If HBK Hadn't Lost His Smile?

[The Brain]

Call it losing his smile, call it a knee injury, call it being a bitch and refusing to job, this thread isn’t meant to discuss the circumstances that led to Shawn Michaels forfeiting the WWF title in 1997. I’m curious to know what you think would have happened if he hadn’t. It is pretty much accepted that had HBK not forfeited the title he would have ended up losing it to Bret Hart at WrestleMania 13. Let’s assume that was the plan. How would this have affected some of the other wrestlers at WM13?

Steve Austin: He should be extremely grateful that HBK lost his smile. He was on his way to stardom anyway but we all know WM13 is what launched him to superstardom. We were treated to a thrilling submission match between Austin and Hart and the fans fell in love with Austin that night. What if Hart wrestled Michaels instead? Considering Austin won the Rumble how would he have been worked out of the main event? Who would Austin have wrestled at mania and would he have become as popular as quickly as he did?

Undertaker and Sid: Two more beneficiaries of the lost smile. The title ended up on Sid going into WM13 and Taker won it from him. Although the two still could have opposed each other had Michaels wrestled Hart I doubt they would have. This was a very lackluster match in terms of hype and it was painfully obvious it wasn’t the original plan. If the original plan did take place who would these two have worked with at mania? Would Taker have ended up with the belt sometime in 1997 anyway or would Bret have held it from mania to Survivor Series?

HBK certainly threw a monkey wrench into things at WM13. What would the WM13 card have looked like with Shawn Michaels as the main event and how would it have impacted Austin, Taker, and Sid? Did things work out for the best or would you have preferred Bret vs. HBK?

 

[Paralyzer Z]

Shawn Michaels "lost of smile" was the gateway to change in the WWE.

Had HBK been on a good roll and continue his presence without interruption, wrestling would look a lot different today. I am a firm believer that the butterfly effect does not apply to most what if scenarios but with the importance of this in wrestling history, it is present. His mistake was the gateway for another man's capitalization of an opportunity to change the landscape of the WWE. Would have Austin risen to the top anyway? Maybe but without the importance of wrestlemania it really may have not happened without the Illinois crowd reaction. Most importantly though the Montreal screwjob which shaped the beggining of The AE definitely would not have happened due to the absence of Shawn' attitude. Thus Bret would still be on top and wouldn't allow for a more edgy product. The fall of WWE would be imminent and nitro would have continued it's dominance


Nothing would have happened to undertaker and Sid, since both men's legacies had been already written prior to WM13.

 

[King of the Words]

Looking back on that Wrestlemania, I am kinda glad how it all worked out. Bret and Austin got to finish their feud in an epic submission match, although maybe Austin should have won. I like the fact that the Undertaker won the WWFC. at Mania 13. Having a dark character win on the so called unlucky number seemed to fit. If HBK had of been apart of the event I think it could have been a Triple threat match between HBK, Bret and Austin, for the WWFC. How could they leave Austin out after having the guy win the Rumble? So I think that would have happened with those three guys having Bret Hart probably winning the title back from HBK to get back at him for Mania 12. I think Undertaker and Sid would probably still have collided with the phenom of course winning. This could of lead Bret to face Undertaker at summer slam 1997, like it worked out anyways, with HBK still getting to be the guest Referee.

 

[legendkiller1979]

The Montreal Screwjob was a direct result of Shawn losing his smile. Simply put, Bret would have had no problem dropping the belt to Shawn in Montreal if he had put Bret over and mania 13. I've heard so many times that Bret should have dropped the belt because it was the right thing to do and what was good for business. What about Shawn? Why does he get a pass for not doing business? It pisses me off that everybody runs down Bret for not jobbing to Shawn but forgets entirely that Shawn wouldn't job to Bret. He told Bret to his face that he wouldn't job for him. As a result of Shawn being a selfish prick, we got the most infamous night in wrestling history.

 

[CleverName51]

I wasn't much of a fan in 1997; so I might get some facts wrong

But going off what I do know (and a quick check on wikipedia) here's how I would have done things:

1: HBK defeats Sid at the Rumble to win the World Title.

2: Austin still wins the Royal Rumble.

3: at the Feb PPV: Austin's disputed win would have led to a match with Bret Hart with the winner going to Mania to face the Champ. The title match at the Feb PPV would be Sid vs HBK in a Rumble Rematch and Taker would face Vader 1 on 1.
Hart beats Austin, HBK beats Sid

4: Mania:
At this point, with Taker and Vader settled and Hart vs HBK in the main event, Austin would have needed a match

Austin would have gotten Sid and Taker in a triple threat with the winner becoming a future Number 1 contender for the Title ...and honestly, Austin probably pins taker and guess what? NO STREAK

 

[JJ15776]

Good question.

We know two things would have happened: the Final Four would've taken place as scheduled, with the winner getting a title shot at WrestleMania, and Shawn Michaels would've defended his title against Sid the night after the Final Four PPV on Raw.

I firmly believe that the WWE prefers to change as little as possible when they are put in an unexpected circumstance, such as an injury or suspension. Contrary to popular belief, they have a lot of long term booking plans in place(especially back in 1997), and it's a lot easier to keep as much of that as intact as possible by making as few adjustments as possible in the short term. With that in mind, here's what I think would have happened.

Final Four PPV: Undertaker wins the main event. This sets him up for a title shot against the winner of the title match the next night on Raw.
Raw: Sid beats HBK for the title. Sid-Undertaker is set for WrestleMania, as is HBK vs. Hart.
Raw a few weeks later: Sid and HBK have their rematch in a Steel Cage, just like Sid and Hart did. Undertaker and Hart interfere, just like Undertaker and Austin did. Sid ends up winning, just like he did in real life.

WrestleMania: Undertaker beats Sid for the title, Hart beats HBK. Austin...fights Vader? Ken Shamrock? Goldust? Clearly Austin was the big winner, as they just plugged him into HBK's spot on the show.

 

[JJ15776]

Shawn Michaels "lost of smile" was the gateway to change in the WWE.

Had HBK been on a good roll and continue his presence without interruption, wrestling would look a lot different today. I am a firm believer that the butterfly effect does not apply to most what if scenarios but with the importance of this in wrestling history, it is present. His mistake was the gateway for another man's capitalization of an opportunity to change the landscape of the WWE. Would have Austin risen to the top anyway? Maybe but without the importance of wrestlemania it really may have not happened without the Illinois crowd reaction. Most importantly though the Montreal screwjob which shaped the beggining of The AE definitely would not have happened due to the absence of Shawn' attitude. Thus Bret would still be on top and wouldn't allow for a more edgy product. The fall of WWE would be imminent and nitro would have continued it's dominance


Nothing would have happened to undertaker and Sid, since both men's legacies had been already written prior to WM13.

Just wanted to let you know a big part of this is false. We can argue all day about whether or not the screwjob would have happened, but it's impossible to imagine a scenario where Bret doesn't leave the WWF at all. Also, no matter how you slice it, with the people who were in charge of WCW and Nitro at the time, they were doomed to fail no matter what the WWF did.

The Montreal Screwjob was a direct result of Shawn losing his smile. Simply put, Bret would have had no problem dropping the belt to Shawn in Montreal if he had put Bret over and mania 13. I've heard so many times that Bret should have dropped the belt because it was the right thing to do and what was good for business. What about Shawn? Why does he get a pass for not doing business? It pisses me off that everybody runs down Bret for not jobbing to Shawn but forgets entirely that Shawn wouldn't job to Bret. He told Bret to his face that he wouldn't job for him. As a result of Shawn being a selfish prick, we got the most infamous night in wrestling history.

Why? Because two wrongs don't make a right, son. And Bret's wrong was a LOT worse than Shawn's. People refuse to job or refuse to put somebody over all the time. Shawn himself has been the victim of his on multiple occassions. There's a big difference between politics as usual and putting your company in danger of the ultimate humiliation - seeing their World champion, with their prized title, on their rival's TV show.

