical about considering the Hogan win to mean anything. It was 2002, not 1989. Hogan was a shell of his former self at that point and a win over him only meant so much. Also, I'd hardly worry about a loss to Austin when he was wrestling with a broken back.

I'd hardly say Lesnar destroyed everyone. He didn't destroy Angle, he didn't destroy Big Show, he never destroyed any of the bigger stars on Raw.

On top of that, in Shawn we have a guy who is a speedy high flier who can be tricky when needed. This would be the same kind of guy that took the title from Lesnar in 2004: Eddie Guerrero. Lesnar has had problems with smaller guys who are crafty (Eddie, Angle, Benoit) and Shawn fits that mold perfectly well and is arguably the best ever to work that style.

Shawn wins, just as he should.

Yes, Hogan was past his prime, but you asked who has wrestled HBK that he didn't eventually get the better of. Although Hogan's better years were behind him, I can't see how you can discount a Brock KO victory. If you do, then how come HBK couldn't beat Hogan 3 years later at Summerslam?

I'm not seeing your defense for Austin. Although he was banged up, he was still on the elite tier. Looking back, Austin himself admitted it wasn't the smart thing to do.

For decisive 1 on 1 victories, Lesnar has the upperhand. For the most part, he had no issues with the smaller, crafty wrestlers. He has a better win/loss record in singles matches against Angle, Benoit(who he TKO'd), Big Show, and Taker. Him and Guerrero are tied up at 1 victory each. And of course he didn't destroy Raw superstars because he was primarily on Smackdown.

This would be a great match for sure, but voting Lesnar into the next round is the right choice.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes, Hogan was past his prime, but you asked who has wrestled HBK that he didn't eventually get the better of. Although Hogan's better years were behind him, I can't see how you can discount a Brock KO victory. If you do, then how come HBK couldn't beat Hogan 3 years later at Summerslam?

I'm not seeing your defense for Austin. Although he was banged up, he was still on the elite tier. Looking back, Austin himself admitted it wasn't the smart thing to do.

For decisive 1 on 1 victories, Lesnar has the upperhand. For the most part, he had no issues with the smaller, crafty wrestlers. He has a better win/loss record in singles matches against Angle, Benoit(who he TKO'd), Big Show, and Taker. Him and Guerrero are tied up at 1 victory each. And of course he didn't destroy Raw superstars because he was primarily on Smackdown.

This would be a great match for sure, but voting Lesnar into the next round is the right choice.

....Austin beat Michaels in a war with Shawn barely able to move. You really think that isn't enough to write off that loss? He couldn't get in a ring again for almost five years.

Let's take a look at these matches you mention:

2-1 against Angle, including a loss at Summerslam and a not included pin by Angle at Vengeance for the title.
1-0 against Benoit, although he tapped to him at Survivor Series and the singles win was when Lesnar had a BIG advantage going in
Yes, Brock indeed did beat Eddie in a worthless match before losing to him for the world title.

In other words, the only time Lesnar is undefeated against these guys is when he has a big advantage coming in. He tapped clean to Angle and was pinned by in a three way. Brock was also pinned by Guerrero.

In other words, Brock has trouble against guys that size and he always has. To suggest that Shawn wouldn't beat him doesn't hold up given Shawn's success in matches just like this against similar opponents and Brock's struggles against opponents like Shawn.

In other words, when you think about it instead of just voting irrationally, Shawn wins.

 

[deem]

I don't think you can go wrong with either man here. Shawn's resume speaks louder and I prefer him, but Lesnar was booked more dominantly for his run than Michaels ever was. HBK has beaten guys like Lesnar, Lesnar has beaten guys like HBK. The Extreme Rules may slightly favour Brock but the showstopper isn't a slouch either. Both would make a good round 3 opponent for Punk.

I came into the thread thinking I'd vote for Lesnar. Klunder has sorta made me hop into the Michaels camp by pointing out Lesnar's struggles against similar opponents, but I'm not entirely sold. I still have no idea which way I'm voting.

I will say people are swayed too much by post-2002 Shawn. His work was great during this time undoubtedly, but he existed mostly to develop and put over other talent. His win/loss wasn't great in the 90s either, but at least he was on top of his title form then and it should be used to base your decision on, rather than more recent work.

Also, arguments involving Heyman booking ECW are kinda null and void too. Regions don't matter in that extent, we have to assume impartial booking or WCW stars would be at too much of a disadvantage in WWE regions etc.

Yeah this is really balanced. I think I'll go with Shawn because the arguments for him are more persuasive, but I certainly see him being dominated in this match which makes me doubt the choice. Still, Flair made a career out of being dominated and picking up the wins, there is no reason Michaels couldn't do the same.

I think I'll come back to this thread tomorrow and see how it's developing. Page my vote into the Shawn camp for now, I can easily be swayed by a few more good pro-Lesnar arguments.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't think you can go wrong with either man here. Shawn's resume speaks louder and I prefer him, but Lesnar was booked more dominantly for his run than Michaels ever was. HBK has beaten guys like Lesnar, Lesnar has beaten guys like HBK. The Extreme Rules may slightly favour Brock but the showstopper isn't a slouch either. Both would make a good round 3 opponent for Punk.

I came into the thread thinking I'd vote for Lesnar. Klunder has sorta made me hop into the Michaels camp by pointing out Lesnar's struggles against similar opponents, but I'm not entirely sold. I still have no idea which way I'm voting.

I will say people are swayed too much by post-2002 Shawn. His work was great during this time undoubtedly, but he existed mostly to develop and put over other talent. His win/loss wasn't great in the 90s either, but at least he was on top of his title form then and it should be used to base your decision on, rather than more recent work.

Also, arguments involving Heyman booking ECW are kinda null and void too. Regions don't matter in that extent, we have to assume impartial booking or WCW stars would be at too much of a disadvantage in WWE regions etc.

Yeah this is really balanced. I think I'll go with Shawn because the arguments for him are more persuasive, but I certainly see him being dominated in this match which makes me doubt the choice. Still, Flair made a career out of being dominated and picking up the wins, there is no reason Michaels couldn't do the same.

I think I'll come back to this thread tomorrow and see how it's developing. Page my vote into the Shawn camp for now, I can easily be swayed by a few more good pro-Lesnar arguments.

Well let's see if I can lock you up tonight then.

You mentioned Flair making a career out of being destroyed but somehow pulling off the win. If there has ever been a second coming of Ric Flair, it's Shawn Michaels: works a very similar style, sells beatings like no one else, can time comebacks perfectly, can work either style perfectly well and the list goes on.

On top of that, there's a basic wrestling principle that I haven't brought up yet: monsters are created to be defeated. This has been the case since the days when Abe Lincoln made some hick from Indiana tap out. Think about every monster heel ever. They've all been slayed by someone smaller and usually more agile than they are. This isn't a Shawn or a Lesnar thing. It's a wrestling thing. Guys like Shawn are perfect for this role because on paper they look like they have no chance at all yet they make a superhuman comeback and win.

Wrestling fans and people in general like to cheer for the little guy and love it even more to see him win. In wrestling, it's a way of life that the smaller guy is going to win in the end. Shawn is made to win here and has done the exact same thing against people that have dominated him for the entire match, only to come back and win in the end.

While awesome and a physical specimen, Brock is made to lose in the end. It's how wrestling works.

 

[deem]

Well let's see if I can lock you up tonight then.

You mentioned Flair making a career out of being destroyed but somehow pulling off the win. If there has ever been a second coming of Ric Flair, it's Shawn Michaels: works a very similar style, sells beatings like no one else, can time comebacks perfectly, can work either style perfectly well and the list goes on.

On top of that, there's a basic wrestling principle that I haven't brought up yet: monsters are created to be defeated. This has been the case since the days when Abe Lincoln made some hick from Indiana tap out. Think about every monster heel ever. They've all been slayed by someone smaller and usually more agile than they are. This isn't a Shawn or a Lesnar thing. It's a wrestling thing. Guys like Shawn are perfect for this role because on paper they look like they have no chance at all yet they make a superhuman comeback and win.

Wrestling fans and people in general like to cheer for the little guy and love it even more to see him win. In wrestling, it's a way of life that the smaller guy is going to win in the end. Shawn is made to win here and has done the exact same thing against people that have dominated him for the entire match, only to come back and win in the end.

While awesome and a physical specimen, Brock is made to lose in the end. It's how wrestling works.

I agree with this and I think it'd stop Lesnar winning the tournament eventually, however strong he is booked. You have to appreciate the fact that monsters get built to that level by going over a lot of credible faces before they fall to the world beating hero. While I'm sure that HBK is good enough to take that role here, there is nothing saying that Lesnar wouldn't be pushed over him, over Punk, over Flair before falling to Cena in the tournament finale. That's a fairly likely scenario too. Even if that's too big a stretch, going over Punk before losing to Flair would be a decent payoff too. Basically, while I don't disagree, I don't believe its a fundamental reason to vote HBK here.

I've actually continued to think about this since my last post and havn't got too far. Lesnar isn't a big man, he's a powerful, athletic guy. Completely different to the Sid/Diesel/Undertaker mold, so I'm going to disregard that form somewhat while taking on board that HBK doesn't struggle vs larger opponents.

The closest to Lesnar I can find is Vader and Batista. The Batista feud was a way past his prime HBK Vs a title winning Batista. HBK won the singles, got decimated in the gimmick match. I don't know how to take this since Michaels in the 2000s is a completely different animal to the one Lesnar is facing here. In the Vader match, HBK went over - Vader never reached Lesnar level though, and when weapons were introduced (chairs and the badminton racquet) Vader didn't seem to have much of a problem noselling the offence. In fact, in the more hardcore elements of the match, Vader certainly dominated.

Out of respect for you I'm still not voting. I've gone from 60% Lesnar, to 55% Michaels, to 55% Lesnar and I'm still undecided. Right now Michaels over HHH at SS2002 is the biggest influence I have to voting Shawn, but Lesnar is way more of a handful.

 

[klunderbunker]

I agree with this and I think it'd stop Lesnar winning the tournament eventually, however strong he is booked. You have to appreciate the fact that monsters get built to that level by going over a lot of credible faces before they fall to the world beating hero. While I'm sure that HBK is good enough to take that role here, there is nothing saying that Lesnar wouldn't be pushed over him, over Punk, over Flair before falling to Cena in the tournament finale. That's a fairly likely scenario too. Even if that's too big a stretch, going over Punk before losing to Flair would be a decent payoff too. Basically, while I don't disagree, I don't believe its a fundamental reason to vote HBK here.

I've actually continued to think about this since my last post and havn't got too far. Lesnar isn't a big man, he's a powerful, athletic guy. Completely different to the Sid/Diesel/Undertaker mold, so I'm going to disregard that form somewhat while taking on board that HBK doesn't struggle vs larger opponents.

The closest to Lesnar I can find is Vader and Batista. The Batista feud was a way past his prime HBK Vs a title winning Batista. HBK won the singles, got decimated in the gimmick match. I don't know how to take this since Michaels in the 2000s is a completely different animal to the one Lesnar is facing here. In the Vader match, HBK went over - Vader never reached Lesnar level though, and when weapons were introduced (chairs and the badminton racquet) Vader didn't seem to have much of a problem noselling the offence. In fact, in the more hardcore elements of the match, Vader certainly dominated.

Out of respect for you I'm still not voting. I've gone from 60% Lesnar, to 55% Michaels, to 55% Lesnar and I'm still undecided. Right now Michaels over HHH at SS2002 is the biggest influence I have to voting Shawn, but Lesnar is way more of a handful.

The problem with the idea of going over quality opponents like Shawn is that this is meant to be wrestlers in their prime. In his prime, Shawn did not lose. No matter which prime you pick for Brock, he would regularly lose to people of Shawn's size and style. It's his Achilles heel. I'm not sure if you're a Star Wars fan or not, but Brock would be the Death Star to Shawn's Luke Skywalker. Brock is so big and powerful that he gets cocky and allows someone like Shawn to sneak in and steal the win.

You mentioned Vader and Flair earlier, so I would point you to Starrcade 1993 when Vader WAS in top form. He was an unstoppable monster that could even stop Sting, the John Cena of his day. After destroying everyone else in sight, only Flair was left standing. At Starrcade 1993, Vader beat the tar out of Flair until Vader had nothing left to throw at him. Flair got up and punched Vader down with his bare hands, only to be run over again.

