Who is REALLY better? Shawn Michaels vs. Kurt angle

[jmt225]

What makes Shawn Michaels better then Angle (who I'm actually a huge fan of) is the fact that Shawn has had so many great matches against worthless pieces of shit throughout his career that it's unbelievable. Whereas ALL of Kurt Angle's "great" matches were against great opponents. Kurt Angle could never carry Sid to a good match. Kurt couldn't have a great match against Vince McMahon or Kevin Nash. No, Kurt Angle needs to be in the ring against someone like Chris Benoit or Undertaker or SHAWN MICHAELS to get a match that's considered "great" by the majority. Hell, even his matches against some good workers, like HHH, ended up being shit.

Angle is an all around GREAT professional wrestler, but when it comes to who's better between he and Shawn Michaels, HBK takes it. The two are what and what on promo ability, but in-ring wise, Shawn is far superior and his match history against shit workers is all the proof I need to state that to be a fact.

 

[klunderbunker]

Technically incorrect. Earlier that day, the NWA stripped the world title from Christian and ended the relationship with TNA. Angle did win, but not the NWA Title. He was just called the World Heavyweight CHampion. Even if he held the physical belt, he wasn't the NWA Champion. At the next Impact, Angle was stripped of the title and it's not recognized by TNA. Angle was never the NWA World Champion. He was World Champion, but it wasn't recognized by the NWA. The title he was stripped of was the new TNA Title, which wasn't officially recognized until Slammiversary.

He's accomplished more in less time. So? If you put him where Shawn started at without the huge amateur stuff he'd do the same as Shawn. He got over so fast because of what he used to do, not what he could do in the pro wrestling ring. Take away his amateur stuff and what kind of a push does he get?

 

[itzLEEyuhBITCH]

Technically incorrect. Earlier that day, the NWA stripped the world title from Christian and ended the relationship with TNA. Angle did win, but not the NWA Title. He was just called the World Heavyweight CHampion. Even if he held the physical belt, he wasn't the NWA Champion. At the next Impact, Angle was stripped of the title and it's not recognized by TNA. Angle was never the NWA World Champion. He was World Champion, but it wasn't recognized by the NWA. The title he was stripped of was the new TNA Title, which wasn't officially recognized until Slammiversary.

He's accomplished more in less time. So? If you put him where Shawn started at without the huge amateur stuff he'd do the same as Shawn. He got over so fast because of what he used to do, not what he could do in the pro wrestling ring. Take away his amateur stuff and what kind of a push does he get?

Lol that is a ******ed argument - the amateur stuff is apart of who Angle is. No one is denying that WWE is so keen on pushing him due to the fact that he held the Gold Medal and was probably trying to bring more "realism" into the sport to show the critics that "real" athletes are in prowrestling as well. But what you are saying makes no sense. Thats like saying "take away Shawn's heart break kid gimmick" or "take away Shawn's theme music"...all those are elements of his character. Everything Angle did before prowrestling certainly plays a factor to why he was so successful and why WWE pushed him, but that doesn't take away the fact that when compared to Shawn Michaels, despite how close it is, Angle is truely better.

 

[foundation611]

It's all just people's opinions. I just love how people can look at the same thing and come up with completely opposite arguments for each guy to be the "best". We're all entitled to how we feel or why we feel the way we feel. Me personally while Angle is great I have never been and will never be a fan of his and don't think they're in the same league as professional wrestlers. I think Angle would be a level below Shawn due to career longevity, great matches, feuds etc etc. Angle is a better mat wrestler but Shawn is better overall and better on the mic. Once again its all an opinion. I think Shawn is in a rare class and is one of the greatest wrestlers of all time period. Angle is just a bit below him. The whole world title argument however is not legit because Shawn never needed titles to be great. Edge has 7 flipping world titles and he's in neither mans class.

 

[Captain Bean]

i think world title reigns can be used as an idicator to how successful someone is to an extent. but then again, someone like ric flair, had 16 in 30 years, so just over 1 every 2 years. and so in that respect those 16 title reigns are'nt all tht impressive, his longeivty is. the rock had 9 world title reigns in 7 fully active years. on paper, flairs title list looks more impressive, but in terms of length of time in company and title reigns in that time, the rock is superior. you then have someone like edge, who has 7 world title reigns. is anyone suggesting that edge is better than hbk, simply becuase hbk has had less title reigns? i dont think so.

i think that the angle v hbk discussion should be based on who puts on/has put on better matches. and from there, clearly shawn michaels must be classed as better.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

i think that the angle v hbk discussion should be based on who puts on/has put on better matches. and from there, clearly shawn michaels must be classed as better.