 

[Yesiamaduck]

The biggest impact of them all was the Montreal Screwjob which lead to the birth of Mr McMahon as opposed to the clean cut announcer Vince.

 

[Wald]

The Montreal Screwjob was a direct result of Shawn losing his smile. Simply put, Bret would have had no problem dropping the belt to Shawn in Montreal if he had put Bret over and mania 13. I've heard so many times that Bret should have dropped the belt because it was the right thing to do and what was good for business. What about Shawn? Why does he get a pass for not doing business? It pisses me off that everybody runs down Bret for not jobbing to Shawn but forgets entirely that Shawn wouldn't job to Bret. He told Bret to his face that he wouldn't job for him. As a result of Shawn being a selfish prick, we got the most infamous night in wrestling history.

Glad someone else brings this up too. Bret said he would drop the belt in Canada to anyone but Shawn, that all boils down to Shawn refusing to do business for him. But Trips has had that rewritten quite nicely over the years, given that he will, pretty much, control wrestling's history one day.

Anyway to the question at hand. HBK vs Bret for the title was a lock for the WM 13 main event had HBK agreed to return the favour. I would still see Bret turning heel and reforming the Hart Foundation though, it might have taken a post-WM feud with Austin for that to happen though so it might be delayed a bit.

Taker vs Sid still happens, Vince loves his big man matches after all, but I don't see Austin thrown into the mix for a Triple Threat.

I see Austin getting into a feud with Mankind for WM 13. At this stage Vince had realised how good Foley was at making people look great, so would have wanted him to use his magic with Austin to help bring about his face turn

 

[Mustang Sally]

I've often wondered what HBK's mindset truly was back then. Was he really as injured as he claimed? I remember reading that the company was contractually obligated to pay him $15,000 a week to stay in Texas and run his wrestling school, and just as we see in other professional sports, you sometimes have cause to believe they're staying on the injured list much longer than they really need to. Who knows about Shawn?

If reports are to be believed, Shawn was a different person back then, unwilling to share the spotlight and seeking to hog all the attention at the expense of other wrestlers. If that's true, then Bret Hart's role in the Steve Austin program might have gone to HBK instead.....and if it had, the whole "Stone Cold" legacy might have taken a different path, or might never have gotten under way. Can you imagine that? And why? Because Shawn Michaels might have refused to make Austin look good?

There's no way to know how it would have turned out. Given the manner which it went down, it seems ridiculous now to imagine events occurring any other way. But if HBK had been a part of it, things might have been very different.

At the end of his career, I really liked HBK. Back then, though, rather than him announcing he had lost his smile, I would rather have watched someone else knock it off his face.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Well Taker and Sid wouldn't have strayed too much I don't think as they weren't overly affected. Sure Taker got a title run but if I recall Sid wasn't around much at the time and Taker was always the type of wrestler that never needed to be champion, it was always nice to seem him as champ but the truth is he would have been just fine without it.

Austin is the big question mark for me. I think if HBK didn't lose his smile there is a great chance Austin wouldn't have even been wrestling at WM13. It's well documented Austin had a knee injury going into that match and the only reason he did it was because he felt his match with Bret was his big chance. It's funny Austin's rise often came down to others messing up plans like HHH not winning the KOTR because of the Curtain Call incident, and this incident.

My guess is after Bret won the title at WM13 he would have went right back to feuding with Austin and possibly had the same match, only a few months later and with the title on the line. The problem with that is if Bret won the title at WM13 and the crowd accepted it and cheered him Bret most likely wouldn't have become heel.

It's funny if this didn't happen the whole landscape could have changed, No Canada vs. America war storyline, no Bret heel turn, Austin would have been face but by more natural means and the biggest one of all no Montreal Screwjob as Bret would have most likely put Michael's over (if they even had the match) or maybe Bret would have just dropped the title to Austin before leaving at the Survivor Series as he was primed to get it.

