I don't know about that. Yeah, he has taken a pounding and come back to win before but what made him legendary was the quality of performance despite the result. HBK has lost more than he's won. The Hell in a Cell match against Taker is not the best example and I think it's pretty obvious why. Both these guys can come back from a lot of punishment but Cena is much more likely to come back and win.
WWE Region, Fourth Round, 3 Stages Of Hell: (2) Shawn Michaels vs (3) John Cena
- Thread starter klunderbunker
- Start date
I don't know about that. Yeah, he has taken a pounding and come back to win before but what made him legendary was the quality of performance despite the result. HBK has lost more than he's won. The Hell in a Cell match against Taker is not the best example and I think it's pretty obvious why. Both these guys can come back from a lot of punishment but Cena is much more likely to come back and win.
Hollywood Naitch
The current reigning and defending
Both these men can take an unbelievable amount of punishment and come back to win, that is for sure. This one would be a great match, and I fully expect it to go to 1-fall each with the decider coming in the final stage.
I would see Cena taking the street fight, but a Sweet Chin Music enabling Michaels to escape the cage. However, both men would be severely beaten by the final fall- the ladder match. I know Michaels made his reputation in ladder matches, but Cena defeated TLC specialist Edge in one, and I could see him giving Shawn an even better battle than Razor Ramon did.
For me, it all comes down to who I think is the better wrestler, as it is very difficult to pick a winner in this one, it could go either way. For that reason, I pick Shawn Michaels. I just think he is more entertaining, a better showman and far more skilled in the ring.
I would see Cena taking the street fight, but a Sweet Chin Music enabling Michaels to escape the cage. However, both men would be severely beaten by the final fall- the ladder match. I know Michaels made his reputation in ladder matches, but Cena defeated TLC specialist Edge in one, and I could see him giving Shawn an even better battle than Razor Ramon did.
For me, it all comes down to who I think is the better wrestler, as it is very difficult to pick a winner in this one, it could go either way. For that reason, I pick Shawn Michaels. I just think he is more entertaining, a better showman and far more skilled in the ring.
Rrriiiggghhht, because none of the ratings drop had to do with WCW and the NWO angle when that came about, professional wrestling itself being in a major slump and losing a lot of steam after the 80's boom and very early 90's, and no one else was a contributing factor there either, the crowd loved everyone else and just hated Shawn Michaels, it was all Shawn Michaels' fault. Bullfuck!
So does Shawn get any credit for the rise in ratings with DX??? Or is that conveniently overlooked too, because DX was a big part of the WWF's resurgence as an answer to the NWO.
Why doesn't anyone credit him with carrying the company through a tough time where so many of the contributing factors were out of his hands? In his prime Shawn Michaels was the best in-ring performer bell-to-bell that's ever lived, and he performed at a level that no one else could even touch at the time. That's no bullshit, and anyone who was in the business at the time would likely tell you the same. As a matter of fact a lot of people who were in the business then DO say the same.
For the record, Shawn Michaels prime was from 1992-1998 when he had to leave due to his back injury. Does anyone even remember WrestleMania 14 and what the man legitimately went through just to have that match? I don't think there are many men past or present who could have done what Shawn Michaels did that night, and before you say you do remember and he lost, remember that he had 2 herniated discs and a 3rd one that was completely obliterated, he had to lose.
With that in mind I don't think anyone can question his toughness or even try to imply that he isn't as tough as John Cena legit or kayfabe, looking back at the Shawn Michaels of that era. Even in that WM14 match, who made who look good? It was Shawn all the way and he still brought the same intensity, high action, and speed he always did, and no one could match his pace back then, not Bret, not SCSA, nobody. Shawn was so head and shoulders above everyone else it was ******ed. His ability was unmatched and unrivaled, and no matter what he was like outside the ring and backstage, when it was showtime, nobody ever did it like Shawn Michaels.
Split the wins any way you like, Shawn Michaels in his prime is too much for John Cena, he was better in virtually every way, and he was a far better wrestler even until the day he retired and still put on better matches in the latter half of his career than most guys, John Cena included, could ever dream of. BTW, for those touting the WM23 HBK vs John Cena match, if you can remember, Shawn Michaels took John Cena to a clinic that whole match, until obviously when it came time for the momentum swing into the finish, but it was horribly obvious that Cena even against the older version of Shawn Michaels was no match in the ring with him, and of course they had to find a "believable finish" to put Cena over.
I'd also like to note that without the likes of Shawn Michaels and a laundry list of others putting Cena over, he isn't nearly the big deal that people here want to make him out to be. He's been made by those guys, not the other way around. Shawn made his name strictly by being so damn good that you couldn't deny him, and he delivered night in and night out from the late 80's all the way to now minus his hiatus due to injury, so I don't want to hear any more about Cena's tenure either. Whether it was with The Rockers, as The Heart Break Kid, with DX, or after he came back, Shawn Michaels has been a big figure in the company, often times a top figure, and his legacy can not be overshadowed by John Cena's continuing legacy.
Edit: Something else I just thought of; Shawn Michaels for most of his prime was a guy with an insurance policy one way or another. Whether it was Marty Jannetty, Sensational Sherri, Diesel, Sycho Sid, or DX, he almost always had someone to back him up. So take your pick of who he has with him here and that pushes the odds even further into his favor.
cult_of_icecream_bar
Pre-Show Stalwart
Ok,i lost my head out there.I know HBK wasnt a bigger draw.But seeing him,my one of my fav wrestler lose against cena made me burst out.So i am sorry.
Moving on,i'd still vote HBK.Because Cena's the reverse undertaker when there's interference.He lost numerous gimmick matches due so.He's lost against orton,barret,punk,miz,rvd,edge and more.Hell,he lost at last years HIAC coz ricardo stopped him from getting in the Cell.To think the original DX wouldnt come in shawn's aid isn't logical.
Moving on,i'd still vote HBK.Because Cena's the reverse undertaker when there's interference.He lost numerous gimmick matches due so.He's lost against orton,barret,punk,miz,rvd,edge and more.Hell,he lost at last years HIAC coz ricardo stopped him from getting in the Cell.To think the original DX wouldnt come in shawn's aid isn't logical.
I don't believe that anyone is saying that it was HBK's fault. But the fact remains that HBK was mostly a boring champion that people didn't care much about. He was a white meat babyface in a time where characters, face and heel alike, were developing more of an edge. HBK the arrogant, authority-defying wrestler wasn't the draw either. Any way you want to slice it, HBK as champion didn't draw.
DX was a part of WWF's resurgence, but the major cause was the rise of Austin and The Rock. It's not HBK's fault that he got injured, but he wasn't a major factor in the resurgence, Attitude Era stars Austin and Rock were.
Tremendous talent, no doubt about it. But the fact remains that he never was, wherever you place his prime, as entertaining or as talented an in-ring performer as John Cena is. Personal preference, I suppose, but John Cena is a better professional wrestler then Shawn Michaels was.
A couple of things here.
1. HBK's prime was 92-98, and 02-2010. The man main evented Wrestlemania twice when he returned. How could he NOT be considered in his prime main eventing Wrestlemania, once competing for the WWE Title? Men "out of their prime" don't main event Wrestlemania. Ask Ric Flair about that. Flair got a mid-card spot in his retirement match, HBK got a main event match. Why? Flair was out of his prime, HBK was not.
2. Ausitn was on a meteoric rise, and even if Shawn had been 100% healthy, he would have lost, in the same fashion he did injured. Him having to go away was a stroke of bad luck, but it doesn't change the fact that the company was going with Austin over HBK regardless of the circumstances as their man.
,
I haven't read a single post in this thread denying HBK's toughness being in question. The man was a warhorse, and made everyone he was in the ring with better. But guess what? So does John Cena. Kayfabe wise, Cena takes more punishment then anyone alive and still comes out on top time and time again. Further, this isn't about who HBK has made good, it's about who wins and loses. Cena wins the majority of his big time matches, HBK does not. That's a considerable factor anyone needs to take into consideration.
And you're delusional if you think WM 14 was ALL Shawn. Because it had nothing to do with Austin.
HBK in his prime wasn't too much for John Cena. He tapped out, middle of the ring, at Wrestlemania 23, in the main event. It takes two to tango, and Cena was every bit as responsible for their excellent match. And to deny HBK was in his prime then is idiotic, because he was routinely main eventing. Over the hill wrestlers don't maintain the schedule or place on the card HBK did.
Bottom line: When it came down to determining who the "better man" was, it was Cena. He overcame being piledrove on the ring steps, and put through a table to make HBK tap out. The only explanation for that is Cena is a tougher SOB then HBK, and simply better then him.
Bull. Cena was every bit as responsible for that match being the success that it was. It's a tiresome argument to hear that Cena was "carried" by anyone. He simply wasn't. When he was in there with the best, he matched them and generally came out on top. When he was in there with inferior talent, it generally resulted in that inferior talent having the best match of their careers. What's the common factor in those? John Cena.
The believable finish you refer to is an in his prime John Cena made an in his prime HBK tap out in the main event of Wrestlemania 23 with the WWE Title at stake. Why? Because Cena overcame a tremendous amount of punishment in that match, and still overcame "Mr. Wrestlemania." That's what the greats do. And for as great as Michaels is, he's not on the level Cena is.
