Would Shawn Michaels Make Your Personal Top 100?

[Loss]

I guess Patterson is a poor shorthand for what I was trying to get at. My point is that it doesn't take more than a good grasp of the basics to have a solid TV match. Like, a lot of people are really high on Dolph Ziggler, but you can't tell me that he isn't formulaic. It's when you go beyond that that the all-time greats make their mark.

Wrestling is at its best very simple, straightforward and easy to understand. One of the biggest problems with wrestling now is how overthought it is. There is nothing wrong with formula. Formulas exist because they work. The key to comparing wrestlers is that not all of them execute the formula equally well. Originality is a very overrated concept in working a wrestling match, yet there is always a desire to reinvent the wheel.

 

Anyway, if I can throw out a somewhat random aside, I think it's a shame that to my knowledge, HBK never had a proper match against Regal or Finlay. I think their respective styles are ideally suited for each other in terms of complementing their strengths and hiding their weaknesses.

Really? How? I'm not sure they suit each other well at all. Regal and Finlay are all about attention to detail and precision. Shawn is all about melodrama and facial expressions. Not sure how they get matched up.

 

I also find it interesting that Shawn's big matches the last few years are much more overwrought and laid on thick than any Patterson special I can recall. "I'm sorry. I love you." Really?

[Gregor]

Instead of just randomly spouting out guys and the occasional match, would it hurt to go over (again) the qualities that Shawn did well and did not do well?

As has been stated in this thread (or the other one - don't remember which), this paints Michaels in the worst possible light. Michaels, for whatever reason, was generally greater than the sum of his parts. His best quality was putting together entertaining matches - that or athleticism, but I'm aware that you don't put much stock in that. Most wrestlers were better when paired with Michaels, and not just because they were given opportunities to have longer matches or anything like that. I'm trying to think of someone who was worse when wrestling Michaels. Maybe Bulldog or Jannetty - I guess Bret Hart could be here, although it's not like his matches with Michaels were garbage.

 

Anyway, an attribute-by-attribute checklist for Shawn Michaels would probably make him look worse than he was, but I guess that's part of the problem with him. If your strongest point is entertaining a live crowd, and you're not excellent at any of the small underpinning stuff, then you've kind of set a ceiling for yourself. The output probably won't be boring, but it'll be devoid of a lot of what makes people connect emotionally, especially on the second view, third view, and so on.

[Chess Knight]

Where do people stand on Michaels v Inoki?

[Matt D]

Instead of just randomly spouting out guys and the occasional match, would it hurt to go over (again) the qualities that Shawn did well and did not do well?

As has been stated in this thread (or the other one - don't remember which), this paints Michaels in the worst possible light. Michaels, for whatever reason, was generally greater than the sum of his parts. His best quality was putting together entertaining matches - that or athleticism, but I'm aware that you don't put much stock in that. Most wrestlers were better when paired with Michaels, and not just because they were given opportunities to have longer matches or anything like that. I'm trying to think of someone who was worse when wrestling Michaels. Maybe Bulldog or Jannetty - I guess Bret Hart could be here, although it's not like his matches with Michaels were garbage.

 

Anyway, an attribute-by-attribute checklist for Shawn Michaels would probably make him look worse than he was, but I guess that's part of the problem with him. If your strongest point is entertaining a live crowd, and you're not excellent at any of the small underpinning stuff, then you've kind of set a ceiling for yourself. The output probably won't be boring, but it'll be devoid of a lot of what makes people connect emotionally, especially on the second view, third view, and so on.

 

Are those matches ultimately hollow when broken down and analyzed then? (and I'm honestly asking. 96 WWF is a hole of mine, as I fully admit).

[Exposer]

Shawn would make my top 100 but I'm going to list the guys who'd definitely be ahead of him.

 

U.S.

Terry Funk

Buddy Rose

Ric Flair

Arn Anderson

Ricky Steamboat

Brian Pillman

Dustin Rhodes

Eddie Guerrero

Rey Mysterio

Bret Hart

Vader

Jerry Lawler

Steve Austin

Mick Foley

Randy Savage

Tito Santana

John Cena

Christian

Curt Hennig

2 Cold Scorpio

Chris Benoit

Finlay

William Regal

Tajiri

Bobby Eaton

Ricky Morton

Barry Windham

Stan Hansen

Sgt. Slaughter

Terry Gordy

Steve Williams

Owen Hart

Greg Valentine

 

Japan

Jushin Liger

Toshiaki Kawada

Mitsuharu Misawa

Kenta Kobashi

Jumbo Tsuruta

Akira Taue

Jun Akiyama

Shinya Hashimoto

Genechiro Tenryu

Aja Kong

Bull Nakano

Akira Hokuto

 

Mexico

El Hijo Del Santo

Blue Panther

El Dandy

Negro Casas

 

I almost haven't been exposed to Europe at all and some other top names like Race and Dundee I'm skeptical about because I've seen so little of what's out there of them although I would need to really ponder on it.

 

To answer Matt's question Shawn more often than not delivered extremely well in big time matches such as Razor (Mania X), Jericho (Mania XIX), Cena (Mania 23), Flair (Mania 24), and both Mania matches with Taker. There are other great performances or at least memorable big time matches scattered around too like Jannetty on Raw in 93, the Jarrett match at IYH in 95, the SS Ladder Match with Razor, Mind Games with Foley, and the HITC with Taker. I personally feel his best individual performances were in the Midnight Rockers and Rockers in the AWA and WWF. He was a tremendous FIP and could sell his ass off. The volume of great matches the Rockers have from 86-91 is probably pretty high and I'm a firm believer that they're the greatest tag team in WWF/E history. Shawn could bump like a lunatic too and I can confirm that just from watching him manage Diesel on the 94 Yearbook. So yeah, I believe Shawn's positives were that he could deliver in big settings, was a great FIP with the Rockers, could bump really well, and (I failed to mention this earlier) was great in gimmick matches (Ladder, No DQ, Ironman, HITC).

 

His negatives are there too though. During the mid-90s when he would pitch fits in mid-match is a major issue. The Vader match at SS is an extreme example of that. Post-comeback he's pretty hit or miss if you ask me. His matches with HHH were boring as hell and they participated in the most grueling (boredom) gimmick match to watch ever (HITC Bad Blood). Once 2008 rolled around he almost wasn't good at all. He nearly killed Jericho in the No Mercy Ladder Match and was a pathetic excuse for a wrestler at the end of the night. I forgot to mention his matches with Angle which are terribly overrated although I find the Vengeance match to be pretty good. Essentially, I feel his negatives would be mid-match tantrums, blowing spots post-comeback, and really coming off as average or only slightly above average (maybe) on a regular day if he wasn't in one of his good-great stretches.

 

I like Shawn in the ring with the Rockers a lot and enjoy him in stretches from 92-98 and in spurts from 02-10. Like I mentioned above, he'd be in my top 100 and I actually think he'd be right at 50 because if I counted right I have 49 people ahead of him that I'm positive of.

[NintendoLogic]

Wrestling is at its best very simple, straightforward and easy to understand. One of the biggest problems with wrestling now is how overthought it is. There is nothing wrong with formula. Formulas exist because they work. The key to comparing wrestlers is that not all of them execute the formula equally well. Originality is a very overrated concept in working a wrestling match, yet there is always a desire to reinvent the wheel.

I agree about formulas overall, but the very best matches take the formulas and expand upon them or provide new twists.

 

Really? How? I'm not sure they suit each other well at all. Regal and Finlay are all about attention to detail and precision. Shawn is all about melodrama and facial expressions. Not sure how they get matched up.

Going back to my initial post in this thread, Shawn is a big picture guy while Regal and Finlay are little things guys. Shawn would provide the structure while Regal/Finlay would fill in the details. Also, Shawn's matches are built around selling while Regal/Finlay's matches are built around stiff, credible offense. Granted, Shawn doesn't like working stiff, which kind of throws a monkey wrench in things.

[Dylan Waco]

Shawn's matches are built around bumping and the big moment, not selling, at least not in quite some time. By the time Regal and Finlay were in the same company with him I can honestly say that I don't know of any two wrestlers I would find to be less complimentary to Shawn's style of match than those two

[NintendoLogic]

I don't know of too many matches he didn't spend the bulk of working from underneath. And even if his selling wasn't picture-perfect, they'd put enough of a beating on him to garner him plenty of sympathy.

 

As for HBK/Angle at Wrestlemania, I actually think Shawn was the one who held the match together. Seriously, go back and watch it. Pretty much everything good in the match is from Shawn.

[FLIK]

But the point isn't "I saw a few good matches from wrestler x on an 80's set so now I rate him above Shawn."

Along these lines, whear do ppl stand on ranking older wrestlers who there just isn't much footage available of? Personally it's not something I do (else i'd have Zoltan Boscik in my top 20 or something ) but I have known several fans that would.

[Mad Dog]

My problem with Michaels is that it all goes to hell once he does the kip up. Nothing gets remembered, he never sells any of the match that just took place. That just bugs the shit out of me. Hogan and Sting would go back to selling if their comebacks failed. If Hogan missed the leg drop, he usually lost because that was all he had. If you survived the Sting onslaught he went back to selling everything.

 

Hogan getting bloodied and Hulking Up was epic, Sting having enough and no selling was awesome, Michaels kip up was groan inducing most of the time.

 

To me, Michaels as a top level guy will always be summed up in Sid getting massive cheers for giving Jose Lothario a heart attack and then beating Michaels for the title when he was supposed to be the company's ace.

[Ricky Jackson]

My appreciation for Shawn probably peaked around 94 or so. Loved the Rockers. Loved the initial heel run. Probably my second favorite wrestler at that point (next to Bret). Soured on him in 96, as he replaced my hero and became a lame, forced babyface. Always liked him more as a heel (as a singles wrestler anyway). Missed most of his early-comeback during a stretch where I was off wrestling, but enjoyed his last few years, especially 07-09. I would still put him in my top 20, but he's slipping more and more with each passing year.

[Mad Dog]

But the point isn't "I saw a few good matches from wrestler x on an 80's set so now I rate him above Shawn."

Along these lines, whear do ppl stand on ranking older wrestlers who there just isn't much footage available of? Personally it's not something I do (else i'd have Zoltan Boscik in my top 20 or something ) but I have known several fans that would.

 

It depends. I've worked with a lot of guys over the years that went to all of the same shows in the 60s and 70s. If they were all to praise the same guys as being good workers, I might feel comfortable ranking them off their opinions.

[Gregor]

Are those matches ultimately hollow when broken down and analyzed then? (and I'm honestly asking. 96 WWF is a hole of mine, as I fully admit).

I don't think that (peak, mid-'90s) Michaels' selling/pacing is bad or anything; his offense is a weak point, but he takes his opponents' moves well. So it's not like, if athleticism and quickness don't move you at all, then you're left with nothing.

 

"Ultimately hollow" is a hard judgment to make. I'd say no, but I'm a Michaels fan. It depends on what you're looking for, I guess. The 1-2-3 Kid vs. Owen Hart from King of the Ring is a match that, stripped of the action and super-fast pace, is kind of hollow. That's fine with me; it's a four-minute match. If a twenty-minute match had nothing but action and a good pace, I'd probably be less satisfied. I don't need every wrestling match to say a whole lot.

 

I think that the high point of Michaels' singles career was his face run in 1995, and I think that he got a bit worse in 1996. In 1995, he generally had to work for his comebacks. He had a lot of hope spots that got cut off, and they were often more convincing than merely elbowing out of a chinlock. In 1996, he was content sometimes just to duck a clothesline, hit the forearm, and begin the finishing stretch that way. I'm more bothered by a lazy setup to the finishing sequence than I am by a lazy finishing sequence. If the guy comes across as having earned his comeback, as having fought hard to regain control of the match, then the match feels less "hollow" to me.

 

Specific examples: Shawn Michaels vs. British Bulldog (MSG, 10/6/95) and Shawn Michaels vs. 1-2-3 Kid (RAW from 3/96). His offense is better in the RAW match, even quite good; it's not good in the Bulldog match, but I think the way that they set up Michaels making his comeback more than makes up for it. I don't know if that's because of Michaels' selling, the Bulldog's offense, the layout of the match, the pacing - it's just a Michaels match that I feel illustrates my point. I should note that I like both, but the MSG one feels better and more substantial despite execution issues that aren't present in the RAW one.

