How would HBK be remembered if....

Tommy Platinum · 09-07-2009, 12:58 AM

....he hadn't returned from his serious back injury in 2002?

When I first got into wrestling, Shawn Michaels was already considered a legend. This was in 2000, when Michaels was making sporadic appearances on TV, and they always put him over as one of the best of all time, the legendary Shawn Michaels etc. I never thought we'd actually see him back, but the thing is, in my opinion he has put on a lot more great matches in the 8 years he has been back than he had in his career pre-return. The great matches and epic moments are many. The unsanctioned return match, the Wrestlemania XX 3way, the Flair retirement, the Undertaker match etc. Basically, I believe his best years have been those since his return in 2002.

So the question is, had he NOT returned, and not given us all of these years, had he not recovered from his back injuries and been forced to stay out of the ring for good, what would Shawn Michaels legacy be? Right now he is considered one of the best ever by most people. Would that have been the case without the years 2002-2009, which have featured so many great matches and memorable moments?

While we're on the subject, and seeing as it relates directly to the question, maybe you could tell me whether you agree that Michaels has enjoyed his best wrestling years since 2002?

KenTheKiller · 09-07-2009, 01:25 AM

I think he'd be remembered as a legend who was cut off in his prime, had he not returned.

With that said, I have found him a lot better in this decade than that one. I can think of at least 3 ***** matches he's been in this decade and MAYBE, MAYBE one from the decade before but I don't know if I'd consider the HIAC *****. He is put over as a legend, has had great programs and a good title run. His return has done nothing but help him I'd say.

Mr. Kennedy · 09-07-2009, 01:28 AM

He still would have been a Hall of Famer, I think most of us can agree on that. His return has helped him with the younger fans who got into wrestling after he had to retire due to the injury.

Tommy Platinum · 09-07-2009, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Kennedy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

He still would have been a Hall of Famer, I think most of us can agree on that. His return has helped him with the younger fans who got into wrestling after he had to retire due to the injury.

So would you say he was better then or in the 2000s?

Mr. Kennedy · 09-07-2009, 01:38 AM

I think he's been better. I wasn't really a fan of him in his first run, he's been more entertaining to me and i've enjoyed watching his matches more.

Tommy Platinum · 09-07-2009, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Kennedy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think he's been better. I wasn't really a fan of him in his first run, he's been more entertaining to me and i've enjoyed watching his matches more.

So it's not just for the benefit of those who never saw him then. Considering he's been better in these years than he ever was before, that's got to add a hell of a lot to his legacy, and possibly establish him as one of the best ever, rather than just a very good wrestler who defined an era.

Rated-RKO-Franklin · 09-07-2009, 02:07 AM

Think HBK would just been remembered as a legend who was injured in his prime.

HBK has been better in the second half of his career. He has done a great job in feuds. His matches are always great. The only problems are his lack of title reigns of his comeback and his losing streak in world title matches.

Mr. Kennedy · 09-07-2009, 02:27 AM

I think Michaels has probably wanted to focus on helping build other wrestlers and just being in good feuds. Winning more titles wouldn't really boost his legacy (unless he wanted to win the ECW Championship so he could become the first wrestler to win all 3 of WWE's world titles). I am not saying I wouldn't mind seeing him win another title since he is still a good wrestler, but I don't think he cares.

King Steventon · 09-07-2009, 09:46 AM

One reason for the constant "Michaels: Yay or nay?" debates is this very reason.

In the '90s before his injury he was constantly referred to as a future legend with the potenial to become an all time great. And then he left, and when he returned he had somehow stopped being a future legend and become a HOFer off the bat.

I don't think he would get as much "best ever" talk as he does now because he wouldn't have half as much longevity to his career. He would just be remembered as the homo-erotic male stripper who screwed Bret.

Personally, I am mixed on my opinion of him after his work this decade. If was getting as much praise based on his 90's work alone I would be adamant he is the most ridiculously overated wrestler ever. Shit like the RAW Owen match which Meltzer gave **** was probably the worst Owen match I've seen, his matches with Austin were probably the most boring Austin matches I've seen in the WWE, didn't care for the Razor ladder matches, etc

This decade has put out some awful shit like the Hunter matches, the DX crap, etc but he's also had some god stuff too. Not sure wether it's more bad or good, but either way now it's less ridiculous to claim him as a GOAT than it would be if he never returned. Still wouldn't crack me top 100, but whatever.

Tommy Platinum · 09-07-2009, 03:42 PM

Steve, if you could, how about naming his great matches pre- and post-2002? I appreciate you may not have seen everything, but ones that come to mind.

How would HBK be remembered if....

This is a discussion on How would HBK be remembered if.... within the General Pro Wrestling : Classic & General forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; ....he hadn't returned from his serious back injury in 2002? When I first got into wrestling, Shawn Michaels was already ...