Shawn Michaels

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Is HBK overrated? Undoubtedly. Could he put on one hell of a match, though? Damn right. Like most great things, HBK got overrated. He certainly deserves a lot of what he gets, but I truly believe that the fans have made him better than he really is. Michaels could put on a great match a lot of the time, but he couldn't do it by himself.

I would not say that HBK was overrated if you are talking about his matches. Yes he could certainly carry a lot of people to great matches. About the first ladder match Ric Flair has said that Shawn went out and had a match with a ladder. Also HBK's stocks went up after this ladder match as he became the go to guy in the WWF and later in the WWE when the management decided to debut a new kind of match. Even when you talk about the first HIAC match, I would say that HBK carried it entirely. At that point I believe that Undertaker was not as good a worker as he is today, a fact that you can judge from the matches he had in that era. Over the years barring a few exceptions I would say that HBK has carried a lot of inferior opponents to matches far greater than they are capable of delivering.

Many people have said that he was the only reason DX worked, and that is also completely untrue. HBK has had a lot of help throughout the years, so even though it may seem as if whatever he touches turns to gold, that is untrue.

I've never heard anyone say that DX only worked because of HBK. What I have certainly heard is that DX was HBK's brainchild and that is a fact that has been confirmed by most people within the industry as well. DX worked due to the combined efforts of HBK, HHH and to an extent that of Billy Gunn, Road Dogg and Chyna as well.

Sure, Shawn was excellent in the ring, but he depended on a fairly limited move set, like most greats do. He was innovative, but it wasn't all that amazing. HBK is great, a sure-fire Hall of Famer, but we as fans have made him out to be a god.

I would say that he was quite innovative and amazing. He had the first ladder match, HIAC match, Iron man match, Elimination Chamber match in the history of the company. The HIAC match, Elimination Chamber match and the Ladder match that HBK had are still considered by many fans to be the best matches of that particular type that have been wrestled till date. Plus it has been rumored that HBK was responsible for innovating a lot of new spots in those matches. Insiders have said it was HBK's idea to fall off the ceiling in the HIAC match. We can see the impact he had on ladder matches. Ladder matches prior to the Wrestlemania 10 match consisted of the opponents wrestling a normal match to put one opponent down before going outside to fetch a ladder for the win. The use of the ladder as a weapon too was minimal prior to HBK's match with Ramon at Mania.

So, I would say that HBK is not overrated. He is possibly the greatest in ring performer of all time, a great mic worker but all his fans do accept that he was not a draw, a fact that can certainly be proved easily. The god like worship he gets from his fans is due to the fact he tries to give the best match he possibly can everytime he steps into the ring. And I daresay he succeeds in putting on a good show each time.

 

[UltimateHitman]

I have to go with overrated. Not to take away from his talent, which he does possess, but I think his was more of a "in the right place at the right time" kind of thing. I was watching the Raw 15th Anniversary dvd and watched the match between him and Jannetty when Jannetty won the Intercontinental belt. They both showed good athleticism and I don't think athletics-wise that he was any better than Marty. I also thought Benjamin outworked him in their match on disc 3. I think that his natural a-hole attitude fit into the changing landscape of wrestling at the time. There was a feud being set up between him and Perfect at the same time as this match, and Perfect was a good "not so goody-goody" cocky/confident face, and things were growing into more of an attitude type atmosphere than the strict "good vs. evil" with no gray in between thing that had been done before.

I also think that the way situations transpired helped him along too. You had, like one poster mentioned, Hogan and the steroid focus going on and wanting to deviate from that look and feel. Then you had the situation with Bret Hart, which helped him get even more notoriety and probably some extra push from Vince because he was willing to do whatever Vince wanted him to do, and probably to rub Bret's face in the whole thing as well. I mean, if you think about the stories concerning Shawn's attitude and backstage antics, there have been numerous people released for a lot less. Plus, he got away with "forfeiting" the title more than anybody simply because of his selfishness. (I always find it ironic and amusing when he talks about others helping the people that got them where they are and about what the business in general is about and how people should pay it back and follow the traditions of the business, etc. etc. etc...)But he managed to stick around, partly because he was a good person to go to that wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty, plus the attitude era fit w/his attitude at that current time.

Overall, I think that Michaels was just blessed with being in the right places at the right times and would do anything asked of him because he didn't care about anybody but himself and wasn't worried about doing anything underhanded or a little devious. Vince knew it and capitalized on it, and in return talked him and his abilities up and helped to elevate his notoriety. Again, not taking anything away from the talent that he does obviously possess, I just see him as an overrated talent that eventually was around so long people bought into the hype.

 

[The Crock]

Sure, but the fact that he brought it mainstream should be worth crediting as well, should it not? Or should we just go ahead and call Hulk Hogan useless for wrestling in general now?

This is quite different, Ferbs. HBK "innovated" the ladder match, it's considered HIS match, when in fact, he only wrestled in the first one. Anybody else could have filled his spot, he was just there: Right Place, Right Time. Why doesn't Hart get any of the credit? Because he didn't wrestle in the first three, and had Shawn not wrestled in the first three.... I highly doubt he'd get any of the credit.

Some is a wide concept. Could easily be some as in the most of it. Either way, I get where you're coming from with him getting way too much hype at times. The Wrestlemania 26 match got quite a lot of hype indeed, and they got it to look great. Shawn has always been the type of guy to get the "epic of epic" promo video's like the one for Wrestlemania 26. But that's not as much due to Shawn being truly overrated as much as Vince just being way too high on Shawn in general. After all Vince's favorite wrestler of all time is said to be Shawn.

Some isn't a "wide" concept, it is a moderate amount. Not too much not too little. I don't have any qualms about the build-up to 'Mania 26, I just think that for that much build-up you have to have an excellent match. They had a good match, but it wasn't the best they could have put on. The fact that HBK is Vince's favorite wrestler is supposed to lead me to believe something different? No, Vince shoved him down our throats and it created even more of a legend. It's Vince's job to make HBK look good, so even he made him look better than he really is, albeit for economic purposes.

Yet some of Shawn's best matches are produced in the 90's. I would've considered Shawn in his prime during 97-98 really. So certainly while he might have had some minor things here and there during the 90's, he would've still been able to be considered one of the greatest had he never returned in 98. Shawn defined his career during the 90's, and enhanced it during the 00's.

His best matches were in the 90s? No, 'Mania 25 was his best match and that was in 2009. These were not minor things that happened to him in the 90s, he'd show up for a match and completely be out of it. He'd become reckless and he would put himself and his opponent in real danger. I'm not saying he wasn't great, but he had a lot of problems. He was mostly remembered for his problems until he made his glorious return to the WWE.

Actually no I don't remember everything from my favorite match.

But I get where you're going, however just because you cannot remember something from a specific match at all, shouldn't automatically mean that we cannot consider it a great one. Bryan Danielson vs Dolph Ziggler at Bragging Rights was awesome, and a match of the year candidate, yet I doubt anybody will truly remember it in 5-10 years unless you're a smark or something like that.

The same can be said for Shawn's matches, he generally had good to great matches. But not all of them are completely memorable.

Truly great matches will always be remembered in some way shape or form. The matches that aren't are just another member of the faceless pack of average matches we have seen throughout the years.

Shawn was a guy who had a ton of those matches that will always be remembered, but that doesn't overshadow all the bad matches either. He is a mere mortal you know, he isn't magic, even Shawn Michaels has his bad moments.

Yet it doesn't take away from what he has as a singles wrestler in general. Just because of something being booked in a heelish way like Shawn's D-Generation X was in 90, doesn't mean that it takes anything away form Shawn.

It's gonna be hard to argue against Shawn not being a great singles wrestler, or great wrestler in general. And I can't exactly say that just because Shawn spend a lot of time in storylines revolving around his best friend (Triple H) that it automatically makes him overrated in the manner that he couldn't hang for himself, if that's what you're trying to say.

I am NOT saying HBK was a bad singles wrestler. He was amazing, one of my all time favorites. What I am saying is that he spent a majority of his career with good people around him. I truiy don't ever remember seeing Shawn work a match with a bad wrestler, that most certainly works in his favor doesn't it?

Problem is, at least to me that Team 3D will never go down as a truly great tag team. They're move overrated than what they're worth. E&C was a good tag team, and got what they deserved. Edge is a good tag team wrestler, and has the accolades to show for it.

How much of Team 3D have you seen? Their current incarnation in TNA is terrible compared to what they once were. Have you seen TLC I or TLC II? They were excellent in those matches, excellent. They deserve everything they've gotten. They're the last of a dying breed, the career tag team. The day Team 3D retires we will more than likely see the end of an era, an average team most certainly cannot effect wrestling like that, can it?

Sure, I'm not saying otherwise. But Bret Hart at least had a bit of a bigger legitimacy look next to Shawn Michaels.

vs

The legitimacy point really has to go to Bret Hart in this case, don't you agree? Besides Shawn Michaels really just had the whole "I'm resilient and agile as fuck, so I win" thing going for him. Bret Hart at least had a bit of build to show for it.

Obviously Bret is bigger, but he is a small dude compared to most. He is extremely well built in his upper-body for a man of his size, it gives the illusion that he is bigger than he truly is.

