Int'l Region, Fourth Round, 60 Min Iron Man Match:(2) The Rock vs. (3) Shawn Michaels

[klunderbunker]

Yeah, remember at WrestleMania 25 when he looked like he had no chance and then... oh he lost. And WrestleMania 26 when he looked like he had no chance and then, and then, oh yeah he lost. And WrestleMania XIV against Austin when it looked like he had no chance. Yep, turned out he had no chance and lost. And then there was WrestleMania 23 against John Cena where the odds were stacked against him and he... lost.

Or what about the ladder match against Razor Ramon at WrestleMania X, against a bigger opponent. Yep. Lost that one too. But then he went up against his bigger, stronger, former body guard in Diesel at WrestleMania XI. Nobody thought he had a chance, and well, he didn't. Because he lost yet another big match.

You've picked out four examples from his entire career when he overcame the odds, and included obscure In Your House matches and something off Raw. Just by looking at WrestleMania alone, it's easy to see loads of examples of him not overcoming the odds. At all.

You call the first Cell match obscure?

It's very true that Shawn does have a hit and miss record in top matches, but I'd put it above Rock's any day. Rock didn't win a Wrestlemania main event until Wrestlemania XXVIII. He could win when either the pressure was off or when he was against someone far beneath him at the time. Rock rarely rose to the occasion and won a big match when things were even or close.

Whatever way you look at it, Shawn Michaels is a loser. His singles win against Bret Hart at WrestleMania XII is one of 4 wins he had in his entire career at WrestleMania. The other wins were against Jericho - the only main eventer that loses more than Michaels, Ric Flair, aged 59 and Vince McMahon, a non-wrestler.

Rock's Wrestlemania wins:

Sultan
Shamrock via overturned decision
An over the hill Hogan
An over the hill Austin
Cena

I'll take beating Bret and Jericho at the levels they were at over Cena (again, notice that it's when the title isn't on the line) and two guys who ranged from old to leaving that day when the pressure was off.

Shawn Michaels isn't as good as The Rock, didn't achieve as much as The Rock and in no way deserves to beat The Rock. Whether you 'think about it' or not.

I'll take Shawn's matches over Rock's more often than not. This is certainly not saying Rock isn't great because his charisma is among the best of all time. Shawn is just a step ahead of him as far as in ring work goes and would win under these stipulations on this stage.

 

[Tastycles]

You call the first Cell match obscure?

Sorry, a match on Raw, obscure In Your House matches and a win gifted to him by a guy attacking his opponent. I don't think Kane has any beef with The Rock, so we should be golden.

It's very true that Shawn does have a hit and miss record in top matches, but I'd put it above Rock's any day. Rock didn't win a Wrestlemania main event until Wrestlemania XXVIII. He could win when either the pressure was off or when he was against someone far beneath him at the time. Rock rarely rose to the occasion and won a big match when things were even or close.

Rock won exactly as many WrestleMania main events as Michaels. The only difference between them is that Michaels was such a weak draw that some of his title matches weren't given the main event spot. E.g. WrestleMania XI. Where he still lost, without the pressure.

Rock's Wrestlemania wins:

Sultan
Shamrock via overturned decision
An over the hill Hogan
An over the hill Austin
Cena

I'll take beating Bret and Jericho at the levels they were at over Cena (again, notice that it's when the title isn't on the line) and two guys who ranged from old to leaving that day when the pressure was off.

The match with Cena was billed as a once in a lifetime main event. And he won it. Beating Hogan who had just turned 50 is better than beating Ric Flair who was about to turn 60. Beating Steve Austin at any age is better than beating Chris Jericho. Beating Cena is better than beating Bret Hart. Beating Ken Shamrock, an actual wrestler is better than beating Vince McMahon.

The Sultan is not exactly wrestling's most illustrious name, but you know what, he beat him. Unlike Michaels, who lost to his least decorated WrestleMania opponent in Tatanka.

Don't forget, when The Rock 'finally' won his main event at WrestleMania it was in front of a live audience that had more than 20,000 more people than for Michaels' first 3 WrestleMania title matches put together.

I'll take Shawn's matches over Rock's more often than not. This is certainly not saying Rock isn't great because his charisma is among the best of all time. Shawn is just a step ahead of him as far as in ring work goes and would win under these stipulations on this stage.

Match quality is irrelevant, but even if it was, I don't think there's anyone who could say with a straight face that The Rock's iron man is worse than Michaels'.

In terms of results, Michaels is unquestionably worse.
In terms of drawing, Michaels is unquestionably worse.
In terms of charisma, Michaels is unquestionably worse.
In the ring, Michaels is probably better.

Seems pretty straight forward.

 

[klunderbunker]

Sorry, a match on Raw, obscure In Your House matches and a win gifted to him by a guy attacking his opponent. I don't think Kane has any beef with The Rock, so we should be golden.

I'd hardly call the longest TV match in years if not ever obscure. The Diesel match was Shawn's first major title defense and Diesel's last major match in the company at the time. Again, not really obscure. Forgotten maybe but not obscure.

Rock won exactly as many WrestleMania main events as Michaels. The only difference between them is that Michaels was such a weak draw that some of his title matches weren't given the main event spot. E.g. WrestleMania XI. Where he still lost, without the pressure.

If we're doing the prime periods (are we?), Shawn won his match there and Rock was winless. It's the same argument that they have in Iron Man matches: neither is great, but Shawn is better.

The match with Cena was billed as a once in a lifetime main event. And he won it. Beating Hogan who had just turned 50 is better than beating Ric Flair who was about to turn 60. Beating Steve Austin at any age is better than beating Chris Jericho. Beating Cena is better than beating Bret Hart. Beating Ken Shamrock, an actual wrestler is better than beating Vince McMahon.

"Once in a lifetime best two out of three?" That has no bearing on this but it makes me chuckle.

The first Cena match was indeed a big moment and probably bigger than any Shawn Mania match ever. That's one win. What's his other big Wrestlemania win? Over Austin? After losing to him twice? Or over a guy like Hogan where Rock was half his age?

I'm not arguing star power in this as it would be a waste of our time. I'm arguing that Shawn was the better performer, and that he rises to bigger moments better. He did that more times than Rock did at Wrestlemania and has the same amount of Wrestlemania wins, as you pointed out.

The Sultan is not exactly wrestling's most illustrious name, but you know what, he beat him. Unlike Michaels, who lost to his least decorated WrestleMania opponent in Tatanka.

Way out of his prime and nowhere near the big stage. If we're going with that, Rock got pinned by the Hurricane in March 2003. Both guys have bad losses when they're not at their best. Rock has more big losses during his best days though.

Don't forget, when The Rock 'finally' won his main event at WrestleMania it was in front of a live audience that had more than 20,000 more people than for Michaels' first 3 WrestleMania title matches put together.

I'm not seeing how that's a point for either guy. The building was three times the size of any Shawn main evented in so Shawn never had the chance to do that.

Match quality is irrelevant, but even if it was, I don't think there's anyone who could say with a straight face that The Rock's iron man is worse than Michaels'.

How is it irrelevant? It's Shawn's greatest strength and one of Rocks.

In terms of results, Michaels is unquestionably worse.

I would certainly question that. You already said Rock has the same number of Wrestlemania wins as Shawn and I've already gone over Rock's record in long matches such as this one.

In terms of drawing, Michaels is unquestionably worse.
In terms of charisma, Michaels is unquestionably worse.

No argument on those points.

In the ring, Michaels is probably better.

Indeed.

Seems pretty straight forward.

Those last two words are the key here: straight forward. Rock wins this in a straight forward, one on one match if it goes 20 minutes or so. That's not the stipulation here though and Shawn takes it with his better stamina, quicker finisher that can score falls, and better record/more experience in long matches.

 

[Uncle Sam]

To go off on something of a tangent, I take issue with it being said that Michaels was better in the ring than The Rock. Perhaps he is - it just shouldn't be taken as a given. Or given as a taken.

In much the same way as women often look past my rippling muscles because of just how startling my good looks are, people overlook just what an incredible in-ring performer The Rock was because he was so incredible out of it. As we all know, a great performer is a great performer - regardless of whether they're cutting a promo, wrestling a match or featuring in a vaguely racist music video. That's what wrestling is, portraying a character, and The Rock was one of the very best at it.

Give me The Rock's matches against Mankind, against Triple H, against Steve Austin, against Hulk Hogan, even against Brock Lesnar - they are as good as anything Shawn Michaels, or anyone in a wrestling ring, has ever pulled off.

 

[Tastycles]

I'd hardly call the longest TV match in years if not ever obscure. The Diesel match was Shawn's first major title defense and Diesel's last major match in the company at the time. Again, not really obscure. Forgotten maybe but not obscure.

1) I didn't say the Raw match was obscure.
2) Something forgotten becomes obscure. I.e. Only a few people are aware of it.

"Once in a lifetime best two out of three?" That has no bearing on this but it makes me chuckle.

The first Cena match was indeed a big moment and probably bigger than any Shawn Mania match ever. That's one win. What's his other big Wrestlemania win? Over Austin? After losing to him twice? Or over a guy like Hogan where Rock was half his age?

Where's Michaels' other big WrestleMania win? Like I said, beating Austin at any stage is better than beating Chris 'lost at WrestleMania to Christian and Fandango' Jericho. Beating Hogan when he was 50 is better than beating Ric Flair when he was nearly 60. Beating Cena is better than beating Hart. Beating The Sultan is better than beating Vince McMahon, who isn't a wrestler. The Rock has also beat Ken Shamrock.

I'm not arguing star power in this as it would be a waste of our time. I'm arguing that Shawn was the better performer, and that he rises to bigger moments better. He did that more times than Rock did at Wrestlemania and has the same amount of Wrestlemania wins, as you pointed out.

Same number of main event wins. The difference is Rock lost to Steve Austin, Triple H and John Cena literally 3 of the biggest names in wrestling history. Michaels lost to Undertaker, Kurt Angle, John Cena, Chris Benoit, Diesel and Tatanka. A lot more defeats against a much lower calibre of opponent.

I'm not seeing how that's a point for either guy. The building was three times the size of any Shawn main evented in so Shawn never had the chance to do that.

Do you understand how supply and demand works? The reason that, say, WrestleMania III was where it was and say ROH house shows aren't. Michaels' one attempt at a big show was Royal Rumble 1997. In his home town, it didn't sell out and they gave tickets away for free and tarped it over.

What you're honestly saying is, well drawing power shouldn't be a factor in Delirious vs Hulk Hogan, because Delirious never got to wrestle in front of 100,000 people.

How is it irrelevant? It's Shawn's greatest strength and one of Rocks.

It's hardly a weakness (which I assume you mean) for the Rock though is it? I've never really heard anyone criticise his match quality. If that's his weakness, then it shows how strong the rest of his game is.

I would certainly question that. You already said Rock has the same number of Wrestlemania wins as Shawn and I've already gone over Rock's record in long matches such as this one.

Same number of main event wins: 1.

Whatever way you look at it, The Rock has beaten Austin, Cena and Hogan at WrestleMania, the three biggest stars of the last 50 years, and Shawn Michaels has beaten Bret Hart one of the biggest stars of the 90s. The Rock has also beaten a solid mid carder in Ken Shamrock, much like Michaels beat one in Chris Jericho.

No matter when it happened, nobody would think that this list of wins:

The Sultan
Ken Shamrock
Hulk Hogan
Stone Cold Steve Austin
John Cena

Is better than this one:

Bret Hart
Chris Jericho
Vince McMahon
Ric Flair.

Equally nobody would think that this list of defeats:

Triple H
Stone Cold Steve Austin
John Cena

Is worse than this one:

Tatanka
Diesel
Stone Cold Steve Austin
Chris Benoit
Kurt Angle
John Cena
The Undertaker

Those last two words are the key here: straight forward. Rock wins this in a straight forward, one on one match if it goes 20 minutes or so. That's not the stipulation here though and Shawn takes it with his better stamina, quicker finisher that can score falls, and better record/more experience in long matches.

If Michaels experience of laying on the floor for ages against Hart and The Undertaker is going to win this match, let it be so. The reality is that The Rock is so much a better professional wrestler than Michaels that he'd win whatever the set up.

 

[klunderbunker]

1) I didn't say the Raw match was obscure.
2) Something forgotten becomes obscure. I.e. Only a few people are aware of it.

More than a few know of that match.

Where's Michaels' other big WrestleMania win? Like I said, beating Austin at any stage is better than beating Chris 'lost at WrestleMania to Christian and Fandango' Jericho. Beating Hogan when he was 50 is better than beating Ric Flair when he was nearly 60. Beating Cena is better than beating Hart. Beating The Sultan is better than beating Vince McMahon, who isn't a wrestler. The Rock has also beat Ken Shamrock.

It's definitely beneath the Austin match at Wrestlemania XIX but yeah it's Jericho. Jericho was in the World Title match just a year before and Shawn came back to the ring less than a year before. After that would be Flair, which is similar to the Hogan match: more symbolic than anything else.

Same number of main event wins. The difference is Rock lost to Steve Austin, Triple H and John Cena literally 3 of the biggest names in wrestling history. Michaels lost to Undertaker, Kurt Angle, John Cena, Chris Benoit, Diesel and Tatanka. A lot more defeats against a much lower calibre of opponent.

Shawn lost to Austin and Cena, plus in a more famous match in the ladder match. That's not exactly a bad list.

Do you understand how supply and demand works? The reason that, say, WrestleMania III was where it was and say ROH house shows aren't. Michaels' one attempt at a big show was Royal Rumble 1997. In his home town, it didn't sell out and they gave tickets away for free and tarped it over.

Indeed I do understand it, and putting Wrestlemania XII-XIV being in arenas completely on Shawn is ridiculous. The NWO and WCW had the hottest thing in the world and they weren't doing any better in attendance. Running shows in huge stadiums wasn't the norm then and it's an unfair point of comparison.

What you're honestly saying is, well drawing power shouldn't be a factor in Delirious vs Hulk Hogan, because Delirious never got to wrestle in front of 100,000 people.

I'm saying blaming the mid-90s funk entirely on Shawn, or putting the strength of Wrestlemania XXVIII entirely on Rock is inaccurate.

It's hardly a weakness (which I assume you mean) for the Rock though is it? I've never really heard anyone criticise his match quality. If that's his weakness, then it shows how strong the rest of his game is.

I didn't mean weakness. I meant it's one of his strengths but not his greatest and not as great as Shawn's. Rock is great in the ring and I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

Same number of main event wins: 1.

Yeah, but I think Shawn has had better performances, even in his losses.

Whatever way you look at it, The Rock has beaten Austin, Cena and Hogan at WrestleMania, the three biggest stars of the last 50 years, and Shawn Michaels has beaten Bret Hart one of the biggest stars of the 90s. The Rock has also beaten a solid mid carder in Ken Shamrock, much like Michaels beat one in Chris Jericho.

And Flair, in a bigger match than anything else on the card.

No matter when it happened, nobody would think that this list of wins:

The Sultan
Ken Shamrock
Hulk Hogan
Stone Cold Steve Austin
John Cena

Is better than this one:

Bret Hart
Chris Jericho
Vince McMahon
Ric Flair.

I'm thinking you misspoke on that one chum.

Equally nobody would think that this list of defeats:

Triple H
Stone Cold Steve Austin
John Cena

Is worse than this one:

Tatanka
Diesel
Stone Cold Steve Austin
Chris Benoit
Kurt Angle
John Cena
The Undertaker

Writing off Tatanka as it was earlier in his run and before Shawn hit his best, I'd point out Shawn having a broken back and having to retire and the higher quality overall for Shawn's performances. It's not like Rock's wins are that much better. You also forgot Rock losing to Flair, Orton and Batista. I'll take Angle, Undertaker and Benoit over those three.

If Michaels experience of laying on the floor for ages against Hart and The Undertaker is going to win this match, let it be so. The reality is that The Rock is so much a better professional wrestler than Michaels that he'd win whatever the set up.

Indeed he did win those matches by staying on the mat a lot, because there were different rules for those matches, much like they are here. Regarding that last line, I would have said the same about Warrior vs. Flair in the last round, but not with those stipulations. The same is true here: Shawn is the kind of wrestler that finds a way to win an Iron Man match while Rock is supposed to be the one that wins but comes up short because of the rules not being in his favor.

 

[klunderbunker]

Give me The Rock's matches against Mankind, against Triple H, against Steve Austin, against Hulk Hogan, even against Brock Lesnar - they are as good as anything Shawn Michaels, or anyone in a wrestling ring, has ever pulled off.

I'll put Shawn vs. HHH at Summerslam 2002, vs. Mankind at In Your House X and the second ladder match over anything on that list save for the second Austin match.

 

[Tastycles]

More than a few know of that match.

Compared to the number that know WrestleMania? Absolutely not.

It's definitely beneath the Austin match at Wrestlemania XIX but yeah it's Jericho. Jericho was in the World Title match just a year before and Shawn came back to the ring less than a year before. After that would be Flair, which is similar to the Hogan match: more symbolic than anything else.

So his second win is below the Rock's second, and his first is below the Rock's first - your words not mine. His third is similar. The Sultan is, unbelievably, a hall of famer and Shamrock was probably the biggest career mid carder of the late 90s. Vince McMahon is a geriatric billionaire. So basically, all of the Rock's big wins are as big or bigger than Michaels'.

Shawn lost to Austin and Cena, plus in a more famous match in the ladder match. That's not exactly a bad list.

And to Tatanka and Diesel and Angle etc.

Indeed I do understand it, and putting Wrestlemania XII-XIV being in arenas completely on Shawn is ridiculous. The NWO and WCW had the hottest thing in the world and they weren't doing any better in attendance. Running shows in huge stadiums wasn't the norm then and it's an unfair point of comparison.

I'm saying blaming the mid-90s funk entirely on Shawn, or putting the strength of Wrestlemania XXVIII entirely on Rock is inaccurate.

He's the face of the company, he failed. WrestleMania VIII, the last one before Michaels and Hart became centre stage was in a stadium. WrestleMania X-Seven, when the Rock was in the main event was in a stadium. When the Rock semi-retired after WrestleMania XIX it went back to arenas. Michaels and The Rock aren't solely responsible for that, but given that they were both main eventers at the time, they are a huge part of it. The fact is, the WWE basically has two major draws at any given time since the Hogan days, loosely: Hogan/Savage, Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Flair, Hart/Michaels, Austin/Rock, Lesnar/Triple H, Cena/Batista, Cena/Orton, Cena/Punk, Cena/Bryan.

Only two of those pairings lost half of the audience - Hart/Michaels and Lesnar/Triple H. Of those, Michaels/Hart did the worst. Yes, WCW were tanking them, but that is because they weren't as good as the WCW top draws. When The Rock was in the main event, the WWF was outperforming WCW.

Also, Hart led PPVs comfortably outdrew Michaels led ones. Shawn Michaels is the worst drawing long-term main eventer in the last 30 years.

I didn't mean weakness. I meant it's one of his strengths but not his greatest and not as great as Shawn's. Rock is great in the ring and I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

Yeah, but I think Shawn has had better performances, even in his losses.

Great, so Shawn Michaels would look like gold whilst losing. Like he always did.

The guy is called Mr. WrestleMania, I get it, but he has a shockingly bad record there. Excluding tag matches Shawn Michaels is 5-9 at WrestleMania (we have both neglected his stunning victory to El Matador thus far). The Rock is 5-4. One of those is a winning record, the other is Shawn Michaels.

Shawn Michaels loses well, but he also loses a lot.

Wrestling entertaining matches isn't going to get you far in this tournament.

And Flair, in a bigger match than anything else on the card.

It had lower billing than 3 other matches on the card.

The featured matches, according to the WWE were the two title matches and Big Show vs Mayweather, but sure, it took him over 20 minutes to beat a 59 year old, but its a victory nonetheless.

Writing off Tatanka as it was earlier in his run and before Shawn hit his best, I'd point out Shawn having a broken back and having to retire and the higher quality overall for Shawn's performances. It's not like Rock's wins are that much better. You also forgot Rock losing to Flair, Orton and Batista. I'll take Angle, Undertaker and Benoit over those three.

I deliberately didn't include tag matches as it's not fair, but as you seem to want to do that, Michaels has also lost to Sato, Pat Tanaka, Big Boss Man and Akeem the African Dream at WrestleMania.

Indeed he did win those matches by staying on the mat a lot, because there were different rules for those matches, much like they are here. Regarding that last line, I would have said the same about Warrior vs. Flair in the last round, but not with those stipulations. The same is true here: Shawn is the kind of wrestler that finds a way to win an Iron Man match while Rock is supposed to be the one that wins but comes up short because of the rules not being in his favor.

Shawn Michaels has never won an iron man match. He drew two. He beat Hart in a bizarre overtime situation and drew to Kurt Angle - the man who's sole win in iron man matches was a narrow win against a fat indie wrestler.

 

[klunderbunker]

Compared to the number that know WrestleMania? Absolutely not.

Well of course not but by that logic, Shawn is far better known than Rock as Shawn has appeared at a lot more Wrestlemanias with a lot more memorable performances.

