When Michaels retires...
 

Will he be known or pushed by the WWE as the greatest ever? It seems like he's being groomed for such a spot in history like Flair was.

More importantly, do you think he is the greatest or one of the greatest ever?

Michaels is one of the greatest ever, but not the greatest.

Who would you say is the greatest, Mr Fly?

This thread has already been done before, it was about 2 months ago...

All of us here on TPWW came to the conclusion that Michaels will go down as the greatest ENTERTAINER of All Time, not the greatest Wrestler of all time.

If I say, it will spark a massive flame war. So I'll go with my number 2 guy: Ultimo Dragon. :shifty:

Gotcha ;)

Answer me this. Is he a fellow Canadian?

SCOTT HALL THE GREATEST ALL THE WAY!!! .............but ya greatest ENTERTAINER of all time will be SHAWN MICHEALS

He is loved the world over.

Hogan?

Chris Benoit? :shifty:

If Shawn Michaels was officially known as 'The Greatest of All Time' I could happily live with it.

Who the hell is that guy?

:y:

Yes & Yes

Some name I just made up out of thin air.

He is among the all time greats. I don't know that he is number one, but he is definitely up there.

I would say both Keiji Muto and the Destroyer edge out michaels. Destroyer was ridiculously smart when it came to psycology, and could carry a broom stick to an epic match.

Isn't he that creppy guy who HANGS around places heading butting people?

maybe it is... I dunno.

I saw him eating crossface chicken wings and tap water the other day.

I think there's a chance that the WWE will try and position as HBK being "the greatest" one day (similar to Flair).

In my personal opinion - HBK was one of the greatest.....but not THE greatest. There are a few wrestlers that were better overall wrestlers than HBK (i.e. Kurt Angle, Dynamite Kid), and there were even MORE wrestlers that achieved more as sports-entertainers (i.e. Hogan, Austin, Rock, Bret Hart, Goldberg).

How did Goldberg achieve more than Shawn Michaels as a sports entertainer? HBK has won pretty much every title in the WWE, most of which he won multiple times. Goldberg had what, 2 total World Title runs, a couple of US Title runs and 1 tag title run? I mean, he had the streak, but his time in wrestling has been minimal at best. I'm not tryin to be a dick or anything, I agree that Shawn hasn't accomplished as much as Austin, Rock, Bret, or Hogan, but he's well past Goldberg in accomplishments.

I really am not a fan of this whole Wrestler Vs Entertainer crap

Fact is, Shawn can ‘Rassle’ and it’s been proven on many occasions in the past, but he did more than that, and got over with it.

Shawn’s biggest problem was, imo his size and the fact that, at the time of his first title run, he was more like Cena, the adult male fans turned on him, so he never really got to run with the ball more often, that is what would hold him back from being the greatest of all time.

To be the greatest of all time, what do you actually need? For me, I feel it’s simple.

You have to be over, aka, make money, aka, be a draw.

Like it or not, Hogan was/is still a massive draw, I don’t think that WWE right now has anyone that is considered a draw, because the product itself is a draw. Yes the WWF product was a draw, but Hogan was clearly the main attraction, when they tried to re-create new stars in the form of Hellwig, they always went back to Hogan. Look what happened when he left for WCW, business tanked for like 5 years.

So, for me, aside from all his political bullshit he is for me the greatest ever.

Is shawn fucking amazing? Yes, or course he is, and is up there as one of the greatest of all time, the only thing he didn’t do well is draw.

On another subject, I would like to see him get another run with the title before his retirement

If he gets a good match out of Koslov, then yes he is.

MIchaels will be a great, but not THE greatest. I think I'd go with Dave Youell's summation, but I'll plug in SCSA for my monnnnayyyy!!!!

So, based on how long Michaels has been in the biz for, does that make him a better entertainer than the Rock? I love both, and people can argue about their skills on the mat being similar standard too, but for m, Rock over his 5+ years at the top gave me more of a laugh and smile and entertaining moments than Michaels did.

Still, one of my outstanding rememberances was the Iron Man match. For me, as I said it was "THE Iron man match", so no need for dates. But as soon as you saw the man come down the zipline, it was etched in my mind.

Goldberg was pretty much known by anyone during his day. I even owned Goldberg merchandsie, and I never even watched WCW. No one besides wrestling fans have a clue who Shawn Michaels is, and even fewer give a crap.

I'm not saying that to shit over Michaels. The man is a fantastic worker, and will go down as one of the greatest ever. I just cannot see justification to put him in the same breath as guys like Stone Cold Steve Austin, though. Men that actually sucked people into the business, and made a lot of money for a lot of people.

HBK may be the greatest non-draw in the history of wrestling, and he probably deserves a place on the Top Ten Greatest of All-Time, and the WWE will probably try and push him as the GOAT when he does retire, but he just didn't excel at anything enough to really cement himself as the best.

You're a loser.

More people know who Shawn Michaels is than you're giving him credit for. Especially when compariing him to Goldberg. Sure, Goldberg was a big hit for a few years in WCW. So was Shawn Michaels.
Tons of people under the age of 40, who aren't wrestling fans, are familiar with Shawn Michaels. I know this for a fact.

Also, I'm not even taking into account the fact that he was in DX. That's huge too.

Maybe things are different where you're from. Australia right? I can't testify for your region. I just know mine, and in America Shawn Michaels is a part of the pop culture consciousness. Especially for young people. He may only have a minor role in the fabric of pop culture, but it's still a decent role nonetheless. That's more than 99% of wrestlers can say.

Noid, shut the fuck up you delusional smark bitch.

