SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3474

slap, superkick, figure four leg lock on the injured knee.

RIP streak.

Joined: Apr 05 2011 Posts: 15

It is really very sad that HBK lost again. It is really very difficult to predict something in WWE as far as i know. It is full of twists and turns.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Apr 28 2011 07:38 am

Know how he could have won? If it was written into the script that he wins.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3474

UsaSatsui wrote:

Know how he could have won? If it was written into the script that he wins.

The supposed "tradition" is that your retirement match is supposed to be against younger talent and you lose to them in order to make them look good. And considering that Undertaker is slightly older than Shawn, and unable to do great matches anymore. Therefore its stupid to sacrifice Michaels career for the sake of making Taker look good. if HBK wanted to have a losing retirement match it should have been against someone like the Miz or John Morrison.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

hbk undertakers matches were the best matches taker has ever had. HBK was able to go out making himself and his opponent (his elder) look great.

Posted: Apr 29 2011 05:43 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

hbk undertakers matches were the best matches taker has ever had. HBK was able to go out making himself and his opponent (his elder) look great.

Agreed. HBK has put over more than his share of up and coming talent since his return. He also got to help usher Ric Flair into retirement in style. I don't see the issue with his final match being against one of his good friends, on a grand stage, and putting him over in such a way as to keep 'Takers major legacy alive.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

It's also especially telling considering the hbk of old.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

JRA wrote:

The supposed "tradition" is that your retirement match is supposed to be against younger talent and you lose to them in order to make them look good. And considering that Undertaker is slightly older than Shawn, and unable to do great matches anymore. Therefore its stupid to sacrifice Michaels career for the sake of making Taker look good. if HBK wanted to have a losing retirement match it should have been against someone like the Miz or John Morrison.

Ummmm FUCK that. Miz should never have the distinction of retiring HBK. And Morrison isn't/wasn't high profile enough to make that work. The retirement was the storyline. Having Shawn lose to anyone else would make absolutely no sense in the form that he would retire after that. Shawn put his career on the line to try to do something that no one else has been able to do.

Besides, Taker might be well beyond broken down, but the man still has excellent ring psychology, something that vey few people have on the roster now.

Also let's take into effect the idea of Shawn ending his career with someone who hasn't proven themselves that much and ends up being a total bust. Not a very good way of going out.

Posted: May 01 2011 07:16 pm

As Chris Jericho said recently, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, or who you win or lose against, it's all about workrate. You're out there for the fans, and the fans know a good match when they see one.

Joined: Jul 15 2008 Location: Spanish Harlem Posts: 280

If you like HBK, thats cool; we all like different things, but HBK is actually a terrible wrestler work rate wise.

Posted: May 03 2011 07:27 am

But he does spots! Everybody loves spots!

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 03 2011 07:45 am

I'm not familiar with the more modern HBK, but I know how he was in ye olden dayse, and back then, he could put together a fan-fucking-tastic match. He just only did so when it was in his best interest.

Posted: May 03 2011 07:49 am

Well, he rose to prominence in the era when Monday Night RAW consisted mainly of pretaped squash matches.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

uncle joe wrote:

If you like HBK, thats cool; we all like different things, but HBK is actually a terrible wrestler work rate wise.

Joe, I've missed seeing you around these parts, and am legit happy to see you back. However, that is absolute bullshit. What sort of "work rate" do you compare out of a guy who arguably had the best matches of the year ever almost every year since his '02 comeback until '10? Is he repetitive? Yes, but so was every other top card draw for the last 20 years. I think a guy who is often explained to be one of the easiest guys to work with in the ring has excellent work rate.

Posted: May 03 2011 12:01 pm

I really enjoyed the match at WMXXV, but I don't believe the rematch at 26 was necessary at all. In my belief it made HBK look like a fool, and that Taker should have fought Cena and have HBK fight Jericho again since those two can put on five-star matches like it's going out of style.

Posted: May 03 2011 01:06 pm

Ba'al wrote:

I really enjoyed the match at WMXXV, but I don't believe the rematch at 26 was necessary at all. In my belief it made HBK look like a fool, and that Taker should have fought Cena and have HBK fight Jericho again since those two can put on five-star matches like it's going out of style.

What do you mean "going out of style"? 5-star matches are all but gone in the big leagues. Actual wrestling on the wrestling shows is going away. Most weeks less than 1/2 of the show has actual wrestling on it. And, most of the time, it is pointless 2 - 5 minute matches that do nothing to build feuds or really push wrestlers.

I can't even remember the last time there was a memorable quality match on Smackdown or RAW that went over 15 minutes.

If your lucky, you get one or two great matches on PPV. But, it doesn't really justify paying the $40+ to watch.

TV should be building feuds, and PPVs should give us the payoff of those feuds. That's the way is suppose to work. Do you realize, that other than the slow Cena vs Rock build, that the most attention being given to any feud, is between the announcers? I am pretty sure most of us thought it would have ended at Wrestlemania. But no, this waste of time is now going into its 3rd month.

Fucking terrible.

Joined: Jul 15 2008 Location: Spanish Harlem Posts: 280

Doddsino wrote:

uncle joe wrote:

If you like HBK, thats cool; we all like different things, but HBK is actually a terrible wrestler work rate wise.

Joe, I've missed seeing you around these parts, and am legit happy to see you back. However, that is absolute bullshit. What sort of "work rate" do you compare out of a guy who arguably had the best matches of the year ever almost every year since his '02 comeback until '10? Is he repetitive? Yes, but so was every other top card draw for the last 20 years. I think a guy who is often explained to be one of the easiest guys to work with in the ring has excellent work rate.

Its easy; his offense sucks. He throws weak punches when he does (which is hardly since he throws even weaker chops). His selling is terrible; I wasn't aware that flopping around like a fish was considered good lol. His moves make little to no sense; especially his awkwardly sequenced elbow drop. The one thing I will give HBK is that he is a nutty bumper.

Ive watched a shit ton of wrestling last year (sad to admit) and alot of people dont know that the best wrestler of 2010 far and away was a 50+ year old Mexican dude named Black Terry.

Dads, im gonna hook you up with some shit. Give me about a week or so to compile some sick shit for you.

lastly, good to see you kicking around the place still. Did you watch Mania?

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

uncle joe wrote:

Its easy; his offense sucks. He throws weak punches when he does (which is hardly since he throws even weaker chops). His selling is terrible; I wasn't aware that flopping around like a fish was considered good lol. His moves make little to no sense; especially his awkwardly sequenced elbow drop. The one thing I will give HBK is that he is a nutty bumper.

Ive watched a shit ton of wrestling last year (sad to admit) and alot of people dont know that the best wrestler of 2010 far and away was a 50+ year old Mexican dude named Black Terry.

Did you watch Mania?

Well, offense would be about more about execution and not so much work rate. I'd much rather work a match with Michaels, than say...fuckin' Stan Hansen. Even so, I don't even think his punches are THAT bad. Now you wanna talk about weak punches...RVD. His punches SUCK.

Chops don't have any place in wrestling. They have always been the stupidest basic moves I've ever seen, so I could care less if he didn't go all Bob Holly on some poor sap. Legit chops hurt and the execution of any chop to the chest in wrestling looks absolutely ridiculous. Even Bret Hart said so.

Selling is in the eyes of the beholder, because I for one LOVE Shawn Michaels selling. He doesn't flop around for everyone, but jesus christ...that Hogan match...that was amazing. Probably Hogan's best match since the one he had with Jericho.

That said, I think Shawn Michaels had the best piledriver in the business. What a thing of beauty.

I guess the issue is WWE's style of wrestling. They don't allow for anyone to tell a story anymore in the ring. Shawn was one hell of a story teller, so seeing him go was a disappointment for me, because he still could teach a lot of the younger guys about pace.

I don't watch much indy wrestling, outside of a very small bit of ROH and Dragon Gate...so I haven't seen Black Terry.

Yes, I did watch 'Mania, in fact there's a topic I wrote further down I wrote about how much I hated it.

Joined: Jul 15 2008 Location: Spanish Harlem Posts: 280

black terry is a guy who wrestles in mexico. hes great.

mania wasnt that bad.

Orton-punk was a great one man show by punk. cody rey was fun.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Cody and Rey was the only match I genuinely enjoyed. The Edge/ADR match was pretty good.

Orton and Punk...that finish was retarded. We already know Orton can hit his finisher out of nowhere, however when you do so after you and your opponent have been laying on the ground for several minutes, it's pretty fucking dumb. The overall match was just okay...much like everything else on the card, nothing said "highest caliber" in my eyes.

Joined: Jul 15 2008 Location: Spanish Harlem Posts: 280

Orton blew in that match; anything redeemable was on Punks end

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3474

Ba'al wrote:

I really enjoyed the match at WMXXV, but I don't believe the rematch at 26 was necessary at all. In my belief it made HBK look like a fool

This. The whole thing would have been fuckin pointless unless HBK won. Fuck Taker's would have been (and was) pointless unless Triple H won.

If Taker is booking his own shit fuck him. I really hope his streak is ended with the Five Knuckle Shuffle. And I hate that move.

Actually forget what I said about the Miz or whatever. HBK's retirement match should have been against The Rock.

Guest

In the WWE wrestle mania there are many matches that are very interesting and outstanding. HBK (Heart Break Kick) is one of the nice action in the WWE by Shawn Micheles. I know HBK is fights against Under taker in the Wrestle mania 26.