Atlanta Region, Fifth Round: (1) Shawn Michaels vs. (6) Brock Lesnar

[Tastycles]

I wanted the power of tying it up, so I voted Lesnar. Actually, I just did it without really thinking, and I'm definitely, definitely wrong. do as I say and not as I do. Do the right thing folks, vote Michaels.

In truth, Lesnar was a flash in the pan, and he was not very entertaining. Michaels had longevity and stuck around for years, remaining successful throughout. Lesnar wasn't around very long, and crucially proved himself to be pretty stupid a lot of the time. Lesnar lost the title on a number of occasions because of allowing himself to be ambushed or double crossed. Michaels was the master of winning matches in such manner in the late 90s, and I think we'd see much of the same here. Kane was to Michaels what Goldberg and Heyman were to Lesnar. Michaels wins by some sort of shitty interference, and because he is a better professional wrestler.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

This may be a worse argument than your "Edge is due a win" argument.

Alright, two things come to mind here almost instantly.

1. Edge is due a win, every single time something major is on the line. Don't forget it.

2. The entire post you quoted, or for that matter almost every single post I've made in this specific thread, has been made out of boredom and lack of caring. So it has nothing to do with me putting up a horrible argument. It has everything to do with the fact that I put up NO argument at all. You can not buy my vote. You can not sway my way of thinking, and thus I felt like posting pure nonsense instead of trying to sway, or win, votes.

Why? Because incase of a tie - I needed a post to state My vote is for Shawn Michaels.

However, since you want to play the what's your argument game - let's play.

What the FUCK are you talking about? Of course it's professional wrestling based, it's a fucking professional wrestling tournament.

No, what are YOU talking about? No where in any post I made, did I even remotely suggest throwing out the concept of this being a wrestling match in a wrestling tournament. I said that in a fictional tournament that has no limitations to the WWE, TNA, or any other specific federation/company - you can not, or rather should not, promote the winner and loser based on how they were pushed by the WWE in their own times.

Unfortunately, this is a loop-hole case since both guys ONLY worked for the WWF/E, so you more or less are forced to use their time(s) there. So, this is what I've come to..

Mainly because in their respective "primes", both men were pushed heavily over every type of opponent and that ultimately cancels out the other winning here - except HBK, in his prime, would be more of a face (1996) - and Lesnar the heel (2002) - thus promoting a good guy over bad guy situation more often than not.

And if you want to talk about how backstage politics shouldn't play a role, look no further than Shawn Michaels, the king of wrestling politics. If you want to take any pushes gained from politicking out of the tournament, then say hasta la vista to half of HBK's career.

Did Shawn Michaels hold a gun to each and every fan's head and force them to cheer/boo/react to him? Probably not. Did he shove his foot up Vince's backside, and demand that he be handed the Championship in 1996 or else he would walk? Doubtful.

The biggest understanding of Shawn Michaels and politics is something to do with 1997, Bret Hart and losing at Wrestlemania 13. So, rewind to that moment - let's for a moment say Hart and HBK faced off - HBK loses to Hart.. Steve Austin's momentum, and everything that happened for him, through Hart, building up to, and including at that Mania would be nevermore.

Steve Austin - stereotyped as one of the biggest names the business ever had, would've been an after-thought without Hart at Mania 13. Without the lead-up to all of that. His push would've ended at Survivor Series 96, losing to Hart and being shoved back down to the mid-card ranks of nothing-ness.

So, while you want to never leave the meaningless moment in 1997 that lead to one of the biggest characters in wrestling having the spotlight come to him.. I'm going to tell you, get the shit over it and look at how much Shawn Michaels has done in his career as a whole. Politics, or not, you can't force fans to like you, to react to you.

For fucks sake Will, you've been doing this for years, and THIS is the best you have? This is nothing short of pathetic.

No, what's pathetic is when asinine comments like this are made..

Last Monday, we saw The Undertaker catch Sweet Chin Music and reverse it into a chokeslam. If Brock Lesnar catches Sweet Chin Music he may very well start swinging HBK around by that leg until it ripped straight of Shawn Michaels' body.

