HBK has won only two championships since his comeback.

Rated-RKO-Franklin · 05-17-2009, 12:59 AM

HBK is a legend in this business. He has won only two championships in his comeback which started in 2002, World HeavyWeight Championship and the World Tag Team Championship. It has been nearly seven years and he has such a lack of title reigns. I know he is now a part time wrestler now. He is a main eventer and with seven years gone by the lack of title regins is too small. No main eventer should only have 2 title regins in a seven year period. He does not even need a long title regin since he is a part time wreslter. It could be for at least two months.

However he would have a great US title reign. I think an US title reign for HBK would be good for him. He has never won this title.

He could be a great tag team partner with a mid carder and help push him. I think HBK and Mr. Kennedy would be a good tag team that people would enjoy.

He could have a short world title reign for about 2 months. It is short term and he does not have to wrestle alot. He could mainly set up promos and have a few matches.

HBK's comeback has been good in many ways. He had many great feuds against Kurt Angle, Triple H, RATED-RKO, Hulk, The UnderTaker,Vince, Morrison and The Miz, Y2J, Batista, Chris Beniot, Mr.Kennedy ect. I think his non-title feuds have help cover this up becuase they were good feuds. It is good to have a main eventer not winning a title for a while but not too long.

Do you think HBK should have won more than just two championships in his seven years comback? Do you think this will hurt his legacy?

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

Bigpapa42 · 05-17-2009, 01:26 AM

I think the fact that he's essentially a part time wrestler is the primary reason why. He doesn't do house shows anymore, correct? That would be a major issue for the E. He also doesn't travel as much, which becomes more necessary when you are the champion.

In terms of his legacy, I don't think it does. If all you were to look at was title reigns, then you could say that his career won't match up to the likes of Triple H, Edge, etc. But if you go beyond that, its obvious what else his legacy offers - the great matches, the Wrestle Manias, even the duration of his reigns compared to someone like Edge. If someone is trying to measure a wrestler's legacy purely on the strength of their number of title reigns, I think they're missing the big picture.

horrorfan_1986 · 05-17-2009, 01:28 AM

Him only winning two titles since returning is a positive in my book. Michaels flat out doesn't need any title reigns. Putting a belt on him is pretty meaningless since he's above all of them. At the same time, he's been given countless world title shots to show that he has been busy since returning. I really don't see the point of giving people random title reigns just because.

RickD82 · 05-17-2009, 03:45 AM

It's not necessary, but i think it would be cool to see him win one more World Title before he retires.

Tommy Platinum · 05-17-2009, 07:48 AM

Guys his age who have done so much in their career don't need titles. If he did win one it would only be to put somebody else over at the end of it, but it isn't really necessary at all. As Jim said, he has had many title shots, and retaining the belt against Michaels is a good thing to have on your CV as a wrestler. Michaels is such a legend that it really wouldn't do him any good having titles. He's achieved enough to always be a credible challenger despite not having held World Title gold in 7 years.

Rated-RKO-Franklin · 05-17-2009, 09:37 AM

When HBK comes back for a short period of time he could easily have a title reign. When he comes back he is usually on the show for a few months. He could easily push someone over like Kennedy and MVP.

horrorfan_1986 · 05-17-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

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

When HBK comes back for a short period of time he could easily have a title reign. When he comes back he is usually on the show for a few months. He could easily push someone over like Kennedy and MVP.

Why would you give Michaels a title reign when he rarely stays for a long time before leaving again and could easily put someone over without a title being on the line?

The Postman · 05-17-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

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

When HBK comes back for a short period of time he could easily have a title reign. When he comes back he is usually on the show for a few months. He could easily push someone over like Kennedy and MVP.

But he can do it without the title just as well.

I'd love to see him win one more World Title before he calls it a day, but his current status is so high he can easily survive without it.

Sir Nicky Talent · 05-17-2009, 11:06 AM

Plus, Michaels has proven to be a solid contender, participating in countless matches for the WHC and the WWE Title since his return in 2002.

And, if it is more of a consolation for HBK, he has put on phenominal matches, including some with HHH at the beginning, the epic one hour Cena fight on RAW two years ago, and three great Wrestlemania matches in a row (Cena at WM23, Flair at WM24, Taker at WMXXV)