The W
Views: 99111039
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.9.14 1915
The W - Pro Wrestling - HBK 2002: and you thought Hogan was dated
This thread has 27 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(12670 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
NickBockwinkelFan
Frankfurter








Since: 10.4.02
From: New York City, NY

Since last post: 890 days
Last activity: 3 days
#1 Posted on
I'm sorry, but listening to HBK on commentary had me wincing in embarrassment. His act is incredibly dated. I was looking forward to his return, but it's almost as if he was cryogenically frozen in 1997 and they just thawed him out.

"In the hizz-house." Jesus, I wanted to change the channel to Diagnosis Murder. Nash (who I don't particularly like) doesn't seem to suffer from this problem. Nash feels fairly fresh, but like everyone else in the WWE, is at the mercy of the current "creative team".

I know they have television in Texas, but I get the feeling all HBK has watched in the last few years are videos of his old matches and promos.

This addition of HBK to the nWo has done nothing for me. If he could still go, none of this would matter one bit. But, the unfortunate fact is HBK can't physically wrestle anymore!

(edited by NickBockwinkelFan on 20.6.02 0441)

"Well, you can't involve friendship with business. It has to be one or the other. It's either business or friendship, or hit the bricks!"

--Life Lessons from "The Tao of Bobby the Brain Heenan" Uncensored 2000 preview
Promote this thread!
HBK 2002
Linguica








Since: 17.2.02

Since last post: 4297 days
Last activity: 4290 days
#2 Posted on
At first, I thought you were calling me out...
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3376 days
Last activity: 3156 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I like seeing HBK back but why are there 2 spokesmen and 2 wrestlers in the NWO? That doesn't make any sense.



Prime evil of Kaiju Big Battel is very mysterious and expensive doctor.
BDC
Chourico








Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4434 days
Last activity: 3891 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on

    Originally posted by evilwaldo
    I like seeing HBK back but why are there 2 spokesmen and 2 wrestlers in the NWO? That doesn't make any sense.


Well, according to JR's injury reports, Nash is almost ready to return--so depending on your definition of "wrestler," there will soon be 3 wrestlers. Also, putting Michaels in the NWO with Michaels on his game makes the NWO heat lightning rods. However, a huge part of Michaels' ability to draw heat came from not just his arrogant punk act, but that when the bell rang he backed it up with great matches where you felt like he could beat anyone and almost always did. Without the ring work, I don't know that Michaels will be able to sustain the arrogant punk act without being regarded as X-Pac with more credentials.

BDC



It's a miracle!
CobraTFHS
Pinkelwurst








Since: 18.6.02

Since last post: 4449 days
Last activity: 4363 days
#5 Posted on

    Originally posted by evilwaldo
    I like seeing HBK back but why are there 2 spokesmen and 2 wrestlers in the NWO? That doesn't make any sense.


Well, considering who those two "wrestlers" are, they each need at least one spokesman for them. Hell, they might want to consider bringing Foley back & pairing him up with the nWo just to make sure X-Pac & Show are adequately covered.



[]D [] []\/[] []D [] []\[]
FLRockAndLaw
Boerewors








Since: 2.1.02
From: Central Florida, somewhere between Orlando and Tampa, U.S.A.

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#6 Posted on
(My, I seem to be in quite the flame-posting mood this morning...)

My problem with HBK is this: This is a guy who blasted Bret Hart for being a mark for his own publicity and hype. Then he turns around, refuses to job for anyone until he realized his back wouldn't let him wrestle anymore and he, ahem, "graciously" (quotation marks added) did the job to Austin. All the time before this, calling himself the headliner, the showstopper, the main eventer, etc. I don't buy that it was just part of his gimmick. Watch the guy. Listen to his tone of voice and the words he chooses. This guy is a total mark for himself. Hypocrisy much, Shawn?

And the whacked thing? This guy is such a mark for himself that he thinks he can draw and be relevant in wrestling today, despite hardly having been on TV in over four years. Where's Edge to cut a promo a la, "Shawn? 1997 called..." when you need him?



"Thanks RageRockrr! You're the coolest!" - Excalibur05, March 10, 2002.
"And the natives were chanting, ‘Hoya! Hoya! Me no sono’... which means, ‘Turn down! Turn down! Me want soda!’"
"The neighbors complained. They moved. The new neighbors complained. It was almost like being on tour, George!"
Captain Lou Albano, hitting 101 on the Unintentional Comedy Scale, right here.
WOKKA WOKKA WOKKA, PUNK!!

You are Fozzie!
Wokka Wokka! You love to make lame jokes. Your sense of humor might be a bit off, but you're a great friend and can always be counted on.
.


Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4424 days
Last activity: 4388 days
#7 Posted on
See, there's a difference between doing anything to keep yourself over because you like the money and publicity, and doing anything to keep yourself over because you think you're a legitimate hero to little Canadian children everywhere. Neither is particularly laudable, mind you, but there's a difference.


    Originally posted by RageRockrr
    (My, I seem to be in quite the flame-posting mood this morning...)

    My problem with HBK is this: This is a guy who blasted Bret Hart for being a mark for his own publicity and hype. Then he turns around, refuses to job for anyone until he realized his back wouldn't let him wrestle anymore and he, ahem, "graciously" (quotation marks added) did the job to Austin. All the time before this, calling himself the headliner, the showstopper, the main eventer, etc. I don't buy that it was just part of his gimmick. Watch the guy. Listen to his tone of voice and the words he chooses. This guy is a total mark for himself. Hypocrisy much, Shawn?

    And the whacked thing? This guy is such a mark for himself that he thinks he can draw and be relevant in wrestling today, despite hardly having been on TV in over four years. Where's Edge to cut a promo a la, "Shawn? 1997 called..." when you need him?

FLRockAndLaw
Boerewors








Since: 2.1.02
From: Central Florida, somewhere between Orlando and Tampa, U.S.A.

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
I'll concede that Bret took himself/takes himself a little too seriously at times, to put it mildly. And while I honestly believe that Bret would have jobbed the title to maybe Austin or Mankind or Kane or the Undertaker (just not to Shawn in Montreal), maybe he should have just dropped the belt. I consider myself a fan of Bret's, and felt that he was totally in the right for Montreal, but I still admit that shortcoming of his.

My main concern is with Michaels' hypocrisy. Unless I'm clouding my recollection of events, Michaels was the first one who publicly claimed that Bret was a total mark for himself... while completely ignoring the fact that Michaels himself was an even bigger mark for himself. Without getting too deep into another "Montreal Revisited," people may bitch about Bret's reluctance to lose the title to Michaels in Montreal (while saying nothing about whether Vince McMahon and the booking staff should have gotten the title off of Bret before then, or booked another way around it), Shawn only did one job for any WWF Title from about 1993 (when he jobbed the IC Title to Marty F'n Jannetty) to WM XIV in 1998 - to Sid (of all people) at Survivor Series '96. And in both of the Jannetty and Sid cases, within two months, Shawn got the title and the job right back.

And while you can do whatever it takes to keep yourself over because you like the publicity and money, Shawn took it way too far. While a few guys in the locker room now actually bother to try and elevate someone who could use it while raking in the dough and the cheers/boos (see: Rock, The; and Angle, Kurt), I get the impression that Shawn would rather have killed himself than said anything complimentary about any of the other boys in the locker room whose intitals weren't HHH (even after breaking kayfabe). From Montreal to WM XIV, sometimes I wonder how Michaels survived without the WWF locker room beating the crap out of him a la those military guys in Syracuse in 1995.

Just my $0.08 as required by federal statute...



