Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Shawn Michaels v. Steve Austin


MoS

Shawn Michaels v. Steve Austin   

79 members have voted

  1. 1. Shawn Michaels or Steve Austin

    • The Heartbreak Kid
      16
    • The Rattlesnake
      63


Recommended Posts

Before I joined the internet wrestling community, I always thought of Austin as a much better wrestler than Shawn Michaels, to the point where it was not even close. However, prior to joining PWO in around 2011, my wrestling fix was sated solely by LoP, and there, Shawn was considered a much better wrestler than Austin, so much so that it was not even an opinion; it was just a fact, and you were a rube if you thought otherwise. They had an unexpected supporter in Steve Austin himself, who has gone on record saying that he does not consider himself as good a wrestler as Shawn Michaels.

 

Well, I am a rube then, because I disagree, and I do so vehemently. I think Austin is better on offense; I think Austin is a better seller; Austin times his comebacks and his hope spots much more ffecively; Austin is much better at garnerng sympathy and then working the crowd to a molten hot lava point with his comebacks; Austin's WWE-trademarked Hulk-style comeback is much better than Michaels's kip-up stretch. Really, I cannot think of one area where Michaels is better than Austin except in displays of athleticism, and because that is well down the list of what I look for in a wrestler, I consider that largely irrelevant.

 

What do the good people here think? Agree? Disagree? I am off my rocker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Shawn Michaels is pretty much the epitome of why people laugh at American wrestling. Austin is a guy who will make my dad (who thinks pro wrestling is pretty stupid) think he punched a guy for real when a random match of his is played on WWE's Eurosport show. No contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin easily. More versatile in the ring and as a character. Good technical wrestler when he was "Stunning," great brawler as "Stone Cold," and what an amazing transition from that blond-haired robed pretty boy to the bald black boots and trunks badass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer Michaels. I have him as a great singles wrestler from May 1995-January 1998 and Austin as a great singles wrestler from May 1996-August 1997, although Michaels' missed time makes it closer than that. After SummerSlam '97, Austin drops off significantly. Austin 's 2001 doesn't do that much for me but that's around the time the WWF style starts to lose me, so I might be missing out. They were about equal as TV wrestlers (generally good but neither produced much standout stuff) and equal as PPV wrestlers, but I think that Michaels got a bit more out of his run. Both guys got consistent opportunities to work long PPV matches. Pre-prime, I think that Michaels was better as a Rocker than Austin was before Stone Cold, but that pre-Stone Cold Steve Austin beats 1992-95 heel Michaels. Regardless, I think Michaels kind of overachieved and that Austin kind of underachieved during that period. I'm not as familiar with post-prime Michaels as I am with post-prime Austin, but I generally saw them as about equal.

 

As far as individual attributes go, Michaels was a better bumper and more fluid in the ring. I'd rather watch Michaels wrestle. Given the choice between a random Austin match and a random Michaels match, I'd take the Michaels one. Austin had better punches, better offense (although the berth here isn't huge), and slightly better selling. I disagree with the argument that Austin was better at garnering sympathy; he always felt like Hogan or Rock in that you could never really put him down. Michaels did a better job of making the things that happened in his matches meaningful. Austin in his WWF champion years would have long portions of his matches made up of unfocused brawling. It got the crowd hot, and some of the spots were nice, but none of it meant all that much, and that hurt a lot of the stuff that he did during that period. I guess the counterargument is that Michaels' nip-up and comeback rendered previous stretches of his matches pointless, but it never felt that way to me, and maybe that's why I ended up rating him ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd put Shawn ahead of Austin, but it's close. Their strengths and weaknesses overall I think are opposite each other in most areas, so direct comparisons are hard on anything other than output for me personally. Austin had a 14-year career and he spent nearly half of that living on potential. I loved Stunning Steve, but not in a "one of the greatest of all time" way, and one reason I liked him so much was that he was trying so hard to improve. His career trajectory was exciting to follow, but he was a late bloomer. Austin was a great athlete from the start, but it took him a while to put all the pieces together and become a great worker.

 

Comparatively, I think Shawn started performing at a high level much earlier in his career and stayed there until the back injury in 1998. It did take him some time to adjust to being a singles heel, much like it did Austin. I think it's close either way, but I also think Shawn had a far higher number of memorable matches, even excluding his second career.

 

On a global, all-encompassing GOAT list, I wouldn't necessarily think this, but on a WWE-only list, I think Shawn has a really strong argument for number one. To me, his biggest strength there is in his influence. He popularized the ladder match and Hell in a Cell, which are two of the most important and enduring WWE gimmick matches. Ladder matches in particular also became popular on the indy scene and even played a role in great matches internationally, with AJW's Rage In The Cage and Psicosis' man vs self performance against Ultraman in early 1996 being the first that come to mind. I realize ladder matches happened before his run with Razor, but they weren't really a hot ticket until Wrestlemania X. I also realize that not all of his influence has been positive, but I do think you could argue that he set the standard and created the template for the modern WWE working style. I'm not sure I fully embrace that point of view, but a good argument is definitely there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Work aside. Some of the unprofessional bullshit he's pulled during a match I can't get over. The Vader match comes to mind. Had I been Vader I woulda knocked the piss outta him and walked.

 

I also can't stand the gum chewing too. I could swear I've seen him 'knocked cold' and he's chewin gum. Shithead.

 

I know Hogan was/is a pain in the ass but that match was ridiculous. Had I dropped a buck on that I woulda found him myself and had him open his wallet.

 

Leave that crap behind the curtain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin, and for me it's not close. I'm not super high on Austin, but I am very low on Michaels. If you were to remove Michaels' Rockers run from the mix he wouldn't have much of anything on his resume that makes me think of him as a great wrestler. Austin had his share of misses, but I think he easily has HBK beat using Great Match Theory; Michaels is way behind Austin in his overall ability to work with anyone and get something worthwhile out of them; he has has him beat in overall skill; and he has him beat in the simple eye test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin and I didn't even think twice. Better character and a much more flexible as a worker. Austin isn't my favorite by any means but when I look at his really high end matches in the WWF he just smokes Michaels. The Three Stages of Hell match, the Rock Mania matches, the Benoit matches and the tag team match against Jericho and Benoit. Even then when he was limited by injuries he could change it up a good bit. He approached Benoit differently than he did say the Undertaker and you got different matches out of it. He worked gimmick matches really well and he interjected his character into his matches really well.

 

Michaels falls short for me because his offense is shit. You never believe that he's in any real danger when he's taking a beating because his matches were very formula. When I think about my favorite Michaels match, Jeff Jarrett was calling the shots in the ring. Even going back to the Rockers, I always felt Jannetty was the workhorse of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin, and for me it's not close. I'm not super high on Austin, but I am very low on Michaels. If you were to remove Michaels' Rockers run from the mix he wouldn't have much of anything on his resume that makes me think of him as a great wrestler.

Same. Seems there are a lot of rubes on PWO, eh.

 

HBK's rep as a GOAT contender in the WWE universe and online is one of the great mysteries of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Austin, and for me it's not close. I'm not super high on Austin, but I am very low on Michaels. If you were to remove Michaels' Rockers run from the mix he wouldn't have much of anything on his resume that makes me think of him as a great wrestler.

Same. Seems there are a lot of rubes on PWO, eh.

 

HBK's rep as a GOAT contender in the WWE universe and online is one of the great mysteries of the world.

 

 

It's really Scott Keith and Meltzer who drove the Michaels love. Plus he stood out in the WWF in 1994-1996 as someone unique.

 

It's the post comeback love that I really don't get and those are the matches that are getting him to "greatest of all time level" even though for the most part, they aren't better than average to a little above average. The HHH matches in particular are matches I never want to see again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Austin, and for me it's not close. I'm not super high on Austin, but I am very low on Michaels. If you were to remove Michaels' Rockers run from the mix he wouldn't have much of anything on his resume that makes me think of him as a great wrestler.

Same. Seems there are a lot of rubes on PWO, eh.

 

HBK's rep as a GOAT contender in the WWE universe and online is one of the great mysteries of the world.

 

 

It's really Scott Keith and Meltzer who drove the Michaels love. Plus he stood out in the WWF in 1994-1996 as someone unique.

 

It's the post comeback love that I really don't get and those are the matches that are getting him to "greatest of all time level" even though for the most part, they aren't better than average to a little above average. The HHH matches in particular are matches I never want to see again.

 

 

It's been said, but I think it can't be underrated how thoroughly guys like Austin and Flair support Michaels. The main take away I get from hearing them talk are "excitement" and "can do anything in the ring." Past a few Johnny Valentine stories and the selling of DDTs, most wrestlers seem to mainly value athleticism (especially stamina), legit toughness, and coordination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is though, even on here where a lot of people aren't high on HBK, I still see the Taker matches (for example) getting love. Seems to me that if you have time for the modern WWE Main event style, then Michaels is the ultimate worker in that style.

 

I really don't like any of the big post-comeback matches. I hate the "I Love You" (and I'm a huge Flair fan), I don't like the Taker matches, I don't like Summerslam 02 vs. HHH, no real time for the Jericho matches. Kurt Angle stuff I need to rewatch but recall liking a match of theirs at the time. I like the IC title era and matches vs. Razor in 94. I flat out hate him in 1996.

 

I chalk a lot of it up for me just really despising the sort of self-conscious, pose-y, "for the cameras" wrestler he is and put a lot of it down to personal foibles, so it's interesting that so many are low on him as well. I expected this poll to be a lot closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin isn't winning this poll on Great Match Theory, that's for sure. I think even being lukewarm on Shawn's most highly touted stuff puts Shawn at a net positive compared to Stunning Steve. Austin probably has the greatest match between the two, but I think the sheer output puts Austin much further behind.
If this boils down to tools, I'd love to hear the Austin arguments, ala the Bret/Cena thread because I think this could/should be a thread with similar discourse. Where maybe on paper it sounds crazy but getting down to brass tax reveals something completely different.

I think (and this is conjecture) there might be some surface level "don't like shawn, never have, not voting for him" voting here, which in and of itself isn't wrong, but might rob us of a more rich and spirited discourse.

In short, is Austin really a 3 votes to 1 odds on slam dunk better worker than Shawn Michaels? The votes would say yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phoney postcard drama of it all. The sense of portent. The narcassistic and self-important wish-fulfillment fantasy. Shawn's self-conscious sense of importance is like a teenager's idea of "deep". That's the only way I can put it. It's not even inauthentic, it's just gauche. As much as I have defended Vince on this board, I loathe his "late vision" of pro wrestling more than just about anything else. Not the Monday Night War comedy stuff, the 00s big dramatic "Wrestlemania moment" stuff. And there in that picture you can see it all. That's intended to mean something to people, and I'm sure it does. What it means to me is the dawning of an epoch of false sentiment and self-important "weightiness".

 

I feel like even though the Monday Night Wars was built on Stone Cold's success, modern WWE was built in Shawn's image.

 

I have nothing against anyone who doesn't share my complete disdain for this, I understand that these are my own deep biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phoney postcard drama of it all. The sense of portent. The narcassistic and self-important wish-fulfillment fantasy. Shawn's self-conscious sense of importance is like a teenager's idea of "deep". That's the only way I can put it. It's not even inauthentic, it's just gauche. As much as I have defended Vince on this board, I loathe his "late vision" of pro wrestling more than just about anything else. Not the Monday Night War comedy stuff, the 00s big dramatic "Wrestlemania moment" stuff. And there in that picture you can see it all. That's intended to mean something to people, and I'm sure it does. What it means to me is the dawning of an epoch of false sentiment and self-important "weightiness".

 

I feel like even though the Monday Night Wars was built on Stone Cold's success, modern WWE was built in Shawn's image.

 

I have nothing against anyone who doesn't share my complete disdain for this, I understand that these are my own deep biases.

 

I always felt Savage was the real point of origin for this stuff and I love Savage.

 

One thing I will say is that I don't think it's self evident that Shawn had more great matches than Austin. It's possible, but I don't think picking Austin wold be odd at all.

 

Michaels as a Rocker was better than Austin in the DA/Blondes/mid-card title holder. Best five matches v. best five matches I'd take Austin without much hesitation. I do wonder if people prefer Austin's 01 to Michaels 96. I probably do but I haven't watched Austin's 01 in ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Michaels as a Rocker was better than Austin in the DA/Blondes/mid-card title holder. Best five matches v. best five matches I'd take Austin without much hesitation. I do wonder if people prefer Austin's 01 to Michaels 96. I probably do but I haven't watched Austin's 01 in ages.

 

Was thinking this as well, wouldn't surprise me if austin's 01 blows Michaels 96 away on a rewatch. I think Shawn's got some better resume padding years post comeback that Austin obviously doesn't have post 2003, but I know there's some who consider most everything post 02 Michaels a wash, even though there is some quality wrestling there.

 

. . . no comment on Jerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would probably take Austin's high end matches over Shawn's, because Shawn never had a match quite as good as the Austin/Bret series, but Shawn simply has way more matches and performances that I enjoy than Austin.

 

I like Austin's WCW work a lot, but he wasn't exactly an elite worker then, and I would put Shawn's early tag team work above Austin's pre-WWF stuff. I LOVE Austin's '96 and '97, but after that he kinda falls off a cliff for me for a couple years. I really dislike most WWF stuff from '98 and '99, Austin's matches very much included, despite a few exceptions like his Dude Love matches from '98. Then when he comes back from injury he has a stellar '01, which I enjoy a lot, but then he walks out in '02 and has a short comeback before he retires fully. I think Austin was a great worker, but his peak is too short for me to pick him here.

 

Shawn, on the other hand, has singles performances as early as '92 and as late as 2010 that I consider great, and a whole ton of greatness in between. I've been trying to come up with a good response to the "Shawn is shit" sentiment that is prevalent around here, but I really can't besides to say that I strongly disagree. Was he the GOAT like the WWE and people all over wreddit like to claim? Nah. But I still think he was pretty fucking great for a lot of his career.

 

Shawn may have never had a single year as good as Austin's 2001, but I think he delivered a larger number of great performances over the course of his career than Austin did. Now, if Austin didn't have to retire early, then maybe that's a different story, but as it is I have to give Shawn the edge.

 

Shawn will be in the 20 to 30 range on my GWE ballot, and Austin will be in the 40 to 50 range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...