The REAL Mr Wrestlemania

[justinept]

To answer your point there, I never said Razor, Bret et al carried Shawn... I said they covered as much of the match as he did and have equal claim on the credit for them.

This is a silly point that you continue to jump on. No one is disputing that Hart deserves equal credit for the Iron Man match or that Hall deserves equal credit for the ladder match. What people are saying is simple: The cumulative effect of continually putting on the best match of the night at Wrestle Mania is what makes Michaels Mr. Wrestle Mania. There isn't any one match you point at and say: "That match is why Michaels is Mr. Wrestle Mania". Instead, you look at about 10-12 of them and say: "Yea. That's why."

So while Flair deserves credit for the match at Wrestle Mania 24 ... while Triple H and Chris Benoit deserve credit for the match at Wrestle Mania 20 ... you can't ignore that Michaels is the common denominator in all these Wrestle Mania classics. You can't ignore the fact that when you add up the classic Wrestle Mania matches Shawn Michaels participated in and put them against the number of classic Wrestle Mania matches that any other superstar was in, Michaels wins in a landslide.

The argument that The Undertaker had fewer quality Wrestle Mania opponents than Michaels did is irrelevant. There's no handicap to this question. It's ridiculous of you to add points for The Undertaker based on the assumption that his matches might've stolen the show had he had the same quality of opponent that Michaels did while similarly docking Michaels points because you think he wouldn't have stolen the show with a lesser quality of opponent - it's also likely incorrect since Michaels stole the show at Wrestle Mania 22 with Vince McMahon as his opponent. But I digress. This is a question based on what happened - not what might have happened. If you want to bring "what if" into the equation, then I could just as easily say that The Undertaker wouldn't even be in the conversation if had 5-6 losses on his Wrestle Mania record.

Five Star, Match Of the year...all misnomers cos who are you, I or Meltzer to decide. If the guys are given a task go out and do it, the fans get into it and it becomes bigger than it should rightfully be that's when they've done a good job and get the approval of their peers, the onlt ones who can really say it's five stars!

No offense, but comments like this irritate me. You think so much of your opinion that you came back and defended it against criticism. Yet, at the end of that defense, you basically say "but no opinion matters unless you're a wrestler." So basically, your opinion doesn't matter ... you wasted your time writing it... and you wasted my time for reading it.

You're wrong. Your opinion does matter. My opinion matters. And Dave Meltzer's opinion is respected. That's why so many people cite him.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

A purely subjective title bestowed to anyone that's ever shown worth at multiple Wrestlemanias but became a moniker for Shawn Michaels.

That's all it really is. We can sit here and throw several names around, but the truth is the WWE recognizes Shawn Michaels as their Mr. WrestleMania, and that's good enough for me. Maybe somewhere down the line someone will take that away from him by putting on stellar matches over and over again, but until then Shawn Michaels has Undertaker, Savage, and especially Edge beat. Yes, his Ironman Match was a snoozefest, but it was WWE's first. That Ladder Match, WWE's first. He found himself being an innovator and feuding with a guy like Taker will live on throughout the ages. Doesn't hurt he retired Flair and thus was retired on the same stage.

 

[Slash-LN]

I never really thought about how many of Savages Wrestlemania moments really had to do with Elizabeth until now.

The Goeroge Steele match was mostly about him having a crush on her.
The Hogan match was a rivalry built around Savage being jealous and thinking there was something going on between Hogan and Liz.
The mixed tag match has Liz screw Savage over.
The Warrior match is pretty much remembered for the end where Savage and Liz reunite.
The Flair feud was built around Liz.

So 5 of his 8 matches had Liz involved in some way. And his title win at Wrestlemania V is even highlighted by her emotional reaction and being hoisted up on his shoulder after the match.

Take her out of the equation of every single one of those and what are you really left with?

A couple good matches and some rivalries that people probably wouldn't have been as emotionally invested in.

I'm not slighting Savage in the least. But it just seems like Elizabeth was just as important in those Wrestlemania moments as Randy was.

If you want to label him the true Mr. Wrestlemania can we officially label her Miss. Wrestlemania?

 

[Sweettre15]

9 in particular was a low point due to his politicking taking what could have been a stellar match for him either regaining the belt from Janetty (he nuked Marty out a few months earlier with lies about being drunk) likewise Shawn didn't want to drop to Tatanka and repeated the same trick only to let the cat out of the bag about Jannetty to Perfect - who went straight to Vince and Janetty got his "Billy Martin" winning the title.

Apparently now Jannetty is saying that the reason the planned Rocker vs Rocker feud fell through was because he was on house arrest in his most recent shoot atleast during the first attempt at the feud leading up to the Mania of that year. Apparently Shawn spreaded a rumor during the attempt to revive the feud. Then again Janetty was kinda incoherent in said shoot.