At the end though, Flair tripped Vader up, cradled the legs, and won the match and the title. Shawn has shown over the years to have insane resiliency and Brock has shown over the years that he's too cocky for his own good. Shawn would get destroyed for most of the match but he only has to win for three seconds, which he could do, just like Flair over Vader.

 

[deem]

The problem with the idea of going over quality opponents like Shawn is that this is meant to be wrestlers in their prime. In his prime, Shawn did not lose. No matter which prime you pick for Brock, he would regularly lose to people of Shawn's size and style. It's his Achilles heel. I'm not sure if you're a Star Wars fan or not, but Brock would be the Death Star to Shawn's Luke Skywalker. Brock is so big and powerful that he gets cocky and allows someone like Shawn to sneak in and steal the win.

You mentioned Vader and Flair earlier, so I would point you to Starrcade 1993 when Vader WAS in top form. He was an unstoppable monster that could even stop Sting, the John Cena of his day. After destroying everyone else in sight, only Flair was left standing. At Starrcade 1993, Vader beat the tar out of Flair until Vader had nothing left to throw at him. Flair got up and punched Vader down with his bare hands, only to be run over again.

At the end though, Flair tripped Vader up, cradled the legs, and won the match and the title. Shawn has shown over the years to have insane resiliency and Brock has shown over the years that he's too cocky for his own good. Shawn would get destroyed for most of the match but he only has to win for three seconds, which he could do, just like Flair over Vader.

Persuasive post, I like everything you've said. Comparing Michaels to Flair is a stretch, but they do wrestle similar styles as do Vader and Lesnar, so I think it's valid

You claiming Shawn's win/loss was solid in his peak made me check. Turns out I have a misconception that he lost a lot during this time - that's not the case. It's a very short peak though - just as short as Lesnar's, probably shorter including the time off through WM13. That said, he did well during it - beating Undertaker, Mankind, Bulldog repeatedly. He dropped the title to Sid but regained it shortly. I still think Lesnar's prime was a better period than anything Shawn has ever had (in terms of kayfabe dominance, not match quality. gimme 2002-2010 Shawn any day) but I think I'm convinced that Michaels could see out this match.

 

[klunderbunker]

Persuasive post, I like everything you've said. Comparing Michaels to Flair is a stretch, but they do wrestle similar styles as do Vader and Lesnar, so I think it's valid

You claiming Shawn's win/loss was solid in his peak made me check. Turns out I have a misconception that he lost a lot during this time - that's not the case. It's a very short peak though - just as short as Lesnar's, probably shorter including the time off through WM13. That said, he did well during it - beating Undertaker, Mankind, Bulldog repeatedly. He dropped the title to Sid but regained it shortly. I still think Lesnar's prime was a better period than anything Shawn has ever had (in terms of kayfabe dominance, not match quality. gimme 2002-2010 Shawn any day) but I think I'm convinced that Michaels could see out this match.

Indeed he could. As mentioned earlier, Shawn survived in hardcore based matches against monsters like Diesel and Undertaker, both of whom beat the tar out of him but Shawn survived long enough for something to happen. Both matches are appropriate here.

In the Diesel match at In Your House 7 (definitely worth seeing if you never have. It's a WAR), Diesel got too cocky and wouldn't cover Shawn when he had the chance. Shawn got back in the ring after being Jackknifed through a table, but Diesel stole Mad Dog Vachon's leg which was enough for Shawn to make his comeback. As mentioned, Brock had a tendency to get too cocky and not finish when he had the chance.

Against Undertaker, Shawn certainly was in trouble, but he wasn't on defense the entire time. He even managed a piledriver on Undertaker on the steps. The key thing though was he survived long enough to take advantage of something that happened and win.

Another thing to keep in mind is the experience. Even in the mid-90s, Shawn had wrestled for over ten years. Even today, Brock has a total of about three years in American wrestling if you REALLY stretch it. An experienced Shawn is going to be able to find a weakness in Brock even though Shawn isn't the better athlete or brawler. I would point you to May 2, 2005 against Shelton Benjamin. Shelton was stronger, faster and more athletic, but Shawn hung in there long enough to catch Shelton in a mistake and all it took was one superkick to stop him.

Or if you're a movie fan, look at Top Gun. Tom Cruise was probably the more skilled pilot at the time but he got WAY too cocky and Tom Skerritt beat him.

 

[Bdubbs]

....Austin beat Michaels in a war with Shawn barely able to move. You really think that isn't enough to write off that loss? He couldn't get in a ring again for almost five years.

Let's take a look at these matches you mention:

2-1 against Angle, including a loss at Summerslam and a not included pin by Angle at Vengeance for the title.
1-0 against Benoit, although he tapped to him at Survivor Series and the singles win was when Lesnar had a BIG advantage going in
Yes, Brock indeed did beat Eddie in a worthless match before losing to him for the world title.

In other words, the only time Lesnar is undefeated against these guys is when he has a big advantage coming in. He tapped clean to Angle and was pinned by in a three way. Brock was also pinned by Guerrero.

In other words, Brock has trouble against guys that size and he always has. To suggest that Shawn wouldn't beat him doesn't hold up given Shawn's success in matches just like this against similar opponents and Brock's struggles against opponents like Shawn.

In other words, when you think about it instead of just voting irrationally, Shawn wins.

You have a point with HBK being in rough shape against Austin at WM. Why should it be written off though? The only reason Guerrero beat Brock was because Lesnar was going out the door. Eddie was in the right place at the right time, and he's one of the most overrated wrestlers by the IWC. Should we write off that match too?

You say that Brock only beats the small, agile wrestlers when he has the advantage. Of course he has the advantage, look at his size and tenacity. The match records don't lie. Yes, Brock tapped to Angle, but HBK has tapped out to plenty of people over the years. You also had no answer to why if Lesnar demolishing Hogan should be taken with a grain of salt, why couldn't Michaels beat Hogan at 2005 Summerslam?

Lesnar had one of the most dominant short periods in wrestling. HBK popping off an unexpected, desperation superkick isn't going to end Brock. It may take more than one F5, but HBK is going down. Instead of voting nostalgic, how about voting objectively? Lesnar for the win

 

[klunderbunker]

You have a point with HBK being in rough shape against Austin at WM. Why should it be written off though? The only reason Guerrero beat Brock was because Lesnar was going out the door. Eddie was in the right place at the right time, and he's one of the most overrated wrestlers by the IWC. Should we write off that match too?

No, as Brock leaving didn't come out until a week before Wrestlemania. From what I've read, Eddie winning the title had been planned for months. Brock vs. HHH had been penciled in for WM 21 around then.

You say that Brock only beats the small, agile wrestlers when he has the advantage. Of course he has the advantage, look at his size and tenacity.

Or when Benoit had wrestled a fifteen minute match against Cena earlier in the night.

The match records don't lie. Yes, Brock tapped to Angle, but HBK has tapped out to plenty of people over the years.

Yeah, and Brock has tapped at least twice to smaller guys. both guys have tapped. What's your point?

You also had no answer to why if Lesnar demolishing Hogan should be taken with a grain of salt, why couldn't Michaels beat Hogan at 2005 Summerslam?

An opponent like Michaels is better suited for someone like Hogan. hogan, being a veteran, wouldn't make the mistakes Brock would make. There's your difference.

Lesnar had one of the most dominant short periods in wrestling. HBK popping off an unexpected, desperation superkick isn't going to end Brock. It may take more than one F5, but HBK is going down. Instead of voting nostalgic, how about voting objectively? Lesnar for the win

Why wouldn't it? It's stopped dozens of guys before and has put those same guys down.

I find the vote objectively line amusing. Based on the stuff I've said to you and others, it looks like Brock would be in BIG trouble with someone like Shawn. We have a guy who has less than three years experience against one of the best ever. I'm thinking the veteran would find a way to take him down, as so many other veterans did over the years.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

I get it, it is the cool thing to hate on Michaels. Yeah he was a huge fucking prick in his early years. He oversold a lot, he had a poor attitude, any other bullshit reason you can come up with to hate the guy. I get that, it is cool to hate HBK. He was a huge asshole, but people won't let it go.

He always entertained me though. The guy was a childhood idol, and you can call me out for drinking the WWE Kool-Aid, call me whatever, but he is one of the greatest of all time.

