Pick Your Poison: Shawn Michaels or Bret Hart

[BRandonkin]

Actually, the WWF experienced it's lowest ratings, PPV buy-rates and lowest house show attendance while Shawn Michaels was the champion...he talk's about it in his book and it is a known fact that the worst fiscal year the WWF had was 1996...Bret was gone for 8 months of that year...not saying that is the reason, just stating facts....people seem to think that HBK was some huge draw and he wasn't....he is a much bigger draw today than he was 10 yrs ago...

Once again Shawn won the belt in April of 1996. NWO debuted in August of 1996. Shawn was bound to look bad because the storyline in WWE sucked. It was still good vs .bad. Shawn was probally the only reason people watch back then as the mid card and lower card sucked. It was the worse year but that is because NWO and WCW came in and hurt the WWE. The industry was suffering even in Bret Hart was the champion. They had a 2.7 average for Bret as Champion and a 2.6 for Michaels as Champion. In 1997 when DX bret average a 2.7 and Micahels after survival series averagae a 3.0. I going to find the thread on here that shows that. But everyone was doing bad during that time in WWE. If you search all my post you'll see a topic called average viewers for WWE. Even the tag team divison was horrible during that time. Everything was horrible except for HBK and the undertaker.

HHH and stone cold were not ready for the mainevent at the time.

Diesel 2.41
Bret Hart (3) 2.73
Shawn Michaels (1) 2.61
Sid (1) 2.24

Raw goes to two hours during HBK's 2nd title reign
Shawn Michaels (2) 2.33
Bret Hart (4) 2.1
Sid (2) 2.28
Undertaker (2) 2.74
Bret Hart (5) 2.65
Shawn Michaels (3) 3.33
Steve Austin (1) 4.60
Kane (1) 5.4
Steve Austin (2) 4.49
Vacant: 4.66
The Rock (1) 5.13
Mankind (1) 5.55
The Rock (2) 5.5
Mankind (2) 5.9

Raw goes live each week.

 

[reddevil69]

Just check the PWI Top 500 & tell me who's ranked higher between Bret Hart & Shawn Michaels!

i believe it's Bret...Bret was also the single largest draw the WWF had internationally, and his absence in 1996 hurt the company internationally big time....he was voted athlete of the year 3 years straight in Germany....the WWF audience is not indigenous to North America only...the NWO did not mean shit outside the U.S....the WCW did not tour internationally....Bret was a far bigger draw than Shawn outside of America...why do you think on RAW 3 weeks ago that Shawn was recieving boos in England?...they're still pissed about the screw job.....whether you like either guy better than the other, if you want to start talking about world wide popularity, Bret is in front of Shawn...again, we're not talking about the 2007 version of HBK....a decade ago things were very different....you have to take into consideration each guy's overall impact on the wrestling profession, globally, not just in the U.S.A....as far as their abilty bell to bell, take your pick....they were both light years ahead of most of the WWF roster at that particular time.....

 

[Shadowmancer]

HBK got booed in the UK because he won the European title form Davey Boy Smith, in London. If that doesn't gain instant Heat in England, I don't know what would. They had to get Shawn out of there for fear of a riot. In terms of what you are saying though HBK's World Title reigns were drawing more in the US, but it is a difficult to say what that would mean if you look at stuff like heat from a few weeks ago. And the Heat in the UK was not from the Screwjob, it would have been from the people that like Cena booing HBK, The only place HBK gets booed for the Screwjob is in Canada. Bret getting screwed in Montreal meant sweet F.A. to most people in the world now. I have actually to vote, and I won't either because I can't decide who.

 

[tdo2g]

bret hart!!!!!bret is the best there............................................. dont get me wrong hbk is good but the hbk backstage is a little kiss up 2 vince!bret hart is the best wrestler ever[he was never greedy 4 money just 4 respect hbk is cool how he goes flying in the turnbuckle but hart was a wrestler and had a bigger fan base!!!!!

 

[debisib]

OK everyone that talks about how shawn is almost as good in the ring as Bret is pretty far off... and im trying to keep my cool but there r some things that just tick me off.

Guys, Bret is acknowledged as a MUCH better in ring wrestler than shawn.. its not a bout technical ability or high spots or anything like that.... its about how real and powerful u can make the match look... Bret has mad the worst wrestlers in the entire world have awesome matches, the berzerker!? come on... and im not gonna say shawn hasnt had good matches with bad ppl, but most of hius classics are with other guys he can rly work with, HHH, RAZOR, MANKIND, TAKER, ANGLE, HOGAN.... a lot of brets classics were against an over the hill jerry lawler, doink the clown, there was the perfrects and the bulldogs... but ive seen shawn have a bad match, ive NEVER seen bret have a bad match in the wwe... wcw is a different story...

but come on guys.... its about what matters most to u.. talking or wrestling? i personally prefer bret to everyone cause not only was he real in the ring, but his promois and storylines were all based on reality, the things he said, he felt it and u could tell he was speaking from the heart.... shawn just cuts promos... not as heartfelt, sure better at talking to the audience... but what matters to me is where its coming from... i think theres no one better than bret at making wrestling feel like REAL LIFE... and thats what matters most.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

To me Shawn Michaels is the better wrestler. Bret is very talented as well but he never knew how to sell to the crowd IMO he just put on wrestling matches that were good yes but they were always the same. Shawn's matches were always different and they always were exciting. Brets matches were full of rest holds and scorpion deathlocks or attempted Deathlocks and yes i say scorpion deathlocks cause to me Sting always executed the move better. Also IMO Shawn's matches at 42 today are still better than any of Bret's matches EVER!

 

[iget4:20higher]

simple as this shawn michaels=better performer
bret hart=better wrestler
although bret did a very WISE move to quit early because as of late wwe is just burying michaels. not tryin to start a discussion jus sayin

 

[ErkBono23]

simple as this shawn michaels=better performer
bret hart=better wrestler
although bret did a very WISE move to quit early because as of late wwe is just burying michaels. not tryin to start a discussion jus sayin

lol he had no choice but to quit because of the fuckin kick goldberg layed to his head...just like you put it hart was the better wrestler and michaels was the better performer now had this not been called sports entertainment bret hart would take it hands down buttttt it is called sports entertainment and the one to entertain the most from my perspective through every aspect was shawn therefore shawn is above bret

 

[debisib]

hey guys... take into consideration that the "sports entertainment" slogan that WWE has on its products didnt come around until the late 90s... and even though it has always been sports entertainment, before hand they wanted it to be looked at more like a real sport rather than a show...
so take that into consideration when looking at brets skills... it wasnt called sports entetrtainment when he was around

 

[Sparky]

Bret Hart is the best one of the two. You may say that HBK has been in various classic matchs because he kisses Vince's backside. Bret was a better technical wrestler, tag team (remember the Rockers never had the belts), and was a better man over all. And the only reason why all of you say that you love him is because it has been awhile since he wrestled

but the rockers did win the belt they defeated bret and his brother i think in a 2 out of 3 pinfall but the rope broke during the match so they didnt air it because bret put up a big stink about it .
so therefore Shawn michaels is the greatest wrestler of all time!!

 

[Slyfox696]

I apologize in advance for not reading through all 17 pages, but, to be frank, I'm too lazy.

For me, it's Bret Hart. He's vastly underrated in both charisma and mic skills, and his matches speak for themselves. His selling was generally spot on, and the man could flat out tell a story in the ring. He could wrestle a couple of different styles very well (such as his reputed technical abilities, and his amazing brawl with Austin at WM13). He could be the aggressor or he could be the one beaten on and people always cared either way. His psychology was generally flawless. And he always made you believe that he really was the best.

HBK for me, while certainly entertaining and a good wrestler, lacks in a couple of these areas. The first most notable area is his selling. Now, HBK can sell an ass-kicking, but he has a tendency to over-sell at times, even when he's not being a jackass (like at Summerslam 2005). His overselling can make for entertainment, but is not always realistic, which is completely fine with me, but loses him points in this comparison. I mean, Bret Hart sold a leg injury from his match with Owen at WM10 in the first match of the night, all the way through the end of the show.

Also, HBK has never been particularly great at carrying the offensive portion of the match. He does a solid job, no doubt, but, even he admits that the offensive portion of his ability is to be found lacking (Heartbreak and Triumph).


For me, it's Bret Hart.

 

[reddevil69]

but the rockers did win the belt they defeated bret and his brother i think in a 2 out of 3 pinfall but the rope broke during the match so they didnt air it because bret put up a big stink about it .
so therefore Shawn michaels is the greatest wrestler of all time!!

It was Bret and The Anvil Jim Neidhart, they were called the Hart Foundation, remember?...and the Rockers won the belts but Vince changed his mind and told them to drop them back to the Hart Foundation the next night...Bret did not put up a stink...i find it very funny that all of the HBK marks always have some lame defense for him when it comes to his politicking or refusals to do a job but are so quick to pounce on Bret and make shit up in the process...if any of you had read Shawn's book you would know that he continuously states that there is no such thing as saying NO to Vince McMahon....if Vinces wants it done it gets done....that is straight from Shawn Michaels book...therefore Bret Hart could not have put up a stink or refused to job to the Rockers in 1990, if Vince did not want the Harts to have the belts, the Rockers would have remained champs for more than 24hrs.... Bret Hart did not have the stroke to question Vince in 1990....Shawn cannot use the "no such thing as no" line as a defense for himself and then turn around and say that this guy or that guy wouldn't lose to him...it is a contradiction of the highest degree...

 

[reddevil69]

I apologize in advance for not reading through all 17 pages, but, to be frank, I'm too lazy.

For me, it's Bret Hart. He's vastly underrated in both charisma and mic skills, and his matches speak for themselves. His selling was generally spot on, and the man could flat out tell a story in the ring. He could wrestle a couple of different styles very well (such as his reputed technical abilities, and his amazing brawl with Austin at WM13). He could be the aggressor or he could be the one beaten on and people always cared either way. His psychology was generally flawless. And he always made you believe that he really was the best.

HBK for me, while certainly entertaining and a good wrestler, lacks in a couple of these areas. The first most notable area is his selling. Now, HBK can sell an ass-kicking, but he has a tendency to over-sell at times, even when he's not being a jackass (like at Summerslam 2005). His overselling can make for entertainment, but is not always realistic, which is completely fine with me, but loses him points in this comparison. I mean, Bret Hart sold a leg injury from his match with Owen at WM10 in the first match of the night, all the way through the end of the show.

Also, HBK has never been particularly great at carrying the offensive portion of the match. He does a solid job, no doubt, but, even he admits that the offensive portion of his ability is to be found lacking (Heartbreak and Triumph).


For me, it's Bret Hart.

I completely agree with you.....i like and respect HBK, but some of the shit he does is downright hokey...did anyone see his match with Khali on RAW this past month?...what the hell kind of wrestling psychology was that?...from an 18 year veteran in the business?....he tries to wrestle Kahli with the same style he wrestles everyone else, and tries to super kick the guy?....Hello?.....he should have tried to take out the big man's leg's, which is what Bret would have done, and then make him submit, like Cena did at Judgement Day...Shawn's approach to the match with Khali was insulting to watch....this is in keeping with your point about Shawn not being able to be aggressive...Shawn is a great performer but he is not intimidating in the least...Bret Hart could work both sides of a match...he could be the aggressor and it was believable...he had the same type of charisma Chuck Liddell has for UFC, with the stoic look on his face...he looked like a guy who came to fight and win the match, Shawn looked and still looks like a pretty boy who is worried about his hair....that doesn't mean he's not a great performer, but it means he can only work one style of role as wrestler...even as a heel he was not intimidating....Bret's first run with the Hart foundation as a heel, he was seen as a cocky, shit kicker along with the Anvil...when they kicked the crap outta Randy Savage in 1987 on saturday night's main event, everyone bought it.....nobody was watching them week in and week out saying "oh yeah, Anvil's tough but the bret kid is a pansy and he's dragging the team down"...Shawn can not convey that kind of emotion as a heel, where people are intimidated by him and yet everyone rags on Bret for not being a good "sport's entertainer"....i think he was very underrated on his promo's as well...watch SummerSlam 1992...the promos between him and Bulldog are a perfect example....anyone who watches that and says Bret was not convincing and can't cut a promo is full of shit....everyone bought into that match and it's promos when they took place....i don't think there were to many fans that said "oh i don't care about this match, Bret's just not believable"...and the majority of fans outside of england were rooting for bret, not bulldog....that's why Bret went on to beat Flair and become champ, and bulldog went on to nothing except riding the Hart's coattails for the next 6 years...

 

[Slyfox696]

And, let's not forget that Bret Hart gave, what was quite possibly, the GREATEST promo ever.

"Who are you to doubt El Dandy?"


It doesn't get any better than that.

 

[hbk&triple h]

I completely agree with you.....i like and respect HBK, but some of the shit he does is downright hokey...did anyone see his match with Khali on RAW this past month?...what the hell kind of wrestling psychology was that?...from an 18 year veteran in the business?....he tries to wrestle Kahli with the same style he wrestles everyone else, and tries to super kick the guy?....Hello?.....he should have tried to take out the big man's leg's, which is what Bret would have done, and then make him submit, like Cena did at Judgement Day...Shawn's approach to the match with Khali was insulting to watch....this is in keeping with your point about Shawn not being able to be aggressive...Shawn is a great performer but he is not intimidating in the least...Bret Hart could work both sides of a match...he could be the aggressor and it was believable...he had the same type of charisma Chuck Liddell has for UFC, with the stoic look on his face...he looked like a guy who came to fight and win the match, Shawn looked and still looks like a pretty boy who is worried about his hair....that doesn't mean he's not a great performer, but it means he can only work one style of role as wrestler...even as a heel he was not intimidating....Bret's first run with the Hart foundation as a heel, he was seen as a cocky, shit kicker along with the Anvil...when they kicked the crap outta Randy Savage in 1987 on saturday night's main event, everyone bought it.....nobody was watching them week in and week out saying "oh yeah, Anvil's tough but the bret kid is a pansy and he's dragging the team down"...Shawn can not convey that kind of emotion as a heel, where people are intimidated by him and yet everyone rags on Bret for not being a good "sport's entertainer"....i think he was very underrated on his promo's as well...watch SummerSlam 1992...the promos between him and Bulldog are a perfect example....anyone who watches that and says Bret was not convincing and can't cut a promo is full of shit....everyone bought into that match and it's promos when they took place....i don't think there were to many fans that said "oh i don't care about this match, Bret's just not believable"...and the majority of fans outside of england were rooting for bret, not bulldog....that's why Bret went on to beat Flair and become champ, and bulldog went on to nothing except riding the Hart's coattails for the next 6 years...

Ok, I see where you are coming from with the Khali thing but that is just how it is.He did the same thing with the Big Show.They are trying to make it seem like Shawn is trying to do whatever he can in order to win but nothing can stop him.Kind of an Andre the Gian Thing.And not all the times are heels meant to be intimidating.Elijah Burke is a heel and is damn well not even close to being intimidating.To be a good heel is to draw great heat and make the crowd want to hate you.Shawn is my favorite and I won't deny the fact that Bret was a great SPORTS ENTERTAINER but if you ask me he just doesn't have as much charisma and promo skills that Shawn do have.You can't say that they were not rooting for Bulldog because I bet you they were.Maybe some just liked Hart better.

 

[ratedrsuperstartoronto]

Bret Hart is a better performer and wrestler than HBK in the ring. He was able to work with any wrestler and make that match one to remember. Very few men are able to do what Bret Hart did. And also, Bret Hart never "relinquished" his titles like HBK does and there are very few matches that Bret Hart lost because of "a serious injury". On the other hand, HBK has a ton of matches that he lost because he "couldn't compete 100%" and he has relinquished the belt more than any other wrestler that I can remember.

 

[Slyfox696]

Bret Hart is a better performer and wrestler than HBK in the ring. He was able to work with any wrestler and make that match one to remember. Very few men are able to do what Bret Hart did. And also, Bret Hart never "relinquished" his titles like HBK does and there are very few matches that Bret Hart lost because of "a serious injury". On the other hand, HBK has a ton of matches that he lost because he "couldn't compete 100%" and he has relinquished the belt more than any other wrestler that I can remember.

Yeah, that's one thing that most people don't ever talk about. Of the 13 title reigns that HBK has had over the years, he's only jobbed to lose 4 of them. And, of the four, three were to friends (Jannetty, Sid, HHH) and the other was because Taker threatened to pummel him.

It's amazing how many times HBK can get out of not having to lose a title through pinfall or submission.

 

[JokerG16]

You gotta go with HBK.

Hart was a great technician and probably one of the best pure wrestlers of all time, but I've always felt really strongly that pro wrestling was about a lot more than just raw talent and wrestling skills. You had to have mic skills, charisma, that flair or pizazz, that certain something about him, and his ability to tell a story in the ring.

As for Mic Skills I think it's clear that Shawn Michaels is superior in that regard. I always felt like Hart had two lines: "I'm the best there is..." and "I was screwed by ______". Other than that they just felt kinda sloppy. I dunno if it was because they were just improvised most of the time, but they just didn't seem nearly as good as Shawn's. Shawn was a master of the promo I think. He could go from serious to comedy to serious again with the snap of the finger.

As for charisma and flair... HBK was Mr. Charisma Jr. after Ric Flair, probably one of the most charismatic wrestlers ever in the business. Bret Hart was always kind of stiff in this regard. HBK could generate more excitement with a forearm than Bret could in a match, face or heel.

The ring General argument... i found both to be great storytellers, but again I have to go with HBk as having the edge. Since about 1999, HBK matches have pretty much gone the exact same way... HBK is pummeled... he regains the advantage... reverse atomic drop... punch... punch... kick... scoop slam... elbow from the top.... sweet chin music.... (pretty much, lol).. regardless, it ALWAYS gets the crowd going. (and I'm not denying Hart's superiority as a pure wrestler). Not to mention that HBK still is a great wrestler and can do a lot of stuff in the ring, despite being limited to basically being a glorified brawler who can actually climb the ropes and extent his foot over his head.

Like I said, if this was a contest about pure wrestling skill... Bret would have my vote. I don't like him very much but I recognize his skill and his legacy. But you can't restrict your view on pro wrestling to pure skill... this isn't a sport, it's a form of entertainment. That being said, Michaels is clearly the superior, as he's the better entertainer.

And even if we were to discuss legacy... what is Hart known for?

Being one of the greatest ring technicians... a couple great matches... the screwjob... getting his face kicked in by Goldberg. Granted we can name other things but this is basically what it is.

What is HBK remembered for now? (and remember he still has a while left to go).

Innovating the ladder match. Being the first competitor in a Hell in the Cell. Along with Austin bringing forth the attitude era. Innovating how things were done on cable TV with DX. His feud with Triple H (in my opinion the greatest feud in wrestling in the last 20 years, if not ever), and he's still going.

Yup, i think it's pretty clear that my answer is Michaels, lol

u also 4got that he was the first to win the Hell in a Cell, the first to win the Elimination Chamber, the first to win the Iron Man Match, the FIRST grand slam champion in WRESTLING HISTORY(damn that covers alot of ground), and he is also known for being involved in all of the elimination chamber matches b4 the ECW 1 last year.
but i agree with u 1000%. Bret's one of the best no doubt about it but he just didnt have that charisma that shawn had. back in '96(that was Shawn's year imo) whenever his music played it was like being @ a concert or sumthing. u always heard Vince going "here we go". but Shawn is the best all the way

 

[X]

Yeah, that's one thing that most people don't ever talk about. Of the 13 title reigns that HBK has had over the years, he's only jobbed to lose 4 of them. And, of the four, three were to friends (Jannetty, Sid, HHH) and the other was because Taker threatened to pummel him.