With that said, pretty much agreed on the Tatanka match being ruined as well as his match with Tito Santana at Mania not being "5 star" quality. I do however find the match with Diesel to be pretty solid but not as good as the rematch at In Your House though.

Overall though, you're right.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

This is a silly point that you continue to jump on. No one is disputing that Hart deserves equal credit for the Iron Man match or that Hall deserves equal credit for the ladder match. What people are saying is simple: The cumulative effect of continually putting on the best match of the night at Wrestle Mania is what makes Michaels Mr. Wrestle Mania. There isn't any one match you point at and say: "That match is why Michaels is Mr. Wrestle Mania". Instead, you look at about 10-12 of them and say: "Yea. That's why."

So while Flair deserves credit for the match at Wrestle Mania 24 ... while Triple H and Chris Benoit deserve credit for the match at Wrestle Mania 20 ... you can't ignore that Michaels is the common denominator in all these Wrestle Mania classics. You can't ignore the fact that when you add up the classic Wrestle Mania matches Shawn Michaels participated in and put them against the number of classic Wrestle Mania matches that any other superstar was in, Michaels wins in a landslide.

The argument that The Undertaker had fewer quality Wrestle Mania opponents than Michaels did is irrelevant. There's no handicap to this question. It's ridiculous of you to add points for The Undertaker based on the assumption that his matches might've stolen the show had he had the same quality of opponent that Michaels did while similarly docking Michaels points because you think he wouldn't have stolen the show with a lesser quality of opponent - it's also likely incorrect since Michaels stole the show at Wrestle Mania 22 with Vince McMahon as his opponent. But I digress. This is a question based on what happened - not what might have happened. If you want to bring "what if" into the equation, then I could just as easily say that The Undertaker wouldn't even be in the conversation if had 5-6 losses on his Wrestle Mania record.



No offense, but comments like this irritate me. You think so much of your opinion that you came back and defended it against criticism. Yet, at the end of that defense, you basically say "but no opinion matters unless you're a wrestler." So basically, your opinion doesn't matter ... you wasted your time writing it... and you wasted my time for reading it.

You're wrong. Your opinion does matter. My opinion matters. And Dave Meltzer's opinion is respected. That's why so many people cite him.

No the point is that there is no set criteria, one man's 5 star or Mr. Wrestlemania is another's 1 star garbage wrestling. What I am trying to make people realise is that jumping on a bandwagon cos Shawn or Taker claim the credit isn't an opinion at all... it's being spoon fed a marketing ploy. Shawn and Taker can have mediocre performances at Mania and have, they're just portrayed as 5 star in some cases. But the only criteria you can really judge is the one of did they do what they were asked to do by their boss? Which you'll never know.

If you can look at Savage or Jericho or Hogan and say "he wasn't the best" and argue that point that's fine. At least you're analyzing it and making a judgement based on what you've seen but what I hate is the blinkered view that Vinny Mac and the masses simply assume we'll follow that Shawn is the guy cos they say so. At the end of the day it's a nickname and marketing tag nothing more. My Mr. Wrestlemania isn't yours and thats the way it's meant to be...but at least I can say why it isn't rather than just taking the accepted line. Michaels has a great shout for it, but so do a hell of a lot of other guys who all made Mania mean just as much.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I agree Elizabeth was a major plot point in most of these matches. But, I think lifting her right out and looking at them is a bit silly. That's like saying lift the Streak out of Taker's last few matches and they were two old guys with a lot of false finishes and no real interest. You have to look at all aspects. I am fine with her being Miss WrestleMania, but I don't like the altering history to make it fit into a point.

I also agree with the point that one person's 5-star match is another's 1-star match. Many people loved the Iron Man match. I absolutely hated WrestleMania XII and that was a big reason why. What was it? 6 matches total? One of them being a 0-0 draw? Nah, not one I would ever watch again. There are a lot of matches I thought were great (not necessarily wrestling-wise, but entertainment-wise) that get killed on these forums. Blindfold Match at VII, for example.

I truly love the differing opinions on this thread. There are legit cases for several superstars. Of course, you get the smarks who remind us that WWE acknowledges Michaels as Mr. WrestleMania (No shit. But that doesn't lend itself to an interesting debate though)

I think Hogan was THE REASON WrestleMania took off the way it did and still exists today. Not only exists, but is THE SHOW. Survivor Series still exists, but really in name only. The appeal as anything but another PPV is long gone.

Taker, though I disagree, is a fine argument because his match holds a lot of interest each year...even though most of his WM matches were clunkers and he is part-time for the sake of the Streak these days.

