HBK: 'From the Vault'

[BionicRedneck]

SHAWN MICHAELS HAD HIS (BROKEN) BACK WORKED OVER FOR 15 MINUTES AND HE NO SOLD IT.End of fucking story. You can say "it's an entertaining comeback" or whatever but it's basically bad psych.

And as for your comment about "marks" voting, they're opinions are as valid as yours. Just because you're potentially (and very questionably) a more intelligent fan, they still have the same capacity to be entertained as yourself.

It wasn't a comment it was a question, I was simply asking who voted it MOTY.

I think that's a ridiculous comment. Hogan would get-up straight after an opponent's finisher, on a consistent basis. Michaels, although able to recover (as many wrestlers are, what with the matches being staged), didn't make a mockery of the opponents.

The reason I hated it as much as the hulk up is because Michaels is supposed to be a great worker. Anyone watching a Hulk Hogan match expecting it be fantastic from a pure in-ring standpoint needs to ask themself a thing or two. Michaels is a much better worker but he basically did the same thing. I'm sorry but you don't kip-up after a gruelling wrestling match, just as you don't kick out start shaking your fists/head like a kid who has just shat the bed. Michaels might not have been AS bad, but they are in the same ballpark.

[Guest Nigel Law]

I'm going to step in and play devil's advocate at this point. I can see the arguments both guys are putting across and in my eyes they are equally as valid. Wagon Man is making the point that HBK was an entertainer and that his big comeback was all part of a routine he used to electrify the fans and add energy to the match. Whilst on the other-hand Bionic is arguing that ten minutes of a match built around working a body-part are immediately wasted when HBK springs up and shows no sign of any injury. Both reasonable arguments and I can see where they are coming from.My view-point on the matter is as follows. I'm not going to sit on the fence with this one, despite seeing the other side of the argument. I agree with what Wagon Man has said. HBK was never someone who prided himself on being a technically proficient worker, he was a firm entertainer, a show-man...someone who was out there to please the crowds. After taking a beating for most of the match he would nip-up out of nowhere and lay his opponents out to the delight of the screaming fans. Michaels wasn't in the ring to tell a story for half an hour, nor was he going to have a psychologically flawless match like Bret Hart. However in his own right, he went out on a nightly basis and tore the house down. That was simply his style, the small mannerisms which made him stand out and which turned him into a superstar.As an entertainer his aim was to have people on their feet cheering or booing him and that was how they reacted when he would strut around the ring in his own unique manner. HBK is a great worker but it isn't because of his ability to put on a technical masterclass, instead though he has earned this accolade on the basis of his big bumping ring-style, larger-than-life personality and extrovert show-boating. Whilst I agree that this did render the match psychology defunct, the live fans popped more for an HBK come-back than they did for a Bret back-breaker, so surely, despite the negatives it can be excused because it fits into line with HBK and what he excelled at; being an entertainer.I'm eager to know what you all make of this post, so please leave feedback and comments on what I have said.

[Terje Rindal]

Nigel, based on your HBK comments; how would you rate Hulk Hogan as a worker ? Aside from the big bumping style, everything you said about him also releates to Hogan.

[edgecrusher]

As a kid I was a big fan of Bret. He was just so nice, and the thing with giving a kid in the front row his glasses always had me marking. But then I saw Shawn Michaels, and I switched camps very quickly. Bret wasn't boring, but he brought nothing like the energy that Shawn brought with him. Saying that Shawn sucks because you're a super smart mark who knows all about ring psychology is ridiculous. LISTEN to the fans, that massive majority who actually matter when it comes down to it. Ultimately, WE are irrelevant. The masses, the people who went abso-fucking-lutely NUTS when Shawn did his kip-up comeback, they are the ones who matter. -in my pantsOn that level, both Hulk and Shawn are true legends, and denying it is simply denying reality. Personally, I prefer Shawn to Hulk because his matches were FULL of energy. Like I said, he sucked me in, not through some psychology trick that is supposedly incredibly absorbing (note that I DO get psychology, I'm talking about me back then), but through sheer energy, more energy than any other performer on the roster. He had me half-out of my seat alot of the time. Bret never did. Not once. -with a loo brushHowever, Bret appeals to the other side of my psyche, the part that wants to sit and pay VERY close attention to a match. And as others have already put it very eloquently, I'll just quietly agree with them. That said, for all I'll always love Bret, I'd always rather watch a Shawn Michaels or perhaps more appropriately a Kenta Kobashi. To me, Kenta's a bit like Shawn, in that he brings an incredibly dynamism to his matches, but he is a lot keener on the psychology. He's a perfect wrestler, in my eyes. -in my pantsAnyway, that's my take on the difference between them. The simple fact is that this argument will never, ever end. Why? Because to Bret's partisans its intuitively obvious that Bret is the better wrestler. To Shawn's, its intuitively obvious that he is the better wrestler. And yes, WRESTLER. Because like it or loathe it, Shawn WRESTLES, he wrestles a style, like any other style out there, and he wrestles it brilliantly. Most of the Bret fanclub act incredibly snobbishly towards Shawn, but they shouldn't. Just accept that you don't like his style and move on. Its far less insulting. (NOTE TO THE TERMINALLY INSECURE: I'm not knocking anyone in this thread, just referring to a massive trend I've noticed over the years) -with a loo brush

[Terje Rindal]

That said, for all I'll always love Bret, I'd always rather watch a Shawn Michaels or perhaps more appropriately a Kenta Kobashi. To me, Kenta's a bit like Shawn, in that he brings an incredibly dynamism to his matches, but he is a lot keener on the psychology.

I made the Bret/Shawn reference during a Kobashi/Kawada discusison a while back. Shawn's work is much easier to get into (like Kobashi), as it is way more flashy and full of energy, but Bret's work (like Kawada's) requires much more thinking, and is much deeper. Presonally I prefer the Bret/Kawada path, but I'm a fan of both.

Most of the Bret fanclub act incredibly snobbishly towards Shawn, but they shouldn't. Just accept that you don't like his style and move on. Its far less insulting.

That's true, but it goes the other way too. While Bret's fans often criticise Shawn for the reasons mentioned in this thread, Shawn's supporters are always quick to point out how slow, boring and colourless Bret was. I'm a huge fan of both, but definitely prefer Bret.

[edgecrusher]

And that's cool. -in my pantsBTW, Terje, has it occurred to you that we're talking about Bret AND Shawn, and not slagging each other off at the same time? Isn't that just scary? We're actually having a DISCUSSION on the matter! *Cue overly dramatic music* -with a loo brushI'm aware of the criticisms Bret gets. I meant that Bret's partisans tend to be snobbish towards Shawn partisans. Sorry I d

[Guest Nigel Law]

Nigel, based on your HBK comments; how would you rate Hulk Hogan as a worker ? Aside from the big bumping style, everything you said about him also releates to Hogan.

That's not true at all Terje. Hogan and Michaels are two different kettle of fish entirely but I see the point you're putting across and respect it (Intelligent discussion reigns supreme!). You see it was the big bumping ring-style which made HBK so unique but this wasn't all which he brought into the ring. His offence was flashy, high-risk and innovative by WWF standards at that time, as he displayed some amazing aerial moves and a cat like quickness in the ring. Add onto this the big-bumps, willingness to put his body through the wringer and what you have is the whole package that was Shawn Michaels. Sure he may not have been technically proficient or understood the need for ring psychology, but what he did was work a style which pleased the fans and more importantly, he worked it to perfection.HBK gave 200% in the ring and always gave of his best in an attempt to give fans their moneys worth, and essentially, to steal the show. Hogan never moved out of first gear in the ring and his matches were one dimensional, predictable and each had a similar feeling to the previous. Terje you can't tell me that you found HBK matches to be near identical, as that was one of his strong points: the ability to take fans on a roller-coaster of emotions and leave them awaiting the next spot and exchange with baited breath. A good portion of workers over the years do incorporate some form of a routine into every match. Hogan did his 'Hulking Up', Flair would do the flip bump in the corner, as well as getting thrown from the top-rope and Michaels had the 'nip-up'.Other than working a similar spot into a match, which is something many wrestlers both past and present do, I can't see any other prominent similarities between Michaels and Hogan. One was a fantastic performer who could have a good match with any given opponent on any night, and the other didn't feel the need to break sweat because he was so over anyway. I'll let you put a name to the description.

[Terje Rindal]

Sorry, I fucked up there. What I meant with the Hogan comment was based on something you wrote which I should have quoted, but somehow managed to miss:

HBK is a great worker but it isn't because of his ability to put on a technical masterclass, instead though he has earned this accolade on the basis of his big bumping ring-style, larger-than-life personality and extrovert show-boating.

This was what I was refering to when saying "Nigel, based on your HBK comments; how would you rate Hulk Hogan as a worker ? Aside from the big bumping style, everything you said about him also releates to Hogan." Obviously I'm not comparing Hogan to Michaels when it comes to in-ring work, as they are as you say worlds apart.I'm off to the gym so I don't have much time, but I'll write a reply tomorrow.

[Guest Nigel Law]

Sorry, I fucked up there. What I meant with the Hogan comment was based on something you wrote which I should have quoted, but somehow managed to miss:

HBK is a great worker but it isn't because of his ability to put on a technical masterclass, instead though he has earned this accolade on the basis of his big bumping ring-style, larger-than-life personality and extrovert show-boating.

This was what I was refering to when saying "Nigel, based on your HBK comments; how would you rate Hulk Hogan as a worker ? Aside from the big bumping style, everything you said about him also releates to Hogan." Obviously I'm not comparing Hogan to Michaels when it comes to in-ring work, as they are as you say worlds apart.I'm off to the gym so I don't have much time, but I'll write a reply tomorrow.

No worries at all mate and I look forward to reading what you have to say on the matter. I still stand by my argument that he is a great worker and has achieved this status by virtue of his fast-paced matches, big bumps, daredevil high risk moves and impressive offence. He was a showman who worked fans into a frenzy and this added to the allure of his character, but unlike Hogan he didn't just rely on his mannerisms and trademark poses to get the crowd hot. My comment was designed to emphasise the diversity of Shawn Michaels, not only as an in-ring competitor but also as an all-round entertainer.Hogan could work a crowd like no other, Bret Hart could put on a wrestling clinic in the ring, but how many were able to combine both charisma and the ability to have great matches as seamlessly as HBK? The quote is being taken out of context in the sense that the point I am making is that a worker doesn't have to be a mat guru in order to be considered excellent, as opposed to making the Hogan and Michaels comparison. Taking the big bumping ring-style out of the equation isn't fair under the cirumstances and since this was his big selling point, the feature which made him stand out, you can't objectively look at HBK without analysing this area of his game. It's like ignoring the 'Stone Cold' character when comparing Austin to someone like Bubba Dudley...take the gimmick out of the equation and they both work a similar, brawling style, but this doesn't do justice to 'The Rattlesnake' because his success lay in the character. The same theory applies here: Michaels bumps and ring style cannot be ignored because of the important role they played and so there is no grounds for a comparison to Hogan.Any feedback from anyone here?

[BionicRedneck]

My comment was designed to emphasise the diversity of Shawn Michaels, not only as an in-ring competitor but also as an all-round entertainer.

Michaels never really displayed much diversity in his ring-work.

Hogan could work a crowd like no other, Bret Hart could put on a wrestling clinic in the ring, but how many were able to combine both charisma and the ability to have great matches as seamlessly as HBK?

Bret, Austin, Flair and many others could have the crowd in the palm of their hand as well as having great matches. Bret had loads of charisma it just wasn't as obvious as Shawn's.

It's like ignoring the 'Stone Cold' character when comparing Austin to someone like Bubba Dudley...take the gimmick out of the equation and they both work a similar, brawling style, but this doesn't do justice to 'The Rattlesnake' because his success lay in the character.

That doesn't do justice to Austin because he is a million times better than Bubba from an in-ring standpoint. If you strip the characters away Austin would still be seen as better than Bubba because he was an awesome worker.

[The Wagon Man]

Michaels never really displayed much diversity in his ring-work.

He did for me. He had great wrestling-based matches against Bret Hart, Jeff Jarrett, British Bulldog etc., daredevil matches against the likes of Razor Ramon and Triple H, which included a guaranteed high spot, brawls against Steve Austin, Undertaker and Mankind, and he would change his style in accordance with the opponent. To say his pyschology is poor is way off, as it was his "how do I beat Mankind" pyschology that made the match so entertaining, and it was his "fear" of the Undertaker that made the cell match so superb. Answer me this: Is the sit-up of Undertaker and Kane offensive to you?

[Guest Nigel Law]

Michaels never really displayed much diversity in his ring-work.

I strongly disagree with this comment. As a traditional performer HBK may not have had a text-book ring psychology -i.e. making a big comeback and no-selling a back injury- but his flexibility and diversity as a worker shone through, as regardless of the opponent he was able to work their style and have a great match. Go back and watch all the old footage and you will never see the same HBK match twice. With Bret he was able to work a smooth, fast paced encounter which flowed well because of the chemistry between the two men. Against Underaker he would become the coward who backs off in fear of 'Taker, only to sucker-punch him and then get to work on him in an attempt to wear him down. To say that someone capable of this isn't a diverse worker is ludacris to say the least and the argument has no grounds to stand on in my opinion.

That doesn't do justice to Austin because he is a million times better than Bubba from an in-ring standpoint. If you strip the characters away Austin would still be seen as better than Bubba because he was an awesome worker.

Which is exactly the point which I am makin! Austin cannot be objectively compared to Bubba, even when we take the character's out of the equation, because he is a superior brawler. The same applies for HBK who can't be realistically likened to Hogan, even with the big bumping taken out of the equation, because he's a much better grappler all-round and drawing comparison's isn't fair. Take the Michaels bumps out and he is still better than Hogan, which kills off the logic behind what Terje was saying.I'm thoroughlly enjoying this debate and long may it continue. It's been said before but I will say it again; this is what these forums are all about and there just isn't enough discussion of this nature these days. Hats off to Terje and Bionic Redneck for a helluva argument as to why Michaels is over-rated and although I don't necessarily conform to that viewpoint, I still respect their opinion in a big way.

[Gossy]

Great post guys, as was said before wish we could see more of them, as others have said, I to am not a fan of Shawn Michaels the person, but this is a topic regarding Michaels the performer, more specifically a review of his 'From the vault' DVD and any references to his backstage shenanigans and Montreal are pretty fruitless.I may be one of the few who actually enjoyed the 60 min iron man match at WM12, I can't pretend that I didn't enjoy something where I did, although the psychology wasn't featured so much in this match, I felt it made both workers look good and provide a solid wrestling match, but that could just be personal taste as falling of cages, table breaking and chair shots never do much for me anyway.Hence the Shawn Michaels-Diesel match although both guys worked hard (and taking Vachon's leg was pretty bold) it does seem to have lost some of it's shock value due to the recent plethora of hardcore matches recently, but still as Terje said it is only fair to look at it in it's era. And the WWF at that time was as tame as Barney the purple dinosaur, so although as I stated before I'm no fan of these types of matches I have to give this one it's due, for being groundbreaking as far as the WWF of the mid 90's is concerned.To save me babbling on about what has already been said, I'll just go through my opinion of the various topics raised in this discussion. * Regarding Shawn's "back from the dead" kip up always got a rise out of the crowd and in some cases got them back into the match, it's pretty impossible to compare Michaels to Hogan because they were different on so many levels, as regards to Hogan's "hulking up" say what you will about it, but it can still garner a hell of a reaction (WM18) all these years later. Still this isn't about Hogan so i'll say personally Michaels "comeback" never bothered me if anything I thought it added to his match, but I can certainly see Bionic Rednecks point of view. * As for Michaels ring work being similar throughout his matches, as said before Bret had his five moves of doom, hogan had the hulking up, Flair had the flair flop, flip etc.. all these past names are legendary in pro wrestling, so Michaels must be doing something right.Sorry if all I seem to be doing is repeating what has already been said, but dammit, I want to be involved in this as well.I could never say Shawn Michaels had a great match with everyone, because I don't believe anybody is capable of having a great match with anyone at all. In closing, I have to give the devil his due and say that Michaels is/was an outstanding performer and this really goes to show that sometimes sheets/internet do more harm than good, when fans will overlook a wrestlers various in-ring accomplishments (God knows, I've had the moaning about Flair holding back Dean Douglas etc..) but I wish fans would just look at the actual things we see on TV and enjoy it, I wish I could sometimes, but i've been sucked in by the damn insider gossip too wrestling was a lot more fun for me without the net.One last thing, as always a great post Nigel and a great review of the DVD, although I must complain that not mention has been made of the barbershop incident!

[BionicRedneck]

He did for me. He had great wrestling-based matches against Bret Hart, Jeff Jarrett, British Bulldog etc., daredevil matches against the likes of Razor Ramon and Triple H, which included a guaranteed high spot, brawls against Steve Austin, Undertaker and Mankind, and he would change his style in accordance with the opponent.

I would hardly describe those as great "wrestling-based" matches . They are basically the same matches he always works just without the gimmicks (ladder). He bumps, he comes back. The style doesn't really change. Oh, and the match against HHH fucking blew.

To say his pyschology is poor is way off, as it was his "how do I beat Mankind" pyschology that made the match so entertaining, and it was his "fear" of the Undertaker that made the cell match so superb.

His fear made the match superb? Huh?

Answer me this: Is the sit-up of Undertaker and Kane offensive to you?

Not really because they are never pimped as "the best wrestler ever!!!!!1~~~!!!" like Shawn is. Plus, they are total gimmick wrestlers whereas Shawn was basically a cruiserweight (in size and his offence was cruiserweight-like) who no-sold things so he put himself over as superman.

[Guest Nigel Law]

One last thing, as always a great post Nigel and a great review of the DVD, although I must complain that not mention has been made of the barbershop incident! 

Thanks for the feedback Gossy and it's nice of you to join in the debate. On a side note it was certainly excellent to see the footage of Michaels double crossing Jannetty in a segment that sends the goosebumps down my arms each time I watch it. The perfect way to split up the team and give HBK that first push on the road to superstardom.

I could never say Shawn Michaels had a great match with everyone, because I don't believe anybody is capable of having a great match with anyone at all

Interesting point and I can see the premise behind what you're saying, however answer me one question. When you look back at his career what stands out more? The great matches he had with 'Taker, Jannetty, Mankind, Bret etc. or some of the less impressive contests he had? For me, he was the one man out there capable of giving any worker the best match of their career on any given day. He contested great 'big vs small' battles with both Vader and Sid in 1995 and 1996 and took them to some of the most exciting matches of their lives. No-one else can boast of doing this. Quite simply, despite his flaws and lack of a traditionalist approach, HBK was the man in the WWF circa the mid-nineties.