It's amazing how many times HBK can get out of not having to lose a title through pinfall or submission.

You're definately not giving enough credit to HBK there man.

First of all, theres no proof at all that Taker ever threatened HBK if he didn't lose to Austin.

Second of all, HBK only has held a title in the WWE 12 times, not thirteen. lol, Hate to be an asshole about that but they never really counted the Rockers title win over the Hart Foundation in the early 90s.

Lets overview...

First IC Title Reign - Dropped to Marty Janetty cleanly, there is no way in hell you can say that he only dropped it to him because he was his friend(they've had many problems in the past) because at that point in his WWF career, he held virtually no power backstage and if he HAD refused to job to Janetty, in all likelihood he would've been fired.

Second IC Title Reign - Vacated due to Shawn being suspended for testing positive for steroids. I honestly can't imagine who WASN'T using steroids in the WWF at that time. No refusal to job or dropping to friend here.

First Tag Title Reign - Title vacated because Diesel and HBK start their feud. Again, I don't see how this can be attributed as HBK trying to weasel out of dropping the title, considering there was no planned opponent he could've even decided on whether or not he'd job to.

Second Tag Title Reign - Vacated because of controversy in the match between HBK & Diesel and Hart & Yokozuna. This was the plan all along; once again, don't see any controversy here.

Third IC Title Reign - Forfeit title goes to Shane Douglas---and despite Shane's constant cries of Michaels just not wanting to job to him, you seem to be forgetting the fact that HBK got the shit beat out of him in Syracuse, New York a week before and wasn't in good shape. Why risk an injury with one of your fastest rising stars?

First World Title Reign - Dropped to Sid. I don't exactly know why Sid is considered HBK's friend...I mean even if he is, how does that change anything? Does that negate the fact that he dropped it cleanly to Sid?

Second World Title Reign - This one I'll give you for sure. HBK did the wrong thing here, but don't forget either that his knee was legitamately in horrible shape and the planned ending for the rematch with Bret was very dangerous to the knee. HBK still should've fought the match though, and I'll agree with you on that one.

Third Tag Title Reign - Vacated because HBK is legitly injured. Where's the controversy?

First European Title Reign - Cleanly dropped it to HHH. Again, I don't see how this negates the fact that he didn't refuse to job or sneak out of the match at all, and he only held the title for a few monthes and defended it maybe once or twice; the title didn't mean anything really to him at the time because he was also the World Champ half of that time.

Third World Title Reign - Once again, there is absolutely no evidence at all that 'Taker ever threatened to kick HBK's ass if he didn't lose to Austin---completely clean dropping of the title here to Austin and he goes into retirement for his legitly fucked up back.

Fourth World Title Reign - Drops it cleanly to HHH; obviously they're friends, very good friends in real life. However during this time when HBK returned, his power backstage compared to back in the 90s was SEVERELY limited. Not only just because of him becoming religious but also because Vinnie Mac wasn't/isn't going to take that shit from him anymore. HBK has matured. Can't say he only dropped this time because he was buds with Hunter, this feud had been planned and set in motion very long.

Fourth Tag Title Reign - Dropped cleanly to the Hardys in a battle royal. The only reason he ever even got the title was to kickstart the feud with Cena for Wrestlemania, and him turning on Cena was an integral part to that feud. Can't see any controversy here either.

So lets review: 12 title reigns. One of them was because of his refusal to job. 4 of those reigns he vacated the title; not a single one of them because of any refusal to put someone over. 6 of those reigns he dropped the title cleanly. And the forfeit win for Douglas was in no way Shawns fault; the guy was injured. When you're injured, you don't wrestle.

So the majority of the time, he drops the title cleanly. And we all know HBK was fucked up on roids and painkillers as well as fucked up on a serious power trip with quite a bit of immaturity in the 90s. Of course he refused to put some people over; mainly Bret Hart. However, he has changed his ways since then, and he isn't even capable of refusing to drop the title to someone anymore.

 

[reddevil69]

You're definately not giving enough credit to HBK there man.

First of all, theres no proof at all that Taker ever threatened HBK if he didn't lose to Austin.

