At least horse manure would have a reason to be shitty all the time though.

It's not horse shit. It's horse manure. I won't accept any excuses from it while it tries to give itself a prettier image.

And correction. Goldberg is horse manure. In battle mode. Comparing Shawn Michaels to Goldberg isn't like comparing ice-cream to horse manure; it's like comparing Shawn Michaels to horse manure.

Unforunately, horse manure has made more appearances in residences across the world than Shawn Michaels has.

That's vintage Juan! He's on fire....


Noid made sense in his last post. HBK is an Icon, He will be a Legend, and a HOF'er. No doubting that. But for the money, I'd put the Rock and SCSA ahead of him. I would perhaps have flair edge him by a hair, simply becasue Flair carried the NWA and he was one of the first nation wide draws. I mean this dude went from territory to territory and put asses in seats. Flair made stables cool, he was the first legit 'superstar' with a trade mark noise, and a trade mark hand sign. He brought us into the 'superstar' era of wrestling. That puts at least one person ahead of HBM that's tough to argue.

Noid, you're fucking retarded.

You are seriously the biggest troll or the biggest idiot ever. Possibly both.

Perhaps some extra perspective on Noid's quotes

The last boom period was 1998-2001 (roughly)

HBK's last match was in March of 1998 when he passed the torch to Austin and wasn't seen again in a major role until his full time return against HHH (can't remember the year, want to say 2002 or 04)

The 3 year period where Michaels was missing created some pretty major stars:

HHH
Mankind
The Rock
Austin (more continuing the building)

and on the WCW side of things:

Goldberg

Well basically just Goldberg on WCW as they sucked at making new stars, but that's another matter

Because the business was so hot in the boom period, you could make someone the most over guy on the show within a few weeks of pushing them, wrestling was everywhere and for a 2 year period, there's nowhere you could go without seeing Goldberg being pushed as WCW poster child.

Shawn was never pushed in the same way to the public during his run, because business was so down in 94/95 and also because they didn't have the marketing skills they got towards the end of the millennium.

So, in conclusion, more people could potentially know about Goldberg over Shawn Michaels, because Shawn missing the businesses hottest period and was no where near the main event for the previous boom. Goldberg got lucky with his exposure and thus, I can see where Noid is coming from.

You know, maybe sometimes people should stop trying to attack Noid and just see a different perspective on what he's saying, it's not a situation where anything he posts is totally dis-regarded, just lighten up people!

Just because someone is known outside the business for the business doesn't make them better. A "great" wrestler needs to be all-around great in all areas. Michaels matches that. Goldberg just happened to get a push at the right time. Anyone who was big, could grunt and dominate a match for five minutes could have been Goldberg.

I stand by my opinion that Kurt Angle is the greatest to step into the ring. Awesome in the ring, on the mic, great charisma, can play both heel and face, etc. He wasn't/isn't a HUGE draw, but to not include him with the "greats" like Austin, Flair or Hogan is ridiculous. Same goes for Michaels.

If someone knows of, say, Hulk Hogan, yet has never watched a wrestling show in their life, what does that really do for the wrestling business? Nothing. He didn't draw those people in, he just happened to be big enough for the word of mouth or media whoring to get around.

Noid never said that Goldberg was a legend, only that he's more well known that HBK outside of the wrestling community, that's where I was coming from

Hulk Hogan did draw people in, saying he didn't is insane, everyone knew who he was, and more people were drawn in because of it. Just because every person on earth didn't watch wrestling doesn't mean that he didn't help the business.

If there's anyone that's never watched wrestling, but can state that person x is a wrestler, surely that proves how popular Hogan must of/sadly still is

I never said he didn't help the business. He was one of the best (and worst) things to ever happen to it. My point is that to be a "great" doesn't necessarily mean you're known to the mainstream/non-wrestling fan crowd and vice versa.

Realistically, with the right push and either a great gimmick or a decent amount of charisma, anyone could get mainstream attention. It's when you outshine to fans across the board that you become great. Otherwise you're just another Hollywood star forced down fans' throats.

Noid, you're looking at things in black and white. You need to look at them relative to their circumstances.

Goldberg drew more money than Michaels...sure, if you're simply counting company business while they were champion. But the bottom line is Goldberg was put over by Hogan and had the belt put on him during the company's boom period.
This is like claiming that anyone who was champion during a time of higher ratings was neccesarilly a bigger draw than anyone who was champion in a lower rated time period.
In the modern era, people watch the programming, attend the live events, and order the ppvs based off the whole product. Who's champion doesn't neccesarily mean everything.

If you take a PPV with a large buyrate, do you credit the title match, or do you look at the whole picture? Think about Armageddon 99. Did Big Show vs Bossman draw the house? Ratings were high at the time, and live attendance was through the roof. Was Big Show a huge draw? Was Bossman a draw?
No, HHH and The Rock were, as well as Vince and Mankind. They just happened to be in non-title matches.


Guys like Michaels, Diesel and Hart might not have drawn the same money, but that doesn't mean they weren't equally as impressive draws. I've stated before that although business might have been down when Michaels was champion he was the WHOLE SHOW. Bret had time off, Austin hadn't emerged yet, and the Outsiders just left for Atlanta. Other than Taker, he was carrying the company on his back.

The company had been struggling ever since Hogan and Savage blew out the door. It was a downtime for the company. It wasn't the fault of the champions. It was the result of a lean roster. It was a dip in business overall, not a case of low drawing champions.

Bret and Michaels were never properly put over by the top guys before them, and the "New Generation" was a struggle that went much deeper than you're giving it credit for.

That might have been true at the time, but I seriously doubt it's even remotely true now.

Goldberg was intrinsically NOTHING though. His fame was based solely on a face vacuum and a massive media push. He had the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time. He was a big, intense guy who could whip up a crowd. He was put in at a time where the nWo was a bloated heel group who had already either run over or absorbed every face in WCW. Goldberg was pushed to blaze through the previously unstoppable monster that the nWo was. His peak came when he won the title, and he deflated like a balloon under shotgun fire when the streak ended. He spent less than three years making ANY kind of impact on the business, and in his last high profile match, both he and his opponent were booed in favor of a special guest referee. He didn't change the business, he revolutionized nothing. He was a placeholder. Any number of guys could have done what he did with the same push and timing.

Shawn Michaels on the other hand came up from being a nobody and got attention with his ability to perform. He was the height of midcard wrestling in the WWF for several years before being given the top spot. He and Bret Hart went against the grain of the expected image of a champion and carried the company through a period of massive decline of the wrestling business. If you don't have Shawn Michaels in the WWF in the mid 90s, what do you have? Not much. If you don't have Goldberg, what do you have? Another guy doing the same thing in his place. "Goldberg" did not draw more money than Shawn Michaels, a large beast of a man with a marketing machine and massive push behind him drew more money than Shawn Michaels, and without the monster of the nWo to fight against, Goldberg would have drawn nothing. I'll refrain from attacking Noid when he says something that has some kind of credibility to it. There are plenty of people one could credibly hold against Shawn Michaels, and you can argue that Goldberg may have had more financial success than Michaels, but Michaels has had so more of an impact in his career as to compare an earthquake to a fart.

Incidentally: my mom knows who Shawn Michaels is, and when I mentioned Goldberg, she thought I was talking about a baseball player.

I only have one question: Why are you attacking Noid so vehemently?

I never said that Goldberg is more of a wrestling legend than Shawn Michaels.

Everyone here is overlooking just how big Goldberg was in the day, I feel. And I'm not saying that makes him better than Shawn Michaels. I'll take HBK any day, and place his importance to the industry higher. I was just agreeing with Heyman when he listed Goldberg and was questioned for it.

Of course some non-wrestling fans know who Shawn Michaels is. I've heard people talk about fucking Scotty 2 Hotty. If anyone took my comments on Michaels not being known by anyone outside the wrestling consciousness literally, they are a fucking idiot. My point was that Shawn Michaels, for some of the reasons listed by Dave and Jeritron, has never been a part of mainstream pop-culture. I'd possibly call Shawn Michaels the greatest to have never been a big "draw." But I am of the belief that to truly be the greatest ever, you have to do your job, do it well (something that can be questioned about Goldberg, for example), and yes, I do believe you have to make some money.

It doesn't help that "greatest" is such a broad thing to judge. Are we talking solely based on an individual's wrestling skill? Their promo ability? What they have done for the industry? You're going to get a varying array of answers for "Greatest of All-Time," because people place importance on different qualifiers.

But to answer the question of this thread: I believe that the WWE will put HBK over as one of the best of all-time, because he is. I don't think they will flat-out call him "the best," but you might hear more specific adjectives thrown out for him.

This is my point!

He was pushed through the media, in a way Shawn never was.

Now, I know this can't really be taken as anything material, but when you googlefight Shawn Micheals and Bill Golderg, Goldberg wins, he has more pages on the net than Shawn.

Shawn - 254000
Goldberg - 272000

Now I'm not saying that means too much, but when you consider Goldbergs flash in the pan 4 years to Shawn's 20 years in the biz I think it tells an interesting story

I am so sick and tired of hearing this. If you say something, back it up already. If you didn't mean it, that's what :shifty: is for.

I don't even know where you'd get these numbers, but I'd love to know how the Big Show's first title reign stacked up in ratings and money drawn vs one of Shawn's.

Who actually has Vinny's books? let's open them right now and end this debate!

LOL.

That's def a big part in this.

I love Noid.

:shifty:

that story being goldberg is a common surname? seriously just type them both into google and see what the first 10 pages are.

Google Search: Goldberg + WWE OR WCW OR Wrestling OR WWF
Results: 660,000

Google Search: "Shawn Michaels" + WWE OR WCW OR Wrestling OR WWF
Results: 2,210,000

Yeah.

shawn michaels
1,910,000 results

bill goldberg
508,000 results

thread over go home

Haha....You actually spelled facetious the way I told you to....:shifty:

No, but seriously, BDC, it's retarded to expect people to always denote when they're not being absolutely literal, and nobody should ever realistically expect that. And if it weren't Noid as the center of this argument, it wouldn't be so goddamn hilarious. Let Noid's "Chris Crocker" squad bitch about how I'm attacking Noid, but something like 80% of the time he argues with me ends up being based on him taking literal that which shouldn't be, so it's adorable that he's casting stones from that glass house.

But BDC, now you're taking the Noid approach. "God Dammit, Noid, I'm too stupid to properly interpret your non-literal statements, so it's your fault!"

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...g?t=1235662969


LOLWHAT

Though I do get considerably fewer hits under "Shawn Micheals," so I'm wondering if Youell just spelled it like he did in his post.

This is all very nice, but being the greatest wrestler of all time means you have to be both technical and charasmatic, and so over that people will cheer for them even as a heel. ALSO, must be hugely respected in the locker room and by backstage people.

The greatest ever, as much as i would love to say Edge or Raven,
is Mark Caloway

Yeah, bitches. define wrestler!

:shifty:

I love YOU.

:love:

I don't love you.

:shifty: