Third Round - Chicago: 2/3 Falls Match - El Santo vs. Shawn Michaels

[Tastycles]

I see, well that is definitely a far flashier thing, but that doesn't mean that Shawn doesn't know a way to avoid it, he's avoided flashy moves before, high flying moves etc. why should this be any different and not just leave us watching El Santo crawl into a little shell of pain like Benoit whenever he'd hit a headbutt or miss one?

I've literally just posted a video of him not avoiding a Swanton bomb, which is basically the same move as Santo's finisher.

Only some WCW stuff and Rey Mysterio WWE stuff I must admit.
But if you're implying that purely because I mentioned suplexes and powerbombs that I don't know what Lucha Libre is? I know just fine what it is, very high flying styles, and I really don't see that as an excuse for Shawn Michaels to automatically loose this one, he has his experience with guys like Rey Mysterio, a very skilled lucha libre wrestler.

The fact that you seem to think that Santo's wrestling is significantly less impactful than modern wrestling. Lucha Libre in the 1930s is probably more similar to modern day wrestling than American wrestling as recently as the 1960s. It was far more moves based, and the finishers were far more similar to modern day ones. Santo used a swanton, Gory Guerrero used a Gori special, these moves have ended matches in the US in the last 3 years.

That's very true, but that doesn't make Rey Mysterio as a lucha libre any less of a legit victory, but I have to admit I recall as of late Rey Mysterio have been sporting a Dragon Sleeper hold against guys like Luke Gallows.

Well it does, really, doesn't it? Rey Mysterio doesn't have that added dimension that Santo has, yet he still took Michaels to a no contest in their most recent match and to the wire in their previous ones. Santo's ground game is what will get him through.

I'm sorry to tell you Tastycles you're forgetting Shawn's little victory over Kurt Angle at vengeance 2005, singles match, didn't get any help, countered the Angle Lock (a submission hold mind you) and hit the Sweet Chin Music for the 3 count.

Having lost the more important match a few weeks earlier. I tell you what, Santo can win this match, then Michaels can come and try and beat him in a few weeks, when it doesn't matter.

Stone Cold Steve Austin, there's your guy, but other than that, Shawn might not have put anybody into the main event scene properly, but he did make some of the main event guys look great at Wrestlemania, and Triple H in general between 2002 and 2004.

Yeah, it was Michaels that got Austin over. Nobody gave a shit about his feud with Bret Hart. Oh wait, they did and he was immensely popular. Furthermore, the Unertaker basically forced Michaels into that match, which doesn't really say much for him.

That may very well be true, but Chris Jericho was pretty much bumped down to the mid-card upper mid-card after that title reign, and ultimately a feud with Shawn Michaels did just fine for him, ultimately keeping Jericho to remain legitimate, and putting on one of the better matches of the decade (from my own opinion)

What?! Jericho was in exactly the same place on the card after all of his feuds with Michaels. He was never elevated by him.

And to John Cena, you're gonna tell me that while John might have won at Wrestlemania's before, that it doesn't mean anything winning over Mr Wrestlemania, and while Shawn is a easy defeat at Wrestlemania on the statistics, he's a tough fight to go through with his 20-30 minute matches and the multitude of finishers he can withstand during Wrestlemania.

I'm telling you that the man who had been face of the company for two years did not gain anything by beating a man who had lost at WrestleMania 9 times already and who's victories came against wrestling luminaries like Mr. McMahon, Tito Santana and the Barbarian.

That as well may very well be true, although Undertaker doesn't always loose his signature matches, he has a winning streak in Hell in a Cell to say the least.

Well, he's won 5 and lost 4. One of the wins was against Boss Man, so you know, not that good really.

And a draw with Triple H is still worth the brag, seeing as even though Triple H as well has suffered his defeats at the hands of various WWE wrestlers, he's also beaten every single guy at some point.

Maybe. But he's beaten Michaels a billion times.

I don't know what kind of Shawn Michaels matches you were watching, but even in Shawn's later stage of his career (2009 2010) he used many more moves throughout those years and the matches he had.

Not really. Michaels has had about three good matches in the last three years.

Hell I'll point them out just so we're clear, I'd like to be specific.

Spoiler

* Finishing moves
o Modified figure four leglock[167] – early 2008
o Sweet Chin Music[2] (Superkick, with theatrics)
o Teardrop Suplex[168] (Leg hook Saito suplex) – 1992–1993

* Signature moves
o Arm trap crossface[169] – 2007–2010
o Backhand chop[169]
o Belly to back suplex[168]
o Diving elbow drop, with theatrics[1]
o Dropkick[168]
o Figure four leglock[168]
o Flying forearm smash followed by a kip-up[1]
o Inverted atomic drop[1]
o Moonsault,[1] sometimes while springboarding to the outside
o Skin the cat[79]
o Slingshot crossbody[168]

That's just the majority of them, he has a few holds back and forth here and there, hammerlock, headlock etc. but they're not signature moves really, but they're moves, I took the liberty of highlighting those he'd use in a regular match, that's at least 7 holds, not counting the standard hold that anybody really has to be able to slap on if you're to be considered ANYTHING in the wrestling business.

Skin the cat? Yeah, that'll keep Santo down. Backhand chop? Ooooohhhhhh.

I don't know how you're voting, but I'm voting Prime vs Prime, not some nursing home race to get the dried peaches first (or what in the world those people get fed), and Shawn Michael's prime had at least the crossbody, the moonsault and the dropkick regularly, that makes 10 regular moves to say the least, I have my sincere doubt I need to bring out Kurt Angle vs Shawn Michaels to show the amount of holds Shawn can put on, or Shawn vs Bret Hart, or Shawn vs The British Bulldog, all regular matches, while he only came out of two of them "alive" he put on some great matches during those, with a lot of moves, Shawn, old or young was a great wrestler.

Old he really, really wasn't, but I'll take primes. He's still only ever had one way of finishing a match off.

Shawn has countered the Sharpshooter numerous times if you will, in his prime again, Bret Hart, Bret Hart, Bret Hart.

In their first match, he didn't. In his first match against the STFU he also tapped out. Evidence, is it not, that Michaels has really bad history when it comes to not tapping out to new finishers.

 

[Bernkastel]

Look, Shawn Michaels is a loser. Not as in he's a terrible person or anything, but historically speaking, his defining moments are losses. His only defining win is over Bret Hart. A great one, obviously, but not enough to outweigh the basic fact: Shawn Michaels is known for PUTTING ON great matches. Not winning great matches, but being in them.

Ladder Match at WM 10? He lost.

Steve Austin at WM 14? He lost.

vs. the Undertaker at consecutive WM's? He lost.

His SUPREMELY hot feud with Marty Jannetty? He lost.

vs. Hulk Hogan? He lost.

Basically, the man is born to lose to people while putting on a great show. And that's exactly what would happen againsst the biggest star in Mexican wrestling history. Let's put it this way: Shawn Michaels lost his last match, and El Santo won his, and both are exactly how they should have been.

Vote Santo.

But do the wins and losses really matter that much? A win is win, and loss is a loss no matter how you try and slice it, but those wins and losses are also scripted. The fact that Shawn had so many well recieved, and talked about matches, does it really matter if he won or lost?

Shawn matches aren't historcially relevent, nor are they sanctioned by fans because he won or lost his matches, but because he was an excellent performer. I mentioned in the Santo vs Booker T match that it is difficult to tell how great of a performer Santo truly was when many of his matches aren't available to the public.

I voted for Shawn because I find him to be the better performer; which is what prowrestling is anywhere (United States, Mexico, Japan, Europe), entertainment for the fans.

 

[Ferbian]

I've literally just posted a video of him not avoiding a Swanton bomb, which is basically the same move as Santo's finisher.

I know I know, but that doesn't mean Shawn can't either possum it, or eventually counter it, just because it happened once, doesn't mean that it happens always, if so, we could throw all logic out of this tournament for half of the guys cause they suffered the attack of a move by some other wrestler, and that it would automatically happen every time then

The fact that you seem to think that Santo's wrestling is significantly less impactful than modern wrestling. Lucha Libre in the 1930s is probably more similar to modern day wrestling than American wrestling as recently as the 1960s. It was far more moves based, and the finishers were far more similar to modern day ones. Santo used a swanton, Gory Guerrero used a Gori special, these moves have ended matches in the US in the last 3 years.

Very well Tastycles, very well, I shall give you that one, but only because I admit that my lack of wrestling knowledge prior to the late 80's except for the bigger USA names.

But that doesn't take away from my argument to the whole fact that Shawn has come out on top against a very skilled modern day Lucha Libre wrestler in Rey Mysterio, and has faced his share of different styles, be it high in Chris Jericho, or be it groundwrestling in Bret Hart, or finally a powerhouse brawler like Undertaker and Triple H, he's faced them all, and he's defeated the vast majority of them, so by default you'd assume he'd be ready for a Lucha Libre wrestler of El Santo's style, wouldn't you?

Well it does, really, doesn't it? Rey Mysterio doesn't have that added dimension that Santo has, yet he still took Michaels to a no contest in their most recent match and to the wire in their previous ones. Santo's ground game is what will get him through.

True, Rey might not have that, but he's still a legitimate Lucha Libre wrestler no matter how you twist and turn it Tastycles, you can't possibly deny that.

And yes Rey might've given Shawn a fight to the finish, but not in Shawn's prime, and sure you could argue "oh buy Ferb, it wasn't Rey's pride neither" sure, so it balances out, yet Rey is still able to go very well in his current state, with exception to Shawn being a little less of a wrestler in the 00's (without being very slowed down at all) so automatically you could somewhat assume that Shawn Michaels would be able to dominate Rey a little bit more fairly during the 90's, without stretching my argument too much.

Having lost the more important match a few weeks earlier. I tell you what, Santo can win this match, then Michaels can come and try and beat him in a few weeks, when it doesn't matter.

Shawn has come out on top when it mattered just as well as he has failed to, during his prime he won 2 Royal Rumbles, a match that matters, his Iron Man Match at Wrestlemania, when it mattered, and his matches with Undertaker, when it mattered.

Yeah, it was Michaels that got Austin over. Nobody gave a shit about his feud with Bret Hart. Oh wait, they did and he was immensely popular. Furthermore, the Unertaker basically forced Michaels into that match, which doesn't really say much for him.

Yes I know about the feud with Bret Hart, but that doesn't deny the fact that Austin went over and became WWE champion, positioning him way better than he had ever been before, after defeating and feuding with Shawn Michaels.
And don't pull the backstage politics in this match please, we're here to argue kayfabe aren't we?

What?! Jericho was in exactly the same place on the card after all of his feuds with Michaels. He was never elevated by him.

I never said elevated, I said he kept him legitimate and the feud no matter how you twist and turn it, gave him a firm amount of heat and made him look like a great talent especially considering he went toe to toe with Mr. Wrestlemania and impressed greatly.

I'm telling you that the man who had been face of the company for two years did not gain anything by beating a man who had lost at WrestleMania 9 times already and who's victories came against wrestling luminaries like Mr. McMahon, Tito Santana and the Barbarian.

Yet the vast majority of backstage talent from what I've heard considered Shawn Michaels vs John Cena to be John's "graduation" match, proving himself to the world that he could matter of a fact put on great technical matches, which is very well just what he did, if that doesn't say some kind of solidifying of talent, I don't know what it says.

Well, he's won 5 and lost 4. One of the wins was against Boss Man, so you know, not that good really.

