Most Unfair Judgement in History of Wrestling

[Kidpolean]

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).

They did not take on the NWO and win...The NWO was dying down and had way too many members before Austin or Rock took over. 1998 is when the NWO divided into The NWO and NWO Wolfpac which was complete crap. Kevin Nash had ruined the NWo before Austin took over.

My original point is that it is unfair to say Michaels couldnt draw compared to Austin and others because of the era difference. Calling someone a bigger draw should mean that no matter what the situation is, that person can put more people in seats than the other. If you replace Michaels with one of the other big draws during 1996, I believe that WWE would have lost. Nobody has ever carried a company like HBK did.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

HBK is an amazing athlete in the ring. While a better athlete in the ring than Hogan, Austin, the Rock among others, you are at the top of the roster because you are the one who can make the most money for the company. He didn't do that. You would be right to say that the company had lack luster talent at the main event level, or the creative team didn't have anything good for him while he was champ, so the blame doesn't fall on him, entirely. But if we're going to be honest, the numbers don't support him being a true money maker as champion. Extenuating circumstances or not, people only talk about those champions who make money. Not every champ is, a money maker, there's no shame in that.

Btw, calling that the most unfair judgement in history of wrestling is a tad bit much. Fairness isn't the issue here, the truth is. The truth is HBK was a talented athlete, who was given the chance to be champion. He performed well, dropped the title won it back, forfeited the title then got it back and during that reign (or those reigns), he failed to get the audience behind him as much as upper management thought he would. He'll be remembered as a amazing athlete but not as a champion who drew. Either way his fans and most wrestling fans will never forget him which is a lot better than most performers have been able to achieve.

 

[undertakin']

I have been and am a Pro Wrestling for 25 Years and more.
The most unfair and really ridiculous decision in Wrestling History when it comes to most unfair judgement has to be this:

AWA Super Clash 1988:Kerry von Erich vs Jerry Lawler.

I see it was a Title-unification Match to unify the AWA and WorldClass Heavyweight Titles into 1 Title as World Class was about to close shortly after.

Now take a look at the Finish of the Match:
Jerry Lawler lies what would suppose to be "unconscious",completly knocked out (K.O.) on the Mat.
What does the Referee do?- Well he stopped the Match because Kerry was having a little cut on his forehead and was bleeding just a little bit(not much).

What goes down in the History Books is that the Match was won by Jerry Lawler (in my opinion only on Paper) and a loss for Kerry von Erich.

It was clear that Jerry Lawler had to win the Bout to get both Titles unified and the World Class Title had to go together into the AWA World Title,but not this way I think.

How can anyone win a match and be declared the winner while lying unconscious on the canvas of the Wrestling Ring just because your opponent was a bit bleeding from his forehead,which was absolutely nothing serious really.


However AWA has always had strange World Title Wins and Decisions when
it came to that because just take a look at how Curt Hennig won his AWA World Title by knocking Nick Bockwinkle out with a coin roll,and even on Review by the Board of Directors nobody saw evidence of that.
They didn't want to see what had happened.

I just was able to review the AWA Super Clash 3Tape again a couple of days ago and it still is unbelievable/unreal/ridiculous and unfair.


Do you folks agree?

All remember to do well and enjoy todays Wrestling and remember to

R.I.P.


Undertakin'

 

[Wald]

People get on Shawn's back about not drawing like the Rock, Austin, Hogan or Cena for a reason which I haven't seen mentioned here. He was, and is, the only guy that Vince put the entire WWF/E machine behind that didn't become a top draw.

Those five guys are the only five faces that Vince has ever solidly decided 'I'm going to make this guy the face of the company and do everything to make that happen'.

Wrestlers that drew as well as Shawn, or better in some cases, but didn't come close to Cena, Hogan etc. are guys like Undertaker, Bret, Macho Man, Mankind. Guys like that. They got a push, they got the belt, they were favoured, none of that is disputable. They never got the full Vince McMahon push though, the one that gets your face on every piece of merchandise you can find, the one that allows you to make superhuman comebacks in matches against all odds.

Hogan got that and he created Hulkamania. Austin got that he created the Attitude Era out of it, the Rock got it and because the biggest crossover star in the history of wrestling and Cena got it and molded the past ten years of the company in his image.

Shawn got it too. he had the Kliq Kam, he had the back to back Royal Rumble wins, he had the merchandise, he had the concussion angle, he had the boyhood dream coming through at Wrestlemania, he had it all. He underperformed as the WWF Champion though and after 4 months of him at the top the nWo came along and almost wiped the entire company out.