[NintendoLogic]

I have to say, I feel very weird being put in the position of Michaels defender. I'm much more comfortable arguing against "Shawn is the GOAT" than I am arguing against "Shawn isn't top 100."

[Matt D]

Specific examples: Shawn Michaels vs. British Bulldog (MSG, 10/6/95) and Shawn Michaels vs. 1-2-3 Kid (RAW from 3/96). His offense is better in the RAW match, even quite good; it's not good in the Bulldog match, but I think the way that they set up Michaels making his comeback more than makes up for it. I don't know if that's because of Michaels' selling, the Bulldog's offense, the layout of the match, the pacing - it's just a Michaels match that I feel illustrates my point. I should note that I like both, but the MSG one feels better and more substantial despite execution issues that aren't present in the RAW one.

Barring crazy things like the imminent birth of my daughter, I'll try to watch Shawn vs Bulldog tomorrow.

[Dylan Waco]

I have to say, I feel very weird being put in the position of Michaels defender. I'm much more comfortable arguing against "Shawn is the GOAT" than I am arguing against "Shawn isn't top 100."

I don't know that there is a lot of arguing for or against and that's fine.

 

I do think it's interesting that so many people are high enough on Shawn where they see him as top fifty and above. That is semi-surprising to me only because with everything I have seen over the last several years it would be hard for me to even fathom a case for him that high. But a lot of people like his post-comeback stuff for reasons I'll never really understand.

[soup23]

I think his post-comeback run looks upon fondly because of the ranking of high end matches people have from that era. I don't know where you stand on the big matches of Shawn's post comeback run Dyaln but I have no problem saying the matches vs. HHH at Summerslam, the two Taker matches, the two Cena matches, and the Jericho WM match were all great matches. I can see more arguments against the Flair WM match but I am also a big fan of it. That is 7 matches post comeback that I would personally see placed in the top 100 WWF/WWE matches of all time. That is pretty good and looks better in retrospect that the week in week out subpar performances he gave. Shawn I think had really big highs post comeback. I am also not including the Angle/Shawn match which while I am sure will not have many defenders here would elsewhere.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't necessarily disagree with that (well I might disagree on where the matches would place overall) which is why I think Shawn is the exact opposite of how some of portrayed him in this thread. I think Shawn is better in snapshots than as a big picture. By that I mean you can take pieces of matches or even matches in any given year and say "this guy is great." But when you pull back you see a lot of empty periods, boring periods, weak periods and bad wrestling.

[soup23]

One guy that both you and Loss listed was Brain Pillman and that is someone that I can see arguing that Shawn was better than. As far as high end matches I only see the Windham/Pillman and Pillman/Badd comparing to Shawns top stuff and Shawn definitely has longevity in his corner too.

[Dylan Waco]

It's funny because I discussed Pillman v. Shawn on the phone with my brother (Exposer) earlier as a guy I was surprised people hadn't honed in on as a contentious pick.

 

From where I stand Pillman is pretty easily better than Shawn. I wouldn't argue too hard if someone wanted to say that Shawn's absolute best matches are better than Pillman's. But I don't think Shawn was ever as good in any role he was in as Pillman was as the underdog/high flying babyface from 89-92. I honestly think that is one of the great babyface runs in history and it is primarily forgotten in my view because of the fact that it wasn't followed up on with a real main event run despite the fact that there was a real opportunity for it.

 

In the particulars I think Pillman showed a ton of range during that period as he was really good as a tag wrestler with a variety of partners, could carry garbage wrestlers like Scotty Flamingo, was really good at your shorter burst of energy type of tv matches, always stepped up when in there with main eventers (see the Luger, Windham, Rude or Flair matches), and I'm a guy who thinks the Liger feature match holds up better than a lot of Shawn's best matches. It's a run that as a nice blend of everything and feels like a complete spectrum of what you would want from that sort of babyface.

 

The subsequent heel run I'm not as high on, but compared to Shawn's initial heel run? I'll take Pillman every time. Stuff like the Starcade tag with Windham and the awesome SN match v. Douglas are really great matches even if I think the Blondes were overrated. And I'd still take the Blondes over boring heel Shawn (I honestly thought Sherri was the best part of his act at that point).

