WWF Wrestler of the Decade: The Nineties

[Shocky]

Well screw it. I was going to build up to this slowly, but considering my best wrestler of (insert name) here threads flamed out faster then a noob arguing with Sly about John Cena, its time to go the big guns...

WWF, Wrestler, of the 90's. Some people will have obvious choices, while others will think about it a little tougher. What makes a wrestler for an entire decade? Is it longevity with the company? Is it the number of title reigns or days one has held the title? Is it having incredible matches, main eventing pay per views? Or does having one or two years negate all of that? Those are all things that can be brought up for debate in this thread.

Again, No polls with this thread. No one hiding and blindly posting something without coming in here and fighting for who you think is the best.

As for some of the nominees.

I think, for me at least, two guys stand out amongst the rest, and I'm pretty sure it's going to start a firestorm of all sorts of hell.

Bret Hart: 5 Time WWF champion during the 90's. 2 time IC Champion, 2 Time Tag Team Champion, and remember, this was at a time when winning belts actually meant something. He also was a two time King of the Ring winner, and a Royal Rumble winner, and became the first man in over a decade to be a Triple Crown Winner. He main evented two Wrestlemanias, and is largely responsible for launching the career of Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 13. He also was a two time PWI wrestler of the year throughout the 90's.

Shawn Michaels: 3 Time WWF Champion, 3 Time IC Champion, and 3 Time Tag Team Champion all during the 90's. He won two Royal Rumbles, won the European Championship to become the first Grand Slam Winner (Again, a huge accomplishment at the time). He main evented two Wrestlemanias and won 4 PWI match of the years in the 90s, plus was named PWI's wrestler of the year in 1996. *See I'm keeping the backstage stuff out of this, let's not bring it in here.


I think out of everyone those two stand proudly above.

The Undertaker, deserves some mention. He was a solid upper mid card guy and had tons of storylines with him in the mix. He was always something solid for people to watch, but building up to the main event, not being in the main event. You can't deny the deadman and his 3 title reigns, and impressive feat to say the least. He did take two of those titles off of Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin, something no one else will ever be able to say.

Hulk Hogan. A stretch, yes. However, Hogan was around until the mid 93, so that was a solid 3 1/2 years or a third of the decade controlled by Hogan. Hogan won 3 titles in the early 90's. Hogan is the figure of the 80's, but its' impossible to ignore his time on top during the early 90's.

Steve Austin: What Hogan was to the early part of the decade, Austin was to the back half. Austin re-launched the WWE into a legit threat once again with the Attitude Era. Austin would go on to win IC Gold, King of the Ring, 2 Royal Rumbles, Tag Gold, and Four WWF Titles. Impressive to say the least.

For me, it's Hart or HBK, and I can't decide quite yet, even though I'm leaning with Hart. His resume is just a little more chunky then Michaels. There's no denying that both were fan fucking tastic. Could you imagine what the WWF could have been like if the two of them got along? That's scary.

As for Austin and Hogan, I simply don't think being the man for less then 1/3 of a decade warrants them to be WWF Wrestler of the Decade. sure, they may have made a bigger impact in a shorter period of time, but longevity becomes an issue for me. Austin burned out and was done in less then 5 years, certainly not a decade.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Well, I'm going with Shawn Michaels here. Both Shawn and Bret had highly impressive decades here, to the extent I can hardly choose between them. Both have similar achievements, as Shocky pointed out. When thinking about WWE in the 90s, there is no way you can mention it without mentioning Hart and Michaels in the mix up. They were the biggest faces of the company at the time, with neither Hogan or Austin being around for a majority of it.

However as a huge Shawn fan I lean with him on this one. I have to base this on the matches I remember the most, and the ones I enjoyed the most. Shawn takes this one from that. I love his matches, and see something special in him that I see in no other wrestler. I'm a Hart fan for his in ring work, which is great. Both have great technical ability, as well as know how to work a crowd. However Shawn just has something extra, and that something is the reason I remember all of his matches.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm very split here between two guys: The Undertaker and HBK. Hart for me just missed too much time at the end of the decade, and really didn't come into his own until late 91 and left before 98. He was great the whole time he was there. Probably even the best while he was there, but I think that the 2 years at the end of his term there are just too much to allow him to be in the top 2, but he's for sure #3 on my list.