Really? Who exactly made John Cena? Edge? Other way around. Randy Orton? Wouldn't be half the star he is today without John Cena. Who did CM Punk have his defining feud and greatest WWE matches with? John Cena. Outside of Undertaker, who were Batista's best matches with? Again, the answer is John Cena. Need I go on?
You can say Cena was made by these men, but the common denominator in all of these feuds and their rise to stardom is the outstanding talent that is John Cena. He's the best professional wrestler alive today, and people smarter then you and I recognize that: The company that's had him in that spot for 7 years.
HBK was a phenomenal talent. One of my favorite performers of all time. But his popularity, success, and accomplishments are simply dwarfed by Cena, who has already spent more time at the top then HBK did, and for good reason.
His legacy has already been overshadowed by John Cena. Cena draws, delivers bigger reactions then HBK ever has, and has had far more success despite a to-this-point shorter career. Putting on a great match doesn't always equal success. Michaels career is proof of that. Cena's career is proof that, if done the right way, you can have great match after great match, and be successful.
This is a big stakes match. Noone delivered better matches in big stakes then Shawn Michaels. Noone lost more in big match scenarios either. John Cena? Great matches, AND a winner in big-time matches. And, with both men in their primes, Cena made Michaels tap out on the biggest stage of them all. What in either man's career would suggest that the result here would be any different? Absolutely nothing. Cena wins this, like he usually does when stakes are high. It would be a great match, and Shawn would shine....but in defeat. Cena wins this.
I was simply responding to a false statement. Use whatever reasoning you want but I saw a bogus claim and corrected it.
I've credited him plenty of times. I agree that he was one of the best in ring performers. That doesn't really matter here. Aside from about a one year period from around SummerSlam 95 - SummerSlam 96 Shawn lost a lot more than he won. Cena wins a lot more than he loses. Cena has beaten Shawn on the big stage. Why shouldn't I think he would win here too?
Yeah because if not for the injury he would have beaten Stone Cold that night
I think everyone can agree Michaels was going to lose anyway. Also I disagree with you about his prime. You think it started in 1992? You think the 1992 HBK was better than the HBK of the 21st century? Age and prime are two different things.Nobody did it like Michaels. That's fine. And when the final bell rang it was usually Michaels who was the loser. You can say his matches were better than everyone else's. You can say even in a losing effort Michaels looked great and made his opponent look great. This poll is about who would win the match. Not who would look better. Not who would give the more memorable performance. It's about who would win.
See my comments above.
Cena has been the top guy for much longer than Michaels was. He is as big as people make him out to be. Since Vince took the company national the only one to be on top more consistently than Cena was Hogan. I prefer watching Michaels too. That doesn't mean he would win here.
I've always looked at the interference argument as a desperation argument. It was the only way Michales ever got by Undertaker but I prefer to think of what would happen one on one rather than imagine a bunch of henchmen do Michaels dirty work for him.
That may be so, but I am doing the exact same thing here. Shawn gets a lot of unwarranted heat and blame for the situation the WWF was in at the time he happened to be champion. WCW was only winning the ratings war and that was what was hurting the WWF. It wasn't that Shawn wasn't a good enough draw, it's that the competitor had something more compelling going on-on the next channel to what the WWF in general was doing at the time. Still, if you reference the MNW DVD they talk about how they were selling out arena's the WCW was working at almost the same time schedule wise and not coming close to selling out despite their ratings being higher. They were winning in the venues just not on TV.
Yes, he did lose more than he won prior from 92-94 but don't forget why. For ALL of that time, Shawn Michaels was always a heel doing the job to elevate the babyface. However, once HE became the babyface, he didn't lose very often either.
Yeah because if not for the injury he would have beaten Stone Cold that night
Maybe, maybe not, we don't know. What we do know is that-that's the win that put Stone Cold over to be "The Guy" and it was an amazing match from Shawn Michaels that took a lot to perform due to the injury he sustained. I brought that up to note that he is every bit as tough as Cena, and capable of beating him regardless of the damage he would inevitably have to sustain and overcome.
I noted 1992 because that is when he became the Heart Break Kid and was launched into singles competition where he went on to win numerous Intercontinental titles, and even challenge Bret Hart for the WWF World Championship prior to their BIG feud a couple years later. It was the start of everything to come and conclude in 98'. Physically the Shawn Michaels of 92 on, was better than the HBK of the 21st century as well, he just wasn't the guy with the legacy yet, he would go in the next few years to create it.
If you pin down one solid point in his career to call his prime, you have to point to WrestleMania 12, 1996 when he finally won his first world championship. THAT Michaels would win this match, unequivocally. As a matter of fact, from the time of Michaels' face turn around May of 1995, he rarely lost after that.
And much of the reason Michaels hasn't held the title more than he did, especially in his second run, was because he didn't want to. He turned it down numerous times when they wanted him to take the title, fact of the matter is he didn't need to be "The Top Guy" to be as big a draw. Still, being the top guy from around 95-98 at a time when the belts didn't change hands like they do now says a lot, and if we zero in on the latter half of his career from 2002-2010 a solid 8 years, name me a time where Shawn Michaels wasn't a top guy? Sure he didn't hold the title, but I already addressed that, he didn't need to. If I recall correctly he thought it would better serve the company to let the younger guys hold the titles and elevate them, even though he could have easily added more title reigns to his resume.
It's not a desperation argument, it's a legit factor to consider. He DID almost always have someone to back him up in case shit got thick and he needed assistance. It worked in his favor on most occasions, especially in the DX days which still falls into his prime. One would have to argue that if he had DX behind him, Diesel, or Psycho Sid, this puts a great deal of odds in his favor.
I'm sorry but WHAT!!!!!!
Sure John Cena is a bigger draw than HBK ever was. I'll even say that Cena is more popular than HBK ever was. So, because of these two facts, Cena is a better professional wrestler than HBK. However, you've done lost your damn mind if you think that when it comes down to in-ring performance that Cena is better than HBK. HBK IS THE GREATEST IN RING PERFORMER OF ALL TIME!!!!
On to the match up.
I hate to say this, but it's no secret that HBK's greatest matches and moments in wrestling have usually been in a losing effort in some sort of huge match. I honestly can't see this one going any other way. HBK will put up one hell of a fight and put on one hell of a show; however, when it's all said and done, Cena will be the one having his hand raised at the end of the match.
Sorry, I didn't actually notice you had responded to my post until after I had already responded to The Brain. Most of my retorts to what you have had to say in here can be found there, but I will re-address some of this anyways because there are a couple points I do not quite agree with.
What makes that a fact? If he wasn't responsible for the ratings drops and all that, than how can you say he was a boring champion that no one cared about, when he was at least keeping them afloat as champion in trying times? Also, I was THERE during his reign as a face and remember it well, Shawn Michaels was as over as anybody of that time and people went crazy for him night in and night out. His DX days were huge as well, they were a perfect contrast to the NWO in WWF and had the "cool heel" thing going which made them a big draw then as well. I don't buy it that at any time he didn't draw, those things alone say differently.
DX WAS a major factor, I won't dare suggest that the rise of Austin and The Rock wasn't either, but I don't think you can deny that DX as an answer to the NWO DID play a major role in the WWF gaining it's steam back. 97 and 98 up to his retirement were key years in the AE where he was a top star in the company and that can't really be refuted. WM 14 isn't the crowning moment for Austin that it was without Shawn Michaels and DX. If anything, if you're trying to be 100% fair, you can say that they paralleled each other at the time because DX was easily one of the top draws of the time, headed by none other than Shawn Michaels.
You're right, that IS purely personal preference. Never as entertaining or as talented? I'm sorry to burst your bubble there but Shawn Michaels even in the latter half of his career put on better matches (=more entertaining) and has always been more talented in the ring, that shouldn't even be questioned. Remember, this is the same John Cena who used to be hated so much because he was shit in the ring and was still force fucked down out throats, despite being outclassed in the ring by both Triple H and HBK among others.
That's a clever comparison with Flair, I'll give you that, but the fact remains that although Shawn Michaels was in the main event of WrestleMania in the latter half of his career, that was not his prime. You don't have 2 primes bro, you can only have one, and his was much earlier in his career. Shawn Michaels himself made it a point on many occasions to note in his second run that "Although he's not the same guy he used to be, he can still steal the show, etc etc".
So how was he not in his prime for the latter half of his career? He was simply a different HBK. After the back problems, the knee problems, age, countless wars in his first run, etc... He wasn't the same guy on the same level that he used to be and he acknowledged that. While he still had big matches and big moments, he simply wasn't as good as he once was, meaning his prime had past him. What's fucking crazy though is that even past his prime, HBK was able to main event WrestleMania's, he did hold one world title, he was still a top draw, he did still perform at the highest level that his peers were in awe of, and he built greatly on his legend in that time. That's just how good he really was. Outside of his era, well past his career and physical prime, he was still arguably the best bell-to-bell. If you want to argue with Ric Flair, Triple H, Jim Ross, Vince McMahon, etc....on how great and how far ahead of his peers and his time Shawn Michaels was in his prime, go ahead, but I bet they, like I, will tell you you're wrong, and I highly doubt any of them would even suggest that John Cena is a better wrestler by any means.
