Loss Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Vote for the wrestler that you think had the better career in WWE (whether you base that on impact or match quality is your decision), from 1985 to 2005. Voting will end tomorrow morning at the latest. Please give the wrestler's name first and any explanation thereafter. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Whichever decision is made will be the right one. Whichever decision is made will be the wrong one. The Rock This is the closest call for me yet. Shawn is the superior worker who has had more great matches, and he has the edge on Rock in longevity, but Rock was a megadraw when he was around and still would be if he could still be around. This is a tough one to call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Man in Blak Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock It's not that close, actually. Shawn's a better worker, but probably doesn't even have half of the drawing power that Rock has and he's done way too much damage to the company politically (during the Clique era specifically). The Rock has been a consummate professional, isn't a bad worker himself, is probably one of the top three workers on the stick that the company has ever had, and has arguably become the company's most successful crossover star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rob Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Shawn Michaels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mac Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Shawn. This is a really close call so i'm gonna go for the only fair way to decide and that is to compare the top 5 Michaels matches within the timeframe to those of The Rock. Michael's wins this clearly when judged from that perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Can we get some more talking points on this one, from both sides? This is one of those that's so close that it should be fun to discuss. Bring it, peoples! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 I don't think it's that close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 It actually is. What I'm wanting to know is what counts for more -- great matches or money drawn? A longer run having excellent matches in singles, tags and main events or a shorter run having strong main events? Did charisma play into this? Did interview skill? Did you vote on impact, or do you some of you prefer Rock in the ring to Michaels? I'm surprised at anyone who wouldn't think it's close, given the accomplishments of both in the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Man in Blak Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 I don't think it's that close. Neither do I. You weigh it by drawing power, Rock wins easily. You weigh it by match quality, Shawn wins fairly handily, though it's not a complete wash. You weigh it by interviews, Rock wins easily. You weigh it by historical significance, Rock wins easily. You weigh it by professionalism, Rock wins easily. Unless you are looking by match quality and by match quality only, I personally don't feel there's anyway to not take Rock on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 I voted Rock too, so I'm not disagreeing, but this is not the squash it's being made out to be. Shawn wins on match quality. Shawn wins on longevity. Shawn has shown an ability to adapt, and has popularized at least two gimmick matches that are still commonly used in the company today. If you look at MOTY for every year in the company, I'd probably say that Shawn is in over half of them. 1989 -- Hogan/Savage is the only thing that touches the Rockers/'Busters series, and I still give the nod to that feud. 1990 -- Harts/Rockers from SNME is my MOTY for the company 1991 -- #2 MOTY for the company in the Rockers/OX match at the Rumble 1993 -- MOTY against Marty Jannetty on 07/19 1994 -- Involved in two of the top five matches of the year (WM X ladder match and Action Zone tag) 1995 -- MOTY against Razor at Summerslam '95 1996 -- If you did the top 10 matches of the year for the company, he'd probably be in all but one of them (Austin/Bret -- Survivor Series '96) 1997 -- HIAC I is probably the #2 MOTY for 1997 *break* 2002 -- This year doesn't do him any favors. 2003 -- MOTY for company against Chris Jericho at WM XIX 2004 -- This year doesn't do him any favors either, at least in my eyes. 2005 -- MOTY for company against Kurt Angle at WM XXI. He was the first guy in company history to hold every single championship. He's been with them since *1988*. There are a lot of downsides to him as well, specifically his professionalism, his long breaks and the fact that business wasn't so hot when he was on top, but this is still pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 How does longevity mean anything? Billy Gunn certainly never did shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 How does longevity mean anything? Billy Gunn certainly never did shit. Are you comparing Billy Gunn to Shawn Michaels? Come ON. Longevity does count for a lot when you come in and you're good and 17 years later, you're still going and you're good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 I'm only making the comparison in that Billy Gunn was there for a long time too. So has been The Fink and Earl Hebner. Senority doesn't mean shit in wrestling. Ric Flair in '92 was better than anything that Billy Gunn ever did but just because Gunn was there for a long time that should be taken into account? I'm disputing your second listing of why you think HBK shouldn't get blown out. I won't dispute that HBK is the better worker, although I probably could thanks to his "classic comeback" BS, but listing longevity as if it matters? C'mon. It's like The Man in Blak said: "Unless you are looking by match quality and by match quality only, I personally don't feel there's anyway to not take Rock on this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Longevity is a definite factor when it's a positive. 17 years of good-great matches almost the entire time (factoring out the four-year break), working the undercard, main events, singles matches, tag matches and gimmick matches is a major accomplishment and shouldn't just be written off because Rock was a draw for three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hunter's Torn Quad Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 I don't think it's that close. Neither do I. You weigh it by drawing power, Rock wins easily. You weigh it by match quality, Shawn wins fairly handily, though it's not a complete wash. You weigh it by interviews, Rock wins easily. You weigh it by historical significance, Rock wins easily. You weigh it by professionalism, Rock wins easily. Unless you are looking by match quality and by match quality only, I personally don't feel there's anyway to not take Rock on this. The Rock Add to the list of factors against Shawn the damage he did during his Clique days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Longevity is a definite factor when it's a positive. 17 years of good-great matches almost the entire time (factoring out the four-year break), working the undercard, main events, singles matches, tag matches and gimmick matches is a major accomplishment and shouldn't just be written off because Rock was a draw for three years. I wouldn't say that entire time was positive. As a Rocker and mid-level guy, no real argument. Quitting on a championship three times? Not a positive. Throwing fits in the middle of the ring reminding you what you are watching is not real? Not a positive. Refusing to put over any new talent? not a positive. Also exhibiting the spot monkey traits usually reserved for RVD? Not a positive. Helping popularize the ladder match that was a precursor to the idiotic crap we would see a few short years later? Not a positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alfdogg Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyOwnSummer Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock. I don't find it to be that close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KingPK Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock It's a little closer to me than everyone else, because Michaels is no slouch on the mic, either. However, Rock broke out of a bland face gimmick and became one of the most charismatic guys the company has ever seen. He also kept the spirit of the character intact after his face turn and his feuds with Stone Cold and Mick Foley helped RAW finally break Nitro's stranglehold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock Rock's drawing power is staggering and he's pretty good in the ring, too (incredibly underrated by many). I was thinking about Shawn's work in The Rockers, which I loved, and I asked myself this - is it harder to have lots of ***1/2+ tag matches or harder to make millions and millions (no pun intended) pay millions of dollars to see you wrestle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bruiser Chong Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Michaels. Rock was the hottest thing going for a while, but despite politics and childish antics, Shawn's had a stable career for nearly two decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest teke184 Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Rock HBK's better in the ring but Rock's a better promo guy, was more over as champion, drew more, and has done more for the WWF's mainstream appeal than anyone not named Hogan or Austin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts