Shawn Michaels

[Johnny Sorrow]

In no way ever in any form of performance should "later shit sucks" bring down previous greatness. That's fucking dopey. Does "The Big Store" make "Duck Soup" less of a masterpiece? Do the shit movies made cause Chico needed the money make the Marx Brothers less awesome?

 

And I can't call Will "Goodhelmet" without feeling like a moron.

[BillThompson]

In no way ever in any form of performance should "later shit sucks" bring down previous greatness. That's fucking dopey. Does "The Big Store" make "Duck Soup" less of a masterpiece? Do the shit movies made cause Chico needed the money make the Marx Brothers less awesome?

 

What someone does throughout their carer matters, and the bad stuff can bring them down. It's the case with directors, musicians, actors, painters, and wrestlers. I think we've had this disagreement before though.

[BigBadMick]

 

In no way ever in any form of performance should "later shit sucks" bring down previous greatness. That's fucking dopey. Does "The Big Store" make "Duck Soup" less of a masterpiece? Do the shit movies made cause Chico needed the money make the Marx Brothers less awesome?

 

What someone does throughout their carer matters, and the bad stuff can bring them down. It's the case with directors, musicians, actors, painters, and wrestlers. I think we've had this disagreement before though.

 

Indeed.

 

You pair are veering into Parv/jdw territory.....

[Dylan Waco]

 

. A lot of which seemingly know each other outside of the forum & are on a first name basis. Who the fuck is "Joe?" Without a username, I'm lost. I feel like a fish out of water here all the time.

This is completely off the main topic here but this IS kind of annoying. I kind of wish people would just stick to using the forum usernames regardless of how well they know each other if just for the sake of the rest of the posters.

For future reference, people can simply call me "right" if they prefer it to my username.

[benjaminkicks]

If I was asked to make this list like 5 years ago, maybe even 3 years ago, I wouldn't have hesitated to put Shawn as my #1.

 

Being a theater nut, when I first started watching wrestling I was really drawn to the theatricality and performance aspect of it. And Shawn was the first guy who really impressed me in that aspect. He just exuded charisma, and as a new fan, I loved the way he worked in the ring. It was showy and flashy, but very rarely devolved into just MOVEZ. I still think he's an excellent storyteller in the ring, even if his selling is iffy sometimes and his offense isn't the best.

 

But since then, my wrestling knowledge and tastes have become slightly more refined, and as such my opinion of Shawn has gone down. The biggest problem, funnily enough, is exactly the reason why I was drawn to him in the first place. Shawn was a first rate performer and entertainer, but he wasn't always a first rate wrestler.

 

I'm still a big fan of his though, but I acknowledge and enjoy some other guys much more now. I still think he'll do well on my list, and could definitely see him placing in the top 30 or so.

[Jimmy Redman]

I haven't really watched much wrestling or kept up with the scene at all in the last six months or so. But I watched Mania, and this weekend I finally cracked it and voluntarily sought out wrestling matches to watch and checked out the board again. Now, like a recovering drug addict who decided to be bad just one more time I am in full-on binge mode, sitting here at 2:30am watching Survivor Series 2003 for the umpteenth time, just quivering with how good - and bad - it feels to dive face-first back into something so horrifically addictive.

 

I need help.

 

So anyway, my point is that I'm watching Shawn Michaels' performance at Survivor Series 2003, incidentally the performance that made me a wrestling fan, and I just want to say that you're all motherfucking crazy as shit. Shawn is other worldly.

 

I know I owe you all a case, and I'll deliver it one day, but for now you just get inane sleep-deprived rambling. Shawn rules.

[(BP)]

There were several different Shawn eras post-comeback. The early "I can't believe he can still go like this" stuff like Summerslam 02. The "disorganized, chop somebody then pull up his loose tights" Shawn who could occasionally have awesome matches. "Epic" Shawn, forever laying around with HHH because they were given too much time. "Mr. Wrestlemania" girdle Shawn, going through the motions on TV but still putting on a clinic from time to time on PPV. And of course, "DX 2:Electric Boogaloo" Shawn, dogging it in tag matches mostly and hocking merch.

 

You know what? I loved all of it at the time, and so much of it is goofy fun now. He'd still have at least a handful of great matches every year. The comeback was worth it for, "I just kicked Stan," alone. HBK and Foley got me in to wrestling, and even if they've dropped in my "official list" of esteemed wrestlers, they are great pro wrestling characters.

[benjaminkicks]

I've been delving into Michael's work in The Rockers, and it's just raising my opinion of him. He was an awesome babyface tag wrestler. I still need to check out his AWA stuff, and I think I'm going to do a 90's WWF rewatch at some point before this is all said and done, but honestly if that stuff holds up I can really see Michaels sneaking into my top 20.

 

And this reminds me that I need to dig into Bret Hart's tag work at some point too.

[Matt D]

Shawn's ego was both his biggest boon and his worst enemy.

[Loss]

The more we learn about WWF politics, the more I think Austin, Bret, HHH, Undertaker and Michaels should all be held to a much higher standard, given that they were pretty much always the "captains", for lack of a better word, who were dictating the match. I start to wonder what we can really learn about their opponents by watching their matches. I don't think it's much, unless we want to see what kind of passengers they are. Vader has talked about how it was made very clear to him in his time there that Shawn and Undertaker called the shots when he worked either one of them. Austin has talked about how he always called his matches because of his hearing problems, and that he thinks the reason his matches with Undertaker never fully clicked was that both were used to being the driver. Add their endless opportunities to work long matches in main event spots to their creative control over the match path itself, and I think they all have a higher hill to climb, which is totally fair.

[JRGoldman]

I don't think I'm as low on Shawn from an in ring stance as some of the people here, but he won't be top ten or anything like that for me. I will say that it takes a special performer for people from multiple generations to buy in to the "best ever" hype that the WWE machine has bestowed upon him. Like, there are plenty of performers that would have been rejected by the fans even with the same treatment and booking. so that's a plus for him in my eyes. That being said, until the "JBL's Slave" storyline, I thought Shawn was a consistently entertaining personality while on television. Zia Hiltey refers to the later period Shawn stuff as "Heartbreak Dad", and I think that sums it up, both negatively and positively. I mean, there are times when he is just so oppressively, obliviously uncool. But that being said, it's sort of charming that he still thinks he's the absolute tits. He's like your friends drunk dad who wanders in to the garage and wants to play with your punk band and you humor him so he'll go away sooner but it turns out he's actually still pretty awesome at guitar and your entire world view is sort of changed but not really. Anyway, it seems like many of the things that I'm saying in defense of Shawn are not things that actually took place in the ring because all of that is pretty well worn territory. He did have great PPV matches even late in to his career. He did sleep walk through random TV appearances. I don't even think you can say he matured that much as a worker or anything, he just started using his real life back issues as a sympathy crutch in ring, which is smart, but didn't necessarily make for great viewing, especially repeated viewing.

 

Have people's opinions on the Jericho feud really changed drastically? I remember loving it at the time and it being pretty universally praised. I know opinions of both men have gone down since then, but I'm interested to see if the matches hold up. I'll have to watch them tomorrow.

[(BP)]

I know the ladder match they had after the feud already had a blowoff isn't looked back on fondly. Jericho considers it his favorite match of his, but he also admits he's never watched it and it's largely symbolic of the feud to him.

[Dylan Waco]

Bumping this because Jimmy Redman promised a big case for Shawn and if you are going to do big cases for Kofi, you gotta deliver for Michaels.

 

I would note that this isn't just me trying to hold someones feet to the fire for the sake of it. I'm doing my tag team ballot early (I'll probably be done with it today) and I am going to have The Rockers very, very high. Even higher than I would have guessed and I've always been a big fan of their's. As such I'm creating a crack of space for the idea of Shawn on my list where I had previously dismissed him.

 

You have your work cut out for you Jimmy, but make the case.

[Quentin Skinner]

Shawn is a guy that will rank very highly for me. I completely get most the criticisms levied at the guy although I think it gets extreme with some people. With that being said, I don't think I've ever rooted for a babyface as much as I did post-surgery Michaels. The way he sold getting his ass kicked made me feel bad for the guy in a way not many can match. Whether he's selling a concussion, his back, his leg, or just overall fatigue, I always bought in to his struggle and wanted to see him succeed. Now I grew up in the 2000's so when I saw the way people crapped on the guy it made me think I need to reevaluate Michaels' work during that time. What's he doing so wrong that people are this annoyed by him? Was I just placing him because of nostalgia and when I go back will I have a completely different stance on the guy? I did that for a lot of guys I liked growing up. Jeff Hardy isn't anywhere near my list, neither is Rob Van Dam and both were favorites of mine from that time as well.

 

For me, Michaels' stuff holds up. I'm not a huge fan at all of the HHH feud (although I don't think it's nearly as bad as some people do), but that Summerslam 2002 match is still something I enjoy very much. His performance in the 2003 Survivor Series is stellar. He has two really good RAW matches with Chris Benoit from 2004. Both the triple threat title matches from 2004 are among the best matches of that kind I've ever seen. Always liked his interactions with Orton and the way he made Orton look like a killer more than anyone else did. I like both of his Jericho feuds. The stuff with Angle from 2005 is absolutely fantastic. I still really like both the Cena matches from 2007. There's also a Street Fight with Edge from 2007 I think is awesome. Both the Taker Mania matches I still love and if anything would be a nostalgia thing it'd be those two matches. Week to week on TV I had zero issues with him because I think he was always reliable for a solid TV match.

 

Even with all that being said I haven't mentioned I like pretty much anything from the Rockers tag team and a lot of Shawn's singles work from the 90's I love watching.

 

Is Michaels overdramatic, "hokey", and a product of the WWE hype machine telling you he's the greatest? I think yes would be a fair answer to a lot of those, but he draws me in as a performer so much that even when I concede to these criticisms, it still doesn't really change the way I feel about him. He's a lock for my top 10 and may climb higher.

[The Man in Blak]

The GWE "March Madness pick 'em" had Dibiase's eventual placement as a tie-breaker, but I think Shawn Michaels would have been a better choice - I'm hard-pressed to think of any other candidate who seems primed to have more variance in the ballots.

[Jimmy Redman]

Bumping this because Jimmy Redman promised a big case for Shawn and if you are going to do big cases for Kofi, you gotta deliver for Michaels.

 

I would note that this isn't just me trying to hold someones feet to the fire for the sake of it. I'm doing my tag team ballot early (I'll probably be done with it today) and I am going to have The Rockers very, very high. Even higher than I would have guessed and I've always been a big fan of their's. As such I'm creating a crack of space for the idea of Shawn on my list where I had previously dismissed him.

 

You have your work cut out for you Jimmy, but make the case.

 

This is fair, I always meant to do a big write up and just never got around to it. It's a lot easier to pimp Kofi Kingston and John Morrison than to try to make a definitive argument for Shawn. I get strangely inarticulate when I try to do so.

 

Since you mentioned The Rockers, I think his tag work is a really good lens through which to view him. Not just his work with The Rockers (who I agree are an amazing, all-time team) but also his work in every short-term tag team and random TV tag match since. Particularly in his comeback run, which is what I'll get into now since post-comeback is the lens through which I view Shawn.

 

In 00s WWE I think there is a marked difference between an average tag team match, and one with Shawn in it. And that difference is directly due to Shawn's influence on the structure and the spots. The best ones basically look like Rockers matches with different bodies, and of course I mean that in the best possible way. He knows the importance of shine, always going on a long run to open up (extended shine, or really any shine in itself already puts his matches heads above a lot of modern WWE matches) with the classic babyface tag team spots he was doing in the 80s. Then as they reach their peak BAM, some heinous move is the transition into the heat. The heat is long and rough and full of cheating, although of course dependent on how well the heel team can work it. And then the hot tag that marks the transition into the modern WWE drawn out finishing stretch.

 

What I'm describing sounds pretty perfunctory and basic tag structure, but I think again, the fact that his tag matches stand out so distinctly compared to everyone else's means that it's not as easy or typical as it sounds. He has an innate understanding of wrestling, knowing exactly what to do and when, that a lot of others seem to not share. And in addition it's not just the structure but also the execution, and Shawn is brilliant at all aspects of being a tag worker - great at the opening babyface shine, great at getting killed during the heat, great at the high energy hot tag with lots of crowd pleasing signature moves.

 

A few moments stand out to me in terms of his tag work. Going into specific moments and saying "That, right there!" is easier to do than to come up with some overarching argument, so bear with me.

 

One is a handicap match on Raw vs Edge & Orton. Hunter had torn his quad at the PPV and Shawn was left alone. Handicap matches in WWE tend to belittle the team in the equation by having the one face beat up on two guys. Not here. This was like, the handicap match of your dreams, worked exactly how you'd think it should be worked on paper. Shawn was one star going up against two stars, and everyone involved sold it like he was walking to his execution. And he got his typical shine while it lasted, but then the heels took over and beat the shit out of him, and you have Shawn selling death and JR talking about it being a career-ending match, and by the time Shawn eeks out a victory it seems like he HAD TO get out of the match somehow or he'd have been killed dead. That sounds melodramatic, but they sold it so well, and that's exactly how you'd want it sold. Trying to fight two top guys at once SHOULD be life threatening. I remember this match coming up recently with someone dismissively saying "oh remember when Shawn beat both of Rated-RKO", and I think it's a good example of how the faults of booking and personal bias can drown out the work itself, because this was a perfectly worked handicap match that put over the heels tremendously. It was sort of like a normal Shawn tag match, but for the fact that he had no one to hot tag to, so he had to just squeak out something himself.

 

It also reminds me of the DX vs Legacy HIAC match. How do you create an epic face-in-peril segment in a cage? Lock the other face outside! I love the idea of it, and I loved the execution of it (and not just for getting Hunter out of the match for so long). Shawn again sells this like death and really puts over both the Cell and the idea that facing two of these guys by himself is a death knell and he'll be lucky to escape alive. It's funny, when he works alongside Hunter I start to subconsciously add up all of these things that Shawn does for the match, or for his opponents, that Hunter would never think to do, or that he'd do the opposite of. Hunter is the guy who made jobbing tag teams in handicap matches into an artform, after all. (Shawn is an extremely selfish worker as well, don't get me wrong, but his selfishness usually comes from wanting to have a great match and put on a show, not from wanting to look strong and badass all the time. Shawn's selfishness at least works to make better matches most of the time.)

 

The Legacy feud, by the way, was what came out of those skits where Shawn was working as a chef. The build to Summerslam was stupid DX "comedy", and they're facing two midcard lackeys. There's no reason why we should take this seriously. So the match starts, and Shawn has one of Legacy, I think Cody, come over to the apron and slap him. Shawn had a chance to laugh this off, and it's the kind of spot that I can imagine Hunter laughing off, to continue that train of thought. But he doesn't, he gets very serious, very quickly, and starts wailing on Cody with punches. In that one moment Shawn shows that he's taking this seriously after all, which is the cue to the audience to take it seriously as well.

 

He has the ability to change tone like that, which is important in WWE when so much of what they do is comedy or character based or ridiculous. The ability to be entertaining in those ways, and then turn around and act like a serious wrestler and have the audience buy it, that is a key attribute.

 

It's also about reading the crowd and being able to react accordingly, even within the confines of modern WWE. 2004 was a different time in terms of micromanagement, to be sure, but even so, when Shawn and Benoit had a long main event on Raw, the one in February, they were building to the three-way. Benoit was the one they were building up since he was new to Raw and not established yet, so for this match Shawn was working as, not even a subtle heel, but just the slightly lesser babyface in a face vs face match. But as they went down this road, the crowd was WAY into Benoit and actually booing Shawn a fair bit, which wouldn't do since they both needed to be faces for the final angle. So they change up the match and have Benoit take over, he gets heat on Shawn and Shawn sells and sells until finally, the crowd comes around and starts cheering for Shawn too, without turning on Benoit. Job done, and they continue with the rest of the match. That level of crowd control, of reading an audience, and of being able to turn them around to your liking, that is something.

 

I'm just rambling at this point, but like I said I find it easier to point to specific things I've noticed over time than to write generally. There are a million more of these I could go into. I just find his understanding of wrestling to be immense, in a myriad of ways: reading the crowd and knowing what to give them and when, knowing the story of the match and doing everything to get it over, and physically being able to follow through on those ideas and execute to best effect. It's not about "he has bad offense", the same way that Cena's bad punches or sloppy moves don't detract from what he does. The story, the symbolism and the emotional hook are way more important. In fact I've always found it super weird when people criticise Shawn for certain things but are super high on Cena, when they both work in similar ways and both could be subject to the same criticisms.

 

I'll probably have more to say, but I'm all rambled out for now.

[funkdoc]

definitely feelin what you said about the HBK-Cena comparison. i've thought of Tanahashi as another member of that club who tends to take a lot of shit from people high on Cena. Tanahashi is much more clearly influenced by Shawn, yes, but they're all similar performers in some key ways

[Matt D]

 

I'm just rambling at this point, but like I said I find it easier to point to specific things I've noticed over time than to write generally. There are a million more of these I could go into. I just find his understanding of wrestling to be immense, in a myriad of ways: reading the crowd and knowing what to give them and when, knowing the story of the match and doing everything to get it over, and physically being able to follow through on those ideas and execute to best effect. It's not about "he has bad offense", the same way that Cena's bad punches or sloppy moves don't detract from what he does. The story, the symbolism and the emotional hook are way more important. In fact I've always found it super weird when people criticise Shawn for certain things but are super high on Cena, when they both work in similar ways and both could be subject to the same criticisms.

 

I'll probably have more to say, but I'm all rambled out for now.

 

I give Shawn a ton of credit for understanding pro wrestling, or at least, for having a honed and learned understanding of pro wrestling. It's just that sometimes he uses that understanding for evil. And other times, he can't execute it to the fullest.

 

We're so deep into this process that I'm not sure what's been said in what thread or in PMs or facebook discussions or what.

 

Honest question: I think Shawn is hurt by people not liking him as a human being. That's probably not fair to him in this process, however, one aspect of that which shows up in his work is that he would, at times (even key times), do the right thing to get himself over at the expense of his opponent or the match or the bigger picture.

 

Does that hurt him for you?

[Jimmy Redman]

 

 

I'm just rambling at this point, but like I said I find it easier to point to specific things I've noticed over time than to write generally. There are a million more of these I could go into. I just find his understanding of wrestling to be immense, in a myriad of ways: reading the crowd and knowing what to give them and when, knowing the story of the match and doing everything to get it over, and physically being able to follow through on those ideas and execute to best effect. It's not about "he has bad offense", the same way that Cena's bad punches or sloppy moves don't detract from what he does. The story, the symbolism and the emotional hook are way more important. In fact I've always found it super weird when people criticise Shawn for certain things but are super high on Cena, when they both work in similar ways and both could be subject to the same criticisms.

 

I'll probably have more to say, but I'm all rambled out for now.

 

I give Shawn a ton of credit for understanding pro wrestling, or at least, for having a honed and learned understanding of pro wrestling. It's just that sometimes he uses that understanding for evil. And other times, he can't execute it to the fullest.