Maybe so, we'll never know. It was becoming Austins time and Shawn was the main guy so logically he would be the one to put him over, but once again I'll mention, it's Michaels putting him over that makes him "The Man". Bret never did put him over exactly, he just GOT him over. I'm not saying Austin did nothing to make himself a star, but as you go on to mention, it takes two to tango and unlike Shawn and Bret who never got to go over the stars that came before them, Austin did have that benefit.
See my post in response to The Brain as I already addressed that there.
Of course he had something to do with it, he was the fan favorite babyface about to go over, but Shawn made him look like a million bucks as he did everyone he faced because he was that damn good. Shawn brought it to Austin as the superior athlete making everything Austin had to overcome to win that much bigger a deal because it WAS Shawn Michaels, and sold his offense like no one else could or ever did. This is just another big example of Shawn being a superior in ring performer to Cena, and he did it with a blown out back which emphasized just how good he really was, and how tough he was.
I'll say it again, HBK was not in his prime. If he was, he would go over, and history shows that as he went over all the time in his prime as a face.
Cena has improved drastically and really got what he does down in the last few years, but this was before that when he was still ASS in the ring, and Shawn out shined him left and right, out wrestled him, and made Cena look like a helpless bitch. It was insulting to watch Cena go over after he had been so thoroughly and handily outclassed in the ring, and made him look bad for not doing the job in this case. He should only be so glad Shawn's more selfish days were behind him and he didn't decide he would go over, because he would if he wanted to.
Not in his prime, I'll say it again. Cena beat the OLD Shawn Michaels and even the old Shawn Michaels was capable of beating him. Shawn in his prime would clearly beat Cena as he was better than the older version in every way conceivable. He was faster, stronger, with more endurance, more physically capable, more driven and ferocious, everything. The young in his prime Shawn beats just about anybody you care to name.
We could start with the first guy who gave him any level of legitimacy and his first title, Big Show at WM 20. Next you've got Booker T, Kurt Angle, JBL, Triple H, and Shawn Michaels himself, not counting Edge, Randy Orton, and Batista who he shares wins and losses with, but have ultimately still made him look better as he was put over all of them at key times.
Cena had nothing to do with Big Show, Booker T, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Kurt Angle or JBL's rises to fame, they put him over, they made him a main event star. He, Orton, Edge, and Batista also helped make each other as they shared the spotlight at times and traded victories.
Really because you were just talking about this last half of HBK's supposed 2nd prime where he's been a main eventer at WM, and had so much success being billed at the top of the card, that's 8 years, combined with his ACTUAL prime from 92-98 another 7 years and that's 15 years as a top or near the top guy. Can't forget, Cena hasn't been THE top guy at times either. He's been put in secondary feuds while others main event.
On the contrary, Michaels' ability to put on a better match than any of his peers is what's led to his HOF career, so I don't think what you are saying here adds up. No way Shawn is overshadowed by Cena or is necessarily a lesser draw, especially when he's headlined WM with him, and been booked over him in the Main Event with Undertaker, while others have also been consistently booked over Cena at Mania and other PPV's. I think it's safe also to argue that his degree of success can also be attribute to the times he's been privvy to, where there are 14 PPV's a year, two world titles that change hands a lot more frequently than they did in Shawn Michaels' prime, and where there are a lot more things to be achieved with all the stipulation and gimmick matches we have now opposed to in the mid 90's, and once again with the frequency at which these things happen.
Not in his prime. Shawn Michaels wen't over quite consistently in his prime, mostly as a face from 95-98 where he finally lost to Stone Cold, passing the torch after what at the time was thought to be a career ending injury.
Cena has lost his fair share of high profile matches too btw, He lost to The Miz for Christ sake last year at WM, and this year to The Rock, that puts him at 0-2 for the last couple years, add to that CM Punk whoopin that ass recently as well, and the list goes on. At least Shawn's last two WM appearances that came out to be losses were in situation he was never going to win because it was against the Undertaker for "The Streak" which we know nobody has or will break. He and Undertaker DID however have the MOTN on both occasions, and I don't know if my memory is serving me correctly here or not but I could have sworn one or both of those were either MOTY winners and were at least candidates. When was Cena's last MOTY? Don't think he's ever had one. Shawn can deliver them on a nightly basis. He was, is, and always will be better than John Cena, no matter how popular or well embraces by the IWC he becomes, or how many titles he racks up, nothing. He will never be and never has been the performer and HOF that is Shawn Michaels. Go do the homework as well, and go see that Shawn Michaels has actually WON most of the high stakes, high profile matches he's been in than he's lost. Go back to the beginning of his comeback if you want to use the latter half of his career so badly, and you'll see that while he's put guys over at Mania' he's actually got the better end of his feuds winning the big matches within them. Just thought I'd put that one to bed.
What makes that a fact? If he wasn't responsible for the ratings drops and all that, than how can you say he was a boring champion that no one cared about, when he was at least keeping them afloat as champion in trying times? Also, I was THERE during his reign as a face and remember it well, Shawn Michaels was as over as anybody of that time and people went crazy for him night in and night out. His DX days were huge as well, they were a perfect contrast to the NWO in WWF and had the "cool heel" thing going which made them a big draw then as well. I don't buy it that at any time he didn't draw, those things alone say differently.
DX WAS a major factor, I won't dare suggest that the rise of Austin and The Rock wasn't either, but I don't think you can deny that DX as an answer to the NWO DID play a major role in the WWF gaining it's steam back. 97 and 98 up to his retirement were key years in the AE where he was a top star in the company and that can't really be refuted. WM 14 isn't the crowning moment for Austin that it was without Shawn Michaels and DX. If anything, if you're trying to be 100% fair, you can say that they paralleled each other at the time because DX was easily one of the top draws of the time, headed by none other than Shawn Michaels.
You're right, that IS purely personal preference. Never as entertaining or as talented? I'm sorry to burst your bubble there but Shawn Michaels even in the latter half of his career put on better matches (=more entertaining) and has always been more talented in the ring, that shouldn't even be questioned. Remember, this is the same John Cena who used to be hated so much because he was shit in the ring and was still force fucked down out throats, despite being outclassed in the ring by both Triple H and HBK among others.
That's a clever comparison with Flair, I'll give you that, but the fact remains that although Shawn Michaels was in the main event of WrestleMania in the latter half of his career, that was not his prime. You don't have 2 primes bro, you can only have one, and his was much earlier in his career. Shawn Michaels himself made it a point on many occasions to note in his second run that "Although he's not the same guy he used to be, he can still steal the show, etc etc".
So how was he not in his prime for the latter half of his career? He was simply a different HBK. After the back problems, the knee problems, age, countless wars in his first run, etc... He wasn't the same guy on the same level that he used to be and he acknowledged that. While he still had big matches and big moments, he simply wasn't as good as he once was, meaning his prime had past him. What's fucking crazy though is that even past his prime, HBK was able to main event WrestleMania's, he did hold one world title, he was still a top draw, he did still perform at the highest level that his peers were in awe of, and he built greatly on his legend in that time. That's just how good he really was. Outside of his era, well past his career and physical prime, he was still arguably the best bell-to-bell. If you want to argue with Ric Flair, Triple H, Jim Ross, Vince McMahon, etc....on how great and how far ahead of his peers and his time Shawn Michaels was in his prime, go ahead, but I bet they, like I, will tell you you're wrong, and I highly doubt any of them would even suggest that John Cena is a better wrestler by any means.
Maybe so, we'll never know. It was becoming Austins time and Shawn was the main guy so logically he would be the one to put him over, but once again I'll mention, it's Michaels putting him over that makes him "The Man". Bret never did put him over exactly, he just GOT him over. I'm not saying Austin did nothing to make himself a star, but as you go on to mention, it takes two to tango and unlike Shawn and Bret who never got to go over the stars that came before them, Austin did have that benefit.
See my post in response to The Brain as I already addressed that there.
And you're delusional if you think WM 14 was ALL Shawn. Because it had nothing to do with Austin.
Of course he had something to do with it, he was the fan favorite babyface about to go over, but Shawn made him look like a million bucks as he did everyone he faced because he was that damn good. Shawn brought it to Austin as the superior athlete making everything Austin had to overcome to win that much bigger a deal because it WAS Shawn Michaels, and sold his offense like no one else could or ever did. This is just another big example of Shawn being a superior in ring performer to Cena, and he did it with a blown out back which emphasized just how good he really was, and how tough he was.
I'll say it again, HBK was not in his prime. If he was, he would go over, and history shows that as he went over all the time in his prime as a face.
Cena has improved drastically and really got what he does down in the last few years, but this was before that when he was still ASS in the ring, and Shawn out shined him left and right, out wrestled him, and made Cena look like a helpless bitch. It was insulting to watch Cena go over after he had been so thoroughly and handily outclassed in the ring, and made him look bad for not doing the job in this case. He should only be so glad Shawn's more selfish days were behind him and he didn't decide he would go over, because he would if he wanted to.
Not in his prime, I'll say it again. Cena beat the OLD Shawn Michaels and even the old Shawn Michaels was capable of beating him. Shawn in his prime would clearly beat Cena as he was better than the older version in every way conceivable. He was faster, stronger, with more endurance, more physically capable, more driven and ferocious, everything. The young in his prime Shawn beats just about anybody you care to name.
We could start with the first guy who gave him any level of legitimacy and his first title, Big Show at WM 20. Next you've got Booker T, Kurt Angle, JBL, Triple H, and Shawn Michaels himself, not counting Edge, Randy Orton, and Batista who he shares wins and losses with, but have ultimately still made him look better as he was put over all of them at key times.
Cena had nothing to do with Big Show, Booker T, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Kurt Angle or JBL's rises to fame, they put him over, they made him a main event star. He, Orton, Edge, and Batista also helped make each other as they shared the spotlight at times and traded victories.
Really because you were just talking about this last half of HBK's supposed 2nd prime where he's been a main eventer at WM, and had so much success being billed at the top of the card, that's 8 years, combined with his ACTUAL prime from 92-98 another 7 years and that's 15 years as a top or near the top guy. Can't forget, Cena hasn't been THE top guy at times either. He's been put in secondary feuds while others main event.
On the contrary, Michaels' ability to put on a better match than any of his peers is what's led to his HOF career, so I don't think what you are saying here adds up. No way Shawn is overshadowed by Cena or is necessarily a lesser draw, especially when he's headlined WM with him, and been booked over him in the Main Event with Undertaker, while others have also been consistently booked over Cena at Mania and other PPV's. I think it's safe also to argue that his degree of success can also be attribute to the times he's been privvy to, where there are 14 PPV's a year, two world titles that change hands a lot more frequently than they did in Shawn Michaels' prime, and where there are a lot more things to be achieved with all the stipulation and gimmick matches we have now opposed to in the mid 90's, and once again with the frequency at which these things happen.
Not in his prime. Shawn Michaels wen't over quite consistently in his prime, mostly as a face from 95-98 where he finally lost to Stone Cold, passing the torch after what at the time was thought to be a career ending injury.
Cena has lost his fair share of high profile matches too btw, He lost to The Miz for Christ sake last year at WM, and this year to The Rock, that puts him at 0-2 for the last couple years, add to that CM Punk whoopin that ass recently as well, and the list goes on. At least Shawn's last two WM appearances that came out to be losses were in situation he was never going to win because it was against the Undertaker for "The Streak" which we know nobody has or will break. He and Undertaker DID however have the MOTN on both occasions, and I don't know if my memory is serving me correctly here or not but I could have sworn one or both of those were either MOTY winners and were at least candidates. When was Cena's last MOTY? Don't think he's ever had one. Shawn can deliver them on a nightly basis. He was, is, and always will be better than John Cena, no matter how popular or well embraces by the IWC he becomes, or how many titles he racks up, nothing. He will never be and never has been the performer and HOF that is Shawn Michaels. Go do the homework as well, and go see that Shawn Michaels has actually WON most of the high stakes, high profile matches he's been in than he's lost. Go back to the beginning of his comeback if you want to use the latter half of his career so badly, and you'll see that while he's put guys over at Mania' he's actually got the better end of his feuds winning the big matches within them. Just thought I'd put that one to bed.
Let's agree to drop the ratings argument. I'm not using it against Shawn. I just saw someone say HBK was responsible for bringing in ratings of 7+ and using that against Cena. I was just correcting that. I don't really care about the ratings.
It's natural for the top babyface to rarely lose. If you want to say that in defense of Michaels that's fine, but don't ignore Cena's record either. He doesn't lose often either.
Oh I absolutely know that Austin was going to win the title at WM14 regardless of HBK's condition. I think that's about as obvious as anything. I find it strange that you are bringing up a match that Michaels lost in an effort to talk him up.
I think 1992-1994 is when Shawn was building up to his prime. I think HBK was just as good after his comeback as he was before. Don't let the receding hairline fool you. This is actual a point if favor for Michaels; except for when he lost to Cena in the mania main event that is.
I don't want to pin down his prime to only one day. Michaels had a good second half of 1995 in between injury breaks. He had a good year in 1996 despite not being able to get a single fall on Hart in sixty minutes at mania, wrestling Davey Boy Smith to a draw, getting pinned by Vader in a six man tag, getting controversial wins over Vader and Mankind, and eventually losing the title to Sid. Damn that sounded sarcastic didn't it? It wasn't meant to be. I always thought Michaels had a good year in 1996 but now that I've broken it down maybe it's not as good as I remember. I think Cena's years on top were more impressive.
Well maybe Michaels doesn't want to win this match either. Maybe he will turn it down. I don't think he was the top guy from 95-98. He was only the top guy for most of 96 when Bret wasn't around. Michaels was a top guy from 2002-2010 but he wasn't THE top guy. Cena has been THE top guy since 2005 and still is to this day.
Well Michaels also has a history of turning on his friends as was pointed out to us by Cena. I don't know if he can rely on any of those guys. If you want to use the HBK of 96 he would have Jose Lothario. I don't see him being a difference maker.
That's personal opinion, nothing more. I prefer Cena in all three categories. Cena, because of in-ring performance, elevated Edge, Randy Orton, and CM Punk to sure-fire main event status. For as great as Shawn is, is anyone other then HHH a surefire HOF because of Shawn? The argument can be made that HHH would be there with or without HBK, but the elevation of Edge, Punk, and Orton can undeniably be traced to their long feuds with Cena.
At least you got this part right.
The fact that he was mostly a white meat babyface during his championship runs. Again, this is conjecture, my opinion. I was there as well during his title runs, and I found Shawn as champion to be quite boring. And if anything, his days in DX weren't a contrast to the NWO, they were a response to what the NWO was doing. Both had the "cool heel" factor you're describing. You don't have to buy that during that time Shawn didn't draw, the fact remains that with Shawn on top, WCW kicked WWF's rear end in ratings. It wasn't until the rise of Stone Cold and The Rock, and even Mick Foley that WWE found a level playing field and eventually overcame WCW. Shawn, due to injury, was long gone at this point.
Semantics. WM 14 was about getting Austin over, and HBK bowing out. But this moment was all about getting Austin over as champion and transitioning fully to the Attitude Era, which Shawn by and large was not a part of.
.
Love him or hate him, it's an undeniable fact that every damn person in the crowd reacted and does react when Cena wrestles. You can make the argument that Cena was forced down "our throats", I'll counter and say that it was the way to get Cena over as the face of the company. Batista was initially the one picked for that spot, but he was outclassed by Cena and easily surpassed. To say he was outclassed by HHH and HBK is such a tired, silly argument, as his main event matches with both at Wrestlemania were both excellent bouts, and that doesn't happen if one man sucks. Cena hung with, and in back to back years, made the charter members of the great DX tap out. Cena wasn't outclassed by either, as he beat HHH twice on PPV, and HBK twice as well.
That's simply not true. HBK was absolutely in his prime during the "second half" of his career. It's a interesting statement that one doesn't have two primes, and I see your point, but HBK's prime didn't end with his first retirement. That showed when he returned and had an outstanding street fight with HHH in his first match back. Again, Ill repeat my statement: Men in their prime don't main event Wrestlemania if they're not in their prime.
What did he do differently that put him "out" of his prime? Did he change up his moveset? Did the quality of his matches change? No. He wrestled at the same pace, with long-form matches with the Jericho's, Angle's, Undertaker's, and John Cena. What exactly was different? If the only thing you can use is that he lost alot, you're reaching. He was never truly a dominant performer. There was simply no difference between HBK before his injury and HBK after he returned.
But the point is, whether Shawn were to have left or have been 100% healthy, he would have been eclipsed by Austin. It was clear long before WM 14 that Austin was going to be the man. And Shawn DID get to go over Bret, their Ironman match is example number 1 of that. To say Bret wasn't responsible partly for that is just plain silly. If you're going to equate Austin getting over by him beating Shawn, you have to credit Bret for getting Shawn over in the same way. The difference is that Austin went on to be a ratings juggernaut, and Shawn did not.
And I'll ask the same question I asked earlier. What in his body of work said that HBK wasn't in his prime? Did he not deliver top notch matches? Was he away from the main event? No. He still put on fantastic matches in the same way he did before his injury, so I don't see the argument that he was out of his prime.
Again, the two to tango argument comes back into play. The match they had was an excellent Wrestlemania main event. Men who are "ass" in the ring don't have the longest WWE Championship reigns in 19 years, clocking in at over a year. He had excellent matches with Edge, Orton, Lashley(probably Bobby's best ever) and HBK. Cena was in no way outclassed by HBK in the ring, he was HBK's equal in every way. At the end of the day. he was HBK's superior, as he not only beat him, but he made him tap out. He didn't get a fluke victory, or a lucky pinfall, he beat a man in the most convincing way possible, by submission.
You can continue to say it, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. He was just as ferocious and driven in his match with Cena at Wrestlemania then he ever had been in the past; the piledriver on the steps and putting Cena through the announce table showed that. He was still in his prime, as there were other options that could have challenged Cena for the title, such as Orton or Edge, both who main evented Wrestlemania 24 as champion, and had been champions before. Yet they went with HBK, and why? Because he was very much in his prime.
The first names you mentioned were already stars when they faced Cena, so of course he didn't make them. I never suggested that. I did say that Orton and Edge namely were elevated because of their feuds with Cena, and Batista had his best matches in his career outside of Taker with Cena. They may have traded victories, but who ultimately won each of those feuds? Cena did. He also won his feuds with the established men listed above.
When has Cena truly not been positioned at the top of the card? He had short feuds with JBL and Big Show that weren't top of the card feuds, but for the majority of the past 8 years, John Cena has been positioned at the top of the card, fighting for the title or not. Rock, Lesnar, and even John frickin Laurinitis are recent examples of exactly that.
Noone, and I mean noone, has been consistently booked over Cena in main events. He headlined 22, 23, 27, and 28, and was in title matches at 24, 25, and 26, winning at both 25 and 26. How exactly is that people being booked over him? On the rare occasions he wasn't in the main event, he was in a marquee match.
I think his level of success can be contributed to him being the biggest draw, best performer, most charasmatic, and best performer of the past 7 years. There are a number of men who were thought to be capable of filling that spot, namely Randy Orton and Batista, and Cena eclipsed both men with ease. Stipulations and gimmick matches have little to do with getting someone over, unless they excel at a specific gimmick. However, they still have to compete in, and be successful in whatever situations they're put in. For example, Cena's title matches at 22, 23, and 26 were straight one on one matches for the title, and they were all excellent matches, ending with HHH, HBK, and Batista tapping out. How is that not a testament to how good Cena is? He's made EVERY star of his era tap out. Benoit, Edge, Punk, Jericho, and Orton, along with the above aforementioned have ALL tapped to Cena. HBK NEVER had that level of success in his career.
Money In The Bank 2011 against CM Punk says hello.
Who did Shawn exactly win feuds against? In his comeback, he lost his feud with HHH, when he was unable to take the title that HHH took from him. HHH won Three Stages of Hell, Last Man Standing went to a draw, and Benoit was the one who took the title from HHH, and made HBK tap out the next month at Backlash. Angle beat him at WM 21, and their feuds essentially ended in a draw with their IronMan match on Raw after Shawn beat Angle at Vengeance. He won legendary feuds against Vince McMahon and The Spirit Squad, but he and HHH as DX essentially lost their feud with Rated RKO, as they lost both PPV matches against them.
But what matters most here? How HBK came out in his feud with the man he's facing here, which is John Cena. And he lost that one, just like he's losing here.
You're leaning towards idiocy when you say that Cena is a better in-ring performer than Shawn Michaels. You can call it opinion all you want to; however, Cena just doesn't put on as good an in-ring performance as The Showstopper. HBK's many(repeat for dramatic affect), MANY MOTY Awards proves that.
As for who Cena has, "made sure-fire main eventers," I'll give you Edge on that list and that's it! Evolution groomed Orton, 'Taker then took him to the next level, then his later feud with HHH finished the job. As for CM Punk; he could've cut that exact same promo while he was facing any other oppenent and his career still would have taken off. Cena just happened to be there. If you can credit Cena with this current form of Punk; then you have to credit HHH and Johnny Ace too! They just happen to be around also.
Look, it's no secret that I'm not a huge fan of Cena. I never have been and I never will be; however, the man has earned my respect and I'm not one of those Cena haters that is going to argue against Cena just for the sake of it. In the overall grand scheme of things, Cena is the better professional wrestler. I'll give you that! When it comes to just pure peformance in the ring; however, there's Shawn Michaels, Ricky Steamboat, Ric Flair, and everybody else.
After all of that; Vote Cena!!!
Actually, it was his feud with Cena that finished the job. Orton was supposed to break away from Evolution and be the next big thing, but he wasn't successful. He had a good feud with Taker', but once again faded after. It wasn't until he feuded with Cena in 2007 that he was a mainstay in the main event. Not HHH, not 'Taker, it was his feud with Cena that made him a permanent fixture in or around the main event.
Punk could have cut that promo, but had the match bombed, do you think WWE would have run with Punk the way they have? Absolutely not. But instead, he and Cena delivered the undeniable Match of the Year in 2011. You had to have the face of the company there for Punk as the anti-corporation man to play off of, so Cena was the only logical choice. And when it came time for the two to go, Cena and Punk both brought it. None of Punk's matches that followed were as good as that one, so how can you say anyone would have fit there?
You don't have to be a fan of Cena to understand how good the man is in the ring. He can hang with anyone and deliver on the biggest stages like noone of his generation can. Who other then John Cena makes literally every match he's in of the past 8 years feel like a huge match? Be it the main event of Raw, Over The Limit, or Wrestlemania, every match Cena is in feels huge. And that's because he's a truly phenomenal in-ring performer.
I never said that Cena wasn't a truly phenomenal in-ring performer because he is. I just said that Shawn Michaels was a better in-ring performer and that's because, well, HE IS!
Yet when the two faced off for the WWE Title at Wrestlemania 23 in a 30 minute affair in the main event, Cena made HBK tap out. Isn't that what's indicative of who truly is superior better then anything else? I can't think of a better litmus test, and Cena was the victor. Cena made HBK tap out. At Wrestlemania. Even the great "Phenom" couldn't make HBK submit, but Cena did. This isn't complex here, it's simple logic.
I like how you took a shot at the "Phenom" in your post. Nice touch.
If you recall, I've been saying all along that Cena would win this match. Even though I think that HBK's overall body of work in the ring is miles ahead of anything that Cena has done and probably will do; I still think that Cena would win this match.
As I said, Michaels' best stuff usually comes in a losing effort in a huge match. This isn't going to be any different.
Well there's the thing, that's your opinion. I was stating factual observations based on real life experiences, not my opinion. What does it matter that he was a "White meat babyface" during his championship runs? How does that make him boring? A: It doesn't, you just personally didn't care for it which serves no relevance to the argument.
Now you're nitpicking a bit, I say contrast, you say response, but we're ultimately saying the same thing, they were the WWE's answer to the NWO e.g. a contrast to what WCW was doing with the NWO, same thing dude.
But as has been extensively covered, you can't blame that on Shawn Michaels, that wasn't his fault. It wouldn't have mattered who was at the top at that moment and obviously it didn't in 96-97-98 either no matter who was champion, so again you can't blame it on Shawn and try to say he was poor draw. In fact, if he wasn't a good draw they wouldn't have survived, they would have just tanked and went into bankruptcy, but he drew well enough to pay the bills including his own salary and everyone elses against competition that they simply couldn't overcome at the time because of what the competition was doing, not because they weren't doing well themselves, they just weren't comparatively to WCW at the time.
I also noted how rating was the only place they were really beating the WWF, at live shows WWF was selling out places WCW couldn't and wasn't, which is part of the reason they were able to survive the ratings war. Shawn Michaels for a good period of that time, was the guy drawing those houses. So, let's put the "Shawn Michaels was a shitty draw" thing to bed, because clearly he wasn't then, and certainly wasn't in the latter half of his career.
And that's also because the NWO angle grew stale and WCW lost direction and started to fuck it all up. Not to take away from SCSA, The Rock, or Mankind, but they were in the right place at the right time to capitalize on WCW sinking their own ship. Sure, Shawn was gone at that time, but you can't logically suggest that the ratings going up came as a result of his absence, you just noted that it was because of SCSA, The Rock, and Mankind.
Legit points, not just semantics. Getting Austin over required star power and Michaels had the star power and recognition to get him over. This is significant because he was the one to put over arguably the biggest superstar in WWE history who led the WWF into the AE which speaks volumes about how big a deal it was to beat him. If he wasn't a big deal it wouldn't have mattered that Austin beat him. So what I am saying is that Shawn putting guys over then was every bit as big and significant as Cena doing the same today, because he was every bit as big as Cena and every bit as legit in his era and prime as Cena is now. He was a nonstop threat to the title, just like Cena, no matter what he was doing, and everyone knew he was the man, just like Cena. Bottom line here, he's not giving anything up to Cena.
And when Shawn Michaels wrestles the folks are any less invested? Good luck trying to make that stick.
But there's something to be said about that. The people embraced Shawn Michaels when they turned him face and chose him, no one chose John Cena, and he was not embraced, he was force fed to us even though people didn't want him. It got him over as the face of the company, behooving the majority of the audience who didn't want to see him there.
Or simply didn't have the right fan base is more like it. I don't think you can really say he was outclassed and surpassed considering the fact that he was right there at the top with Cena all the way up to his departure, which culminated in a long running feud with Cena himself.
In-ring, at their craft, he was outclassed, booed out of the building, no one wanted to see him win on any of those occasions, and it was dreadfully obvious that he was in the ring with far superior wrestlers. But, he's the golden child of the WWE now so of course he went over and they did the job to get him over as the golden child since they are already legends in their own right.
I give you Exhibit A:
[YOUTUBE]rlqrt9wb_D4&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
Go to 6:55 of the video and listen to what Shawn says himself. "I know I can't wrestle anymore, If I felt like displaying my ability I'd have done it 4 years ago, I know I'm no longer the showstopper. ", after Triple H notes "HBK is Dead, you can't wrestle anymore Shawn, you're career in this ring is over". Even Shawn admits he isn't the guy he used to be, which points to the fact that his prime was past him, and it was. Now he did go on to wrestle, he did go on to do a lot, but it was duly noted that this was a different Shawn Michaels than the one who previously ruled the WWF in his prime.
