Mr. Wrestlemaina and importance of W's & L's

[NormanSmiley]

so working graveyard last night watched wm18 on dvd, and mind started to wander.

hard to make any argument that hbk is not the best wm performer we have seen as far as match quality goes. however shawn's record overall is 6-11 @ WM. and in the 6 times he main evented he is 1-5.

so it got me to thinking, when people in the forum go on rants about losses and not looking good killing a guys push or his cred, do wins and losses really matter??

we all know its staged (except that guy from the autograph signing) but to have such a piss poor record on the big stage yet to be considered the greatest to ever perform on it in the end do wins and losses add up to something or.. is who goes over meaningless at the end of the day if the quality is there?

[JimmyMess]

It only means something in 'Takers case.

Shawn Michaels is Mr. Wrestlemania because when he was on the card you knew you would see the best match of the night from him. Win or loss he was THE guy that everyone watched and afterwords went "holy shit that was an amazing display out there"

[NormanSmiley]

in a way also dont you have to sort of write off wm's 5-7 when he was tag teaming to really look at his "best match of the night" quality?

[JimmyMess]

Lets not get specific here. Shawn Michaels is the best Wrestlemania performer.

Next.

[Volare]

He still had good matches with Jannetty, but just not the same.

[Waylander]

Sometimes losses damage a wrestler in ways we don't see, their confidence for example. HBK, whether coming off a loss or a big win always had this aura of greatness surrounding him and you could see it a mile off and that's part of what made him so resilient in this sense.

[seapig4]

The W/L record don't mean a thing when the winner is decided before hand. A lot of times Shawn's Mr. Wrestlemania name was from not only having the best matches bvut also being able to put the other guy over