 

We're so deep into this process that I'm not sure what's been said in what thread or in PMs or facebook discussions or what.

 

Honest question: I think Shawn is hurt by people not liking him as a human being. That's probably not fair to him in this process, however, one aspect of that which shows up in his work is that he would, at times (even key times), do the right thing to get himself over at the expense of his opponent or the match or the bigger picture.

 

Does that hurt him for you?

 

 

It doesn't really hurt him for me for a couple reasons:

 

1. I wasn't around in the 90s so I didn't live through what would be most of these examples. Which means that I probably haven't seen as many of them as a lot of other people have, and I also don't hate or even dislike the man enough to be offended by them. Not the way I get offended by, say, Hunter or Angle's bullshit. It's a generational thing, I think.

 

2. Like I said above, at the very least Shawn's goal in acting selfishly is to "steal the show" or put himself over as a great wrestler, which at least tends to serve the match more than a guy like Hunter, or a Road Warrior or whatever whose goal in acting selfishly is to put themselves over as a badass or impenetrable. It can often be a good idea done for the wrong reasons, if that makes sense.

 

Like, his tantrum over Hogan, and his determination to show him up by running circles around him ended up making for the best possible match, because Shawn was bumping all over the place for Hogan and it was like a throwback to 1985, whereas I don't think an attempt to work it more like a dream match or like a more serious match would have been as effective. It was a selfish decision to act the way he did, but it inadvertently lead to a better match. In that sense he can sort of "get away with" acting like a dickhead. He's so good that even his tantrums are good wrestling.

 

I'm curious to know what you'd say some of these examples are. I feel like you're talking about something more subtle than throwing a tantrum and kicking Vader in the head.

[Matt D]

Well, first and foremost, how do you feel about WM11?

[Jimmy Redman]

When I get to the Diesel matches I'll let you know.

 

One of my last minute cramming goals is to watch a lot of 90s Shawn so I feel happy with having a decent picture of his entire career. Completionism isn't something I generally feel deeply about, but I should probably make the effort for someone I'm considering for #1. WM11 happens to be one of my gaps still.

 

I mean I'm pretty sure I've seen one of the Diesel matches, but it was so long ago and I have zero recollection of it so I can't even tell you which one it was. I'll have them first at bat to watch.

[Jimmy Redman]

Well, first and foremost, how do you feel about WM11?

 

So.

 

I have a feeling this is going to be a long post, so bear with me. I have a lot of thoughts about this, some of them in agreement, some disagreeing, and some just playing devil's advocate or throwing shit at the wall to chew on (...eww).

 

I agree with you so far as Shawn taking the entire match and making it about himself, which gained him support in the crowd and undercut Diesel as the big face. What I find most interesting about the match is just how much of it Shawn spent on offense. I mean he really took a lot of this match, Diesel was selling forever, which is not typical of how Shawn usually worked as a heel vs bigger guys. Shawn usually has his match structure down pat, at the very least, and his M.O. was pinballing all over the place, and taking his chance to show off while he was bumping and selling. In contrast, his control sections as a heel were usually based on restholds and boring as hell. But in this match, he takes control for a long time, and spends the time showing off with a lot of exciting offense. There are a few reasons why I think this happens:

 

1. It was a Wrestlemania main event, and Shawn's first main event match on this level, and he wanted to have the best match possible. (Shawn mentions doing the moonsault to the floor for the first time because hey, it was his first Mania main event, he wanted to do something special.)

2. Due to it being a Mania main event the match necessarily had to go a certain length, and a key goal would have been to make it a. believable, and b. entertaining, for Shawn to go toe-to-toe with Diesel for 20+ minutes.

3. In order to make it believable for the smaller, pinballing Shawn to compete with the giant monster pushed Diesel for so long, Shawn would have to get in a lot of offense, really hurt Diesel and show that he could be in trouble.

4. Diesel was getting the super mega face push, booked dominant, having Pamela Anderson take his side before the bell, doing the strong 2.1 kickouts, etc. They needed to do something to make him look vulnerable, to make his eventual victory seem like a struggle and not a foregone conclusion.

5. Nash is, frankly, a mediocre wrestler and needed to be carried quite a long way to get to something resembling a compelling, great Mania main event.

 

I can see the thought process that went into laying the match out like that, and in Shawn making the moves he made during the match. He had a lot of points to hit here, some of them working against each other. And Nash's limited nature and Shawn's...Shawn nature meant that he attacked the problem by completely taking over, doing all the work and working super hard to kind of...will it into a great match.

 

It didn't work to get Diesel any more over as a babyface, but my devil's advocate to that is that Diesel was a pretty shitty babyface, and only found his feet later in the year when he turned tweener and then heel. It also looks to me (correct me if I'm wrong) like a really over the top, forced, Vince specialty megapush. I'm not sure a more giving performance from Shawn in this match would really have saved Diesel as a face in the long run. Nor would it have stopped Shawn from getting cheers and having to turn face in the long run.

 

The other thing I want to note about the match is that I enjoyed it. A lot more than I was expecting to actually, even if the stretch wasn't that heated due to Shawn staying on top too long. Nash just isn't any good and I've struggled to sit through any singles match of his I've watched (even pimped stuff like the Bret matches) but this at least didn't struggle to hold my interest. It was actually the best match of his I can think of other than...his 1996 match with Shawn, which is clearly head and shoulders above this and any other Nash match.

 

I can imagine Shawn theoretically working the match differently to better position Diesel as a babyface, but I can't really imagine Shawn being able to make the match much better than it was. It entertained me and kept my interest for 20+ minutes, which is more than I'd ever expect from a Nash match. I've said this before but this is where you and I just have completely different outlooks. For you, Shawn working against the roles they were supposed to be playing hurts the match beyond repair. For me, I can acknowledge it as a storytelling flaw but at the same time still enjoy the match because the work is entertaining enough. Like, in your original point you said Shawn got himself over at the expense of his opponent or the match or the bigger picture. I think in this instance what he did worked against his opponent and the bigger picture maybe, but not the match. As far as One Man Shawn Shows go, it was fun enough.

[JerryvonKramer]

Jimmy, what do you think about Shawn's basic inability to get over as a babyface in 1996? Especially that match where the crowd are openly booing him and cheering Sid?

 

And this was at a time when fans didn't typically do that.

[Jimmy Redman]

I find it weird trying to answer this question because I didn't live through it and don't know nearly enough about the time period to give a truly informed opinion. But since you asked, I'd say that it was probably due to, again, the forced, cheesy, 'too much' nature of the push (I seem to recall Vince masturbating furiously to him on commentary all the time, him going hard out on the stripping, having Jose Lothario as a manager, things like that) coupled with Shawn's character in the 90s being inherently unlikable and easier to hate.

 

He was the classic wrestling conundrum of a guy with a character that screams heel, but working style that screams babyface.

 

Was there also not a cool factor to Sid at the time of the match? Especially compared to someone so effete as Shawn was. Excuse my language in making this point, but I can imagine a lot of wrestling fans choosing the big badass tough guy over someone who they'd perceive as acting like a fruity faggot. The way they marketed Shawn may have helped draw in women, I don't know, but I can see it alienating a lot of men.

 

Also it was one match. Was there any kind of sustained backlash against Shawn other than that? I genuinely don't know if there was. He seems over just fine with crowds during the rest of 1996, albeit not drawing very well, but I think that's a slightly different conversation.

 

Shawn was well over as a babyface as a Rocker, and again in the 00s as Legend HBK, so I don't think it speaks to an inability to get over as a face in general, if that was in any way what you were alluding to. Just that the way they pushed him in 1996 naturally lead to a segment of the audience turning on him when he faced someone much cooler.

[goc]

Shawn at that period had one of the worst presentations of a top babyface ever. That was during the time period where he would do strip teases after winning matches. Not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with a predominantly male audience.