|
Post by layton on Jul 8, 2009 10:56:00 GMT -5
i liked shanes in ring talent, his characters are pretty stale other then his ECW persona though. on another note i didn't know i was gonna get all the HBK marks riled up due to this post. whoops. You're not allowed to say anything negative about HBK anymore. I dont know if it was because he's found God or if half of his fans were turned on by his homosexual tendencies during his "big run" in 96 but one bad word about their great leader and they get all up in arms. Its really quite silly. It's no secret that Shawn, the real man, was a jerk in the 90s as many wrestlers are but Douglas was known to be a disrespectful jerk as well. The difference between HBK and the Dynamic Dud is that HBK had talent whereas the Dud was a waste of roster space in every organization he ever wrestled. I'm a fan of both guys, and I also acknowledge that both HBK and Douglas were pretty big jerks when they wanted to be. But if you're telling me you never saw any good Shane Douglas matches, then you simply haven't seen much wrestling. Say what you will about his personality, but when he was healthy, Douglas was definitely a good wrestler. Not the greatest of all time, but definitely far better than you have made him out to be. You're all still missing the point. Why are we not talking about that jacket?
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 8, 2009 13:22:21 GMT -5
You're all still missing the point. Why are we not talking about that jacket? Yes, that jacket is beautiful. It should be on the cover of every 90s fashion style guide. It's all good my friend, luckily I have my giant Shawn Michaels superfan fly swatter. Perfect for whacking those pesky marks. Would you agree that Michaels pulling a stunt like that devalued the title? I would, he should've defended it and lost it like a man, like a real champion. I can't fault Shane Douglas for being pissed off. It wasn't Michaels' forfeit that hurt Douglas in his WWF run, it was the fact that he sucked and always sucked. It certainly was Michaels' forfeit that helped contribute to Douglas' fall in the WWF. Not to mention Michaels allegedly telling people backstage that Douglas "couldn't get heat, and didn't deserve the title", despite the fact that he wrestled in a three on three tag match with other heels and took some punches in the face from crazed chick HBK fans. I'd say that's heat, and I'd even say Shane Douglas was one of the best heels of the '90s. His 'Franchise' gimmick is strangely similar to HHH's 'the Game' gimmick, but nobody bitches about Hunter and his promos. Listen, it's no secret Shawn Michaels was a douchebag in the '90s. Ask Lex Luger, ask Bret Hart, ask Big Van Vader or just listen to how a respected guy like Bam Bam Bigelow talks about him. The entire Kliq had Vince McMahon on hand and knee for them. They used to poop in Jerry Lawler's crown, do coke, and generally act like a bunch of frat kids. You can't blame Shane Douglas for being pissed off, he wanted to win the title in a legit fashion. Instead, Shawn Michaels got over at his expense with the sad faces, handed him the I.C title, and had Scott Hall come in and squash him immediately after. Shane Douglas never even had a proper chance to enjoy any sort of title reign. Speaking of the Kliq, the funniest story relating to that is when Scott Hall worked ECW for those one-to-two appearences, he was backstage with Bam Bam, Chris Candido and Shane Douglas and told to leave after his match, or he'd get the ever-loving sh-t kicked out of him. And sure enough, he left right after. so i was watching Wrestlepalooza and he was shooting on WWF and such and said that HBK forfeited the intercontinental belt to him. My question is does anyone know what show this was on and is there any video of this online? Ok, let me try and clear things up for you among all the fighting here: Whether HBK was supposed to drop the belt to Douglas originally, I don't know or cannot remember. However before IYH, HBK was beaten up by a few marines due to some conflict in the bar. Thus to play off this "incident" WWF had HBK forfeit the belt to Douglas, which he lost to Razor Ramon later that evening. That's not how it was. Listen to the commentary, even Vince McMahon mentions that Shawn Michaels "isn't looking that bad". That's a storyline excuse, the real reason is Shawn Michaels simply didn't want to do the job for Douglas... which he was FULLY capable of doing, I mean he wrestled Owen Hart a few weeks later and took that 'concussion' bump.
|
|
|
Post by Calcifer Boheme on Jul 8, 2009 13:34:09 GMT -5
I highly doubt he went through the forfeit to avoid jobbing to Douglas. Seeing as he most likely would have just had to tell Vince he wouldn't do it, and they would change the finish.
HBK was a douche back then, sure, but it just doesn't make much sense. He was also legitimately hurt at the time.
I also don't get the Douglas hate. Sure, he used a lot of vulgarity in ECW, but even aside from that, he was a great mic man. Is Stone Cold any less on the mic because he cursed? Douglas also put on great matches in early 90s WCW and in his ECW run.