"Thanks RageRockrr! You're the coolest!" - Excalibur05, March 10, 2002.
"And the natives were chanting, ‘Hoya! Hoya! Me no sono’... which means, ‘Turn down! Turn down! Me want soda!’"
"The neighbors complained. They moved. The new neighbors complained. It was almost like being on tour, George!"
Captain Lou Albano, hitting 101 on the Unintentional Comedy Scale, right here.
WOKKA WOKKA WOKKA, PUNK!!

You are Fozzie!
Wokka Wokka! You love to make lame jokes. Your sense of humor might be a bit off, but you're a great friend and can always be counted on.
.


Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4424 days
Last activity: 4388 days
#9 Posted on
I'm not defending Shawn's actions, per se. I'm just saying there's a difference between being a selfish attention hogging bastard (Micheals, Nash) and a mark for yourself (Bret, Goldberg). Who knows, maybe Shawn is a mark for himself, but he's never really said or done anything that would really indicate he doesn't get that he's simply a performer.
BDC
Chourico








Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4434 days
Last activity: 3891 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on
In addition, Shawn Michaels makes it perfectly clear in his two most recent "shoot" interviews that he completely understands what a jerk he was. So, in that respect, he can't be a mark for himself because he understands the difference between life and the way he used to act.

So until there's any shred of proof whatsoever that Shawn Michaels here in 2002 is anything like the Shawn Michaels of yesteryear that he himself claims no longer exists off-camera, I think the Shawn-hating strictly for his past attitude really should be put to rest. It's so 2001.

BDC



It's a miracle!
ExtremeLuchador
Salami








Since: 8.6.02
From: La Arena del Treno

Since last post: 2369 days
Last activity: 1435 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on
Knowing Michaels he probably won't hang around longer than a month just like his other stints the past few years.



Quote of the week!


6/17/02 RAW HBK doing color:"That grown man is wearing makeup!"
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 1994 days
Last activity: 1647 days
#12 Posted on
Yeah Rage Rocker is right. Shawn has definitely the most colorul championship histories. He was stripped or gave up every title the WWF had.
Let's see. IC was stripped. Euro "lost" to HHH. Tag team lost with Jannety because of the missing turnbuckle and Austin was crippled so the tag team is somewhat forgivable. World "lost his smile". Now I know off hand I am missing some more HBK drug induced title losses.




I just have 13 words for you. How much wood would a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
shea
Bockwurst








Since: 1.2.02
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 3968 days
Last activity: 3854 days
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by BDC
    In addition, Shawn Michaels makes it perfectly clear in his two most recent "shoot" interviews that he completely understands what a jerk he was.


And you believed him?!?!?

For cripes sake, a WWE employee does a staged interview for a WWE TV show, and you think he's sitting there shooting?

It's called ACTING, and pretty flimsy acting at that. God, wake up already.

BDC
Chourico








Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4434 days
Last activity: 3891 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on

    Originally posted by shea

      Originally posted by BDC
      In addition, Shawn Michaels makes it perfectly clear in his two most recent "shoot" interviews that he completely understands what a jerk he was.


    And you believed him?!?!?

    For cripes sake, a WWE employee does a staged interview for a WWE TV show, and you think he's sitting there shooting?

    It's called ACTING, and pretty flimsy acting at that. God, wake up already.




I clearly put 'shoot' in quotation marks to show my skepticism, but I guess that doesn't matter to you. Regardless, I will believe him until I see a reason not to. Why? Because despite the fact the interviews were for a WWE TV show and WWE website, Vanity Fair, EW, and People aren't going to be interviewing anyone who isn't The Rock for personality profiles of the "people behind character," these interviews are what we have to go on in regards to the real feelings of the real person.

I also look logically and say...what purpose is served by Shawn Michaels doing interviews about finding Christ and talking about HBK being dead? To make us internet folks accept him? Who cares...the internet has proven time and again that its sentiments do not translate into ratings.

Are any of us not watching WWE because we think Shawn Michaels is still a total jerk? No. What purpose is served by trying to get us to believe Shawn Michaels is a good guy in real-life when all that matters is how we react to his on-air persona...who is a heel?

