Shawn Michaels

[Matt D]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo3qb0_goldust-vs-shawn-michaels-world-title-ladder-match-8-24-96_sport

 

I still like the Goldust ladder match, probably more than Shawn's other ladder matches but that's because there's less stupid shit.

[Gregor]

What "stupid shit" is there in the ones from 1994? I don't remember anything as silly as Michaels hitting the superkick with his pants down.

 

Edit: Forgot the dropkick to the ladder. That was stupid.

[Matt D]

Tons of Moves contrived around the ladder. I feel like the ladder is much more organic in the Goldust match. It's a match where they happen to have a ladder as a tool as opposed a match where the ladder is a gravitational centerpiece that changes the general logic of pro wrestling. The ladder as a means as opposed the ladder as an end unto itself, basically. I haven't seen the Summerslam match in forever, though, so I'll admit that might not be the case as much there.

[WingedEagle]

But isn't the ladder being somewhat an end unto itself at least part of the point of a ladder match?

[Matt D]

That's a fair question. I think it runs into a lot of trouble we have with some of these comparative views. The answer is "probably, but that only helps so much when compared to every other match ever."

[Superstar Sleeze]

Including the Vader and Sid stuff is generous

 

I always really liked the Survivor Series Sid match. I thought it was bratty Shawn at his best. I am being generous with the Vader match probably. It should have been a lot better, but it is still better than any Davey Boy match that is not against, Bret, Shawn or Owen.

My hang-up with the Goldust ladder match was the camerawork when I watched it two years ago. Maybe it is not as bad of camerawork as I thought.

The 1995 ladder match is a US Match of the Decade contender absolutely riveting stuff where just like Matt says for the Goldust match they use the ladder as a tool to garner a victory by destroying Shawn's knee. The '94 ladder match is really good also and just a level below the '95 ladder match.

[Gregor]

Okay, I watched both the WM ladder match and the Goldust one. They do stick pretty hard to the ladder in '94, but the only time that it really feels inorganic is when there's a double knockdown and Michaels gets to his feet first and sets the ladder up in the corner. The rest of the time they're going for it either to climb (and win the match) or hit the other person with it. That doesn't strike me as a shift in the logic of pro wrestling. In a cage match, guys are going to try to climb. If there's a chair in the ring, they're going to go for the chair. There's one spot when Ramon is making his fired-up comeback - he rolls Michaels back into the ring, slips the ladder into the ring, and then enters himself. Then he just cracks Michaels with the ladder. If he'd done something else, like set the ladder up or whatever, yeah, that would have taken me out of what they were doing. He was focused on hitting Michaels, though, and the ladder was just what was there.

 

The Goldust match didn't strike me as vastly different. Early on, Goldust goes for the ladder, Michaels hits it into his face with a chair, and they drop it to do some other stuff. Once they bring it into the ring, though, it's pretty much as big a part of their match as it was in the WrestleMania match. I question the logic of doing both exposed turnbuckle spots and spots with the ladder in the corner (it looks weird when Goldust goes out of his way to put the ladder in the corner with the bare 'buckle), but the way Michaels takes and sells the ladder bump does enough to differentiate the spots. Neither one's ladder spots feel more contrived than the other's. The non-ladder portion of the '94 match feels longer (I didn't look at timestamps), but that's in part because the '96 match starts getting clipped after the ladder comes into play.

 

Michaels' PPV ladder matches are just about his only big-time acclaimed '90s matches that don't hold up as great for me, but the 1996 one doesn't feel like any sort of psychological improvement. The only Michaels ladder match that I love is a house show one from 1/15/94, which is tighter than the WM one and has a more heelish performance from Michaels.

[Loss]

I disagree regarding the criticism of how the ladder is used in the early ladder matches. I think it's also worth considering that they were put in the position of getting a new gimmick over, and wrestlers doing first-time gimmick matches generally heavily incorporate the gimmick the first time out to distinguish it from other run of the mill matches.

[Loss]

As for Summerslam '95, the match has its flaws, but its strengths - playing off of specific spots in a previous high-profile match to show how both wrestlers have learned things, along with what still might be the best limb attack I've ever seen in a WWE ring - are so overwhelming that I think it swallows the flaws whole.

