Random thoughts thread v2 *NO NEWS ITEMS*

[Mr Butternut Squash]

In simplest terms, I consider that Michaels had the biggest number of outstanding (readily available to view) matches across a sustained length of time with a wide variety of opponents in an unbelievably varied different type of matches with different stories told, even compared to Flair. I balked when I saw that WWE's "50 greatest Superstars ever" had neither Flair nor Hogan in the top 5, but with Shawn as number 1, I could not fault. And as a Bret Hart fanatic, that's hard for me to type.

 

Yes, I believe Shawn Michaels was the best in-ring performer we have ever seen.

 

 

I said I preferred Rockers Shawn because you could pull out any Rockers match and it's guaranteed class. Solo Shawn from 91-95 was all over the place. Yes, he delivered on the 'big stage' (vs Razor) but all his matches with the greats of the period - Flair, Savage, Hennig, Bret, Tito, Martel etc. - were underwhelming. 96- 97 is where he peaked for me (him v Jarret is an unheralded gem). Post-comback he was way more consistent but he never had that bite, and he and his offence looked like shit.

 

Bringing up the impact he's had in terms of match firsts and who he's wrestled is fine and is what put him in these discussions in the first place. But my original argument was of match quality only. And there's plenty of guys on a similar level in that respect.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Mr Butternut Squash

[Reznor]

I said I preferred Rockers Shawn because you could pull out any Rockers match and it's guaranteed class. Solo Shawn from 91-95 was all over the place. Yes, he delivered on the 'big stage' (vs Razor) but all his matches with the greats of the period - Flair, Savage, Hennig, Bret, Tito, Martel etc. - were underwhelming. 96- 97 is where he peaked for me (him v Jarret is an unheralded gem). Post-comback he was way more consistent but he never had that bite, and he and his offence looked like shit.

Disagree strongly. Survivor Series v Bret & European Rampage v Savage were great matches, the WM8 opener was fine, Martel was a novelty gimmick match, and his only televised Flair match was from when he was still a Rocker. Of all that, you have a valid point in one instance imo.

 

In addition to those, you have all the Jannetty stuff, dragging Hacksaw of all people to a couple of good matches, other less high profile matches v Razor (VHS and RAW), the famous Action Zone tag, good matches with Bob Backlund, Virgil(!), arguably the best match of WM9 v Tatanka as well as a fun Superstars match a few weeks earlier. He also had a good match with the Kid, and became a pinball to make the likes of Luger and Crush look great - the list goes on....

 

He was great in his first couple of years as a heel, particularly 1993 when he really came into his own. His body of work was still fantastic then, the only difference is he was in a different role - and his versatility at being so adept whatever side he was on is testament to how great he was.

 

You also have to consider how programming was different in the early 90s to how it was in the latter half of the decade. With a dozen PPVs per year and more star v star matches on weekly tv, you're obviously going to have far more opportunity to put more good stuff out on screen, especially when you're climbing your way up the ladder during those years therefore you're usually limited to 5-10 minute matches outside of PPV.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Reznor

[Mr Butternut Squash]

That's fair enough, though I disagree (don't think any of those matches are 'great' with the exception of the Action Zone one and their were guys in WCW/ECW who were equal, if not stronger week to week on tv) but whatever, I'll stop cos I don't want to sound like I'm anti-Shawn or whatever. I bloody love the guy.

[air_raid]

Solo Shawn from 91-95 was all over the place. Yes, he delivered on the 'big stage' (vs Razor) but all his matches with the greats of the period - Flair, Savage, Hennig, Bret, Tito, Martel etc. - were underwhelming.

 

With the exception of the Perfect match, that's basically people he feuded with in 1992 then, when he was finding his feet as a solo artist. Not that I agree with any of it, as Reznor has already detailed. For me Shawn only ever had one disappointing match with Bret and that was in 1996. His Coliseum matches with Bret in 1992 (including the ladder match from Portland) and 1993 (including the cage match) were all fine and among the better matches anyone on the roster was having - in fact you can apply that to all of Shawn's work from 1993 onward - and their match at Survivors 92 was superb. Nobody else was having as fast-paced and dramatic matches as Shawn with the possible exception of Kid. He was nearly untouchable by 1994 and was involved in the best slices of drama of the big 4 PPVs of 1995.

 

96- 97 is where he peaked for me (him v Jarret is an unheralded gem).

 

His match with Jarrett is bummed pretty hard on here, and took place in 1995.

 

In 1996 and 1997 he was consistently the best performer in America (in 1996 especially a class by himself), and for me almost without peer from 2003 until his retirement. There were spells where you could argue the case for Kurt Angle, maybe, but my point is that while at given moments somebody else might have been the best, nobody comes close for being AS good, AS often and for AS LONG as Shawn Michaels.

 

Bringing up the impact he's had in terms of match firsts and who he's wrestled is fine and is what put him in these discussions in the first place. But my original argument was of match quality only. And there's plenty of guys on a similar level in that respect.

 

In terms of match quality, I can't think of anyone with his body of work. There is nobody even close in respect to the number of matches they had that made me sit up and think "that match was brilliant." Not one.

 

 

 

I'm sorry Bret, please forgive me.

Edited March 25, 2013 by air_raid

[PowerButchi]

Lawler? Lawler was still doing elite level work a year or so ago, and had been doing elite level work for 30-35 years before that. The hair matches, The Funk matches, the stuff with Von Erich, the huge amount of class stuff with Bill Dundee.

 

I remember on another forum, I can't remember which but I'm guessing PWO, the list of 100 wrestlers who were better than HBK. And going through them and watching footage of them, a lot of the time they were dead right (Although personally I'd probably have him top 25-30). HBK is nowhere near the GOAT, and shouldn't come into the conversation.

Edited March 25, 2013 by PowerButchi

[Mr Butternut Squash]

It's odd that a Bret fan is putting Shawn over and the Shawn fan (me) thinks Bret just edges it in terms of quality work.

 

Lawler? Lawler was still doing elite level work a year or so ago, and had been doing elite level work for 30-35 years before that. The hair matches, The Funk matches, the stuff with Von Erich, the huge amount of class stuff with Bill Dundee.

 

I remember on another forum, I can't remember which but I'm guessing PWO, the list of 100 wrestlers who were better than HBK. And going through them and watching footage of them, a lot of the time they were dead right. HBK is nowhere near the GOAT, and shouldn't come into the conversation.

 

That's a bit harsh I reckon. Still I think Lawler, Funk and Flair smoke him in terms of US wrestlers. They're plenty of others I could be convinced with too.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Mr Butternut Squash

[PowerButchi]

I'd probably go for Windham, Arn Anderson, Dick Murdoch, Ricky Morton and Stan Hansen above him too.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

I dont think there is a definitive best ever, really. Is Hogan the best ever because he's the biggest name of the modern era? Is Ric Flair for going to territory to territory and making the local hero? Is it Bruno for selling out his home building countless times more than anyone? What do you like in your wrestling. Me, I like larger than life stars and super hero type attractions, so I'd always say Hogan is the best ever because what he meant to me when I first started watching wrestling. I remember Kevin Sullivan saying nobody is writing any of the results down because its not real. Whoever you find the best when it comes to your philosophy of what you see wrestling is should be the best. That's why someone like Andre for me is one of the best ever. He was so famous for basically being a freak. He had about 80 teeth and could fill the bath up when he needed a shit. You dont get people like that anymore.

 

A wrestler for me is someone who you wouldn't imagine knocking about buying the Daily Mirror. I remember seeing a photo of Hulk Hogan riding his motorbike when I was a kid. He had his bandana on and his red Hulkamania tank top on, with weightlifting gloves, red Adidas spandex and fucking cowboy boots. Its what you'd imagine this character would wear knocking about. I used to think wrestling was a part time job for Big Boss Man. I'd think he'd clock off and go to the prison and make sure they were all locked up and behaving themselves. So when someone like Nailz turned up, it would be stunning to me. Like if the bloke who worked in Tesco's round the corner from us turned up and gave me Dad a good kicking at work. The reason why Undertaker was such a huge character in spite of all those abysmal matches he had for years was because you just couldn't see him being anyone but The Undertaker. Him and Paul Bearer would get done with their match and make coffins and prepare the following mornings burial. Probably. WWF would do little pieces like showing you around Paul Bearer's home and there would be pictures of Undertaker on the wall and stuff. The way you present the acts is so vital to getting them over. No wonder nobody gives a shit about most of them now. We need to know what motivates them and a backstory. Half of the Raw roster could work at B&Q for all I give a fuck.

 

And that's why they have to bring in Lesnar and Rock every few months. The business is dead, folks. Shame

Edited March 25, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay

[Mr Butternut Squash]

I'd probably go for Windham, Arn Anderson, Dick Murdoch, Ricky Morton and Stan Hansen above him too.

 

All great picks. Windham was untouchable for a period of the late 80's. I've never seen Arn (or my Tully), Morton and Hansen in anything less than very good. Murdoch I've seen too little of.

 

Rey/Eddy are up there too.

 

Edit: brilliant post as always by Ian which kind of reminds you that this sort of discussion is fun but a bit pointless.

 

We all know Flair is the best ever anyway.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Mr Butternut Squash

[jimufctna24]

It is subjective. But HBK would not be on my personal list, both from a in-ring or all round standpoint. I prefer Savage as a in-ring performer and I am sure others. For all the shit he gets, I think Mick Foley at his peak was better than HBK as a all rounder. He was a better promo than HBK and was more over with the crowd at his peak. Foley in 1998 and 1999 I think was a bigger star than HBK has ever been, people loved the lummox.

 

For me it is either Austin or Rock as my pick for best. They were the biggest stars of their era, which was one of the biggest in wrestling history and they could do it all. Exciting matches are just a part of the game. I care just as much about promos, crowd interaction, look and diversity. Both Austin and Rock could play face and heel really well. They both drew mega bucks. They were larger than life characters and as has already been said, that is what draws people to wrestling in my opinion.

 

You could say all the above about Hogan or Savage and I am sure others, but like I said it is preference. I think Hogan and Savage are worthy candidates.

 

I am too young to appreciate Flair as much as others. I like HBK a great deal and he is a great performer, but he was never "the guy". You could not put him on top of a promotion like you could Austin, Rock or Hogan and expect to draw good business. I read Bret's book a while back he of course took great delight in quoting Meltzer in saying he was a bigger draw on top than HBK was in the mid 90's.

Edited March 25, 2013 by jimufctna24

[Captain Wolf]

I wouldn't say he was for me, but would anyone entertain the notion of Sting as a potential best ever? He may not have been as technically gifted as a Shawn or Bret, or as charismatic and larger than life as Hogan or Warrior, but managed to find a good middle ground between the 2, with a lot of great feuds and matches over the years. That and his evolution from outrageously early 90s Sting to serious, late 90s crow Sting was fantastic and gradual, he didn't just disappear one week as a walking cartoon and show up a month later with his character altered to fit the times.

[truthofsin]

Random thought of the day.. Is anyone actually still following their standing in the UKFF usergroup on the Fantasy Wrestling League? Hmmmm..

[IANdrewDiceClay]

I wouldn't say he was for me, but would anyone entertain the notion of Sting as a potential best ever?

No chance. Sting usually wasn't even the best person in his matches.

[Loki]

Sting is great at being Sting, and most of the time that's all he's needed to do.

[MoistVaj]

For me, Ric Flair is one of the most overrated wrestlers when it comes to match time. I just found him incredibly dull and phony most of the time. There are some great matches in there no doubt, but I could care less for the majority of his matches. His promo's however are another matter. He was the best ever for me, he made you want to watch his matches and care about the outcome, which made me forget about the fact that most of his matches are so similar, almost identical in some scenarios. I think that makes him one of the best ever, his ability to make people care. Hogan was the same.