Michael Shawn Hickenbottom was the Janetty the whole time. Never

>>2294090
Shawn was taller, more entertaining, younger, more athletic, less of a druggy than Marty, did drew dimes, made millions, trained wrestlers, one of which became one of the GOATS and is by many considered the GOAT.

>>2294905
hi Michel!

>>2294905
>did drew dimes,

Quit ditching English class.

File: Marty_Jannetty.jpg (134KB, 642x722px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 642x722px

>>2294090

will never be appreciated because of backstage shenanigans

Thanks, Michael!

>>2294090
Marty Janetty is the face of /asp/. Forever /ourguy/
Ratings killer HBgay can't compete

>>2294090
The only reason the WWE survived long enough for the Steve Austin and The Rock era was mainly because of Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart and the Undertaker. Shawn Michaels was arguably the start of the Attitude era - he pushed the boundaries and he was the one tha pushed Vince for a more edgy product. The only reason the company survived is because he carried it on his back.

It's disgusting how you all think that Stone Cold came out of nowhere and carried the company on his own. That's complete and utter bullshit.

>>2294988
It was Bret who carried the company. When Shawn became the top guy, ratings sank like a stone. They put the belt back on Bret and the ratings rose again albeit, slightly.

Taker wasn't a draw either but he stopped Shawn's reigns of terror by threatening the little pussy into making sure he put Austin over and saving the company from the biggest scumbag in wrestling history.

So Taker and Bret kept WWF alive long enough for Austin to save it not Shawn. And save it *from* Shawn, I should add.

>>2295004
>It was Bret who carried the company. When Shawn became the top guy, ratings sank like a stone. They put the belt back on Bret and the ratings rose again albeit, slightly.

Bret didn't carry shit. Shawn wasn't at fault that he didn't have any other top talent next to him. H he had to compete, alongside fucking Vader, with Hogan, Hall and Nash. And WWE by Shawn's time was already on a way downward spiral and was going up (albeit slightly) when he became a main eventer.

You can't blame Shawn for solely carrying the company on his back, no matter if you like him or not. He was an asshole back then, a HUGE asshole, but he alone was the reason WWE survived and he alone is the reason there was an Attitude Era at all. Not Bret, not the Undertaker - he.

>Taker wasn't a draw either but he stopped Shawn's reigns of terror by threatening the little pussy into making sure he put Austin over and saving the company from the biggest scumbag in wrestling history.

That's a lie and it never happened. Taker said it's made-up.

>So Taker and Bret kept WWF alive long enough for Austin to save it not Shawn. And save it *from* Shawn, I should add.

Taker and Bret helped, true, but Shawn was the main reason why the WWE survived. He wanted Vince to go for a more edgy product, not Bret. Bret wanted a more family friendly oriented show which would have killed the WWE. Shawn was the one who pushed the boundaries of the WWE with DX, his promos, his matches and so on. It was definitely not Bret Hart, although his popularity certainly helped in that regard.

>>2294090

Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are the two worst things to ever happen to pro wrestling

>>2294905
>drew dimes
Lmao sure thing, buddy.

>made millions
Could've made even more by not pushing his ass

>trained wrestlers
Everybody knows that he wasn't directly involved.

>>2294988
>giving the credit for pushing an edgy product to HBgay instead of ECW who rightfully started that shit
>not at least giving Austin's 3:16 credit either
>thinking Shawn carried the company when it was Bret (who got better ratings as champ than anyone else at that time period including Shawn and Nash.)
>thinks that Shawn "didn't have top tier talent around him" when Shawn himself was responsible for downplaying competition against him through shady backstage antics
Goddamn, the delusional fanboyism is strong with you.

>>2295040
You mean Michaels and Nash.

Literally no wrestler has ever drawn a dime in history. Watch UFC

>>2295660
>135 pound british twinks are draws

Kek

This, Michaels is the jannetty and only hbkucks would disagree

Michaels
>almost killed WWF as the guy
>was the guy for almost all of the 84 weeks that WCW outdrew WWF
>drew so badly bret hart getting the belt gave a noticable ratings bump - BRET HART
>almost killed the company again as the main event of wrestlemania 26
>his first retirement was the exact point the attitude era started
>drew a total of negative dimes - he actually lost WWF dimes

Jannetty
>got """jannettied"""
>won the IC title
>drew 0 dimes

0 dimes > negative dimes.