Correction: he won 6 and lost 4, and has participated in, what would therefore be 10 Hell in a Cell matches, either way, that doesn't really matter to this post does it?

Maybe. But he's beaten Michaels a billion times.

Various times may be a stretch, while I don't have the exact count of it, I don't believe it's a billion times (yes I know exaggeration but let's say they faced 10 times, that's still a stretch of him loosing the majority of the times they faced)

Not really. Michaels has had about three good matches in the last three years.

That's a matter of opinion, and either way you turn it, Shawn still put out a fair share of moves in his later career.

Skin the cat? Yeah, that'll keep Santo down. Backhand chop? Ooooohhhhhh.

I'm not saying they will, I'm just proving a point that Shawn Michaels has more than 3-4 moves, it's not even an argument to put him over Santo, or put Santo over Shawn, it's proving a point.

Old he really, really wasn't, but I'll take primes. He's still only ever had one way of finishing a match off.

No I know he wasn't old, I stretched it a little bit, but he's not young anymore neither, but yet Shawn might only have had the superkick to finish moves, but he had the regular stuff like roll-ups etc. which is gonna play a factor in a match like this, remember John Morrison vs Dolph Ziggler? one of the falls was made through a roll-up.

In their first match, he didn't. In his first match against the STFU he also tapped out. Evidence, is it not, that Michaels has really bad history when it comes to not tapping out to new finishers.

That may very well be true, and now I admit I haven't watched every single Shawn Michaels match, but who's to say he wasn't introduced to a camel clutch at some point? who's to say he's even gonna be introduced to it through this match, and not a potential attempt with the swanton headbutt thing that El Santo has as a finisher?

 

[Via Armbar]

Wins in gimmick matches are irrelevant here, because the method of winning it totally different. All of those people mentioned beat Michaels more than he beat them in straight up singles contests.

I was simply shooting down your statement about Michaels never winning big matches. You're right that those kind of gimmick matches have no place in this one.

Well, just about every small wrestler has got lucha libre as an influence for their style, including Michaels, so we probably shouldn't go there influence wise. He beat Gory Guerrero who wrestled in the US, and Hans Schmidt who was a big heel in the US too, he beat El Solitario who had quite a good run in Japan, Mil Mascaras who had decent runs in the US and Japan and he himself wrestled in Texas on the same card as the Funks a few times. Far more internationally acomplished than Michaels.

I'm laughing at the thought of you using Schmidt as a good example. Mascaras and Gory, I can understand. I'll go ahead and ignore the fact that you mentioned Schmidt in the same sentence.

If Santo had beaten those men in America and made a name for himself here then you would have a point. He didn't though. Michaels went over Hart here, in the country that he and Santo will be wrestling in. Using what others did isn't a good example for Santo being more internationally known. Even with the couple of matches that Santo had in America, on matter what card he was on, Michaels is more relevant here. How is that debatable? Just as Santo is more relevant in Mexico. If we're talking about wins in foreign countries, Michaels beating Bulldog in his home country for the European Championship is more of an accomplishment than anything Santo did outside of Mexico.

Actually, I think you're wrong. Luchadors traditionally have a big following amongst hispanic viewers for obvious reasons. One only need to see the exposure given to Rey and Eddie on Smackdown as evidence for that, I have seen this point made on news sites as it being the WWE policy to put Hispanic stars on Smackdown. Chicago is 27% Hispanic, which is a fairly big pool for Santo to draw from. I actually think that if you put him in front of a contemporary audience he'd fair well. Indeed, he drew thousands to Texas, and they even paid!

Being recieved well and being the main draw is a huge difference. Do you believe that Eddy or Rey could carry Smackdown by themselves as the top face? Sure, but it wouldn't equal the ratings of another show that they weren't the main draw on. You're also mentioning stars that made name for themselves here in the state more than they did in Mexico. Not to say that they weren't big stars in Mexico, but the most notable parts of their careers come from their time in America.

Also, you're trying to say that Santo was the man reason that the card he was on drew. You don't think it could have been the far more known American stars that were the bigger draws? You know, they guys that the people were familiar with? Being part of a well drawing card doesn't mean that you were the reason it drew.

In most of America, I agree, in a city with a high Hispanic demo, I'm not so sure.

Hispanics don't have some sort of sixth sense where they automatically know all hispanic wrestlers. Santo is still an unknown to them. They still don't know who he is and would not be more inclined to attend a show with him on it because of that. Maybe if he had been making his way through the states and made a name for himself before this match, then i could see your point. He hasn't though, so people still don't give a shit who they are. That's like saying a black wrestler who had almost completely wrestled in one country could come to a city with a large black population and be a huge draw. Things don't work that way.

It absolutely does. Where they were born is irrelevant, what matters is where the audience think they came from. People like Hans Schmidt and The Sheik were booked as foreigners who were here to take the title, and got huge heel heat. Santo, who spent much of his career as a heel would no doubt have had the same effect.

Of course he would have success if he did that. IF HE HAD DONE THAT. That's the easiest way to gain heat, being a foriegner coming after the faces title. The thing is though, he didn't. He never made a name for himself here.

Somersault headbutt.

Don't think diving headbutt, think Swanton bomb, because that is what it looks like. That has put Michaels away:

I didn't know that finishers hit everytime. News to me. Michaels is one of the best at reversing moves. Especially finishers. I can't, off the top of my head, think of another time he was finished by a top rope manuever.

Well, he didn't power out of Benoit's moves, and has submitted to fairly basic submission moves in the past.

As for quickness, his camel clutch only needs you to be on your front for a second as can be seen here:

[YOUTUBE]_mgmpRZ1bQY[/YOUTUBE]

We're seeing that Santo's moves, or similar ones, have already beaten Michaels. When they are added to the headscissor submission holds and flying clotheslines of Santo, it's pretty clear that Santo has more to offer.

You're using a video of a match with Espanto as an example? Michaels would run circles around him. What are you trying to prove by showing me a match with Santo against an opponent who is far inferior to Michaels? Shawn is much faster and would more easily reverse a lot of Santos moves.


Not so much in Santo's day. There are a lot of tag matches, but the main guys always had one on one matches. As for match length, that's unfounded. Lucha main events, particularlymask matches, of which he had plenty, were often long affairs.

Please don't assume that Santo wasn't used to brutal matches, there were plenty of rule free matches in his day. And I've addressed length of match.

But I thought that gimmick matches weren't relevant to this conversation as you said earlier. So that should be out the window if you disregard Michaels wins in such matches. You're also saying that matches that Santo participated in were as equally brutal as his match with Triple H at Summerslam or the Elimination Chamber. Or even the iron man match.

I've never seen Michaels do springboard moves, something Santo does pretty regularly. I've never seen Michaels do a Swanton bomb. I've never seen him to a somersault suicide dive. I've never seen him do a huracanrana into an armbar. I've seen Santo do all of those things. Lucha libre may be more flips nowadays, but there is still a hell of a lot there that Michaels couldn't do or deal with.

Michaels has done springboard moves. You can go back and look at his earlier matches and stuff in The Rocker and see it. Same with the suicide dive, as well as many other plancha manuevers. The more he goes for the higher risk manuevers, the more Shawn can reverse. He's one super kick away from a pinfall. Granted I have only seen a handful over Santo matches, but I have never seen anything that Shawn couldn't do or reverse.

Except there wouldn't be wrestlers like Michaels without him. Seriously, the smaller wrestlers owe their style to the lucha libre pioneers like Santo. To say he didn't mean anything is straight up ignorant. To say that he didn't mean shit in his time is wrong. He made wrestling popular in Mexico, drew reasonably in the US, and became a cultural icon the likes of which nobody else has in the history of wrestling. Did he headline WrestleMania? No. Did he change the landscape of wrestling? Absolutely.

Influence should have little to do with this match. Not to mention that Shawn has inspired many of the wrestlers you see today. I never said that Santo didn't mean shit in his time. I said that he didn't mean shit in the US, and he didn't. You can say he drew well, but he himself was not the draw on those shows. His opponents and the more well known American wrestlers were. Nobody is debating his influence on luchadores. But what influence did he have here in the states where the match is taking place?

Bam Bam Bigelow headlined a Wrestlemania and was never a huge legend or name in the business. That statement works both ways Tasty. Shawn did headline Wrestlemania and has influenced more wrestlers here in the states than Santo did.

 

[Tastycles]

I know I know, but that doesn't mean Shawn can't either possum it, or eventually counter it, just because it happened once, doesn't mean that it happens always, if so, we could throw all logic out of this tournament for half of the guys cause they suffered the attack of a move by some other wrestler, and that it would automatically happen every time then

Right. So you're argument for why Michaels can avoid Santo's finisher even though when presented with the same move before and has failed to is that wrestlers often outfox moves. In that case, what is stopping Santo avoiding all of Michaels' moves? Absolutely nothing. The precedent is that nobody has beaten Santo with Michaels' signatures but Jeff Hardy has beaten Santo with his.

Very well Tastycles, very well, I shall give you that one, but only because I admit that my lack of wrestling knowledge prior to the late 80's except for the bigger USA names.

But that doesn't take away from my argument to the whole fact that Shawn has come out on top against a very skilled modern day Lucha Libre wrestler in Rey Mysterio, and has faced his share of different styles, be it high in Chris Jericho, or be it groundwrestling in Bret Hart, or finally a powerhouse brawler like Undertaker and Triple H, he's faced them all, and he's defeated the vast majority of them, so by default you'd assume he'd be ready for a Lucha Libre wrestler of El Santo's style, wouldn't you?

Well yes, he has wrestled all of those styles, but not against someone who holds a ground game and an aerial one. Santo did not have the technical grace of Chris Benoit, and I'd never claim he did, but in terms of utilising both styles, he is probably Michaels' most similar opponent. Benoit has a winning record against Michaels. Probably a better stylistic comparison (though not, in terms of overall level of acheivement) is Sean Waltman, who fought Michaels to a draw on Raw in the early 90s. If the fucking 1-2-3 Kid could use a mixture of ground game and aerial assault to neutralise Michaels, then it is all but certain that a man with about a million times the kayfabe ability could go one further.

True, Rey might not have that, but he's still a legitimate Lucha Libre wrestler no matter how you twist and turn it Tastycles, you can't possibly deny that.

Santo beat the American Jack O'Brien about a million times, if you want to cite wins over people of similar stature and nationality.

Also, when was this mystery match you keep referring to? As far as I can tell Michaels fought Mysterio twice. He lost at Eddie's memorial show in 2005, and their match in January was a no contest. That's not winning. The comparision is pointless anyway, but Michaels hasn't beaten Mysterio.

And yes Rey might've given Shawn a fight to the finish, but not in Shawn's prime, and sure you could argue "oh buy Ferb, it wasn't Rey's pride neither" sure, so it balances out, yet Rey is still able to go very well in his current state, with exception to Shawn being a little less of a wrestler in the 00's (without being very slowed down at all) so automatically you could somewhat assume that Shawn Michaels would be able to dominate Rey a little bit more fairly during the 90's, without stretching my argument too much.

Well you're stretching it quite far. Rey has never lost to Michaels ever. If you want some replacement high flyers try Rob Van Dam and Jeff Hardy. Actually don't, because he's never beaten them either. He has a piss poor record against high flyers, and when that's coupled in with a ground game it gets even worse for Shawn.

Shawn has come out on top when it mattered just as well as he has failed to, during his prime he won 2 Royal Rumbles, a match that matters, his Iron Man Match at Wrestlemania, when it mattered, and his matches with Undertaker, when it mattered.