Yet I'd like to believe it is still due to the whole fact that Shawn vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania 25 set a bar that truly was hard to beat, and the fact that Wrestlemania 26 became less of a Darkness vs Light / Good vs Evil rather than Shawn Michaels career / Undertaker's streak.

The storyline for Shawn vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania 25 was bound to be good because it didn't focus as much on the streak as it did of the whole god's preacher vs the devil's demon. It was a match made for perfection with the storyline going of Shawn's religion vs the whole fact that Undertaker is booked as a demonic persona.

25 was Shawn's best match, it WAS hard to beat. You said it yourself, though, HBK ALWAYS lives up to the hype. Well, I guess this is one time where he did not live up to the hype.

Also, you're overthinking it. Shawn said it himself, it's just wrestling. You're making it look like a cataclysmic battle between God and Satan, exaggeration much? It was an excellent match, but you cannot argue that WWE was trying to convince us that the second one would be better.

But that's once again due to the bar that Wrestlemania 25 set and will continue to set when it comes to rating Wrestlemania matches in the future. It's a pretty damn high bar that very few people could hope to raise.

Yes it is very high, but as I said earlier... If HBK always lives up to the hype then by your logic, he should have put on an even better match.

 

[The Crock]

I would not say that HBK was overrated if you are talking about his matches. Yes he could certainly carry a lot of people to great matches. About the first ladder match Ric Flair has said that Shawn went out and had a match with a ladder. Also HBK's stocks went up after this ladder match as he became the go to guy in the WWF and later in the WWE when the management decided to debut a new kind of match. Even when you talk about the first HIAC match, I would say that HBK carried it entirely. At that point I believe that Undertaker was not as good a worker as he is today, a fact that you can judge from the matches he had in that era. Over the years barring a few exceptions I would say that HBK has carried a lot of inferior opponents to matches far greater than they are capable of delivering.

He carried a lot of people, but that doesn't make him worth all the credit. William Regal can carry people, but you don't see people raving and ranting about him. To say he carried 'Taker the entire time is asinine. Flat out asinine. You can't carry the match if you're on your back selling the other guy's moves for about 90% of the match. Undertaker was a great worker then. The only thing he does different today are his custom spots, he's older so he needs to innovate more, doesn't make him better.

I've never heard anyone say that DX only worked because of HBK. What I have certainly heard is that DX was HBK's brainchild and that is a fact that has been confirmed by most people within the industry as well. DX worked due to the combined efforts of HBK, HHH and to an extent that of Billy Gunn, Road Dogg and Chyna as well.

Go find some old DX threads. You'll see exactly what I'm saying. People always say that without Shawn it wouldn't have worked at all. They give him all the credit. I totally agree that it was a combined effort, very well said.

I would say that he was quite innovative and amazing. He had the first ladder match, HIAC match, Iron man match, Elimination Chamber match in the history of the company. The HIAC match, Elimination Chamber match and the Ladder match that HBK had are still considered by many fans to be the best matches of that particular type that have been wrestled till date. Plus it has been rumored that HBK was responsible for innovating a lot of new spots in those matches. Insiders have said it was HBK's idea to fall off the ceiling in the HIAC match. We can see the impact he had on ladder matches. Ladder matches prior to the Wrestlemania 10 match consisted of the opponents wrestling a normal match to put one opponent down before going outside to fetch a ladder for the win. The use of the ladder as a weapon too was minimal prior to HBK's match with Ramon at Mania.

So, I would say that HBK is not overrated. He is possibly the greatest in ring performer of all time, a great mic worker but all his fans do accept that he was not a draw, a fact that can certainly be proved easily. The god like worship he gets from his fans is due to the fact he tries to give the best match he possibly can everytime he steps into the ring. And I daresay he succeeds in putting on a good show each time.

Just because you're in the first match doesn't mean you're a legend. It means that management needed someone reliable to work the match, someone who could carry their weight. He contributed a lot to it, but it could have been done without him. There is no arguing that HBK is an all-time great, though.

 

[Ferbian]

This is quite different, Ferbs. HBK "innovated" the ladder match, it's considered HIS match, when in fact, he only wrestled in the first one. Anybody else could have filled his spot, he was just there: Right Place, Right Time. Why doesn't Hart get any of the credit? Because he didn't wrestle in the first three, and had Shawn not wrestled in the first three.... I highly doubt he'd get any of the credit.

Well of course not. It all depends on what matches leaves the better impression. Can you honestly say there's been many ladder matches that, if we look past the fact that we have 3 ladder matches in a row that have some repeated spots, that Shawn's ladder matches aren't some of, if not the best there has ever been performed?

Some isn't a "wide" concept, it is a moderate amount. Not too much not too little. I don't have any qualms about the build-up to 'Mania 26, I just think that for that much build-up you have to have an excellent match. They had a good match, but it wasn't the best they could have put on. The fact that HBK is Vince's favorite wrestler is supposed to lead me to believe something different? No, Vince shoved him down our throats and it created even more of a legend. It's Vince's job to make HBK look good, so even he made him look better than he really is, albeit for economic purposes.

The match was excellent. But it gets less amazing when compared to Wrestlemania 25. And obviously I'm not expecting you to praise Shawn Michaels due to Vince having a hard-on for him. However it's obvious that Vince will hype Shawn to the moon and back when presented with a big storyline / feud due to it. Shawn always got big stories leading up to Wrestlemania, especially in the last 10 years.

His best matches were in the 90s? No, 'Mania 25 was his best match and that was in 2009. These were not minor things that happened to him in the 90s, he'd show up for a match and completely be out of it. He'd become reckless and he would put himself and his opponent in real danger. I'm not saying he wasn't great, but he had a lot of problems. He was mostly remembered for his problems until he made his glorious return to the WWE.

His Wrestlemania 25 match being his best is pretty arguable.

Besides I didn't say that it was all his best matches. I'm saying some of his best matches are produced in the 90's. Obviously saying there was no good matches to come from the 00's is bullshit.

Also, to say that Shawn put people in danger in the 90's when he wrestled can't possibly be true considering how easily he could make some of his matches flow even back then. He was praised even back then, and for good reason.

Truly great matches will always be remembered in some way shape or form. The matches that aren't are just another member of the faceless pack of average matches we have seen throughout the years.

That's true. But even with that, some of the good / great matches that aren't truly exceptional won't get the same amount of mention as the exceptional ones. But that doesn't take anything away from them.

Shawn was a guy who had a ton of those matches that will always be remembered, but that doesn't overshadow all the bad matches either. He is a mere mortal you know, he isn't magic, even Shawn Michaels has his bad moments.

The problem is that when remembering him, yes they will overshadow the bad matches. Because like I mentioned earlier, the good overshadows the bad, and the bad overshadows the good, all depending on what there is more of.

I am NOT saying HBK was a bad singles wrestler. He was amazing, one of my all time favorites. What I am saying is that he spent a majority of his career with good people around him. I truiy don't ever remember seeing Shawn work a match with a bad wrestler, that most certainly works in his favor doesn't it?

It depends on how you define a bad wrestler. Shawn Michaels had worked a match with Sid Vicious, who weren't a pearl in the ring, he has worked with JBL who wasn't a pearl either. He has had his share of matches with the mediocre / decent wrestlers. But obviously we will once again remember mostly those along with great wrestlers like Triple H, Kurt Angle, Bret Hart and Undertaker, just to name a few.

How much of Team 3D have you seen? Their current incarnation in TNA is terrible compared to what they once were. Have you seen TLC I or TLC II? They were excellent in those matches, excellent. They deserve everything they've gotten. They're the last of a dying breed, the career tag team. The day Team 3D retires we will more than likely see the end of an era, an average team most certainly cannot effect wrestling like that, can it?

I've seen TLC 1 and 2. And I've seen their matches with the Hardy Boyz and E&C. I'll admit they're pretty good, but overall I'm not very impressed with Team 3D as a total package with a total amount of years building their legacy.

Obviously Bret is bigger, but he is a small dude compared to most. He is extremely well built in his upper-body for a man of his size, it gives the illusion that he is bigger than he truly is.

Sure I get that. But it still means that Shawn doesn't exactly have the upper hand when it comes to being compared between the two.

Also, I'd like to say Bret has the Kurt Angle syndrom in terms of build, or maybe Kurt has the Bret syndrom. Oh well /off topic.

25 was Shawn's best match, it WAS hard to beat. You said it yourself, though, HBK ALWAYS lives up to the hype. Well, I guess this is one time where he did not live up to the hype.

From a personal stand point I tend to prefer his Wrestlemania 21 match with Kurt Angle. But it is definitely a great match, and it will be hard to overshadow for many Wrestlemania's to come, if ever. But that just means that there might be something as to overhype rather than Shawn failing to live up to what hype it is truly possible to live up to.

Also, you're overthinking it. Shawn said it himself, it's just wrestling. You're making it look like a cataclysmic battle between God and Satan, exaggeration much? It was an excellent match, but you cannot argue that WWE was trying to convince us that the second one would be better.