Michaels is the Jannetty.

File: 98eb1df1f2404c7caeb5dcd9d859252d02248684_hq[1].gif (2MB, 320x240px)

2MB, 320x240px

>>2295646
>>giving the credit for pushing an edgy product to HBgay instead of ECW who rightfully started that shit

Not for the WWE they didn't. The one who pushed for the Attitude Era is Michaels, not the ECW or whoever else. Vince slowly gave in.

>>thinking Shawn carried the company when it was Bret (who got better ratings as champ than anyone else at that time period including Shawn and Nash.)

That's not true at all - the ratings were already down with Bret as a champ. He didn't raise anything. Wrestling, especially WWE, was on a downward spiral way before Shawn entered the scene. The ratings went further down with Bret as a champ when Hall and Nash left for WCW.

It had nothing to do with Shawn, it had all to do with the WCW having a better product and WWE having only Shawn, Taker and Bret as stars. But as for who started the Attitude Era? There is no doubt about it that it was Shawn - he pushed the boundaries of the WWE, he nagged Vince about going for a more edgy product, he was the one who went and delivered "bigly" in matches and promos and you may say, whether it was by his choice or not, that he was the reason Stone Cold got over. None of that had anything to do with Bret. Bret wanted the complete opposite things of Shawn and if given the freedom, he would have ruined the WWE and we would be watching WCW right now.

The WWE was in transition during Shawn's reign and he pushed the company in the right direction. Whether you like him or not, that's the facts. Just because he couldn't solely beat WCW by himself doesn't mean shit. Also, Shawn was pretty active during most of the Attitude Era.

I can use your logic too - after Bret left the ratings miraculously increased.

Don't like him - that's absolutely fine, I'm not asking you to. But DO NOT deny his contributions.

>thinks that Shawn "didn't have top tier talent around him" when Shawn himself was responsible for downplaying competition against him through shady backstage antics
That's true

>>2295866
>The one who pushed for the Attitude Era is Michaels, not the ECW or whoever else. Vince slowly gave in.
Prove this. Everyone says that ECW is that one that has made this happen including the top guys at WWE as well. DX didn't do jack shit, they were more of an NWO ripoff.

>That's not true at all - the ratings were already down with Bret as a champ. He didn't raise anything. Wrestling, especially WWE, was on a downward spiral way before Shawn entered the scene. The ratings went further down with Bret as a champ when Hall and Nash left for WCW.
What the hell are you talking about? Everybody knows that the lowest rating WWE ever received (the 1.8 or w/e) was during Shawn's run.

>I can use your logic too - after Bret left the ratings miraculously increased.
For WCW yeah they did.

>he pushed the company in the right direction
By depushing everyone? WWE didn't recover until he left so his poisonous ideas couldn't infect it anymore.

>>2295866
I'm a huge Bret and Shawn fan but they're a perfect example of work rate not meaning shit to buy rates. The current product can learn from this. They're important to wrasslin fans but nobodies to casuals

>>2296163
>What the hell are you talking about?

Any sources on that? RAW was up in the ratings for the first 6 weeks of HBK's title reign (Nitro was pre-empted one week that saw RAW get a 4.7). RAW's last lead at that time was 2 weeks before Scott Hall made his debut. And immediately, the invasion like angle became the hottest thing going. With Bret as champion, RAW never drew more than a 3.1 when head to head with Nitro

On May 6th, Shawn did a 4.1 rating against Nitro. Fact is, Shawn defeated Nitro on the ratings for his first nine weeks. But then Hall and Nash left, started the invasion angle and the rest is history.

So based on when ratings shifted, Hall & Nash and afterwards, Hogan's heel turn, were responsible for the rise of WCW. Also, because the WCW had a way better product and almost every wrestling superstar there was except Shawn, Bret and the Undertaker

You can't really blame HBK for WWF's dismal ratings. Even Vince said himself that no one would be able to compete with a prime nWo(96 and 97). They were fresh and wrestling fans never saw anything like that before. HBK doesn't get enough credit for keeping the WWF afloat in 1996 and 1997 while nWo was the hottest wrestling angle ever. Austin also gets too much credit for 'saving' the WWF when in actuality, by the time Austin won the WWF Championship at WM 14, the nWo angle was starting to get stale with all the new members.

>For WCW yeah they did.
Wrong.