Now onto the main two. First off, HBK. What hasn't been said abotu this guy? He put on night after night some of the best matches there were. DId WWF almost die with him as champion? Yes. Was that mainly his fault? While it's debatable, I'd firmly say no. While Shawn was far from the best champion ever, WCW at the time was just so far ahead of WWF that one man simply couldn't take the whole blame. His in ring work never went down (to me at least), he had several moments that have stood the test of time, and he's one of the best ever.

On the other hand, we have the Deadman. Undertaker rolled into Survivor Series 1990, dominated the match and hasn't looked back since. His time in WWF in the 90s was for lack of a better word, phenominal. His feuds with Hogan (as brief as it was), Shawn, Austin, Hart, and of course Mankind and Kane are still just amazing to watch. His time at the end of the decade in the Corpoate Ministry still have never been rivaled as far as creepiness goes for me. His in ring accomplishments are great as well.

Overall, this comes down to wrestling vs. Sports Entertainment. If you're looking for athleticism, it's Shawn. For entertainment, it's Taker. But this is the Wrestler of the Decade, so it's HBK.

 

[Ptd]

Well, this is really a tough decision on my part. I probably started watching wrestling around 1998 or 1999, but I am well informed about the previous years. I am torn between two wrestlers here. Those two wrestlers are Steve Austin and The Undertaker. Both men in my opinon made the WWE what they are today (whether you would like to call it good or bad).

Well first let me analyze what Taker did with the 90's. He was probably the most profilic wrestler of the era, maybe of all time. He constantly altered his gimmick throughout the decade, but whatever the gimmick was, the fans ate their hearts out. When he first came into the WWE it early in the 90's and he was portrayed as this mysterious "deadman" with a mouthpiece in Paul Bearer. He was completely unstoppable when he started out, eventually beating The Immortal Hulk Hogan for the World Title. Let's fast forward a little, and we see him feuding with big men such as Yokozuna, King Kong Bundy, Kamala, and Giant Gonzalez. HE played that role so well, as he always came out on top against the big men in the bussiness. Fast forward some more, and we have some classic feuds with Shawn Michaels, Mankind, and Kane, and he won a title in that period of time. Fast forward just a little bit more and we have the most exciting Taker yet, for me at least, the leader of the ministry. I loved the minisrt so much, it was insane. Taker was just viewed as this evil leader of a cult, but the fans loved every second of it. All in all Taker was around the WWE for ALL of the 90's, and I think he has a pretty impressive ressume.

Now, onto "Stone Cold" Steve Austin. Let me tell you now, this man in my opinion IS THE REASON why WWE eventually beat WCW in the Monday Night Wars. Austin started in the WWE around the mid 90's, and rose to superstardome fairly quick. He debuted as the Ringmaster, bringing the Million Dollar Title along with him. Eventually, six months later at the King of the Ring he became "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, and won the Royal Rumble that same year, as well as capturing the title from Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania, Rewind some and we have the SCSA/McMahon feud, quite possibly the most talked about, well known, putting on the map, controversial feud ever. He became the most loved tweener of all time during this period of time, he wad everything WWE/WWF at that point in time.

Well, in the end I decided to go with...The Undertaker. The only reaason I picked The Deadman over The Texas Rattlesnake is simply because, he was around for ALL of the 90's, opposed to a fraction that Steve Austin was there for. I will admit thought, what Austin did was more impressive the Taker, but just.

 

[FlairFan2003]

It has to be Brett Hart or Undertaker.

Michaels was a midcarder and tag team wrestler till mid decade, then disappeared after only maybe three yrs as the company's top guy after 1998.

Austin was in "Stunning" in WCW till late 95/early 96. He hits his stride in 97, hit his peak in 98, and then missed significant time with injury in 99. No doubt he was a phenom, but so was Goldberg in WCW.

The Rock & HHH had nice half decades but only half decades, like Austin, and they didn't quite reach his level of star power but both were very close.