But, people think of their favorite WrestleMania star for different reasons. I can't deny Hogan's MASSIVE history and footprint on the business...I always feel he should be atop all lists. But his bullshit got old for me once he yanked Sid out of the Rumble in 1992. That is when I first thought "enough of this guy already". However, I still respect his contributions historically. Most times back then, Hogan filled the seats and Savage entertained the people once they sat down.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

No the point is that there is no set criteria, one man's 5 star or Mr. Wrestlemania is another's 1 star garbage wrestling. What I am trying to make people realise is that jumping on a bandwagon cos Shawn or Taker claim the credit isn't an opinion at all... it's being spoon fed a marketing ploy. Shawn and Taker can have mediocre performances at Mania and have, they're just portrayed as 5 star in some cases. But the only criteria you can really judge is the one of did they do what they were asked to do by their boss? Which you'll never know.

There's also a consensus of opinion, which you may consider a marketing ploy, but if looked at in a less cynical way leads you to think that yeah, maybe these guys really did put on consistently good matches with a lot of different guys. Not everyone does this: Orton Vs. Triple H, Cena Vs. Rock II, Cena Vs. Miz, etc. Not everyone rises to deliver a consistently great match at WrestleMania even though they may individually be great athletes in the ring. Undertaker and Michaels have given subpar matches before at Wrestlemania, but it hasn't been in quite some time.

If you can look at Savage or Jericho or Hogan and say "he wasn't the best" and argue that point that's fine. At least you're analyzing it and making a judgement based on what you've seen but what I hate is the blinkered view that Vinny Mac and the masses simply assume we'll follow that Shawn is the guy cos they say so. At the end of the day it's a nickname and marketing tag nothing more. My Mr. Wrestlemania isn't yours and thats the way it's meant to be...but at least I can say why it isn't rather than just taking the accepted line. Michaels has a great shout for it, but so do a hell of a lot of other guys who all made Mania mean just as much.

Frankly, I just think you have a hard-on for Michaels. No one seems to inspire these kind of rants from you like he does. Not everyone who thinks Michaels has earned the Mr. WrestleMania title is just buying the company line. You can say that all you want, it doesn't make it true.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I don't mind Michaels at all, but certainly don't "have a hard on" for him. I grew up watching Mania before he was there and didn't miss him when he wasn't. Now I can look at it coldly and say great but not essential. Mania would have worked with or without him and has done for a large portion of it's life and like wise, Shawn can call himself Mr. Wrestlemania, doesn't make it true...


It was built on a lot of unsung guys - I don't see much love for a Tito Santana who basically was the backbone of those first 8 shows? or of guys like Bobby Heenan who had legendary moments and perhaps made Shawn's career with the "Shawn Michael's has left the building" or of even Vince himself (who probably has more claim than anyone).

But that's what these threads are for...

 

[Goldie]

Hogan filled the seats and Savage entertained the people once they sat down.

This sums up the earlier wrestlemanias. People paid their tickets to see Hogan, and Savage may have been the perfomer on the show.
Theres always the kiddies fanbase who want to watch the biggest star (Hogan, Cena) and don't care about how mechanical the matches are.... and if Savage or Shawn Michaels puts on the best performance... then thats a bonus.
Wrestlemania has been about the spectacle, the glamour, rubbing shoulders with showbiz... and most importantly of all.... the dollars it generates. The die hard wrestling fan might pay to watch a 5 star Shawn Michaels match... but the masses, and the mainstream auidence would have been drawn to the event by a Hogan, Rock or Cena.

No one can deny Hogan the platform he built for wrestlers to shine at Wrestlemania in the future.

 

[shalliin]

shawn made taker's streak what it is today before taker faced him the streak was not a major draw in fact they hardly mentioned it shawn made it matter he took the stage for more than one hour at wm12 who has ever done that and left people amazed savage vs steamboat will always be a wrestling classic but mr. wrestlemania is and always will be hbk

Wrong. just wrong. They've been hyping the streak since around his 16/17th match, long before he ever faced HBK at mania. The first time it was mentioned was when he was about 13 or 15 and 0 and it was just in passing but then the matches againt flair, hogan and hhh (first match that was later ignored when hyping HHH's 'revernge' for his friends retirement). It was a huge part of the hype for his match against Orton at Manie 21? and then again for his matches against Edge and Batista and every one else since Manie 17.

