Shawn Michaels signs new 5 year contract

[Aussie Skier]

Originally Posted by redoneja No. HBK does not need another title run. He's above the title. Winning the title does nothing for Micheals at this point. If he did win the big one again, he should be a transitional champion. 4 month reign at best, ending with him cleanly putting over the next big star.

but HHH and Shawn Michaels r at a similar age right?
So, is this idea for HBK the same as for HHH, cos i'm pretty sure HHH still has a few (long) title reigns left in him

[Fox]

The main difference is that HBK is a legend, and HHH has not yet come even close to that title.

When you consider longevity in a wrestler, you don't consider their age, you consider how long they've been on top and how much exposure they've had to wrestling fans.

HBK has been "on top" since the mid-90's. He won his first World Title at WrestleMania 12, while HHH didn't win his first belt until 1999, and even then, he was merely another face amongst a sea of highly touted main eventers (Rock, Foley, Undertaker, etc). HBK, on the other hand, was champion during a time when the WWF was lacking true stars. The "new breed" so-to-speak, which included HHH, emerged after HBK was injured.

In short, HBK has been around for a long, long time. Triple H, while being around for a long time as well, hasn't had nearly the amount of Main Event longevity as Shawn has. Many would argue that both HHH and HBK don't need to win the belt anymore, but surely, HBK is more in that boat than HHH is.

[NeanderCarl]

Originally Posted by redoneja No. HBK does not need another title run. He's above the title. Winning the title does nothing for Micheals at this point. If he did win the big one again, he should be a transitional champion. 4 month reign at best, ending with him cleanly putting over the next big star.

And that's bad thing, why?

[Xero]

Originally Posted by Fox In short, HBK has been around for a long, long time. Triple H, while being around for a long time as well, hasn't had nearly the amount of Main Event longevity as Shawn has. Many would argue that both HHH and HBK don't need to win the belt anymore, but surely, HBK is more in that boat than HHH is.

I disagree. If using your logic, Shawn is already as over and as a set-in-stone legend as someone like Hogan.

They shouldn't be giving someone like Michaels a title, because it would only mean, at best, that he's a "transitional enhancement champion" (yes, I just coined that phrase), meaning that he's only winning the title to give the rub to someone else. While that's all fine and dandy, at the end of the day someone else who needed the title to be pushed wouldn't have had it.

So with that in mind, it makes more sense to solidify Triple H in history by having head the WWE again as the champion. Because, after his run, I think that a rub from someone like Hunter, who is more fresh in everyone's minds in terms of accomplishments, would help someone in the long run than a rub from someone like Hogan or HBK.

Remember, this is using your own logic. I don't necessarily agree with it.

[addy2hotty]

Originally Posted by NeanderCarl No, that's a common misconception. Henry earned around £250K per year on a downside throughout that 10 years. I'd almost guarantee that the extention he signed earlier this year was for a lot lower than that, too.

Indeed, my bad.

Just $1.25m more than Mark Henry a year....cheap at half the price.