Brock is a guy who had a few years on top, was never overly entertaining on his own, and currently shows up a few times every 4 or 5 months and beats Triple H and bores the shit out of most people. Last Monday after Cena and Punk were done, I changed RAW. I give no shits about Lesnar, I was never a fan in his first run, I hated him in the UFC, I don't care for him now.

Shawn has my vote.

 

[BobOlsenBobson]

Shawn Michaels, Brock Lesnar both loved by some and hated by others. I don't think that anyone is arguing that Brock wouldn't pound on Michaels and bloody him up. So by that same token who says Michaels would be able to make a comeback and win. Great American Bash 2008, Badd Blood 2004 and even One Night Stand 2008 show that HBK isn't always able to make a big comeback against some one out there to brutalise him and I think in this case Lesnar would win.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Shawn Michaels has shown time and again that he is capable of pulling off the unexpected win in a match that he would not be supposed to survive, let alone win. His resume proves that.

On paper you would give this to Lesnar every single day of the week. His aggression, strength, speed and legitimate fighting skills plus the fact he is a fucking mean son of a bitch should be enough to take down anyone, even the "Boy Toy", but Shawn is one of the all time greats and has proven before he could pull something out of the hat.

Add to the fact that Lesnar lost his Extreme Rules match to John Cena after kicking the crap out of him for the whole match shows that there is the potential to upset Lesnar in this kind of match, and Shawn is the sort of guy who just needs a second to plant his foot in Lesnar's face and then sneak a 3 count.

I'm torn on this one, I really am. But I am going to go with HBK being bloodiest, beaten and broken but somehow sneaking the win, I think that's how it would go down.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I was going to avoid this one: it seems to have transformed into the sort of pedantic quagmire which makes the WrestleZone tournament simultaneously brilliant and terrible, and I didn't want to get sucked into it. Alas, match-ups wherein I'm both interested and adequately informed are in short supply, so I may as well jump in feet first.

Not to beat around the bush anymore than I already have, I will be voting Brock Lesnar. I don't think it would be a squash match (who, honestly, would ever squash Shawn Michaels?), nor do I think it's a foregone conclusion - as evidenced by how the poll currently stands - but I will be voting for Brock Lesnar.

There are two wrestlers about whom me and Tastycles vociferously disagree. Yes, I've broken out my internal thesaurus for this one. Those two wrestlers are Randy Orton and Brock Lesnar. Also, I quite like the way Matt Morgan wears Hulk Hogan's cape, but I don't think that disagreement quite qualifies as 'vociferous'. Whereas Tasty, i.e. Mr. Cles, thinks Lesnar and Orton are total bores (rather!), they're two of my very favourite wrestlers. Maybe it's the generational gap.

There many wrestlers who commentators will try and sell as a hurricane incarnate. "Bah Gawd, he's jus' ragdollin' that young man!", "As God as my witness, he is broken in half!", "This [insert name here] is nothing but a monster!", etc. etc. Very rarely will such hyperbole actually match-up with what's in the ring. Take Ryback, for instance. I like Ryback, but his offense doesn't befit someone of that size with that many muscles - at least when he's wrestling anybody heavier than, well, me. He's got biceps in his fucking earlobes, yet he lacks the natural strength of Mark Henry, Big E. Langston, or, one assumes, all black men.

The announcers could leave the booth whenever Brock Lesnar comes out and I'd be totally sold that this man is a monster who would break your spine as soon as look at you. I remember his debut, throwing Spike Dudley about as if he were a bag of flower. I remember him totally outwrestling Eddie Guerrero, pretty much toying with him, not just to beat him, but to demoralize him. I remember him standing toe-to-toe with the biggest names in the wrestling world - with The Undertaker, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Kurt Angle - and coming out decisively on top. I remember him being one of the few people to pick up The Big Show to look like he somehow didn't pull every muscle in his body doing it. You didn't have to sell Brock Lesnar to me. You've got Paul Heyman managing him, and Jim Ross doing commentary, which would be enough to convince you that Tajiri is a nine foot cave troll, but you didn't need them - I could see that Brock Lesnar was the real deal.

I like Shawn Michaels. I really like Shawn Michaels. I like him to the point that I don't feel the need to bring up politics or Bret Hart or cocaine every time he's mentioned. Um, sorry about that. I wouldn't be insulted if he went over Brock, but nor do I think he should - nor would.