[soup23]

Have no problems with the ladder being used as violently and inventively as possible in the ladder matches. For any stipulation, I want to see it used and have meaning. If that changes the confines of what the psychology I think a match should take, then I am the one who needs to shift around my parameters and acknowledge that the gimmick was done to an optimum level.

[WingedEagle]

That's basically where I am as well -- the entire match shouldn't be one tug of war over a ladder, but if its a gimmick match I want the match about that gimmick rather than have it serve as some prop like a chair that's pulled out for a random spot.

 

It also goes against what I generally think about rewatching matches, but I think the HBK/Razor matches have been somewhat hurt over time because of the explosion of similar matches in subsequent years. At the time, they felt pretty crazy and innovative and shouldn't be dinged that badly just because I've since been desensitized due to the gimmick being overdone.

[Matt D]

I'll give them a rewatch sometime soon. It's been a while, especially for the Summerslam match. Most of you guys do have better organizational systems than I have and if enough of you (and a nice cross section) say I'm wrong, I tend to think there's something to it. At least on everything except for that Rose/Somers cage match.

[BillThompson]

 

Including the Vader and Sid stuff is generous

 

I always really liked the Survivor Series Sid match. I thought it was bratty Shawn at his best. I am being generous with the Vader match probably. It should have been a lot better, but it is still better than any Davey Boy match that is not against, Bret, Shawn or Owen.

My hang-up with the Goldust ladder match was the camerawork when I watched it two years ago. Maybe it is not as bad of camerawork as I thought.

The 1995 ladder match is a US Match of the Decade contender absolutely riveting stuff where just like Matt says for the Goldust match they use the ladder as a tool to garner a victory by destroying Shawn's knee. The '94 ladder match is really good also and just a level below the '95 ladder match.

 

 

I wouldn't include any of the Bret, Sid, Vader, Undertaker, or Austin stuff for Shawn. I don't think he ever had anything above a decent match with any of those guys, usually due to him bringing the match down (not in the case of Sid though). The Jarrett match was a carry job on the part of Jarrett, the great Diesel match was a gimmick match (where even I will admit that Shawn usually excels), and so on and so forth. Davey did produce better stuff than Shawn against Bret and Owen, and I'd also contend he did a better job of working lesser opponents like Warlord (not to great matches mind you, but to stuff that I found far more watchable than what Shawn was doing around the same period).

[Gregor]

How did Jarrett carry that match? His stalling at the start was good. His offense was good. I don't really see how that makes for a match that he carried. Aside from the stalling and Jarrett actually winning some exchanges at the start, it wasn't that unusual for a Michaels match from that period. Granted, the standard line about the match is that Michaels carried Jarrett, but I wouldn't say that, either.

[Childs]

Owen's '97 match against Vader was substantially better than Shawn's defense against the big guy. On the other hand, I'd take Shawn's awesome heel performance against Davey in England over Owen-Davey from earlier in '97, which was technically impressive but left me cold.

 

I don't see much case for Davey having a better overall resume than Shawn unless you put huge stock in Davey's early British stuff. With Owen, I guess I could see the argument. I'd rather watch Owen than Shawn because he was so gifted and so adaptable. But Shawn was essential to more great matches. Owen didn't want to be great as badly as Shawn, Bret, etc., which was good for him as a human, bad for him as a GOAT candidate.

[BillThompson]

How did Jarrett carry that match? His stalling at the start was good. His offense was good. I don't really see how that makes for a match that he carried. Aside from the stalling and Jarrett actually winning some exchanges at the start, it wasn't that unusual for a Michaels match from that period. Granted, the standard line about the match is that Michaels carried Jarrett, but I wouldn't say that, either.

 

It was a Jarrett match, laid out in his style, worked in his fashion, and it was Jarrett who did the lion's share of the work that made the match great. His timing, move placement, selling, working of the heat segments, and so on were what made the match great with Michaels being along for the ride.

[NintendoLogic]

If that match was all Jarrett, why did he never have any other matches that were anywhere near as good?