Hogan really only was around till March 92 (WM VIII). His brief comeback in 1993 lasted three matches, one a tag team match, the other a pinfall loss. He doesn't merit consideration.

Hart was on top of the company (or close) from 1990 till he left at the end of 97. His matches with Curt Henning, British Bulldog, and Rowdy Piper over the IC Title were some of the best in the company in the early part of the decade. He wrestled over 200 times per year nearly every year he worked there in that decade. Hart (or at least feuding with him) is what established both HBK and Austin as legitimate main event stars in the eyes of fans. Other than Hogan (who refused to wrestle him) name one top guy in the company Hart didn't wrestle against and beat between 90-97 ? Piper, Flair, HBK, Taker, Yokozuna, Austin, Hart defeated everyone. His work ethic was top notch, his matches always entertaining.

Taker was there the entire decade. He was (and still is) the guy who is always close to the top but rarely THE top guy. He's kinda the Dusty Rhodes of the WWE 1990's. No one ever accused Taker of being boring, he was always in title contention, and he could deliver great matches when given the opportunity, much better than the typical one dimensional punch slam wrestlers his size.

While Taker is probably the MVP of the post-Hulkamania era, for the 90's I would give WWE top nod to Hart simply because he was on top and away from the mid card more than Taker.

 

[Shocky]

I'm very split here between two guys: The Undertaker and HBK. Hart for me just missed too much time at the end of the decade, and really didn't come into his own until late 91 and left before 98. He was great the whole time he was there. Probably even the best while he was there, but I think that the 2 years at the end of his term there are just too much to allow him to be in the top 2, but he's for sure #3 on my list.

Now onto the main two. First off, HBK. What hasn't been said abotu this guy? He put on night after night some of the best matches there were. DId WWF almost die with him as champion? Yes. Was that mainly his fault? While it's debatable, I'd firmly say no. While Shawn was far from the best champion ever, WCW at the time was just so far ahead of WWF that one man simply couldn't take the whole blame. His in ring work never went down (to me at least), he had several moments that have stood the test of time, and he's one of the best ever.

On the other hand, we have the Deadman. Undertaker rolled into Survivor Series 1990, dominated the match and hasn't looked back since. His time in WWF in the 90s was for lack of a better word, phenominal. His feuds with Hogan (as brief as it was), Shawn, Austin, Hart, and of course Mankind and Kane are still just amazing to watch. His time at the end of the decade in the Corpoate Ministry still have never been rivaled as far as creepiness goes for me. His in ring accomplishments are great as well.

Overall, this comes down to wrestling vs. Sports Entertainment. If you're looking for athleticism, it's Shawn. For entertainment, it's Taker. But this is the Wrestler of the Decade, so it's HBK.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but the only problem I have with this is holding Hart's time against him at the end of the decade. Hart left in November of 1997, and HBK was gone by March of 1998. HBK wrestled all of 2 matches in 1998, so it's not exactly like that is much of a difference in time. Sure, Michaels hung around as the Commish, but his wrestling career was essentially over at the Rumble with his broken back, only a difference of two months really.

 

[klunderbunker]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but the only problem I have with this is holding Hart's time against him at the end of the decade. Hart left in November of 1997, and HBK was gone by March of 1998. HBK wrestled all of 2 matches in 1998, so it's not exactly like that is much of a difference in time. Sure, Michaels hung around as the Commish, but his wrestling career was essentially over at the Rumble with his broken back, only a difference of two months really.

That's a good point. And now that I think about it, Michaels was still in the tag scene even longer than Bret was. Based on this, I think I'll have to make this a two way tie. Bret also was gone for a long time in 1997, I beleive from WM to Survivor Series. Both guys missed significant time overall, and it's starting to look more and more like Taker should win this. While it's fairly obvious that Taker isn't on the same level as those two were in the ring, if you consider his size, it's arguable that he's the best big man ever. This is still one of the hardest debates I've seen on here yet. Factoring in all this, I think I'll have to switch this over to Taker, as it's too close between Hart and Michaels to break the tie.

 

[DeadmanInc.]

For me it's a competition between Undertaker and Bret Hart.

Based on consistency at the top, I'm going to say Undertaker. He has been a consistent draw as an upper-mid carder and main eventer throughout the 90's. He came in to the WWF and made an immediate impact by destroying the Hart foundation and he won the WWF title from Hulk Hogan (not many people can say that) in his first year in the company.

Besides being a consistent draw, Undertaker has actually improved wrestling wise throughout the decade, especially in 1996 with his feud with Mick Foley. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart's in ring routines and characters have generally been the same (though I guess that's because they've always been really good), while Undertaker's style drastically changed from the start of the decade to the end. That demonstrates just how versatile Mark Calaway can be.

His second title reign was his most lengthy to date. Lets not forget the whole Kane angle, which was one of the most interesting angles ever. It still continues sporadically today.

Undertaker was also involved in the one of the biggest storylines of the Attitude era, the whole Minstry of Darkness and the "higher power". He also gained his 3rd reign by beating Stone Cold. If I recall correctly, Undertaker is the only person in the 90's that beat Hulk Hogan and Stone Cold, both times for the WWF title. I think in the entire history of the company, The Rock is the only other person that has beaten Hogan and Stone cold, but neither for the title.



Now on to Bret Hart. There's no doubt in my mind that he was the best wrestler of the 90's. No one could deliver a maneuver like Bret Hart, and no one could sell a maneuver like Bret Hart. His IC title matches main evented several events because he was that damn good. He has one hell of a resume and all of them were meaningful title reigns. He made every championship that he had prestigious.

Without a doubt he is the person that propelled Stone Cold into superstardom. His epic submission match with Austin is easily one of the best matches of all time.

Fast forward a bit to the Team Canada angle and you have one of the most hated Heels in America and the most over Face in Canada. People who said Hart lacked mic skills were shut up as Hart's promos in this era were some of the best ever.


It's hard to decide between the two. Undertaker was there for the entire decade while Bret Hart wasn't. Also, Hart's final few months in WWF were rather stale and uneventful. The whole screw job incident made him seem rather childish, and in my opinion, stained his legacy.



I didn't place Shawn Michaels above Hart or Taker because I don't think he was that great after his first WWF Title reign. His second reign was cut short and surrounded with controversy with the whole "I lost my smile" incident. Then you have his third reign and the whole screwjob incident. There was so much hatred for Michaels at this time that most people tend to forget that he was even champion. Really, his first reign was his only good one. His other two reigns were forgettable.

 

[Davi323]

Before I even read the original post, the first name that popped into my head was Shawn Michaels, and Uncle Shocky's breakdown of what HBK accomplished in the 90s seals the deal for me. Bret Hart was a great wrestler during the 90s, Taker and Austin were very good as well. But, for consistency throughout the entire decade, I think I have to stay with HBK. The Rumble wins are impressive in an of themselves...but, when you consider his first Rumble win was starting out at the #1 position, its even more impressive. I can't take away from what Bret Hart, Taker or Stone Cold accomplished in the 90s, but, HBK to me, just was slightly more impressive, overall. This is a doozy of a decade to consider the top wrestler for...

 

[Big Sexy]

You have to give it to The Undertaker. It was called the decade of destruction for a reason. He was the only superstar to be there for the whole decade and throughout the entire decade he was always a main eventer. He won the heavyweight title 3 times and the tag titles 3 times and he had 8 of his 16 Wrestlemania wins during the 90's.

Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are the only other two who should be considered and although they were very impressive they weren't as good as Taker.

 

[Skillz]

The Undertaker wasn't exactly there for the "whole decade" like everyone is saying. He arrived in the WWF at the very end of 1990. He took 7 months off in 1994. And was injured for the last few months of 1999.

I agree that it's between Hart, HBK and Taker. But I would say Hart clearly takes it. He was the WWF champion more times than anyone else, and held the title cumulatively longer than anyone else during the decade. Up until 1997/1998, being WWF champion was a huge deal. It really meant something to be the champion at the time, before it got ****ed out in the late 90's. He was relied on to ensure that the title kept it's credibility, more than anyone else in that era. He was the most consistent main eventer during this time period, and had some classic feuds (against Owen, Austin and HBK). Not to mention, he was the best draw the WWF had from 1992-1997.

Bret Hart made two of the biggest WWE stars of the past 20 years (HBK and Austin) during the 90's. No one else can come close to saying that.

Also, the quality of matches that Hart had during the 90's are untouchable. Yes, HBK had many great matches too, but they weren't masterful pieces of storytelling like Bret's matches were. He took workrate to a whole new level, and became the mold for what a great technical wrestler should be.

Austin deserves a mention, but there is no way he is the wrestler of the 90's. He became a superstar in 1997, which leaves out 70% of the decade. If there was a wrestler of 1995-2004 then Austin would probably be the man.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

It has to be Bret Hart. No one else was like Bret Hart in the WWE at the time. He was one of the biggest fan favorites and also one of the biggest heels of the 90's. He has held more titles than then HBK and put on far more memorable match ups. He was also involved in some of the biggest feuds as well. He has made both Shawn Michaels and Stone Cold Steve Austin into superstars.

So in my opinion Bret Hart takes this one by a small margin over Shawn Michaels. As HBK himself also had an incredible decade as well.

 

[Emmet]

Has to be Bret Hart. With Taker a close second. HBK? Only really came into his own around late 1992 and was finished in Jan 1998. One decent WWF Title run, forfiets, controversey, Screwjob etc puts him out of the running IMO.

Bret Hart has more classic 5 star matches than any other wrestlers in the 1990s without a shadow of a doubt. Made Owen, HBK, Austin established wrestlers and formed one of the best stables ever in the 1997 Hart Foundation. Also then won 2 WCW World Ttitles to boot at the end of the decade. Has to be The Hitman.

 

[Johan]

I think its Shawn Michaels. For a few years, he literally carried the WWE when he was champion. He was a major draw to them and put on a lot of great matches. He wasn't around for the whole decade since his back injury in 1998 but he made a massive impact on the company.

Around the time that Michaels injured his back, I think that Stone Cold Steve Austin took over as the biggest superstar. He wasn't as good in the ring, but his major fueds and overall charisma made him a good draw.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Has to be Bret Hart. With Taker a close second. HBK? Only really came into his own around late 1992 and was finished in Jan 1998. One decent WWF Title run, forfiets, controversey, Screwjob etc puts him out of the running IMO.

That was HBK's fault?

Bret Hart has more classic 5 star matches than any other wrestlers in the 1990s without a shadow of a doubt. Made Owen, HBK, Austin established wrestlers and formed one of the best stables ever in the 1997 Hart Foundation. Also then won 2 WCW World Ttitles to boot at the end of the decade. Has to be The Hitman.

Have to disagree here. Today, it's Shawn Michaels renowned for brilliant quality matches. Use Wm as an example; it's widely accepted no one knows how to perform like he does in those big matches. Hart is a brilliant wrestler, don't get me wrong I enjoy his matches, but I don't believe he has more 'great' matches than Shawn Michaels.

 

[simpsons_fanatic742]

I think it's between the Undertaker and Bret Hart for me. Both of them had a great, great decade and both have a long list of achievements.

Bret Hart was incredibly successful in the 90s winning a ton of belts and tournaments whether it was RR or KOTR. He put on great matches and had amazing fueds, especially the one with HBK. He was one of the faces of the WWF for obvious reasons and although he left at the end, I still think he is the second best wrestler of the decade. And with that comes the best wrestler of the decade.

The Undertaker wins this for me for many reasons. First, he had some of the most memorable fueds during this time and led one of the best stables in the Ministry of Darkness. His in-ring work is outstanding for a man his size and I believe he can lay claim to the best big man ever. Second, he was also one of the most entertaining and terrifying wrestlers to watch back then. Everyone got chills when he would cut a cryptic promo, whether he was talking or making things go crazy, like lightning and light malfunctions, whatever it was. He captured the crowd with whatever he was doing. He always managed to stay in the main event scene and was always a threat to the title.

Again, just personal opinion here, but I think that the Undertaker was the best wrestler of the 90s with Hart second and HBK third.