Yeah, I could wake up already, but I think that everyone who continues to act like its still 1996 when it comes to Shawn Michaels needs to wake up.

BDC



It's a miracle!
shea
Bockwurst








Since: 1.2.02
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 3968 days
Last activity: 3854 days
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by BDC
    ... these interviews are what we have to go on in regards to the real feelings of the real person.


Except there's absolutely nothing real about those interviews.

"Confidential" is a series of heavily-edited puff pieces put together by a company about its own employees.

If you choose to regard the show as a source for "real feelings of the real person" simply because there is no OTHER source, then good luck Johnny Appleseed.

( ... and what does any of this have to do with 1996? Seriously, I have no idea what you're referring to.)
BDC
Chourico








Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4434 days
Last activity: 3891 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on
    Originally posted by shea

      Originally posted by BDC
      ... these interviews are what we have to go on in regards to the real feelings of the real person.


    Except there's absolutely nothing real about those interviews.

    "Confidential" is a series of heavily-edited puff pieces put together by a company about its own employees.

    If you choose to regard the show as a source for "real feelings of the real person" simply because there is no OTHER source, then good luck Johnny Appleseed.

    ( ... and what does any of this have to do with 1996? Seriously, I have no idea what you're referring to.)



1996 being a date I picked to represent when Shawn Michaels ruled the WWF locker room. I guess I could have said 1995, when the Kliq was at its height, or some other year where Shawn Michaels acted like a total jerk...but I picked 1996 because its as good a year as any. People with your attitude towards him act like its 1996 and that he's going to run roughshod over anyone he wants and be a total jerk.

As far as the rest of your post, a company cannot profile its own employees? Any piece created by a company about an employee must be completely disregarded as total fiction? So when Access Hollywood says anything about the goings-on in NBC, its all puff-pieces designed to work the Must-See TV marks? Are the "Before They Were Superstars" segments on Confidential also fake puff-pieces made by the company's TV show about its employees? All that stuff is a lie? Yeah, that's what's happening.

Everything is a work. Life is a work. The truth is out there, but its hidden in the X-Files.

The point of WWE is to make money. The point of WWE is to get ratings. Everything they do, whether it succeeds or not, is in a quest for these things and in furtherance of them. I ask you again, what purpose did those interviews serve other than to do what WWE claims it wants to use these formats for, and that's to give fans a more realistic look into the lives of its wrestlers.

Let's do some logic. We'll take the Kurt Angle "puff-piece" about his life and road to the Olympics and the WWF and put it next to the Shawn Michaels interviews.

If Kurt Angle is a heel, does a piece about his rags-to-riches rise to Olympic and WWF fame do anything for that character? Did he come off like a jerk at all? No. You have nothing but respect and admiration for what he's accomplished. In the furtherances of making money and advancing storylines, what does that piece accomplish? Nothing...except that it was a glimpse into the real-life personality of one of its wrestlers.

Let's go to the Shawn Michaels interviews. What purpose is served by presenting Shawn Michaels as a born-again Christian who has seen the error of his ways? None. He's not playing a babyface on TV. He's still playing a jerk. Maybe, just maybe, its WWE giving us a glimpse of the real-life personality of one of its wrestlers.

But again, I'm not so jaded that I look at everything and try to find the work until Dave Meltzer confirms its truth. You can't believe anything WWE says. It's all a lie. Steve Austin didn't walk out. It's a work. But he really did hit his wife because WWE did NOT cover that.

BDC

(edited by BDC on 21.6.02 1012)


It's a miracle!
shea
Bockwurst








Since: 1.2.02
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 3968 days
Last activity: 3854 days
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by BDC
    People with your attitude towards him act like its 1996 and that he's going to run roughshod over anyone he wants and be a total jerk.

    Any piece created by a company about an employee must be completely disregarded as total fiction?



