Shawn Michaels

[Grimmas]

Discuss here.

[BillThompson]

Did Shawn have plenty of great matches, yes, I won't deny that. However, he's a wrestler that upon closer inspection belongs nowhere near a greatest of all time list. He often put in listless performances in matches that he didn't think mattered. If it wasn't a gimmick match or he wasn't in the ring with a better worker it became all too clear what his limitations were as a wrestler. There were massive holes in his selling, bumping, offense, etc. Honestly, to borrow from the Ultimo thread, if this were a list of the greatest 500 wrestlers of all time Shawn wouldn't be on that list of 500.

[Karl]

My biggest issue with Michaels is that more often than not, his singles matches feel hollow. To me, very much a wrestler who is far more style than substance and as such, I have never felt any desire to re-watch. However, as with a number of other wrestlers listed in this project, they deserve to be reviewed to see if time has softened my view any.

[BigBadMick]

The 'self-conscious epics' of his second run will be a point of division here. Personally, I've no problem with them - they're great big spectacular matches.

 

I'd say he's a top 20 for me presently. Loved almost all of his work from 2007-10, and there's plenty to savour in 2002-06.

[Shining Wiz]

Did Shawn have plenty of great matches, yes, I won't deny that. However, he's a wrestler that upon closer inspection belongs nowhere near a greatest of all time list. He often put in listless performances in matches that he didn't think mattered. If it wasn't a gimmick match or he wasn't in the ring with a better worker it became all too clear what his limitations were as a wrestler. There were massive holes in his selling, bumping, offense, etc. Honestly, to borrow from the Ultimo thread, if this were a list of the greatest 500 wrestlers of all time Shawn wouldn't be on that list of 500.

 

I get not being a huge fan, but not in the top 500 is hyperbole in the extreme.

 

Even if you don't like the hype he gets as the greatest ever, he's got more than enough skills, good matches and performances that, even without his comeback run, he'd be contender for most and possible shoe for some in for a top 100.

[BillThompson]

Not for me man, because I don't think the skill is there. In gimmick matches and when in the ring with better workers he was great, otherwise not so much.

[goodhelmet]

The Rockers were awesome. His heel 1997 run was pretty awesome. Everything else I can take or leave. He might make my Top 100.

[WingedEagle]

I'm a sucker for him. He'll rank very highly for me among American workers of the last 20 years.

[BillThompson]

The Rockers were awesome. His heel 1997 run was pretty awesome. Everything else I can take or leave. He might make my Top 100.

 

You're right, I am discounting his early career tag work, which I happen to like a lot. Honestly, had he remained a tag wrestler his entire career he may have been a top 100 guy. But, while the tag work he did put in really does elevate him, it still doesn't make him top 100 in a world where he did become a singles worker.

[goodhelmet]

No the tag work alone doesn't but his 1997 run was really good. His 1995 and 1996 matches were also pretty damn good even though there were some big missteps and in-ring bullshit.

[anarchistxx]

The HBK backlash was a bit crazy, especially around 2006 or something when people were claiming Rosey and Lance Cade and others were better workers than him.

 

Having said that, he doesn't do a great deal for me anymore, and the 2006 DX return was one of the things that stopped me watching for years, even as a teen and supposedly the target audience it was ridiculously embarassing. As a lapsed fan, can't say I'm ever tempted to casually watch some of his matches like I might with Kawada or Samoa Joe or Benoit or 90s NJ juniors stuff. Prefer him heel as a character although he doesn't have the offence or style to pull it off in the ring unless he is taking a beatdown from Undertaker. Has worked some nice tags. Likely wouldn't make a top hundred if I did a list.

[Gregor]

As a big-time Michaels fan, I felt like I should probably say something nice about him here. I like speed, grace, and bumps, so Michaels is fun as hell for me to watch. Even when he'd do a bump that I knew was cartoonish, he'd do it so smoothly that I wouldn't mind. Yeah, he had a lot of rope-running and bumping in his matches, but these were things that he did well. His offense, dreadful when he first went solo, improved eventually. When I last watched a bunch of his 1997-98 heel run, I thought he jumped it all the way up to decent. It wasn't great, and it wasn't even consistently good, but he did have some good offensive performances; his stuff against Bret was vicious and dickish, and at the Royal Rumble his offense sort of settled down and structured what had been an aimless brawl to that point. Most of his acclaimed matches still hold up for me (Jarrett, Diesel, Mankind, Undertaker, even the Sid one). Couldn't get into his '00s stuff, but that's how I feel about pretty much every wrestler, so I'm going to say that's on me and not on him. I do like that HHH match from December 2003.

 

In the Mick Foley thread, someone brought up how the Mind Games match is impressive in that they had a match that good without (m)any nearfalls. Michaels actually worked a lot of his big matches like that - IYH 7 against Diesel, Survivor Series '96, One Night Only, Hell in a Cell. That strikes me as a smart way of working your endgame in a promotion that usually ends its matches on finishers.

 

Some of his house show matches that I think are worth watching:

HBK vs. Razor Ramon (1/15/94, ladder)

HBK/Jeff Jarrett vs. Diesel/Razor Ramon (3/19/95)

HBK vs. Bulldog (10/6/95)

HBK vs. Goldust (8/24/96, ladder)

HBK/Undertaker vs. Mankind/Goldust (9/29/96)

HBK/HHH vs. Austin/Undertaker (11/15/97)

[Loss]

For all we want to say about Shawn's comeback, I enjoyed most of the high-profile stuff he did in his first run quite a bit. There aren't too many matches pre-1998 where there's a rep attached to it and I just don't see what's so good about it. Maybe the Iron Man, but that's divisive anyway. I didn't like the Bret match at Survivor Series '92 at all. The Undertaker match at Ground Zero really disappointed me, but it's hard to think of too many others. Then there are matches like Shawn vs Austin at King of the Ring '97 that are excellent but don't really get very much credit for whatever reason. Shawn will be in my top 50 most likely but I do need to watch his big matches post-comeback with an open mind to see if anything he did bumps him up during that time. I know from memory that he was not at all a strong week-to-week TV worker from 2002-2010, but I don't think even his biggest supporters claim he was anyway.

[Loss]

This is probably also a good thread to say that I think the Iron Man match is something people would look back on and for the most part consider a near-classic match if it didn't have the booking issues. Shawn really made an effort there offensively and did quite a few things I hadn't seen him do before or since. Make it a regular match that just happens to go to a 60-minute draw and you don't have the issue of people just instinctively waiting for falls, giving it an entirely different feel.

[MoS]

I do not like the Iron Man match, but I do not think Shawn can be faulted for it. I thought he put in a great performance in it. That said, the way the last 1 minute was put together really pisses me off. If Shawn has so little time left, why on earth would he try an elbow drop, a move that has NEVER brought him a pinfall victory? Why would he waste time going to the top at all? I know this is not the thread, but for all of Bret's criticism about internal logic in Flair's matches, this one was ridiculous to say the least.

[Matt D]

I like the Boston Bret vs Flair ironman way more.

[BillThompson]

I like the Boston Bret vs Flair ironman way more.

 

That's in my YouTube pile and coming up pretty soon, I'm optimistic it will be pretty great, but also a little cautious.

[NintendoLogic]

Not for me man, because I don't think the skill is there. In gimmick matches and when in the ring with better workers he was great, otherwise not so much.

 

So Shawn needed to be carried by superworkers like Sid and Kevin Nash?

[Dylan Waco]

To be fair best Nash match was gimmicked, and the Sid matches aren't as good as some would have you believe. Still 92-97 singles run Michaeks is a good worker in my view

[BillThompson]

 

Not for me man, because I don't think the skill is there. In gimmick matches and when in the ring with better workers he was great, otherwise not so much.

 

So Shawn needed to be carried by superworkers like Sid and Kevin Nash?

 

 

The only great Diesel match with Shawn was a gimmick match, and I don't think any of the Sid matches were any good. Some had great atmosphere, but as a complete package they weren't worth much.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

The Survivor Series match was a pretty good, smartly-worked match. The Rumble match was wank. Shawn was good in his pomp, but post-comeback Shawn is one of the most irritating wrestlers for me to watch. Just totally contrived, and fake, and everyone-look-at-me.

[fxnj]

Anybody feel like explaining what's so horrible his post-comeback stuff? I've been watching some of his stuff from 2007 and I'm actually pretty amazed at how well he can lay out matches to turn even stupid shit like Orton match with SCM banned into compelling storytelling. Not seeing at all how you can say he doesn't deserve credit for any of those matches.

[Dylan Waco]

I have no desire to watch any post-comeback Michaels ever again, but even I have always acknowledged that he was usually good for one or two really good performances/matches every year. The problem was that week-to-week he was a boring, cliched, weak and under performing worker in my eyes. At one point years ago I pointed this out after a couple of weeks of particular bad efforts and was told that I was stupid because Michaels gimmick was that he was "supposed to suck." I don't even know what to do with that.

 

I also tend to like his best post-comeback efforts far less than most, even when I like the matches. And then there are a handful of those matches that people love which I think are terrible. For example I think the Jericho v. Michaels Ladder Match is complete garbage, and I think Michaels performance in that match is holy shit level awful. IIRC that match won Observer Match of The Year which will always mystify me because I watched it in a room full of Michaels fanatics who spent the entire match shitting on Shawn's performance and talking about how he should retire. Still probably the biggest gap I can remember having from my live viewing experience and the world of online fandom.

[NintendoLogic]

 

 

Not for me man, because I don't think the skill is there. In gimmick matches and when in the ring with better workers he was great, otherwise not so much.

 

So Shawn needed to be carried by superworkers like Sid and Kevin Nash?

 

 

The only great Diesel match with Shawn was a gimmick match, and I don't think any of the Sid matches were any good. Some had great atmosphere, but as a complete package they weren't worth much.

 

 

I don't really consider no-DQ matches without any other special stipulation to be gimmick matches. They're much closer to a standard wrestling match than they are to, say, a ladder match. And Shawn and Diesel also had the Kliq tag from Action Zone, which is the best tag match in WWE history.

 

Anybody feel like explaining what's so horrible his post-comeback stuff? I've been watching some of his stuff from 2007 and I'm actually pretty amazed at how well he can lay out matches to turn even stupid shit like Orton match with SCM banned into compelling storytelling. Not seeing at all how you can say he doesn't deserve credit for any of those matches.

 

My recollection is that he wasn't so much actively bad for the first few years of his comeback as he was lazy and formulaic. Starting in 2007, he was a lot better about turning it on for the big matches.

[DR Ackermann]

In the Tanahashi thread Bill Thompson named 50 people he thought were better than Michaels in 1996. His list didn't seem outlandish and that is supposed to be Michaels' banner year. If a guy is that outclassed in what is widely praised as his best year, then what chance does he have to make an all time top 100 list? I'm not saying Bill is completely right and Michaels is in consideration for the back end of my list but the more I see of him, the more I realize he's not the wrestler I thought he was in my teens and early twenties.

 

Having gone back and watched a lot of early 90s WWF, I can say that once Michaels becomes a singles wrestler his stock as a worker drops dramatically. He's OK at best and usually pretty awful throughout 92 & 93. So sell me on Michaels by way of matches and performances, or do the opposite and turn me away from him.