The man, that's what was different. He was simply a different man, a different person, and he was no longer the same guy he once was. Even the character itself was drastically changed to show that this was a different Shawn Michaels than had previously been. He may have displayed all the stuff that made him who he was, but he still wasn't THAT GUY anymore. For starters as well, he was never again the champion of the company for any significant period of time. He got the title at Elimination Chamber that one time and dropped it soon thereafter. No more titles regardless of whether he turned down the opportunity or not. No longer was he the main guy in the company holding the title as the flag bearer for the company like he was in his prime. He was a different Shawn Michaels, not necessarily a bad Shawn Michaels, but he certainly wasn't quite as good as he used to be. His story became "I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was" and that's what he consistently displayed leading you to this confusion about when his prime actually was.
Nope, that never entered my mind or my argument. I think it is you and some of the others who are reaching, trying to call the latter half of his career his prime, since John Cena beat THAT Shawn Michaels, which makes it an open and shut case in your minds. Simply stated, the younger Shawn in his prime beats Cena if the senior version was in every way capable. Time and youth have their advantages as does being in your prime. That would make all the difference in the outcome of this match. If he went over the top face then, in his prime, Bret Hart, he would go over this top face too.
Who wasn't eclipsed by Austin at that time though? The point was that Shawn became a star because of his pure talent, whereas John Cena became a star because the WWE decided he should be. Not to say that he had NO talent, but his skills developed along the way, he wasn't a main event caliber guy when he was sent up, and he did get put over by a lot of guys that came before him, unlike Bret and Shawn who had to make themselves essentially because the Hogan's and Savages and Warriors left, never having passed the torch to their generation.
Shawn and Bret's careers paralleled each other's though, Bret was a little older, a little more tenured, so he was a step ahead of Michaels, but they defined an era together as the key figures of that era, and Shawn caught up to Bret at one point. No one had given them the keys to the car prior to that like they did with Stone Cold who was put over by both Shawn and Bret essentially. This point goes back to what I wrote just above, Shawn was chosen by the fans upon turning face, he got there on his talents alone, and no one really made him, he wasn't afforded the luxuries that Cena was. This is just another piece of evidence that Shawn was and is a better wrestler.
Again, the ratings were not Shawn's fault, and you can't hold it against him, others have even agreed to quit even bringing that up because it is a moot point due to the circumstances at that time, so please quit trying to use that against him. If you want to get into ratings, for all the rage that Cena is, we've seen the ratings plummet under on his watch as well, dipping lower than when Shawn was champion. How many reports have even stated that the ratings over the last 6-7 years (Cena's Era) have been at all time lows for the company? Bigger draw? I think not.
I answered this already above, but I'll reiterate the point that he was not the main guy, the focal point of the company anymore, he was never to be the champion again, because he was removed from his prime, he took on a different role in this stage of his career. Not one of being the champion to carry the company, but one of being a guy to put over the rising talent, and help preserve what had already been built so that the guys they were putting over had something to build on themselves. It was a completely different era in his career. The fact that he continued to be THE SHIT is just proof positive of his true greatness.
Really? Because John Cena WAS ass in the ring, and held that title for 19 months. This goes back to the force feeding argument which has stood for years, as that is exactly what they did and everyone knows it. He wasn't very good in the ring and that was the main criticism of him next to the fact that he was being force fed to us. Cena was just the other body in the ring cooperating when they met at WM23, Shawn Michaels was the one who carried him through that match, and put him over. The veteran almost always calls the match too in case you didn't know that, so it was quite literally Shawn making him look as good as he could, which he clearly did a good job of judging from your perception of it.
Sure, he beat Shawn Michaels in the twilight of his career, and Shawn was gracious enough to put him over like a number of other guys, I get it. The fact remains though that he is nowhere near as talented in the ring as Shawn Michaels, never has been, never will be. He does what he does well, and that's what he can do. He has at no point ever been as good in the ring as Shawn Michaels and I'm sure plenty of others would attest to that as well.
Well, being the superior performer that Shawn Michaels is, of course, he brought the fury, he always delivers, but that doesn't mean he was not past him prime in the last lick of his career, which he clearly was.
No no silly, it wasn't because "He was in his prime", I don't think that's ever been a reason to put anyone against anyone. They put him against Shawn Michaels because they knew Shawn could make anyone look like a million bucks, and it was important for them to do just that on the grandest stage of them all and Shawn was the guy they could trust to do that. It was another step towards building up John Cena, and who better to put him over than Shawn Michaels to give him THAT MUCH MORE credibility? Orton and Edge were involved in other stuff and frankly aren't and weren't on the level of Shawn Michaels even if they did have titles, and Cena had either already feuded with them at some point, or went on to feud with them.
And I already mentioned that those guys shared wins and losses because they helped build each other. You think Cena wasn't elevated by beating them in contrast? Of course he was, so it was a two way street, it wasn't like Cena was just making them, they were all helping elevate each other.
That's right, he went over the established guys to give him more credibility and build his resume, and he won the feuds with the others because he's the guy they chose to be the face of the company. None of that means he would beat Shawn Michaels in his prime.
When other guys have, plain and simple. Orton, Batista, Jericho, Punk, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Triple H, RVD, etc... He's been pushed back down the card a bit before to make room for the other guys to be in the main event as well, because he's become stale and boring at times and they needed fresh faces at the top. He's always been prominently featured, yes, but not always the main eventer, and he has taken the back seat to all those guys at one point or another. This guys popularity is very questionable okay. Cena's received a lot of backlash over these years because people don't like him, people have been tired of him at the top, and wanted to see him go away all together or see him place reduced in significance which has happened a number of times.
These are only WrestleMania's you are accounting for, there are 13 more PPV's a year, plenty of which John Cena has been placed lower on the card of, i.e. people being booked over him. Shawn in his prime as champion was almost always the main event ppv to ppv, and then when he went heel with DX he was still very much at the top of the card more often than not. Hell, even before he was a main eventer and a world champion he headlined PPV's above the champion.
He's not the biggest draw, that distinction belongs to The Undertaker or Triple H, and he needed The Rock and Brock Lesnar to really get people interested recently.
I think The Undertaker, Triple H, Chris Jericho, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, and maybe a few others would like to argue that one.
Not necessarily, that's objective opinion. You find him to be the most charismatic, others might find someone else to be more charismatic.
Not as long as some of the guys above and most notably Shawn Michaels is around.
And many arguments could be made disputing how they were handled when given those opportunities, and if memory serves me correctly Randy Orton held the title for quite a while, Edge was always holding it or dropping it and getting it back, you forgot poor Rey Rey who is arguable the REAL guy who fills all this criteria you're laying down and easily fills that spot, Batista was always holding or chasing, Punk has been up there quite a bit, Jericho had a few runs up there where he did excellent as champion and no Cena was necessary, Jeff Hardy had his run and did fine, as did Triple H, I haven't even mentioned Undertaker, he's always been very capable and even had the responsibility pushed onto him against his will at times, and I don't think I need to keep going.
But they do give distinctions to his resume that Shawn Michaels in his prime didn't have the opportunity to participate in and win. In his prime he made a habit of winning gimmick and stipulation matches. He won the 2nd ladder match, he won the iron man match, the first HIAC, back to back rumbles, and was the first grand slam champion. He didn't have the opportunity to be in a lot of the matches Cena has because they didn't exist back then, but people try to use that as a mark for John Cena when it's not really anything great about John Cena, merely a consequence of the time he has wrestled in.
Correction, every star of his era has been made to tap out to him because he is John Cena, Vince's boy, the guy they've forced fed the WWE Universe for years, insisting he is the man, pouring accolades on to him, regardless of what the fans have wanted and made clear, that being that they don't want Cena. It's not a testament to how good he is, it's a testament to how good they've tried to build him to be. As far as how good he is, there are a lot of guys who are actually "better" than John Cena, but he's the hand picked guy so it doesn't matter who else is how good, that's the guy they are going to shove down our throats no matter what and that's been the case for the last 7 years. Shawn had a great deal of success, and remember that they didn't have as many ppv's back then or as big of a roster so he didn't even have as many people to feud with. In his prime as champion though, he beat everybody, and he was the guy because he was so damn good at what he did, head and shoulders above his peers.
Okay, I overlooked that. Key note though, that was also where CM Punk finally beat Cena clean which is what everyone wanted to see, and it was the Summer of Punk thing going red hot, so it's arguable that this was the match of the year moreso because of Punk, the Chicago crowd, and the fact that he beat Cena, than because Cena is just soooo great.
I'll also note that Shawn Michaels in his prime won MOTY 4 years in a row in 93, 94, 95, and 96, 3 of those matches were with Razor Ramon, Diesel, and Marty Jannetty, so who do you suppose was the one making those matches? the last one was obviously him and Bret at WM and you can call that a joint effort between two of the best to ever lace up a pair of boots. Then in the latter half of his career, from 2004 to 2010 he has EVERY MOTY, including the one with Cena which as I stated was all Michaels. That was in 2007, John Cena didn't start to really improve in the ring until later in 2008. So compare those overall resumes if you will on that alone, once again, like in every other category of significance, Shawn Michaels in the better man.