I've tried to stress this over and over: wrestling is about more than just matches. There is so much more than just work rate and 5* matches to consider. I'm not getting involved in this rather futile Angle vs. HBK debate, because there is little to separate them in any of the main categories, but I do get irritated when all anyone talks about is great matches. Chris Benoit and Dean Malenko had great matches, are they better than Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper? There needs to be a full, rounded consideration of all aspects of what makes a wrestler good to answer questions like this. Making it about titles and 5* matches totally misses the point.

EDIT: Gawd, why has this been moved out of Old School Discussion? Do we have to let the plebs in?

 

[ssvegita77]

The reason this makes for a good thread is because its such a close call. I'll go on to admit I'm HBK mark #1, have been since I was 8 years old, 21 years and a HBK tattoo on my left bicep later I'd say I still am. That said I still absolutely love and respect Kurt Angle.

I think someone nailed this on the head on the first page when they said that "HBK is the better performer and Kurt is the better wrestler." I whole heartedly agree w/ that. Kurt is great, he took to wrestling like a fish to water both in the ring and on the stick. I think he is great at being intense, credible and funny all in the same interview or match. That is rare.

However HBK's in ring psychology and ability to tell a story w/ his body is flatout the best in the business. The thought that goes into Shawn's matches is unparalled and versatile. Angle's intense presence when the bell rings is good as well as fitting for someone w/ his background. Although appropriate, I feel that this sometimes works against him. I say this because it often feels that he is having the same match no matter who is standing across from him. Of course in all fairness that same match is always awesome.

To me HBK is the best all around wrestler that there has ever been. It sucks that the title of the total package is synonomous with Lex Luger (LOL) because that is how I would describe HBK. Shawn to me is the best performer because he can get the best match out of anyone. I also think that that may be what PWI is trying to say by putting his matches w/ Diesel and Vince at the top of their list.

Angle is a better technical wrestler than HBK, so is Regal and Malenko as was Benoit. If you want to talk about ring mechanics I think all of those guys are better than Shawn (and Angle is better than all of them except for maybe Benoit.) If you want to talk about who reguarly had the most memorable match of the night, influenced more newcomers, made his opponents look better just by being in the ring w/ them and has crafted wrestling's greatest modern legacy it's HBK.

 

[itzLEEyuhBITCH]

i think world title reigns can be used as an idicator to how successful someone is to an extent. but then again, someone like ric flair, had 16 in 30 years, so just over 1 every 2 years. and so in that respect those 16 title reigns are'nt all tht impressive, his longeivty is. the rock had 9 world title reigns in 7 fully active years. on paper, flairs title list looks more impressive, but in terms of length of time in company and title reigns in that time, the rock is superior. you then have someone like edge, who has 7 world title reigns. is anyone suggesting that edge is better than hbk, simply becuase hbk has had less title reigns? i dont think so.

i think that the angle v hbk discussion should be based on who puts on/has put on better matches. and from there, clearly shawn michaels must be classed as better.

Angle's matches is better imo...not saying HBK's aren't...but yeah, close and all, but I think Angle's better.

I'm not really taking world title reigns into account...they are quite irrelevant in this case considering the fact that many of Angle's recent title reigns are from TNA and well...TNA sucks.

 

[OIL]

Kurt is better, without a doubt. Well, that sounds like it isn't close, which it is. They're both awesome wrestlers with Shawn being able to produce world class performances at WrestleMania. However, at other occasions? Barely does anything. Sure, he's had the off performance where he's been good, but for someone of his apparent standard he should be doing that at every PPV.

Kurt, I find to be more consistent with his performances. I know it takes two people to make a wrestling match good, but Kurt has a greater level of technical ability that is surpassed by none. Shawn doesn't come close. Shawn's WM matches (some of them), are better than Angle's. However, when you look at who had the better matches overall then Angle is your man. He's better. Doesn't rest on his laurels, which Shawn does.

