Shawn Michaels v. Steve Austin

[Cap]

...Triple H, maybe? Austin usually had shockingly good matches with him, better than Shawn usually did. Nobody else but Foley and Benoit seemed able to so consistently pull such good work out of Trips.

 

 

HBK is obviously insanely overrated in the WWE's imagination, and that probably earns him the ire of many internet warriors (including myself).

This is something that does kinda make me chuckle, the bizarre gap of perception between the consensus and some hardcore smarks. It's not just the WWE's imagination. You know what people generally think that Shawn was great? Wrestlers. People as different as Ric Flair, Mick Foley, Ultimate Warrior, Jim Cornette, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, Sid Vicious, Chris Jericho and Jim Ross all manage to put aside their completely differing philosophies on wrestling and agree that Shawn is possibly the best in-ring worker they've ever seen in their lives. (Same thing with Undertaker, but that's a different thread.) And they'll probably all immediately follow that up with "and he was a total asshole backstage", but if anything that makes their compliments towards his work even more impressive, because how much are you willing to compliment a guy you really don't like?

 

I remember a Hurricane Helms shoot interview where he was bitching for like five minutes straight about how terrible a person Michaels was... while still occasionally peppering in comments like "and that really hurt, cuz I idolized his ring work". You don't say that kind of stuff just to be a WWE corporate shill, not when so many of these people don't work there anymore and have tons of big disagreements with other parts of Vince's general business philosophy. These are the guys who've been there and done that, and it's pretty damn rare to hear anyone who's been in the ring with him saying anything not-glowingly-positive about HBK's abilities as an in-ring artist. Even fuckin' Bret doesn't knock the work itself.

 

That is what is so very confusing to me. Most of the wrestlers I REALLY REALLY like hype him as the best ever and it really confuses me. I am obviously not saying my opinion holds more water than theirs, but it just doesn’t compute. And don’t get me wrong, I think HBK is very very good. Like everyone in a topic like this, I am being SUPER critical above, really picking every little thing apart. Even still, it never surprises or offends me when I hear someone LOVES HBK. When it comes down to it, I just don’t see what makes him the best ever, even in his absolute prime, and that might be at least partially me actively rejecting the WWE’s narrative.

 

I guess now that I think about it, I would pick Austin, but it probably wouldn’t be as slam dunk as I thought at first.

[BigBadMick]

Who is someone Austin has carried? Who is his Sid or Kevin Nash?

Kane, KotR '98.

[Loss]

That match was good?

[MJH]

Shawn, in the right mood, was clearly a dream to work with: if we take "worker" in the sense of how he's like to work with, physically, feeding spots and hitting his marks - and again I stress him not throwing a fit and what have you - there are very few guys I can think of having watched where I thought "what a breeze that'd be" than Shawn. That'll be a big part of it.

[BigBadMick]

That match was good?

It's been a while but yeah, I enjoyed it for the standards of Attitude era WWF.

[Matt D]

Wrestlers generally have a different criteria than we do. Likewise, I imagine a huge chunk of us, in 1996, were the same age as guys like Kofi who grew up during that period, would call Shawn the best or close to it.

 

so, 1.) Wrestlers who worked with him have different criteria and 2.) Wrestlers who didn't work with him but idolized him as a workrate champ when they were young haven't had the time or reason to critically reexamine stuff.

[Loss]

 

That match was good?

It's been a while but yeah, I enjoyed it for the standards of Attitude era WWF.

 

 

Is Shawn/Diesel from Good Friends Better Enemies a good match, or just good for a WWF match at the time? I understand not "penalizing" someone for not having great matches in a time and place where no one really is, but I still don't really agree with it. I'm not someone who really factors in the norms and standards of the time as much as some probably do, because every wrestler can change that standard if they really want to do that. I mean, it's something to consider, for sure, so I wouldn't call it unimportant, but I don't like it as a crutch to explain away nothing matches.

 

Here's another reason why. The right worker raises the game of everyone around him and improves the overall in-ring style instead of just being a cog in the wheel and maintaining the status quo. It's those wrestlers who make the in-ring style change for the better. Plenty of great workers are cogs in the wheel of an existing style, but as odd as it sounds, I do think Shawn was a transformative WWF-style worker. And to an extent, Bret and Shawn raised the bar because the matches were generally better during the New Generation era than they were during Rock N Wrestling. The WWF employed wrestlers as good as Bret, Shawn, Owen and the 1-2-3 Kid in the 1980s, but their output didn't match what the 90s group was putting out.

 

If anything, Austin's physical limitations dumbed down the working style because it necessitated all-over-the-building brawls to disguise that he couldn't really take bumps in the middle of the ring. That was also the rise of bells-and-whistles wrestling as a rule instead of as a special exception, as most of the big matches were filled with lots of crowd brawling, ref bumps, run-ins and weapon shots. I have no problem with that style, really, but I do think it's inferior to the simplicity of a wrestling match.