Two of the hottest feuds for starters, against JBL, and Chris Jericho, McMahon and the Spirit Squad as you mentioned, Chris Jericho again, Muhammad Hassan and Daivari w/Hogan (not a big one but still a victorious feud), he and Triple H actually beat Rated RKO in their last match together and the feud had to be scrapped because of Triple H's second quad injury and then Shawn ended it himself taking out Randy Orton then won the tag titles with John Cena beating Rated RKO again, and then beat both Edge and Orton in a triple threat to become the number one contender to the WWE title. He laid out Cena at Backlash and let him win the title as Orton was out and Cena fell over him winning the title that way. Michaels had a feud with Orton where he pwned him so frequently with SCM that it was banned by McMahon to ensure he couldn't use it against Orton, which he almost did and won the match, but stopped, allowing Orton to hit the RKO and win the match, but he owned him the whole feud regardless. He then went on to retire Flair. He then beat Batista and gave back one match to him so that feud was really a draw since it went no further, and he was the first person to beat Vladimir Kozlov which is how he got into the first match with Undertaker.
Looks like you overlooked quite a bit huh?
I think what matter most here is that Shawn Michaels has had a better career overall, has always been the better wrestler, and in he's in his prime facing Cena he beats him quite handedly. If Punk beats Cena clean just last year, HBK in his prime who would annihilate Punk EASILY beats Cena. I know you and others have been living and dying by the fact that Shawn put Cena over at Mania, but that was a gift for starters, and as I've extensively explained, was not Shawn Michaels in his prime. Shawn looks to be losing this and I don't know if he can catch up, but he is the better man, he is the better wrestler, and there's nowhere that Cena is far and away better than him to substantiate going over here considering that it is Shawn in his prime versus the current John Cena who is still in his.
This baby is about to end, so Im going to make this my last post here. Phew.....
Shawn was a white-meat babyface during a time when stars were developing an edge. And as a result, he was one of the first babyfaces to be rejected by the fans as champion. The ratings show just as much.
The idea I got from you is that you were portraying DX as this revolutionary concept that had never been done before: The cool heel. All I was simply stating was that WCW did it first with the NWO.
I know my history, thank you.
On a side note, I've never seen a "passing of the torch" as a barometer argument for getting someone over. For every HBK that passed the torch to Austin, there was a JBL to pass the torch to Cena. And despite JBL being less then credible, I'd say Cena has done quite fine for himself.
I'm not saying beating Shawn wasn't a big thing, because it was. But if the man getting the belt wasn't ready to become the next big thing, Shawn putting him over becomes irrelevant. And Austin was ready, and it wouldn't have mattered if it was Kane, HHH, or a number of other superstars. Michaels or not, Austin was going to the top.
And only someone shortsighted would argue that Cena today as the face of the company is a bad thing. Growing pains? Sure. But anyone moving into that role experiences them, Cena was no different. Batista, as evidenced by him main eventing Wrestlemania 21 and getting the more formidable opponent in HHH, looked to be the choice as face of the company. But Cena quickly overtook him, and it wasn't due to him being force-fed down our throats. He was the best choice.
He was selling an angle with HHH, but once he returned full-time, he went right back to claiming to be the man.
And Cena made him tap out, clean as a sheet, at Wrestlemania 23 in the main event.
And Cena became a star because of his pure talent as well. You can discredit him all you like, but Cena's rise was a slow one to the top. He first challenged for the title at Backlash 03, and he wasn't ready to be a top guy then. But come Wrestlemania 21, in 2005, he was very much ready to be the top guy. At the time, he was almost universally accepted as the top guy and as the man. Listen to the crowd reaction when Cena was drafted to Raw.
[YOUTUBE]vU7lIAg2uJM[/YOUTUBE]
That sounds like a pretty damn favorable response for a man who "wasn't ready", and "booed out of every building" doesn't it?
Edge: Beat him at Unforgiven 2006 in a TLC match, kicking off his 13 month title reign. Beat him and Big Show in a triple threat match at WM 25 to win the World Heavyweight Championship.
Randy Orton: Beat him at Summerslam 2007, retained at Unforgiven 2007, and only lost the title due to injury. Beat Orton in an "I Quit" match at Breaking Point in 2009, and won their feud beating Orton in an IronMan match at Bragging Rights 2009. Yes, he lost to Orton at Hell In A Cell and Summerslam 09, but he won the feud, in main event matches.
Batista: Made him submit at Wrestlemania 26, beat him in a LMS match at Extreme Rules 2010, and an "I Quit" match at Over The Limit 2010. Yes, he lost their Summerslam match, but he definitively won his feud with Batista, in main event matches.
Jericho: Beat him at Summerslam 2005, beat him the next night on Raw in a "You're Fired" match. Beat Jericho in the main event of Survivor Series 2009, and again at Armageddon 2009. He won BOTH his feuds with Jericho, and NEVER took a backseat to him.
HHH: Made him tap out in the main event of Wrestlemania 22, pinned him clean the next month in the main event of Backlash 06. Lost to him at Night of Champions 08(in the main event, however), and made him submit in the Elimination Chamber 2010.
Punk: Defeated Punk numerous times on Raw, including making him tap out in about two minutes around Thanksgiving 2010. He lost his feud to Punk by losing consecutive matches at MITB and Summerslam, but he still didn't take a backseat to him. Who main evented Survivor Series 2011? Was it Punk winning the title? No, it was Rock and Cena vs Truth and Miz. Did Punk main event Elimination Chamber 2012? No, it was Cena and frickin Kane, for goodness sake. Yes, they're huge names, but it was still Cena, who was chosen to main event Wrestlemania 28 and Extreme Rules 2012 against Rock and Lesnar, the latter of which he beat.
With all of these men you listed, I'm failing to see how Cena was overshadowed by ANY of them.
Cena, as the company man, was every bit as responsible for making that match and the entire angle the success that it was. You couldn't have substituted someone else in that spot and made it work, you had to have the face of the company, and a man who could deliver a big-time match. A match isn't great because one man beats another, it's great because of two men working together to make magic. Punk was every bit as responsible, but to deny Cena's greatness in making that match what it was is silly.
And to clarify, the ONLY match of the year Michaels won in his first run was the ladder match with Razor at WM 10. Upon his return, he won three MOTY's. So tell me again, how is that him being out of his prime, exactly?
The Wrestling Observer end of year awards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wrestling_Observer_Newsletter_awards#Match_of_the_Year
Simple answer: He wasn't.
How is your belief of how Michaels performed factual, whereas mine is simply opinion. How do your real life observations, of which I had the same at the same time dude(Im 29), make mine any less substantial?
Shawn was a white-meat babyface during a time when stars were developing an edge. And as a result, he was one of the first babyfaces to be rejected by the fans as champion. The ratings show just as much.
\
The idea I got from you is that you were portraying DX as this revolutionary concept that had never been done before: The cool heel. All I was simply stating was that WCW did it first with the NWO.
Him being a great draw during the latter half of his career is another indication that he was still in his prime. Men out of their prime don't draw: Ask Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan about that right now. And even as a "great draw" during the latter stage of his career, he wasn't the draw Cena was, or is.
No, they were outstanding characters who provided outstanding entertainment and an edge not seen before within the industry. The Ringmaster became Stone Cold, Rocky Maivia became The Rock, and Jack Foley became Mankind, Cactus Jack, and Dude Love. WCW had no answer for those characters, so they pulled out every lousy booking trick possible to try, and failed. But it was the rise of those superstars that changed the landscape of wrestling.
I know my history, thank you.
I never suggested it was because of Shawn being gone, I attributed it to the Attitude Era superstars.
Austin was already a star, had been since his KOTR promo. He had really gotten himself over with his promos and his body of work. Shawn passed the torch to him to make him "the man", but it was Austin who did the work to get to the level to which he could sustain the success.
On a side note, I've never seen a "passing of the torch" as a barometer argument for getting someone over. For every HBK that passed the torch to Austin, there was a JBL to pass the torch to Cena. And despite JBL being less then credible, I'd say Cena has done quite fine for himself.
See my JBL argument. He wasn't exactly a big deal, was he? Yet he was the one who initially put over the biggest star of this era, and again, it's been about what Cena has done himself then JBL doing much for Cena,
I'm not saying beating Shawn wasn't a big thing, because it was. But if the man getting the belt wasn't ready to become the next big thing, Shawn putting him over becomes irrelevant. And Austin was ready, and it wouldn't have mattered if it was Kane, HHH, or a number of other superstars. Michaels or not, Austin was going to the top.
This "force fed" argument is tremendous tired, because it's a complete and utter fallacy. Cheers, boos, what's the difference? Cena has received the largest reactions from the WWE fanbase over the past 7 years, and it's never been a "go away" reaction. And again, folks smarter then you and I saw it fit to make Cena the face of the company, and he's succeeded likely beyond their largest imaginations.
And only someone shortsighted would argue that Cena today as the face of the company is a bad thing. Growing pains? Sure. But anyone moving into that role experiences them, Cena was no different. Batista, as evidenced by him main eventing Wrestlemania 21 and getting the more formidable opponent in HHH, looked to be the choice as face of the company. But Cena quickly overtook him, and it wasn't due to him being force-fed down our throats. He was the best choice.