I might be. However it's merely a way of proving as to why it was more or less automatic that Shawn vs Undertaker in 2009 was bound to be better than Shawn vs Undertaker 2010.

Yes it is very high, but as I said earlier... If HBK always lives up to the hype then by your logic, he should have put on an even better match.

There should really be limits as to what one could truly demand / expect. I'd say that Shawn gave his all at Wrestlemania 26, like he does every single year.

 

[The Crock]

Well of course not. It all depends on what matches leaves the better impression. Can you honestly say there's been many ladder matches that, if we look past the fact that we have 3 ladder matches in a row that have some repeated spots, that Shawn's ladder matches aren't some of, if not the best there has ever been performed?

Repeated spots are OK, but he doesn't repeat just the spots... he duplicates the entire part of the match. How many times can your opponent crotch you on the top rope off the ladder, I'd say that the chances in reality are fairly slim. Shawn's ladder matches are certainly good, and the first one with Razor Ramon is probably in my top 5 but you have to look at, to use an example I've used before, Jericho vs Benoit at the 2001 Royal Rumble. That match, for how forgotten it really is, is WAY better than Razor Ramon versus Shawn Michaels. MILES AND MILES better.

The match was excellent. But it gets less amazing when compared to Wrestlemania 25. And obviously I'm not expecting you to praise Shawn Michaels due to Vince having a hard-on for him. However it's obvious that Vince will hype Shawn to the moon and back when presented with a big storyline / feud due to it. Shawn always got big stories leading up to Wrestlemania, especially in the last 10 years.

Well, Shawn was Mr. Wrestlemania, that was his time of the year, did he live up to the monicker? Hell yes he did. Did he do it alone? No. He was paired with arguable the second best Wrestlemania performer of all time, and they tore the roof down... Twice.

His Wrestlemania 25 match being his best is pretty arguable.

Besides I didn't say that it was all his best matches. I'm saying some of his best matches are produced in the 90's. Obviously saying there was no good matches to come from the 00's is bullshit.

Also, to say that Shawn put people in danger in the 90's when he wrestled can't possibly be true considering how easily he could make some of his matches flow even back then. He was praised even back then, and for good reason.

To each his own, but I believe that Wrestlemania 25 outclasses his match vs Angle and vs Jericho, both of which will go down as classics.

Some, yes, there comes that word again... SOME. I'd like to think that because of his injury in the late 90s that he was reborn in the 00s, he put on great matches in both decades. He deserves praise, no question, but how much?

You can put people in danger regardless of flow. Shawn did some questionable stuff in the ring, it got fairly threatening to his safety. He was reckless. Some of the best matches ever have seen people be in danger, pro wrestling is EXTREMELY dangerous.

That's true. But even with that, some of the good / great matches that aren't truly exceptional won't get the same amount of mention as the exceptional ones. But that doesn't take anything away from them.

It doesn't take anything away, but does it truly add anything? If I do a good job of posting, but nobody notices, it won't be bad nor will it be good for my standing. The same concept transfers over to wrestling.

The problem is that when remembering him, yes they will overshadow the bad matches. Because like I mentioned earlier, the good overshadows the bad, and the bad overshadows the good, all depending on what there is more of.

They'll overshadow them, but there will always be that damper... that lingering though. HBK isn't perfect. He says it himself.

It depends on how you define a bad wrestler. Shawn Michaels had worked a match with Sid Vicious, who weren't a pearl in the ring, he has worked with JBL who wasn't a pearl either. He has had his share of matches with the mediocre / decent wrestlers. But obviously we will once again remember mostly those along with great wrestlers like Triple H, Kurt Angle, Bret Hart and Undertaker, just to name a few.

Vicious and JBL, although pretty bad in-ring, were easy to work with. They were good at what they do. HBK didn't have to struggle with them while facing them, he could easily riff off of what they were able to do. I cannot recall HBK ever working with a truly atrocious guy in the ring. There were a few guys who I remember that worked during his time, and they were terrible. They got pushes, but they never faced HBK.

I've seen TLC 1 and 2. And I've seen their matches with the Hardy Boyz and E&C. I'll admit they're pretty good, but overall I'm not very impressed with Team 3D as a total package with a total amount of years building their legacy.

Their work in Japan is what I think puts them over to the next level. Check it out. They're pure wrestlers, they're good at what they do. They were tag champs over there, too. That's no easy feat.

Sure I get that. But it still means that Shawn doesn't exactly have the upper hand when it comes to being compared between the two.

Also, I'd like to say Bret has the Kurt Angle syndrom in terms of build, or maybe Kurt has the Bret syndrom. Oh well /off topic.

He doesn't need the upper hand. All little guys are in the same class, there are no sub categories. If you're small, you're small.

From a personal stand point I tend to prefer his Wrestlemania 21 match with Kurt Angle. But it is definitely a great match, and it will be hard to overshadow for many Wrestlemania's to come, if ever. But that just means that there might be something as to overhype rather than Shawn failing to live up to what hype it is truly possible to live up to.

His match with Angle was good technically, some great chain wrestling, but that isn't what makes a match. Jeff Hardy and RVD put on some great chain wrestling, but nobody praised that. It depends on the overall aura, the overall match. The Angle match is his second or third best match, though.

I might be. However it's merely a way of proving as to why it was more or less automatic that Shawn vs Undertaker in 2009 was bound to be better than Shawn vs Undertaker 2010.

With HBK nothing is ever automatic. The two best 'Mania performers ever should have been able to put on a show. They did, but they couldn't outclass themselves, and that's not what they're known for.

There should really be limits as to what one could truly demand / expect. I'd say that Shawn gave his all at Wrestlemania 26, like he does every single year.

He gave his all, but it wasn't as good as his all from the year before. If I try my hardest but I still suck that doesn't mean I deserve a ton of hype. I commend him for trying hard, and putting on a hell of a match too, but he disappointed me. I expected more.

 

[ted sheckler]

Overall, I think that Michaels was just blessed with being in the right places at the right times and would do anything asked of him because he didn't care about anybody but himself and wasn't worried about doing anything underhanded or a little devious. Vince knew it and capitalized on it, and in return talked him and his abilities up and helped to elevate his notoriety. Again, not taking anything away from the talent that he does obviously possess, I just see him as an overrated talent that eventually was around so long people bought into the hype.

I know your probably a bitter Bret fan but comeon... Isn't everyones success built off of right place at the right time?? Bret Hart got the belt when the WWF was in the middle of a steroid scandal.. they had no one else to go with so they said "hey Brets a hard worker lets give him a shot". He picked up the ball and did a great job. Austin.. The guy was never thought of as a superstar but was the exact right person WWF needed at that time while they transitioned to attitude.. Shawn probably benefited from the era he came up in but most people forget Shawn was white hot in 95-96. Check out this video.. Taker, Bret Hart Diesel and HBK..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgkxMEIM8A
The fans chose Michaels not Vince...

To me the funniest part of this whole argument is NO ONE who has been involved in Prowrestling in the last 20 year has EVER..EVER.. said that Shawn Michaels was overrated.. Not anyone from WCW..or ECW.. TNA.. people that hated his guts like Bret Hart.. or even recently Shane Helms.. Not the road agents..not his peers.. not even the guys that put up the ring... The only people that ever say he's "overrated" lil internet fans who think they know something about the business.. It's actually laughable.. Chris Jericho among others can and have called him the greatest of all time but yet some nameless faceless smark will pretend to "be in the know" haha..

 

[The Crock]

Ted, I never said he didn't deserve the credit but he is clearly somewhat overrated. To use the same example I've used throughout the thread, HBK fans talk about his ladder matches being the best ever, when they are clearly not. He may be one of the greatest, but he is not immune to being overrated. Today's fans think HBK is hot shit because he just retired, so this "HBK-Mania" insanity is at a high, it will eventually die down. People will eventually see that although he was excellent and he is a HOFer, he doesn't deserve credit for everything he was ever somewhat involved in. Ferbs said earlier that "HBK carried Undertaker" in their HIAC match, that notion is laughable. In no way, shape, or form did HBK carry 'Taker, if anything 'Taker carried him. It is a perfect example of how overrated HBK is, if even ever so slightly.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

We need to get our facts straight. The ladder match was being done in Stampede wrestling long before it ever got prominence in WWE.

When you look at HBK, his talent is undeniable, but there were others who could fly as well if not better, who never received half the attention he did. Sweet Chin music, is that the most impressive side kick, out there, or do we make out to be so spectacular because HBK did it ? I mean let's be honest here.

I remember when he was champ and he forfeit the title, saying he lost his smile. The WWE did this ridiculous campaign with a video and a song 'Tell me a lie' and I was thinking to myself, give me a break, how absurd can you get. Talk about overblown, the guy had an injury, and they made it look like the president had been assassinated. The heavy handed way he was promoted, was just overkill to the millionth degree.

 

[Flex Cavana]

I would like to point out straight away that I believe HBK is the greatest in ring performer of all time.

Jr said recently Rey is the most succesful high flyer to come out of Mexico because he understands that fewer good spots are memorable. Where contrary to this constant spot fest wrestling smarks beleive to be "Awesome" are just well re-hearsed routines that create little suspense or drama in the ring.

