Most Unfair Judgement in History of Wrestling

[Kidpolean]

Every time I see a thread with a debate involving Shawn Michaels, I see people saying that Michaels didn't draw. I see fan attendance numbers, tv ratings, merchandise sales and a whole lot of other numbers. People say he didnt draw as much as Austin, Rock, Hogan, Cena. My problem with this is that HBK was a first time Champ going head to head with the greatest faction of all time. I'm sorry but if you believe that anyone could have out drawn the NWO, than you are an idiot. The NWO was an unstopable force during Michaels entire run. Nobody has ever had to go head to head with a bigger force than HBK. When Austin took over, the NWO hype was two years old and calming down and by the time The Rock took over, WCW was a joke. Cena has absoultely no competition. To say HBK couldn't draw is completely unfair. If there was no HBK and no DX than we might be watching Nitro every week instead of Raw

 

[Makaveli31]

Sorry you can't dispute the fact that he didn't draw. You outline a reason for it. The NWO. And you are right. It was one of the factors in the near-demise of the WWF during Shawn's first run. But the fact remains that Shawn's first run as Champ was a failure in term of profitability.

 

[FreezeIzGAWD]

LOL..... U know when it comes to stats.... 72% of people don't actually read the research of that 72%... 84% hope to establish their point by blindly throwing numbers... Of the 84 % of the 72% only 38 % were actually ALIVE WHEN THE MONDAY NIGHT WARS were going strong and of that 38% only 12 % watched both shows an NBA game and deep sae fishing in the same week.... Oh and when it comes to the IWC only 3 % ACTUALLY GET BYTCHES..... Thank God I make up 97 % of that 3 %... LMAO...

Look people U can distort numbers to make your case or U can look at facts..... U can blame Shawn for not drawing or U could look at THE OVERALL PRODUCT at the time.... Hmmmm THE NWO... STING.... LEX.... HOGAN.... SAVAGE....The Horseman..... Rey Mysterio IN HIS PRIME as an athlete Vs a Green Hunter who had been RUN out of WCW and was losing to a slop bucket holder.... Max Moon..... The repackaged British Bulldog..... Ahmed Johnson,,, Savio Vega... and so on and so on.... Who was Shawn matched up with that was sooooooo MUCH SEE that he could draw.... More importantly have U ever thought about HOW LONG WOULD THE WWF have lasted at the time WITHOUT SHAWN.... Maybe the only reason the E stayed afloat was thru the only DRAWING HE WAS DOING.... Say what U want but WOMEN loved SHAWN.... And everyone love DX!!!!!

 

[HBsam31]

I think you are dead on right. I am biased. I will say that upfront. I have been a fan of Shawn's since The Rockers, but you are right the rest of the show wasn't all that great to see. Imo Shawn kept them afloat. He didn't draw, but look what the hell he was up against. I watched Raw and taped Nitro, and generally Nitro was better everytime during that time. Maybe Shawn didn't draw. I am not a numbers guy at all when it comes to wrestling, but without him it is possible WCW would have won the war then and there. Great post man.

 

[James]

It was WWE's fault that they kept relying on Macho, Hogan, Warrior, and Flair.

HBK and Hart were the only stars they made during the golden era. Shawn had the weight on his shoulders more than anyone and the fact that he was able to keep them alive tells you something.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Shawn is one of my all time favorites and business aside, I'd call him the best ever...but the fact remains that he did not draw during his year as the man. That's the unfortunate reality based upon how those in the business define how business success is interpreted. Whoever's name is on the marquee gets the credit or blame for the house.

Now for the subjective interpretation for why he underperformed in comparison to his talent. Blaming WCW is too much of a stretch, unless you're basing the measurement of success solely on TV. Shawn had the brand recognition of WWE, ran house shows and PPV unopposed, and sold merchandise against a virtually nonexistent WCW license. I also can't subscribe to the supporting cast argument as every shoot interview and book consistently says the main event draws and everything else is meant to build to it. I just think the IWC places more emphasis on the importance of the midcard than anybody from the business ever has...save Vince Russo.

I think Shawn's run was DOA as soon as WWE decided the angle would be "Boyhood Dream". It was such a dated concept for 1996's audience and it made the Shawn Michaels character do a 180 from the cool to earnest, from subversive to mainstream. Then you toss in having Jose Lothario shadow him everywhere. Shawn never had a chance. And truthfully, while he still brought 100% in the ring, I think you can see the cracks in his overall performance based on the fact that here he was, finally given the top spot, and Vince was kneecapping him at every turn. Shawn and the Clique were proponents of more mature themes, but Vince is still holding on to what worked in 1986.

And there's my ultimate excuse for Shawn. Find me any champ who has ever been a draw, and I'll find you a booker/promoter who deserves at least as much credit for that champs success. The fact is Vince had lost touch with the audience and it would not be until 1997 when he called all the boys and admitted as much, asking them to become his partners creatively, that things started to turn around. If 1996 Vince McMahon is running WWE in 1998, I truly believe they don't catch WCW. So Shawn has to shoulder some of the blame for his inability to draw...but no more than Vince.

 

[Kidpolean]

Sorry you can't dispute the fact that he didn't draw. You outline a reason for it. The NWO. And you are right. It was one of the factors in the near-demise of the WWF during Shawn's first run. But the fact remains that Shawn's first run as Champ was a failure in term of profitability.

so you are saying the its ok to judge someone off of something he has no control over

 

[Makaveli31]

I'm not judging Shawn Michaels. Did I say anything about his in-ring skills or charisma? I am am merely stating a fact. His first run as WWF Champion was NOT a success. If you're the best player on a bad baseball team it has nothing to do with you're ability as a player but rather's the team's overall performance. If you're ultimate goal is to generate profit, expand business and defeat you're opponent then it was a failure on those terms. Again not judging Shawn Michaels ability as a performer.

I don't think WCW was the sole reason but it definitely was a major reason. Almost every recognizable name was in WCW at the time and when Hall and Nash appeared in WCW it was a done deal. Signed and delivered. I think RAW was actually beating Nitro in the ratings before Hall and Nash's debut. I don't know what Shawn did in terms of merchandise numbers and house shows but let's face it....it comes down to ratings which equals advertising dollars and buyrates and Shawn (and the rest of the WWF) wasn't delivering.

 

[dman1373]

If you look at the time between wrestlemania 12 and when scott hall debuted the wwe put up some pretty good ratings, even having a 4.1. But you have to remember that during that time not only was the nwo starting up, but diesel and razor left to wcw and bret hart was gone until survivor series. There is no big star that shawn could have faced at that time as the only other star at that time was undertaker and he was face. And also by the last 5 months of that 2 year period that he was on top, they were getting from the low to mid 3's. Don't forget that they were still outselling wcw in ticket sales, and merchandise sales at that time as well.

 

[Makaveli31]

I don't think the WWF was in in direct competition with WCW at that time, Vince still viewed WCW as inferior and second-rate. It wasn't until much later that Vince even acknowledged WCW's existence. They might have been outselling WCW in terms of merch sales and had higher ratings but the WWF were losing money in terms of profit/expense ratio (more going out than in) and sales were much MUCH less than during the Hogan-era.

 

[FreezeIzGAWD]

Okay ppl I hate this he didnt draw thing..... U do realize that in order for U to make this claim which is subjective then U would have to put things in perspective.... What are U comparing his run against.... I am sure in that one year he out drew THE ENTIRE FREEBIRD VON ERICH AREA..... So is that a draw.... Just because he may not have outdrew the Rock or Stone Cold does not mean he DID NOT bring in any money... What and who are U comparing him against... And why? For ppl 2 make a statement like that U have to have a situation in which all variables are equal and then the only part that is interchangeable is the said options... Lets say for example that we had 2 horses and we ran them at the same time on the same track and they were the same breed for the same length of time... Then we could say that one horse was faster than the other.... Lets say they are run on different tracks on different days NOW U HAVE ADDED OTHER VARIABLES.... This is something U have to factor in..... ROCK VS CENA to some ppl was a DREAM MATCH.... PPL BOUGHT IT.... Because mainstream ppl like BOTH.... Not many ppl who dont watch wrestling knew who SHAWN was wrestling... THIS IS A MAJOR FACTOR...U guys just over look it but that is a BIG FACTOR and like I said who's numbers are U comparing him to.... Did he outdraw EDGE'S reigns? If so buy how much? What about Christians? The Big SHow's.... Sargeant Slaughter's... The Warrior's TOMMY RICH'S NWA one... Big Show's 47 second reign.... What constitutes DRAWING to U nad how much does it have to be?

 

[The Butcher]

BTYCH!

An example of the oft-ignored grammar rule, "y before t, except after b."


Also, the most unfair judgement in the history of wrestling was President Jack Tunney's decision to vacate the WWF title rather than let Ted DiBiase buy it.

Getting to the point, HBK drew as well as he could given the circumstances. I think to frame the discussion any other way is doing a disservice to Shawn Michaels. To say that he plain didn't draw is untrue. He just didn't draw as well as some fellow all-time greats. Not remotely as well in some cases. However, the OP and others make fair points. The nWo was a tidal wave, Shawn wasn't given much to work with talent- or creative-wise, and he arguably kept WWE up rather than contributed to their fall. So what if he did draw poorly at times during his career? We all know how the story ends and I think Shawn made out all right.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Shawn Michaels didn't draw because he didn't seem to care as much. The only reason he probably had the title was because it meant more money and more money meant more cocaine. Scott Hall even admits to him and HBK wanting nothing more than to try and kill themselves with the drugs they were on. Whether or not that's true or just "juice for the story" I don't know, but it's well documented that HBK had a problem.

I would really like to think that HBK also didn't have much main star talent against him at the time. Taker, Austin, and The Rock weren't "there" yet and Scott Hall had jumped to WCW. I think the guy did the best he could given the circumstances.

 

[Nyce18]

When u r talking about Shawn and his run back in 96 on, it is a rare case in which his value cant be looked upon by his "drawing power" or how much $ he brought in for the company. When u make that argument and compare him to the likes of Austin and Hogan, Shawn will NEVER win that battle or be mentioned in the same breath. It is well documented those 2 r the greatest draws in the history of pro wrestling. Shawns value to wrestling and namely to WWE, however, is right up there with Austin. Without him carrying a sinking ship (along with 'Taker and for some time Hart), u never know if WWE would even be around today. Im a huge Austin fan, my fav of all time. When I was younger I used to side with the masses that would often say without Austin, WWE loses to WCW,etc. This, to some degree may be true. But without Michaels and a select few there may be no WWE for Austin to help finally steamroll WCW. When WWE was in greatest peril almost going bankrupt, Austin and The Rock were no where near established enough to help tip the scale. It took Vince loosening up and allowing Shawn and company to truly begin what we all have come to know as the Attitude Era. To me, this didnt start with Austins victory at WM14. It began when Shawn, Hunter, and Chyna formed a lil stable known as DX and began doing the unthinkable on air. If thats not attitude I dunno what is! I think Shawn was a big part of that glue that held the WWE afloat long enough for Austin and company to come in and make history... His reign on top may not be sexy on paper when it comes to drawing $ etc, but his value to the company was tremendous. Im upset with myself that it took me until near the end of his career to realize this and to realize what an amazing in ring performer he truly is. I was watching greatness unfold and didnt even realize it

 

[berlinbrawler]

This is kind of cute. Fans complaining that Shawn Michaels isn't receiving enough credit. Aww. Poor Shawny. XD

Fact: The ratings and buyrates during Shawn's time as top dog where low. Scary low. Whether or not he had the stiffest competition in history is irrelevant. The numbers are what they are.

However, Shawn is being credited as the reason the WWF stayed in business at all during that period. Without Shawn Michaels there might very well be no WWE today.

Furthermore Shawn is hailed as arguably the greatest superstar the WWE ever had. As far as in-ring work goes, he's considered in a league all on his own. No one can match him in terms of overall match quality, innovation and pioneering.

He's pretty much revered not just as a legend, but THE legend. So if people want to go "Yea, but he didn't draw," let them. I dare say Shawn can probably live with it.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

One person isn't going to be responsible for the draw. That's going to be dependent on a lot of factors including the booking, the promotion of events, and the undercard.

If 65,000 people didn't fill the Alamodome to watch Michaels and Sid, I'd say yeah...Michaels didn't draw.

1996 - early 1997 was a weak time for the WWF. Hart was gone most of the year. Vader had minimal impact and wasn't wrestling as "hard" as he was in WCW. Triple H was a snob from Connecticut losing Free For All matches. Austin had just arrived, and was just starting to gain momentum. This was a dead period storywise. When people say this guy drew or didn't drew, they ignore the synergies that have to be in place throughout the organization.

 

[fenderjapan]

One person isn't going to be responsible for the draw. That's going to be dependent on a lot of factors including the booking, the promotion of events, and the undercard.

If 65,000 people didn't fill the Alamodome to watch Michaels and Sid, I'd say yeah...Michaels didn't draw.