 

[MisterRob]

Have to disagree here. Today, it's Shawn Michaels renowned for brilliant quality matches. Use Wm as an example; it's widely accepted no one knows how to perform like he does in those big matches. Hart is a brilliant wrestler, don't get me wrong I enjoy his matches, but I don't believe he has more 'great' matches than Shawn Michaels.

The threads talking about the 90's not today.

I have to go with Bret Hart for this one, because the 90's was Bret Hart's era and he didn't disappoint in any way. Others have pointed out all the reasons I entirely agree with and won't repeat, and the fact that matches like the Ironman match with Shawn Michaels and the I Quit match with Steve Austin are some of the greatest matches in WrestleMania history just prove this claim during this time period. He was the hardest working wrestler in the 90's, there's no question to it, and he never had a bad match. Shawn Michaels time during the 90's doesn't even come close to Bret Hart's. (yes, I'm exaggerating)

 

[MisterRob]

Based on consistency at the top, I'm going to say Undertaker. He has been a consistent draw as an upper-mid carder and main eventer throughout the 90's. He came in to the WWF and made an immediate impact by destroying the Hart foundation and he won the WWF title from Hulk Hogan (not many people can say that) in his first year in the company.

Besides being a consistent draw, Undertaker has actually improved wrestling wise throughout the decade, especially in 1996 with his feud with Mick Foley. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart's in ring routines and characters have generally been the same (though I guess that's because they've always been really good), while Undertaker's style drastically changed from the start of the decade to the end. That demonstrates just how versatile Mark Calaway can be.

His second title reign was his most lengthy to date. Lets not forget the whole Kane angle, which was one of the most interesting angles ever. It still continues sporadically today.

Undertaker was also involved in the one of the biggest storylines of the Attitude era, the whole Minstry of Darkness and the "higher power". He also gained his 3rd reign by beating Stone Cold. If I recall correctly, Undertaker is the only person in the 90's that beat Hulk Hogan and Stone Cold, both times for the WWF title. I think in the entire history of the company, The Rock is the only other person that has beaten Hogan and Stone cold, but neither for the title.

I don't agree with the argument about Undertaker being there for the entire decade so he naturally wins. Bret Hart throughout the 90's worked a schedule so far beyond anything the Undertaker did. Bret Hart was the hardest working wrestler in the WWE, without question.. he didn't take time off, he wasn't injured for any length of time, and he gave everything night after night in matches, feuds, and championship reigns that will stand the test of time. Undertaker was around the entire decade sure, but his schedule wasn't as demanding as Bret Hart's or Shanw Michaels, he was injured several times for long periods of time, was absent from the product entirely several times, and his feuds and matches don't stand up against Bret Hart's or Shawn Michaels in my opinion.

And the short lived phantom of the opera mask the Undertaker wore just takes him out of the running entirely, in my opinion.

 

[ThePhenomenalAlexSlack]

Hart was good, but it's got to be HBK.

The Hitman was consistent, but HBK was innovative. He was the first to win the rumble from #1, he was in the first ladder match, the first hell in a cell match, the first big iron man match, the first grand slam champion, and Degeneration X could be considered the real beginning of the attitude era.

While Hart was always entertaining, nobody had more memorable moments that Shawn. During his title run in 96 he was a better face that Hart ever was, and he practically invented the likable heel during the DX days. He also was intercontinental champion when that was a big deal, and those runs were just as exciting as his world title runs. Even in the early 90's before he really rose up to the main event you could just tell that he was something special.

No disrespect to the Taker and the Hitman, but HBK WAS the 90's.

 

[DJ]

Bret Hart.Simply because the guy never had a bad outing I know of.The man had great match after great match and always put 100% into his performances.Even when laced with crappy angles(cough Dr.Iaasc Yankem DDS cough) he never thought of phoning it in.Simply 100% 24/7.

Now heres why I didn't pick Undertaker........have any of his title regins actully stood out from the crowd?His first was unimpressive.......he was stripped of it and won it with a little help from the Nature Boy.Don't hate me,I love the Undertaker but his title regins don't stand out like Brets.And when Bret won or lost his belts there was always a buzz.With Undertaker.............I just can't recall it.