That's why people get on his back about ratings so much. They're justified in doing so as well.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Sorry, as much as I love HBK, I just cannot consider his headline run in the WWF as anything else but a failure. He won RR'92 and headlined WMXI against Diesel meaning he was a headliner over a year before winning the belt and went on to spend the majority of the remainder of his first 'active' tenure being a Prima Donna -dropping both the IC and World titles in bogus injury angles, the "Curtain Call", screwing Bret. The simple fact is fans did not buy him as a good guy... because he wasn't!

The real proof of this was that he proved he was a legit draw when he returned because he didn't want to be the top guy (because of the intensive schedule this required) and fans could get behind him in his Triple H feud and WM storylines.

 

[berlinbrawler]

Sorry, as much as I love HBK, I just cannot consider his headline run in the WWF as anything else but a failure. He won RR'92 and headlined WMXI against Diesel meaning he was a headliner over a year before winning the belt and went on to spend the majority of the remainder of his first 'active' tenure being a Prima Donna -dropping both the IC and World titles in bogus injury angles, the "Curtain Call", screwing Bret. The simple fact is fans did not buy him as a good guy... because he wasn't!

First of all, he won RR'95 (and'96). His match against Diesel was an exception. They had a long history of being on-screen best buddies, that's why this match made sense. Also, technically it didn't headline WM - that dubious distinction goes to Bam Bam Bigelow vs Lawrence Tayler. So Shawn wasn't really in the main event scene yet.

Concerning the "bogus injury angles", the first time he lost the IC belt due to a steroid-related suspension (a charge he disputed, by the way). Another time he lost the IC belt because he got beat into a pulp in real life and couldn't compete. Nothing bogus about that, unless he knew a really talented makeup guy to help him create this elaborate ruse. And why fake it? Because he didn't want to wrestle Dean Douglas (who wasn't even slated to win the belt from him)? The one time it seemed fishy when he dropped a title due to injury was the whole WWF title affair when he "lost his smile." He vacates the title and retires due to injury, yet about 3 months later he is back in the ring. It seemed fishy and Bret sure poured oil on the flames when rumors emerged that Shawn faked the injury because he refused to drop the belt to Bret at Wrestlemania. As far as excuses go in order not to do a job this one is quite a whopper. Really? All that trouble to get out of a match with Bret? Also, all these years later Shawn still insists that back then he took a doctor by his word and that doctor turned out did not have a clue. A second opinion later and he was back in business. Why would he still keep up the lie to this day? It's all water under the bridge now and he could just fess up like he confessed all that other stuff. So, whatever. It was messed up for sure, but why would he still lie?

As for the rest, the primadonna, curtain call, screwing Bret, being a pain-in-the-ass a-hole - yea, that's all spot on true. ^^

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

First of all, he won RR'95 (and'96). His match against Diesel was an exception. They had a long history of being on-screen best buddies, that's why this match made sense. Also, technically it didn't headline WM - that dubious distinction goes to Bam Bam Bigelow vs Lawrence Tayler. So Shawn wasn't really in the main event scene yet.

Sorry, hit the lower button (2).

The run list wasn't listed prior to WM so the fact that LT went on last does not make it the headline bout. It was built a special attraction with HBK / Diesel being the long term storyline running up to the event incorporating Shawn turning on his former friend and winning the big 4 PPV Royal Rumble - it was the headline match.

Concerning the "bogus injury angles", the first time he lost the IC belt due to a drug related suspension (a charge he disputed, by the way). Another time he lost the IC belt because he got beat into a pulp in real life and couldn't compete. Nothing bogus about that, unless he knew a really talented makeup guy to help him create this elaborate ruse. And why fake it? Because he didn't want to wrestle Dean Douglas (who wasn't even slated to win the belt from him)? The one time it seemed fishy when he dropped a title due to injury was the whole WWF title affair when he "lost his smile." He vacates the title and retires due to injury, yet about 3 months later he is back in the ring. It seemed fishy and Bret sure poured oil on the flames when rumors emerged that Shawn faked the injury because he refused to drop the belt to Bret at Wrestlemania. As far as excuses go in order not to do a job this one is quite a whopper. Really? All that trouble to get out of a match with Bret? Also, all these years later Shawn still insists that back then he took a doctor by his word and that doctor turned out did not have a clue. A second opinion later and he was back in business. Why would he still keep up the lie to this day? It's all water under the bridge now and he could just fess up like he confessed all that other stuff. So, whatever. It was messed up for sure, but why would he still lie?

Many rumors surround the Syracuse incident and just how severe HBK was beaten. The one thing that is definite is that HBK gave up belts on three separate occasions during his Kliq days and that there was a dubious nature to all three.

And the reason he'd lie is quite straightforward; while he and Bret can coexist these days, I'd say it would still kill him to admit to always being the bad guy when it came to his relationship with Hart at this juncture.

As for the rest, the primadonna, curtain call, screwing Bret, being a pain-in-the-ass a-hole - yea, that's all spot on true. ^^

And why I think fans did not embrace him as a headliner.

 

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

I agree with Shawn Michaels didn't draw thing wasn't fair due to the WCW/NWO was hot in '96.

But the thing that mostly bothers me and the unfair judgement is people say that Bret Hart didn't draw in the mid 90's. Yes, Bret didn't have charisma like Hogan or Michaels (I actually like Bret's interviews/promos.) When I look at the time period where Bret was the guy ('92-'96), that was a tough time to be a champion. The WWF had two scandals going on at the time, a sex scandal and steroid scandal. That turn people off! Also, the kids who grew up in the eighties got grown up and got tired of the silly gimmicks in the mid 90's. Also the WCW came out with Nitro and with more realistic and cool story lines, which took fans away from WWF. I think Bret did good under those circumstances.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It isn't the most unfair judgement in history at all, many other things have been said that are far more unjust but it's a difficult situation to judge with Shawn.

Critically his run failed, Shawn didn't capture the imagination during that first title run as he faced people who arguably could have also been given that opportunity like Davey and Vader. His first major feud was with Davey and he was pushed equally with Shawn in 95 and 96, that first match that ended in a "double pin" and had to be done again damaged Shawn, as it proved he was better chasing the gold rather than holding it. Had Davey taken the belt till KOTR, Shawn might have had a minor embarrasment, but would have been stronger after he got it back.

There was no way Shawn should have beaten Vader at Summerslam other than politics, Vader was hot, ready for the gold and again Shawn and WWE itself would have benefitted far more from getting the gold back from him than swapping it with Sid the way he did.

Now as to whether he "drew" or not, you have to take some stuff into account. Prior to 2002, Shawn just didn't work as a face, he came across as try hard and the fans on the whole didn't buy it. Shawn as a heel champ in 96 would have done better business but WWE was hamstrung by the fact that Nash and Hall were going. The natural feud would have been Razor v Shawn for the gold, it would have drawn big money and allowed Hall to eventually get that World title in a blockbuster 3rd ladder match but by the time Shawn was winning the Rumble their notices were in. So that left a big void on the face side of who could feud with heel champ Shawn as they had also lost Bam Bam shortly before.

Also bear in mind that the guy they had signed to specifically feud with Face champ Shawn was Brian Pillman. Had he not had the accident the day after signing, then that feud would have drawn money and ratings as Pillman was easily Shawn's equal in the ring at the time and you had two guys known for being "loose cannons" added to the value of Pillman being a high profile steal from WCW.

Shawn didn't make as much money or as strong a creative impact as many within WWE either wanted or felt he should have done in 96, largely down to his decision making process on who he would work with and job to. That he figured he could work within the Kliq as champ and draw money rather than put his heart into feuds with Bret or those above sums it up.

That is where a lot of the flak comes from but he was also new to the main event scene and by his own admission, a heavy drug user at the time so he was never at his best. His title reign was perhaps most recently like Punk's first,he was not quite ready or big enough but they went with it to see if it worked and happily it worked out in the end.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

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.

You keep bringing up this word "FACT" as if you are stating one. You're making a hypothesis...you are ascribing responsibility for the entire company's draw to one guy when in fact there are other factors including the business management of the company and the creative storyline of the time that were detrimental to their draw. It's really nonsensical...this is not a sport. It's a business with a manufactured outcome. These guys have more in common with actors in this regard. It is not purely the responsibility of the actor to draw fans. They have an impact, but you can't lay it entirely at their feet, good or bad.

 

[Just Joe]

The proof he couldn't draw is RR97. In his own hometown he put 60,525 in the Alamodome when it can hold close to 75,00. Of those 60,525 people thousands were admitted as comps..and tickets were greatly reduced in price compared to normal PPV event's. It's all on youtube..Timeline of WWE 97, with Jim Cornette.

 

[theHeadliner]

If you put Shawn Michaels in at the peak of the attitude era where Austin and Rock were drawing big, Michaels would have drawn a heck of a lot more than he did in 1996 when they had no established guys for him to work with as a face. He also would have drawn big if he worked with Rock and Austin.

There was no way Shawn Michaels could have single-handedly carried the WWF over the nWo, which was so far ahead and more entertaining that anything the WWF had put out over those past few years. Bret was gone the majority of 1996, Austin wasn't nearly as over as he would become pre-WM13, Mankind was new, and Rock didn't get there until Survivor Series. The nWo angle was probably one of the best angles ever in pro wrestling... It was believable, edgy, it wasn't predictable, and they had established WWF stars all while Shawn Michaels is playing a white meat babyface traveling with his old guy mentor.