1996 - early 1997 was a weak time for the WWF. Hart was gone most of the year. Vader had minimal impact and wasn't wrestling as "hard" as he was in WCW. Triple H was a snob from Connecticut losing Free For All matches. Austin had just arrived, and was just starting to gain momentum. This was a dead period storywise. When people say this guy drew or didn't drew, they ignore the synergies that have to be in place throughout the organization.

I agree with your post except for the 65,000 people filling the alamodome part...

If you give away enough tickets for free you can get 65,000 people to do a lot of stuff

 

[Makaveli31]

OK we seem to be talking about two different things here. Shawn's run as Champion in 1996 and his role in the Attitude Era as part of DX. Again two different things. That's like saying Nash's failure as WWF Champion in 1995 doesn't reflect on him because he was later a part of the NWO and WCW's success. Again, NOTHING to do with Shawn's ability in the ring or his promo skills etc....I'm purely looking at it from a financial standpoint and to me that's the meaning of being a DRAW.

The original statement was that HBK didn't draw as much as Rock, Austin, Hogan.....that's a FACT. There's no disputing that. So I guess we're comparing his run as champ in 1996 to those runs. Now could those guys have drawn in the WWF in 1996? That's a fair question to ask. You want to throw in his other championship runs? Again that's fair. But the fact remains....when comparing to Hogan, Austin and Rock (and that's what the original statement said)....his runs don't add up.

 

[Kizzani]

The real point is who cares? Fans don't know jack Sh*t that is why they are on forums crying for crappy wrestlers like Zach Ryder to be a main event guy. That told you everything you need to know about FANS.

When HBK was in any division IC, WWE champ, Tag etc he dominated the competition. I am sure he kept getting the big money because he DIDN'T draw. Every business know the best plan is to pay the guy the most who sucks at his job...Damn the sarcasm is getting thick up in here.

Hogan was the first huge name, so to draw like him is like walking on water. Austin was a gimmick and even crappy ryder could have pulled it off.
The rock WAS a true gems, this new rock is a joke.

Again all the out pour for Zach Ryder, Says all you need to know about fans...Clueless and that is why companies don't take the ideas...their dumb.

 

[ilapierre]

As a huge Shawn Michaels fan, I too agree with the OP that it irks me when Michaels detractors bring up the fact that he wasn't as big a draw as champ as Hogan, Austin or anyone who headlined during WWE's too hottest eras. The way I look at is every wrestler had his strengths and weaknesses as an entertainer. Hogan and Austin could draw like Shawn could wrestle. So while detractors will try and bring Shawn down a peg, it's only to counter some of us Michaels-obsessed marks in the IWC saying Michaels is the be-all and the end-all.

Of course Shawn couldn't compete with the NWO when he was champ in 1996. But the NWO was not the whole reason Shawn wasn't a draw. Like many posters stated already, WWE was full of no names like Henry Godwin and Duke Drose and so many other guys nobody really gave a shit about. Vince was shoving crappy 'In Your House' PPVs down our throats, Jeff Jarrett was the IC champ and the whole Jose Lethario angle was lame. Babyface Shawn really wasn't all that interesting. And at the time long term champs and draws had to be faces in the traditional sense. And, during the 1990s, Shawn just didn't have the whole crowd behind him like he seemed to once he returned for his second run in the 2000s.

Siding a bit with the detractors here a bit, (and trying to be objective) Shawn wasn't larger than life like Hogan, Austin, Rock, Warrior or Savage. Us WWF fans were conditioned in that era before 1996 to prefer the muscle bound, crazy types. Girly boys women loved only really worked as heels and Shawn was being pushed as a face. Yet a lot of the audience (mostly males) hated him. It wasn't natural to see the 'Heartbreak Kid' playing a face. In those days he had 'heel' written all over him.

The most unfair judgment in wrestling history would have been Hebner calling the match and giving the belt to Shawn at Survivor Series 97. One of the biggest injustices to Shawn though would be the fact that in 1994 Vince McMahon vetoed Randy Savage's 2 year program idea that would have culminated with a retirement match between the two at Wrestlemania 13. The Mr Wrestlemania of the first 10 years passing the torch to the Mr Wrestlemania of the next 15. Had Michaels been built up properly, beating a legend of the old guard, perhaps Shawn would have had the credibility he deserved in 1996/1997. Instead, Vince chose a 'youth' movement of Max Moons and Issac Yankems and Shawn served as a transitional champ during one of the worst two year periods in modern wrestling (before this era lol).

As for the belief that there'd be no WWE today without Shawn or DX, I say what would be so bad about that? I'm sure wrestling would still have been amazing regardless if it was Vince running it. Triple H wouldn't be running things today and that would be a good thing. Perhaps wrestling wouldn't have evolved into something this lame?? So maybe there shouldn't have been a Shawn or DX then! WCW Nitro circa 1996-1998 was by far the best wrestling entertainment there ever was and ever will be. From what I remember it was because of Austin kicking McMahon and Michaels' asses that WWE survived. People only started giving a shit about WWE again after Survivor Series 97 as many of us watching WCW Nitro started tuning back into WWE again to see if there'd be revenge for Bret. So I guess, inadvertently, Michaels became a massive heel draw and the perfect target for Austin who was emerging into an authentic top draw. And for us conditioned during the Hogan-Macho Man-Warrior era, it helped that Austin was muscle bound, manly, crazy and larger than life.

 

[InstantAttitude]

Pfft. He did draw. But not as big as Rock, Austin or Hogan.

 

[Makaveli31]

I'm going based on facts. You can't dispute facts and when it comes to DRAWING power...yes Shawn ranks behind Hogan, Austin and Rock and that's based on PURE financial numbers. How is that an unfair judgment? I'm not biased either way but of you're comparing who is the BIGGER draw and I'm not talking about wrestling angles, storylines, who was in WCW and who was in WWF, Shawn's overall career, wins and losses, matches etc....if we're ranking the TOP DRAWS of the WWF then Shawn ranks behind Hogan, Austin and Rock. I'm referring to the statement that it's unfair to judge HBK's run against Hogan, Rock and Austin no it's not unfair to say he didnt' draw as well the aforementioned. It's FACT.

I do think it's unfair and incorrect to say Shawn didn't draw PERIOD. No I would not agree with that statement.

 

[Sweettre15]

Now one thing Id like to keep in consideration is that Shawn likely could have drew as a heel champion if Vince didn't want Shawn to be a face champ like he did.

Something else to point out is that who really drew well as champ in 96?

Psycho Sid didn't drew that well which is likely why Shawn got the belt back

Undertaker didn't draw that well as champ but I'm sure he drew fine during his later World title reigns

So yeah I have to agree with some that the timing was poor, their was no real star power at the time due to Bret being gone, Taker being a face, Stone Cold just gaining momentum etc

Overall though, it's annoying that HBK haters only bring this up to irritate Michaels' fans most of the time but yes the "fact" remains that his champ reign as a face did nothing to benefit WWE/F when NWO was hot but as a said before I'm not sure anyone really could with the direction the product was in during that time.

 

[Da Solo]

It's not that he didn't draw... it's just that for a superstar of his caliber you would think his run as the star of the company would have been a lot more majestic, but it ends up ranking below Hogan, Austin, Rock, the two or three years of Brock and even Cena. To be fair, there were a lot of extenuating circumstances that a lot of the aforementioned superstars wouldn't have survived through either (shitty undercard, slack booking, heavy competition AND his own personal demons), and I tend to give him credit rather than bash him, because if it was any other superstar at the top, WCW would have ate them up easily, but Shawn and Bret, at the very least, held WWE down until the Attitude Era.

The fact remains that he did draw, but not as well as one would expect, and for a superstar like Shawn, that's very hard to get over.

 

[Da Solo]

Every time I see a thread with a debate involving Shawn Michaels, I see people saying that Michaels didn't draw. I see fan attendance numbers, tv ratings, merchandise sales and a whole lot of other numbers. People say he didnt draw as much as Austin, Rock, Hogan, Cena. My problem with this is that HBK was a first time Champ going head to head with the greatest faction of all time. I'm sorry but if you believe that anyone could have out drawn the NWO, than you are an idiot. The NWO was an unstopable force during Michaels entire run. Nobody has ever had to go head to head with a bigger force than HBK. When Austin took over, the NWO hype was two years old and calming down and by the time The Rock took over, WCW was a joke. Cena has absoultely no competition. To say HBK couldn't draw is completely unfair. If there was no HBK and no DX than we might be watching Nitro every week instead of Raw

But the fact remains that The Rock and Austin both took on the NWO threat and won. Believe it or not, I do think that the brief Austin/Rock/McMahon collectives between 96-early Aughts, should it have happened earlier and took on WCW instead of Shawn, could have very well stood its ground against the NWO angle if not even overshadowing it. Shawn couldn't, and even though a lot of it isn't his fault, he and Bret just couldn't (although being a dick backstage didn't help much, I'd think).