[Gregor]

It wasn't laid out that differently from other Michaels matches of the time, other than the stalling and Jarrett winning some exchanges early on. Then they transitioned to Jarrett on offense with a big bump from Michaels, cut off a comeback attempt with the Michaels turnbuckle flip, ran the ropes a bunch, and then moved to Michaels' comeback after he won a slugfest. I wouldn't call this a particularly distinctive layout - I'm sure a bunch of WWF matches from this time went like that - but it definitely isn't unique to Jarrett. His selling was fine but I don't really think it was a big part of the match.

 

More telling is that there aren't other Jarrett matches from around this time that resemble this one. If he were the only guy making things happen and the match were in his style, then there should be others like it. Jarrett rarely got to wrestle 19 minutes, but it's not as if the 10-15-minute encounters are all that similar to his one with Michaels.

 

I don't intend for this to come across as dismissive of Jarrett (who I think was quite good, even in New Generation WWF with a character that wasn't very fun) or as arguing that Michaels carried that match. It's just that I'm not a fan of taking credit away from guys who were part of something good, and even accounting for that I don't really see the match as a one-man offort.

[NintendoLogic]

As for Summerslam '95, the match has its flaws, but its strengths - playing off of specific spots in a previous high-profile match to show how both wrestlers have learned things, along with what still might be the best limb attack I've ever seen in a WWE ring - are so overwhelming that I think it swallows the flaws whole.

 

I disagree completely. I'm not particularly interested in how many ways Razor Ramon has of working the leg if Shawn is just going to blow it all off. It's like raving about a fight scene in a movie that ends with both guys walking away without a scratch and has no impact whatsoever on the plot.

[Loss]

Wrestlers sometimes overcome things. Red herrings are common in movies.

[Matt D]

Comparing blowing off legwork to a narrative ruse to keep the audience guessing is a daring move.

 

That's the kind of thing I'd try to pull.

[PeteF3]

Wrestlers sometimes overcome things. Red herrings are common in movies.

 

 

Comparing blowing off legwork to a narrative ruse to keep the audience guessing is a daring move.

 

That's the kind of thing I'd try to pull.

 

Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that strategy, even good strategy, doesn't always work. A football team facing a high-power, no-huddle, high-scoring spread offense may do a good job of playing conservative, ball-control football to keep the other team's offense off the field, only to commit a key fumble or miss an assignment that leads to a score, a momentum shift, and all that work going for naught.

 

Now, I don't want to jump ahead in Yearbook-viewing but I'm not far from SummerSlam '95, so I can offer a more informed opinion in a few days. It is possible that they didn't tell the "strategy doesn't work" story as effectively as something like Hansen vs. Misawa from the '92 Carnival, which is all about Misawa tearing apart Hansen's arm only to fall to the Lariat anyway. But generally, I'm no longer of the belief that opening limbwork absolutely must play a hand in the finish.

[Jimmy Redman]

I think I made the exact same point after Bryan vs Orton in February when some people complained about Bryan "no selling" the limbwork.

 

Sometimes limbwork (or any other strategy for that matter) doesn't work. It seems to be working, or it works for a time, or it works at a crucial point, or it doesn't work at a crucial point, but it ultimately fails because the other guy came back and won the match. That's not necessarily the same thing as blowing off limbwork, or perfunctory limbwork that doesn't go anywhere.

 

To me seeing limbwork in an absolutist sense - that if you do it the other guy MUST sell it all through the match and it MUST influence the finish and it MUST NOT be no-sold - is just as narrow-minded a view of wrestling as wanting everything to be highspots or whatever.

[Matt D]

It doesn't have to "work" but some guys manage to sell it while getting back on offense, even if it's after hitting a move, or after a win, and other guys don't. It stands out to me because it's something that I've seen done well quite a bit, even in matches where the limbwork doesn't work. It's one thing if it's never sold, or is cut off before the selling, or at least before the heavy selling, but it's another when the wrestler DOES sell it a lot and there's no gradual recovery or selling while back on offense. It was sure working a second ago when you were selling your ass off. If there's no connect between that moment and the next, it does bug me because other wrestlers can do it and do it well. it's laziness or insecurity or apathy in the face of thinking it's time to get your shit in and not understanding that moves mattering is part of conditioning the audience over time. If we were in a vacuum and no one did it (and there are certain styles where it's not done as much), that's one thing, but we're in an environment where some guys do it more often than others. By building a part of a match around a body part, by using that particular wrestling tool to kill time or get heat, there's a cost, and that cost is that if you don't sell it later on, it ends up meaning less within the context of the match. It's not paying back a loan, basically.