Second of all, HBK only has held a title in the WWE 12 times, not thirteen. lol, Hate to be an asshole about that but they never really counted the Rockers title win over the Hart Foundation in the early 90s.

Lets overview...

First IC Title Reign - Dropped to Marty Janetty cleanly, there is no way in hell you can say that he only dropped it to him because he was his friend(they've had many problems in the past) because at that point in his WWF career, he held virtually no power backstage and if he HAD refused to job to Janetty, in all likelihood he would've been fired.

Second IC Title Reign - Vacated due to Shawn being suspended for testing positive for steroids. I honestly can't imagine who WASN'T using steroids in the WWF at that time. No refusal to job or dropping to friend here.

First Tag Title Reign - Title vacated because Diesel and HBK start their feud. Again, I don't see how this can be attributed as HBK trying to weasel out of dropping the title, considering there was no planned opponent he could've even decided on whether or not he'd job to.

Second Tag Title Reign - Vacated because of controversy in the match between HBK & Diesel and Hart & Yokozuna. This was the plan all along; once again, don't see any controversy here.

Third IC Title Reign - Forfeit title goes to Shane Douglas---and despite Shane's constant cries of Michaels just not wanting to job to him, you seem to be forgetting the fact that HBK got the shit beat out of him in Syracuse, New York a week before and wasn't in good shape. Why risk an injury with one of your fastest rising stars?

First World Title Reign - Dropped to Sid. I don't exactly know why Sid is considered HBK's friend...I mean even if he is, how does that change anything? Does that negate the fact that he dropped it cleanly to Sid?

Second World Title Reign - This one I'll give you for sure. HBK did the wrong thing here, but don't forget either that his knee was legitamately in horrible shape and the planned ending for the rematch with Bret was very dangerous to the knee. HBK still should've fought the match though, and I'll agree with you on that one.

Third Tag Title Reign - Vacated because HBK is legitly injured. Where's the controversy?

First European Title Reign - Cleanly dropped it to HHH. Again, I don't see how this negates the fact that he didn't refuse to job or sneak out of the match at all, and he only held the title for a few monthes and defended it maybe once or twice; the title didn't mean anything really to him at the time because he was also the World Champ half of that time.

Third World Title Reign - Once again, there is absolutely no evidence at all that 'Taker ever threatened to kick HBK's ass if he didn't lose to Austin---completely clean dropping of the title here to Austin and he goes into retirement for his legitly fucked up back.

Fourth World Title Reign - Drops it cleanly to HHH; obviously they're friends, very good friends in real life. However during this time when HBK returned, his power backstage compared to back in the 90s was SEVERELY limited. Not only just because of him becoming religious but also because Vinnie Mac wasn't/isn't going to take that shit from him anymore. HBK has matured. Can't say he only dropped this time because he was buds with Hunter, this feud had been planned and set in motion very long.

Fourth Tag Title Reign - Dropped cleanly to the Hardys in a battle royal. The only reason he ever even got the title was to kickstart the feud with Cena for Wrestlemania, and him turning on Cena was an integral part to that feud. Can't see any controversy here either.

So lets review: 12 title reigns. One of them was because of his refusal to job. 4 of those reigns he vacated the title; not a single one of them because of any refusal to put someone over. 6 of those reigns he dropped the title cleanly. And the forfeit win for Douglas was in no way Shawns fault; the guy was injured. When you're injured, you don't wrestle.

So the majority of the time, he drops the title cleanly. And we all know HBK was fucked up on roids and painkillers as well as fucked up on a serious power trip with quite a bit of immaturity in the 90s. Of course he refused to put some people over; mainly Bret Hart. However, he has changed his ways since then, and he isn't even capable of refusing to drop the title to someone anymore.

Hey X, there is proof that Taker was going to do something to Shawn at WM14 if he didn't do the match the way it was planned....i have an interview with Taker on videotape from 2002 when he was in toronto for WM18 and his exact words when asked about the incident were/are "let me put it to you this way...if the match hadn't have been done the way it was done, it probably would have been a very long night for Shawn michaels 'cuz i was going to do what i thought needed to be done....Shawn was a great perfromer no doubt but there were times that he could be a pain in the ass and he caused alot of headaches..." i am inclined to take a universally respected locker room leader like Taker's word and version of events over a questionable Shawn's any day....

