Is HBK the best in-ring performer WWE history?

[IANdrewDiceClay]

I think MoChatra sums it up best. On their day, others might be better than Michaels. For me, Bret and Benoit immedietely come to mind, but Shawn has been putting it world class performances for a long period of time. This is someone who retired after wrestling in the match of the year (an accolade he also won for at least the 2 previous years)- so you have to wonder how many more great matches he could've had if he carried on. That just goes to show how good he was, the fact that he still could've gone on and put on a blinder. I think of him as wrestlings version of Ryan Giggs (which breaks me to say this s an Arsenal fan)- consistently good over such a long time. Some say Giggs has been at his best over the last couple of years than ever, some also say the same of Michels. As Andy Gray says- form is temporary but class is forever.

Yeah, but its not like Benoit and Bret Hart were in the business for a year or two. Both had about 20 years in the business, and both careers were cut short from concussions and murdering their families etc.

[Chris B]

In terms of longevity, Michaels has this hands down. However, he also has it in terms of variety.

 

He could do storytelling matches, comedy, technical wrestling, wild brawls and even great death matches.

 

Were there people that could do some of the above better than Michaels? Yes, although not many. Were there better promos than Michaels? Yes, although not many.

 

He was a great face and an amazing heel. He wasn't often a draw, although I think he was a strong base. But while other people may have gotten more people in the building, very few people could engage them like Michaels. Savage, Hart and Angle probably come the closest in terms of consistency (Benoit's out on promos), but I'd put Michaels above, based on variety and consistency.

 

My two favourite memories of Michaels:

 

The match with DX vs Edge and Randy Orton, where Orton got fucked up and the match fell apart. Michaels single-handedly saved it by throwing an absolute fit and going mental with a chair. It just summed up what he's so good at - being able to feel an audience and turn on a sixpence to give them what they want.

 

The entirety of 1997. My God, what a fantastic heel he was that year. I remember Power Slam summing him up at that point as the best wrestler on the planet that year, and I'd agree. It's why I put him ahead of Hart - 1997 was also Hart's best year, and it's very, very close. But at the end of the day, I found Michaels more exciting that year. I'd go with Michaels/Taker HIAC just ahead of Hart/Austin. Barely. His promos were great, his character was electric, and he was having great matches almost without effort the entire year. Probably the high point of my time as a fan.

[PunkStep]

I think MoChatra sums it up best. On their day, others might be better than Michaels. For me, Bret and Benoit immedietely come to mind, but Shawn has been putting it world class performances for a long period of time. This is someone who retired after wrestling in the match of the year (an accolade he also won for at least the 2 previous years)- so you have to wonder how many more great matches he could've had if he carried on. That just goes to show how good he was, the fact that he still could've gone on and put on a blinder. I think of him as wrestlings version of Ryan Giggs (which breaks me to say this s an Arsenal fan)- consistently good over such a long time. Some say Giggs has been at his best over the last couple of years than ever, some also say the same of Michels. As Andy Gray says- form is temporary but class is forever.

Yeah, but its not like Benoit and Bret Hart were in the business for a year or two. Both had about 20 years in the business, and both careers were cut short from concussions and murdering their families etc.

But the topic is best in-ring performer in WWE history, where benoit only had a several year stint until that incident and Bret Hart wrestled for about 12 years. Apart from a 4 year break, Michaels was a WWE performer for 20+ years so it's going to work in his favour. Had Benoit or Bret spent 20+ years wrestling in WWE, I'm sure we would be asking the same question but about them.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

If your talking in terms of variety then, Steve Austin is the best for me. Austin could do comedy, he could legit play the badass as both heel and babyface, he could legit play the comedy babyface and heel, he could put on the exciting main events, even if he was protecting his neck and just throwing kicks and punches, and when healthy could have top level matches anyone from Bret Hart to Chris Benoit to The Rock to Mankind to the Undertaker to Jim Neidhart to Spike Dudley to Vince McMahon. Austin ticked all the boxes when it came to the size and weight of the opponent he was in the ring with. He could talk, wrestle, make you believe in him and most importantly, when he did all those things, he did them better than anyone else and is arguably the biggest drawing card the WWF has ever had. Sure he wasnt the performer Michaels or Hart was, but Michaels or Hart werent as charismatic as Hulk Hogan was, but there's no denying who the better performer was out of Michaels and Hogan. I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do to be honest.

[Chris B]

If your talking in terms of variety then, Steve Austin is the best for me. Austin could do comedy, he could legit play the badass as both heel and babyface, he could legit play the comedy babyface and heel, he could put on the exciting main events, even if he was protecting his neck and just throwing kicks and punches, and when healthy could have top level matches anyone from Bret Hart to Chris Benoit to The Rock to Mankind to the Undertaker to Jim Neidhart to Spike Dudley to Vince McMahon. Austin ticked all the boxes when it came to the size and weight of the opponent he was in the ring with. He could talk, wrestle, make you believe in him and most importantly, when he did all those things, he did them better than anyone else and is arguably the biggest drawing card the WWF has ever had. Sure he wasnt the performer Michaels or Hart was, but Michaels or Hart werent as charismatic as Hulk Hogan was, but there's no denying who the better performer was out of Michaels and Hogan. I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do to be honest.

 

He wasn't really ever a flyer. I couldn't see him taking some of the risks that Michaels did, even earlier in his career.

 

Now, there's an argument that he was a smarter wrestler because of it, but I look at Michaels' elbow drop as a thing of absolute beauty, even when he did the high risk ladder versions. Particularly the one on Vince at Wrestlemania, but also the one on Triple H. Throw in some great moonsaults and a fantastic pre-back injury Huracanrana, and I'd throw that into the mix with Austin.

 

I think it's on one of the DVDs that Triple H talks about how impressed he was in a match Michaels was in where the positions got cocked up, and he had to do the elbow drop onto the other side of his body than he normally would. Not only did Michaels do it flawlessly, but he didn't realise he'd done it until HHH pointed it out to him.

[PunkStep]

If your talking in terms of variety then, Steve Austin is the best for me. Austin could do comedy, he could legit play the badass as both heel and babyface, he could legit play the comedy babyface and heel, he could put on the exciting main events, even if he was protecting his neck and just throwing kicks and punches, and when healthy could have top level matches anyone from Bret Hart to Chris Benoit to The Rock to Mankind to the Undertaker to Jim Neidhart to Spike Dudley to Vince McMahon. Austin ticked all the boxes when it came to the size and weight of the opponent he was in the ring with. He could talk, wrestle, make you believe in him and most importantly, when he did all those things, he did them better than anyone else and is arguably the biggest drawing card the WWF has ever had. Sure he wasnt the performer Michaels or Hart was, but Michaels or Hart werent as charismatic as Hulk Hogan was, but there's no denying who the better performer was out of Michaels and Hogan. I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do to be honest.

Good shout. Let's not forget that Austin headlined most WWE PPVs from 1998 through 2001 (when not sidelined), at a time in his career when he was extremely limited in-ring due to his countless injuries. A 1998+ Austin was a lot more limited than 'Stunning' Steve Austin in terms of wrestling ability. As years have passed I've really come to appreciate just how good Austin was.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

He wasn't really ever a flyer. I couldn't see him taking some of the risks that Michaels did, even earlier in his career.

You dont have to be a flyer to be a great performer. Flair wasnt a flyer and he's considered the best ever by his peers and by a great percentage of fans. There's a lot of things Austin couldnt do in the ring, granted, but history proved the things he couldnt do, he didnt need to do. I'd have rolled my eyes a bit if Austin finally got his hands on McMahon after months of waiting and he decided to hit him with a rolling thunder or a top rope gutbuster. Austin's character and ringstyle were a perfect match. Thats what made him so great. His hands on approach to every aspect of his persona is something I always admired. He designed most of his t-shirts as well, which you just couldnt imagine many wrestlers having the patience or interest to do in any era. Thats why I like the likes of Austin and Hart. If they didnt believe in themselves and werent a fan of themselves, why should we be?

[Chris B]

In fairness, you said this:

 

I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do to be honest.

 

And it's also a conversation about in-ring variety. I'm not saying that Austin could, should or needed to do it. But that it was a string to Michaels' bow that Austin didn't have.

[Carbomb]

It's a tough question, it really is. It's not something that can be approached objectively at all, as there are a myriad of aspects to consider.

 

Personally, I'd say it's a tough call between keeping him in the top five and out of it. In terms of high-quality, consistent in-ring performance, I honestly believe Savage has it over Shawn. I also think Bret Hart does. And yes: I think Benoit was better from an in-ring perspective.

 

But here's the rub: what defines a good in-ring performance? It's all very well to point to Hogan's lack of actual wrestling, but that really isn't the only element to a pro-wrestling match - in terms of selling, pacing, appealing to the crowd, facials, etc., there are very few who can compare to Hogan at all. And it's consideration of these elements which also make the aforementioned, Savage, Hart and Benoit contentious when talking in comparison to Michaels. It could very well be argued that none of them were better, they were just different, i.e. they went about getting the desired results via different methods to those which HBK used.

 

I suppose a good litmus test would be to consider how much you enjoy JUST the matches. With that in mind, I have to say, I'd probably place HBK at about No.4, behind Savage at 1, Bret at 2, Benoit at 3, and followed up by Piper at 5. Obviously, this is just my personal list, but I think the method's a good way to see how well you rate someone's match performances.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

In fairness, you said this:

 

I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do to be honest.

I still stand by that, and actually defended that statement in the previous post. When I said I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do, I was talking about the criteria of what makes a all-round great performer. And looking at Hart and Flair proves, being considered an all-time great performer doesnt mean coming off the top rope is essential part of that criteria. And drawing money, being world class on the microphone and shaking a building to its foundation during a match is a string to his bow Austin has over Michaels. Austin had fire and could wrestle to a very good standard. And if you add all the rest of it to him, for me he's the best.

[Fatty Facesitter]

Bret Hart. Shawn's got the larger body of work thanks to '02-'10 but a lot of that period is severely overrated and does not hold a candle to his best 90's work and even The Rockers best matches.

 

You're entitled to your opinion here obviously, but what makes you say that period is overrated exactly?

[Chris B]

In fairness, you said this:

 

I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do to be honest.

I still stand by that, and actually defended that statement in the previous post. When I said I cant think of anything Austin couldnt do, I was talking about the criteria of what makes a all-round great performer. And looking at Hart and Flair proves, being considered an all-time great performer doesnt mean coming off the top rope is essential part of that criteria. And drawing money, being world class on the microphone and shaking a building to its foundation during a match is a string to his bow Austin has over Michaels. Austin had fire and could wrestle to a very good standard. And if you add all the rest of it to him, for me he's the best.

 

You didn't really defend it - you just said that he didn't need to do the things he couldn't/didn't do. But again, the point you disagreed with me on was variety, so the things that Michaels could do that Austin couldn't is a strong point from an in-ring point of view. Could Austin do what he did better than Michaels? Mostly, yes. However, Michaels was only a half step below Austin on being world class on the microphone, and he got very strong crowd reactions as well.

 

However, HBK could excel in matches that Austin didn't. I can think of some good matches Austin had involving ladders - I can think of at least two great ones from Michaels. Austin had some strong HIAC matches - Michaels had two stronger than any of his (although YMMV on the HHH one). On top of that, Michaels could wrestle a faster and more high risk style than Austin could/did.

 

I've already said that there were people that did what they did better than Michaels (and I'd put Rock above both in terms of promos). The thing is that Michaels was (at least) very good at basically everything. And I can't think of anyone else to say that about.

 

On an entirely personal level, I found Austin's 1999 run to be almost boring, and I've struggled to like him since the whole wife-beating thing. But I'm not denying he was great at what he did, or his drawing ability.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

You didn't really defend it - you just said that he didn't need to do the things he couldn't/didn't do.

Yes I did defend it, your just choosing to not look for me defending it. I mentioned the things you brought up, and gave examples of wrestlers who could be considered better in-ring performers than Michaels and noted that high-flying wasnt an essential part of what made Hart and Flair great wrestlers, which was what you held up against Austin when I said he could do it all. Michaels might also be a great kitchen fitter, but that isnt part of what makes a great in ring wrestler. Im not bashing Michaels, far from it. I'm just saying the reason Michaels was great, had nothing to do with him being a highflyer.

 

However, Michaels was only a half step below Austin on being world class on the microphone, and he got very strong crowd reactions as well.

Half a step? Michaels wasnt in Austin's universe. Michaels was decent on the mic, but he was nowhere close to a Steve Austin or a Rock or a Hulk Hogan. Michaels in his prime was fairly rotten on the mic, and even the DX days that people talk about, hardly any of those promos he did were note worthy to his actual feuds. They were all insider terms and hilarious (to him) banter. If you consider implied gay jokes and racism was half a step behind Austin, like Michaels did as a heel in 1997, then he might be.

 

However, HBK could excel in matches that Austin didn't. I can think of some good matches Austin had involving ladders - I can think of at least two great ones from Michaels. Austin had some strong HIAC matches - Michaels had two stronger than any of his (although YMMV on the HHH one). On top of that, Michaels could wrestle a faster and more high risk style than Austin could/did.

The character of Austin was so strong, it carried over into his matches. His charisma and fire as a wrestler was so vast, he didnt need to fly off ladders and what have you. Michaels was a great wrestler, but what makes Michaels a great wrestler isnt his ability to excel in gimmick matches. Austin was a charismatic performer and for me a world class worker. What he did backstage, how he walked to the ring, how he spoke on the microphone, how he dressed and how he wrestlers were all gelled together and were so fitting. He perfected the craft better than most.

 

I've already said that there were people that did what they did better than Michaels (and I'd put Rock above both in terms of promos). The thing is that Michaels was (at least) very good at basically everything. And I can't think of anyone else to say that about.

Michaels wasnt very good at attracting an audience, and making you pay 15-30 quid to watch his matches though, and he couldnt talk people into an arena either. So he wasnt good at everything.

 

On an entirely personal level, I found Austin's 1999 run to be almost boring, and I've struggled to like him since the whole wife-beating thing. But I'm not denying he was great at what he did, or his drawing ability.

People make mistakes in life. If your going to dislike a wrestler based on personal choices, we'd all be watch ten-pin bowling.

[Carbomb]

Y'know what I find odd about Michaels' promo ability? He wasn't the best at the monologuic promos we recognise, but in terms of working angles, he's pretty damn good. Facials, body language, intonation of statements, etc. He also seems to be able to provide plenty of quality footage for promo videos, like the 'Taker rematch build-up vignette.

[L_E_T_H_A_L]

Michaels is the greatest in-ring performer I've ever seen, period - not just in WWE. Ric Flair circa 1989 couldn't even touch him.