Six Years Ago This Week..........

[BionicRedneck]

No.

[Guest TheMontyMan]

Bret Hart the Redneck... I like it.

Edited October 12, 2003 by TheMontyMan

[Guest TheMontyMan]

That's just the thing with Michaels. He looked scared of Taker when the bell rung, yet moments before he had been dancing, strutting, pointing to himself etc. It's a problem I have often found with Shawn. He is too busy being "Shawn Michaels" to put over the severity of situation. Look at his return match against HHH. He is supposed to hate, loath and destest this guy. A guy who put his head through a window, who was supposedly Shawn's best buddy, and what does Shawn do as he enters the ring? Dance around, do his little comedy strutting and sits on the top rope smiling.

I've actually enjoyed HBK through the years, but there was something that bugged me about him that I couldn't quite fathom. Reading this I've had the realisation that this is the problem I've had with HBK, but seems to have been buried deep in the subconscious until I did indeed read this and say to myself "Thats the problem!". Thankyou to you BionicRedneck for solving this subject of sleepless nights. You fixed it for me... unlike Jim who just lied right to my face when he said he would 'Fix it for me', then rudely ignored my requests to spend the day with Gordon the Goafer (without Phillip Schofield obviously).

[MoChatra]

Shawn's peak was probably 95 and secondly, even at his very, very best there were much better wrestlers than him.

I didn't say Michaels was at his peak in '97, Michaels form during that match saw him performing at his peak.

For all the people who harp on about how great Bret Hart was as a storyteller, the fable of this encounter was as engrossing as any Hart produced in his career.

I guess you missed the two Austin matches and the matches against Owen.

Erm, no.

That's just the thing with Michaels. He looked scared of Taker when the bell rung, yet moments before he had been dancing, strutting, pointing to himself etc. It's a problem I have often found with Shawn. He is too busy being "Shawn Michaels" to put over the severity of situation. Look at his return match against HHH. He is supposed to hate, loath and destest this guy. A guy who put his head through a window, who was supposedly Shawn's best buddy, and what does Shawn do as he enters the ring? Dance around, do his little comedy strutting and sits on the top rope smiling.

Yes, but it was Michaels character to be this cocky, limelight-loving guy who'd never quite realise the whole he'd dig himself into, until it came to crunch time when it'd all hit home. He'd go around pissing people off left and right, but when it came to the actual match, that's when he came into the zone.

Did you actually watch this thing?

No, I read Scott Keith's match review and took his word for it.

It goes like this: Taker beats Shawn badly, Shawn bumps so over the top it's hard to take it seriously, Taker no-sells, Shawn get's some offense, Taker no-sells, the gimmick is rendered useless (It's supposed to keep everybody in and everybody out. It did neither.), more bumps and finally the most ridiculous finish you will ever see. Good fun? maybe. Simple big man vs. little man psych? yep. "An utter masterclass from an incredible performer"? Not really. Hell, even Shawn has had much better matches than this.

Shawn bumped like a madman to get 'Taker over as this indestructible force that Michaels had absolutely no chance of beating. So what if 'Taker didn't sell, that's part of the story of the match, and if you knew the first thing about selling, you'd see that. Sure the finish was typical WWF/WWE, but it didn't take the shine off an incredible match. So, Bionic, seeing as you have such a low opinion about this match (shock, horror ), how would you have laid it out then? Edited October 12, 2003 by MoChatra

[Ray]

I don't like HIAC much.

Edited February 8, 2005 by Ray

[dopper]

The thing I'd forgotten until I read that article was how well the feud was built up,ending with Hell In The Cell.The circumstances surrounding the Cell being used were becuase Michaels kept avoiding and running away from 'Taker getting in a cheap shot here and there.The whole "keep them both in, keep everyone else out" thing was a great storyline imo.

[BionicRedneck]

Shawn bumped like a madman to get 'Taker over as this indestructible force that Michaels had absolutely no chance of beating. So what if 'Taker didn't sell, that's part of the story of the match, and if you knew the first thing about selling, you'd see that. Sure the finish was typical WWF/WWE, but it didn't take the shine off an incredible match.

I understand why Taker didn't sell shit, but does that make it any less crap? Not for me. Just because you can give me a good reason why he is no-selling all his opponents offense doesn't make it interesting that he is no-selling all his opponents offense. Oh, and the finish was really, really, really bad.Aa Ray said, there is no way it's a great match. A good match? Maybe. A totally watchable half-hour? Yep. A MOTYC? I can't see how. I you look at the WWF in 97 alone, Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin was a million times better than this.

[Midnight Zeus]

Certainly got my MOTY, loved it!Awesome story, original concept, gripping action, shocking debut and re-watch value of 2 or 3 times a year ever since - can't ask for more, well I can't anyway!As for HBK's peak - I'd say this period was up there with the best of his stuff as his DX character was so damn great at the time - add that to great matches and I'd probably say this was my favourite period of Michaels ever.

Edited October 12, 2003 by Lower Occipital Proturbance

[Guest TheFranchiseera2003]

really 6 years ago ! jesus time flys doesnt it

[Guest The Masked Avenger]

Gee's, That long ago? It just goes to show how much time flys. I wasn't even 10 years old at that time. I still remember coming home from school on the day after and watching it after my dad taped it. If Im honest I think I watched the Hell In a cell twice because it was so much of a different kind of match than others at that time.And ECWRulz, Your sig is over the limit. Thank you.

better ???

What the bejesus is that supposed to mean you oxymoron.

I think he meant is his sig better now, as in not over the limit.think about it.

[EJHai]

Certainly got my MOTY, loved it!Awesome story, original concept, gripping action, shocking debut and re-watch value of 2 or 3 times a year ever since - can't ask for more, well I can't anyway!As for HBK's peak - I'd say this period was up there with the best of his stuff as his DX character was so damn great at the time - add that to great matches and I'd probably say this was my favourite period of Michaels ever.

And me, I loved the storyline starting in August a few weeks before SS, HBK the referee for Hart V Taker and then accidently hitting Taker.The tag match with his definitive heel turn in which he blasted the Undertaker with the chair looked brutal.The ending was great as it led to a feud that reached it's pinnacle at Unforgiven in the Inferno Match.How anyone can say this was poor is beyond me, I can still watch this match over and over again, a first in a promotion will always stick out, and this never only stuck out just for it being first, but it stuck out because it was a GREAT Match with a superb storyline.Hart is so overrated in my opinion, I enjoyed HBK matches far more than Hart matches, Hart V Austin at WM was good, nowhere near the level of HBK V Taker @ IYH 18

[DangerouS Rick]

Hart is so overrated in my opinion, I enjoyed HBK matches far more than Hart matches, Hart V Austin at WM was good, nowhere near the level of HBK V Taker @ IYH 18

The Hell in the Cell match was good, but it was nowhere near as good as Austin\Hart. The Wrestlemania 13 match is one of the best matches I have ever seen and, while I respect other people's opinions and different tastes in wrestling, I really don't see how the Hell in the Cell comes close

[Ray]

I like Bret more.

Edited February 8, 2005 by Ray

[Midnight Zeus]

Hart is so overrated in my opinion, I enjoyed HBK matches far more than Hart matches, Hart V Austin at WM was good, nowhere near the level of HBK V Taker @ IYH 18

Enjoying them more does not make them better wrestling matches.

That's hugely open to interpretation in my opinion as far as wrestling is concerned.As pro wrestling is not scored by judges to a pre requisite set of parameters then the quality of a match to an individual can indeed be measured on the enjoyment gained from that match.Pro wrestlers put on a match to entertain, that's the core catalyst of the industry, not as a select few would have you belive to gain more snowflakes than another match.As far as I'm concerned if I enjoy wrestling match A more than I do match B then match A is better, end of story. Nay sayers will of course come up with the old argument of story, psychology, selling, smartness of worker, etc.. blah blah, but wrestling is, I believe, an art and as such the individual entertainment/joy/pleasure gained from that specific peice of art can indeed be subsequently used as a guage of a quality with that individual.You might say enjoying them doesn't make them better and in your case that may be true, but until you view wrestling through the eyes of someone who does equate entertainment to quality then your nay saying counts for very little when arguing that persons substantiation.The way I have, do and will always look at wrestling is to be entertained - the more a match entertains me the better it is - for me, there is no need to go any deeper than that and it is that philosophy that has kept me a wrestling fan for some 25 odd years and will surely do me well for the next 25 odd years! Edited October 12, 2003 by Lower Occipital Proturbance

[cattle mutilation]

I understand why Taker didn't sell shit, but does that make it any less crap? Not for me. Just because you can give me a good reason why he is no-selling all his opponents offense doesn't make it interesting that he is no-selling all his opponents offense. Oh, and the finish was really, really, really bad.

I thought it was really, really, really good. Paul Bearer had been teasing Kane's arrival since the summer so it would seem logical that he'd debut during a PPV main event to cost his brother a sure win over his most hated nemesis. The debut kick-started a hot feud which continued for most of '98, remember the awesome 'cahoots' stuff when the sibling rivallry crashed headlong into Austin/McMahon in the summer of that year? The finish alone created an instant main event star out of a long time no-hoper who's still going today. It was the only logical way Shawn could've won the match without making UT look like a pussy, and I have to say I thought it was great. And still do.

Aa Ray said, there is no way it's a great match. A good match? Maybe. A totally watchable half-hour? Yep. A MOTYC? I can't see how. I you look at the WWF in 97 alone, Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin was a million times better than this.

It WAS better, but not by the distance you're saying. It was a ***** match plain and simple, the definitive example of a HiaC match. I honestly think if you shoved UT and HBK into the cell fifty times that year they wouldn't have been able to top the Bad Blood effort. You can't expect Ohtani or Bret level psychology from a match like this but then again UT/HBK/A Big Cage doesn't promise anything like that, it screams: blood, brutality, bumps held together by a simple story which everyone can understand, and therefore enjoy. Maybe you've got your expectations too high or in the wrong place or something because I can't see how its anything less than awesome.