>infect it anymore
Bulslhit. If Shawn wasn't there for the '96 and especially 97, the company would have gone down. That's a damn guarantee. Nobody could have beaten the nWo at it's heyday. A fact. And finally, Shawn was the one who pushed Vince to go for a more edgy product and Shawn was the one who pushed the boundaries in 97.

Imagine what would have happened if Shawn left, you really think the WWE would have survived? Nope.

Shawn and Bret literally carried the WWE on their back before Vince decided to change the product for the better.

>>2297239
Nope. No single superstar, no matter who it was, the Rock, Stone Cold or even if it was Hogan himself under his WWE gimmick, would have won against Nitro's nWo. The reason WCW lost the wars is that the nWo's storyline began to go stale while WWE reformed itself and began fresh storylines (Austin, McMahon, the Rock).

You guys are absolutely delusional if you think that Shawn leaving the company would have miraculously make the WWE top Nitro. And you're delusional if you think that Shawn and Bret weren't the main reasons that WWE exists to this day. Without them WWE would have folded long before the nWo storyline got stale.

>>2294090
Who are they pointing at?

>>2297328
>Any sources on that?
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0927/617887/was-wwe-raw-rating-lowest-ever/

December 23rd, 1996. Lowest rating OF ALL TIME. Shawn was top face at the time and considered the "main draw" of WWE.

>Wrong.
He brought a lot of interest for the WCW, what transpired during his reign was due to bad booking.

>Bulslhit.
Nah, DX wasn't what led to the Attitude Era. It was Stone Cold and the Montreal Screwjob which did that. There's a reason people call the start of the AE either Austin's 3:16 speech, Austin vs Hart, or people just hating the shit out of Vince after the Screwjob. Bret and Austin literally played a bigger part than the joke of a stable that was DX.

>Imagine what would have happened if Shawn left, you really think the WWE would have survived? Nope.
Right after he gets injured and leaves, the WWE starts pulling in the highest ratings/draws/results of ALL TIME.

>>2298016
>OF ALL TIME
Not really. Furthermore, Shawn wasn't the top face of the company back then, it was Bret. Shawn was the up-and-coming top guy to take the mantle from Bret, but Bret back then was still the top dog. Also, at that show do you know who was in the main event? Yours truly, Bret vs Fake Razor. Shawn only had a brief segment.

>He brought a lot of interest for the WCW, what transpired during his reign was due to bad booking.

He didn't bring jack shit, the ratings for Nitro stayed the same. I agree on the bad booking, but as far ratings are concerned, he didn't help them at all.


>Nah
It was a mix of a lot of things, it obviously didn't came out of thin air and it didn't came out from one event either, but if you had to pick one guy who contributed the most on-screen and off, that was Michaels.

>Right after he gets injured and leaves, the WWE starts pulling in the highest ratings/draws/results of ALL TIME.

No, it didn't. Shawn left in February and the WWE started overtaking WCW in late April-early May. Almost three months after Shawn's retirement. And it had nothing to do with Shawn leaving, as I said, it had more to do with the nWo storyline running out of steam and Vince starting to go for the more edgier product, as well as previously unknown stars transitioning to main eventers (Rock, HHH, Stone Cold, Foley).

Here are the results for Shawn's title reign right after taking over from Bret:
Nitro beat RAW in March:
3.2-2.9
3.6-2.9
3.1-2.8
HBK won the belt at WM and RAW beat Nitro every week from there including record numbers overall and head to head:
2.9-2.8
4.7 - biggest of all time at this point, overall.
3.1-2.8
3.3-2.7
2.9-2.1
4.1-1.9 - biggest of all time at that time, head to head.
3.5-2.3

Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. Bret never beat WCW during his reign, Shawn did. He only lost when the nWo storyline and Hogan turning heel happened and by that time whether it was Stone Cold or whoever, nobody would have beaten WCW.

>>2298240
> a new fresh champion brought a small and very brief surge in ratings
Wow whodathunkit

>>2298252
Not small, the biggest they had in years. Shawn only lost when the Outsiders storyline started in WCW. How many times should I point that?

You guys are absolutely irrational. He was a right cunt, but to blame him for the WWE losing a big portion of the Monday Wars against Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, Sting, Scott Hall, Nash while he had to work with fucking Vader and who else? Nicky Banberry, Tony DeVito and Marc Mero, alongside Bret Hart and the Undertaker (the only real draws here).

Honestly, it's unfair.

>>2297386
(You)

>>2298240
>Not really.
It literally says 1.5 right there.

>Shawn wasn't the top face of the company back then, it was Bret
No. This was the time Shawn and Sid were feuding for the Championship.

>He didn't bring jack shit, the ratings for Nitro stayed the same. I agree on the bad booking, but as far ratings are concerned, he didn't help them at all.
Not the increase in ratings around January 1998. Goldberg was still around, nWo was still around. What was the major change? Bret Hart vs Ric Flair. Hart's no compete clause ends.

>but if you had to pick one guy who contributed the most on-screen and off, that was Michaels.
>not Austin
Lmao

>No, it didn't. Shawn left in February and the WWE started overtaking WCW in late April-early May. Almost three months after Shawn's retirement.
What? This is stupid. You know that ratings don't go up instantly, and recovering from Trash Michaels' time was gonna take a bit.

>as well as previously unknown stars transitioning to main eventers (Rock, HHH, Stone Cold, Foley).
All more talented than HBGay

>HBK won the belt at WM and RAW beat Nitro every week from there including record numbers overall and head to head
Everyone knows that the numbers at that time were coming in because WWE RAW around that time decided to start RAW 3 minutes earlier to counter WCW.

http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/April_8,_1996_Monday_Night_RAW_results

>>2298267
He was a new and fresh champ, thats why people turned into watch for a very short time until they saw him prancing around and gyrating.
Did you watch the product back then? He was extremely unlikable and his male prostitute gimmick was doomed to fail from the get-go

>>2298272
>It literally says 1.5 right there.
And? It's not the lowest rating of all time. And neither did Shawn participate much at that RAW. He only had a brief segment at the end.

>No
No. By this time Bret was back and he signed with WWE the biggest contract in the company's history. He definitely was THE top guy.

>Not the increase in ratings around January 1998
Mate, Bret debuted on December 15 and although the ratings jumped slightly, they were on an upward spiral way before Bret jumped in. The ratings actually went down for the next show before going back up.

>not Austin
Austin played a character and he played it well, but without Shawn antics on-screen and off, his influence on McMahon, the Screwjob, the DX shit, him putting Austin over and him going for more "Attitude" there would have been no Austin or any of the Attitude Era. Hell, there probably wouldn't have been any WWF.

>This is stupid.
Kinda hypocritical of you, mate. And here you were saying that right after Shawn's retirement suddenly the ratings went up, or right after Bret's debut. I don't know if you've noticed, but the ratings were going upwards during the late 97 and early 98 and Shawn was THE guy then.

>All more talented than HBGay
In what way? Neither Foley, nor HHH are more talented than HBK on the mic or in the ring. As for Stone Cold or the Rock, he is more talented than both in the ring and as for mic skills, depends on your taste. IMO, his DX work easily rivals that of Stone Cold and the Rock.

>Everyone knows
The rating trend started on April 1. Nice try.

>>2297386
The true jannetty

>>2298337
>And? It's not the lowest rating of all time
>The lowest rated RAW in history remains the 1996 Christmas week episode on December 23, 1996, which garnered a 1.5 rating.
Okay. Stay delusional, HBK fanboy.

>No. By this time Bret was back and he signed with WWE the biggest contract in the company's history. He definitely was THE top guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_Series_(1996)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Your_House_12:_It%27s_Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rumble_(1997)

Shawn was literally the top guy, being involved in the main event scene at the time. Bret was there, too, but he was second fiddle to Shawn vs Sid.

>Mate, Bret debuted on December 15 and although the ratings jumped slightly, they were on an upward spiral way before Bret jumped in.
No-compete clause. Get a real job so you know how shit like that comes up between competitors. And they weren't on that large an upward spiral pre-Bret, certainly not at the level that came afterwards.

>Austin played a character and he played it well
And he got it over with the fans first that they want edgy, not Shawn.

>but without Shawn antics on-screen and off
What antics? You haven't even given an example.

>his influence on McMahon
His influence on McMahon was on for years and never was edginess brought up till DX. If you have to give backstage credit to someone, it's probably Russo since he was the one who wanted the WWE to be more like ECW/nwo WCW.

>Screwjob
Pat Patterson, not Shawn Michaels.

>him putting Austin over
Because he got injured against Taker in casket match. He never would've done it otherwise.

>Kinda hypocritical of you, mate
Nope. Even after Shawn's injury, it took WWE a while as well to get the ratings up. WWE achieved its highest ratings in about 1999/2000, not necessarily 1997-1998 when the pieces were being put in place.

>In what way?
Contributed far more good for the business than HBGay.

>The rating trend started on April 1.
>0.1 difference after WM

>>2298337
> Austin played a character and he played it well, but without Shawn antics on-screen and off, his influence on McMahon, the Screwjob, the DX shit, him putting Austin over and him going for more "Attitude" there would have been no Austin or any of the Attitude Era. Hell, there probably wouldn't have been any WWF.
LOL gtfo cunt
Shawn tried his hardest to bury Austin. If he wasnt a junkie/broke his back and carried on wrestling there would be no WWE today

>>2298357
>Okay. Stay delusional, HBK fanboy.
Maybe the lowest in the Monday wars, but not of all time. And you're fucking yourself over with that since Bret was main eventing that RAW.

>Shawn was literally the top guy
That's like saying AJ Styles is the main guy (over Cena) just because he was more over for a time than Cena was. It doesn't work that way.

>No-compete clause.
Yes, I understand that, they did increase but not by much. And the WWE soon began gaining ground after that and in April they were already overtaking WCW. So Bret didn't have much of an influence.

>And he got it over
And?

>What antics?
The Kliq, his matches with Taker, the Screwjob, his DX promos, his overall heel personality (the entrance to SS against Hart), him nagging Vince about changing the style of WWE, on and on all contributed heavily to the start of the Attitude Era. The biggest difference between Shawn's and Austin's "Attitude" was that Austin's was designed and fixed and in a controlled environment between him and Vince. Shawn on the other hand actually made Vince nervous on would he would do or say in the ring with a live mic. HBK and his DX made the censors very nervous with threats of being kicked off the air on a weekly basis.

>his influence on McMahon
Maybe because Vince finally started to listen after Nitro began dominating, don't ya think?

>Patterson
?

>Because he got injured
Is there any proof that Michaels didn't want to put Austin over?

>Even after Shawn's injury

Yeah mate, everything was down to Shawn and not the fact that the WWE changed it's product entirely, had up-and-coming stars while WCW were failing and started having predictable storylines and boring segments, as well as nWo not being so hot anymore. Nah, it was all due to Michaels leaving.

The WCW was always going to crash and burn, it was just a matter of fact if it could take the WWE before doing so and Michaels was the main reason that didn't happen.

>0.1 difference
Point?

>>2298381
Zero evidence on both accounts. Shawn didn't want to put over many people, he wasn't the first, nor was he the last. He was more successful than the others just because at the time he had the biggest starpower, but every superstar at some point didn't want to put people over (Austin included).

>>2298415
We went through the all time lows a tons of times.

It was Sycho Syd in Dec 1996

>>2298419
Mate, you're tripping. We were talking about the RAW with the lowest ratings, not the 1996 Survivor Series the 1997 Royal Rumble.

>>2298428
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0927/617887/was-wwe-raw-rating-lowest-ever/

The lowest rated RAW in history remains the 1996 Christmas week episode on December 23, 1996, which garnered a 1.5 rating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_Champions

31: Sycho Sid, held from 17 Nov 1996 to 19 Jan 1997

Again, we have been through this a ton of times, Sycho Sid is lowest ratings ever guy.

Big Dimes Michaels working the smarks

>>2298483
So, what does that have to do with Shawn? At that particular night the main event was Fake Razor vs Bret Hart.

But we were talking about Michaels here, not Sid.

>>2294090
based bretchad

>>2295866
dubs dont lie andneither is anon

File: vlcsnap-00051.png (367KB, 721x418px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 721x418px

>>2294988
>>2295026
>>2295866
>>2297328
>>2298240
>>2298337
>>2298415

I like this ShawnMark cuz he speaks the truth

>>2295004
>>2295646
>>2296163

Kek....Bretcuck working himself into a shoot just like his hero

Pic related is proof that HBK STARTED THE ATTITUDE ERA/THE FIRST STAR OF THE A.E.

Haitch is like "oh Fuck he's actually drinking on live TV ... D-d-id he even ask V-vince for P-permission"

>>2294090
Have sex you faggot ass loser
Or kill yourself. That works too

>>2303057
how about killing himself by getting AIDS from lots of kinky/unprotectedsex?