Both men were very talented, though HBK is obviously more so. Both men could wrestle, talk, etc. And both men have been total asses in their careers. But at the same time, in this one case, I don't think Shawn was just protecting his image. Heck, a losing effort would have made him look better because he still had the excuse of being hurt. It would have made him look like a total fighter no matter what shape he was in.
Then again, none of us have all the facts. So who knows.
|
|
|
Post by heartbreakkid2k3 on Jul 8, 2009 13:36:50 GMT -5
Bateman obviously has all the facts. Because Bam Bam Bigelow said so.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jul 8, 2009 13:49:50 GMT -5
Nobody forfeits titles like HBK!
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 8, 2009 13:50:34 GMT -5
Bateman obviously has all the facts. Because Bam Bam Bigelow said so. What've you brought to the argument, heartbreakkid2k3? Besides an undying love for Shawn Michaels, and unwarranted attacks on me? You can show yourself out.
|
|
The Boglin
Main Eventer
Team Goldie.
Joined on: Apr 20, 2005 16:46:22 GMT -5
Posts: 4,171
|
Post by The Boglin on Jul 8, 2009 13:55:55 GMT -5
to me anyone who thinks that Douglas' ring work was bad just makes their point some what more invalid.
|
|
|
Post by heartbreakkid2k3 on Jul 8, 2009 13:57:02 GMT -5
I've brought logic. I believe on the first page I said that a bunch of people saying something in a shoot interview doesn't constitute proof, or fact or anything. But I guess you can look past that, because it pokes holes in your "proof" and apparent undying love for Bam Bam Bigelow and Shane Douglas.
So, whatever you want to think. But a bunch of shoot interviews doesn't make something fact. It makes it popular OPINION. The only thing that would be real, solid, concrete proof would be a video of HBK flat out telling Vince that he doesn't want to drop the title to Shane Douglas. But it doesn't exist. Therefore, your argument doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 8, 2009 14:02:18 GMT -5
Gee, so uh... in shoots, why hasn't anyone come to Shawn Michaels' defense about how he spent the years between '94-'96? Why are there so many people against the way he acted, then for?
Video footage of Shawn Michaels talking to Vince about jobbing the title, you're being ridiculous, that obviously wouldn't exist. And if that's the only way you'd accept things, that's the equivilant of covering your ears and going 'la-la-la'. The fact is, you seem to completely disregard the fact that Michaels threw down TWO titles and forfeited them without competiting. That's immature, selfish, and doesn't get anyone over.
Then again, didn't Diesel enjoy that nice year long title reign that nearly tanked the WWF for good? We can thank Shawn Michaels for having some input on that, too.
Seriously man, keep chilling at the Heartbreak Shrine and pray to Saint Michaels. No one'll bother you.
|
|
|
Post by heartbreakkid2k3 on Jul 8, 2009 14:08:58 GMT -5
I certainly apologize for not being naive enough to buy into things based on a bunch of here-say and conjecture. But whatever you want to believe, dude. Once again. It's still not solid proof of anything.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 8, 2009 14:12:30 GMT -5
When more evidence points one way then it does another, I tend to think something's up. If I hear three guys say something about Shawn Michaels being a dick and holding them down, and then another guy talks about Shawn Michaels riling him up and refusing to job to him... and then a BEST friend of Shawn Michaels talking about running things backstage and doing drugs, I would tend to form an opinion about Shawn Michaels that isn't quite favorable. What about Shawn Michaels in Wrestling with Shadows outright bull-crapting and lying, "I had nothing to do with this!"...years later, he admits yes, he was involved with the Montreal screw-job. Shawn Michaels either has horrible memory or he's a ing liar. You would think if Shawn was so bothered by these remarks, he'd do his best to refute them or at least get friends to back him up? But no, nothing of the kind. (I would love to find that 1998 Shawn Michaels shoot interview so we could hear his exact thoughts on all of this. Maybe if you heard he himself admit responsibility for a few of these things, you'd take off the blinders.) So maybe if Shawn Michaels has accepted his behavior in the past, (and if he's indeed a born again Christian now) you can too.
|
|
|
Post by heartbreakkid2k3 on Jul 8, 2009 14:18:00 GMT -5
Why would he go out of his way to refute rumors from 13 years ago? Nothing looks guiltier than a guy trying way too hard to prove himself innocent. I do admit that Shawn Michaels probably had an attitude, and caused problems back then. He admits that in his book. But there's no evidence of him ever refusing to job, making up injuries, or anything of the like.
And, once again, I'm not going to believe something because three people said it in their shoot interviews.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 8, 2009 14:22:01 GMT -5
Man, he was refusing to job to Hulk Hogan just a few years ago until he was convinced otherwise! And check this out, another instance of Michaels' attempting to hide a truth- Shawn Michaels either has bad memory caused by drug abuse in the mid-90s, or he's a flat-out ing liar about a lot of things. And I would say reading a book ghost-written by Shawn Michaels is as much informative and half-true as a shoot interview by Shane Douglas.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 8, 2009 17:54:12 GMT -5
It certainly was Michaels' forfeit that helped contribute to Douglas' fall in the WWF. Listen, it's no secret Shawn Michaels was a douchebag in the '90s. Ask Lex Luger, ask Bret Hart, ask Big Van Vader or just listen to how a respected guy like Bam Bam Bigelow talks about him. Do you hear HBK continually whining about Bret only wanting to lose one fall at Wrestlemania 12? That wasn't the best way to get the new guy over ( it was originally scheduled to be multiple falls for each guy) but Shawn took what he was given by Bret and went from there. Had Douglas had any ability at all, he would have gotten over eventually but he failed in the WWF and WCW because he was a generic looking guy who did bland interviews (when he couldn't curse) and wrestled a plodding style. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. While it's no secret that HBK was a jerk in the 90s, guys like Bret and Luger are no angels either. Bret admitted to cheating on his wife multiple times and took himself way, way too seriously. Luger was 'roided to the gills for most of his career, has a long criminal record before his religious conversion, and was so unfocused on his in-ring work that Vince called off the major push he wanted to give Luger in '93. You'll have to excuse me for not holding these guys up as paragons of virtue.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 8, 2009 18:06:02 GMT -5
Man, he was refusing to job to Hulk Hogan just a few years ago until he was convinced otherwise! . There was no "convincing". Hulk's contract with WWE in 2002 gave him complete creative control, just like the one he had in WCW that was instrumental in destroying the company. HBK agreed to the program against the advice of a lot of guys backstage. When he approached Old Leather Butt, Hulk refused to talk about any scenario that didn't involving him pinning HBK. Shawn went to Vince, who said there was nothing that could be done. So, HBK, a main eventer still on the roster, jobbed to a broken-down old man who was only a shell of the pitiful in-ring worker that he once was. Hulk is the kind of ego that I can't take from a wrestler. You could combine the arrogance of HBK, HHH, Bret Hart, Ric Flair ( all of them have enormous egos) and they wouldn't rival the arrogance of Old Leather Butt. Hulk's been getting himself over at the wrestling industry's expense since 1994. I would love to see his current financial struggles force him to come crawling to Vince only to have Vince make him do a bunch of humiliating things on TV. That piece of rancid fecal matter deserves no better.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by WalterF on Jul 8, 2009 20:10:55 GMT -5
This stuff is a bit blurry and hard to tell what really happen ... I accept that and don't try to pretend I know the facts because I'm sure not many outside the few involved know the facts.
HBK was a douche back then yes, be he did get beaten bad and he claims Vince wouldn't let him compete. I lean more to believe that BUT I also would not be suprised to find out HBK used it to his advantage just because he didn't want to job.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 3, 2024 22:02:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2009 21:44:19 GMT -5
It's no secret that Shawn, the real man, was a jerk in the 90s as many wrestlers are but Douglas was known to be a disrespectful jerk as well. The difference between HBK and the Dynamic Dud is that HBK had talent whereas the Dud was a waste of roster space in every organization he ever wrestled. I'm a fan of both guys, and I also acknowledge that both HBK and Douglas were pretty big jerks when they wanted to be. But if you're telling me you never saw any good Shane Douglas matches, then you simply haven't seen much wrestling. Say what you will about his personality, but when he was healthy, Douglas was definitely a good wrestler. Not the greatest of all time, but definitely far better than you have made him out to be. I'd agree with this, I really have no definitive 'favourite', but I do admire the work both men did in the ring, outside the ring however, is a different story, as there are so many sides and details that are known and unknown, if that makes sense...
|
|
original
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 23, 2004 16:35:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by original on Jul 9, 2009 14:24:21 GMT -5
evidence this and that, it's not a court of law this is wrestling here. There is enough proof for me, the fan, that HBK refused to job. Besides the fact that it's obvious.
|
|
easy1986
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 4, 2007 20:27:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by easy1986 on Jul 10, 2009 6:39:55 GMT -5
I cant believe dudes are in this thread calling Douglas a bad worker, have you seen a mid 90's Shane Douglas match wow Dude was triple h before triple h was triple h
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 11, 2009 2:04:47 GMT -5
Dude was triple h before triple h was triple h That's what I'm saying, man. Of course, you'll probably be shat on for that opinion.
|
|