 

After that? Well there isn't much, though you do have random things like the Mero match which is a real flash of greatness from Pillman. Shawn was clearly better from 94-97, but I don't think it makes up the ground Pillman built up in the previous five years. Not even close really.

 

Of course that ignores Shawn's Rockers run, but it also ignores the comeback stuff I don't like

[Dylan Waco]

Expanding to international guys:

 

Guys I would definitely rate ahead of Shawn

 

Jim Breaks

Johnny Saint

Marty Jones

Akira Hokuto

Megumi Kudo

Aja Kong

Bull Nakano

Jaguar Yokota

Chigusa Nagayo

Jushin Liger

Sano

Misawa

Kawada

Akiyama

Taue

Kobashi

Kikuchi

Doug Furnas

Dan Kroffat

El Samurai

Ohtani

Great Sasuke

Dick Togo

Taka Minchinoku

Alexander Otsuka

Daisuke Ikeda

Yuki Ishikawa

Saito

Giant Baba

Jumbo

Tenryu

Choshu

Yatsu

Kimura

Yamazaki

Fujinami

Fujiwara

Volk Han

Tamura

Maeda

Hashimoto

Gran Hamada

Psicosis

Juventud Guerrera

La Parka

El Dandy

MS-1

Sangre Chicana

El Satanico

El Hijo Del Santo

Blue Panther

Negro Casas

Mascarita Sagrada

Black Terry

Negro Navarro

Emilo Charles Jr.

Fuerza Guerrera

Pirata Morgan

 

 

Guys I would with some mild reservations

 

Hoshino

Kobayashi

Dynamite Kansai

Satomura

Kanemoto

Takayama

Ricky Fuyuki

Masa Fuchi

Jerry Estrada

La Fiera

Javier Cruz

Atlantis

Solar I

 

Guys I'm unsure of

 

Hayabusa

Kanemura

Yugi Nagata

Oya

Masato Tanaka

Masa Chono

Gedo

Akira Nogami

Ultimo Dragon

Sayama

Tamon Honda

Gran Cochise

Onita

Super Astro

Villano III

(about twenty Joshi gals I haven't watched in forever could be added in here as well)

 

Again probably a bunch I"m missing

[NintendoLogic]

I have to say, I feel very weird being put in the position of Michaels defender. I'm much more comfortable arguing against "Shawn is the GOAT" than I am arguing against "Shawn isn't top 100."

I don't know that there is a lot of arguing for or against and that's fine.

 

I do think it's interesting that so many people are high enough on Shawn where they see him as top fifty and above. That is semi-surprising to me only because with everything I have seen over the last several years it would be hard for me to even fathom a case for him that high. But a lot of people like his post-comeback stuff for reasons I'll never really understand.

 

Like I said in the other thread, I think where you rate Shawn historically depends on how highly you rate stuff outside of WWE and WCW. I think peak All Japan is as good as wrestling gets, but the New Japan heavies are more fun than great, junior stuff doesn't really hold up that well a lot of the time, joshi is hit or miss, and I actively dislike shoot style and deathmatch/garbage wrestling. And a lot of the US workers being placed above Shawn are midcarders or territorial guys. Arn Anderson, to take one example, was great at what he did, but he also reached a level he was comfortable with and didn't really go beyond it. It seems unfair to penalize Shawn for not trying to work on those levels.

 

More than anything, though, I think your rating of Shawn depends on highly you regard his 1994-1997 period. I regard it very highly and consider his 1996 in particular an annus mirabilis. But if you think that Shawn's 1996 wasn't even as good as Rick Rude's 1992 (not a knock on Rude, that was a great run too), you'll rate him significantly lower.

[soup23]

Expanding to international guys:

 

Guys I would definitely rate ahead of Shawn

 

Jim Breaks - haven't seen enough to rate

Johnny Saint - haven't seen enough to rate

Marty Jones - haven't seen enough to rate

Akira Hokuto - Agreed

Megumi Kudo - Agreed

Aja Kong - Agreed

Bull Nakano - Agreed

Jaguar Yokota - Agreed

Chigusa Nagayo - Agreed

Jushin Liger- Agreed

Sano- I don't know, Sano has some great matches with Liger and ended up having a good shoot style run but don't think this is a slam dunk

Misawa - Agreed

Kawada - Agreed

Akiyama - Agreed

Taue - Agreed

Kobashi - Agreed

Kikuchi - Disagree, Kikuchi has been in some great matches and was a GREAT fiery babyface, but I think Shawn bests him by being a really good babyface himself in the Rockers run, having at least a decent heel run, and rising to the occasion in certain situations 24 years after he first had significant matches.