 

[latinoheat8979]

To me Shawn is better. He's so good that he doesn't need a title around his waist. Titles today swicth faster then back in Shawn's heyday. Keep in mind he was out 4 years with a bad back so imagine if he never injured his back what more greatness he would've achieved especially at the height of the Monday Night Wars. Kurt is also great I take nothing away from him but if you fast foward 30 years into the future who's matches are most likely to be remembered? Shawn's name will also be infamous in this business for: the Montreal Screwjob, forming DX, retiring Ric Flair, having won numerous PWI match of the year awards. As for Kurt aside from winning the gold medal and all the wrestling world titles what will people remember about him? Again I like and respect both men but in this debate I gotta go with Shawn

 

[smalltownfan]

Angle is the better pure wrestler, but HBK is the better entertainer and is much better at storylines as well as selling the unexpected. Jim Ross always says it's all about who puts butts 18 inches apart in an arena and HBK could do that as well as anyone. Angle is really, really good, but I don't know if I would want to depend on him as the main draw.

 

[ssvegita77]

Kurt is better, without a doubt. Well, that sounds like it isn't close, which it is. They're both awesome wrestlers with Shawn being able to produce world class performances at WrestleMania. However, at other occasions? Barely does anything. Sure, he's had the off performance where he's been good, but for someone of his apparent standard he should be doing that at every PPV.

This whole Mr. Wrestlemania thing is out of control, to the point that people are starting to think that it only applies to Mania. HBK may turn it up @ Wrestlemania but does go out there and shine all the time. Here's a few examples in no particular order:

Vs. Perfect (Summerslam 93)
Vs. Jannetty (Rumble 93)
Vs. Martel (Summerslam 92)
Vs. Jarrett (IYH 2)
Vs. Owen (IYH 5)
Vs Davey (KOTR 96)
Vs. Mankind (Mind Games 96)
Vs. Jericho (All of Em)
Vs. Undertaker Hell in A Cell (Bad Blood)
Vs. HHH (Summerslam 2002)
Vs. Benoit (Raw prior to WM XX)
Vs. Shelton (Raw Goldrush Tournament)
Vs. Austin (KOTR 97)
Vs. Mysterio (Raw tribute to Eddie)
Vs. Batista (Both PPV matches in 08)

And several matches on Raw that I can't remember dates of. Those are all stellar matches that stand out in my mind. All I can say about him barely doing anything outside Of WM is that A) You're wrong and B) Everybody...and I mean everybody eventually has to wrestle Mark Henry or Kane (HBK is great but even he can't perform miracles).

 

[WrestlingHistorian]

I loved Shawn in the 90's, and I loved Kurt in the early part of the dacade and for his Japanese work, but my vote would have to go to Kurt. Kurt is the better "wrestler", while Shawn is the better "performer", but I don't watch wrestling for show, I watch it for the wrestling, for sport, so in that reguard Kurt get's my vote.

 

[The Rob]

This is actually a really hard question. Both are great in their own ways. Shawn is perhaps the greatest performer in the history of wrestling and Kurt is perhaps the greatest 'pure wrestler' in the history of wrestling. The problem is in this day in age, at least from the way I see it, its not all about who can pull off the best match, its about who can pull off the most entertaining match. Angle and Michaels are both extremely good at both but both are better than the other at a certain thing.

Angle is able to have the better wrestling matches whilst Shawn is able to have the more entertaining matches. In my opinion it goes like this. If you are watching the show simply for the wrestling, than Kurt is probably the best man your see wrestle, but if your watching the show to be entertained than Shawn is probably the better out of the two. It's almost impossible to divide the two of them because they are both so good at what they do. If I had to pick one.... I would say Shawn. Shawn is able to have matches that are just as good as Kurt techniqually in the ring but he is a better performer than Kurt, a better entertainer in my opinion.

 

[WrestlingHistorian]

This is actually a really hard question. Both are great in their own ways. Shawn is perhaps the greatest performer in the history of wrestling and Kurt is perhaps the greatest 'pure wrestler' in the history of wrestling. The problem is in this day in age, at least from the way I see it, its not all about who can pull off the best match, its about who can pull off the most entertaining match. Angle and Michaels are both extremely both at good but both are better than the other at a certain thing.

Angle is able to have the better wrestling matches whilst Shawn is able to have the more entertaining matches. In my opinion it goes like this. If you are watching the show simply for the wrestling, than Kurt is probably the best man your see wrestle, but if your watching the show to be entertained than Shawn is probably the better out of the two. It's almost impossible to divide the two of them because they are both so good at what they do. If I had to pick one.... I would say Shawn. Shawn is able to have matches that are just as good as Kurt techniqually in the ring but he is a better performer than Kurt, a better entertainer in my opinion.

Well said, well said. This really is the ONLY way of looking at this situation, good call. Shawn can work the crowd much better and is more flashy in his entrance and persona, Kurt is just balls to the wall wrestling and in ring tech, he's a machine really. Either way though, both are greats