Shawn Michaels is a close second.Like Bret always 100% effort into matches.Always 100% no matter what crap he got laced with.Always 100% on the microphone and always on top of his game till "the injury." Shawn,for me, is the face of the 90's decade along with Austin..........but simply alone on matches Bret Hart takes it.

 

[MisterRob]

Hart was good, but it's got to be HBK.

The Hitman was consistent, but HBK was innovative. He was the first to win the rumble from #1, he was in the first ladder match, the first hell in a cell match, the first big iron man match, the first grand slam champion, and Degeneration X could be considered the real beginning of the attitude era.

While Hart was always entertaining, nobody had more memorable moments that Shawn. During his title run in 96 he was a better face that Hart ever was, and he practically invented the likable heel during the DX days. He also was intercontinental champion when that was a big deal, and those runs were just as exciting as his world title runs. Even in the early 90's before he really rose up to the main event you could just tell that he was something special.

No disrespect to the Taker and the Hitman, but HBK WAS the 90's.

Innovative? Bret Hart was the first real "small man" in the WWF to get a chance to be World champion and the face of the company in a world of big men who dominated the main event scene. If it wasn't for Bret Hart paving the way, being a success with his opportunity, and allowing Vince to have faith in that change, Shawn Michaels would never have gotten his chance, or accomplished many of the things he did as World champion and the "main event". Bret Hart was the first true King of the Ring. He did what very few could ever do and something I'm not aware of any other example of, by a double face/heel switch in his match with Steve Austin. Bret Hart was the first to be a heel in the US and a face in Canada and the rest of the world. Bret was the first Intercontinental champion (that I'm aware of) who headlined a PPV over the World champion. Bret Hart was just as innovative and impactful, if not more so, then Shawn Michaels.

And this claim that Michaels was a bigger face then Hart is extremely flawed. It could be argued Michaels was a bigger face in the US in 96, for sure.. but when you compare the face that Bret Hart was across the whole WORLD Michaels doesn't even come close. Hart was loved in the US in his day, he was loved in Canada, and he was a huge face and draw all around the rest of the world where Michaels doesn't even come close to how loved Hart was in Europe, Germany, you name it.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The threads talking about the 90's not today.

I apologise, the effect I was going for is that even today, people remember Shawn's matches from since he started as being great. He's someone who almost every WWE fan agrees can put on a great match, and get a great match out of anyone. And the 90s were, arguably, the best time in his career.

 

[ThePhenomenalAlexSlack]

Innovative? Bret Hart was the first real "small man" in the WWF to get a chance to be World champion and the face of the company in a world of big men who dominated the main event scene. If it wasn't for Bret Hart paving the way, being a success with his opportunity, and allowing Vince to have faith in that change, Shawn Michaels would never have gotten his chance, or accomplished many of the things he did as World champion and the "main event". Bret Hart was the first true King of the Ring. He did what very few could ever do and something I'm not aware of any other example of, by a double face/heel switch in his match with Steve Austin. Bret Hart was the first to be a heel in the US and a face in Canada and the rest of the world. Bret was the first Intercontinental champion (that I'm aware of) who headlined a PPV over the World champion. Bret Hart was just as innovative and impactful, if not more so, then Shawn Michaels.

And this claim that Michaels was a bigger face then Hart is extremely flawed. It could be argued Michaels was a bigger face in the US in 96, for sure.. but when you compare the face that Bret Hart was across the whole WORLD Michaels doesn't even come close. Hart was loved in the US in his day, he was loved in Canada, and he was a huge face and draw all around the rest of the world where Michaels doesn't even come close to how loved Hart was in Europe, Germany, you name it.

I think you could argue that Randy Savage was the first little man to get it, he wasn't much bigger than Hart. as far as his status of both a face and a heel goes, that only worked because he was canadian and you could make the same point that while they were feuding people in the USA loved HBK and hated Brett, same with the Undertaker during the summer of 1997.

More people were behind HBK during his "Boyhood Dream" run than Hart ever had, and while internationally people may have preferred The Hitman (lets face it, a lot of them would take anybody who ISN'T American) as far as the general presence in most of the arenas they broadcasted from at the time and the general public watched it was pro-Michaels.