 

[Shocky]

Ya I think that the Undertaker did say that stuff on Off The Record while he was in Canada. I've heard that from multiple sources so I will take it as true. Like Reddevil says, I'll take the Undertaker's word over Shawn Michaels word any day of the week. It might not have been the exact "I'll kick your ass by the time my gloves are on" scenario, but I believe there was some sort of altercation between the two.

And with the title vacancies in 97, there are a lot of reports that Michaels was playing hard ball with McMahon and was unhappy because his friends were doing very well for themselves in WCW. Michaels was playing hard ball, and I believe his injuries in 97 were bullshit and just powerplays. The reason he dropped the title to Sid is so he could put himself over in front of his hometown at the Rumble in San Antonio.

 

[X]

Come on Shocky, how the hell were his injuries bullshit? His knee was quite legitly fucked up, that's a verifiable fact.

Perhaps you are right about Taker though, I was unaware he had said that himself, and I'll take his word on it.

However people just piss me off endlessly when they talk about how HBK never gave a clean win to somebody unless they were his friend, because its complete and utter bullshit.

 

[dj420]

I'm going to go with Bret Hart was best in the ring for sure. HBK got him beat when it comes to mic skills and all that. I don't know I guess it depends on what you like and what's your reason for loving wrestling. I only really like Shawn when he is a heel like in the D.X days (you know I'm not talking about that junk they did recently). I like the way he messed with the crowd and the way he sells the hell out of moves but I don't really like him unless he's a heel. So I guess my answer is if Shawn is a heel I'll say tie if not I think Bret is better. Oh but before I go the Taker thing was true and he did say that loud and proud. Shawn and his crew (Nash, Hall etc) did play hard ball backstage because Nash has admitted it in interviews, hell Shawn did to find his shoot interview. But still the guy is great either way it go but I wouldn't uses he title reigns to prove it because holding the title doesn't mean your great it just mean your selling merch or know people in high places most of the time so fuck the title. Oh wait please don't reply saying if your selling merch that means your great because it don't. It just means they can market you better then others but I'm not complaining got to make the money.

 

[Shocky]

Well remember, when you talk HBK, you are pretty much talking about 2 different people all together. I've probably watched every Shawn Michaels match possible since he joined WWE. Believe me, I prefer HBK to Bret Hart any day of the week, but the criticism pre-2002 Michaels gets is well deserved. Post-2002 Michaels is a changed man and will job, so any criticism he gets should be argued.

The reason I criticize the injuries in 97 is with supposed serious injuries, Michaels was back 6 weeks later. His giving up of the title in early 97, I'll buy that, but I won't buy his second injury post KoTR that year. He was supposed to start a feud that year with Hart to last throughout the summer, yet HBK mysteriously gets put on the shelf again. I remember reading online how disgruntled HBK was because of the success of Hall and Nash in WCW, and there were talks of Hbk trying to play hardball with the WWE throughout the summer. Is it any coincidence that when HBK finally comes back at Summerslam, its in the role of a heel and with his best friend, and in a stable, ala the n.W.o.?

That was the problem in 97, Bret Hart was down with a legit injury, but he was on TV every week, HBK wasn't. When WWE needed the star power, HBK pouted and disapeared, when if he was the top star, his ass needed to be out there somehow. I remember all of the time Stone Cold would Hijack Bret Hart's Wheel Chair and pound on his leg. That's where I draw the line with HBK and Hart, Hart was there, Hbk wasn't.

 

[Emmet]

HBK might be a company man now, but pre 2002 he only ever looked after number one and his friends. Bret was a company man right until the end. Even in the shithole that was WCW Bret was a company man. I know one thing for certain. I would say all of us here debating this topic would loved to have been a fly on the wall in the mid 1990s and inparticular 1997 to see what exactly went on between these 2 men.