 

That's not to say Shawn gets off easy there. His matches had all sorts of booking help and special tricks from 1997 on, and he was a guy who partially made his name taking bumps off of high things and through pioneering popular gimmick matches. But he excelled against opponents like Diesel and Razor Ramon who didn't do too much of note with other people besides Bret (who I'd put above both Shawn and Austin), whereas Austin wasn't having barnburners with Undertaker and Kane.

 

Both have their positives. Both have their drawbacks. I would rank Shawn above Austin not as someone whose in-ring style I prefer, but as someone who I think simply had the better in-ring career, and I say that pretending that Wrestlemania XIV was his last match. Given time and opportunity, I may be able to name a few hundred wrestlers that I'd rather watch than Shawn, or that work a style that's more suited to my personal tastes. I'm not sure I could do the same for Austin at his best. But that doesn't mean I think they are better, just more enjoyable in the moment.

 

Austin had a 14-year in-ring career. Shawn worked for 15 years before the layoff, so I think they are a really good comparison to each other. Both had their first real standout series of matches about three years in (I don't count War Games for Austin), and both in tag feuds -- Blonds vs Steamboat/Douglas and Rockers vs Rose/Somers. You could point to one-offs before that like Austin-Dustin at Havoc, but as a series that was getting MOTYC buzz, it took longer than that. Austin branched out as a singles wrestler much sooner than Shawn comparatively and had excellent matches with Steamboat in '94. By 1996 when he showed up in the WWF, he was a complete worker. Shawn didn't get a similar chance until 1992, and for most of that year, he was finding his voice. He wasn't consistently awesome in 1993, but Austin really wasn't in 1994 either. Still, I'd say '93 Shawn was better than '94 Austin. By 1994, Shawn put the pieces together and became the Shawn most of us think about primarily when considering his candidacy.

 

I don't fault anyone for voting either way, and I can understand the case for putting Austin over Shawn. I don't see Shawn as a landslide pick at all. However, I think it's only fair to scrutinize Austin under a microscope (no pun intended) in this thread since we've done that for years in Shawn's direction.

[BigBadMick]

I know that wasn't aimed directly at me, Loss, and agree with a great deal of it.

 

Ironically, I started this about a year ago....

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28533-how-does-austin-stand-up-as-an-all-timer-amid-the-attitude-era-backlash/

[Loss]

Cool.

[Benbeeach]

. . . What Loss said.
Not sure if CapitaalTTruth was even giving Austin an actual endorsement outside of "I like him more" and even that, sounded shaky

[Mad Dog]

Who is someone Austin has carried? Who is his Sid or Kevin Nash?

I would argue he lifted Jericho up a level or so. Same with Angle. I think his match with the Rock at Mania XV was a bit of a carry job if you look at the Rock's work around that time.

[MJH]

Shawn was better suited to carrying guys - and made a point of it. Hogan caught him out at SummerSlam (you don't try and show up Hogan), but Shawn would be like a meta-Flair in terms of "look at the work I'm doing with this choad" and his bumping on the shine/comeback, especially early in his singles run, would dwarf his heat segment for interest. Austin was more smoke-and-mirrors, but he could plug anyone into it, even Vince, and it be solid. As far as actual performances go, I'd put Mania X7 and Benoit-Edmonton up there with anything Shawn did. I know plenty of people won't watch the latter but it's the pinnacle of Austin's admiration for Terry Funk, whilst balancing out the stooging with maintaining the "Stone Cold" character/toughness. Shawn had more in-ring strengths, or was more naturally-gifted, or however you want to put it, but Austin's peak work does more for me, personally. And I'm probably one of Shawn's bigger fans on here. Does that make Austin better? I don't know; it's inevitable that you'll warm more to a guy whose talents grow on you over time than someone who rubs it in your face from the off.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

MJH's post sums up pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Shawn was a guy who could bump around more limited guys and make them look better than they generally were, whereas Austin didn't really have that type of performance in his locker. Austin I'd say though was more capable of crafting something more meaningful for other talented workers.

 

As an aside, I don't think Good Friends, Better Enemies is a Shawn carry-job, as Nash puts in a really strong performance in that match, and actually out-performs Shawn in my view.

[Cap]

. . . What Loss said.

Not sure if CapitaalTTruth was even giving Austin an actual endorsement outside of "I like him more" and even that, sounded shaky

In the last post, no I wasn't really, I suppose. And ultimately, that is what I am saying. In this past post I was just saying the conversation has made me think more about why I pick Austin. I think Loss is right in that Austin doesn't default get scrutinized like HBK does. On first response I was far too visceral. I have been thinking more about it recently and the distinction between the two is much more about style than about anything that resembles an argument for objective production.

 

HBK probably had longer stretches of quality matches and no doubt he helped lift overall weaker rosters. Austin was pretty fortunate to work really talented rosters, especially during his best runs. For example, I like Austin’s early 90s work in WCW, but that roster was stacked. When he was in his absolute prime in 96/97 he was mostly working with awesome talent and most of his memorable feuds/matches were with really good workers. And everyone knows that the attitude era featured a lot of talent, even if they underperformed on the whole in terms of actual matches.

 

I am not sure it is fair to say that Austin dumbed down the wrestling though. Wrestling was dumbing down in America overall and Austin’s popularity/injury probably didn’t help anything, but I am not sure that is a cause/effect relationship. If anything Austin changed his own game to stay a bit ahead of the curve in some ways. He wasn’t a fluid and crisp wrestler post injury, but he was a good brawler who used space and pace really well. He still told good stories, kept things pretty tight, and tried to present believable wrestling. Injured, Austin got a lot out of guys like young Angle, Taker, HHH, and The Rock, and even Kane (as mentioned before). Austin was pulling disproportionately good matches out of them for the time period. Austin probably has The Rock and HHH’s best matches and I actually don’t love either of them in the ring. I would maybe contend they are remembered more positively because of their work with Austin (though admittedly they are not Nash or Sid). Changing his own style, Austin – I think – helped hold up in ring wrestling in a time when matches really weren’t that good on the whole.

 

He was able to do this because his original style (though much more fluid athletic before the injury) was still focused on believability over theater, where as HBK – and this isn’t a knock – has a more theatrical style. And this is where the rubber hits the road for me. Austin’s focus on in ring legitimacy and intensity is something I find more compelling and more entertaining. I think it something you see very early in Austin’s career and something he was sort of in a league of his own with by the time he was having his Hart Feud and then ultimately his main event run.

 

That all said, I think HBK should get more credit for getting more out of his opponents and for having long runs of quality wrestling matches. His consistency is fairly impressive and even though I am not a huge fan of post-return HBK, there are still matches in that run that I am a sucker for. And MJH summed up the point I was going to make here. Stylistically, HBK was made for making everyone around him look better. His showmanship bump and feed style makes for memorable (especially WWE style) matches that build drama. For that, I give him a lot of credit.

 

This is ultimately a style issue for me. If I had to bet on one of them to have a match that I will love and call a five star match against a game opponent, I would probably pick Austin. If I had to pick one to put on a series of matches with just about anyone and produce quality, it would be HBK. I would probably rather watch 3 hours of random Austin matches, but there are probably more memorable HBK matches I could name off the top of my head as matches to watch. So, even within the criteria of in ring performer I sort of can’t help but parse out a few different ways of thinking about this. However, ultimately – even if it is just “I like him more” – Austin’s in ring body of work is more entertaining and compelling.

 

Anyway, the conversation here did make me think about both guys quite differently, which is cool. I need to find some time to watch some stretches of each now.

[El-P]

The problem I have with Shawn, rewatching his stuff, is that the vaunted "great matches" just aren't that good in retrospect. So, when all of a sudden there are not that much "great matches" anymore, it becomes way easier to take Austin over Shawn.

 

And don't pimp that "miracle" return to me. The only thing miraculous about it was still coming out to that Heartbreak Kid 80's theme (I know, it was produced in 92, but it sounded like the 80's, Jimmy Hart can't be accused of being a guy surfing on what was curent in term of pop culture past the mid 80's) with his crooked eye, new "religious" belief and still get over as the old HBK.

[Loss]

I prefer the version of that song that had Sherri shrieking where the annoyance was intentional to the version that had Shawn doing vocals that was unknowingly the same effect. For me anyway.

[Cap]

And I think that speaks to my preference of Austin based on style. I think HBK’s theatrical style produces real time investment and can really make for memorable matches, but doesn’t hold up to me on critical rewatch. Whereas, Austin’s matches often fly under the radar, but hold up a little better as tight, compelling matches.

 

I also second that sherri's version was better.

[Badlittlekitten]

I love the bubblegum trash of Sherri's version as well but nothing touches HBK.

 

Shawn's favourite subject is Shawn so hand the cocky bastard a mic and leave him to it. There's no one better for the job. And that voice . . So conceited, macho, bombastic - it's perfect foil for the chugging boogie sleaze of the music. Such a vital piece to the overall act.

 

 

That gruffness, that swagger. THAT guitar solo . . .

 

Fucking love it.

[El-P]

I prefer the version of that song that had Sherri shrieking where the annoyance was intentional to the version that had Shawn doing vocals that was unknowingly the same effect. For me anyway.

 

The same here. And I had such a crush on Sherri back then.

[PeteF3]

What a bunch of shit. Everyone knows the best rendition of HBK's theme was Bobby Heenan whistling it.

[Loss]

I love the bubblegum trash of Sherri's version as well but nothing touches HBK.