I can say that he was outclassed and surpassed because he lost to Cena in the main event of Wrestlemania when he tapped out, and suffered another loss to Cena the next month at Backlash. He didn't win that long-running feud with Cena, so how wasn't he outclassed, exactly? Life is defined by winners and losers, and Cena won.
All of these statements are examples of "all or nothing" thinking that can be disproved by one simple statement: I wanted to see John Cena win on these occasions. He was in the ring with more experienced talent, I'll give you that, but that doesn't make them better. And Cena has always, always had his supporters, and received the same mixed reactions he receives today. And that's a great thing, because love him or hate him, it shows that people cared about him regardless.
That was right before his return, and was to sell an angle. I guess those claims he made later in his return of being "Mr Wrestlemania", "The Showstopper" and "The Main Event" should be completely discounted, right?
He was selling an angle with HHH, but once he returned full-time, he went right back to claiming to be the man.
Unless of course this top face was better then him, which Cena is. You can argue the Hart comparison all you like, but John Cena isn't Bret Hart. You've yet to show a true example of how the second act of HBK's career was "out of his prime". Countless MOTY's, Wrestlemania main events, and the same style he wrestled during the first half of his career says otherwise. You're the one who's reaching when you say HBK was out of his prime. Yet John Cena made the man who put on those matches and performed at the same level submit. I'm sorry, but logic says that a man who had three MOTY;s to my recollection(Jericho ladder match, Taker 1 and 2) is still very much in his prime.
And Cena made him tap out, clean as a sheet, at Wrestlemania 23 in the main event.
And Cena became a star because of his pure talent as well. You can discredit him all you like, but Cena's rise was a slow one to the top. He first challenged for the title at Backlash 03, and he wasn't ready to be a top guy then. But come Wrestlemania 21, in 2005, he was very much ready to be the top guy. At the time, he was almost universally accepted as the top guy and as the man. Listen to the crowd reaction when Cena was drafted to Raw.
[YOUTUBE]vU7lIAg2uJM[/YOUTUBE]
That sounds like a pretty damn favorable response for a man who "wasn't ready", and "booed out of every building" doesn't it?
I'm sorry, but when was Cena pushed to the bottom of the card for ANY of these men? He was featured in main event feuds with ALL of them, except for Jeff Hardy. And Hardy'a time at the top was short-lived, and he traded main event spots with Cena during that time. The only time Cena spent time outside of main event feuds(title feuds or main events) were after he returned from his pectoral injury and feuded with JBL, and after he lost the title to Edge at Backlash 09 and feuded with Big Show. NONE of the men you listed eclipsed Cena or pushed him down the card.
WHo has he taken a backseat too? Let's look at the names you listed:
Edge: Beat him at Unforgiven 2006 in a TLC match, kicking off his 13 month title reign. Beat him and Big Show in a triple threat match at WM 25 to win the World Heavyweight Championship.
Randy Orton: Beat him at Summerslam 2007, retained at Unforgiven 2007, and only lost the title due to injury. Beat Orton in an "I Quit" match at Breaking Point in 2009, and won their feud beating Orton in an IronMan match at Bragging Rights 2009. Yes, he lost to Orton at Hell In A Cell and Summerslam 09, but he won the feud, in main event matches.
Batista: Made him submit at Wrestlemania 26, beat him in a LMS match at Extreme Rules 2010, and an "I Quit" match at Over The Limit 2010. Yes, he lost their Summerslam match, but he definitively won his feud with Batista, in main event matches.
Jericho: Beat him at Summerslam 2005, beat him the next night on Raw in a "You're Fired" match. Beat Jericho in the main event of Survivor Series 2009, and again at Armageddon 2009. He won BOTH his feuds with Jericho, and NEVER took a backseat to him.
HHH: Made him tap out in the main event of Wrestlemania 22, pinned him clean the next month in the main event of Backlash 06. Lost to him at Night of Champions 08(in the main event, however), and made him submit in the Elimination Chamber 2010.
Punk: Defeated Punk numerous times on Raw, including making him tap out in about two minutes around Thanksgiving 2010. He lost his feud to Punk by losing consecutive matches at MITB and Summerslam, but he still didn't take a backseat to him. Who main evented Survivor Series 2011? Was it Punk winning the title? No, it was Rock and Cena vs Truth and Miz. Did Punk main event Elimination Chamber 2012? No, it was Cena and frickin Kane, for goodness sake. Yes, they're huge names, but it was still Cena, who was chosen to main event Wrestlemania 28 and Extreme Rules 2012 against Rock and Lesnar, the latter of which he beat.
With all of these men you listed, I'm failing to see how Cena was overshadowed by ANY of them.
See my above response as to how Cena has not been placed lower on the card or taken a backseat to anyone.
This is asinine. Again, love him or hate him, people are always, always interested in John Cena. And he's definitively the top draw of the company. How can men who work one date a year(Undertaker) and work 3-4 dates a year be considered bigger draws then Cena, who works year round? That;s so illogical I can't fathom it.
Jericho was a placeholder champion until Cena returned from injury, and Cena promptly took the title from him upon returning. As for poor Rey Rey? He won the WWE title, only to lose it two hours later to....John Cena. None of the men you listed above have A. Won more World Titles then John Cena, or B. Held the title longer the John Cena. While all of them are fantastic and necessary performers, one man doesn't carry a company, Cena has been the flagbearer while all these men were around and in their primes.
Now who's simply giving opinion, nothing more? Would these men, more tenured then Cena, agree to tap out to him if they weren't confident he could carry the load? That includes the son-in-law, the Icon in HBK, and main event fixtures during Cena's time in Edge, Orton, and Batista. Cena earned his spot, over those men, and nothing you say can change that fact.
Right, because 5 star matches happen because of one person.
Cena, as the company man, was every bit as responsible for making that match and the entire angle the success that it was. You couldn't have substituted someone else in that spot and made it work, you had to have the face of the company, and a man who could deliver a big-time match. A match isn't great because one man beats another, it's great because of two men working together to make magic. Punk was every bit as responsible, but to deny Cena's greatness in making that match what it was is silly. So how can you argue that the man who had every MOTY from 2004-2010 was out of his prime? I simply don't understand that, it's such an illogical concept. You can state all you want that his match with Cena was "all Michaels", but you're just plain wrong. Cena was just as responsible as Michaels for making that match a success, else it would have bombed. You can state it 52 more times, but it's a horrendous fallacy. Two to tango, remember?
And to clarify, the ONLY match of the year Michaels won in his first run was the ladder match with Razor at WM 10. Upon his return, he won three MOTY's. So tell me again, how is that him being out of his prime, exactly?
The Wrestling Observer end of year awards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wrestling_Observer_Newsletter_awards#Match_of_the_Year
Yet Cena was having good to great matches with Edge, Randy Orton, Bobby Lashley, Umaga, HHH, and HBK in 2006 and 2007. How is that possible if he was bad in the ring? And again, how was HBK, the man of 3 MOTY's in his second run, the better man then Cena when he tapped to him in the main event of Wrestlemania.
Simple answer: He wasn't.
You didn't note the sarcasm in me saying his feuds with Vince and The Spirit Squad were fantastic? His feud with Vince in 2006 was voted the WORST feud of the year. And he and HHH LOST their last match to Rated RKO, see New Years Revolution 2007, when HBK got he and HHH DQ'd by using a chair on Orton. They also lost at Cyber Sunday, in their only other match, so how did they win that feud, exactly?
He didn't let Cena win the title, Cena was the champ, and pinned Orton to win the match. And he won the titles with John Cena, something he failed to do with supposed "superior" competitor HHH. And yes, he beat Edge and Orton for the right to face Cena, but we know how that turned out, eh?
Actually, it was banned by Regal, with the stipulation that if Orton got DQ'd, he would lose the title. It's hard to take you serious when you get so many facts wrong. He may have "owned" Orton, but who won the feud? If you said Randy, you would be correct.
You skipped the Jericho feud which he lost. After Jericho won his feud with HBK, who did he lose the title and his feud with? If you said Cena, you would be right. He was on the losing end of his final match with Batista, which again, means he lost the feud. And Kozlov faded into utter obscurity after HBK beat him, so that win doesn't really hold much significance at this point. I'll take Cena beating Umaga for the first time over HBK beating Kozlov, as Umage went on to win several single's titles and was still portrayed as a dominant force. Kozlov? Not so much.
I'm still trying to figure out what, as it seems you overlooked quite a bit more then I possibly did.
That's just your opinion, nothing more. Cena has had more success in terms of achievements, and as I showed, HBK had more MOTY's in his second half of his career then he did his first, which shows that he was very much in his prime.
If you've bothered to read, I've pushed Cena's body of work over Shawn's. You stating that it was "just a gift" is again, your opinion, but the fact remains that he did make Shawn submit. And as extensively disproved your arguments using facts to show that Shawn was still very much in his prime, that renders your point there moot as well,
You got one of these correct, and I'll give you a hint: It's that Shawn is far and away losing this. As for the better man? Shawn was great in defeat, I'll give you that. But Cena is great in victory. And people who are great in victory are generally the better man over those great in defeat.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll