|
|
Post by LA Times on Sept 27, 2011 14:53:42 GMT -5
He wouldve retired before 2010. The four years of no wrestling did wonders for his body and career.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sam Hain on Sept 29, 2011 21:32:51 GMT -5
I remember he was going to come back to the ring before he did. There was an article in the May 2001 issue of Raw Magazine where Michaels confirmed he was making a comeback to the ring, I remember being stoked, then nothing happened for another year. I guess that's when he showed up messed up. Who knows who would or would not have been pushed with Michaels not being injured. It's like the Butterfly Effect, change one little thing and the whole landscape could change. Thank you! I have that issue somewhere. If I remember correctly he talked about how his back injury was exagerated and that he was ready to get back in the ring. He said he looked forward to feuding with the Hardy's and Edge. He talked about his family and said that he hoped to impress them, but didn't care what the fans thought. I also had an issue of WOW Magazine from the same time that had an interview with Shawn. He had cut his hair in a bob, just like he did at Survivor Series 2002 and they showed the scar on his back. Again, he said the injury was bad, but nowhere near career ending. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 0:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 1:33:04 GMT -5
Honestly,
I think the reason he was gone for 4 years was more because of drug problems than back problems.
I think saying it was his back is the safe thing to say. However, I think the truth was that he was completely drugged out at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer311 on Sept 30, 2011 8:59:19 GMT -5
That has to bug Shawn a bit, I would think. He started the whole attitude era in 97 and then left right when it was getting hot. The hottest time for WWE was 98 - 2001 and HBK wasn't apart of any matches. He missed out big time then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sam Hain on Sept 30, 2011 10:15:02 GMT -5
I don't know, HBK is my favorite wrestler of all time, but I think Austin should get more credit for starting the Attitude Era than Shawn. They tried it with him at the start of 97 and it bombed, it was Austin that really ushered it in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 0:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 10:40:21 GMT -5
I don't know, HBK is my favorite wrestler of all time, but I think Austin should get more credit for starting the Attitude Era than Shawn. They tried it with him at the start of 97 and it bombed, it was Austin that really ushered it in. Agreed. Some argue that Austin started it at KOTR 1996 but I disagree. I don't think it officially started until Vince gave that statement at the beginning of RAW about "getting your intelligence insulted and good guy vs. bad guy" stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by jammer311 on Sept 30, 2011 13:16:01 GMT -5
Sure, Austin shot the middle finger and stunned the boss and other employees, but watch the old DX stuff. They did a lot of things that were pretty risky. For example, eating banana's during the Nation's match. Clearly they were trying to make it racist. The stuff Shawn was doing, and acting, I still say Shawn had a lot more to do with the Attitude Era than Austin. Once HBK left at WM 14 then clearly Austin took the ball and ran with it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 0:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 16:36:20 GMT -5
I think it should be viewed as 50/50.
I dont think either are more responsible.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 0:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 16:43:48 GMT -5
THIS officially started the Attitude Era. December 15, 1997.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,344
|
Post by nibs92 on Sept 30, 2011 18:20:53 GMT -5
THIS officially started the Attitude Era. December 15, 1997. i remember that well! i love how he has a dig at Hogan in there! i guess you could say that Shawn and D-X got the ball rolling for the attitude era but Austin took it to new heights. |
|
|
|
Post by greenjack1992 on Sept 30, 2011 19:16:04 GMT -5
HHH wouldn't be nearly as big as he became.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glorydaysofwrestling on Oct 2, 2011 13:36:37 GMT -5
I have my doubts that he was even hurt. Probably didn't want to job to Austin and was pissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on Oct 2, 2011 18:27:23 GMT -5
I just thought about another one: IMO, the HHH vs HBK feud wouldn't have been as good as it was.
|
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,344
|
Post by nibs92 on Oct 2, 2011 19:08:14 GMT -5
i wonder as well would we have had Nash and Hall return earlier than we did?
i'm not sure if that would have been a good thing or not.
on the one hand it could have led to a major "invasion" story line but on the other hand the problems they would have brought with them could have destroyed wrestling as we know it all together
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Oct 2, 2011 20:44:20 GMT -5
i wonder as well would we have had Nash and Hall return earlier than we did? i'm not sure if that would have been a good thing or not. on the one hand it could have led to a major "invasion" story line but on the other hand the problems they would have brought with them could have destroyed wrestling as we know it all together Nash and Hall were still undercontract until about 2002. Thats why they were brought in when they were. WCW had them locked up and would not have let them go back to the WWF. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sexy Psychotic on Oct 3, 2011 14:20:18 GMT -5
i wonder as well would we have had Nash and Hall return earlier than we did? i'm not sure if that would have been a good thing or not. on the one hand it could have led to a major "invasion" story line but on the other hand the problems they would have brought with them could have destroyed wrestling as we know it all together Nash and Hall were still undercontract until about 2002. Thats why they were brought in when they were. WCW had them locked up and would not have let them go back to the WWF. WWE bought WCW in March 2001, so wouldn't have meant they could have came back then? Nash and Hall were still undercontract until about 2002. Thats why they were brought in when they were. WCW had them locked up and would not have let them go back to the WWF. |
|
nibs92
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 29, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 2,344
|
Post by nibs92 on Oct 3, 2011 14:24:43 GMT -5
WWE bought WCW in March 2001, so wouldn't have meant they could have came back then? Nash and Hall were still undercontract until about 2002. Thats why they were brought in when they were. WCW had them locked up and would not have let them go back to the WWF. i suppose it would be the same situation where they are contracted to time warner. an agreement might have been easier if Michaels still ruled the roost but i guess we'll never know. i think it would have been cool if Michaels was the most hated wrestler in 2001 and he brought in the outsiders and other WCW personnel to lead the invasion. but at the same time Austin might not have been so hot if Michaels was still on the scene. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 0:50:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 9:27:14 GMT -5
make no mistake-Austin would have been as hot-he was on the way.
as for Hall and Nash-Vince couldnt have got them until March 2001 and neither was willing to work til their paid contract was up in 2002.
|
|