There's a lot of blind nostalgia when refering to HBK's mania matches. Sure people rightly mention that some of his early ones, especially his tag matches weren't super, but even his later ones weren't all that impressive. HIs match with flair was mediocre at best, but that was more to due with how horrilbe flair is then HBK. He was the only reason that match was midly interesting, anyone else in his position (with possible exception of Taker) would have failed at producing a 1 star match out of flair.
HBK had some great moments and a few excellent matches, but not as many as people have been claiming here. 7-8 5 star matches? Only in the most rabid HBK fans mind.
Different people during different era's could have claimed the title of Mr Wrestlemania. There are arguements to be made for both Savage and Hogan. Savage had the best technical matches, but looses some points in my eyes for the extremely scripted and intense plotting of every move and action taken during his matches. He didn't have the fluidity to go with the flow of a match and work with the crowd reactions, having to force the crowd to react to his actions instead of adapting to their reactions.
Hogan's matches were always the center stage big appeal of the first 6 mania's so you have to give him credit for that. Without Hogan there wouldn't have been a Mania, and he cemented this legacy at WM3 with ANdre, and gave it the final kiss with WM6 and UW. Then Bret, Taker, Shawn started taking over when Hogan flirted with leaving, Attitude era was really more of a group effort with those three and Austin leading the charge at the biggest show in the world. Hut it wasn't until HBK was gone for the 4 years and then came back that people started buying into the whole mr wrestlemania schtick of HBK's.
Edge had the potential to become his era's (2000-pres) guy but he had the injury issues that forced his early retirment. However even before then, he had passed that chance by since his loss to taker broke his streak and cemented that they were unlikely to allow Taker's to be broken. Edge is the one guy who would have been worthy and worthwhile to put the end of the streak onto his resume. Orton was too green and immature as he's proven time and time again. Punk was also a likely candidate to break it, but it didn't fit either storyline for him or Taker to be the guy to end it.
Even Ignoring the streak, there is no one else who has performed at the number of Mania's that Taker has, and while some of those were not top level, no wrestler has had the sheer number of top level matches against top level talent. There are only 4 names he hasn't faced that would be bigger draws. Austin, Foley, Brock, and Rock are the only 4 of the top guys of the various eras that covered his career that taker hasn't faced and beaten at mania. Just look at the list of guys he's faced:
HBK 2x, HHH 3x, Punk, Jake the Snake, Diesel, Sid Vicious, Hogan, Flair, Big Show, Orton, Edge and others. His time and the superior quality over all of the opponents he's face, make Taker the Real Mr Wrestlemania. HBk was flashier and more outspoken, but Taker was and is more consistent and reliable.

No offense, but comments like this irritate me. You think so much of your opinion that you came back and defended it against criticism. Yet, at the end of that defense, you basically say "but no opinion matters unless you're a wrestler." So basically, your opinion doesn't matter ... you wasted your time writing it... and you wasted my time for reading it.

You're wrong. Your opinion does matter. My opinion matters. And Dave Meltzer's opinion is respected. That's why so many people cite him.

The problem with your statement here is that just as many people deride and belittle Meltzer as those who respect him. In fact, most hardcore fans dislike and don't respect Meltzer, feeling he is like the guy who never played the game trying to argue what rules should be used and how to determine who is a better player without having any practical experience in the sport himself. He's considered by many to be a dilitant, someone who talks about stuff they don't know loudly enough that others start to wrongly consider them an expert on the subject. He's a polarizing figure among fans and just saying that his opinion is respected without acknowledging that his opinion is also ridiculed defeats the purpose of your statement.

As for the person you claimed wasted your time, you yourself wasted more of your time by replying to the post then it took you to read his post. If you dislike his opinion so much, simply ignore it, don't take the time to post a reply belittling every comment he made and then insulting him by saying he wasted your time by making you read what he posted. You CHOSE to read it and reply, so if it was a waste of time, YOU chose to waste the time, he didn't force you to do so.

Your reply and others like it are the reason why I sometimes go months and years without posted anything on the forum. I've been a member since the late 90s when it first started and it's posts like yours that sometimes drive me to quit reading. You accuse him of basically being full of himself and not being able to defend his own opinion, but then you yourself try to attach YOUR posts to someone you considered to be respected in Meltzer, trying to lend his credibility to your opinions, the way you derided the other person for doing when you claimed that it took a wrestler to really understand what constitutes a 5 star match.

Hypocrasy thy name is justine.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Ultimately both guys benefit from revisionist history, there is no way the streak or Shawn's reputation were planned events. Had Diesel taken off as intended in 95 then the streak would have ended at 12 as Nash would have made enough not to jump and Shawn would not have gotten his run in the way he did, at most a short transitional reign to Nash's replacement. Kliq or no, if Diesel were a hit then he wouldn't be letting Shawn or Taker get that belt much as Hogan kept it from Rude,Piper, Andre and DiBiase.. Indeed Shawn or more likely Taker might have been the ones to jump ship as they weren't getting the rub.

That things turned out as they did with Diesel forced them to go with Bret, Shawn and Taker as the top three and to get creative with hires. That brought in guys who fed Shawn and Taker's reps at Mania like Jericho, Henry and fueds and stories they would never have gone with had Nash been the star they'd wanted. No Boyhood Dream... No Streak past the fifth match, no Austin... It's easy now to say it was all intentional but the intention in 94 was for Nash to be the guy for years... That Taker and Shawn were able to parlay being the alternates into such longevity is admirable but doesn't outweigh what Hogan, Savage and the like achieved.