 

Shawn's favourite subject is Shawn so hand the cocky bastard a mic and leave him to it. There's no one better for the job. And that voice . . So conceited, macho, bombastic - it's perfect foil for the chugging boogie sleaze of the music. Such a vital piece to the overall act.

 

 

That gruffness, that swagger. THAT guitar solo . . .

 

Fucking love it.

 

I absolutely think there's something to this. Where it didn't work is when he was a babyface in his 40s.

[LariatMMBOPPO]

(I know, it was produced in 92, but it sounded like the 80's, Jimmy Hart can't be accused of being a guy surfing on what was curent in term of pop culture past the mid 80's)

Off topic, but wasn't he responsible for a lot of the grunge knock-offs WCW used? DDP's Smells Like Teen Spirit rip-off comes to mind. Pretty sure he gifted us with Three Count's amazing songs too.

[Loss]

I thought SMW struck a perfect note when they used Pat Benatar's "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" to hype him coming in for Superbowl of Wrestling.

[BigBadMick]

 

. . . What Loss said.

Not sure if CapitaalTTruth was even giving Austin an actual endorsement outside of "I like him more" and even that, sounded shaky

In the last post, no I wasn't really, I suppose. And ultimately, that is what I am saying. In this past post I was just saying the conversation has made me think more about why I pick Austin. I think Loss is right in that Austin doesn't default get scrutinized like HBK does. On first response I was far too visceral. I have been thinking more about it recently and the distinction between the two is much more about style than about anything that resembles an argument for objective production.

 

HBK probably had longer stretches of quality matches and no doubt he helped lift overall weaker rosters. Austin was pretty fortunate to work really talented rosters, especially during his best runs. For example, I like Austin’s early 90s work in WCW, but that roster was stacked. When he was in his absolute prime in 96/97 he was mostly working with awesome talent and most of his memorable feuds/matches were with really good workers. And everyone knows that the attitude era featured a lot of talent, even if they underperformed on the whole in terms of actual matches.

 

I am not sure it is fair to say that Austin dumbed down the wrestling though. Wrestling was dumbing down in America overall and Austin’s popularity/injury probably didn’t help anything, but I am not sure that is a cause/effect relationship. If anything Austin changed his own game to stay a bit ahead of the curve in some ways. He wasn’t a fluid and crisp wrestler post injury, but he was a good brawler who used space and pace really well. He still told good stories, kept things pretty tight, and tried to present believable wrestling. Injured, Austin got a lot out of guys like young Angle, Taker, HHH, and The Rock, and even Kane (as mentioned before). Austin was pulling disproportionately good matches out of them for the time period. Austin probably has The Rock and HHH’s best matches and I actually don’t love either of them in the ring. I would maybe contend they are remembered more positively because of their work with Austin (though admittedly they are not Nash or Sid). Changing his own style, Austin – I think – helped hold up in ring wrestling in a time when matches really weren’t that good on the whole.

 

He was able to do this because his original style (though much more fluid athletic before the injury) was still focused on believability over theater, where as HBK – and this isn’t a knock – has a more theatrical style. And this is where the rubber hits the road for me. Austin’s focus on in ring legitimacy and intensity is something I find more compelling and more entertaining. I think it something you see very early in Austin’s career and something he was sort of in a league of his own with by the time he was having his Hart Feud and then ultimately his main event run.

 

That all said, I think HBK should get more credit for getting more out of his opponents and for having long runs of quality wrestling matches. His consistency is fairly impressive and even though I am not a huge fan of post-return HBK, there are still matches in that run that I am a sucker for. And MJH summed up the point I was going to make here. Stylistically, HBK was made for making everyone around him look better. His showmanship bump and feed style makes for memorable (especially WWE style) matches that build drama. For that, I give him a lot of credit.

 

This is ultimately a style issue for me. If I had to bet on one of them to have a match that I will love and call a five star match against a game opponent, I would probably pick Austin. If I had to pick one to put on a series of matches with just about anyone and produce quality, it would be HBK. I would probably rather watch 3 hours of random Austin matches, but there are probably more memorable HBK matches I could name off the top of my head as matches to watch. So, even within the criteria of in ring performer I sort of can’t help but parse out a few different ways of thinking about this. However, ultimately – even if it is just “I like him more” – Austin’s in ring body of work is more entertaining and compelling.

 

Anyway, the conversation here did make me think about both guys quite differently, which is cool. I need to find some time to watch some stretches of each now.

 

This got me thinking about how Austin might have fared in All Japan when he was fielding offers from there in '95. With Hansen and Williams tutoring him, could he have made the grade there?

 

An interesting 'what-if', anyway.

[Childs]

He probably would have been fine in All Japan. He still had the athleticism to work that style in '95. I don't know that he'd have gotten over as a huge star, but he could have fit in.