And the point I'm making is that that quote by JR epitomizes Hbk's career. Nobody in the history of proffesional wrestling has been able to tell a story in the ring like HBK. Nobody.

Only 3 people that comes close to his innovation and his ability to mix up his spots in big matches and make other guys look like gold from selling are Ric Flair, Angle and Jericho. Even compared to these great in ring performers HBK has more High profile main events than anyone. This is no fluke, this is not people over rating him the fans want to see Hbk and he provided on alot more than one main event occasion. This isn't opinion this is fact ;

Hbk vs Taker - HIAC, RR Casket match, WM25,WM26
Hbk vs HHH - Summerslam (His return form a 4 year hiatus with a back injury)
Hbk vs Angle - Wm 21
Hvk vs Jericho - Wm 19
Hbk vs SCSA - Wm 14
Hbk vs Bret Hart - Wm 12
HBK vs Razor Ramon Wm 10
Hbk vs Mankind - Raw ( Evolution of Dx)
Hbk vs Vader- Summerslam
Hbk vs British Bulldog
Hbk vs Ric Flair - Wm 24
Hbk vs Owen Hart - In Your House
1st ever Elimination Chamber

Some guys have 2/3 stand out matches in their respective careers , HBK had 2/3 stand out matches a year.

Consensus he will never sell out more arena's than Hogan, Austin, Rock or even Cena but nobody in the history of proffesional wrestling has lived up to the main event hype HBK created on such a consistant basis. Any true wrestling fan never left a HBK main event and thought that wasnt worth the admission. So for these reasons I believe he is the greatest of all time and by no means overrated!

 

[ted sheckler]

Ted, I never said he didn't deserve the credit but he is clearly somewhat overrated. To use the same example I've used throughout the thread, HBK fans talk about his ladder matches being the best ever, when they are clearly not.

I read your age and i think its starting to make sense. You've seen old HBK matches on youtube.. and you were ten years old when he made him big comeback in 2002. You simply don't see him in context historically. When you discuss the ladder match you need to understand the time period. If wrestling is rated PG now.. It was rated G back then. The Shawn Michaels and Razor ladder match was a game changer. 99.9% of people had never ever seen anything like it.. the athletesism and the brutality of that match was something very very different at the time. And I'm sure people now say "that match sucked.. .the ladder wasn't 20 feet..Shawn should have done a 450 splash into a flaming table of barbed wire... I'm sure now Jurrasic Parks Dinosaurs don't look as good as some of the CGI work done today 17 years later but that doesn't change the fact that what they did was incredible and a real moment in movie history.

He may be one of the greatest, but he is not immune to being overrated. Today's fans think HBK is hot shit because he just retired, so this "HBK-Mania" insanity is at a high, it will eventually die down.

Again I challenge you to find one person... just one.. who has ever been in the pro wrestling business who shares your thoughts.. not "MoneyHoney3:16" or "Sadclown420".. real people who worked in the business..people who know what they are talking about.. Every wrestler I've ever spoken to and thats almost anyone in the WWE within the last 10 years would disagree. There are lots of interviews and shoots out there I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to find someone...anyone who said Shawn was overrated.

Ferbs said earlier that "HBK carried Undertaker" in their HIAC match, that notion is laughable. In no way, shape, or form did HBK carry 'Taker, if anything 'Taker carried him. It is a perfect example of how overrated HBK is, if even ever so slightly.

If anything Taker carried him?? Now that just plain silly. The match was incredible because they both were so excellent but lets be honest Michaels was doing the majority of the work.. Taker played the unstoppable monster perfectly but HBk was the one bumping like crazy.. falling off the cage taking that crazy hard chair shot... You think if you stuck in someone almost as equally athletically talented they could have pulled off a 5 star classic of all time with Taker... how about Owen Hart?? I doubt it..

 

[The Crock]

Age doesn't come into account, I know a ton about wrestling. I've watched since I was 2. I have memories from about 4 or 5. I remember HBK.

It was a great match, but the best ever? No. A game changer? Yes. It brought the ladder match to the mainstream, loads of credit are deserved there. I also agree that today's fans would rather see shit like what you described, but regardless, it doesn't change the original match. Like I said it was a great match, but if you compare it to later matches, where the two guys had better chemistry and better knowledge of the match, it doesn't look as good. The first match was like a "trial run", if you will.

I don't doubt that HBK is loved in the industry, but I could also find someone who believes he's overrated. I'm talking from a fan's perspective, from what people on here say, I find HBK overrated. People will blow his impact way out of proportion. I've heard people say he had more of an impact than Hulk fucking Hogan. No way that's true.

'Taker did a majority of the work, if anyone carried anyone in that match he carried Shawn. Although, I believe they both did great work. Just because Shawn was overselling doesn't mean he was doing some amazing stuff in the match. I totally think that had someone athletic been in the match, not HBK, it wouldn't be the same. HBK is a legend, hard to do what he did. Had another guy of Shawn's caliber been in there he definitely could have pulled off the match exactly the same. (I couldn't use Owen in that context. Not with the way he died.)

 

[El Rev sXe]

Crock I understand where are you coming from, as far the ladder matches concern. I watch 2 out of those 3 and well I didn't found them particulary awesome. I even took a little nap in the 2d one . HOWEVER, I think that what people are always saying about those match that were so exciting is the fact that they changed the business. Those matches changed the way a ladder match was supposed to be. I repeat, for that period of time it was incredible to watch. Today comparing to for example, any ladder/TLC match involving Dudleys, Hardys and E&C you may guess it is overated because it isn't as impressive as some ladder matches are today. But those match set the standard and fortunely, it has been passEd many many times.

As far HBK overrated concerns, IMO no man. Not at all, I mean the guy literally (since he came back in '02) had match of the year at every single Mania, Shawn fucking carried Cena at Mania 23 (I think), he had a good match with Vinnie Mac for christ sake! Who can make that?

Maybe a couple of his matches are overrated, but HBk as a wrestler, as an entertainer and performer, he is the legend that he deserves to be.

 

[Ferbian]

Repeated spots are OK, but he doesn't repeat just the spots... he duplicates the entire part of the match. How many times can your opponent crotch you on the top rope off the ladder, I'd say that the chances in reality are fairly slim. Shawn's ladder matches are certainly good, and the first one with Razor Ramon is probably in my top 5 but you have to look at, to use an example I've used before, Jericho vs Benoit at the 2001 Royal Rumble. That match, for how forgotten it really is, is WAY better than Razor Ramon versus Shawn Michaels. MILES AND MILES better.

That might very well be true. Also, just because the entire part of a match is repeated it shouldn't take away from the whole match. It's one spot where he lands on the top rope, it's always gonna be a successful thing o get an reaction from the crowd. Why wouldn't they want to repeat it at times?

Well, Shawn was Mr. Wrestlemania, that was his time of the year, did he live up to the monicker? Hell yes he did. Did he do it alone? No. He was paired with arguable the second best Wrestlemania performer of all time, and they tore the roof down... Twice.

But you're forgetting something. It's not his only Wrestlemania matches. He had matches with other performers throughout the years. Sure some aren't bad either, but wrestling with a guy like Vince McMahon or Kevin Nash for that sake has to be something to give Shawn a bit of credit for when he manages to pull out some fairly decent matches from the two.

To each his own, but I believe that Wrestlemania 25 outclasses his match vs Angle and vs Jericho, both of which will go down as classics.

I guess it depends how you look at it.

Some, yes, there comes that word again... SOME. I'd like to think that because of his injury in the late 90s that he was reborn in the 00s, he put on great matches in both decades. He deserves praise, no question, but how much?

It'd be ridiculous to say that all, or almost all his greatest matches came from the 90's. Because that would be bullshit. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't credit a lot of the work that Shawn did in the 90's, and how he could've easily gone down as a legend even back then.

You can put people in danger regardless of flow. Shawn did some questionable stuff in the ring, it got fairly threatening to his safety. He was reckless. Some of the best matches ever have seen people be in danger, pro wrestling is EXTREMELY dangerous.

Of course it is, and obviously there's some moves you cannot truly secure yourself from, like one of the many top rope moves that people implement in their move-set, even back then. But I'd say that Shawn was a fairly great wrestler that knew how to work a match back then.

It doesn't take anything away, but does it truly add anything? If I do a good job of posting, but nobody notices, it won't be bad nor will it be good for my standing. The same concept transfers over to wrestling.

Some are obviously gonna memorize a match more than the other. Some here thinks higher of Anderson vs Angel than Shawn vs Undertaker this year. However in a handful of years, do you honestly believe Anderson vs Angel will be truly remembered like Shawn vs Undertaker would?

They'll overshadow them, but there will always be that damper... that lingering though. HBK isn't perfect. He says it himself.

And the same thing can be said for anybody else. Bret Hart had bad matches as well, Hulk Hogan bad bad matches, Chris Jericho, Triple H, Kurt Angle. Everybody had bad matches, but we remember them for the good matches. We remember them for what there was most of. So while the bad matches are there, if they're not many, and the good matches overshadow them - Well it's obvious what we will remember.