So many things could have happened if HBK didn't lose his smile, it makes you think and definitely makes you realize how a few unscripted moments lead to the rise of Steve Austin. He always had the talent but he may not have ever gotten his shot.

 

[The Brain]

Some great responses so far and honestly some of you are thinking further ahead than I anticipated, but that’s ok. I was more wondering what WM13 would have looked like with Michaels vs. Hart as the main event. Here’s what I was thinking.

Undertaker vs. Vader: This was always a dream match of mine back when Vader was dominating WCW. They wrestled at the Rumble that year but that match came out of nowhere without much of a story. Vader won the match and I think a mania rematch with a better storyline and Taker coming out on top may have been the original plan.

Steve Austin vs. Sid: Honestly this is because I don’t have anything else for Austin. Sid was on his way out after mania but had just recently been champion. A win over the former champ at mania could have been big for Austin. Certainly not nearly as big as the match with Hart but I don’t see a better scenario for Austin at the time.

Rocky Maivia vs. Mankind: With Vader out of the tag title match Mankind would need a different opponent. Mankind would have made a much better opponent for Rocky than the Sultan. The outcast freak vs. the blue chipper sounds good to me.

Davey Boy Smith vs. Owen Hart: They wrestled each other just a couple weeks earlier in the European tournament finals and had an outstanding match. This could have simply been held off until mania. Either that or they defend the tag belts against Furnas and Lafon and the opening four corners match is scrapped.

As for the Montreal screwjob and Mr. McMahon, it’s possible the screwjob wouldn’t have happened but Mr. McMahon showed signs of appearing before that. The wheels were already in motion for his feud with Austin even before Survivor Series so I’m sure the Mr. McMahon character would have still existed.

 

[Emmet]

Great topic Brain.

The HBK/Losing his smile is one of the biggest 'what if's' in WWE history in my opinion, so many variables changed due to that one decision that HBK made. One thing is for certain is that if HBK had put Bret over at WM13 the relationship between them two would have been so much better and like everyone has already said if by that November Vince was still looking Bret out & to go to WCW, he would have put HBK over in Canada.

Austin could have resumed his fued with Bret after WM13, maybe accumulating in a match at that years Summerslam, but there wouldn't have been the now iconic image of Austin in the sharpshooter covered in his own blood, which did as much to elevate Austin as the KOTR speech in my view.

HBK could have fueded with Taker that summer, and still have Kane come in and interfere and start his program with Taker which happened anyway, and HBK could have went into his program with Austin going in WM14.

The question I ask is this: if Bret goes over at WM13, and things between him and HBK are good, does Vince still decide to still get rid of him in the fall of '97? What you guys think?

 

[WWEIsLife2]

As I understand it the Original Main Event for WM 13 was suppose to be HBK vs Bret for the Title. Of course Shawn won back the Title from Sid at the Royal Rumble in January and then in Feburary the Final Four Match was already in place for In Your House to decide who would go to Wrestlemania with Bret,Stone Cold,Taker,and Vader.

If it had happend with the WM 12 Rematch who knows where Austin would have been on the Card, maybe against Sid while Undertaker took on Vader? As much as I love HBK he was difficult of course to work with back then.

 

[jmoney83]

I hated that HBK lost his smile because he was my favorite in this era and I flew from Memphis to Chicago for 'Mania 13... Besides my disappointment from not seeing Bret vs. Shawn II, it was pretty damn clear to me even at age 14 that this was one of the poorest, make shift booking jobs the WWF could have put together.... Look no further than the IC title match and the tag team title match (Vader/Mankind, really?...much better uses of two of your top singles heels in a heel vs heel tag title match at mania?).

WWF was getting smoked at the time by WCW and it needed to throw the kitchen sink out at Wrestlemania, here how I would have booked it.

Free for all:

Flash Funk vs. Savio Vega

reasoning: get the crowd going early with the best high flier in the WWF at the time.


Goldust vs. HHH

reasoning: This is the only original match I would have kept... A decent feud at the time, that delivered a decent match.