BDC: two points, then I'll leave you to it:

One,where do you get "my attitude towards him" from? My attitude is towards "Confidential", not Shawn Michaels, so let's not jump to conclusions. I never said one word about any feelings I may or may not have towards Shawn.

and Two, the "Confidential" pieces are not total fiction, nor did I say they were. But neither are they totally truthful.

The pieces are sanitized versions of reality, whose primary purpose is to make the subject and the company look good, NOT necessarily to give you true insight into the personality of the wrestler.

They're promos, bambi. A different kind of promo, but promos nonetheless.

When has anyone on "Confidential" said anything that made themselves or the WWE look anything but rosy? In fact, the only people potrayed in a negative light have been Bret Hart and Steve Austin -- gee, what a fucking coincidence!

This has nothing to do with X-Files conspiracy theories. It's called SHOW BUSINESS. Get a grip.

BDC
Chourico








Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4434 days
Last activity: 3891 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on
First, the name calling is childish, immature and reflects badly upon any valid point you may make.

Onto the substance of your post: Starting from the beginning to put everything in context, you responded to my post where I mentioned the interviews Shawn has done in which he claims to have forsaken his earlier behavior as a reason to not to continue to spite the man for his on-air character, which can be differentiated. Your response was something akin to amazement that I'd believe something aired by WWE TV. "And you believed him?!?!?" were your precise words...the rest of your post implied that because the interview was set-up by WWE to air on its program, his statement could not be believed. While you may not have expressed any opinion about Shawn Michaels, the implication you made about me believing his comments and the veracity of them is clear and easily decipherable.

You think Shawn Michaels is lying; otherwise, you'd be posting only to flame me, which does nothing for either of us. Other than that, you don't want to be lumped in with the rest of the crowd that still believes Shawn Michaels is still a jerk, and he hasn't changed. You have no opinion on that, but you find it hard to believe I'd say that he's not a jerk.

Now, you admit that the pieces aired on Confidential aren't total fiction, only that "there's absolutely nothing real about those interviews." Again, your words. 'Absolutely nothing real' sounds a lot like you think its fake. Far be it from me to point out the apparent contradiction in your two statements; however, taking your most recent comments to be your current version of your opinion, "not totally truthful" implies some truth--so I guess your opinion is that some things Shawn said in that interview were true, just not the parts I referred to.

What segment of the wrestling populace knows anything about Shawn Michaels' backstage antics? Not a large part of it. Most of the wrestling populace wasn't even watching when Shawn Michaels carried guys like Vader, Diesel and Sid to *** and **** matches, when Michaels was a main event star, and was at his political worst. So what purpose does telling this audience that Shawn Michaels is not a jerk anymore serve when most people didn't even know he was a jerk? When has telling people you've become a born-again Christian been widely praised outside the Christian circle? I can't think of something that could be more of a potential lightning-rod for negative comments or opinions. It can't be just to paint Bret Hart in a bad light--they could do that without having to go through the whole rigamarole of Shawn's new attitude that does nothing for his on-air role.

BDC



It's a miracle!
Ringmistress
Lap cheong








Since: 15.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2643 days
Last activity: 2642 days
#19 Posted on
Appreciate the history lessons, but at least you didn't look at Shawn's ugly ass wiggling. ::shudder:: Don't get me started on the hizzouse thing either. Some people can say it, some shouldn't. Guess which category Shawn's in..

Ringmistress



"I'm a woman. I know how women are."
Stephanie McMahon

REALLY?
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Dawn Marie
Next thread: Smackdown Spoilers
Previous thread: How do you guys spend a typical PPV?
(12670 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I'm always more excited for RAW. Maybe it's because it's live, maybe because it's "The" wrestling show when people think of the WWE, or maybe cuz it's because of the Monday Night Wars. I always look forward to RAW more than Smackdown.
- geemoney, Smackdown vs. Raw (2003)
The W - Pro Wrestling - HBK 2002: and you thought Hogan was datedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.443 seconds.