Vicious and JBL, although pretty bad in-ring, were easy to work with. They were good at what they do. HBK didn't have to struggle with them while facing them, he could easily riff off of what they were able to do. I cannot recall HBK ever working with a truly atrocious guy in the ring. There were a few guys who I remember that worked during his time, and they were terrible. They got pushes, but they never faced HBK.

Of course not. However he didn't have all time great talents to work with all the time either. Besides, if you're able to work a lot of matches with decent to great talent, it shouldn't really be something to take anything away from you. Especially considering Shawn was considered to be able to make anybody look like gold. So why wouldn't he be able to make an awful wrestler look great?

Their work in Japan is what I think puts them over to the next level. Check it out. They're pure wrestlers, they're good at what they do. They were tag champs over there, too. That's no easy feat.

That might be true. But there's still some tag teams that only go on to accomplish tag team wrestling, and as you said yourself tag team accomplishments aren't as big a thing compared to singles championships.

He doesn't need the upper hand. All little guys are in the same class, there are no sub categories. If you're small, you're small.

Sure. But you're missing the concept of the fact that Shawn Michaels was unlike what we truly had seen in the main event picture of WWE ever before. A small mixture of high flying and catch wrestling. We had seen a guy like Bret Hart in terms of the great wrestler before. Shawn still brought a whole new aspect into professional wrestling. And no that doesn't mean he did it alone, however he has a fair impact on it.

His match with Angle was good technically, some great chain wrestling, but that isn't what makes a match. Jeff Hardy and RVD put on some great chain wrestling, but nobody praised that. It depends on the overall aura, the overall match. The Angle match is his second or third best match, though.

Of course chain wrestling isn't what makes a great match. Rey Mysterio would be pretty damn shitty if that was the case.

I agree though, it's the overall match. But Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels presented a great overall match, but it took basis in the whole technical wrestling that they both possess such great abilities at. We've established that it's about the overall match, but putting proper match styles in there helps a lot as well. Someone who can compel off the other to make the match seem great, and the opponent seem great. Shawn did just that.

With HBK nothing is ever automatic. The two best 'Mania performers ever should have been able to put on a show. They did, but they couldn't outclass themselves, and that's not what they're known for.

There could be many many various reasons as to why Shawn vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania 26 couldn't stand up to Wrestlemania 25. And I'd like to say we've practically covered the most obvious ones.

He gave his all, but it wasn't as good as his all from the year before. If I try my hardest but I still suck that doesn't mean I deserve a ton of hype. I commend him for trying hard, and putting on a hell of a match too, but he disappointed me. I expected more.

The problem is that it was already pre-hyped rather than hyped as a major thing afterwards. You're acting like he was given a ton more hype than he deserved BEFORE the match due to the happening OF the match.

 

[Mekanik Kommandoh]

I didn't read all of the main debate and I'm just going to respond to the original question, so apologies in advance if I repeat anything that's been said.

Is Shawn Michaels overrated? Depends on who is rating him. I'm a fan of Michaels' work, particularly from the the 1990s. He was a fantastic in-ring performer, had a lot of natural charisma, and, despite being smaller than a lot of guys, eventually turned himself into a believable champion. His work suffered in the 2000s, but he still had the stellar matches with Jericho (I'm thinking Mania XIX here), Cena, and Taker, so it's hard to complain too much.

However, even though I like Michaels, I sometimes think the WWE itself overrates him. It seems like any time he was on TV, JR or King would give him seemingly constant metaphorical ******io, particularly if it was a big match. Granted, it's common for babyface commentators to support babyface wrestlers, but it just seemed excessive at times in regards to HBK. Also, was he not chosen by WWE as the greatest superstar of all time for their new DVD set? That's just bullshit, even if the list is supposed to be "edgy" or "controversial". He was fantastic, but he never really drew money as champion and I doubt people paid specifically to see him - he was an attraction, but never the main guy.

If he's your personal favorite wrestler, I can understand, but the greatest of all time? Nonsense.

 

[The Crock]

That might very well be true. Also, just because the entire part of a match is repeated it shouldn't take away from the whole match. It's one spot where he lands on the top rope, it's always gonna be a successful thing o get an reaction from the crowd. Why wouldn't they want to repeat it at times?

The thing is, is that the crowd applauds anything in a ladder match. I know that it certainly irritates me when a wrestler will go through the same sequence of moves in three separate matches with different people. How can different opponents SOMEHOW come up with the same moves and results?

But you're forgetting something. It's not his only Wrestlemania matches. He had matches with other performers throughout the years. Sure some aren't bad either, but wrestling with a guy like Vince McMahon or Kevin Nash for that sake has to be something to give Shawn a bit of credit for when he manages to pull out some fairly decent matches from the two.

He most definitely deserves credit, but when a guy like Stone Cold Steve Austin or Hulk Hogan, two guys not known for their "in-ring prowess", can put in a great match with Vince McMahon, why wouldn't Shawn Michaels be able to? Looking at his matches with Nash too, they were some decent performances by Nash. He may not be great in-ring, but he had experience so that should be a given.

I guess it depends how you look at it.

We can agree on something!

It'd be ridiculous to say that all, or almost all his greatest matches came from the 90's. Because that would be bullshit. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't credit a lot of the work that Shawn did in the 90's, and how he could've easily gone down as a legend even back then.

A legend? No, quite. He achieved legend status upon his return. He would have been a Hall of Famer, but he wouldn't have been considered as great as he is today. A big part of his legend is his longevity.

Of course it is, and obviously there's some moves you cannot truly secure yourself from, like one of the many top rope moves that people implement in their move-set, even back then. But I'd say that Shawn was a fairly great wrestler that knew how to work a match back then.

He knew how to work a match, nobody is questioning that. He got better over time though, he broadened his moveset to make up for not doing able to do what he did in his younger days.

Some are obviously gonna memorize a match more than the other. Some here thinks higher of Anderson vs Angel than Shawn vs Undertaker this year. However in a handful of years, do you honestly believe Anderson vs Angel will be truly remembered like Shawn vs Undertaker would?

No not at all, by someone out there will remember it. I'll bet that random matches like Sheamus winning King of the Ring will be remembered just as long, especially if Sheamus keeps on winning championships. That's a different issue though, depends on whether people remember stellar wrestling or accolades.

And the same thing can be said for anybody else. Bret Hart had bad matches as well, Hulk Hogan bad bad matches, Chris Jericho, Triple H, Kurt Angle. Everybody had bad matches, but we remember them for the good matches. We remember them for what there was most of. So while the bad matches are there, if they're not many, and the good matches overshadow them - Well it's obvious what we will remember.

Having bad matches, and lots of them, will effect your legacy. They will. Saying that just because you're an amazing wrestler takes away the fact that you've had some truly shit matches is an absurd notion. You have to remember that people don't remember only good, they remember what sticks out. If a bad match sticks out, I'll remember it... And so will you. Trust me.

Of course not. However he didn't have all time great talents to work with all the time either. Besides, if you're able to work a lot of matches with decent to great talent, it shouldn't really be something to take anything away from you. Especially considering Shawn was considered to be able to make anybody look like gold. So why wouldn't he be able to make an awful wrestler look great?

You said earlier that he had bad matches with Nash, so that contradicts your statement that he could make awful guys look good. Sure, Shawn did his best, but NOBODY can turn shit into gold. He can certainly make it less terrible, but most can.

That might be true. But there's still some tag teams that only go on to accomplish tag team wrestling, and as you said yourself tag team accomplishments aren't as big a thing compared to singles championships.

True, but if you have an legendary, historic tag team career that is miles better than being a good singles wrestler who had one or two championships. Tag team accolades only mean a lot if you did somethig truly great.

Sure. But you're missing the concept of the fact that Shawn Michaels was unlike what we truly had seen in the main event picture of WWE ever before. A small mixture of high flying and catch wrestling. We had seen a guy like Bret Hart in terms of the great wrestler before. Shawn still brought a whole new aspect into professional wrestling. And no that doesn't mean he did it alone, however he has a fair impact on it.

Well yeah, I'm not saying he didn't. Shawn opened the door for guys like Jeff Hardy and Rey Mysterio, or at least had a big impact on it. I know that he was very unique, but there have been plenty of unique guys who don't get near to as much credit as HBK does.

Of course chain wrestling isn't what makes a great match. Rey Mysterio would be pretty damn shitty if that was the case.

You'd be surprised, No Mercy 2002. Watch Mysterio's match, he chain wrestled in the same match as Edge, Angle, and Benoit. Did a damn good job.

I agree though, it's the overall match. But Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels presented a great overall match, but it took basis in the whole technical wrestling that they both possess such great abilities at. We've established that it's about the overall match, but putting proper match styles in there helps a lot as well. Someone who can compel off the other to make the match seem great, and the opponent seem great. Shawn did just that.

I agree. HBK did a great job most of the time, he needed help though.

There could be many many various reasons as to why Shawn vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania 26 couldn't stand up to Wrestlemania 25. And I'd like to say we've practically covered the most obvious ones.

Agreed. It wasn't a BAD match, it just didn't live up to the hype.

The problem is that it was already pre-hyped rather than hyped as a major thing afterwards. You're acting like he was given a ton more hype than he deserved BEFORE the match due to the happening OF the match.

He was! They literally made him act insane and walk out on his best friend and the business he loved, just because he wanted to face 'Taker. I expected something do EXPLOSIVE due to that, and although it was a good match, it didn't deserve the hype.

 

[ted sheckler]

Age doesn't come into account, I know a ton about wrestling. I've watched since I was 2. I have memories from about 4 or 5. I remember HBK.

Of course age comes into account... When the Wrestlemania Ladder Match happened you were 2 years old.. busy old shitting your pants and not forming complete sentences... When Shawn won his first title you were 4 still learning to count to ten.. When Shawn screwed Bret you were around 6 and just losing your baby teeth.. then throwing them under the pillow thinking some magical lady was gonna leave you money...and you think you have firm recollection of the era and the effects on the direction of the business?? Im not trying to be a dick and im sure you think you know about the business but truthfully you don't have the same perspective as people in the biz. Or even fans of previous generations and i think the only thing that your statements are missing are perspective.

It was a great match, but the best ever? No. A game changer? Yes. It brought the ladder match to the mainstream, loads of credit are deserved there.

It wasn't just limited to "brought the ladder match to the mainstream".. There was a certain bar that was raised at that point both in brutality and athleticism..

I don't doubt that HBK is loved in the industry, but I could also find someone who believes he's overrated.

Saying you could doesn't mean anything.. I'm begging you to actually find it.

People will blow his impact way out of proportion. I've heard people say he had more of an impact than Hulk fucking Hogan. No way that's true.

From a business standpoint Shawn wasn't on that Hogan, Austin or Rock standpoint but probably the one right below it. That never really bothered me because to be honest the actual money that Vince Mcmahon makes doesn't make me cheer.. I'm much more into the art form that is wrestling.. the excitement.. the storytelling.. the athleticism.. I don't get how people try to measure art by how many tee shirts someone sold.. Shawn from the artistic level had a great impact on the business. Most wrestlers today list Shawn Michaels as a major influence.. He took the kid friendly PG WWF and was the major player that turned the WWF towards the Attitude era. He did stuff in DX that was so pushing the envelope on what you could do on TV that the network almost pulled them off the air.. They pushed the limit of edgy TV further than they have been ever since. A bigger impact on the business than Hogan.. no probably not.. but holy shit Michaels did a lot to shape the direction that wrestling went.

'Taker did a majority of the work, if anyone carried anyone in that match he carried Shawn.

Again.. your not putting up a valid point when I say "Shawn did most of the work because he was the one selling.. taking the bumps.. juicing..coming up with the bigger spots.." and then you respond with "Taker did the majority of the work"... HAHA Thats not a rebuttal.. tell me why you think that Taker carried that match.. be specific.. and remember just because you say its so.. doesn't make it so...

I totally think that had someone athletic been in the match, not HBK, it wouldn't be the same. HBK is a legend, hard to do what he did. Had another guy of Shawn's caliber been in there he definitely could have pulled off the match exactly the same.

Name one?? Again.. don't be vague.. thats the easy way out..

(I couldn't use Owen in that context. Not with the way he died.)

Wow thats way too overdramatic an answer for my tastes... I think enough time has passed to be able to objectively and hypothetically ask what if Owen was in Hell in the Cell instead..

 

[Ferbian]

The thing is, is that the crowd applauds anything in a ladder match. I know that it certainly irritates me when a wrestler will go through the same sequence of moves in three separate matches with different people. How can different opponents SOMEHOW come up with the same moves and results?

Oh that's hardly true, unless you're easily impressed.

Also, sure I can see the whole "Man this sucks, he did it again" concept of the whole thing. But it's not like we ALL sit and dissect a match, and observe like this. There's people in the crowd that just watches for the sake of watching. We're not all smarks.

He most definitely deserves credit, but when a guy like Stone Cold Steve Austin or Hulk Hogan, two guys not known for their "in-ring prowess", can put in a great match with Vince McMahon, why wouldn't Shawn Michaels be able to? Looking at his matches with Nash too, they were some decent performances by Nash. He may not be great in-ring, but he had experience so that should be a given.

Sure, there's nothing taken away from Vince, or Nash for that sake. But the general concept is that Shawn hasn't always been in the ring with "greats" and even if he was only in the ring with greats, it's hardly something that should take anything away from him.

Especially considering the fact that no matter what, it's hard to deny that Shawn isn't great in the ring anyway. No matter the opponent.

A legend? No, quite. He achieved legend status upon his return. He would have been a Hall of Famer, but he wouldn't have been considered as great as he is today. A big part of his legend is his longevity.

So you're saying that after 14 years in the business when he left at Wrestlemania 14, that he wasn't a legend. After having delivered quite a handful of great matches, great moments, great storylines, left his mark on the business and having held a fair share of championships? Interesting aspect right there Crock.

He knew how to work a match, nobody is questioning that. He got better over time though, he broadened his moveset to make up for not doing able to do what he did in his younger days.

That might be true. But Shawn's move-set was always fairly wide, but actually got weaker throughout the years as WWE implemented the ever popular "5 movez of doom".

No not at all, by someone out there will remember it. I'll bet that random matches like Sheamus winning King of the Ring will be remembered just as long, especially if Sheamus keeps on winning championships. That's a different issue though, depends on whether people remember stellar wrestling or accolades.

Something which Shawn had both of. 14 championships within WWE, 2 Royal Rumbles, the most amount of Slammy Awards anyone has ever had, the first Grand Slam champion and the most Royal Rumble eliminations (As of 2010). And we all know that Shawn delivered stellar wrestling.

Having bad matches, and lots of them, will effect your legacy. They will. Saying that just because you're an amazing wrestler takes away the fact that you've had some truly shit matches is an absurd notion. You have to remember that people don't remember only good, they remember what sticks out. If a bad match sticks out, I'll remember it... And so will you. Trust me.

Like I said, Shawn will be remembered for the great matches, not the bad matches. Like mentioned earlier, only the smarks will bother digging into Shawn's legacy to go "By gawd! He had bad matches at some point of his career. What a shocker!"

You said earlier that he had bad matches with Nash, so that contradicts your statement that he could make awful guys look good. Sure, Shawn did his best, but NOBODY can turn shit into gold. He can certainly make it less terrible, but most can.

I didn't say he had bad matches with Nash. I said he had a match with a lesser talented wrestler in terms of in-ring ability in Nash.

Also, Shawn does have a history of making wrestlers look good more or less whenever he was given the time to step into the ring and have a proper match with them.

True, but if you have an legendary, historic tag team career that is miles better than being a good singles wrestler who had one or two championships. Tag team accolades only mean a lot if you did somethig truly great.

Sure, there might be something about that. But still, being numerous tag team champion holds nothing to being numerous times world champion. Unless you're pulling an Edge / Jericho like world title career of short reigns at best.

Well yeah, I'm not saying he didn't. Shawn opened the door for guys like Jeff Hardy and Rey Mysterio, or at least had a big impact on it. I know that he was very unique, but there have been plenty of unique guys who don't get near to as much credit as HBK does.

That might be very true. But are a lot of them really worth as much praise as Shawn Michaels gets? It's not like Shawn only gets accomplishments and praised material from WWE. He does have his share of accomplishments from guys like Metzler and from PWI. Sure "But, it's just other people giving their opinion", but at least it's a fair opinion by guys that actually works with this stuff.

You'd be surprised, No Mercy 2002. Watch Mysterio's match, he chain wrestled in the same match as Edge, Angle, and Benoit. Did a damn good job.

One of many occasions Crock. One of many.

I agree. HBK did a great job most of the time, he needed help though.

While a lot of people often has thrown around the whole "... could wrestle with a broom and make it look good" especially to a guy like Triple H and Ric Flair, I'd still say it's merely due to praising their ability to make people look good. And obviously nobody can work a truly GREAT memorable match without the proper help.

Agreed. It wasn't a BAD match, it just didn't live up to the hype.

No, so you keep saying. But like I mentioned, it's most likely due to it being overhyped rather than Shawn not having been able to live up to the proper worthy hype of it.

He was! They literally made him act insane and walk out on his best friend and the business he loved, just because he wanted to face 'Taker. I expected something do EXPLOSIVE due to that, and although it was a good match, it didn't deserve the hype.

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm trying to say. Yes Shawn got shit loads to work with, and a great storyline to hype the whole thing with. But you're acting like it was overhyped due to the match. Rather than already overhyped no matter what the match result would've been, and no matter how great that match would've been.

 

[The Crock]

Oh that's hardly true, unless you're easily impressed.

Also, sure I can see the whole "Man this sucks, he did it again" concept of the whole thing. But it's not like we ALL sit and dissect a match, and observe like this. There's people in the crowd that just watches for the sake of watching. We're not all smarks.

Smark. Way to toss that word around. This isn't being smarky, it's just an observation. I don't see the fuss about that much repetiton, I just don't. It's too much for me to deal with.

Sure, there's nothing taken away from Vince, or Nash for that sake. But the general concept is that Shawn hasn't always been in the ring with "greats" and even if he was only in the ring with greats, it's hardly something that should take anything away from him.

Especially considering the fact that no matter what, it's hard to deny that Shawn isn't great in the ring anyway. No matter the opponent.

Shawn always looked good, no doubt, but he looked his best with other greats in the ring. Your greatest Shawn Michaels memories are him with guys like Hart, Taker, Angle, and Jericho... some of the best the business has ever seen.

So you're saying that after 14 years in the business when he left at Wrestlemania 14, that he wasn't a legend. After having delivered quite a handful of great matches, great moments, great storylines, left his mark on the business and having held a fair share of championships? Interesting aspect right there Crock.

Legend status is a much higher thing to achieve. In 14 years, I say he was just lacking an extra little push to turn him into a full-blown legend. When he came back, got rid of all his demons... he truly became a legend.

That might be true. But Shawn's move-set was always fairly wide, but actually got weaker throughout the years as WWE implemented the ever popular "5 movez of doom".

Weaker? Watch his match with Flair. He pulls out a Texas Cloverleaf amongst other little known moves. The man was extremely versatile.

Something which Shawn had both of. 14 championships within WWE, 2 Royal Rumbles, the most amount of Slammy Awards anyone has ever had, the first Grand Slam champion and the most Royal Rumble eliminations (As of 2010). And we all know that Shawn delivered stellar wrestling.

I applaud him for it. He had a stellar career, I'm not doubting him there, but to call him the greatest? Meh...

Like I said, Shawn will be remembered for the great matches, not the bad matches. Like mentioned earlier, only the smarks will bother digging into Shawn's legacy to go "By gawd! He had bad matches at some point of his career. What a shocker!"

I agree, but he's human, he had bad matches. People won't deny that, and someone will remember them.

I didn't say he had bad matches with Nash. I said he had a match with a lesser talented wrestler in terms of in-ring ability in Nash.

Also, Shawn does have a history of making wrestlers look good more or less whenever he was given the time to step into the ring and have a proper match with them.

Yes, true, but so does... Cena. Cena, a "bad" in-ring guy makes his opponents look like gold. It's more of an issue as to who can think clearly, and who knows their way around a ring.

Sure, there might be something about that. But still, being numerous tag team champion holds nothing to being numerous times world champion. Unless you're pulling an Edge / Jericho like world title career of short reigns at best.

Agreed. Although, 1 or 2 World Championship reigns vs 24 Tag Team reigns... That's a little sketchy. I'd say Tag teams win there for sure.

That might be very true. But are a lot of them really worth as much praise as Shawn Michaels gets? It's not like Shawn only gets accomplishments and praised material from WWE. He does have his share of accomplishments from guys like Metzler and from PWI. Sure "But, it's just other people giving their opinion", but at least it's a fair opinion by guys that actually works with this stuff.

Yeah, Meltzer, the same guy who gave Hogan vs Andre an absolutely atrocious rating. Ask KB about Meltzer, better yet... Ask Sly... He'll tell you all about Meltzer. Dave Meltzer is so biased that it's not even funny.

One of many occasions Crock. One of many.

While a lot of people often has thrown around the whole "... could wrestle with a broom and make it look good" especially to a guy like Triple H and Ric Flair, I'd still say it's merely due to praising their ability to make people look good. And obviously nobody can work a truly GREAT memorable match without the proper help.

I'll agree with you there.

No, so you keep saying. But like I mentioned, it's most likely due to it being overhyped rather than Shawn not having been able to live up to the proper worthy hype of it.

No, had the match been astounding then I don't think that it would be "overhyped". If you get our expectations up, then satisfy us. Simple as that.

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm trying to say. Yes Shawn got shit loads to work with, and a great storyline to hype the whole thing with. But you're acting like it was overhyped due to the match. Rather than already overhyped no matter what the match result would've been, and no matter how great that match would've been.

I totally get it. The match would NOT have been overhyped had they been better than 25 though. There was a lot of hype surrounding it, and all they had to due was take the roof off the place and do even better than the year before. It's not rocket science, I promise.

 

[theHeadliner]

I gotta disagree with your limited move set comment. If you watch the Iron Man match, Michaels pulls out many different maneuvers that he never did before up to that point that were both technical and efficient. Michaels also threw in his normal routine nicely. He out-shined Bret Hart, who wrestled that match like he did every other match using the same moves in the same sequence. He also could wrestle many different styles, sell like nobody's business, and make his offense really believable for his size. In the move set argument, I think he's underrated.

 

[Ferbian]

Smark. Way to toss that word around. This isn't being smarky, it's just an observation. I don't see the fuss about that much repetiton, I just don't. It's too much for me to deal with.

Oh but it's obvious that a casual fan or a mark won't be one to sit down and analyze the matches like you clearly have. They'll just go on to believe that Shawn actually was great, and that the matches were great.

Shawn always looked good, no doubt, but he looked his best with other greats in the ring. Your greatest Shawn Michaels memories are him with guys like Hart, Taker, Angle, and Jericho... some of the best the business has ever seen.

That's very true. But that could be said for anybody. Obviously you're always gonna look your best when you're in the ring with the greatest. So there's no surprise to the fact that Shawn obviously looked best against these guys (And Triple H, it'd be a shame to not include him considering some of their matches).

Legend status is a much higher thing to achieve. In 14 years, I say he was just lacking an extra little push to turn him into a full-blown legend. When he came back, got rid of all his demons... he truly became a legend.

A full blown legend? That's fine, but obviously wouldn't that mean that he was already a legend, just not completely yet?

Besides, the only thing Shawn really went on to do after his return was have great matches once more. And make others look good while doing it. The exact same thing he had been doing prior to his temporary retirement in 1998.

Weaker? Watch his match with Flair. He pulls out a Texas Cloverleaf amongst other little known moves. The man was extremely versatile.

It's one of many matches once again. You can't deny the fact that Shawn eventually went on in 2009 and 2010 to adopt the 5 moves of doom - Atomic Drop, a few chops, the flying forearm smash, kip-up, either straight to the Sweet Chin Music build-up or diving elbow drop into the Sweet Chin Music.

And sure, we can both find a handful of matches that Shawn had even in 2010 and 2009 where he didn't use that exact variation. Yet it became more and more common for him during his last 2 years.

But even with that, still tremendously talented guy, and a match like Shawn Michaels vs Rey Mysterio here in 2010 shows just that.

I applaud him for it. He had a stellar career, I'm not doubting him there, but to call him the greatest? Meh...

I never said he was the greatest. But he's definitely not overrated.

I agree, but he's human, he had bad matches. People won't deny that, and someone will remember them.

But they will also remember the good matches that Shawn had. And will most likely continue to base their overall opinion of him based on the entire array of matches, rather than "Oh boy, a bad match. He must've sucked"

Yes, true, but so does... Cena. Cena, a "bad" in-ring guy makes his opponents look like gold. It's more of an issue as to who can think clearly, and who knows their way around a ring.

Yeah but that's just people blowing it out their ass when they say Cena is bad in the ring. He's not like the Bret Hart, or even more fitting, the Shawn Michaels of this generation in terms of in-ring ability. But he's certainly able to wrestle his fair share of great matches, as well as catch wrestling.

Just watch a match like the one he had with Shawn, numerous holds being exchanged. As well as his brief match with Wade Barrett before The Nexus was formed.

[YOUTUBE]Re16GbZUEBQ[/YOUTUBE]

See 4:25 - 5:30 for what I'm talking about.

Agreed. Although, 1 or 2 World Championship reigns vs 24 Tag Team reigns... That's a little sketchy. I'd say Tag teams win there for sure.

But Shawn's a 4 times world champion. Besides it's not all he has to show for, considering he has numerous other championships under his belt. Remember, 14 titles.

Besides, it can be 1 or 2 world championship reigns of long time. Bob Backlund, Pedro Morales and Bruno Sammartino anyone? Hell even Kevin Nash had a fair length as WWF champion. I'd sure as hell rather be a dominant champion that held the top belt for 358 days and go down in history for that, rather than a 24 times tag team champion in numerous promotions, half of them hardly being noteworthy to the bigger wrestling scene (Not TNA and ECW mind you, but Hustle and NJPW (Which you can't deny holds no water to even TNA in terms of world wide exposure))

Yeah, Meltzer, the same guy who gave Hogan vs Andre an absolutely atrocious rating. Ask KB about Meltzer, better yet... Ask Sly... He'll tell you all about Meltzer. Dave Meltzer is so biased that it's not even funny.

That might very well be true. But I'm sure he's not the only one who sits with a professional wrestling job position like that, and thinks that Shawn is worthy of the ratings, awards and all that sort of stuff throughout the years.

No, had the match been astounding then I don't think that it would be "overhyped". If you get our expectations up, then satisfy us. Simple as that.


I totally get it. The match would NOT have been overhyped had they been better than 25 though. There was a lot of hype surrounding it, and all they had to due was take the roof off the place and do even better than the year before. It's not rocket science, I promise.

I'm gonna address both things because of the similarity between the two. Overall the match would obviously not have been overhyped if it had been better as you say. But it doesn't change the fact that it's not Shawn's fault that it's overhyped, or the fact that he couldn't cleanly live up to it compared to what was expected of him.