Doug Furnas - Disagree, was part of great team with Can - ams but don't see the longetivity and only think the Can-Ams had essentially a 3 year run.

Dan Kroffat- Disagree, was part of great team with Can - ams but don't see the longetivity and only think the Can-Ams had essentially a 3 year run.

El Samurai - Agreed, but would listen to argument otherwise

Ohtani - Agree, but would listen to argument otherwise

Great Sasuke - Agreed

Dick Togo - Agreed

Taka Minchinoku - Agreed

Alexander Otsuka- Probably have not seen enough to judge, but this seems like it could go either way based on what I have seen

Daisuke Ikeda _ agreed

Yuki Ishikawa - Agreed

Saito - Agreed, but would listen to argument otherwise

Giant Baba - Agreed

Jumbo - Agreed

Tenryu- Agreed

Choshu- Agreed

Yatsu- Agreed

Kimura- Probably haven't seen enough but would lean toward disagree based on whats seen

Yamazaki - Probably haven't seen enough but would lean toward disagree based on whats seen

Fujinami - Agreed

Fujiwara - Agreed

Volk HaN - Agreed

Tamura - Agreed

Maeda - Agreed

Hashimoto - Agreed

Gran Hamada - Agreed

Psicosis - Agreed but not as high on him as most

Juventud Guerrera - Could go either way

La Parka- Agreed

El Dandy - Agreed

MS-1 - Limited viewing but agreed on what I have seen

Sangre Chicana - Limited viewing but agreed on what I have seen

El Satanico - Agreed

El Hijo Del Santo - Agreed

Blue Panther - agreed

Negro Casas - Agreed

Mascarita Sagrada - Agreed

Black Terry - Limited viewing but was much more consistent in later run that Shawn on consistent basis

Negro Navarro - Agreed

Emilo Charles Jr. - Agreed

Fuerza Guerrera - Agreed

Pirata Morgan - Agreed

 

 

Guys I would with some mild reservations

 

Hoshino

Kobayashi

Dynamite Kansai - Agreed

Satomura

Kanemoto

Takayama

Ricky Fuyuki

Masa Fuchi

Jerry Estrada

La Fiera

Javier Cruz

Atlantis - Agreed

Solar I - Agreed

 

Everyone else I would have to toss around and think about but they could go either way.

Guys I'm unsure of

 

Hayabusa

Kanemura

Yugi Nagata

Oya

Masato Tanaka

Masa Chono

Gedo

Akira Nogami

Ultimo Dragon

Sayama

Tamon Honda

Gran Cochise

Onita

Super Astro

Villano III

(about twenty Joshi gals I haven't watched in forever could be added in here as well)

 

Most of these guys, I would have Shawn safely above

 

Again probably a bunch I"m missing

So of that list, I have 45 that I would safely put above Shawn with another 10 I could see real compelling arguments for. Glad this discussion came up because looking at the title I thought to myself that I don't really like Shawn but shit 100 guys is a lot of guys but then you start putting names down and I realized that he may break by top 100 but it wold be close and I don't seem him sniffing my top 75 at all.

[Tim Evans]

Which Mascarita Sagrada are we talking about? The original? Tzuki? Mascarita Dorada? I don't think I would put either ahead of Shawn. Same goes for Sangre Chicana and Jerry Estrada too. Sangre is still wresting which hurts his legacy and Estrada, while I like him more than Othani's Jacket, A lot of his stuff hasn't held up. LA Park is a good comedy wrestler and I liked his after WCW run but what are some of the must see matches he's had that are better than Shawn's top tier? I'm interested in if you would put guys like Virus, PG13 or Buddy Landell over Shawn?

[Johnny Sorrow]

I never gave a shit about what happened in a Pillman match. There's lots of matches Michaels was in where I cared. Shouldn't that aspect count in a discussion like this?