Hart was one of the greatest ever, and I was a huge fan back in the day, but he always seemed so dry. Not that he was boring in any sense but HBK was much more exciting to watch. It comes down to what I said before, I based this one who had the biggest moments in the 90's and that would be by far HBK.

 

[Dead Kennedy]

Three words for ya. Bret. Hitman. Hart.

Bret Hart is one of the greatest of all time, so good at wrestling nobody cared if his charisma and mic skills weren't top notch. I have NEVER seen a bad match with Bret Hart (in WWF; WCW is another matter) and although I admit I have not watched his every match, 99,9% of the time, he delivered. Although he did little to shape the end of the '90s, he dominated for the majority of the decade. He was one of the last stars of the "old" WWF. Hitman forever, dude.

I'll also have to give some props to Stone Cold. So 100% into each and every moment of his given TV time, I doubt there's ever been a guy who's given as much for the business. The guy practically gave birth to the Attitude Era together with McMahon (now there's disgusting imagery right there...) and delivered some of my all-time favorite feuds. His crap WCW and ECW work keeps him from landing the top spot, though. That and the fact that Bret Hart is better than Stone Cold.

 

[Skillz]

I think its Shawn Michaels. For a few years, he literally carried the WWE when he was champion. He was a major draw to them and put on a lot of great matches.

Last time I checked, carrying the WWE doesn't mean giving it the worst ratings in it's entire history, like HBK did as champion in 1996. Major draw? What revisionist crap have you been drinking?

The Undertaker wins this for me for many reasons. First, he had some of the most memorable fueds during this time and led one of the best stables in the Ministry of Darkness. His in-ring work is outstanding for a man his size and I believe he can lay claim to the best big man ever. Second, he was also one of the most entertaining and terrifying wrestlers to watch back then. Everyone got chills when he would cut a cryptic promo, whether he was talking or making things go crazy, like lightning and light malfunctions, whatever it was. He captured the crowd with whatever he was doing. He always managed to stay in the main event scene and was always a threat to the title.

This post has "Undertaker is my favourite wrestler, so he must be the wrestler of the 90's" written all over it.

Taker had a really good decade, but he was NEVER the top guy in the company. And when he was given a run with the title, it was completely overshadowed by the Hart/USA feud.

The Hitman was consistent, but HBK was innovative. He was the first to win the rumble from #1, he was in the first ladder match, the first hell in a cell match, the first big iron man match, the first grand slam champion, and Degeneration X could be considered the real beginning of the attitude era.

Bret Hart was just as, if not more innovative than Shawn Michaels. It was Hart who introduced the ladder match to the WWE, not Michaels. Hart was the first wrestler to ever go through a table on WWE television (Survivor Series 1995). And he did it in a meaningful way that added to the story of his match, unlike all of the ECW crap. And everyone knows what happened at WrestleMania 13, with the face/heel switch.

Hart accomplished way more than HBK in the 90's. He was the first triple crown champion in over 10 years, when all 3 titles still meant something. He was only the second wrestler in history to win the WWE title 5 times, during a time when winning it 5 times was a massive achievement.

While Hart was always entertaining, nobody had more memorable moments that Shawn.

That's your opinion, but I disagree with it.

During his title run in 96 he was a better face that Hart ever was,

Which must be the reason why he was the second worst drawing champion is WWE history, right?

and he practically invented the likable heel during the DX days.

LOL. Ever heard of Stone Cold Steve Austin? He was the likeable heel a whole year before DX came around.

More people were behind HBK during his "Boyhood Dream" run than Hart ever had,

LOL, again. During HBK's "boyhood dream" run, the ratings went to an all time low, and by the end of it he was getting booed in MSG. Bret Hart was seen as a hero to millions of kids all over the world during the 90's. There really is no comparison.

and while internationally people may have preferred The Hitman (lets face it, a lot of them would take anybody who ISN'T American) as far as the general presence in most of the arenas they broadcasted from at the time and the general public watched it was pro-Michaels.

Wow, are you really saying that Hart was a better international draw than HBK because he's Canadian? That's ridiculous.


The only reason why so many people say HBK is the wrestler of the 90's is because he's still wrestling today. Simple as that.