Would HBK Be In The HOF If He Retired In 1998?

[THEpapachamp]

Quite simple question..

If Shawn Michaels stayed retired in 1998 with his last match being at Wrestlemania 14 against SCSA.

Would he have still been seen as a legend today?

Or was his most important career defining moments after he came back in 2002?

 

[Trance Metaphor]

I think he still would have entered the HOF if he had stayed retired post-'98. He had all of his most important matches during his prime in the 90's and against some of the biggest names (ex. Bret Hart, Diesel, Razor Ramon, Undertaker, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Owen Hart). Yeah, he may not have had all those "Matches of the Year" honours of his second run to his credit, but it was during the 90's that he was most controversial/infamous (ex. The Rockers split, The debut of DX, The Montreal Screwjob, etc), and charismatic. It was also during the 90's that he won the WWF Championship three times and became the first Grand Slam Champion and two-time Royal Rumble winner. I'm not taking anything away from his return, but aside from consistently great competitive matches (including winning the first Elimination Chamber match), he wasn't involved in angles that were as career-defining as his first run. His confrontations against the Undertaker for his streak at two consecutive WrestleMania's were the final condiments. Also, if guys like Bret Hart is recognized today as a legend, then I don't see why Shawn Michaels shouldn't be. HBK is in my mind the greatest performer in the WWE.

 

[berlinbrawler]

Had he retired in 1998 he would still be in the Hall of Fame. He probably would have been in there several years ago already. It still was a stellar career that most guys that are in the HoF could only dream of. Even the ending, tragic so it was, was a Wrestlemania main event. If that's not HoF worthy, what is?

He wouldn't have reached that semi-god status he has achieved through his comeback, though.He came back as a legend and gave his career a storybook ending the likes of which had never been there before. It was perfect.

 

[Decarow]

Trance Metaphor, did you say he was the first 2-time royal rumble winner or were you just talking about him winning it twice? Because Hulk Hogan was definitely the first 2-time winner.

OT: I think he'd still make it. He probably wouldn't be first ballot, but that was the prime of his career. He cemented his legacy in his 2nd run with the return of DX, his feud with HHH in 2002, and his legendary WM matches from 19-26.

 

[Azane]

He would be, But he'd be right next to Koko B. Ware, he wouldn't be an icon, he would't be a first ballot. In fact, he'd probably be inducted in the 2020's, and be some obscure name that hardly anybody would remember by the time his induction happened.

 

[dkdubb]

Are you guys on crack? You must all be really young. HBK was the biggest superstar in WWF back in the 90's before Austin which came along once HBK was injured. He would have been a definite "first ballot" Hall of Famer. You guys are messed up in the head to ever comare Michaels to Koko B. Ware. He was a 3x heavyweight champion, 3x intercontinental, european champion, and multiple tag team champion, all prior to his first retirement due to the back injury. If that isn't a Hall of Fame career, there isn't one. Get your heads out of your asses!

 

[Aotearoa (Bushwacker)]

Drew Carey got in so I dont really think its all that hard. As long as HBK fought one match one time in some type of wrestling promotion I think he qualifies. Yes he would still be in the hall of fame.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

Absolutely! Without a doubt! Michaels comeback only solidified his iconic status. He still would have been a Hall of Famer had he never come back.

He probably wouldn't be first ballot

I'm not picking on you specifically, but can we please stop using this phrase when referring to the WWE Hall of Fame?

The reason this gets used in sports is because you have to wait a certain number of years before you are eligible for the Hall of Fame. What is the wait time for the WWE? There is none, so therefore the saying doesn't make any sense.

Hogan, Flair, Bret, Savage, Bruno, Piper and the list goes on are not first ballot Hall of Famers. had WWE been a legitimate sport, all those guys would have been. So please, can we start using something other than first ballot to say a guy is a lock for the Hall of Fame?

(Also, because Shawn was retired from 1998-2002, he wasn't a first ballot Hall of Famer because that means (by WWE standards?) that he would have been inducted in 1999. See what I mean about the phrase not making sense?)

 

[VinnieSunshine]

Yes HBK would be inducted. That would've happened that year or the next. Its all about what he has done and he is an innovator and a legend. I look at the years after he came back as his "fun" years. He was GM, had a nice program with Triple H and a few others, and dont forget about all the DX (as censored as they may have been).

 

[Trance Metaphor]

Trance Metaphor, did you say he was the first 2-time royal rumble winner or were you just talking about him winning it twice? Because Hulk Hogan was definitely the first 2-time winner.

I was talking about him winning the Royal Rumble twice as part of his many accomplishments. I can see why you'd read it wrong, because of my 'first Grand Slam Champion' part and the latter being mentioned in the same line, inseparably. It should be 'first Grand Slam Champion and a two-time Royal Rumble winner.

 

[Fenris]

He would be, But he'd be right next to Koko B. Ware, he wouldn't be an icon, he would't be a first ballot. In fact, he'd probably be inducted in the 2020's, and be some obscure name that hardly anybody would remember by the time his induction happened.

Pretty much, yeah. Who knew burying talent and killing the ratings was Hall of Fame worthy?

You obviously weren't watching back then and really have no idea who this man is and what he has accomplished. Come to think of it...you probably don't know your ass from your elbow.

Not to interrupt but which accomplishments? Sending half of Raws viewership over to Monday Nitro whenever he came through the curtain(Look it up if it's archived)? Burying talent? Refusing to do jobs? Using his buddy Nash to politic him into the main event? Which part is he missing? I'd say Azane was watching back then and likely one of the several million people who changed the channel whenever The Ratings Killer was being shoved down our throats.

 

[Bobholly39]

yeah, HBK would def be in the HOF no question. his DX creation, his first title run, his mania match with Bret, Razor...all EPIC stuff.

That being said, I now consider HBK the best in-ring performer of ALL-TIME. That's my opinion, and i know a LOT of people share it. I don't know that i'd have this opinion if he hadn't returned post-98. It's a lot of the stuff he did since then that defined his status as a legend, and maybe the best ever in-ring. his mania matches since his return have all been absolutely phenomenal.

 

[Jsaturn14]

Pretty much, yeah. Who knew burying talent and killing the ratings was Hall of Fame worthy?



Not to interrupt but which accomplishments? Sending half of Raws viewership over to Monday Nitro whenever he came through the curtain(Look it up if it's archived)? Burying talent? Refusing to do jobs? Using his buddy Nash to politic him into the main event? Which part is he missing? I'd say Azane was watching back then and likely one of the several million people who changed the channel whenever The Ratings Killer was being shoved down our throats.

My god, I hate how people love to bring up the fact that Shawn wasn't able to beat Nitro in the ratings whenever the topic of his accomplishments during the 90's are brought up. I have said it before, and I will probably say it a million times more, THAT WAS NOT SHAWN'S FAULT AT ALL! Nobody, and I repeat, NOBODY could possibly compete with WCW during this time. They had the bigger stars (that were well established during their WWF days), they had the cruiserweights who were putting on 4-5 star matches during every Nitro, oh, and they had the biggest star on the planet, HULK FUGGING HOGAN, doing something that nobody had ever seen before in their life, playing a BAD GUY. You add in the fact that WCW had lured away all the stars out of WWF, and all the WWF was left with was Shawn, Bret, and Taker and it is a wonder how the WWF actually survived during this time, let alone compete. As for burying talent or refusing to do jobs, or politicking backstage, that is something that every major star has done at one time or another. Hogan did it, Bret did it, Austin did it, Rock did it, HHH did it, Flair did it, HBK did it. It happens. Does that take away from their accomplishments INSIDE THE RING though? Some people will say yes, others will say no, it all depends on how you want to look at it. I look at it as Shawn being a two time rumble winner, with one of those times being from the number one spot, the first time anyone has ever done that, being a 3 time IC champ, being a 3 time WWF champ, being the first Grand Slam winner, and being the man who put on the most memorable matches of the 90's, namely the ladder match at Mania 10, The Iron Man match at Mania 12, and The first HIAC vs Taker at Bad Blood 1997. Does politicking have anything to do with putting on a show in the ring, and being the best at it? I don't think so at all, and that is why Shawn was considered to be the best in-ring performer ever at the time of his first retirement, and that is why he damn sure would have been a HOFer if he had never wrestled again after that.

 

[MrPerfectFan1]

Is this even a question? You act as if HBK didn't have an amazing career pre-comeback.. People talking about how if he never came back he would be a name no one knew when inducted? Hopefully it was a troll and that wasn't a legitimate thought. Hbk is arguably the greatest superstar of all time. Pre-comeback he had many huge wrestlemania moments, a ton of iconic matches, and a shit load of accomplishments. He and Bret Hart were the faces of the company before Austin and Rock. When he retired in 1998 many people in the crowd were literally in tears, it was almost as emotional as when he retired last year.

 

[The Brain]

He would be, But he'd be right next to Koko B. Ware, he wouldn't be an icon, he would't be a first ballot. In fact, he'd probably be inducted in the 2020's, and be some obscure name that hardly anybody would remember by the time his induction happened.

You can't be serious. The only way this is an acceptable answer is if you are under 15 years old. Even then it is a ridiculous comment but at least you would have an excuse for your ignorance. HBK undoubtedly would have been a big headline name for the HOF had he retired in 1998. He was already a three time world champion, three time IC champion, two time tag champion, and two time Royal Rumble winner. He had several classic matches including the first televised ladder match against Razor, the first televised Iron Man Match against Bret, and the first televised Hell in a Cell against Taker. This shouldn't even be a question. A better topic would be which half of Shawn's WWE career was better. Each half easily puts him in the HOF.

 

[RD_21]

To be honest I am 27 and I've always like HBK, well less at one point because I am Canadian but still.

With that said I never realise how people HATED HBK before. And it's tru that people were flipping to Nitro when HE was on. HBK was hated by the guy just like Cena is. He was Cena as a gay man with his leather and stripes and long hair when gay people were not really accepted like they are today and the adult were hating him. Sure girls and kids were liking him, but a big portion of the people legitaly hated him.

As far as I am concerned he would still be a hall of fame, he would be higher than Koko B Ware but he wouldn't be close to where he is now if he hadn't come back after 1998.

 

[The Champ]

Bret Hart retired around that time, and he's in the Hall of Fame. Eddie Guerrero had a relatively short time in the WWE main event, and he's in there. People who have never been WWE Champion are in there. Commentators and managers are in there. Jobbers like Koko B. Ware are in there. Hell, they induct celebrities like Drew Carey and William Perry on a regular basis. Knowing all that, I have no idea how this question could even be asked. Obviously Michaels would still get in.

 

[rawissmart]

I am wondering how many of you actually remember 1995 or 1996 or even 1997. How many months of those years do you think HBK actually worked? 1996 maybe more than the others, but Shawn didn't do much. He didn't go to work like a Bret Hart. He had a boring fued with Nash, I remember that. Oh and I remember him being "hurt". Had a match with Sid. He teamed with Austin. Truly HOF events. *yawn*

Am I saying he shouldn't be in HOF? No. But without this recent comeback, he's not "Mr. WrestleMania". I wonder if he really is anyway. He's not in HOF class of 2011.

Eventually he would have got in, but not this fast. Someone said he won all the titles, the tag, IC, World. Yes he did. No King of the Ring. No WCW run. He was a good wrestler, he could go, but he had the boss in his pocket. That's why he is where he is right now.

 

[Jackal960]

He would definitely be in HOF regardless. Maybe this is unfortunate on HOF's side, but even if he stayed without a belt he would still be in HOF since being inducted to the HOF is not so difficult.

From being an icon standpoint, whatever Shawn accomplished, he actually accomplished before WM14. I am not taking away anything from his post 2000 but by the time of 1998 he already was an icon of that era. He was already bigger than most of the wrestlers will ever accomplish in their lives. Coming back and wrestling for some more years added more great matches to his resume, plus the new generation had the chance to watch him wrestle, but even if he hadn't come back it wouldn't be a big deal at all, he would still be an Icon.

From another perspective, when you think of Shawn (if you watched all his career that is) his career's most memorable feuds are from 90's especially with Bret Hart, and when he formed DX. As I said I'm not taking away anything from his post 2000's but his prime, for me, was until late 90's.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Well, like the other posters have already mentioned here, it's not that being in the WWE Hall of Fame is a really huge deal considering the fact that people like Koko B. Ware and a celebrity like Drew Carey have been a part of it. Regardless of that fact HBK would have still been a first ballot Hall of Famer and would have headlined a Hall of Fame class had he retired in 1998.

HBK had accomplished everything by 1998. He had won Multiple Championships, participated in some of the greatest matches of his generation and been the face of the company as well. Ironically he had also passed over the torch to Stone Cold Steve Austin, ironic because he was not known to lay down for anybody.

I am glad that he came back in 2002 and participated in many more great matches and great moments from there on but he had a stellar career even before that and would have been remembered as one of the greatest performers in the business.

 

[hollowpoint]

(Also, because Shawn was retired from 1998-2002, he wasn't a first ballot Hall of Famer because that means (by WWE standards?) that he would have been inducted in 1999. See what I mean about the phrase not making sense?)

I agree with your first ballot theory, but he probably wouldn't be inducted to the HOF in 1999 since the HOF didn't actually start til I think '03. I get what you are saying though.

OT: I think he makes the HOF if he doesn't comeback, but he's not the ICON he is right now without his second run. Call him Mr. Wrestlemania and all of that, but those two matches with Undertaker in WM25 and 26, match with Chris Jericho in WM18, WM23 with John Cena, WM24 with Ric Flair were matches to remember. All when he returned. All classics.

 

[The Brain]

I am wondering how many of you actually remember 1995 or 1996 or even 1997. How many months of those years do you think HBK actually worked? 1996 maybe more than the others, but Shawn didn't do much. He didn't go to work like a Bret Hart. He had a boring fued with Nash, I remember that. Oh and I remember him being "hurt". Had a match with Sid. He teamed with Austin. Truly HOF events. *yawn*

Am I saying he shouldn't be in HOF? No. But without this recent comeback, he's not "Mr. WrestleMania". I wonder if he really is anyway. He's not in HOF class of 2011.

Eventually he would have got in, but not this fast. Someone said he won all the titles, the tag, IC, World. Yes he did. No King of the Ring. No WCW run. He was a good wrestler, he could go, but he had the boss in his pocket. That's why he is where he is right now.

I remember 1995. HBK won the Royal Rumble, stole the show at mania, won his third IC title in an awesome match against Jeff Jarrett, beat Razor Ramon in a ladder match, won the tag titles with Diesel, and survived his Survivor Series match.

I remember 1996. HBK won the Royal Rumble, won the world title in the mania main event, had awesome matches with Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Diesel, Davey Boy Smith, Vader, Mankind, and Sid, and held the world title for eight months of the year.

I remember 1997. HBK won his second world title in January, won the tag titles over the summer (and I only called him a two time tag champion, my bad), created DX, won the European title, beat Undertaker in the first Hell in a Cell, and won his third world title in November.

You’re actually just going to overlook all his title wins, which were a lot hard to come by back then, because he didn’t win King of the Ring Who cares that he didn’t have a WCW run? Irrelevant. Why do you think he had the boss in his pocket? Because the boss new he was his top talent. By the way, having the boss in his pocket should prove more than anything he would have gone in the HOF as a headliner.

 

[Chrome]

Personality aside I think he should be in the hall of fame, also titles he has had.. but with people saying his personality shouldn't allow him in?

Let me ask this... If this was based on titles, why isn't Goldberg in? Macho Man, Warrior, DPP, Midnight Express (Cornette), Backlaund, Bruno, etc have all won multiple titles too and not in the HoF..I am not sure how important title regins are other than to be a headline for HoF? Oh yeah their personalities clash too.. but haven't been in.

But KoKo B Ware can be in the HoF?

I am not sure what the process is for WWE to let people in the hall of fame.. but its becoming more and more apparent that their isn't one.. or at least one that makes sense...

I think HBK should belong to a REAL HoF regardless of what happend in the 90's because he was a headliner and carried the company..

HOWEVER.. one might argue that the reason he has had so many great matches in the 2000's is simply because they aren't many talent that can compete with him now a days. He over shadows everyone now.. except maybe Kurt Angle /AJ (credit where credit is due) he is main eventing in a company that doesn't have GREAT wrestlers like they had in the 90's ...

So while his accomplishments in the 90's were great.. he gets looked differently in the 90's because truth be told, they were normally a lot of good matches on the card outside of him... but now a days that is rare.. and of COURSE he will stick out more.. Not down playing his ability .. just pointing out if you see a lamborgini in a chevy lot.. which sticks out more? Cena, Orton, Big Show, and all the other main eventers in WWE right now can not hold a candle to HBK.. but in the 90's that was not the case.

His Matches with Scott Hall, ManKind, and ESPICALLY Bret Hart alone in the 90's were great.. I remember it like yesterday.. his fued with Macho man for the WWF title was good too. (Ahh the good ol days )

Just my opinion.

 

[rawissmart]

I remember 1995. HBK won the Royal Rumble, stole the show at mania, won his third IC title in an awesome match against Jeff Jarrett, beat Razor Ramon in a ladder match, won the tag titles with Diesel, and survived his Survivor Series match.

I remember 1996. HBK won the Royal Rumble, won the world title in the mania main event, had awesome matches with Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Diesel, Davey Boy Smith, Vader, Mankind, and Sid, and held the world title for eight months of the year.

I remember 1997. HBK won his second world title in January, won the tag titles over the summer (and I only called him a two time tag champion, my bad), created DX, won the European title, beat Undertaker in the first Hell in a Cell, and won his third world title in November.

You’re actually just going to overlook all his title wins, which were a lot hard to come by back then, because he didn’t win King of the Ring Who cares that he didn’t have a WCW run? Irrelevant. Why do you think he had the boss in his pocket? Because the boss new he was his top talent. By the way, having the boss in his pocket should prove more than anything he would have gone in the HOF as a headliner.

Brain, what you consider an 'awesome' match must be based on a really low scale. Have you been watching Ric Flair matches? You watch enough of those and then watch someone like HBK and you think, "wow HBK must be the greatest athlete of all time!" Truth is he didn't have great matches against Mankind or Sid or Vader or Jarrett. They were filler matches that didn't draw. Seriously, who remembers these matches besides you? The Kliq?

"A WCW run doesn't matter". Maybe. But by the standards of other greats in the HOF it does. He didn't win King of the Ring. I think this matters. His titles wins really didn't mean much. Wait, they meant as much as when he handed the belt back to Vince after each one because he refused to do the job. What a guy that HBK is!

Besides Hogan, is there anyone who wrestled less in a year only to rewarded with the belt? Is this something to be proud of? I'm confused.

By the way, his Hell in a Cell match against Taker is considered a great because it was the first one. Not because it was a stellar match. Mediocre with blood and a steel cage. That's what it was.

 

[The Brain]

Brain, what you consider an 'awesome' match must be based on a really low scale. Have you been watching Ric Flair matches? You watch enough of those and then watch someone like HBK and you think, "wow HBK must be the greatest athlete of all time!" Truth is he didn't have great matches against Mankind or Sid or Vader or Jarrett. They were filler matches that didn't draw. Seriously, who remembers these matches besides you? The Kliq?

"A WCW run doesn't matter". Maybe. But by the standards of other greats in the HOF it does. He didn't win King of the Ring. I think this matters. His titles wins really didn't mean much. Wait, they meant as much as when he handed the belt back to Vince after each one because he refused to do the job. What a guy that HBK is!

Besides Hogan, is there anyone who wrestled less in a year only to rewarded with the belt? Is this something to be proud of? I'm confused.

By the way, his Hell in a Cell match against Taker is considered a great because it was the first one. Not because it was a stellar match. Mediocre with blood and a steel cage. That's what it was.

I would love to know what you consider an awesome match to be. Maybe the matches against Sid and Vader weren’t exactly awesome, but they were very solid. The match against Jarrett and Mankind were awesome. Both those matches won runner up for match of the year each losing out to other HBK matches. None of these matches were filler. Three of them were main events for the world title and the other was a great IC title match.

Are you really saying King of the Ring is more meaningful than the titles HBK won? I doubt you really believe this. It’s just something you can use in a weak argument because you don’t really have anything valid. Although if I’m wrong then I guess that means you think Mabel had a better career than Michaels. You can criticize Michaels for not dropping the title that one time but that doesn’t discredit his performance in the ring.

By the way the question in the thread is would HBK be in the HOF if he retired in 1998. If you honestly think he wouldn’t be you have a lot to learn.