So his second win is below the Rock's second, and his first is below the Rock's first - your words not mine. His third is similar. The Sultan is, unbelievably, a hall of famer and Shamrock was probably the biggest career mid carder of the late 90s. Vince McMahon is a geriatric billionaire. So basically, all of the Rock's big wins are as big or bigger than Michaels'.

As I've said later on, I'm saying it's the performances more than the results, which is why I'd vote for Shawn here. They both have a similar bad record at Wrestlemania, but Shawn has better and more memorable performances.

And to Tatanka and Diesel and Angle etc.

Before his prime, before his prime and in the best match of the night. Again: Shawn has the better performer and can only win here with the stipulations benefiting him. However, they benefit him in a big way.

He's the face of the company, he failed.

The NWO era of WCW was often papered too. Did they fail?

WrestleMania VIII, the last one before Michaels and Hart became centre stage was in a stadium. WrestleMania X-Seven, when the Rock was in the main event was in a stadium.

I'd put X-Seven more on Austin's work building the company in 1998/1999 than Rock.

When the Rock semi-retired after WrestleMania XIX it went back to arenas.

It was in an arena when Rock was around in 2004.

Michaels and The Rock aren't solely responsible for that, but given that they were both main eventers at the time, they are a huge part of it.

Agreed, though I'm still looking for a reason why that affects Shawn winning an iron man match, which is the perfect match for him against Rock.

The fact is, the WWE basically has two major draws at any given time since the Hogan days, loosely: Hogan/Savage, Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Flair, Hart/Michaels, Austin/Rock, Lesnar/Triple H, Cena/Batista, Cena/Orton, Cena/Punk, Cena/Bryan.

Without getting into the details, I'd call most of those very, very loose descriptions of two major draws.

Only two of those pairings lost half of the audience - Hart/Michaels and Lesnar/Triple H. Of those, Michaels/Hart did the worst. Yes, WCW were tanking them, but that is because they weren't as good as the WCW top draws. When The Rock was in the main event, the WWF was outperforming WCW.

After a year and a half of Austin saving the company and WCW shooting itself in the foot, leg, stomach and head. I'm certainly not saying Rock had nothing to do with it, but it's equal to the amount of blame that can be put on Shawn for the mid 90s.

Also, Hart led PPVs comfortably outdrew Michaels led ones.

Still off the momentum of the Golden Era and without Nitro to contend with for the most part and no NWO.

Shawn Michaels is the worst drawing long-term main eventer in the last 30 years.

I really doubt that actually. He's on the lower end but I'd bet there are others that drew worse. Del Rio perhaps?

Great, so Shawn Michaels would look like gold whilst losing. Like he always did.

He did lose a lot and he did look like gold a lot. However, this match is set up where he can lose falls and then come back and win later. That's why I see him pulling it off at the last second, like he has so many times before.

The guy is called Mr. WrestleMania, I get it, but he has a shockingly bad record there.

That goes back to the theme of this: it's the stipulation that works for him. He only hast to win once, but he can lose multiple times if he has to on the way. Shawn has proven many times that he can last longer in a match than Rock and it benefits him here. If he gets pinned early on, he can hang in there long enough to nail a few superkicks to take the lead back.

Excluding tag matches Shawn Michaels is 5-9 at WrestleMania (we have both neglected his stunning victory to El Matador thus far). The Rock is 5-4. One of those is a winning record, the other is Shawn Michaels.

Going off just their primes, which is what this tournament is built around, it's a lot closer. Shawn would be (arguably of course) 1-2 and Rock would be 2-3, and I'd take Shawn's performances there, including in the same kind of match he has here, over Rock.

Of course this is ignoring every other show outside of Wrestlemania. I'm really not sure why we're doing that.

Shawn Michaels loses well, but he also loses a lot.

As I pointed out earlier:

Rock in matches going longer than 25 minutes: 1-7-1
Shawn in matches going longer than 25 minutes: 10-10-2

Looking at matches where there's more time and not just at Wrestlemania, Shawn blows Rock out of the water.

Wrestling entertaining matches isn't going to get you far in this tournament.

Given the constantly changing criteria in this thing, I don't see why it wouldn't.

It had lower billing than 3 other matches on the card.

The featured matches, according to the WWE were the two title matches and Big Show vs Mayweather, but sure, it took him over 20 minutes to beat a 59 year old, but its a victory nonetheless.

Rock's big grand return at Wrestlemania XX went on fourth out of twelve. Also, and this doesn't mean as much, Shawn vs. Flair was scheduled to go on last but Flair vetoed it.

I deliberately didn't include tag matches as it's not fair, but as you seem to want to do that, Michaels has also lost to Sato, Pat Tanaka, Big Boss Man and Akeem the African Dream at WrestleMania.

Again, not in his prime.

Shawn Michaels has never won an iron man match. He drew two. He beat Hart in a bizarre overtime situation and drew to Kurt Angle - the man who's sole win in iron man matches was a narrow win against a fat indie wrestler.

Not what the history books say. How can you win a title if you didn't win the match?

 

[Tastycles]

Well of course not but by that logic, Shawn is far better known than Rock as Shawn has appeared at a lot more Wrestlemanias with a lot more memorable performances.

Er... no, that's not what it means at all. It means that in the whole history of Michaels' career you have to look at some outpost of matches to see his big wins, because he mostly lost.

