Shawn Michaels

[El-P]

When was the last time Finlay had the opportunity to wrestle a big dome match so we can at least compare the two ? Oh, yeah, that's right. Never.

Not a knock on Michaels, and I don't think Finlay is nearly as great as he's pimped to be by some, but it's just not a very good point.

I take Kensuke Sasaki's last decade of big matches over Michaels' in a heartbeat FWIW. Except for the Jericho match at WM 19, I don't think Michaels had one great match in the 00's. Certainly some very good ones, like the two Taker Mania matches, but *great*, nah. And I've seen the vaunted Cena, Angle etc... matches. I'd rather watch the mid to late 90's Michaels (93 to 97) or the Rockers babyface anyday rather than self-conscious epic match worker of the 00's.

[Guest John O'Neill]

When was the last time Finlay had the opportunity to wrestle a big dome match so we can at least compare the two ? Oh, yeah, that's right. Never.

Not a knock on Michaels, and I don't think Finlay is nearly as great as he's pimped to be by some, but it's just not a very good point.

Nah it's a fine point to make.

 

Michaels had charisma and made people care for him - well most people anyway. He's got his moves over with the fans better than Finlay ever did. I don't recall Finlay ever having a match the really had the WWE fans on their feet ever ( that's not to say I care much about what WWE fans think). That's not to say he never had good matches. I remember seeing a Benoit/Finlay match from Smackdown a few years ago, and it's probably one of the 10 best matches the WWE has had last decade for me. But if he can't connect with fans like Michaels does, then he can't have a big match like Michaels can.

 

It's not a bad point to say Finlay couldn't have a great big dome match when fans cared so little about him, aren't too familiar with his moves etc. You can argue it's all about opportunities etc, and with a bigger push fans would be familiar with him, but Michaels was able to get a few of his moves to mean more to fans than Finlay could with any of his. That says something about how Shawn was able to get himself over in the ring.

 

I'm not saying Finlay wasn't good. In some respects he's better than Shawn (pure wrestling ability), in other respects (storytelling, getting himself and others over in the ring) Shawn was better.

 

And no kjh Shawn ability to have good Wrestlemania matches in front of big crowds wasn't the be all and end all. I never said it was. It was, however, one thing Shawn did have.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not sure showing up for one or two big matches a year is really a plus if you think about it.

 

Shawn's gimmick since at least 1996 has been "good worker." He's been heavily pushed as such by the company. Fans respond to that just like they respond to HHH being heavily pushed as the man, or Taker as a dead guy/"best striker in the WWE"/et. I don't see how pointing out that the guy got a massive push and the fans responded to is really a major feather in his cap as a worker and I certainly don't see it as a knock against Finlay.

[Loss]

These who is better arguments get muddied because no one ever defines what it means to be "better". There is a faction that likes Michaels better that probably defines "better" as having had the better career, with the most memorable and good matches on a big stage. There is a faction that would rather look at the sum of the parts than the whole that likes Finlay better. They see better striking, selling, bumping, etc., when the other side has no interest at looking at wrestling through that lens.

 

"Better at playing their role" is seen by some as a worthwhile argument. Others don't think it matters if someone is having great 5-minute TV matches as a monster heel if they're not having good, 20+ minute main events at least a few times a year.

 

Then you have the crowd that thinks wrestling matches are only good based on two things -- athleticism displayed and crowd response -- and as long as both are good, there's no point in looking anymore in depth than that in terms of things making sense or offense not looking good.

 

I'm tired of "Who's better" debates. I'm interested in having more "This does/doesn't matter in a wrestler or wrestling" debates. Of course there are going to be disagreements, but at heart, the biggest disagreement is about how to watch wrestling.

[spudz25]

Mark me down as one who agrees that Shawn can't be discussed objectively.

 

I found it amazing that people didn't think Shawn was one of the greatest in ring performers of all time, but then after reading some of the ways that people judge wrestlers, that at least opened my mind to some of the disagreements.

 

My criteria for judging ones greatness in the ring was their ability to have great matches with not so great guys. I always thought Shawn was a bit below Bret in that area, but still better than 90% of the wrestlers from 1990 to current.

[kjh]

I'm not sure Shawn's better than Finlay at getting "others over in the ring". He's certainly good at getting himself over and the match over, but rarely did people come out of a feud with him considerably stronger than they came in. While Finlay at times has been a go to guy to groom green and limited workers for a better spot on the card.

[MJH]

Eh, the Shawn "not having pure wrestling talent" thing doesn't make much sense to me. He basically never had a strong moveset, sure, but from pretty much the earliest footage we have of him as a young guy he was hitting the stuff he did do in a smoother and more polished way than a lot of the guys around him. Someone who doesn't have the pure talent, their execution is a lot messier especially early. Actually, you could make the case that Shawn had far more pure talent than Bret, a lot of Bret's stuff doesn't look so good when he was younger. He certainly wasn't the athlete Shawn was. Bret wasn't Taue's level of overachievement (another "not a pure talent" guy if ever there was one) but he hardly screamed great potential from the get-go the way that Shawn or Owen did.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm tired of "Who's better" debates. I'm interested in having more "This does/doesn't matter in a wrestler or wrestling" debates. Of course there are going to be disagreements, but at heart, the biggest disagreement is about how to watch wrestling.

Loss I'd like you to expand upon this.

 

Here are my initial comments from that thread though devoid of context they mean read sort of funny. I'm reposting here primarily because if you read the thread, a lot of what was said was about trying to establish why Finlay was better than Michaels even in the areas where Michaels might automatically be assumed to be better. More to the point it was about establishing why it was that I see Finlay as a very complete wrestler that has a natural appeal for people who look for totally different things in wresting.

 

I voted for Finlay.

 

Comments:

 

1. Of course Michaels has more WWE style main event epics than Finlay. He's a guy that is at least partially responsible for the style and in fact certain facets of the style were created and implemented to promote Shawn's strengths as a worker and hide his weaknesses. He's been consistently booked as a main eventer and been given smoke and mirrors gimmicks in many of his most memorable matches (MindGames, GFBE, Ladder Matches, et...hell even Jarrett v. Shawn is arguable as it's a Memphis style match worked in TN and obviously led by Jarrett). Believe it or not I'm not saying this to knock Shawn. Just saying that shouldn't be surprising and that I think it is a criteria that will obviously skew in Shawn's favor no matter what one thinks of Finlay as a worker.

 

2. Rockers were a very good team, almost certainly the best team in WWE/F history. Rarely had bad matches and nearly every match of there's felt and fun and fresh and still does in context to what else was going on at the time. This is to say nothing of their pre-WWE work which is arguably even better. Rockers are not as good as RnR's or Fantastics, but I would not want to have to defend the argument that Strike Force was better, let alone Hart Foundation or Killer Bees.

 

3. I basically agree with tom's breakdown (besides mic work where I think he drastically underrated Shawn), and think there is no argument for Michaels being better when it comes to in ring mechanics, selling, et. Also worth noting that Shawn has always had low end offense for a guy known as workrate/spot wrestler (and he certainly was in his heyday) and age has made this worse and more noticeable as his base tends to be awful looking punches and chops - something Finlay obviously doesn't do. Interestingly enough I think Finlay is also pretty clearly a better "spot" wrestler in the sense that his big spots are more impressive, more surprising and more inventive (think ring apron crotching/beatdown spot, taking Germans on the floor, crazy tope v. Bradshaw).

 

4. Finlay has a plethra of good-to-great matches against a huge variety of opponents. I'm almost certainly a much bigger fan of pre-comeback Shawn than tom or most of his other critics and I'd be really surprised if Shawn's list was longer or more varied. Finlay is a guy that had good matches with the Boogeyman for example. Did Shawn ever carry anyone near that level? I don't think so and that is despite the fact that Shawn's character and style were way more conducive to "bump and run" style "carry jobs."

 

5. 06 Finlay is better than 96 Shawn or any other year from Shawn that I've seen. I actually don't even think this is terribly controversial. Finlay making Bobby Lashley look really good, having great matches with Hardy, Rey, Benoit, et. is more impressive to me than Shawn's handful of main event "epics" that dot an otherwise overrated year.

 

6. Even if I was going to grant that Shawn was better than Finlay pre-comeback (and I'm almost certain that I wouldn't), post-comeback Shawn has been most terrible, whereas post-comeback Finlay is the most consistent wrestler in the World. I don't even remember the last time I saw a bad Finlay match or if that has ever happened at all. And this is a guy who's worked programs with Boogeyman, Bobby Lashley and Ricky Ortiz in the last few years. Finlay's aforementioned matches with Benoit and Rey are some of the best WWE matches of the last decade and would rate with or above any of Shawn's "epics." Also worth noting that the often touted Shawn "carry job" of Flair at Mania was a performance significantly weaker than performance Finlay had the same night against Bradshaw.

 

So yeah I went with Finlay without a second thought.

[sek69]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the "Midcarder X is superior to Main Event Guy Y" argument to me is like the height of contrarianism on the interwebs.

 

I mean, I like Finlay, but his biggest legacy in the business is making the women's matches suck less for a period of time.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the "Midcarder X is superior to Main Event Guy Y" argument to me is like the height of contrarianism on the interwebs.

No one is arguing that Finlay has had a better overall career - just that he's a better in ring performer. For a less contentious example, I can't imagine it would be considered "contrarian" to argue that Tim Horner was a better in ring talent than the Ultimate Warrior, though it would be "contrarian" to argue that Horner had the better overall career.

[sek69]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the "Midcarder X is superior to Main Event Guy Y" argument to me is like the height of contrarianism on the interwebs.

No one is arguing that Finlay has had a better overall career - just that he's a better in ring performer. For a less contentious example, I can't imagine it would be considered "contrarian" to argue that Tim Horner was a better in ring talent than the Ultimate Warrior, though it would be "contrarian" to argue that Horner had the better overall career.

 

 

If that was the argument being made, I would not have thought it was contrarian at all, by any measurement Warrior was a poor worker bolstered by his physique and his crazy promos (before we realized he was legit crazy). He also had charisma, which the Tim Horners of the world don't. That's why Warrior was going over Hogan at WM while Horner's big break was being part of a JTTS tag team in the UWF.

 

I guess if you get down to it, that's what annoys me in the "X is better than Y" arguments. You can point to several examples of someone being a technically sound wrestler, but that's not what makes someone a good pro wrestler. Anyone who's ever been a main eventer or made significant money in wrestling did so because they had personality. Having wrestling skill is a nice bonus, but it's hardly a requirement. So yes, you can say someone like Finlay has superior wrestling talent compared to Shawn Michaels, but to paraphrase someone who made a few dollars in the business, it doesn't matter what your wrestling skill is. Hearing someone debate that a guy who spent his career in the mid card is better in the ring than a guy who's been a huge star just makes it sound like that person is either trying to blow up the mid card guy to something better than he is/was, or somehow denigrate the main event guy by saying he's no better than the guy who ran around with a midget.

[MJH]

So has Finlay officially taken Mark Henry's spot?

[Dylan Waco]

So has Finlay officially taken Mark Henry's spot?

I have no clue what this even means.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the "Midcarder X is superior to Main Event Guy Y" argument to me is like the height of contrarianism on the interwebs.

No one is arguing that Finlay has had a better overall career - just that he's a better in ring performer. For a less contentious example, I can't imagine it would be considered "contrarian" to argue that Tim Horner was a better in ring talent than the Ultimate Warrior, though it would be "contrarian" to argue that Horner had the better overall career.

 

 

If that was the argument being made, I would not have thought it was contrarian at all, by any measurement Warrior was a poor worker bolstered by his physique and his crazy promos (before we realized he was legit crazy). He also had charisma, which the Tim Horners of the world don't. That's why Warrior was going over Hogan at WM while Horner's big break was being part of a JTTS tag team in the UWF.

 

I guess if you get down to it, that's what annoys me in the "X is better than Y" arguments. You can point to several examples of someone being a technically sound wrestler, but that's not what makes someone a good pro wrestler. Anyone who's ever been a main eventer or made significant money in wrestling did so because they had personality. Having wrestling skill is a nice bonus, but it's hardly a requirement. So yes, you can say someone like Finlay has superior wrestling talent compared to Shawn Michaels, but to paraphrase someone who made a few dollars in the business, it doesn't matter what your wrestling skill is. Hearing someone debate that a guy who spent his career in the mid card is better in the ring than a guy who's been a huge star just makes it sound like that person is either trying to blow up the mid card guy to something better than he is/was, or somehow denigrate the main event guy by saying he's no better than the guy who ran around with a midget.

 

So argument is not contrarian if made about Tim Horner/Warrior, but is contrarian if made about Finlay/Michaels?

 

Of course Billy Graham was a better overall talent than Brad Armstrong. We know that. This does not change the fact that Armstrong was a better in ring talent.

 

If one wants to argue that it's irrelevant to debate about who is the better worker/in ring talent/whatever because that's not what makes a "good pro wrestler" that is their choice. But ultimately I'm not a fan of limiting discussion because it violates a sacred tenet of Kevin Nash's way of life. It's all fine and dandy to discuss gate receipts for house shows in 1984, but I didn't make any of that money and ultimately I didn't really give two shits. I watch pro wrestling for the angles, interviews and what happens in the ring and those are the things I'm going to spend my time debating/discussing.

[Loss]

In the end, Dylan, I agree with your point. Finlay is a better wrestler than Shawn Michaels, but I'm not sure he's a better overall performer. My main point is that there are factors like card placement, opportunities given, crowd reaction and historical significance that some people are always going to deem important parts of the discussion, even if others don't care about that stuff as much. I wouldn't say you think they're insignificant, just as I wouldn't say you think they're the end-all, be-all. But for most people who disagree on the fundamentals, that's where the disagreement is -- not on who's better at doing certain wrestling-related things, but at what is more important in judging a wrestler.

 

I think you're likely to hear wrestlers consider "working" everything from keeping the crowd, getting their angles over to the audience, and drawing money, with what happens bell-to-bell being a key part of that, but not the only part of that. I'm hardly one to defer to wrestlers opinions when debating this stuff, but I just think it's interesting, and I think a lot of debates may break new ground if the ground rules of what it means to be a "better wrestler" are established first. Most often, they're not.

[Guest djhaigh]

I'm tired of "Who's better" debates. I'm interested in having more "This does/doesn't matter in a wrestler or wrestling" debates. Of course there are going to be disagreements, but at heart, the biggest disagreement is about how to watch wrestling.

I think a lot of debates may break new ground if the ground rules of what it means to be a "better wrestler" are established first. Most often, they're not.

Is this something you think can yield results? We post a poll thread: "Which should count - punches or moonsaults?" "Times main evented Mania or Times carried schlubs"

 

If talking past each other because we're evaluating the same dude using different criteria is wrong, arguing the merits of the criteria themselves is a fair bit wronger.

[S.L.L.]

In the end, Dylan, I agree with your point. Finlay is a better wrestler than Shawn Michaels, but I'm not sure he's a better overall performer. My main point is that there are factors like card placement, opportunities given, crowd reaction and historical significance that some people are always going to deem important parts of the discussion, even if others don't care about that stuff as much. I wouldn't say you think they're insignificant, just as I wouldn't say you think they're the end-all, be-all. But for most people who disagree on the fundamentals, that's where the disagreement is -- not on who's better at doing certain wrestling-related things, but at what is more important in judging a wrestler.

 

I think you're likely to hear wrestlers consider "working" everything from keeping the crowd, getting their angles over to the audience, and drawing money, with what happens bell-to-bell being a key part of that, but not the only part of that. I'm hardly one to defer to wrestlers opinions when debating this stuff, but I just think it's interesting, and I think a lot of debates may break new ground if the ground rules of what it means to be a "better wrestler" are established first. Most often, they're not.

This is a part of "who's better" debates that I really don't get, especially on boards like this one or DVDVR...really any internet smark board regardless of the overall tastes of their members. As when you're on such a board, when people talk about wrestlers being good or bad, they're talking about them as being good or bad on an aesthetic level. Guys are praised or dismissed based on quality of work, not value of work. What defines quality of work varies, of course, but that's what's being judged. We basically all agree that from a "value of work" standpoint, Hogan is pretty much the best wrestler ever, with a handful of other guys you could maybe make cases for. Unless it's specifically stated otherwise upfront, "who's better" discussions generally aren't about this. They're about aesthetic merits. So why does value of work start creeping into the conversation?

 

While "what matters" debates certainly sound interesting, I think most of your "who's better" debates have "what matters" debates inherent in them. A guy talks up a wrestler/talks down a wrestler and explains why. In doing so, he establishes what he thinks matters. Another guy does the same, establishing what he thinks matters. The two argue, but while it's about "who's better", the differences in opinions are rooted in conflict over "what matters", so that's really being debated, too. The real problem isn't people not agreeing on "what matters" beforehand. I'm an aesthetic universalist. I think we all watch various forms of entertainment for basically the same reason, and that we're looking for basically the same things in them, but personal tastes shape some of the specifics, so none of us are going to be looking for the exact same thing or seeing things in the exact same light. You're not going to get two people to agree exactly on what matters aesthetically, but that's fine. Different strokes for different folks, and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby dooby.

 

Problem isn't two people disagreeing over what matters in a debate about who's better. Problem is one person disagreeing with himself over what matters in a debate about who's better. Two people disagreeing with each other is fine so long as you can figure out where each guy is coming from, and usually both guys' arguments establish what they think matters. But when one guy can't seem to keep his opinions about "what matters" straight over the course of an argument, then we have a problem, because the whole foundation of the argument starts shifting around, and eventually the whole thing collapses.

 

When you're on an internet smark board, and everyone - regardless of their specific personal tastes - generally praises or puts down wrestlers based on quality of work rather than value of work, and you find yourself in a "who's better" argument, and you make a case for or against a wrestler based on quality of work, and someone else starts arguing against you based on that wrestler's value of work...it should immediately raise some red flags.

 

Which brings us to Shawn Michaels. I've said just about everything I can possibly say about the man, and I don't think people need or want to hear me say it again. But as long as it's his thread...was his work valuable? I would certainly say so. Was his work more valuable than Finlay's? Much as I love old Fit, Shawn's work was a damn sight more valuable than his. Was Shawn's work as valuable as Hogan's? No. Did his work even approach the value of Hogan's? Not at all.

 

So why do so many people who defend Shawn based on the value of his work - when these same people traditionally seem to judge wrestlers based on the quality of their work - never give such praise to the Hulkster? In fact, if Shawn's value of work is "what matters", how can so many of the people who praise him for that turn around and praise him for the match with Hogan, as well? I mean, it would be one thing if they were praising both men, but the praise for that match is always reserved solely for Shawn, while Hogan is derided as a guy who deserved to be publicly ridiculed, or as a broken down sucky guy who needed Shawn's bump freak performance to make the match work. The value of Hogan being kind of a big deal in wrestling and an integral part of selling this as a major dream match doesn't seem to earn him any kudos from these people. And it's not like they're going out of their way to praise the value of any of Hogan's other work.

 

Why do so many people who defend Shawn based on the value of his work - when these same people traditionally seem to judge wrestlers based on the quality of their work - hate John Cena? Sure, I can see why one would like Shawn more than Cena, but if "value of work" is what matters, Cena's the bigger money draw, so shouldn't he be acknowledged as better? Does having a more uniform crowd pop make your work more valuable?

 

The answer to all these questions is that they're cop outs. People who praise Michaels and dismiss Hogan and Cena do so based on quality of work, not value of work. It would be insane to do otherwise. And again, on boards like this one or DVDVR...really any internet smark board regardless of the overall tastes of their members, when people talk about wrestlers being good or bad, they're talking about them as being good or bad on an aesthetic level. Guys are praised or dismissed based on quality of work, not value of work. When you're in a "who's better" debate, and it's not specifically said up front that value of work is what matters, you can be sure the argument is going to be about quality of work. When someone starts talking about value of work, they're either completely missing the point, or they're copping out.

 

Problem with "who's better" debates isn't that they don't establish "what matters". Problem is that sometimes, people's opinions of "what matters" don't stay established when they're under fire.

[sek69]

I think the issue there is that admitting that charisma/promo/drawing ability matters as much if not more than in ring work means that The smarky smark smarks have to admit that guys they hate (ie: were successful despite not being great technical wrestlers) were pretty good at pro wrestling. I swear half the IWC would rather eat a bullet than admit John Cena ever had a good match.

[S.L.L.]

I think the issue there is that admitting that charisma/promo/drawing ability matters as much if not more than in ring work means that The smarky smark smarks have to admit that guys they hate (ie: were successful despite not being great technical wrestlers) were pretty good at pro wrestling. I swear half the IWC would rather eat a bullet than admit John Cena ever had a good match.

Well, that's true, but I think that's more of a possible base to the problem than the problem itself. I mean, regardless of your take on John Cena, most of your message board guys are more interested in talking about workrate and - to a lesser extent - promos and the quality of other on-screen stuff (quality of work) than drawing power or marketability (value of work). That's fine. The problem is guys in arguments praising/denigrating a guy based on the former, having someone else make a counter-argument also based on the former, and then the first guy suddenly shifting gears and defending his original point based on the latter, even though he would never give a shit about the latter otherwise. Or, as Roddy Piper once put it, "just when you think you've got the answers, I change the questions."