Shawn Michaels v. Steve Austin

[Mad Dog]

Can we count Jericho as a wrestler that Austin elevated when they wrestled?

[Jimmy Redman]

I'm not really a star ratings kind of girl, but I'd call both Shawn vs Taker Mania matches *****, to offer up a dissenting opinion.

[Loss]

 

Austin and Undertaker working so many times and never fully clicking is a big black mark for me.

Taker was really hampered by injuries as their matches progressed. He was almost worthless as a worker in 99.

 

 

Yes, but they didn't deliver in their 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 or 2002 pay-per-view matches against each other, nor did they in the many TV matches they had against each other in those same years. The sad thing about Austin's run as the top guy is that aside from the match with Dude Love at Over The Edge '98, nothing else really delivered in a great way in the ring until his 2001 comeback.

[ohtani's jacket]

Owen worked his but off to make Shamrock look good and get the best possible match that could come from Shamrock at that point. Michaels just wanted to have his match and the result was a piss poor match where Shamrock looked weak and like a guy who could barely wrestle.

 

Owen worked short gimmick matches with Shamrock, so unless they had a straight match at some point it's tough to make a comparison since Shawn was liable to make a guy look bad on purpose. Not that Shamrock was a bad worker. He was just more adept at shoot style. It's not like Owen was all that great at the time either. That whole era of WWF is checkered if you're looking for great matches.

[WingedEagle]

 

 

Austin and Undertaker working so many times and never fully clicking is a big black mark for me.

Taker was really hampered by injuries as their matches progressed. He was almost worthless as a worker in 99.

 

 

Yes, but they didn't deliver in their 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 or 2002 pay-per-view matches against each other, nor did they in the many TV matches they had against each other in those same years. The sad thing about Austin's run as the top guy is that aside from the match with Dude Love at Over The Edge '98, nothing else really delivered in a great way in the ring until his 2001 comeback.

 

 

What about the matches with Rock? Those are probably the best before the comeback other than OTE.

[Loss]

The Rock matches from 1999 are good, yes. I just don't think they are at that elite level needed to make a strong case for Austin.

[NintendoLogic]

That raises the question of how much you should penalize someone for not having great matches in an environment where no one was having great matches.

[DR Ackermann]

As early as 1992 Austin was doing better work that Michaels at the same time, and that's only 2 1/2 years into his career. Austin wasn't great at that point, merely good. Michaels had much more experience and was given the opportunity to work with main eventers during the time period and underperformed whereas Austin was able to hold his own and not disappoint against wcw's upper card.

[Dylan Waco]

As early as 1992 Austin was doing better work that Michaels at the same time, and that's only 2 1/2 years into his career. Austin wasn't great at that point, merely good. Michaels had much more experience and was given the opportunity to work with main eventers during the time period and underperformed whereas Austin was able to hold his own and not disappoint against wcw's upper card.

 

This is a fair point BUT I would note that 92 WCW feels like possibly the easiest fed in modern wrestling history to have good matches in, and Michaels as a Rocker was clearly better than Austin at any point until 96.

 

I will say what hurts Michaels as much as anything to me is that I don't think he was ever a truly great singles worker the way he was a tag worker. He absolutely did have singles matches that I loved, but I think his first stretch as a singles worker is really overrated in many quarters, and I have no use for post-comeback Shawn outside of the 2 or 3 times a year he would turn it on.

[goc]

I've seen the Mind Games match with Foley pimped so much that I feel like it's over rated. It definitely felt over rated at the time I first watched it and had spent months reading on the internet about how great it was. I feel like it's really good. I don't do star ratings but I couldn't see it going above 4 stars if I did. I want JVK to watch that one.