As I've said later on, I'm saying it's the performances more than the results, which is why I'd vote for Shawn here. They both have a similar bad record at Wrestlemania, but Shawn has better and more memorable performances.

5-9. 5-4. One is noticeably worse.

Before his prime, before his prime and in the best match of the night. Again: Shawn has the better performer and can only win here with the stipulations benefiting him. However, they benefit him in a big way.

But earlier you said he won when the odds were stacked against him. Yes.

The NWO era of WCW was often papered too. Did they fail?

You know they went out of business, right?

I'd put X-Seven more on Austin's work building the company in 1998/1999 than Rock.

When The Rock was much bigger.

It was in an arena when Rock was around in 2004.

With The Rock having wrestled a grand total of 0 times in the preceding 11 months.

After a year and a half of Austin saving the company and WCW shooting itself in the foot, leg, stomach and head. I'm certainly not saying Rock had nothing to do with it, but it's equal to the amount of blame that can be put on Shawn for the mid 90s.

So The Rock was at least partially responsible for the WWF's upturn and Michaels was at least partly responsible for its downturn. Which was my point.

I really doubt that actually. He's on the lower end but I'd bet there are others that drew worse. Del Rio perhaps?

Del Rio didn't lose half the audience like Michaels and Hart did. The company didn't put all of their faith in Del Rio either.

He did lose a lot and he did look like gold a lot. However, this match is set up where he can lose falls and then come back and win later. That's why I see him pulling it off at the last second, like he has so many times before.

Literally 4 times in his entire career, one of which was because Kane mauled the Undertaker and one was when he hit Diesel with a low blow, which he couldn't do here.

That goes back to the theme of this: it's the stipulation that works for him. He only hast to win once, but he can lose multiple times if he has to on the way.

Err... that's not how you win an iron man match. If he wins once and loses multiple times, he loses.

Going off just their primes, which is what this tournament is built around, it's a lot closer. Shawn would be (arguably of course) 1-2 and Rock would be 2-3, and I'd take Shawn's performances there, including in the same kind of match he has here, over Rock.

Of course this is ignoring every other show outside of Wrestlemania. I'm really not sure why we're doing that.

Because you said The Rock flops under pressure at the biggest stage, that's why, and we've shown that if he does that, Michaels doesn't.

As I pointed out earlier:

Rock in matches going longer than 25 minutes: 1-7-1
Shawn in matches going longer than 25 minutes: 10-10-2

Looking at matches where there's more time and not just at Wrestlemania, Shawn blows Rock out of the water.

Below is that post amended to remove matches that had multiple participants - Royal Rumbles etc. Summerslam 1998 also goes because according to the WWE it was less than 25 minutes long as does In Your House 18, as Michaels didn't wrestle there and I couldn't immediately see what you were referring to:

Rock's record in matches where he competes 25 minutes or more: 1-2-1

Wrestlemania XXVIII – 30:33 W
Wrestlemania XVII – 28:06 L
Judgment Day 2000 – 60:08 L
Fully Loaded 1998 – 30:00 D

Shawn's record in matches where he competes 25 minutes or longer: 7-6-2

Wrestlemania XXV – 30:41 L
Unforgiven 2008 – 26:53 W
Raw – April 23, 2007 – 55:49 W
Wrestlemania XXIII – 28:21 L
Raw - October 3, 2005 D
Vengeance 2005 – 26:54 W
Wrestlemania XXI – 27:25 L
Bad Blood – 47:23 L
Raw – December 29, 2003 – 29:12 D
Armageddon 2002 – 35:25 L
Summerslam 2002 – 27:19 W
In Your House X – 26:25 W
King of the Ring 1996 – 26:25 W
Wrestlemania XII – 61:25 W
Survivor Series 1992 – 26:40 L

That means The Rock has won or drawn 50% compared to Michaels' 53%. That's not a huge difference. Yeah, Michaels has won a higher percentage, but he has some wrestlers of lower calibre in there - British Bulldog, for example. Rock has also won loads of matches in the 20-25 minute region.

Rock's big grand return at Wrestlemania XX went on fourth out of twelve. Also, and this doesn't mean as much, Shawn vs. Flair was scheduled to go on last but Flair vetoed it.

This isn't he said she said bullshit, it's what the WWE marketed and promoted as the main matches. They also didn't market The Rock's return as a major match, not that I claimed they did.

Not what the history books say. How can you win a title if you didn't win the match?

Maybe if the previous champion was a whingey bitch and vacated the title rather than put anyone over. Or maybe if the previous champion failed a drugs test and then denied it. Of course, for that to happen the opponent would have to be as much of a spoiled brat as Shawn Michaels, and there's very few in the history of wrestling to have achieved that.

 

[klunderbunker]

Er... no, that's not what it means at all. It means that in the whole history of Michaels' career you have to look at some outpost of matches to see his big wins, because he mostly lost.

Not really. His bigger wins are at either the Big Four pay per views or on Raw. That's hardly obscure stuff.

5-9. 5-4. One is noticeably worse.

I'm still not sure why we're just focusing on Wrestlemania. Both have done a lot elsewhere.

But earlier you said he won when the odds were stacked against him. Yes.

It's a bit of both here. The stipulations favor him, but unless you're Steve Austin or Hulk Hogan, you're automatically an underdog against Rock.

You know they went out of business, right?

Indeed, but they were very strong under the NWO, which I'd give more credit for WWF's woes than Shawn on top, but again that's not something that should have a big impact on this.

With The Rock having wrestled a grand total of 0 times in the preceding 11 months.

10.5 actually but who's counting.

So The Rock was at least partially responsible for the WWF's upturn and Michaels was at least partly responsible for its downturn. Which was my point.

I don't ever remember arguing otherwise.

Del Rio didn't lose half the audience like Michaels and Hart did. The company didn't put all of their faith in Del Rio either.

You really can't put your faith in someone in this era, at least not like back then. Shawn didn't draw well as champion, but there were other circumstances other than Shawn being on top.

Literally 4 times in his entire career, one of which was because Kane mauled the Undertaker and one was when he hit Diesel with a low blow, which he couldn't do here.

Why couldn't he? Hit Rock low for a DQ, superkick him for a pin, tie things up and have an advantage. HHH did the same thing with a chair to Rock in their Iron Man match.

Err... that's not how you win an iron man match. If he wins once and loses multiple times, he loses.

Yeah but he could win more than once. The stipulations favor him in the long run.

Because you said The Rock flops under pressure at the biggest stage, that's why, and we've shown that if he does that, Michaels doesn't.

There are other big stages besides Wrestlemania.

Below is that post amended to remove matches that had multiple participants - Royal Rumbles etc. Summerslam 1998 also goes because according to the WWE it was less than 25 minutes long as does In Your House 18, as Michaels didn't wrestle there and I couldn't immediately see what you were referring to:

In Your House 18 was the Cell against Undertaker. Also where are you getting that Summerslam 1998 didn't go 25 minutes? I checked it on the Network using WWE's timer and it runs over 26.

Rock's record in matches where he competes 25 minutes or more: 1-2-1

Wrestlemania XXVIII – 30:33 W
Wrestlemania XVII – 28:06 L
Judgment Day 2000 – 60:08 L
Fully Loaded 1998 – 30:00 D

Shawn's record in matches where he competes 25 minutes or longer: 7-6-2

Wrestlemania XXV – 30:41 L
Unforgiven 2008 – 26:53 W
Raw – April 23, 2007 – 55:49 W
Wrestlemania XXIII – 28:21 L
Raw - October 3, 2005 D
Vengeance 2005 – 26:54 W
Wrestlemania XXI – 27:25 L
Bad Blood – 47:23 L
Raw – December 29, 2003 – 29:12 D
Armageddon 2002 – 35:25 L
Summerslam 2002 – 27:19 W
In Your House X – 26:25 W
King of the Ring 1996 – 26:25 W
Wrestlemania XII – 61:25 W
Survivor Series 1992 – 26:40 L

That means The Rock has won or drawn 50% compared to Michaels' 53%. That's not a huge difference. Yeah, Michaels has won a higher percentage, but he has some wrestlers of lower calibre in there - British Bulldog, for example. Rock has also won loads of matches in the 20-25 minute region.

Still though: more experience and more wins, including a better record in Iron Man matches. I went further than 20 minute matches to prove that point: Rock is indeed great in shorter matches but it starts to die off after.

This isn't he said she said bullshit, it's what the WWE marketed and promoted as the main matches. They also didn't market The Rock's return as a major match, not that I claimed they did.

I seem to remember that being a pretty big deal. I mean, it was the Rock coming back. How could they not?

Maybe if the previous champion was a whingey bitch and vacated the title rather than put anyone over. Or maybe if the previous champion failed a drugs test and then denied it. Of course, for that to happen the opponent would have to be as much of a spoiled brat as Shawn Michaels, and there's very few in the history of wrestling to have achieved that.

True. There are probably even fewer that are as good as Shawn in long matches where he can survive Rock's onslaught and beat him with a superkick, a top rope elbow and probably a rollup to win 3-2.

 

[Tastycles]

Not really. His bigger wins are at either the Big Four pay per views or on Raw. That's hardly obscure stuff.




I'm still not sure why we're just focusing on Wrestlemania. Both have done a lot elsewhere.

As singles wrestlers:

Rock at Summerslam: 3-2
Shawn Michaels at Summerslam: 4-2-1

Rock at Survivor Series: 5-1
Shawn Michaels at Survivor Series: 2-4

Rock at Royal Rumble: 3-4
Shawn Michaels at Royal Rumble: 5-11-1

So Rock's better at 3 of the big 4, and Shawn Michaels has a losing record at 3 of the big 4. Like I said. Rock is better on the big stage.

It's a bit of both here. The stipulations favor him, but unless you're Steve Austin or Hulk Hogan, you're automatically an underdog against Rock.

So he's both an underdog and the favourite? Makes sense.

Indeed, but they were very strong under the NWO, which I'd give more credit for WWF's woes than Shawn on top, but again that's not something that should have a big impact on this.

Look, the WWF got back on top after 84 weeks of being slaughtered literally 2 weeks after Michaels disappeared. In the 103 weeks between WrestleMania XII and XIV - when Michaels was the man - there were 8 weeks where either Nitro or Raw wasn't on. Of the rest WCW won 88 weeks and WWF won 7 weeks. During the entire rest of the Monday night war after he disappeared, from April 1998 until it all finished, WCW won 8 times in 3 years. So when competing with Michaels, they won literally every week for nearly 2 years, then he retired and they barely ever won again. He's obviously not the sole responsible person for that, but the ratings mirror his successes almost exactly, and there has to be something in that.