Shawn put on a great match for what it was. It's hardly something to jump down WWE or his throat for not being able to perform at the level of which WWE overhyped it.

 

[UltimateHitman]

no matter how anyone (iwc or not) feels personally about a wrestler....the main thing to look at, imo, is, did they do their job? and did they do it consistantly....and like him or not, think whatever else you will....michaels definately did his job and did it consistantley and that to me is as important a factor in "rating" a wrestler as there is.

But that's kind of what I was getting at in my post. Did he refuse to work with talent? Did he make things more difficult at his "job"? He's forfeited the title more than any other WWE superstar. He didn't like something, he "had a knee problem", or "he lost his smile" (give me a damn break). Sure people get sick days at their job, but when they abuse that, they get canned. Like I also said, his actions have been the same, if not worse, than others that have gotten "future endeavored". So, did he do his job? Well, sometimes. But he didn't always do his job and is just lucky Vince needed him as bad as he did when he was a less than model employee.

 

[The Crock]

Ferbs, look.

PWI:

- PWI Match of the Year (2005) vs. Kurt Angle at WrestleMania 21
- PWI Match of the Year (2006) vs. Vince McMahon in a No Holds Barred match at WrestleMania 22
- PWI Match of the Year (2007) vs. John Cena on Raw on April 23
- PWI Match of the Year (2008) vs. Ric Flair at WrestleMania XXIV
- PWI Match of the Year (2009) vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania XXV

WON:

- Feud of the Year (2004) vs. Triple H and Chris Benoit
- Feud of the Year (2008) vs. Chris Jericho
- Match of the Year (2008) vs. Chris Jericho in a Ladder match at No Mercy
- Match of the Year (2009) vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania XXV

The man has more award AFTER returning, then before. It's obvious that he became a legend then. Sure, HBK could have been considered close to a legend beforehand, but this made him a legend. I'll agree that the WWE overhyped the match vs Undertaker at 'Mania 26, but it is a bit of Shawn and Taker's faults as well. They took on the huge task of absolutely putting on a great show for us, and they didn't exactly live up 100%. The match was good, but was it really worthy of the hype? I don't know, probably not. Michaels has been overrated just the same. He is one of the greatest of all time, but when people make outrageous claims about him being THE best it kind of takes away from him. It may not be his fault entirely that he is seen to some as overrated, but at the end of the day does that really matter?

 

[Ferbian]

Ferbs, look.

PWI:

- PWI Match of the Year (2005) vs. Kurt Angle at WrestleMania 21
- PWI Match of the Year (2006) vs. Vince McMahon in a No Holds Barred match at WrestleMania 22
- PWI Match of the Year (2007) vs. John Cena on Raw on April 23
- PWI Match of the Year (2008) vs. Ric Flair at WrestleMania XXIV
- PWI Match of the Year (2009) vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania XXV

WON:

- Feud of the Year (2004) vs. Triple H and Chris Benoit
- Feud of the Year (2008) vs. Chris Jericho
- Match of the Year (2008) vs. Chris Jericho in a Ladder match at No Mercy
- Match of the Year (2009) vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania XXV

The man has more award AFTER returning, then before.

But Crock, that's not even true.

PWI:

# PWI Match of the Year (1993) vs. Marty Jannetty on Monday Night Raw on May 17
# PWI Match of the Year (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a Ladder match at WrestleMania X
# PWI Match of the Year (1995) vs. Diesel at WrestleMania XI
# PWI Match of the Year (1996) vs. Bret Hart in an Iron Man match at WrestleMania XII
PWI Most Popular Wrestler of the Year (1995, 1996)
PWI ranked him #1 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the year in the PWI 500 in 1996

And of course, 10th greatest wrestler of the PWI years in 2003. Which would be mostly due to his contribution to wrestling in the 90's, rather than the 1-2 years he had been back in the 00's.

WON:

# 5 Star Match (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a Ladder match at WrestleMania X.
# 5 Star Match (1997) vs. The Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell at Badd Blood.
# Best Babyface (1996)
# Match of the Year (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a Ladder match at WrestleMania X
# Most Charismatic (1995, 1996)
# Tag Team of the Year (1989) with Marty Jannetty as The Rockers

And of course, once again - Wrestling Observers Newsletter's 2003 Hall of Fame induction, once more - Mostly due to his 90's work.

So Shawn definitely had more accomplishments in this department in the 90's. Not to forget the numerous slammy awards he has gotten.

It's obvious that he became a legend then. Sure, HBK could have been considered close to a legend beforehand, but this made him a legend.

Sure it made him a bigger legend. But he would've still been considered a legend in the eyes of many people before he even contemplated returning to the ring.

I'll agree that the WWE overhyped the match vs Undertaker at 'Mania 26, but it is a bit of Shawn and Taker's faults as well. They took on the huge task of absolutely putting on a great show for us, and they didn't exactly live up 100%.

But they didn't plan out the storyline. Or at least we cannot prove that they did. Either way, there's mostly a fault to blame for WWE actually overhyping it to this extend that people went home disappointed (Which still surprises me a bit) due to this match.

The match was good, but was it really worthy of the hype? I don't know, probably not.

It's a matter of opinion. I liked it quite a lot, and definitely would've considered it worth the time I spend watching the feud get bigger and bigger.

Michaels has been overrated just the same. He is one of the greatest of all time, but when people make outrageous claims about him being THE best it kind of takes away from him. It may not be his fault entirely that he is seen to some as overrated, but at the end of the day does that really matter?

Does it really matter if he's overrated or not? Not really, because in the end of the day, it's an opinion, and only that. It's hard to put cold hard facts to someone being overrated, because the next guy you ask could be saying the polar opposite of what the precious guy said, and call him underrated.

The guy calling him underrated would be an idiot, but once again it would be an opinion.

 

[The Crock]

But Crock, that's not even true.

PWI:

# PWI Match of the Year (1993) vs. Marty Jannetty on Monday Night Raw on May 17
# PWI Match of the Year (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a Ladder match at WrestleMania X
# PWI Match of the Year (1995) vs. Diesel at WrestleMania XI
# PWI Match of the Year (1996) vs. Bret Hart in an Iron Man match at WrestleMania XII
PWI Most Popular Wrestler of the Year (1995, 1996)
PWI ranked him #1 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the year in the PWI 500 in 1996

And of course, 10th greatest wrestler of the PWI years in 2003. Which would be mostly due to his contribution to wrestling in the 90's, rather than the 1-2 years he had been back in the 00's.

WON:

# 5 Star Match (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a Ladder match at WrestleMania X.
# 5 Star Match (1997) vs. The Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell at Badd Blood.
# Best Babyface (1996)
# Match of the Year (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a Ladder match at WrestleMania X
# Most Charismatic (1995, 1996)
# Tag Team of the Year (1989) with Marty Jannetty as The Rockers

And of course, once again - Wrestling Observers Newsletter's 2003 Hall of Fame induction, once more - Mostly due to his 90's work.

So Shawn definitely had more accomplishments in this department in the 90's. Not to forget the numerous slammy awards he has gotten.




Sure it made him a bigger legend. But he would've still been considered a legend in the eyes of many people before he even contemplated returning to the ring.



But they didn't plan out the storyline. Or at least we cannot prove that they did. Either way, there's mostly a fault to blame for WWE actually overhyping it to this extend that people went home disappointed (Which still surprises me a bit) due to this match.



It's a matter of opinion. I liked it quite a lot, and definitely would've considered it worth the time I spend watching the feud get bigger and bigger.



Does it really matter if he's overrated or not? Not really, because in the end of the day, it's an opinion, and only that. It's hard to put cold hard facts to someone being overrated, because the next guy you ask could be saying the polar opposite of what the precious guy said, and call him underrated.

The guy calling him underrated would be an idiot, but once again it would be an opinion.

I meant to say, he had begun earning even more awards, adding on to what he had earned before, but my phone likes to delete things so you got the response that I hadn't intended to send, because I went and adjusted it after more research, no big deal though. Either way, he was good then, and got better with time. Sure, he was a big deal, but coming back and winning even more awards at such an age definitely solidified him as a legend. You're totally right though, it doesn't matter if he's overrated or not, it's just a matter of people denying it. You can't deny that in SOME departments Shawn Michaels is overrated. I've seen people even call him underrated, which you said was pretty ass-backwards, but I've seen it. People are blind to what is really the truth, they let their preferences get in the way. The match was good, but it just disappointed me. That's not to say you and countless others didn't enjoy it. It all comes down to HOW you view wrestling. You know, just like anything in life, it depends on how you look at it. You can't expect everybody to agree, he'll have his critics and he'll get his praise, that's how it goes. Does he deserve BOTH? No doubt, nobody's perfect. At the end of the day, Shawn Michaels is pretty damn good, I can't and won't argue that, HBK's a legend. Did he make a lasting impact? Yes. Will he be remembered for a really long time? Yes. All that being said, he's not perfect, he can be bad too, although it is a rarity.

Anyway, it's been a pleasure debating you Ferbs, I look forward to doing it again sometime soon.