 

I honestly think Bryan drops his selling on purpose to look stronger despite his size. It's not something I think he did nearly as much earlier in his career. He's basically trying to trade in sympathy for that "fans love an asskicker" mentality. Maybe he feels like he has to in order to be accepted as a WWE main eventer. Maybe the agents or Hunter or Vince want him to. I don't know. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing though. I think Michaels did quite the same a lot of the time, though it somehow seems less benign from him.

 

And this is an issue because 1.) Some people DO manage to do it much more consistently and 2.) because we're looking at the word "great" quite a bit here. If we were looking at "good" it would be less of an issue.

[Jimmy Redman]

Well my answer, or question, to the first paragraph is that, why MUST they sell when they go back on offense? What if it's not hurting that much anymore? What if it hurt when the guy had his hands on me twisting/kicking/hurting my limb, but didn't cause any lasting damage? What if the adrenaline has kicked in (which in itself accounts for basically every WWE babyface comeback ever)? What if I'm ignoring the pain to hit my shit since I'm in a fight?

 

There are any number of reasons why "I'm not selling right this second" is a valid choice and doesn't destroy the narrative of a match, nor does it circumvent pro wrestling logic.

 

If you want to be absolute about all damage to limbs during a match being super effective, you can ask why guys never sell their stomachs with the amount of times they get kicked or punched there during a match? Why don't guys sell being knocked loopy or concussed with the amount of times they get punched, kicked and hit in the head per match? Why don't guys sell their backs with the amount of times they get slammed, dropped or driven on them per match? Why don't guys sell their chests when they get chopped 50 times in a match?

 

The answer is that not every move that hits a certain area of the body causes significant or lasting damage to that body part. Obviously as a wrestler your goal is to cause damage, but wrestlers aren't supernatural beings who's moves and ideas are always successful all the time. Sometimes you try to, and it doesn't work, or it doesn't work enough. And you can tell when it doesn't work when the other guy manages to make his comeback or go on offense and he doesn't seem to be crippled. That doesn't mean as a wrestler you wasted your time, or that as a fan you wasted your time watching it. It just means that it didn't work.

 

Now, having said that, I'm talking about good execution of this idea, just like with anything. I'm not talking about blowing shit off or flagrantly no selling to the detriment of a match. And obviously I like a good body part sell and it playing into the finish as much as anyone. But I don't think all no-selling (a more appropriate term would be "no-longer-selling" I think) is inherently a bad thing, and I don't think a match that has limbwork that ultimately doesn't work or doesn't play into the finish is inherently a bad thing. There are many ways to work and to sell, and there are valid choices for a worker to make other than "I'm going to sell this like death all match long", as long as you can still see the reasons why.

I found the match and it was actually Orton who "blew off" the limb work, and I feel I expressed myself better here:

 

I'm not coming down on either side particularly for the larger question, but on the point about time-wasting, I think you kind of have to have that to a certain extent. Not everything can be meaningful all of the time. And just because something oesn't factor into every second of a match, or just because early limb work doesn't factor into the finish, doesn't mean that it wasn't meaningful.

 

Like, for Bryan/Orton, the fact that Bryan worked over the leg for all that time and then Orton went on offense and sold his leg less (I think saying he blew it off is exaggerating), that didn't tell me that Bryan was ineffective or that I wasted 10 minutes of my life. It told me somethng more like, Bryan was hurting Orton, but didn't hurt him enough to injure him, and now that he's had time to recover (while he was in control) he's able to continue. Bryan went back to the leg later on and Orton sold it, so it was still bothering him. Just not enough to cripple him.

 

Does that mean he shouldn't have tried leg work at all, just because it didn't work? (And "didn't work" is way harsh since Bryan won the match.) A wrestler has to try things, but that doesn't mean it will always be super effective. Kofi Kingston has zero chance of beating Brock Lesnar, but that doesn't mean he's not going to try things anyway. He's in there, he has to. But that doesn't make it time wasting when he runs out of offense and gets squashed to buggery.