Paid Members air_raid Posted March 27, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yeah, Shawn never had a problem getting beat by anyone. He lost to virtually anyone including many way below him on the totem pole like Kennedy and (at the time) Edge back in '05. If asked, I'm sure he'd have no qualms losing to someone as high-profile as The Rock. Â Another story I've heard as to why there was alleged friction between the two is that Michaels apparently lobbied for it to be Hunter rather than the Rock to work with Austin at WrestleMania XV, but I don't believe even at the peak of Shawn's pill-popping that he'd be metal enough to try and justify that. Trips was very popular as leader of a midcard merchandise machine built on cock jokes, but he wasn't main event back then. Â I doubt the match will happen. I've been wrong before but I like to think Michaels has enough integrity to stick to his retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fye Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yeah, Shawn never had a problem getting beat by anyone. He lost to virtually anyone including many way below him on the totem pole like Kennedy and (at the time) Edge back in '05. If asked, I'm sure he'd have no qualms losing to someone as high-profile as The Rock. Another story I've heard as to why there was alleged friction between the two is that Michaels apparently lobbied for it to be Hunter rather than the Rock to work with Austin at WrestleMania XV, but I don't believe even at the peak of Shawn's pill-popping that he'd be metal enough to try and justify that. Trips was very popular as leader of a midcard merchandise machine built on cock jokes, but he wasn't main event back then.  I doubt the match will happen. I've been wrong before but I like to think Michaels has enough integrity to stick to his retirement.  I always read that Shawn was lobbying for Mankind versus Austin rather than Rock or anyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted March 27, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 27, 2012 I always read that Shawn was lobbying for Mankind versus Austin rather than Rock or anyone else  Mick tells it, IIRC, that Shawn said it should have been at least a three way for the hard work that he put in getting Rock "ready" for Austin. Mick disagreed and didnt want to take away from the main event they had been building so logically towards on TV.  Wish he'd fucking felt that way twelve months later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinc Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I always read that Shawn was lobbying for Mankind versus Austin rather than Rock or anyone else  Mick tells it, IIRC, that Shawn said it should have been at least a three way for the hard work that he put in getting Rock "ready" for Austin. Mick disagreed and didnt want to take away from the main event they had been building so logically towards on TV.  Wish he'd fucking felt that way twelve months later. I loved the WM16 4-way and Foley's participation was the thing I was most looking forward to leading up to the event. I was twelve years old and the biggest Rock fan in the world, but Foley's feud with Triple H had been brilliant and I finally thought I'd see him beat Triple H for the title. Even a Rock victory would have been let down, at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'd of loved  Would have loved.  Don't be such a tosser.  Besides, it's considered correct use of English. It's an abbreviation of "I would" and therefore made perfect sense:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/i'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I always read that Shawn was lobbying for Mankind versus Austin rather than Rock or anyone else  Mick tells it, IIRC, that Shawn said it should have been at least a three way for the hard work that he put in getting Rock "ready" for Austin. Mick disagreed and didnt want to take away from the main event they had been building so logically towards on TV.  Wish he'd fucking felt that way twelve months later.  Really? I thought it was going to be a three way, but Shawn Michaels lobbied for it to be a one on one. He intended to get Foley vs. Austin, but instead accidentally got Foley kicked out of the main event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fye Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'd of loved  Would have loved.  Don't be such a tosser.  Besides, it's considered correct use of English. It's an abbreviation of "I would" and therefore made perfect sense:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/i'd  He means of instead of have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members mim731 Posted March 28, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'd of loved  Would have loved.  Don't be such a tosser.  Besides, it's considered correct use of English. It's an abbreviation of "I would" and therefore made perfect sense:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/i'd  He means of instead of have  Exactly.  And it's hardly being a tosser, it's annoying and not correct use of English, which that link actually highlights if nothing else because it shows it's being used in the wrong tense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 28, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 28, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members mim731 Posted March 28, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 MEMES! HAHA LOLZ! CLEVER!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 28, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 28, 2012 I just thought it was a funny picture. No need to be uptight as well as a tosser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members mim731 Posted March 28, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yeah, might have been an overreaction to the picture in fairness. Â I stand by the earlier statement. Calling me a tosser is nice though, good work there, I'll be licking those wounds for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted March 28, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 Thanks for turning a good discussion shit. Â I think HBK never really had any problem putting people over when he returned mainly because he felt he had nothing to prove, from the sounds of things he never really expected to be around as long as he was anyway. Â I never saw HBK's first run in WWF, was it better than his second or worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Thanks for turning a good discussion shit. I think HBK never really had any problem putting people over when he returned mainly because he felt he had nothing to prove, from the sounds of things he never really expected to be around as long as he was anyway.  I never saw HBK's first run in WWF, was it better than his second or worse?  Arguably worse in terms of match quality. Definitely worse in terms of being a complete cunt who killed business whenever he was on top, was a petulant, unprofessional asshole and only once lost a title in the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loligan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 The above is true. One need only look at his title history to see what a knob he was at dropping titles. In terms of in ring though, I'd say he was the same before the 4 years as he was when he returned. His matches from 94 onwards were usually great. Even as a chubby cokehead in 93 he was still having blinders with Jannetty. Cant say the same for his Summerslam match with Curt Hennig however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.