Kane isn't going to intefere here, scratch off that one. His first Royal Rumble had literally nobody at all good in it and he totally fucked up his chance at Mania. His win in 1996 was the only real option, so basically we're down to one victory that he acheived himself when it matters, and he needed extra time to do it.

Yes I know about the feud with Bret Hart, but that doesn't deny the fact that Austin went over and became WWE champion, positioning him way better than he had ever been before, after defeating and feuding with Shawn Michaels.

Not really. Austin became a star when he feuded with Hart. He became a megastar when he feuded with Mr. McMahon. The only thing Michaels did for him was drop the title, because he needed it for the McMahon feud to work. Michaels and that match personally did nothing for Austin in the grand scheme of things.

And don't pull the backstage politics in this match please, we're here to argue kayfabe aren't we?

No, we're here to argue a litany of things, but even if it is kayfabe, Austin was not put over on that win.

I never said elevated, I said he kept him legitimate and the feud no matter how you twist and turn it, gave him a firm amount of heat and made him look like a great talent especially considering he went toe to toe with Mr. Wrestlemania and impressed greatly.

No it didn't. He went in as an uppermidcarder known for good matches and remained at that level ever since. Michaels did nothing to boost his stock.

Yet the vast majority of backstage talent from what I've heard considered Shawn Michaels vs John Cena to be John's "graduation" match, proving himself to the world that he could matter of a fact put on great technical matches, which is very well just what he did, if that doesn't say some kind of solidifying of talent, I don't know what it says.

Now who's bringing up backstage stuff? That match, in terms of getting Cena over, acheived nothing. Cena was as popular before and after that match as ever, Michaels did not put him over.

Correction: he won 6 and lost 4, and has participated in, what would therefore be 10 Hell in a Cell matches, either way, that doesn't really matter to this post does it?

He's won 5 and lost 4. The other was a no-contest tag match, check your facts before you try and correct me. As for how it matters, you brought up the fact that Taker always wins his hell in a cell matches, and I have shown that he loses about half of them.

Various times may be a stretch, while I don't have the exact count of it, I don't believe it's a billion times (yes I know exaggeration but let's say they faced 10 times, that's still a stretch of him loosing the majority of the times they faced)

Whatever, Michaels has lost to Triple H far more times than he has beaten him.

That's a matter of opinion, and either way you turn it, Shawn still put out a fair share of moves in his later career.

I'm not saying they will, I'm just proving a point that Shawn Michaels has more than 3-4 moves, it's not even an argument to put him over Santo, or put Santo over Shawn, it's proving a point.

Skinning the cat isn't a move, which is one of the things you suggested. Slapping someone is hardly a move either. LJL may have been exaggerating, but it isn't as good as people are making out.

No I know he wasn't old, I stretched it a little bit, but he's not young anymore neither, but yet Shawn might only have had the superkick to finish moves, but he had the regular stuff like roll-ups etc. which is gonna play a factor in a match like this, remember John Morrison vs Dolph Ziggler? one of the falls was made through a roll-up.

Right, but how often are there roll ups a factor in big time matches? Basically never, because they don't suit the occasion. Michaels has one move that is likely to work in a match of this magnitude, and Santo has several.

The second point is, if you are taking those things into account, then Santo has them as well, so he still has more methods of winning.

That may very well be true, and now I admit I haven't watched every single Shawn Michaels match, but who's to say he wasn't introduced to a camel clutch at some point? who's to say he's even gonna be introduced to it through this match, and not a potential attempt with the swanton headbutt thing that El Santo has as a finisher?

Well that's exactly the point isn't it. Michaels has to be prepared for lots of different possible outcomes. Santo has to scout one move. Essentially, Michaels might be worrying about the submission hold, when Santo brings out the flying moves and vice versa. Santo might be worrying about the SCM then Michaels pulls out... SKinning the cat? Oh. Exactly. Santo brings more to the table and will take the win here.

 

[Ferbian]

Right. So you're argument for why Michaels can avoid Santo's finisher even though when presented with the same move before and has failed to is that wrestlers often outfox moves. In that case, what is stopping Santo avoiding all of Michaels' moves? Absolutely nothing. The precedent is that nobody has beaten Santo with Michaels' signatures but Jeff Hardy has beaten Santo with his.

But Jeff Hardy has defeated Shawn with Santo's* yeah I know what you ment, but I felt the need to correct it, hope you don't mind?

Either way, potentially yes Santo could very well avoid Shawn's move, the only problem is that Santo wasn't presented by a super kick in the period of him wrestling (as far as I know) but Shawn has been presented with the diving headbutt and the swanton (yes I know, it's not the diving headbutt, but the concept of it is partially the same, and therefore could count as a way of learning a lesson).

Well yes, he has wrestled all of those styles, but not against someone who holds a ground game and an aerial one. Santo did not have the technical grace of Chris Benoit, and I'd never claim he did, but in terms of utilising both styles, he is probably Michaels' most similar opponent. Benoit has a winning record against Michaels. Probably a better stylistic comparison (though not, in terms of overall level of acheivement) is Sean Waltman, who fought Michaels to a draw on Raw in the early 90s. If the fucking 1-2-3 Kid could use a mixture of ground game and aerial assault to neutralise Michaels, then it is all but certain that a man with about a million times the kayfabe ability could go one further.

Correction: Shawn Michaels wrestled Sean Waltman as the 1-2-3 Kid, and from the look of his first match with him, he wasn't all high flying wrestling, so Shawn would therefore be known to a combination of aerial and ground wrestling combinations, and I don't know whether we can consider Jeff Jarrett to be considered a combination? (please don't bash at me in case he isn't, it's an assumption) who he has defeated as well, therefore you'd figure that Shawn has been exposed to a combination of it, and Shawn defeated Jeff in last round.
Oh and how could I forget.. Chris Jericho.. where in the world do we place him? technical ground ability, high flying abilities.. submission specialist.. boy.. I think we got a mix of styles.

Santo beat the American Jack O'Brien about a million times, if you want to cite wins over people of similar stature and nationality.

I'm not saying that just because Rey Mysterio is a Mexican that I consider him to be able to defeat Santo due to that, I'm saying he fought a well experienced Lucha Libre wrestler which Santo is as well.

Also, when was this mystery match you keep referring to? As far as I can tell Michaels fought Mysterio twice. He lost at Eddie's memorial show in 2005, and their match in January was a no contest. That's not winning. The comparision is pointless anyway, but Michaels hasn't beaten Mysterio.

Doing further research, I have to admit my defeat on this very paragraph, I'm remembering Shawn defeating Rey Mysterio in 2010 prior to the Royal Rumble, obviously forgetting Undertaker's pop up during the ending of it, my bad.

Well you're stretching it quite far. Rey has never lost to Michaels ever. If you want some replacement high flyers try Rob Van Dam and Jeff Hardy. Actually don't, because he's never beaten them either. He has a piss poor record against high flyers, and when that's coupled in with a ground game it gets even worse for Shawn.

As I explained in the above paragraph, I forgot how the ending of Shawn vs Rey was during their 2010 match, but Shawn doesn't necessarily come out on the bad end against any of the high flyer's but if we're to count Jericho and 1-2-3 Kid, Shawn has a superiority in those matches.

Kane isn't going to intefere here, scratch off that one. His first Royal Rumble had literally nobody at all good in it and he totally fucked up his chance at Mania. His win in 1996 was the only real option, so basically we're down to one victory that he acheived himself when it matters, and he needed extra time to do it.

One victory? so.. you succeeded in completely overlooking the fact that he defeated Bret Hart in a Iron Man Match the very same year that he achieved his "only" real victory when it mattered, come to think of it, I believe Shawn won the very first Elimination Chamber match, where he spend the majority of his time in the match being beaten up pretty badly against Triple H and Chris Jericho, and let's not forget his victory over Chris Jericho at Wrestlemania 19.

Not really. Austin became a star when he feuded with Hart. He became a megastar when he feuded with Mr. McMahon. The only thing Michaels did for him was drop the title, because he needed it for the McMahon feud to work. Michaels and that match personally did nothing for Austin in the grand scheme of things.

There's always some kind of putting over when you defeat a champion to win your first world championship, I guess it's just me when Austin defeated Shawn he didn't get anything out of it, right.

No, we're here to argue a litany of things, but even if it is kayfabe, Austin was not put over on that win.

already addressed it.

No it didn't. He went in as an uppermidcarder known for good matches and remained at that level ever since. Michaels did nothing to boost his stock.

That might very well be true, but I guess it's just me having Jericho hang with a future (or if we stretch it a bit, already one) legend who has defeated some of the greats of the business, yep, that's not gonna do ANYTHING for you, got it.

Now who's bringing up backstage stuff? That match, in terms of getting Cena over, acheived nothing. Cena was as popular before and after that match as ever, Michaels did not put him over.

Touche, have to admit I didn't quite know what happened there..

Either way, John might have earned somewhat of a reputation there, defeating D-generation X on back to back Wrestlemania's where you wouldn't instantly scream "JOHN WINS THIS ONE, NO DOUBT!"

He's won 5 and lost 4. The other was a no-contest tag match, check your facts before you try and correct me. As for how it matters, you brought up the fact that Taker always wins his hell in a cell matches, and I have shown that he loses about half of them.

I'm not doing very well here am I? I apologize for the "correction" cleanly overlooking the "no contest" part of the match...

But, I did not say that Taker always wins his hell in a cell matches, I shall quote myself

That as well may very well be true, although Undertaker doesn't always loose his signature matches, he has a winning streak in Hell in a Cell to say the least.

Whatever, Michaels has lost to Triple H far more times than he has beaten him.

That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean that Shawn would automatically loose the next match against Triple H if they ever had faced again, it just means Triple H has the odds on favorite, but the odds on favorite doesn't always go out the winner, now do they?

Skinning the cat isn't a move, which is one of the things you suggested. Slapping someone is hardly a move either. LJL may have been exaggerating, but it isn't as good as people are making out.

While it's not gonna win you a match, it's not gonna incapacitate your wrestler (unless you head scissor the opponent) yet it remains a way of "surviving" a match because he may not hit the floor or whatever he may hit going over the top rope, it's a safety net you could very well say.

Right, but how often are there roll ups a factor in big time matches? Basically never, because they don't suit the occasion. Michaels has one move that is likely to work in a match of this magnitude, and Santo has several.

A roll-up has a factor in any kind of match, because it can serve as a match finisher no matter h ow you twist and turn it on paper, in a real match or hypothetical match, a roll-up has it's purpose unless you're in a submission match, last man standing, I quit or tables match (yes there may very well be more, but none of these matches are anything but regular matches, where a roll-up is a useful move)

The second point is, if you are taking those things into account, then Santo has them as well, so he still has more methods of winning.

He may very well have, but there's nothing from saying that either of the wrestlers won't kick out, or won't be able to pop the move before the opponent.

Well that's exactly the point isn't it. Michaels has to be prepared for lots of different possible outcomes. Santo has to scout one move. Essentially, Michaels might be worrying about the submission hold, when Santo brings out the flying moves and vice versa. Santo might be worrying about the SCM then Michaels pulls out... SKinning the cat? Oh. Exactly. Santo brings more to the table and will take the win here.

Modified Figure Four Leglock, need I say more? that's a submission hold, a functional one, could very well have Santo submitting, so in that case, Shawn Michaels very well brings more ways of finishing the match to the table.