Now, ignoring the downright silly and frankly stupid remarks of Hulk-like super human abilities; what you witnessed last monday was a guy (HBK) who'd been out of the business for almost a year, and obviously at the very end of his career. (duh, he's retiring and entering the Hall of Fame afterall)

Since both men only worked for the WWE, wrestling wise, and since that is all you can go off of - without using the "Lesnar was dominate for 2 years" argument, because lets face it - had his career lasted longer than that he would've taken on many losses. (shit, Tatanka went undefeated for a year afterall. Lesnar didn't even go "undefeated" for over 4 months) You should take into account the type of guy who gave Lesnar the most trouble.

Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero.. smaller, quicker athletes with technical ability. Skills that Shawn Michaels has. Now, combine that with this..

At the end of 2002, before Lesnar lost to Big Show, in a Raw segment he was dominating everyone - until Shawn Michaels got the better of him, and Superkicked him ultimately ending the segment. Tell me this, for everyone arguing that Lesnar would be pushed over Michaels - why did the company promote Lesnar (top of his game at that time) to look so weak over a guy who was just returning from a 4 year absence, and a serious health (back related) injury? Obviously for as much as the company loved Lesnar - they didn't love him enough to think he should look more impressive than a broken, weak, Shawn Michaels. (This is the part where no one can come up with anything better than "politics". )

Now, just imagine how Lesnar would look against the HBK of his prime? Probably similar to how Vader looked - very powerful, but ultimately losing in the end.

Now then.. is that a good enough argument for you, can I go back to posting silly videos of making Lesnar look stupid, or do you wanna continue putting your foot in your mouth?

 

[JGlass]

Alright, two things come to mind here almost instantly.

1. Edge is due a win, every single time something major is on the line. Don't forget it.

But not when the big match rolls along. I love Edge, but lets face it, in the end Edge is generally the loser.

2. The entire post you quoted, or for that matter almost every single post I've made in this specific thread, has been made out of boredom and lack of caring. So it has nothing to do with me putting up a horrible argument. It has everything to do with the fact that I put up NO argument at all. You can not buy my vote. You can not sway my way of thinking, and thus I felt like posting pure nonsense instead of trying to sway, or win, votes.

So when you're bored you make terrible posts? Things are really starting to make sense.

Why? Because incase of a tie - I needed a post to state My vote is for Shawn Michaels.

And you couldn't come up with anything better than the fact that Brock Lesnar lost to a smaller man in UFC?

However, since you want to play the what's your argument game - let's play.

That's one of my favorite games, right after Mouse Trap.

No, what are YOU talking about? No where in any post I made, did I even remotely suggest throwing out the concept of this being a wrestling match in a wrestling tournament. I said that in a fictional tournament that has no limitations to the WWE, TNA, or any other specific federation/company - you can not, or rather should not, promote the winner and loser based on how they were pushed by the WWE in their own times.

Yes, but, as you go on to mention in your post, both men only worked for the WWE, so what did you do? You threw both of their careers out the window and said that Brock would lose because he lost to a smaller man in a UFC match. Never mind the fact that Shawn would probably get destroyed by Brock in an MMA match, never mind the fact that Brock has also beaten many men in the UFC while Shawn has never beaten anyone in MMA competition, because Brock once lost to a man that was smaller than him in the UFC, this mean Shawn Michael would be able to beat him in a professional wrestling match.

Mainly because in their respective "primes", both men were pushed heavily over every type of opponent and that ultimately cancels out the other winning here - except HBK, in his prime, would be more of a face (1996) - and Lesnar the heel (2002) - thus promoting a good guy over bad guy situation more often than not.

Not in this type of tournament. More often than not it is the heel that wins the KotR tournament.

Did Shawn Michaels hold a gun to each and every fan's head and force them to cheer/boo/react to him? Probably not. Did he shove his foot up Vince's backside, and demand that he be handed the Championship in 1996 or else he would walk? Doubtful.

The biggest understanding of Shawn Michaels and politics is something to do with 1997, Bret Hart and losing at Wrestlemania 13. So, rewind to that moment - let's for a moment say Hart and HBK faced off - HBK loses to Hart.. Steve Austin's momentum, and everything that happened for him, through Hart, building up to, and including at that Mania would be nevermore.

I would never take anything away form Shawn Michaels as a performer, but it's a universally accepted fact that he managed to stay at the top as long as he did because of his politicking. And you're the one who brought backstage politics into the argument in the first place when you said anything that came as a result of them should not count. There goes HBK's career.

No, what's pathetic is when asinine comments like this are made..

Let's play a little game of finish the quote! You quoted me as saying...

If Brock Lesnar catches Sweet Chin Music he may very well start swinging HBK around by that leg until it ripped straight of Shawn Michaels' body.

But I went on to say...

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but Brock Lesnar's power is nothing that can be shrugged off.

The truth is revealed! I never seriously thought Brock Lesnar would rip off Shawn Michael's limbs! It was all just a feeble attempt by you to try and make me look stupid! FAIL!

Now, ignoring the downright silly and frankly stupid remarks of Hulk-like super human abilities; what you witnessed last monday was a guy (HBK) who'd been out of the business for almost a year, and obviously at the very end of his career. (duh, he's retiring and entering the Hall of Fame afterall)

Brock Lesnar did have hulk-like strength when he was in the WWE. This is the guy who superplexed The Big Show and beat The Undertaker to retain the title.

Since both men only worked for the WWE, wrestling wise, and since that is all you can go off of - without using the "Lesnar was dominate for 2 years" argument, because lets face it - had his career lasted longer than that he would've taken on many losses. (shit, Tatanka went undefeated for a year afterall. Lesnar didn't even go "undefeated" for over 4 months) You should take into account the type of guy who gave Lesnar the most trouble.


Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero.. smaller, quicker athletes with technical ability. Skills that Shawn Michaels has. Now, combine that with this..

At the end of 2002, before Lesnar lost to Big Show, in a Raw segment he was dominating everyone - until Shawn Michaels got the better of him, and Superkicked him ultimately ending the segment. Tell me this, for everyone arguing that Lesnar would be pushed over Michaels - why did the company promote Lesnar (top of his game at that time) to look so weak over a guy who was just returning from a 4 year absence, and a serious health (back related) injury? Obviously for as much as the company loved Lesnar - they didn't love him enough to think he should look more impressive than a broken, weak, Shawn Michaels. (This is the part where no one can come up with anything better than "politics". )

Now, just imagine how Lesnar would look against the HBK of his prime? Probably similar to how Vader looked - very powerful, but ultimately losing in the end.

Now then.. is that a good enough argument for you, can I go back to posting silly videos of making Lesnar look stupid, or do you wanna continue putting your foot in your mouth?

Those are much better arguments, though I fail to see where I put my foot in my mouth...

There's about a million explanations for the Shawn Michaels superkick to Lesnar, but the most important thing is that A) nothing ever came of it and B) Brock continued to be pretty dominant afterward. Neither man really benefited or suffered from the incident.

I'm not only going on career, mostly because it's impossible to compare these two dramatically different careers, but also skills. Shawn Michaels is quick, he is technically gifted, and he is wily. Brock also has all those abilities except he's more technically gifted and he's also extremely powerful.

Comparing Brock Lesnar to Vader is ridiculous. Vader is very talented in his own right, but not nearly as fast as Brock nor as technically gifted as Brock. Vader was all about power and brutality, and when Shawn Michaels was able to compensate for those two tools he was able to beat Vader. Brock brings much more to the table than Vader and there's no way Shawn, even at his prime, would be able to handle all of Brock's talents.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

At the end of 2002, before Lesnar lost to Big Show, in a Raw segment he was dominating everyone - until Shawn Michaels got the better of him, and Superkicked him ultimately ending the segment. Tell me this, for everyone arguing that Lesnar would be pushed over Michaels - why did the company promote Lesnar (top of his game at that time) to look so weak over a guy who was just returning from a 4 year absence, and a serious health (back related) injury? Obviously for as much as the company loved Lesnar - they didn't love him enough to think he should look more impressive than a broken, weak, Shawn Michaels. (This is the part where no one can come up with anything better than "politics". )

You mean the superkick he gave Lesnar during the Rock/HHH match which happened on August 19, 2002. You know August don't you, Will. Three months before he lost to Big Show. If Brock looked weak because he got kicked in a non-match by HBK, HHH must have been wimpy because he got beat by that same guy six days later. Between that segment and Survivor Series, he beat The Rock, Undertaker, and Eddie Guerrero.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I'm not only going on career, mostly because it's impossible to compare these two dramatically different careers, but also skills. Shawn Michaels is quick, he is technically gifted, and he is wily. Brock also has all those abilities except he's more technically gifted and he's also extremely powerful.

Aw man How can you say Lesnar is more technically gifted? This isn't MMA or Amateur wrestling, it's pro-wrestling or, if you will, sports entertainment. If a greatest list of wrestlers is drawn up, Lesnar isn't in HBK's league! Lesnar specialised in glorified squash matches or, if the match went longer, the dominant force who didn't sell much. Michael's specialised in long drawn out matches were his opponent came out also looking $100. There is one argument that can never be made for Lesnar over Michaels and that is ability in a wrestling ring, to more fans and wrestlers than any other wrestler, HBK is the greatest ever - if your saying Brock is, your the first person that I've ever heard claim it.

And would the two of you stop saying both guys only performed in Vinceland. Brock performed in Japan for about 7 months as IWGP Champion and after getting bored with the sport AGAIN returned 18months later to drop the belt clean to Kurt Angle.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Aw man How can you say Lesnar is more technically gifted? This isn't MMA or Amateur wrestling, it's pro-wrestling or, if you will, sports entertainment. If a greatest list of wrestlers is drawn up, Lesnar isn't in HBK's league! Lesnar specialised in glorified squash matches or, if the match went longer, the dominant force who didn't sell much. Michael's specialised in long drawn out matches were his opponent came out also looking $100. There is one argument that can never be made for Lesnar over Michaels and that is ability in a wrestling ring, to more fans and wrestlers than any other wrestler, HBK is the greatest ever - if your saying Brock is, your the first person that I've ever heard claim it.

And would the two of you stop saying both guys only performed in Vinceland. Brock performed in Japan for about 7 months as IWGP Champion and after getting bored with the sport AGAIN returned 18months later to drop the belt clean to Kurt Angle.

There are plenty of wrestlers Brock has beaten that are higher than him on the list and he's beaten them all so why would I think HBK be any different? If you're going to keep using Angle as a reason to why Lesnar would lose, how about the fact that Lesnar beat a better Angle at WM which is something HBK couldn't do.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

There are plenty of wrestlers Brock has beaten that are higher than him on the list and he's beaten them all so why would I think HBK be any different?

The point I was addressing was that JGlass claimed Brock was a better in ring performer than HBK, this is one aspect that Lesnar cannot claim. Being bigger & stronger - yes; being tenacious & quicker - I give HBK the edge but you and I have danced on this for a while; being a better in ring performer - that just hasn't a snow balls chance in hell of being the case. NOBODY can claim Brock will go over Michaels on performance because he is one of the if not THE yardstick everyone else is measured against.

If you're going to keep using Angle as a reason to why Lesnar would lose, how about the fact that Lesnar beat a better Angle at WM which is something HBK couldn't do.

Amigo, we ain't going to agree on who's better Kurt or Brock. Again I was just addressing a point raised that Brock's only performed at a high level in the WWF, in that he also headlined massive events in Japan.

You and I have danced on this bout for some time but please don't jump on my posts unless you disagree - you haven't tried to state HBK isn't a better performer than Lesnar and you haven't disputed Japan, you have just brought up topics we have already debated.

 

[Mac Attack]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Michaels should be winning this thing right now by a fair margin. Yes Lesnar might have the strenght, but Michaels is the much better wrestler. Lesnar never had the draw that Michaels had, Lesnar isn't mentioned as a WWE legend. Michaels just left and is at legend status. Michaels would find a way to win this match. Just because Lesnar is big should not guarentee him a victory that would be utter madness. Everyone needs to look at the bigger picture here and realize who is actually the better man... Michaels.

 

[Nate DaMac]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Michaels should be winning this thing right now by a fair margin.

Apparently not, as it seems the majority disagrees with you.

Yes Lesnar might have the strenght, but Michaels is the much better wrestler.

All objective. I disagree, as I feel I've seen Lesnar in better matches than Michaels.

Lesnar never had the draw that Michaels had

You're right, Lesnar was never responsible for almost killing the company. Good point.

Lesnar isn't mentioned as a WWE legend.

Correct, though in his short tenure in the company, he made a pretty large impact on the company as evident by his lasting impression on the IWC.

Michaels just left and is at legend status.

Point being?

Michaels would find a way to win this match. Just because Lesnar is big should not guarentee him a victory that would be utter madness.

Shawn does have a bit of craftiness to him, he does find ways to pull out big wins from time to time. But Lesnar has beaten craftier and flat out better, so it's even more absurd to assume that Lesnar couldn't do the same here.

Everyone needs to look at the bigger picture here and realize who is actually the better man... Michaels.

Yes, Shawn is a Hall Of Famer, but he never climbed the ranks as quickly as Lesnar did. If Lesnar had even stayed another year or 2, there's no doubt in my mind that Shawn wouldn't even compare to his legacy.

You make fair points, but to suggest that a monster like Lesnar wouldn't crush Shawn Michaels is absurd. In any form, Michaels can't fuck with Lesnar.

 

[mrpops]

I wish wrestlezone had a more specific way of voting...

Shawn is one of the best of all time and put on countless amazing matches blah blah blah. But he lost alot of them.

Brock lesnar pretty much won every single match he was apart of. Brock gets an easy win and shawn is credited with making the match a 5 star classic.

Seriously, thats what would happen. Shawn would make the match amazing, but brock would get the win.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I wish wrestlezone had a more specific way of voting...

Shawn is one of the best of all time and put on countless amazing matches blah blah blah. But he lost alot of them.

Not in his prime '96-'98.

Brock lesnar pretty much won every single match he was apart of. Brock gets an easy win and shawn is credited with making the match a 5 star classic.

Again, Shawn's forte in this period was beating guys he had no chance of beating and not in a weak assed Rey Misterio way either.

Seriously, thats what would happen. Shawn would make the match amazing, but brock would get the win.

Yup, it would be a 5 star classic with the Heartbreak Kid overcoming seemingly impossible odds AGAIN after slipping an F5 and knocking the Next Big Sellout out with the Sweet Chin Music!

For everyone that's voting Brock, I want you all to ask yourselves an honest question... "If Brock wasn't as successful as he is in UFC, would I be voting him over a guy who committed his life and health to pro wrestling?" Brock does not have a wrestling legacy to dictate he'd beat HBK, he dominated HALF the WWe roster for two years, but what happened when he finally went up against one of RAW's top guys (Goldberg)? He lost! Just because there is no perfect match for Lesnar in Shawn's prime doesn't mean Brock would not fall - in his prime Shawn beat bigger, stronger and better technical wrestlers than Brock Lesnar and better still, he was the solo top dog NOT the head of the B brand!

I am not a HBK mark, this may be the first round that I've actually not voted against him - I even argued with el heado honcho Sly in the first round that Robert Roode would go over him on the grounds of the first seven years of both guys careers. However, I respect him a hell of a lot more than a guy who made it bloody apparent that he didn't even want to be a pro wrestler by leaving for a sport he never even played (and failed)!

... okay, rant over - I'll put the soap box away again

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I don't care about Brock's time in UFC. I looked at who he beat in the WWE and concluded that HBK would be no different than the rest. I laughed out loud at the mention of WM 20.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I laughed out loud at the mention of WM 20.

That's a hell of a lot more than anyone who shelled out good money for the event did, this match was as awful as his gridiron tenure.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I don't hear you criticizing Goldberg for that match as he didn't even show up half the time to build the feud. It was basically Brock Lesnar and Austin doing most of the work after No Way Out.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Partially because this is about Shawn versus Brock but mainly because Vince offered Goldberg a contract he knew he wouldn't accept but he was going to push Brock to the moon and Lesnar screwed the WWF and his own fans by deciding that he would be good at football. Bill was very much the secondary sinner in the whole sad affair.

 

[X]

I'm kind of shocked here by Lesnar's lead. I backed Brock a lot of the way through this tournament, all the way up until this round, where he's simply been outmatched. Yes, Brock is a genetic freak of nature, an incredible athlete, and he was absolutely DOMINANT during his short wrestling run as well as having an impressive MMA career currently. He's one of the baddest fucking dudes on the planet right now, but he's no Shawn Michaels. He's never given to the business what Shawn has given to this business, he hasn't had the same caliber of matches, feuds, angles, or victories. Shawn made himself an institution of not only the WWE but wrestling in general, every year at Wrestlemania you would know one thing: Shawn Michaels was going to be there, and he was going to most likely have the best match on the entire show. Brock never had that. I'm a huge, huge Brock Lesnar fan, but I'm an even bigger Shawn Michaels fan and when you stack up their careers side-by-side, there's just no argument. Shawn was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame last night. I don't doubt Lesnar might make his way to that same Hall years down the road from now, but for now, there's no contest when comparing their storied careers. Shawn wins, and he does so handily.