Are you seriously saying that Shawn Michaels is a complete unknown? Where the hell have you been? Is he on the same level of pop culture as Hogan or Austin, but nobody is but those two and The Rock. Just because he isn't one of the biggest names in the world doesn't mean a good fucking chunk of people know who he is. Shawn Michaels has cemented his place in pop culture and wrestling history with his body of work since returning in 2002.

Let me guess, CM Punk or Raven is more known around the world?

*Sigh* No, I didn't say that Shawn Michaels was a complete unknown. I am saying that he has never been the draw that is needed to go down as the greatest of all-time, though. Pretty much the same as Dave Youell.

John Cena, Batista, The Undertaker, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan are all wrestlers I hear mentioned from time-to-time in every day life. Never once have I heard anyone talk about Shawn Michaels. Sorry, that's just the way it has been. Maybe he has been a huge draw, and statistics just lied to me. In that case, I apologise for hurting your feelings. :roll:

Truthfully, I have heard Scotty 2 Hotty mentioned more times in everday conversation than Shawn Michaels (twice -- both in association with "The Worm"). I'm not saying that Scotty 2 Hotty is a bigger star, or a better wrestler, but I'm just pointing out how little HBK has touched the mainstream consciousness. Over here, at least.

I'll give you that I have heard DX mentioned outside of wrestling. I've heard a few people play their theme song, and I've seen a few people bust out crotch chops. I cannot attest to the same thing you are saying, though. Goldberg was a draw. HBK only really got fans because they were already watching.

I'm not saying that Goldberg is overall greater than Shawn Michaels. Not at all. I'm just saying, I believe Heyman is right in making a case that purely from one perspective, Goldberg has been more successful than HBK. When you look at their entire careers, though, Goldberg becomes more exposed as "flash in the pan," and Michaels has a lot of classics to his name.

My opinion: Shawn Michaels should be considered an "Icon." Much the same as Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Ric Flair, Andre the Giant, The Undertaker and Lou Thesz -- but I'd put him closer towards the back of that class than the front.

Noid actually made sense in a few sentences.

Was he ever really a draw?

I think he's pretty damn close to being the greatest, but I don't know if he put butts in the seats.

I believe the period he was meant to be carrying the company was one of the lowest rated ever. The onus for this also falls on guys like Diesel and Bret Hart, though. But I wouldn't make a case for either of them to be the undisputed greatest, either.

Comparing Shawn Michaels to Goldberg would be like comparing ice cream to horse manure.

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:

I now love this thread :foc:

Well now I'm completely confused.

Had to throw that wrench in there, didn't you, K7?

:drool:

You've got to be kidding me? If you can't sort through obvious hyperbole to find a point, then I'm not going to help you.

And BDC, I don't know how things can get any less literal than taking points to absolutes. There is no holding back on the inner process there. Also, do you and KK really rehearse together? If so, that is sad.

And what the fuck is a gaint?

You guys are hilarious! :(

I know.
<marquee>http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...n3g/dogrun.gif</marquee>

Goldberg was, and is more popular than Shawn Michaels. Sorry fanboys. That's all I gotta add to this.

:| I was trying to find a school bus gif to hit rover...

mild fail

That's stupid. Especially considering Michaels has spent a longer period of time in the business, and has been more featured in an era where the internet is bigger than ever. How about we divide Michaels' count to equate to the duration Goldberg was in wrestling? Also:

Shawn Michaels: 1,810,000
Goldberg: 21,000,000

Checkmate. :shifty: (take note, Tedious)

Also, people are taking this Shawn Michaels vs. Goldberg debate way too far. No one was trying to say that Goldberg is greater than HBK overall. We're merely discussing one aspect of the business. HBK made shit all money as WWE Champion. And yes, Tedious, that is an exaggeration. Get over it.

I've got to agree. Especially over here. Just heard someone talk about Goldberg yesterday. Of course, we have the "benefit" of having Goldberg's television series, Bullrun, air on FOX8 over here, which is pretty much the biggest cable station we have (it airs pretty much everything WWE-related). So Goldberg's picture is up on the television with his commercials a lot.

But "Goldberg, that wrestler guy" hosts it. People know that. Not sure they know who Shawn Michaels is.

Goldberg...

Bigger in the media: Absolutely.
Bigger in the business: Absolutely not.

And that's all that matters.

We already established in a different thread that you don't like black people, so this is not surprising.

May have pulled a Noid back there.

I can't find the source now, so you're just going to dismiss it (which is fair enough, this is just a anecdote that runs off your question), but I remember being surprised to discover that Big Show (at one stage, anyway) actually boosted ratings whenever he was on the television. They went up like 30%, or something.

I'm not sure if that trend has stuck with Big Show over the years, or if it was effective during his title reigns. I'm also not sure how much money Big Show has made in gates while he has been main eventing, but I do know that Big Show is deceiving profitable to professional wrestling.

Hyperbole works best when the person practicing it is, you know, good at it.

What do you mean "bigger in the business?"

Whow, I am shocked. Someone put this in their sig, "Kane Knight defends Noid over BDC".

lol Noid's "Chris Crocker" squad

Backstage and with non-fair-weather fans, Michaels wins out. With ease.

Now this is exactly my point; did ratings boost because people wanted to see Paul Wight, or because they were excited to see a new face thrown into what had been the Austin/Rock show? The parellel question being, were fans excited to see the shaved ape they called Golderg, or were they excited to see the hyped-up beast that was going to slay Hogan and the nWo? Given the fact that Goldberg's popularity tanked when his initial push ended, I gravitate towards the latter.

My point: Goldberg was not more popular than Shawn Michaels. The Streak and the spear may have been more popular than Shawn Michaels. Which I'm still not convinced of, and I'm not entirely sure I've ever heard of a piped-in "HBK" chant.

Define ease. :shifty: