Eddie or HBK?

[darkship]

From his 2002 return onwards I always preferred Eddie; for some reason I always found Michaels to be kind of obnoxious. I'm not sure whether that was just residual markdom from hating him in his 1991-4 HBK days, or reading about his backstage douchebaggery, or whether I just didn't like DX or things like burying Mike Knox at Survivor Series (I mean, Knox was shit but I still thought it was a twatty thing to do).

 

However, looking at it from any objective point of view - longevity, successful title runs, number of classic matches, quality of promos - it has to be Michaels.

 

 

But did you like his HBK days from 1995-1998?

 

Perhaps I should have explained: I didn't watch wrestling between 1995-1999. By the time I started watching again, Michaels had been gone a little while (since WM15 if I remember right). I've watched some stuff from that time - Canadian Stampede, Bash at the Beach 96, WM15, a bunch of Hakushi matches - but my knowledge of the period is ropey.

 

[Bellenda Carlisle]

I didn't watch wrestling between 1995-1999.

 

That's a terrible time to stop watching wrestling!

[Fox Piss]

He stopped wrestling after WM 14.

 

I'd go for HBK but from what i have seen his 02-10 matches he comes across so OTT it puts me off.

[Pinc]

They're both great, but I prefer Guerrero by a country mile.

 

Shawn Michaels is the most obnoxious babyface of all time. Though I could usually enjoy his matches because of how well-paced and dynamic they were I don't ever remember rooting for the guy which is damning given that I got into wrestling during his time away with a back injury, and so have seen him playing the blue eye in almost every match of his I've seen.

 

Eddie on the other hand was one of the greatest character wrestlers ever, as a heel or a face, and showed it in a greater range of settings and roles than Michaels ever did. The emotional connection with the audience that Eddie established in his final years - best encapsulated in his title win against Lesnar and joint celebration with Benoit at WMXX - is something that Michaels never achieved to the same degree despite being pushed much harder for much longer. With the possible exception of the first Undertaker Mania match there are at least three or four Guerrero matches I'd rather watch than anything Michaels ever did (e.g. the Lesnar title win, WWC, Mysterio at Havoc '97, the JBL match where he broke the Muta scale) and I don't think Michaels has ever cut a money promo that compares favourably to Eddie's "I am beating those demons.." promo ahead of No Way Out 2004.

[CleetusVanDamme]

Michaels, by a big distance, much longer peak years, more consistent, better big match performer, better promo, and far greater back-catalogue of great matches. Guerrero was more versatile, but it's not like Shawn Michaels spent his career having the same match every time out, either.

[air_raid]

The emotional connection with the audience that Eddie established in his final years - best encapsulated in his title win against Lesnar and joint celebration with Benoit at WMXX - is something that Michaels never achieved to the same degree despite being pushed much harder for much longer.

 

That's complete bollocks to suggest Eddie signinficantly derived emotion from the audience - positive or negative - than Michaels.

 

No doubt in that Eddie was a brilliant heel, creepy, obnoxious and excellent at making people hate him. However Shawn was right up there in the tail end of his first run. People wanted to lynch him when he was screwing over the Undertaker and he was every bit as loathsome and vile in DX as Eddie at his best/worst.

 

As for love, Eddie got a great pop after his well-constructed title build and win, no denying that, but how much stock can actually be put in the WMXX crowd is up for debate. The reaction of MSG - WWEs smarkiest crowd - to Eddie hugging Benoit, the other perverts favourite, can hardly be held up as a great example of his emotional connection to the masses. Plus, how much of that love is actually for Benoit getting to share his big moment with his mate? Plus, every face run Eddie had they always realized he was more effective as a heel and kept having to turn him.

 

Shawn Michaels had people in the crowd in tears when he was doing an injury, vacating a title or retiring - both times if you include losing his smile. I hated Michaels passionately at the time but to deny he was able to whip a crowd into euphoria when he was WWF Champion would be a falsehood. Comparing the "big love" reaction that Eddie was able to generate over a brief period in 2004 to the reactions Shawn Michaels got from Lowell to Phoenix and everywhere in between - including MSG, where he had plenty of girls in tears when Sid beat him in 1996 - it just doesn't stand up. They built a WrestleMania around saying goodbye to the bloke for heavens sake, and he was trusted to helping build an emotional enough farewell to Ric Flair worthy of the man, and injected more emotional investment into the Hunter/Taker and Hunter/Lesnar matches than the men wrestling could muster between them.

 

With the possible exception of the first Undertaker Mania match there are at least three or four Guerrero matches I'd rather watch than anything Michaels ever did (e.g. the Lesnar title win, WWC, Mysterio at Havoc '97, the JBL match where he broke the Muta scale)

 

Well, we're getting into personal taste now. I'd rather watch a whole load of Bret Harts best matches than anything either of them ever did. I don't know how highly I rate the Eddie/Lesnar match as a match rather than finish/moment at the end, it drags a bit for me (though it is a great match). Objectively I'd say you HAVE TO consider the Eddie/Misterio match at Havoc as in with a shout of cracking the top ten matches of all time. Along with about seven or eight Shawn Michaels matches. And I hated the bastard.

 

They're both great, but I prefer Guerrero by a country mile.

 

Fine, but the question was :

 

Who do you think is better?

 

Personally I probably preferred Eddie during his time as an active wrestler than I did Michaels during his. Objectively Shawn Michaels is the greatest wrestler of all time, and has no equals.

[ItsClobberingTime]

I find it hard to call anyone the 'best of all time' without being a long time main eventer in WWE.

 

Slightly biased/narrow minded perception I realise, but first and foremost the short length of Eddie's main event WWE tenure is what writes him off without even doing a deeper analysis.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Its such an apples and oranges comparison. Their paths to the top were so different and their tenures and levels of exposure (as well as stroke) in the big time were completely different to each other. Michaels had 22-years and most of the time had freedom to do whatever he wanted. Guerrero was only in the WWF 5 years, without including his sacking and was off his tits for most of it. If you want to argue on talent or who your favourite is, its definitely subjective, because a lot of Guerrero career was done at a world class level of performance and a lot of people prefer him to Michaels. But if you base it on everything else, its Michaels by a mile. From tag wrestling, the midcard wrestling, to managing Diesel while injured, to uppercard babyface, to main eventer, to resident legend, he was on his game for a good 20-odd years.

[TeamVarsity]

I think just because of the length and breadth of his career compared to Eddie, Shawn Michaels will always be considered above Eddie Guerrero. In terms of accomplishments, Shawn is better. It always will come down to personal preference. I personally prefer Eddie myself, but I recognize Shawn is fantastic in his own right.

[Pinc]

The emotional connection with the audience that Eddie established in his final years - best encapsulated in his title win against Lesnar and joint celebration with Benoit at WMXX - is something that Michaels never achieved to the same degree despite being pushed much harder for much longer.

That's complete bollocks to suggest Eddie signinficantly derived emotion from the audience - positive or negative - than Michaels.

<snip>

Good points, well argued. As I say I'm not particularly familiar with Michaels' career before '98, so I don't mind conceding that I was perhaps speaking beyond my own expertise.

 

They're both great, but I prefer Guerrero by a country mile.

Fine, but the question was :

Who do you think is better?

Personally I probably preferred Eddie during his time as an active wrestler than I did Michaels during his. Objectively Shawn Michaels is the greatest wrestler of all time, and has no equals.

I don't think the question of who was objectively the better wrestler is even meaningful unless you're purely talking about who drew the most money. Presumably that's not how you've interpreted the question as even if that could be easily quantified Michaels certainly wasn't the greatest of all time in that respect, so I'm curious to know what the objective criteria is by which Michaels can be said to have no equals. My answer was based on personal preference because that's the only way the question can be answered. I preferred Guerrero, and that was largely because of Michaels' inability to engage me as a convincingly sympathetic babyface.

[Shane O' Mac Version 2]

Gotta go with HBK. My only criticism of HBK is his blandness as a character 2002-2012. The born again Christian thing prevented him from going heel or at least being more edgy in that period. People have criticised Cena for his "white meat babyface" thing, but HBK trumps that by a country mile. He had that flash of brilliance in the Hogan feud, but then said a thousand Rosarys and it was all forgotten.

 

However, in the ring, he has no equal, and that's what counts at the end of the day. Eddie was a much better talker/character, but he never had matches like the two Undertaker Mania matches. I think, without them, both men have a similar quality of matches in their back catalogue (Jericho/HBK feuds vs Eddie/Rey feuds), title matches (HBK/Hart vs Eddie/Lesnar) and dramatic bloodbaths (HBK's Survivor Series 2003 performance vs. Eddie's Judgment Day 2004). Eddie was great, even without a greater selection of main event battles, but it's because of that HBK wins. Spanning a good 16 years, Shawn was at the top. Eddie had about 18 months.

[PowerButchi]

Its such an apples and oranges comparison.

 

Boom. Guerrero was more of an international star than HBK, and you'd need to take that into account. Personally I think Los Gringos Locos is ONE OF THE GREATEST THINGS EVER, EVER.