[Benbeeach]

Now that we've actually got this thread booming from the doldrums it once was in, again the question bears asking, given a lot of the criteria we've laid out, where does this 39-11 consensus come from?
I don't think it's any sort of hyperbole to say that the number of good-great Shawn matches, sheer volume, vastly outweighs Austin. Steve's best is probably better than Shawn's best but this isn't dozens upon dozen's of matches we're talking about. So again I ask is this a matter of tool set? Who annoyed you less? What are the arguments FOR Austin as opposed to against Shawn? On average I think Shawn is a guy who flew alot closer to the sun, match in match out. Some of the knocks on Austin, injury, the booking at the time, etc... aren't his fault necessarily, but you judge what you have, not what could have or should have been.

I also think the Shamrock point was a great one, because those Owen matches are good, I guess, but I think the Shawn matches are more tantamount to Shawn's ineptitude as a professional (Human being?) than any sort of deficiencies as a worker. He was a guy who could essentially have whatever kind of match he wanted 90% of the time, before the back went. Choosing to have a stinker, in those prime years, felt just like that, a choice. Choosing to have some sort of a self conscience epic that ultimately fell short, were probably a lot less selective, and more what they actually were, a swing and a miss.

Not to open the bag of worms of what workers could do vs. actually did, because at the end of the day we can only go off of the latter. But again, by that metric, the Austin vote still perplexes me.

Also throw me in the group of people who thinks HIAC 1 was borderline great (especially given the fed at the time) and thinks the Royal Rumble casket match is probably Shawn's last great match before the comeback. A good portrait of everything Shawn was and wasn't as a worker up until that point. Does Shawn get any points for being I think indisputably, Taker's best opponent, throughout, maybe a 15 year span? I don't think any worker did as well juggling the undead zombie no-sell aspect of taker's character, with being near equal worthy dance partner as well as Shawn did, unless you count Kane/Giant Gonzales or something but that's kind of veering left. Shawn and Taker's best matches weren't happening during mute, tighten the gloves Paul Bearer era Taker, but weren't that far off.

(I also weirdly like the Shawn/Sid title switch from survivor series 96, although perhaps I'm now showing my true colors. It's probably been a decade since I watched it in full, wouldn't be surprised if it's awful on the rewatch, but it's the best non horseman Sid match I can remember watching. )

[DMJ]

Haven't seen the RR98' match in a long while, but I remember liking it when I was a kid.

 

I still think HIAC 1 is great and, at the time, being 13 and not having seen all the stuff I've seen since, I was convinced that it was the greatest cage match that ever happened. (I think Foley even called it that in his first book, so, it's not like it was a bizarre opinion then or now).

 

To answer the poster above's question about why Austin won this by such a landslide, I voted Austin based on my gut and I think many others did too. I know that part of my gut reaction was based on things that almost have nothing to do with Austin and Michaels' actual resumes - for example, when it comes to watching previously unseen matches from these guys, I'd watch 10 Austin matches I'd never seen before from ANY point his career before I'd be curious in seeing a single one from Shawn's career. Again, this is a gut instinct based on what I can recall from memory, but I feel like a lot of Michaels' singles matches only get good in the final 3-4 minutes, while Austin's matches, in WCW or WWE, typically start great with some real urgency, either lag a little in the middle or get a bit tedious, but then get really hot again for their finishes (whether that finish is a sprint with a ticking clock as was often the case in WCW or an overuse of run-ins like his WWE main event run).

[Mad Dog]

I voted Austin because I think Michaels lacks a certain believability due to his offense. I also hold his lack of professionalism against him.

 

But I also just enjoy Austin's high end stuff more. The Hart matches, the Benoit matches, Three Stages of Hell, the tag against Benoit and Jericho, Dude Love, the Rock matches and even the Angle matches.

[soup23]

Holding professionalism against Michaels seems kind of odd to me in voting for a wife beater.