You really can't put your faith in someone in this era, at least not like back then. Shawn didn't draw well as champion, but there were other circumstances other than Shawn being on top.

Circumstances that mysteriously evaporated as soon as Austin took the title.

Why couldn't he? Hit Rock low for a DQ, superkick him for a pin, tie things up and have an advantage. HHH did the same thing with a chair to Rock in their Iron Man match.

Because that's still only 1-1.

Yeah but he could win more than once. The stipulations favor him in the long run.

You said, and I quote "He only hast [sic] to win once, but he can lose multiple times if he has to on the way." I said if he does that, he'll lose. Which is still true.

There are other big stages besides Wrestlemania.

Yep, and The Rock is better at all of them.

In Your House 18 was the Cell against Undertaker. Also where are you getting that Summerslam 1998 didn't go 25 minutes? I checked it on the Network using WWE's timer and it runs over 26.

Wikipedia, which is incredibly anal about timing sources, I think they use Slam Sports.

My mistake on 18, I saw Bad Blood on there and assumed that was the cell with Undertaker (I even changed the result) which makes Michaels 7-7-2, or essentially no more likely at winning long matches than he is at losing them.

Still though: more experience and more wins, including a better record in Iron Man matches. I went further than 20 minute matches to prove that point: Rock is indeed great in shorter matches but it starts to die off after.

More experience, yes, but that's largely due to the fact that The Rock won his matches in less than 25 minutes. For example, he beat the British Bulldog, one of Michaels' opponents on the list, in less than 10 minutes.

I seem to remember that being a pretty big deal. I mean, it was the Rock coming back. How could they not?

You don't seem to understand. At each Mania, the WWE officially market anywhere between 1 and 3 matches as the 'main events'. At WrestleMania XX it was the two title matches.

True. There are probably even fewer that are as good as Shawn in long matches where he can survive Rock's onslaught and beat him with a superkick, a top rope elbow and probably a rollup to win 3-2.

There's lots of people with a better than even record in long matches.
There are no wrestlers that have transcended wrestling like the Rock. As for the second part of this sentence, it's absolutely ridiculous. Watch - Rock Bottom, Sharpshooter, People's Elbow 3-0.

 

[klunderbunker]

As singles wrestlers:

Rock at Summerslam: 3-2
Shawn Michaels at Summerslam: 4-2-1

Rock at Survivor Series: 5-1
Shawn Michaels at Survivor Series: 2-4

Rock at Royal Rumble: 3-4
Shawn Michaels at Royal Rumble: 5-11-1

So Rock's better at 3 of the big 4, and Shawn Michaels has a losing record at 3 of the big 4. Like I said. Rock is better on the big stage.

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of those matches (not asking you to do it) and see how big each of them were.

So he's both an underdog and the favourite? Makes sense.

I'd say he's more of an underdog, but Rock has a lot more against him than just Shawn if that makes sense.

Look, the WWF got back on top after 84 weeks of being slaughtered literally 2 weeks after Michaels disappeared. In the 103 weeks between WrestleMania XII and XIV - when Michaels was the man - there were 8 weeks where either Nitro or Raw wasn't on. Of the rest WCW won 88 weeks and WWF won 7 weeks. During the entire rest of the Monday night war after he disappeared, from April 1998 until it all finished, WCW won 8 times in 3 years. So when competing with Michaels, they won literally every week for nearly 2 years, then he retired and they barely ever won again. He's obviously not the sole responsible person for that, but the ratings mirror his successes almost exactly, and there has to be something in that.

I have no argument to there being something. I just don't think he's the top reason.

Circumstances that mysteriously evaporated as soon as Austin took the title.

And after WCW completely screwed up the biggest storyline they've ever had.

Because that's still only 1-1.

True but it gives Shawn an advantage he might not have had. It worked for HHH and Lesnar against Kurt Angle.

You said, and I quote "He only hast [sic] to win once, but he can lose multiple times if he has to on the way." I said if he does that, he'll lose. Which is still true.

He can win with only one fall or with multiple falls.

Yep, and The Rock is better at all of them.

Oh I don't know about that.


Wikipedia, which is incredibly anal about timing sources, I think they use Slam Sports.

My mistake on 18, I saw Bad Blood on there and assumed that was the cell with Undertaker (I even changed the result) which makes Michaels 7-7-2, or essentially no more likely at winning long matches than he is at losing them.

Still better than Rock's record.

More experience, yes, but that's largely due to the fact that The Rock won his matches in less than 25 minutes. For example, he beat the British Bulldog, one of Michaels' opponents on the list, in less than 10 minutes.

Shawn still won though and that's all that matters. The records in longer matches, including matches other than a straight up singles match like this one, show that Rock doesn't do as well in later matches. Shawn may not be a master or undefeated at them, but he's certainly better.

You don't seem to understand. At each Mania, the WWE officially market anywhere between 1 and 3 matches as the 'main events'. At WrestleMania XX it was the two title matches.

I didn't miss a show in that period and I don't remember Rock being treated less than Eddie vs. Angle. Either way, both guys lost on that show.

There's lots of people with a better than even record in long matches.
There are no wrestlers that have transcended wrestling like the Rock. As for the second part of this sentence, it's absolutely ridiculous. Watch - Rock Bottom, Sharpshooter, People's Elbow 3-0.

If Shawn can handle Bret's Sharpshooter, he can handle Rock's horrible version. And it's still just an elbow (don't bother arguing that one. I just think the move is stupid).