Besides nothing's from keeping him from finishing Santo off purely from the elbow drop in case Santo has been worn down, but seeing as you're probably gonna counter with "yes but Santo also has signature moves that could pin Shawn if he's worn down as well" I shall allow that one to be blurred to a neutral point okay?

 

[Tastycles]

I was simply shooting down your statement about Michaels never winning big matches. You're right that those kind of gimmick matches have no place in this one.

Sorry, I should have said big singles matches, the point still stands.

I'm laughing at the thought of you using Schmidt as a good example. Mascaras and Gory, I can understand. I'll go ahead and ignore the fact that you mentioned Schmidt in the same sentence.

Why is that funny? If it's because he isn't actually German, it doesn't matter, the audience thought he was. If it's because you don't see him as a big name, he drew more people to shows in the late 50s than Michaels drew to WrestleMania XII.

If Santo had beaten those men in America and made a name for himself here then you would have a point. He didn't though. Michaels went over Hart here, in the country that he and Santo will be wrestling in. Using what others did isn't a good example for Santo being more internationally known. Even with the couple of matches that Santo had in America, on matter what card he was on, Michaels is more relevant here. How is that debatable? Just as Santo is more relevant in Mexico. If we're talking about wins in foreign countries, Michaels beating Bulldog in his home country for the European Championship is more of an accomplishment than anything Santo did outside of Mexico.

Michaels beating a midcarder using politics to do it isn't really a big deal. Michaels probably is more well known than Santo in America now. But in 30 years? I don't know. If you seriously believe that Michaels is better known around the world, I don't even think this debate is worth continuing. Santo is synonomous with professional wrestling everywhere. Michaels is synonomous with wrestling right now to the American audience.

Being recieved well and being the main draw is a huge difference. Do you believe that Eddy or Rey could carry Smackdown by themselves as the top face? Sure, but it wouldn't equal the ratings of another show that they weren't the main draw on. You're also mentioning stars that made name for themselves here in the state more than they did in Mexico. Not to say that they weren't big stars in Mexico, but the most notable parts of their careers come from their time in America.

But Michaels couldn't carry a company either?! From the day Michaels gained the title to the day he retired injured in 1998, the Raw rating was 2.7. When Eddie Guerrero was world champion on Smackdown, a much less charismatic man than Santo, in a much less populist time than Michaels, the Smackdown rating was 3.1. So in a far less popular time a hispanic champion could draw more than Michaels.

Also, you're trying to say that Santo was the man reason that the card he was on drew. You don't think it could have been the far more known American stars that were the bigger draws? You know, they guys that the people were familiar with? Being part of a well drawing card doesn't mean that you were the reason it drew.

The main event on one of the cards was El Santo & Mil Mascaras vs Spoiler & Bronco Lubich. Bear in mind this was about 5 years before Mascaras was a big deal, it's pretty clear that Santo was the draw.

Hispanics don't have some sort of sixth sense where they automatically know all hispanic wrestlers. Santo is still an unknown to them. They still don't know who he is and would not be more inclined to attend a show with him on it because of that.

Ligerbomb has literally just posted how much the Mexican families in his neighbourhood still spoke of and revered El Santo. Santo is a cultural icon in Central America, they're quite likely to know who he is. He permeated everything.

Maybe if he had been making his way through the states and made a name for himself before this match, then i could see your point. He hasn't though, so people still don't give a shit who they are. That's like saying a black wrestler who had almost completely wrestled in one country could come to a city with a large black population and be a huge draw. Things don't work that way.

If the black wrestler was a black cultural icon, then it would. Santo is one of the most famous Mexicans of all time. On a list of greatest Mexicans of all time he came 7th. On the same list in the UK, Elizabeth I was in that position. Elvis was 8th on the American one. A man as famous as those people in that culture will elicit some sort of turnout I'm sure. And anyway, why are we assuming that we are talking about this match taking place tomorrow. This tournament necessarily has to be timeless, and on the grand scheme things, Santo is more of an all-time great than Michaels.

Of course he would have success if he did that. IF HE HAD DONE THAT. That's the easiest way to gain heat, being a foriegner coming after the faces title. The thing is though, he didn't. He never made a name for himself here.

Except in Texas, where he drew audiences comparable to Michaels.

I didn't know that finishers hit everytime. News to me. Michaels is one of the best at reversing moves. Especially finishers. I can't, off the top of my head, think of another time he was finished by a top rope manuever.

Well, no, because nobody else has a finisher like that in the WWE today. The closest thing is Mysterio's sprinborad leg drop, which did put Michaels away:

[YOUTUBE]6nBVbH7mus0[/YOUTUBE]

You're using a video of a match with Espanto as an example? Michaels would run circles around him. What are you trying to prove by showing me a match with Santo against an opponent who is far inferior to Michaels? Shawn is much faster and would more easily reverse a lot of Santos moves.

I was quite clearly, like I said, showing that Santo gets the move on quickly. Michaels only has to be on his front for about a second, which will definitely happen.

But I thought that gimmick matches weren't relevant to this conversation as you said earlier. So that should be out the window if you disregard Michaels wins in such matches. You're also saying that matches that Santo participated in were as equally brutal as his match with Triple H at Summerslam or the Elimination Chamber. Or even the iron man match.

I am saying that brutality is not a problem for Santo. His wins in those matches are irrelevant to his standing as a man who wins singles matches. You can use different evidence to show the same thing, you know.

Michaels has done springboard moves. You can go back and look at his earlier matches and stuff in The Rocker and see it. Same with the suicide dive, as well as many other plancha manuevers. The more he goes for the higher risk manuevers, the more Shawn can reverse. He's one super kick away from a pinfall. Granted I have only seen a handful over Santo matches, but I have never seen anything that Shawn couldn't do or reverse.

Well I have shown that Michaels has failed to beat the only four people who use those moves as signatures that he has faced - Jeff Hardy, Rob Van Dam, Rey Mysterio and The 1-2-3 Kid.

What moves does Michaels have that Santo couldn't reverse? I've seen fucking JBL duck the Sweet Chin Music, so I think a shorter, quicker and better wrestler should do it just fine.

Influence should have little to do with this match. Not to mention that Shawn has inspired many of the wrestlers you see today. I never said that Santo didn't mean shit in his time. I said that he didn't mean shit in the US, and he didn't. You can say he drew well, but he himself was not the draw on those shows. His opponents and the more well known American wrestlers were. Nobody is debating his influence on luchadores. But what influence did he have here in the states where the match is taking place?

Yeah, man Spoiler was a huge name in America. Huge. What influence did Santo have in the states? Well, like I have already said, just about every single cruiserweight and light heavyweight in history owes far more to the luchadors of the 1950s than to guys like Thesz. Michaels included. Of the last six WWE Champions, 4 (Edge, Punk, Jericho and Hardy) have been clearly influenced by the lucha style, which Santo popularised. If we look to TNA, only 5 of their Champions ever don't show some semblance to the lucha style. Seriously, if someone goes to the top rope, that is from the style Santo made popular. But, you know what, Shawn Michaels inspired Johnny Nitro to become a wrestler, so I should probably concede this point.

Bam Bam Bigelow headlined a Wrestlemania and was never a huge legend or name in the business. That statement works both ways Tasty. Shawn did headline Wrestlemania and has influenced more wrestlers here in the states than Santo did.

First of all, Santo's influence on the course of wrestling is far greater than Michaels', and that isn't even open for debate. Secondly, Bigelow headlined wrestlemania in a year that Michaels had a title match. Why? Because Bam Bam Bigelow and an NFL player have more drawing power than Michaels to the wrestling audience, which is frankly pathetic. All citing Bigelow does is give more credence to the fact that Michaels couldn't draw.

But Jeff Hardy has defeated Shawn with Santo's* yeah I know what you ment, but I felt the need to correct it, hope you don't mind?

Not at all, but yes, that is what I meant.

Either way, potentially yes Santo could very well avoid Shawn's move, the only problem is that Santo wasn't presented by a super kick in the period of him wrestling (as far as I know) but Shawn has been presented with the diving headbutt and the swanton (yes I know, it's not the diving headbutt, but the concept of it is partially the same, and therefore could count as a way of learning a lesson).

Losing to those moves is a lesson in how to avoid them? As for countering the Superkick, you just have to duck. Honestly, if JBL can do it, Santo can. Furthermore, it's no different to avoiding any other striking move, something Santo did a million times.

Correction: Shawn Michaels wrestled Sean Waltman as the 1-2-3 Kid, and from the look of his first match with him, he wasn't all high flying wrestling, so Shawn would therefore be known to a combination of aerial and ground wrestling combinations, and I don't know whether we can consider Jeff Jarrett to be considered a combination? (please don't bash at me in case he isn't, it's an assumption) who he has defeated as well, therefore you'd figure that Shawn has been exposed to a combination of it, and Shawn defeated Jeff in last round.

Jarrett's not a bad comparison, but he is more ground based. Sean Waltman as the 1-2-3 Kid was pretty much the epitome of lucha libre wrestling. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the most stylistically similar to a luchador than any other American wrestler. He was a jobber, and Michaels couldn't beat him. If you can't beat Snitsky, then you can't beat Hulk Hogan. This is the same sort of comparison.

Oh and how could I forget.. Chris Jericho.. where in the world do we place him? technical ground ability, high flying abilities.. submission specialist.. boy.. I think we got a mix of styles.

I suppose Jericho isn't a bad analogy, but again, he's not on nearly the same level as Santo in that respect. He doesn't really put in the same kind of wear down as Santo does, but they're similar. Michaels has beaten Jericho, but Jericho has beaten Michaels.

I'm not saying that just because Rey Mysterio is a Mexican that I consider him to be able to defeat Santo due to that, I'm saying he fought a well experienced Lucha Libre wrestler which Santo is as well.

Lucha Libre basically just means Mexican wrestling. Seriously, Canek is a luchador and has absolutely nothing in common with someone like Mysterio.

Doing further research, I have to admit my defeat on this very paragraph, I'm remembering Shawn defeating Rey Mysterio in 2010 prior to the Royal Rumble, obviously forgetting Undertaker's pop up during the ending of it, my bad.

Exactly.

As I explained in the above paragraph, I forgot how the ending of Shawn vs Rey was during their 2010 match, but Shawn doesn't necessarily come out on the bad end against any of the high flyer's but if we're to count Jericho and 1-2-3 Kid, Shawn has a superiority in those matches.

He drew with the 1-2-3 Kid, and Jericho loses to literally everyone, and has beaten Michaels, failing to see any kind of dominance here. He's also lost to Mysterio, Rob Van Dam and Jeff Hardy.

One victory? so.. you succeeded in completely overlooking the fact that he defeated Bret Hart in a Iron Man Match the very same year that he achieved his "only" real victory when it mattered, come to think of it, I believe Shawn won the very first Elimination Chamber match, where he spend the majority of his time in the match being beaten up pretty badly against Triple H and Chris Jericho, and let's not forget his victory over Chris Jericho at Wrestlemania 19.

His only victory that mattered was the iron man match, you've misunderstood me I think. Chris Jericho was a midcarder in 2003, and had lost to rookie John Cena recently into the bargain. Not a big win.

There's always some kind of putting over when you defeat a champion to win your first world championship, I guess it's just me when Austin defeated Shawn he didn't get anything out of it, right.

Not really, except the title. He was already popular, he was already beginning to have difficulty with Mr. McMahon. Michaels did nothing for Austin. A highlight reel of Austin's career never shows that match, because it was a means to an end for what happened next.