Ahmed Johnson vs. Farooq (no DQ)

reasoning: I mean if the Chicago Street Fight was the pay off in this feud, I'd rather just have seen a no-DQ singles match...Especially when the Chicago street fight involved Crush and Savio Vega. I'm sorry those two guys can't be anywhere near the top of the Mania card.


Sid vs. Mankind

reasoning: Sid was a babyface/tweener anyway at this time...He was just a de facto heel because the he was facing the Undertaker in an obvious job the title situation. Sid, still had marquee value at the time and Mick Foley may have been able to bump this thing to a decent match.



Undertaker vs. Vader (casket match)

reasoning: would have been a logical revenge match for Taker after doing a clean job to Vader at the 97 RR. Also, actually would have been a quality match. Vader, what a mis-used talent during his WWF run.


LOD vs. British Bulldog/Owen Hart (c):

reasoning: What better way to get this already hot crowd engaged in the Tag Team match besides have the Road Warriors in their kayfabe hometown go for the straps at a time when the WWF tag division was at its worst. Coincidentally, WCW's tag division at this time wasn't bad at all.



Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. Rocky Miavia (c) Intercontinental Title match

reasoning: Stone Cold still hadn't won the IC strap, so why not expedite the process against the undeserving, blue chip rookie. I was there that night, the 'Rocky Sucks' chants were audible. The ironic thing is I think Austin still could have come out of Mania 13 as a baby face in a similar fashion as he wound up doing against Bret. The crowd would have easily switched Miavia/Austin as the baby face/heel here just like they did with Bret/Austin.



Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels (c) World Title match

reasoning: As a teen who surfed this newer thing called the internet like a kid in a candy store, the behind the scenes write ups about backstage politics made
this match almost more desirable than the potential on-screen storyline. There was only one true money match in the WWF at this time, and this was it.

Behind Hogan/Flair at WM8, this was prob the #2 all time match we were robbed of at Wrestlemania.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Why? Because two wrongs don't make a right, son. And Bret's wrong was a LOT worse than Shawn's. People refuse to job or refuse to put somebody over all the time. Shawn himself has been the victim of his on multiple occassions. There's a big difference between politics as usual and putting your company in danger of the ultimate humiliation - seeing their World champion, with their prized title, on their rival's TV show.

Your logic makes no sense here.

HBK forfeiting the title because he refused to job to Hart is better than Hart refusing to drop the title to HBK in Montreal because there was a danger of Hart taking the title to WCW with him?

FACT: There was ZERO danger of that ever happening. Hart refused to drop the belt to Michaels as a direct result of HBK's attitude towards him, and HBK flat out saying that he wouldn't return the favor when Hart told him that he had no problem dropping to him in the first place. Hart gave McMahon a list of people he would drop the title to instead. He even said that he'd drop it to Steve Lombardi at MSG (Pat Patterson had worked something so his personal boytoy won a title shot at MSG that month). Absolutely everyone in the know regarding Montreal has agreed on one thing. Hart was not taking the belt to WCW with him, and never had any intentions of doing so.

The simple truth is what Michaels pulled when he 'lost his smile' was every bit, if not more unprofessional than what Hart pulled in Montreal. Hart at least had it in his contract that he could do what he did, and felt that he was taking a stand for 'traditional values' by standing up against what HBK had become at that time. Michaels just flat out refused to do business, took his ball and went home. He disrespected the belt, everyone that held the belt before him, and his entire locker room when he 'lost his smile'.

As far as putting your company in danger? Michaels was more guilty of this. He forced the plans to change for the biggest show of the year. He forced the entire main event scene and title picture to be rewritten. It's a testament to guys like Austin, Hart, Taker, ect that they were able to make chicken salad out of the chicken shit that HBK handed them.

 

[Wolf Pac]

I've always thought Bret Hart should've had 2 matches at WM 13. One against Austin, that should obviously never change and the second would be against Taker. He'd be the WWF Champion and would defend the title against both guys. He'd retain against Austin then lose it to Taker in the main event. Even if Shawn were to make it to the WM 13 main event, I would still say Bret should've had 2 matches, only difference is Bret would come out winning both matches and the title in the main event.

 

[theHeadliner]

Shawn Michaels was scheduled to drop the belt to Sid at that Thursday Night RAW where he gave the speech and forfeited the belt, so Michaels would not have been champ going into WM13.

 

[The Idiot]

As far as Steve Austin is concerned....if HBK wouldn't have lost his smile, it wouldn't have mattered a damn bit. The cream always rising to the top and Austin was destined for greatness. Sure, he wouldn't have had his legendary match with Bret which helped propel him to main event stardom (since Shawn and Bret would be facing off against each other in the rematch)...but Austin would have gotten the respect of the fans one way or another.

I think Sid and Taker would have still fought.....it's one of those Vince McMahon type matches that you know will happen sooner or later. The two dominant big men clashing at Mania. It wouldn't have been for the title but it could have co-main evented the show.

Owen and Bulldog was such a crap tag team, IMO. Two great superstars that could do wonders in singles competition. Such a waste. (Never understood why they teamed them up) I could see Austin starting a feud with Owen saying that since he couldn't get Bret in a match at Mania, he'll go for the next Hart. Austin vs Owen with Stone Cold winning the match in dramatic fashion.

I really wanted to see HBK/Hart II at Wrestlemania 13 and was so bummed when Shawn dropped the title. Of course, back then....with no internet I didn't know what the hell was going on (at least I didn't have internet and wasn't "smart" to the business.) If that match would have happened I think people would be talking about that as one of the greatest matches in history. Instead, we got Austin/Bret....which today people call one of the greatest matches of all time. So win-win.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

I'm a sucker for 97 WWF and revision thinking so this should be good.

I would have the Rumble play out as it did. As a result, the fatal fourway match is set up but this time it is to determine the #1 contender. The result remains the same and Bret wins the match setting up Shawn v Bret part II. For this match Shamrock would serve as special guest ref with the reason given that this match has so much combustible parts that only a guy like Shamrock can ensure order in this match. Austin would then get a IC title shot against Rocky, the rest of the card would remain the same.

At Mania, all the matches that remained the same would pan out as they did, Austin would beat Rocky for the IC title and Bret would best Shawn for the World title.

Following WM, Bret would go throgh the monster challengers of Taker, Mankind, Sid and Vader retaining his title with Shawn at various points making sure Bret retains the strap. This would set up secondary fueds with Shawn against those guys one of which having to be Taker so we get the first HIAC and Kane's debut. Also during this time Shawn as a result of Mania and the run ins starts becoming more of a heel which leads to the formation of DX. Now Austin would go on a tear with the IC title, defending against the likes of Owen, Bulldog, Ahmed Johnson, Farroqq, and members of DOA and the Borikas.

So this leads up to Survivor Series, Bret would still be on his way out, we get the re-remath with Shawn and the screwjob still goes down. Austin at some point between Survivor Series and the Rumble to a now heel Rock so he can go on to win the 98 Rumble and win the title at WM XIV.

 

[Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!]

Some great responses so far and honestly some of you are thinking further ahead than I anticipated, but that’s ok. I was more wondering what WM13 would have looked like with Michaels vs. Hart as the main event. Here’s what I was thinking.

Undertaker vs. Vader: This was always a dream match of mine back when Vader was dominating WCW. They wrestled at the Rumble that year but that match came out of nowhere without much of a story. Vader won the match and I think a mania rematch with a better storyline and Taker coming out on top may have been the original plan.

Steve Austin vs. Sid: Honestly this is because I don’t have anything else for Austin. Sid was on his way out after mania but had just recently been champion. A win over the former champ at mania could have been big for Austin. Certainly not nearly as big as the match with Hart but I don’t see a better scenario for Austin at the time.

Rocky Maivia vs. Mankind: With Vader out of the tag title match Mankind would need a different opponent. Mankind would have made a much better opponent for Rocky than the Sultan. The outcast freak vs. the blue chipper sounds good to me.

Davey Boy Smith vs. Owen Hart: They wrestled each other just a couple weeks earlier in the European tournament finals and had an outstanding match. This could have simply been held off until mania. Either that or they defend the tag belts against Furnas and Lafon and the opening four corners match is scrapped.

As for the Montreal screwjob and Mr. McMahon, it’s possible the screwjob wouldn’t have happened but Mr. McMahon showed signs of appearing before that. The wheels were already in motion for his feud with Austin even before Survivor Series so I’m sure the Mr. McMahon character would have still existed.

That would of been a great Wrestlemania. I especially liked the Undertaker vs Vader match. I would of loved more of a 'Taker/Vader feud. Owen/Bulldog would also been a great match.

 

[thebarber]

if Bret and Shawn had the rematch at Mania 13 as planned all long with Hart going over, Montreal more than likely would not have happened. For Mania 13 to have gone ahead, both these guys differences would have been sorted for the most part. This is all sepculation, but thinking about it, if HBK doesnt lose his smile, history rewrites itself and I doubt Vince would have found the need to spend $5 million on bringing in Mike Tyson, which domino efffect into Austin and Tysons moment on Raw which changed their fortunes forever. Funny how Vince could not afford Brets contract, yet he could afford Tyson for far more money at the time only weeks later........

 

[theHeadliner]

Michaels was supposed to drop the belt to Sid at the Thursday RAW where he lost his smile, so he wasn't supposed to be champ. Even in Bret's book, Vince never once told him that he'd be going over Michaels at WM13. Bret suggested that to Vince in the summer of 1996, Vince and JR said they liked it, but after that it was never discussed again by Vince to him. Bret documented every single conversation with Vince pertaining to that sort of stuff in his book and it was never in there. Michaels would have continued to be a prick, but they could have gotten some good material out of him and Bret for sure and him and Austin.

Good question.

We know two things would have happened: the Final Four would've taken place as scheduled, with the winner getting a title shot at WrestleMania, and Shawn Michaels would've defended his title against Sid the night after the Final Four PPV on Raw.

I firmly believe that the WWE prefers to change as little as possible when they are put in an unexpected circumstance, such as an injury or suspension. Contrary to popular belief, they have a lot of long term booking plans in place(especially back in 1997), and it's a lot easier to keep as much of that as intact as possible by making as few adjustments as possible in the short term. With that in mind, here's what I think would have happened.

Final Four PPV: Undertaker wins the main event. This sets him up for a title shot against the winner of the title match the next night on Raw.
Raw: Sid beats HBK for the title. Sid-Undertaker is set for WrestleMania, as is HBK vs. Hart.
Raw a few weeks later: Sid and HBK have their rematch in a Steel Cage, just like Sid and Hart did. Undertaker and Hart interfere, just like Undertaker and Austin did. Sid ends up winning, just like he did in real life.

WrestleMania: Undertaker beats Sid for the title, Hart beats HBK. Austin...fights Vader? Ken Shamrock? Goldust? Clearly Austin was the big winner, as they just plugged him into HBK's spot on the show.

Exactly... Shawn WASN'T going to be champ going into that Mania in the first place, and all that stuff about Bret going over for the title and Shawn not wanting to job was from Bret. He was the one who suggested to Vince he beat Shawn at Mania in the summer of 1996 during his contract negotiations, NOT Vince. Vince NEVER once said that was the plan, they never had any booking meetings or anything with Bret and/or Shawn with that idea. If anything, Shawn wanted to get out of jobbing to Sid at the Thursday RAW (He was slated to lost to Sid that night for the belt), not Bret at WM13 since he wasn't going to be champ. Vince never told Bret he was beating Shawn for the belt, and all Bret and Vince's conversations were documented in his book. Vince's plans were to have Bret beat Shawn in a ladder match and Undertaker take on Sid for the belt, so Austin would have been left in the dust.

Vince clearly wanted Shawn to be the top dog, so having him lose to Bret after he beat him the year prior, after Vince pretty much decided Bret wasn't going to be his super draw again, would have went against their business sense.