 

 

I am plowing through 96 Michaels in yearbook form. KOTR 96 offers a good comparison to the two that year to me. Both Shawn and Austin are in matches with limited and points but capable workers (Mero/Davey). I came away from those matches thinking the DBS/HBK match was better and really enjoyed Michaels performance in that one bumping huge to put Davey over who was insistent on working chinlocks and other uninteresting things on top. Austin for his part also gave a gutty, rugged performance in the Mero match being focused on the back and getting busted open and soldiering through but I also didn't think he took Mero's high impact offense particularly well and he could be blamed for some of the positioning issues. In watching Michaels in 96, he has really delivered on every PPV so far in my eyes with the exception of the Beware of Dog match. This is against a variety of opponents and style of matches. I look forward to watching the Vader, Mankind and Sid matches to see if this perception changes.

 

To me this simply comes down to the fact that 86-91 Michaels is better than 90-96 Austin in my eyes rather easily. Shawn from 92-99 seems to play well in my eyes to Austin from 96-03.

 

That leaves Shawn with an advantage in two portions of his career. Post-Comeback Shawn to me has the most holes to poke in performances but he still has the Jericho feud and Taker matches that I still really enjoyed. Austin by that point has Broken Skull Ranch.

[Mad Dog]

Strictly inring on the professionalism part. Michaels throwing tantrums during matches and going into business for himself is what I'm talking about.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

After reading Charles' comments on Austin, I think it's pretty clear that there needs to be a Will/Charles podcast on Austin like the ones about Shawn and Bret (can't remember which umbrella those were recorded under).

[Grimmas]

If you were to ask me if I wanted to watch an Austin or a Michaels match I have not seen, I pick an Austin match every time.

When people are talking about criteria for voting for GWE, well a lot of mine comes down to that. Now, how I decide which I would rather watch is based on a lot of things.

[goodhelmet]

A case for Steve Austin...

 

1990 Steve Austin vs. Chris Adams feud - We found out that Adams in the 80s was a great worker but he wasn't a miracle worker. If he didn't have a dance partner, he didn't always hit a homerun. With a very green Austin, he has a feud of the year contender with entertaining TV matches and angles week to week. Watching Austin evolve his rookie year was awesome because he looked like he belonged from day one. No MOTYCs but you weren't going to get any MOTYCs on Dallas TV at that time. However, Austin was never downright bad and was often in step with Adams throughout the feud.

 

1991 - Austin is cutting his teeth in Dallas in more entertaining TV matches and tag teams. He has some awesome TV matches and even if you aren't getting MOTYs, his TV output is solid. He joins WCW later in the year and is thrown into a program with Dustin Rhodes that was solid. Again, he was only around for less than two years at this point. I think 2 years in, Shawn was still doing jobs in Central States or maybe just forming his team with Janetty.

 

1991-1992 - Dangerous Alliance Austin - Austin was working great TV matches again and performed well on PPV. HE was mainly in a tag team role but he delivered much in the same way that Shawn and Marty delivered as the Rockers. That's a plus for Austin and it is a plus for Shawn. Good for them. Still, early in his career, Austin is a pretty great TV worker and blossoming as a performer.

 

1993 - Austin does the Hollywood Blondes thing and then a mini-feud with Pillman. I know people enjoy the Blondes and I think they were hit or miss but I wouldn't call it a knock to say he had a pretty good year. Again, no MOTYs but a solid TV player.

 

1994 - When I rewatched all of the Clashes and PPVs, Austin was a standout alongside Steven Regal who really upped his game. I enjoyed almost all of his performances even when he was being wasted away later on against Duggan. This was the year where Austin just clicked and he was knocking it out of the park. Not every Austin match made the yearbook so it doesn't really come across that way there but he was just killing it. I also enjoyed the Steamboat feud much more than yearbook viewers and consider it his 2nd great feud behind the Adams feud but with awesome matches to add to the resume.

 

1995 - Injured... ECW... Ringmaster... blah blah blah

 

1996- KOTR, Vega feud, MOTYC with Bret

 

1997 - Awesome centerpiece in the Hart Foundation vs. Austin feud. Great matches throughout the year. MOTYC with Bret at Mania.

 

1998 - Had good matches after having to adjust his style. Not my favorite period.

 

1999 - The Rock matches were great. Being stuck in a feud with Kane who has never had a great match and 1999 Taker who didn't have any great matches that year really hurts.

 

2001 - Resurgence. At the time, nearly every match he was in was praised.... HHH, Rock, Benoit, Angle, etc.

 

2002-2003 - I really like the last Rock match. I don't know what else he did.

[Matt D]

I'm not convinced that Michaels' 92-93 is all that better than Austin's 91-92 to be honest. I think it is better. I just don't think it was all that better. The ten minute TV title match format helped Austin and I think he had a lot more featured matches on TV because of it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Austin was really not very good in 1991 in my opinion. I've been a little surprised re-watching for WTBBP just how long it took him to start looking good.

[goodhelmet]

How long should it take someone in your opinion Parv? I thought his feud with Dustin was fine. I am also assuming you have not seen his USWA stuff.

[The Man in Blak]

2002-2003 - I really like the last Rock match. I don't know what else he did.

 

I haven't rewatched any of this period for Austin but, working from my impressions at the time, Austin (and the WWF) came off the rails early in 2002.

 

He had an okay-ish match with Jericho at No Way Out 2002 that ended with an nWo beatdown (which made both Austin and Jericho look bad), which he followed with his worst-ever Wrestlemania match against Scott Hall at WM18 and a dreadful match against Undertaker at Backlash. I didn't see the Judgment Day match against Big Show and Flair, though that sounds like a potential disaster.

 

After that, Austin "takes his ball and goes home" amidst a whirlwind of political bullshit, has the domestic abuse incident with Debra, and is effectively off the radar until he comes back for No Way Out 2003 to squash Bischoff in five minutes.

 

Even if the Flair/Show handicap match is some kind of hidden gem, this is a pretty bad run for Austin.

[DR Ackermann]

Michaels doesn't really know what he's doing in 92-93. He sets out on his own and doesn't know how to work singles matches that well. As an 8 year veteran he's being outclassed by 2-3 year pro

[SomethingSavage]

I haven't watched early singles heel Shawn in awhile. He had some good matches here & there - one against Savage with Sherri at ringside, and one or two with Duggan that I dug. Going back to his Rockers days, I liked the babyface performance he had with Mr. Perfect around WM7 time. But even Shawn himself has said that things didn't really "click" for him as an offensive heel until he started working with Razor. So there's that.

 

Going back to Austin though, I REALLY like his stuff in USWA with Adams. I reviewed most of their gimmick matches somewhere on here last summer - maybe in the "What Are You Watching" thread or something. But I'm with Will. There's something about rookie Austin that I really enjoy watching. There for awhile, it felt like you could actually see him improving by leaps & bounds - in just about EVERY match he'd perform.

 

Austin worked with this sense of urgency & energy from the very beginning. He wasn't the most polished. He wasn't smooth. He wasn't sleek. But come on. Was he really meant to be at that point? The guy was greener than goose shit. That being said, he makes up for his flaws & small faults by working with that said sense of urgency.

 

He's also got GREAT reactions, right out of the gate. Things that get so much discussion around here lately - like selling, facials, and character work - are aspects that Austin seemed to "get" early on also. His performances are highly reactionary. He's like a raw nerve.

 

At the same time, Austin has the good sense to hinge those early performances on his athleticism a bit more than you'd expect. It's not something he relies so much on later, but when he only had so many tools at his disposal? Yeah. I'd say he worked with what he knew, while still learning the other skills on the job as he went along. And to his credit, he picked it up VERY quickly compared to most.

[JerryvonKramer]

How long should it take someone in your opinion Parv? I thought his feud with Dustin was fine. I am also assuming you have not seen his USWA stuff.

 

Saw some of the matches with Chris Adams and thought they were nothing at all.

 

I actually think Austin is not very good until he cuts his hair and changes his trunks. Around that time he starts getting a lot better.