That might very well be true, but I guess it's just me having Jericho hang with a future (or if we stretch it a bit, already one) legend who has defeated some of the greats of the business, yep, that's not gonna do ANYTHING for you, got it.

Immediately after WrestleMania Jericho was feuding with the Hurricane, and spent most of the end of 2003 in IC title feuds. That's exactly where he was before and he got absolutely nothing out of Michaels except a good match.
Touche, have to admit I didn't quite know what happened there..

Either way, John might have earned somewhat of a reputation there, defeating D-generation X on back to back Wrestlemania's where you wouldn't instantly scream "JOHN WINS THIS ONE, NO DOUBT!"

Beating Triple H was a big deal, because almost nobody does. Beating Michaels a year later when absolutely nobody expected Michaels to win? Not so much.

But, I did not say that Taker always wins his hell in a cell matches, I shall quote myself

Yes, you said he was on a winning streak. Taker has never won more than two in a row, which isn't much of a streak.

That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean that Shawn would automatically loose the next match against Triple H if they ever had faced again, it just means Triple H has the odds on favorite, but the odds on favorite doesn't always go out the winner, now do they?

No but they usually do, which is why they are the favourite. It isn't certain HHH would beat Michaels, but he probably would. In a three falls match, an upset is even less likely, which is why Santo is even more likely to win.

While it's not gonna win you a match, it's not gonna incapacitate your wrestler (unless you head scissor the opponent) yet it remains a way of "surviving" a match because he may not hit the floor or whatever he may hit going over the top rope, it's a safety net you could very well say.

Ok. Well, Michaels can keep skinning the cat till the cows come home, Santo will get him eventually, and then beat him.

A roll-up has a factor in any kind of match, because it can serve as a match finisher no matter h ow you twist and turn it on paper, in a real match or hypothetical match, a roll-up has it's purpose unless you're in a submission match, last man standing, I quit or tables match (yes there may very well be more, but none of these matches are anything but regular matches, where a roll-up is a useful move)

If you really want to go down this street, Santo is still capable of using the roll up in addition to his extra ways of finishing a match. No matter how many bullshit trivial endings you want to throw in, Santo still has more ways to finish the match.

He may very well have, but there's nothing from saying that either of the wrestlers won't kick out, or won't be able to pop the move before the opponent.

Well exactly, so it is a complete non-factor in determining the outcome of the match.

Modified Figure Four Leglock, need I say more? that's a submission hold, a functional one, could very well have Santo submitting, so in that case, Shawn Michaels very well brings more ways of finishing the match to the table.

A valid argument. Except Michaels has beaten one man by submission in his entire career - Trevor Murdoch. Trevor Murdoch is a jobber extrodinaire, and Michaels has never beaten anyboy good with any sort of submission hold. The argument holds no water.

Besides nothing's from keeping him from finishing Santo off purely from the elbow drop in case Santo has been worn down, but seeing as you're probably gonna counter with "yes but Santo also has signature moves that could pin Shawn if he's worn down as well" I shall allow that one to be blurred to a neutral point okay?

Well no, this point is totally wrong. No matter how worn down people get, they never get pinned from moves that don't ordinarily pin people. Give a single example in wrestling where this has happened, other than because of a legit injury and I will reassess.

 

[Remix]

Well no, this point is totally wrong. No matter how worn down people get, they never get pinned from moves that don't ordinarily pin people. Give a single example in wrestling where this has happened, other than because of a legit injury and I will reassess.

People have been pinned by John Morrison's flying Chuck. Which is not a finisher.

ANd I've not decided where I'm going to place my vote. On the one hand, Santo is to Mexico what Hulk Hogan is to America... and then some and is used to 2 out of 3 falls matches ans there are fewer matches of him on youtube. In the other, Shawn Michaels is an awesome performer who can win long multifall matches and there's a wealth of matches on youtube.

 

[Ferbian]

Not at all, but yes, that is what I meant.

Happy to help.

Losing to those moves is a lesson in how to avoid them? As for countering the Superkick, you just have to duck. Honestly, if JBL can do it, Santo can. Furthermore, it's no different to avoiding any other striking move, something Santo did a million times.

Not necessarily loosing to them teaches you how to avoid them, but more the fact that he was presented to them, and if he's to wrestle someone numerous times, you're bound to have some kind of experience to what will happen (unless you're John Cena, cause I have yet to see anybody "evade" the five knuckle shuffle....)

Jarrett's not a bad comparison, but he is more ground based. Sean Waltman as the 1-2-3 Kid was pretty much the epitome of lucha libre wrestling. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the most stylistically similar to a luchador than any other American wrestler. He was a jobber, and Michaels couldn't beat him. If you can't beat Snitsky, then you can't beat Hulk Hogan. This is the same sort of comparison.

Yes certainly Jeff is more matt based, which is why I partially questioned him being a mix, but he has his moments, as well as Sean Waltman, but yes I know Sean was a jobber at best, but Shawn has defeated Sean Waltman, if you've watched the My Journey DVD, one of the matches has Shawn defeating 1-2-3 Kid while Bret Hart was on "satellite/backstage" interview

I suppose Jericho isn't a bad analogy, but again, he's not on nearly the same level as Santo in that respect. He doesn't really put in the same kind of wear down as Santo does, but they're similar. Michaels has beaten Jericho, but Jericho has beaten Michaels.

That is very well true, but Shawn for the majority of times has come out as the superior man in their wars, in 2003, in 2008 (1 of the matches to say the least which would therefore make it a kind of draw.. 2-2.. right? Wrestlemania 19 = Shawn, The Bash 08 = Jericho, Unforgiven 08 = Shawn, No Mercy 08 = Jericho) and let's remember, the 2008 feud had Shawn out of his prime, Jericho potentially in his, which he potentially could've been in 2003 as well (long prime, or two primes, you judge)

Lucha Libre basically just means Mexican wrestling. Seriously, Canek is a luchador and has absolutely nothing in common with someone like Mysterio.

Yes Canek and Mysterio may have been very different, but in the end, that doesn't make either of them any less of a Lucha Libre wrestler now does it?

Spoiler

Lucha libre (Spanish for "free wrestling" or "free fighting") is a term used in Mexico, and other Spanish-speaking countries referring to a form of professional wrestling involving varied techniques and moves.

Mexican wrestling is characterized by rapid sequences of holds and moves, as well as "high-flying moves", some of which have been adopted in the United States, and colorful masks. Lucha libre has also transcended the language barrier to some extent as evidenced by works such as ¡Mucha Lucha! and Nacho Libre. Lucha libre performers are known as luchadores (singular luchador) ("fighter(s)").

He drew with the 1-2-3 Kid, and Jericho loses to literally everyone, and has beaten Michaels, failing to see any kind of dominance here. He's also lost to Mysterio, Rob Van Dam and Jeff Hardy.

Now I've never watched every 1-2-3 Kid vs Shawn Michaels match, but as I stated earlier, Shawn has defeated 1-2-3 Kid, and 1-2-3 Kid has also defeated his share of wrestlers during that time, Scott Hall, and has held tag team championship gold during his 1-2-3 Kid run.

Jericho on the other hand, sure he looses to a lot of people, while putting them over, but he also wins matches, he doesn't have 35 championship reigns across the world for nothing.

And yes Shawn has lost to those, but all of them outside what would be considered Shawn Michaels prime, which were in the 90's from the majority of people's stand point as far as my knowledge goes.

His only victory that mattered was the iron man match, you've misunderstood me I think. Chris Jericho was a midcarder in 2003, and had lost to rookie John Cena recently into the bargain. Not a big win.

Perhaps, so you don't credit him for winning a match that mattered in the Royal Rumble 1996? and the Elimination Chamber?

And very well, I'll give you the Jericho victory then.

Not really, except the title. He was already popular, he was already beginning to have difficulty with Mr. McMahon. Michaels did nothing for Austin. A highlight reel of Austin's career never shows that match, because it was a means to an end for what happened next.

Yet I believe if there was ever to be made a "Stone Cold Steve Austin's 25 greatest matches" his match with Shawn Michaels may very well be on there, and I know Steve was popular already before he held the championship, after all I'd seriously doubt WWE would be backing him into a world championship reign if he wasn't popular.

Immediately after WrestleMania Jericho was feuding with the Hurricane, and spent most of the end of 2003 in IC title feuds. That's exactly where he was before and he got absolutely nothing out of Michaels except a good match.

That's true, but I'd still consider being put in a situation to have such a brilliant match does something for your career, but I guess that's just me.

Beating Triple H was a big deal, because almost nobody does. Beating Michaels a year later when absolutely nobody expected Michaels to win? Not so much.

Sure Shawn might not have been the first guy to put your bets on, but that doesn't make him any less of a competition and a tough person to beat at the very event that he excels and thrives on being the best and the guy to remember that night, does it?

Yes, you said he was on a winning streak. Taker has never won more than two in a row, which isn't much of a streak.

Very well, let me rephrase it then, he has a positive win / loss record.

No but they usually do, which is why they are the favourite. It isn't certain HHH would beat Michaels, but he probably would. In a three falls match, an upset is even less likely, which is why Santo is even more likely to win.

Yes, less likely, but not impossible, just because Santo is the odds on favorite at his home base, doesn't make him any less of a target to a potential upset fall, and a legitimate loss fall, but then again, neither does it for Shawn Michaels, I will admit that.

Ok. Well, Michaels can keep skinning the cat till the cows come home, Santo will get him eventually, and then beat him.

Keep dreaming mate, keep dreaming.

If you really want to go down this street, Santo is still capable of using the roll up in addition to his extra ways of finishing a match. No matter how many bullshit trivial endings you want to throw in, Santo still has more ways to finish the match.

That may very well be true, Santo may have more ways to end the match, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he will be ending it.

Well exactly, so it is a complete non-factor in determining the outcome of the match.

Very well, let's agree on this one then and leave it at that?

A valid argument. Except Michaels has beaten one man by submission in his entire career - Trevor Murdoch. Trevor Murdoch is a jobber extrodinaire, and Michaels has never beaten anyboy good with any sort of submission hold. The argument holds no water.

That may very well be true, but no matter how you twist and turn it, it can function as a submission finisher, it's a modified finisher of the very man who has defeated hundreds of wrestlers in thousands of matches with the same exact submission hold, so nothing from keeping Shawn in succeeding at one point.

Besides, while he may never have ended matches with it, but in the later years (07-10) Shawn had been sporting the Arm trap Crossface (Crippler Crossface) which has done it's share of submissions as well.

Well no, this point is totally wrong. No matter how worn down people get, they never get pinned from moves that don't ordinarily pin people. Give a single example in wrestling where this has happened, other than because of a legit injury and I will reassess.

RVD missile drop kick Booker T in the first Elimination Chamber.

Batista spinebuster on Benoit and then Jericho spinebuster on top of Benoit (guess that counts as a partial) Elimination Chamber at New Year's Revolution 2005

Carlito pinning Kane after a double DDT alongside Chris Masters and then Masters slamming Carlito on top of Kane.

Oh and while I remember it, multiple times of Mark Henry being pinned after a DDT by guys like Cody Rhodes and I believe The Miz as well.

I think that's a fine list of times that a move that's not a regular finisher, ends a match.

 

[Suneeboy]

I don't care if other people wanting to watch them, I care about who I want to watch, and that's HBK. I don't even like him that much, but the guy is outstanding. Take your comic book hero, give me Mr. Wrestlemania. HBK is the greatest performer in wrestling history. He's succeeded as a heel, as a face, in a stable, and has put on amazing feuds.

Really, who did YOU enjoy more? Vote for HBK.

The best performer I've ever seen live and on television. Most of my favorite matches of all time involve HBK. Including, but not limited to HBK/Taker (both of them), HBK/Angle, HBK/Jericho.

There is no way in hell I would ever vote for El Santo, a guy who worked 30-50 years before I was born, over the greatest performer I have seen in my lifetime.

Vote HBK.

 

[Tastycles]

Not necessarily loosing to them teaches you how to avoid them, but more the fact that he was presented to them, and if he's to wrestle someone numerous times, you're bound to have some kind of experience to what will happen (unless you're John Cena, cause I have yet to see anybody "evade" the five knuckle shuffle....)

The thing is though is that Michaels has no history of learning to avoid these moves. He never managed to beat those guys having lost to them in the first instance. There is no precident of Michaels learning to avoid moves. He fought Chris Jericho about 10 times in 2008, yet fell victim to the codebreaker every single time. That is not the work of someone who learns from their mistakes.

Yes certainly Jeff is more matt based, which is why I partially questioned him being a mix, but he has his moments, as well as Sean Waltman, but yes I know Sean was a jobber at best, but Shawn has defeated Sean Waltman, if you've watched the My Journey DVD, one of the matches has Shawn defeating 1-2-3 Kid while Bret Hart was on "satellite/backstage" interview

Really? Well Michaels certainly had at least one draw against 1-2-3 Kid. I haven't seen that DVD, and I assumed they had only that one. Either way, it doesn't really change anything. 1-2-3 Kid is a jobber that happens to have a similar style to Santo, it doesn't make them the same person. Indeed, Michaels took two tries to beat him, so he logic would suggest he'd need a lot more to beat Santo, and unfortunately, he only has two tries here.

That is very well true, but Shawn for the majority of times has come out as the superior man in their wars, in 2003, in 2008 (1 of the matches to say the least which would therefore make it a kind of draw.. 2-2.. right? Wrestlemania 19 = Shawn, The Bash 08 = Jericho, Unforgiven 08 = Shawn, No Mercy 08 = Jericho) and let's remember, the 2008 feud had Shawn out of his prime, Jericho potentially in his, which he potentially could've been in 2003 as well (long prime, or two primes, you judge)

I don't see what your point is really? Jericho and Michaels have beaten each other the same amount of times? So what? A man who is nowhere near as big a deal as Santo has faired equally with Michaels over time. All this goes to show is that Michaels isn't capable of having a domineering record over anyone, even the WWE's main event jobber extrodinaire.

Yes Canek and Mysterio may have been very different, but in the end, that doesn't make either of them any less of a Lucha Libre wrestler now does it?

Sigh, you're not getting it are you? Saying that every luchador is the same is as ridiculous as saying every American wrestler is the same. If Santo had beaten Dean Malenko, does that make him any more likely to beat Andre The Giant? No. The argument you are making is literally that bad. I don't know why you are going down this road anyway, Michaels has never beaten any luchadors at all.

Now I've never watched every 1-2-3 Kid vs Shawn Michaels match, but as I stated earlier, Shawn has defeated 1-2-3 Kid, and 1-2-3 Kid has also defeated his share of wrestlers during that time, Scott Hall, and has held tag team championship gold during his 1-2-3 Kid run.

He defeated Scott Hall in one of the biggest upsets of all time, and did absolutely nothing else in singles wrestling. Michaels obviously did beat hm in the end, but he couldn't get the job done in their first encounter, which is frankly pathetic.

Jericho on the other hand, sure he looses to a lot of people, while putting them over, but he also wins matches, he doesn't have 35 championship reigns across the world for nothing.

Some of the people he's beaten for those titles: Chyna (twice), Alex Wright, Stevie Ray, Pitbull #2... A who's who of wrestling.

Yes, the guy has won 35 titles, but his average reign in the biggest three companies he has worked in is 39 days, which is hardly the mark of a consistent winner.

And yes Shawn has lost to those, but all of them outside what would be considered Shawn Michaels prime, which were in the 90's from the majority of people's stand point as far as my knowledge goes.

When he beat Bret Hart, and umm... Oh and err.... You are arguing for a man who's prime is defined by one victory. Seriously, nobody remotely interesting lost to Michaels in singles matches more than they beat him in the 90s, if that's his prime, then it doesn't bode well for him.

Perhaps, so you don't credit him for winning a match that mattered in the Royal Rumble 1996? and the Elimination Chamber?

Not in a debate about a singles match, no. The Elimination Chamber is a clusterfuck, and there was no other viable contender in the Rumble.

Yet I believe if there was ever to be made a "Stone Cold Steve Austin's 25 greatest matches" his match with Shawn Michaels may very well be on there, and I know Steve was popular already before he held the championship, after all I'd seriously doubt WWE would be backing him into a world championship reign if he wasn't popular.

And Michaels had absolutely nothing to do with that popularity, so he didn't put him over.

That's true, but I'd still consider being put in a situation to have such a brilliant match does something for your career, but I guess that's just me.

Having good matches doesn't make people popular, ask Dean Malenko, so again, Michaels didn't put Jericho over.

Sure Shawn might not have been the first guy to put your bets on, but that doesn't make him any less of a competition and a tough person to beat at the very event that he excels and thrives on being the best and the guy to remember that night, does it?

The fact that he loses more than he wins makes him less of a competition, yes.

Very well, let me rephrase it then, he has a positive win / loss record.

Only just. Of course, the thing that puts him over the threshold is a win against Bossman, so it's quite a lot less impressive than first suggested.

Yes, less likely, but not impossible, just because Santo is the odds on favorite at his home base, doesn't make him any less of a target to a potential upset fall, and a legitimate loss fall, but then again, neither does it for Shawn Michaels, I will admit that.

Actually it does. If Santo being pinned by Michaels is an upset, the reason it is an upset is that it is less likely to happen than the alternative, Santo winning.

That may very well be true, Santo may have more ways to end the match, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he will be ending it.

No, but when the match has to end at least twice, it gives him an obvious advantage.

That may very well be true, but no matter how you twist and turn it, it can function as a submission finisher, it's a modified finisher of the very man who has defeated hundreds of wrestlers in thousands of matches with the same exact submission hold, so nothing from keeping Shawn in succeeding at one point.

Except the fact he has never used it to win a match. I'm sure Santo could use an octopus hold to end the match, just like a man he spent much of his career aligned with, Blue Demon did. Of course, he never actually used it, but that's not stopping you from making that claim.

Besides, while he may never have ended matches with it, but in the later years (07-10) Shawn had been sporting the Arm trap Crossface (Crippler Crossface) which has done it's share of submissions as well.

But never for him. Ability to use moves and actually using them are two different things.

RVD missile drop kick Booker T in the first Elimination Chamber.

Batista spinebuster on Benoit and then Jericho spinebuster on top of Benoit (guess that counts as a partial) Elimination Chamber at New Year's Revolution 2005

Matches like that are different. They have lots of different finishers to keep it interesting, I probably should have said singles matches again there, apologies.

Carlito pinning Kane after a double DDT alongside Chris Masters and then Masters slamming Carlito on top of Kane.

Oh and while I remember it, multiple times of Mark Henry being pinned after a DDT by guys like Cody Rhodes and I believe The Miz as well.

Cody Rhodes had a DDT as a finisher, the other thing is a double team move, also, the reason people use moves like that on Henry isn't because he is tired, it is because they can't lift him.

I think that's a fine list of times that a move that's not a regular finisher, ends a match.

Yet none of them came becaue the opponent was tired, they came because of a range of different non-kayfabe reasons.

 

[Ferbian]

The thing is though is that Michaels has no history of learning to avoid these moves. He never managed to beat those guys having lost to them in the first instance. There is no precident of Michaels learning to avoid moves. He fought Chris Jericho about 10 times in 2008, yet fell victim to the codebreaker every single time. That is not the work of someone who learns from their mistakes.

The problem with the Codebreaker in this case is that it's a move that's rather easy to pop out of nowhere, a move like Santo's finisher, Jeff Hardy's finisher etc. are moves that takes time to get into position for and setup, and therefore it gives time for regeneration, or for that sake, playing possum, as we've seen people do before.

Really? Well Michaels certainly had at least one draw against 1-2-3 Kid. I haven't seen that DVD, and I assumed they had only that one. Either way, it doesn't really change anything. 1-2-3 Kid is a jobber that happens to have a similar style to Santo, it doesn't make them the same person. Indeed, Michaels took two tries to beat him, so he logic would suggest he'd need a lot more to beat Santo, and unfortunately, he only has two tries here.

Yes really, but yes Shawn had a draw with him, but I even believe he beat him on a few other occasions in a match where the looser had to wear a dipper (I could be mistaking it with someone else although, doesn't matter) but the fact that you haven't watched the DVD is a decent excuse, I shall let you go on that one, but only because of my screw-up with the Rey Mysterio match.

And yes 1-2-3 Kid was a jobber at first, who gained victories over bigger names, and a championship reign, he beat Scott Hall as I mentioned, and he was close to beating Bret Hart as well.

And sure, by logic you could say that, but logical sense doesn't necessarily bring forth the ending of a match, sometimes things doesn't make sense, but it happens, and I know that's a bad excuse, but it's the truth, there's upsets, even in multiple falls matches there can be an upset.

I don't see what your point is really? Jericho and Michaels have beaten each other the same amount of times? So what? A man who is nowhere near as big a deal as Santo has faired equally with Michaels over time. All this goes to show is that Michaels isn't capable of having a domineering record over anyone, even the WWE's main event jobber extrodinaire.

My point is that all of Jericho's wins against Shawn Michaels are by definition a win against a guy who is out of his prime, against a guy who is in his prime, therefore you could figure that Shawn wouldn't be loosing to Jericho if he was in his prime.

Sigh, you're not getting it are you? Saying that every luchador is the same is as ridiculous as saying every American wrestler is the same. If Santo had beaten Dean Malenko, does that make him any more likely to beat Andre The Giant? No. The argument you are making is literally that bad. I don't know why you are going down this road anyway, Michaels has never beaten any luchadors at all.

What I'm saying is that there's by definition not very much of a difference between Rey Mysterio and Santo, while Santo may be more mat based as an overall act, he is still a high flying talent, his finisher is a high flying move, and just because Shawn hasn't wrestled them, doesn't automatically disqualify him for being unable to fare against them, does it?

He defeated Scott Hall in one of the biggest upsets of all time, and did absolutely nothing else in singles wrestling. Michaels obviously did beat hm in the end, but he couldn't get the job done in their first encounter, which is frankly pathetic.

Shawn Michaels wasn't in his prime when he first encountered 1-2-3 Kid, hell he wasn't in his prime at any of the times where the two of them wrestled, besides as I stated, 1-2-3 Kid was on the verge of beating Bret Hart for the WWF championship in 94.
But yes, he didn't accomplish much as a singles wrestler.

Some of the people he's beaten for those titles: Chyna (twice), Alex Wright, Stevie Ray, Pitbull #2... A who's who of wrestling.

Sure, that's the low end of it, but let's not discredit the bigger opponents he's defeated, Stone Cold, The Rock (yes I know, interference, cheating etc. but when it comes down to everything, he defeated them, it's in the record books) Batista, Shawn Michaels (yes, not helping, but it's a name) Edge, Christian, Ricky Steamboat (who could still hang with a guy in his prime, I'm not gonna name Piper and Snuka although cause they're definitely not able to hang with anybody anymore) Rey Mysterio, the list really goes on.

Yes, the guy has won 35 titles, but his average reign in the biggest three companies he has worked in is 39 days, which is hardly the mark of a consistent winner.

Sure he had his share of short reigns, but he also had reigns that lasted above the 50 days mark, the 100 days mark, and hell he even held the NWA World Middleweight championship for almost a years time, I say that drags up to say the least.

When he beat Bret Hart, and umm... Oh and err.... You are arguing for a man who's prime is defined by one victory. Seriously, nobody remotely interesting lost to Michaels in singles matches more than they beat him in the 90s, if that's his prime, then it doesn't bode well for him.

Very well Shawn didn't defeat the bigger names during his prime that's true, but he has defeated bigger names outside of his prime in the likes of Triple H, a guy who was definitely in his prime, and going strong, he's defeated Batista, a man who was in his prime in 2008, and still is, defeated Kurt Angle in his prime (at least once) Chris Jericho, and Randy Orton (I know, disqualification, but Orton resorted to getting himself disqualified against Shawn), Mr Kennedy (a guy who they heavily pushed at that period of time)

And while I know Shawn have been defeated by the majority of the same names I mention, the mere fact that he defeated them in the first place should prove enough of an argument to say that Shawn has defeated high profile opponents.

Not in a debate about a singles match, no. The Elimination Chamber is a clusterfuck, and there was no other viable contender in the Rumble.

Sure the Elimination Chamber is a clusterfuck, but I'm gonna question you on the 1996 Royal Rumble.. Vader.. Dory Funk Jr.. Yokozuna.. Owen Hart.. Diesel.. The British Bulldog.. yep, not big names.. my bad.. oh and Shawn eliminated all of those people.

And Michaels had absolutely nothing to do with that popularity, so he didn't put him over.

Sure Shawn didn't have anything to do with the popularity, but putting someone over doesn't necessarily include making him popular, to be correct, you could say anybody who cleanly looses to his opponent, is a part of putting someone over.

Having good matches doesn't make people popular, ask Dean Malenko, so again, Michaels didn't put Jericho over.

Again, putting someone over is done every time you loose to an opponent, or make them look good in a match while they still loose, and Jericho came out looking great in that match

Put over
to allow oneself to be pinned or otherwise defeated by someone or to compliment them in an interview. The person who the wrestler is putting over is said to be getting over.

By definition that is kinda old I would say, but the basics of it is laid out right there.

The fact that he loses more than he wins makes him less of a competition, yes.

Yes, I know that, but Shawn loosing a match doesn't make it anywhere less credible for him to actually come out the victor in a match.

Only just. Of course, the thing that puts him over the threshold is a win against Bossman, so it's quite a lot less impressive than first suggested.

That's very true, Bossman is a very, meh, victory to put it quite cleanly, but in the end, there's also bigger names that he has gone on to defeat inside the cell, guy's like Edge, Orton and Mick Foley, and well partially you could say CM Punk, but that was just a boring squash.. damn shame to be honest.

Actually it does. If Santo being pinned by Michaels is an upset, the reason it is an upset is that it is less likely to happen than the alternative, Santo winning.

When you look at it like that you got a point, but that doesn't mean that Shawn doesn't have the chance of pulling off the victory, as opposed to Santo as well having that chance.

No, but when the match has to end at least twice, it gives him an obvious advantage.

That's true.

Except the fact he has never used it to win a match. I'm sure Santo could use an octopus hold to end the match, just like a man he spent much of his career aligned with, Blue Demon did. Of course, he never actually used it, but that's not stopping you from making that claim.

That's very true, and I'm not saying there's anything stopping Santo from using that very move, I'm just saying that Shawn does have a second move that could act as a finishing move and he could very well pull it off if he gets him in the position for it.

But never for him. Ability to use moves and actually using them are two different things.

That's very true, but like I've said before, either way you twist and turn it, it's functioned as a finisher, and could very well again.

Matches like that are different. They have lots of different finishers to keep it interesting, I probably should have said singles matches again there, apologies.

No need to apologize, I'm just trying to back up my share of arguments, like you are, and everybody else in this tournament, we're all human, make mistakes, get misunderstood etc.

Cody Rhodes had a DDT as a finisher, the other thing is a double team move, also, the reason people use moves like that on Henry isn't because he is tired, it is because they can't lift him.

That's very true, Henry is a tough guy to do the majority of finishers on, but Rhodes hasn't used the DDT as a finishing move since he started teaming up with Legacy, it's always been the rolling cutter, if the DDT was a finishing move for him still, he would still be using it to end matches, and not try to set anybody up for a rolling cutter, and he wouldn't be hitting people after matches with a rolling cutter every time.

Yet none of them came becaue the opponent was tired, they came because of a range of different non-kayfabe reasons.

That's very true, just showing that matches has been ended through non finishing moves

I have to admit I like debating you Tasty, if we were the sole people to determine the winner of the match from our debate, I would be honored to loose to you, but sadly, that's not how it goes.

 

[Tastycles]

The problem with the Codebreaker in this case is that it's a move that's rather easy to pop out of nowhere, a move like Santo's finisher, Jeff Hardy's finisher etc. are moves that takes time to get into position for and setup, and therefore it gives time for regeneration, or for that sake, playing possum, as we've seen people do before.

Fine then, what about the Tombstone? Pedigree? All moves that require a great deal of setting up and all moves that have been repeatedly hit on Michaels. If we also look at Santo's other principal finishing moves we see flying clotheslines, and his camel clutch which I have already shown to be quickly appliable.

Yes really, but yes Shawn had a draw with him, but I even believe he beat him on a few other occasions in a match where the looser had to wear a dipper (I could be mistaking it with someone else although, doesn't matter) but the fact that you haven't watched the DVD is a decent excuse, I shall let you go on that one, but only because of my screw-up with the Rey Mysterio match.

And Undertaker.

And yes 1-2-3 Kid was a jobber at first, who gained victories over bigger names, and a championship reign, he beat Scott Hall as I mentioned, and he was close to beating Bret Hart as well.

No, he was always a jobber. He beat jobbers, Ramon once and that's it. His championship reign was a tag reign that lasted one day.

And sure, by logic you could say that, but logical sense doesn't necessarily bring forth the ending of a match, sometimes things doesn't make sense, but it happens, and I know that's a bad excuse, but it's the truth, there's upsets, even in multiple falls matches there can be an upset.

Yes, but it is unlikely. An upset, by definition, is unlikely to happen. Michaels is unlikely to win, so when deciding who to vote for, you should vote for the person who is more likely to win, in this case Santo. By your estimations, I should bet on Slovenia to win the World Cup, because upsets can happen.

My point is that all of Jericho's wins against Shawn Michaels are by definition a win against a guy who is out of his prime, against a guy who is in his prime, therefore you could figure that Shawn wouldn't be loosing to Jericho if he was in his prime.

That's not what by definition means. And how could you come to that conclusion? If John Cena beat Duane Gill on Raw on Monday, can we then assume that Duane Gill, in his prime, would beat John Cena? No, of course not. We can judge the matches that happened, and Michaels lost them.

What I'm saying is that there's by definition not very much of a difference between Rey Mysterio and Santo, while Santo may be more mat based as an overall act, he is still a high flying talent, his finisher is a high flying move, and just because Shawn hasn't wrestled them, doesn't automatically disqualify him for being unable to fare against them, does it?

One of his finishers is a high flying move, his other main one is a submission hold. The fact that Michaels has never beat a high flying wrestler adds to the arguments against him, yes, so thanks for bringing that up. By hamming up the fact that Mysterio is like Santo all you are doing is saying that Michaels has less of a chance of winning, so thanks again. If Michaels has lost to and drawn with Rey Mysterio, then he is likely to lose to someone who, according to you, Rey Mysterio + an added dimension.

Shawn Michaels wasn't in his prime when he first encountered 1-2-3 Kid, hell he wasn't in his prime at any of the times where the two of them wrestled, besides as I stated, 1-2-3 Kid was on the verge of beating Bret Hart for the WWF championship in 94.
But yes, he didn't accomplish much as a singles wrestler.

So he wasn't in his prime in the 2000s, he wasn't in his prime in the 90s, when was Michaels in his prime? Was it the one night that he beat Bret Hart? Because you're getting narrower and narrower with your dates.

Sure, that's the low end of it, but let's not discredit the bigger opponents he's defeated, Stone Cold, The Rock (yes I know, interference, cheating etc. but when it comes down to everything, he defeated them, it's in the record books) Batista, Shawn Michaels (yes, not helping, but it's a name) Edge, Christian, Ricky Steamboat (who could still hang with a guy in his prime, I'm not gonna name Piper and Snuka although cause they're definitely not able to hang with anybody anymore) Rey Mysterio, the list really goes on.

Jericho does have big wins, but he also loses to everyone, including everyone on that list bar Steamboat. A win over Jericho means nothing.

Sure he had his share of short reigns, but he also had reigns that lasted above the 50 days mark, the 100 days mark, and hell he even held the NWA World Middleweight championship for almost a years time, I say that drags up to say the least.

Not very many, to be honest. As for the NWA Middleweight title, Santo held it for three years.

Very well Shawn didn't defeat the bigger names during his prime that's true, but he has defeated bigger names outside of his prime in the likes of Triple H, a guy who was definitely in his prime, and going strong, he's defeated Batista, a man who was in his prime in 2008, and still is, defeated Kurt Angle in his prime (at least once) Chris Jericho, and Randy Orton (I know, disqualification, but Orton resorted to getting himself disqualified against Shawn), Mr Kennedy (a guy who they heavily pushed at that period of time)

You can't pick and choose. Either you use his physical prime, when he beat hardly anyone noteworthy, or you use the time when he did beat such wrestlers. If you use the former, he was unable to beat anyone approaching Santo's level in that timespan, if you use the latter, he lost matches against all of those people too, and more.

And while I know Shawn have been defeated by the majority of the same names I mention, the mere fact that he defeated them in the first place should prove enough of an argument to say that Shawn has defeated high profile opponents.

I'm not saying he hasn't. I'm saying he loses to them more, which means that he is likely to lose against a name that is bigger than those mentioned.

Sure the Elimination Chamber is a clusterfuck, but I'm gonna question you on the 1996 Royal Rumble.. Vader.. Dory Funk Jr.. Yokozuna.. Owen Hart.. Diesel.. The British Bulldog.. yep, not big names.. my bad.. oh and Shawn eliminated all of those people.

Diesel on his way out of the company, Vader by that point old and has never been a company carrier, Yokozuna too fat to wrestle and about to be released, Owen Hart is not a main event calibre wrestler, neither is The British Bulldog. That leaves Dory Funk, aged 55, and without a WWF contract. You're right, those are some big names. Not a single one of them was a viable challenger for Hart at WrestleMania except maybe Diesel, who he had spent 1995 feuding with.

Sure Shawn didn't have anything to do with the popularity, but putting someone over doesn't necessarily include making him popular, to be correct, you could say anybody who cleanly looses to his opponent, is a part of putting someone over.

No it isn't. Putting someone over means making them more popular, that isn't what Michaels did.

Again, putting someone over is done every time you loose to an opponent, or make them look good in a match while they still loose, and Jericho came out looking great in that match

No he didn't. He had a good match, but was no more popular, and was not seen as any more of a title threat afterwards, as emphasised by the fact he didn't have a singles World title shot for two and a half years after this match.

By definition that is kinda old I would say, but the basics of it is laid out right there.

I know what it literally means, I know Michaels literally "put Austin over", but he did not in the sense with which we generally refer to that term. Hart put Austin over even though he never lost to him by making him look tough, Michaels never put anyone over at all in his first run, because he is selfish.

Yes, I know that, but Shawn loosing a match doesn't make it anywhere less credible for him to actually come out the victor in a match.

The fact he loses more than he wins makes it less likely that he will win. That should be fairly obvious.

That's very true, Bossman is a very, meh, victory to put it quite cleanly, but in the end, there's also bigger names that he has gone on to defeat inside the cell, guy's like Edge, Orton and Mick Foley, and well partially you could say CM Punk, but that was just a boring squash.. damn shame to be honest.

Right, he's beaten those guys, but Foley wasn't a proper main eventer at the time, neither was Orton. Punk was a decision based on backstage politics, so we're left with Edge as his sole decisive win. Like I said, beating Taker in a Cell isn't that big a deal. The difference is, of course, that Lesnar, Angle and Batista did it by being better than Taker. Shawn did it because Kane helped him.

When you look at it like that you got a point, but that doesn't mean that Shawn doesn't have the chance of pulling off the victory, as opposed to Santo as well having that chance.

Of course he has a chance. Just much less of a chance than Santo.

That's very true, and I'm not saying there's anything stopping Santo from using that very move, I'm just saying that Shawn does have a second move that could act as a finishing move and he could very well pull it off if he gets him in the position for it.

But there's no precident of him using it for that purpose. In kayfabe terms, he doesn't lock it on well enough to get the win.

That's very true, but like I've said before, either way you twist and turn it, it's functioned as a finisher, and could very well again.

I don't have to twist and turn anything. Michaels has a move that he has never been able to execute well enough to beat anyone except Trevor Murdoch. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if it has never worked before it is unlikely to suddenly work against one of the best wrestlers of all time.

That's very true, Henry is a tough guy to do the majority of finishers on, but Rhodes hasn't used the DDT as a finishing move since he started teaming up with Legacy, it's always been the rolling cutter, if the DDT was a finishing move for him still, he would still be using it to end matches, and not try to set anybody up for a rolling cutter, and he wouldn't be hitting people after matches with a rolling cutter every time.

Fine, but like I said, he didn't use that move because Henry was tired, he booted Henry in the injured leg then DDTed him.

 

[Ferbian]

Fine then, what about the Tombstone? Pedigree? All moves that require a great deal of setting up and all moves that have been repeatedly hit on Michaels. If we also look at Santo's other principal finishing moves we see flying clotheslines, and his camel clutch which I have already shown to be quickly appliable.

Yes that's true, Shawn has suffered to those, but neither of them are finishers where the opponent breaks contact in any kind of way.

The flying clothesline? he uses that as a finisher? by god you'd figure that'd be rather easy to get up from in Shawn's days considering the fact that everybody gets up from John Cena's flying shoulder block, and Shawn's flying forearm smash, which by default would be somewhat of the same with a small bit of variation.

And Undertaker.

Please remind me again? I seem to have forgotten that one, our arguments go pretty far back and I'm too tired to go over it right now.

No, he was always a jobber. He beat jobbers, Ramon once and that's it. His championship reign was a tag reign that lasted one day.

And one reign that lasted a week, but that's not really impressive neither, only impressive part about the tag team reign would be the fact that he succeeded going with Bob Holly through a tournament to beat Bam Bam Bigolow and Tanaka in the finals.

Yes, but it is unlikely. An upset, by definition, is unlikely to happen. Michaels is unlikely to win, so when deciding who to vote for, you should vote for the person who is more likely to win, in this case Santo. By your estimations, I should bet on Slovenia to win the World Cup, because upsets can happen.

Haha nice one, I'll give you that, but let's not discredit the fact that wrestling is, always has been, and most likely always will be scripted, and therefore upsets are more likely to happen in that world, even if we're to vote this as if it was a plain "legitimate" fighting tournament, but hell we've had numerous ways of voting even in the first rounds where I believe someone made the ridiculous argument of saying "I'm voting.. (yeah I forgot who).. because he'd just script himself into winning backstage"

That's not what by definition means. And how could you come to that conclusion? If John Cena beat Duane Gill on Raw on Monday, can we then assume that Duane Gill, in his prime, would beat John Cena? No, of course not. We can judge the matches that happened, and Michaels lost them.

The actual fact of the matter is that Duane Gill wouldn't last a fucking minute against John Cena even if he was in his prime, where as Shawn Michaels wasn't a ridiculous gimmick to make fun of some other promotions gimmick, and the sheer fact that Shawn Michaels has gone toe to toe with Chris Jericho on a multitude of occasions just shows that Shawn in his prime could be able to most likely come out superior against Chris in that period of time against Chris Jericho's prime.

One of his finishers is a high flying move, his other main one is a submission hold. The fact that Michaels has never beat a high flying wrestler adds to the arguments against him, yes, so thanks for bringing that up. By hamming up the fact that Mysterio is like Santo all you are doing is saying that Michaels has less of a chance of winning, so thanks again. If Michaels has lost to and drawn with Rey Mysterio, then he is likely to lose to someone who, according to you, Rey Mysterio + an added dimension.

Not necessarily due to the fact that Shawn has experience against the high flying opponent plus what I would be guessing Santo is a ground based submission grappler, which he also has experience with and has defeated in the likes of Chris Jericho and Kurt Angle.

So he wasn't in his prime in the 2000s, he wasn't in his prime in the 90s, when was Michaels in his prime? Was it the one night that he beat Bret Hart? Because you're getting narrower and narrower with your dates.

Shawn and 1-2-3 Kid never wrestled together under the moniker of X-Pac, and while he was with WWE as the 1-2-3 Kid Shawn wasn't in his prime, Shawn's prime was in 96-98 if you ask me, the answers may be different from person to person, but I count my arguments to have Shawn's prime existing in 96-98.

Jericho does have big wins, but he also loses to everyone, including everyone on that list bar Steamboat. A win over Jericho means nothing.

That's true, but everyone of those has suffered their share of loses as well, also against the guy who "loses to everyone".

Not very many, to be honest. As for the NWA Middleweight title, Santo held it for three years.

That's right, the majority of his reigns may not have lasted over 50 days, but it has it's fair share.

You can't pick and choose. Either you use his physical prime, when he beat hardly anyone noteworthy, or you use the time when he did beat such wrestlers. If you use the former, he was unable to beat anyone approaching Santo's level in that timespan, if you use the latter, he lost matches against all of those people too, and more.

Isn't that what a majority of people are already doing in this tournament, especially in the Ric Flair vs Batista thread? (I'm not bashing anybody for doing so) with the fact that they use the argument of Batista never beating the Ric Flair of his prime, but Ric Flair beating a multitude of people in his prime.. I'm guessing it's pretty hard to argue two people who never faced, or who faced when one, or both weren't in their respected primes.

I'm not saying he hasn't. I'm saying he loses to them more, which means that he is likely to lose against a name that is bigger than those mentioned.

That may very well be true, but just because Shawn lost to them, it doesn't necessarily mean that his first encounter has to be the same way with Santo, yes he's the odds on favorite to lose, but it doesn't mean it happens.

Diesel on his way out of the company, Vader by that point old and has never been a company carrier, Yokozuna too fat to wrestle and about to be released, Owen Hart is not a main event calibre wrestler, neither is The British Bulldog. That leaves Dory Funk, aged 55, and without a WWF contract. You're right, those are some big names. Not a single one of them was a viable challenger for Hart at WrestleMania except maybe Diesel, who he had spent 1995 feuding with.

That's very true, but I'm saying it's big names that he eliminated, while they weren't fitting to main event Wrestlemania at their place in their career, that doesn't make them any less of a name, Jericho still gets credit for beating 3 Hall of Fame wrestlers even though they were outside of their respected primes.

No it isn't. Putting someone over means making them more popular, that isn't what Michaels did.

the definition of putting someone over is also to make someone look like a stronger opponent, a threat, a legitimate contender, which a loss, or a hard-fought battle where one wins either way does, even if it doesn't make them more popular.

No he didn't. He had a good match, but was no more popular, and was not seen as any more of a title threat afterwards, as emphasised by the fact he didn't have a singles World title shot for two and a half years after this match.

That may very well just be due to the backstage fact that Jericho's reign wasn't exactly considered to be anything big the first time he held the championships, to the fans to say the least other than the fact that he was the first undisputed champion, rather than to make people care for him more and make him a bigger draw, he seemed to be a mere title holder waiting for Triple H to return, I've often questioned whether Triple H may have become the first undisputed champion had he not been injured... hey.. thread idea!

I know what it literally means, I know Michaels literally "put Austin over", but he did not in the sense with which we generally refer to that term. Hart put Austin over even though he never lost to him by making him look tough, Michaels never put anyone over at all in his first run, because he is selfish.

That's partially true, due to the sheer fact that Shawn was able to pull a great match out of pretty much anybody he wrestled during that period, you would consider that to automatically be putting someone over wouldn't you? seeing as we'd probably always consider a good match to be something back and forth hard fought match that kept us interested, a squash match, a one sided fight, or a fight that has the opponent dominating X wrestler only to be defeated John Cena like, does not make a good match.

The fact he loses more than he wins makes it less likely that he will win. That should be fairly obvious.

Oh it is, don't discredit me that much, just trying to argue the guy I wanna watch in the tournament finals.

But that still doesn't make him any less of a credible match winner if the outcome should be that, I've never heard anybody argue "Yeah.. that victory from Shawn Michaels, what a fluke.. that was obviously a bad attempt of putting Shawn over" Sheamus style.

Right, he's beaten those guys, but Foley wasn't a proper main eventer at the time, neither was Orton. Punk was a decision based on backstage politics, so we're left with Edge as his sole decisive win. Like I said, beating Taker in a Cell isn't that big a deal. The difference is, of course, that Lesnar, Angle and Batista did it by being better than Taker. Shawn did it because Kane helped him.

I have to admit up to the part where you mentioned Shawn, I was ready to be saying "why are we even discussing this in this thread?" but very well for putting it back on track, good job.

Shawn did indeed win the match through getting help from Kane, but that was very much as well due to the fact that it was made for it to seem like it was Taker being on home ground, the credibility of the match may very well have been killed if Shawn had been able to hang with Undertaker himself you could probably say.

Of course he has a chance. Just much less of a chance than Santo.

That's true, I shall give you that one, but it still doesn't mean that the favorite doesn't always come out on top, Hulk Hogan has lost, Ric Flair has lost, during their primes, and they still remain the believable favorite.

But there's no precident of him using it for that purpose. In kayfabe terms, he doesn't lock it on well enough to get the win.

That may very well be true, or the fact that his opponents have remained superior in leg strength, persistence and stamina throughout the matches where the hold has been applied.

I don't have to twist and turn anything. Michaels has a move that he has never been able to execute well enough to beat anyone except Trevor Murdoch. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if it has never worked before it is unlikely to suddenly work against one of the best wrestlers of all time.

I think you're thinking of the wrong move right there, the thing you're quoting I believe we're talking about the arm trap crossface, which by kayfabe means would probably act in the way that Shawn doesn't have the power or brutality to properly stretch the opponent I'm guessing, or as I stated earlier, the opponent just has more persistence and or stamina.

Fine, but like I said, he didn't use that move because Henry was tired, he booted Henry in the injured leg then DDTed him.

That's true, but it's still a regular move that served to finish a match, I'm not quite sure, but I believe I made the point that The Miz did the exact same thing when he retained his United States championship?