Wrestling Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Do you consider Shawn Michaels Undersized?

Jump to Latest
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
#21 ·
Catalanotto said:
It's funny because the same people who shit on Punk for being a smaller guy are the same ones who will get a massive boner for HBK and call him a legend (which is is, just making a point here).

http://marzdailymedia.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/therockers2.jpg[img][img]http://cdn101.iofferphoto.com/img/item/520/697/255/cm-punk-autograph-signed-5x7-legend-best-in-the-world-34e3.JPG[img]



Even in Shawn's younger days, there wasn't that much of a difference between his size and Punk's now. Punk haters just need to shut the fuck up. Neither of them were, or ever will be, ripped to shreds. That doesn't mean either is out of shape.


Anyway, as for height, of course he is a little smaller, but I don't think that should have ever mattered.[/QUOTE]

The difference is that you can take one look at Shawn and tell he lifts. With Punk, you really have to question it if you don't know who he is. HBK obviously had much more lean mass and less body fat on his frame in his prime years. Shawn had visible vascularity in his arms and striations that you can't see on Punk. And no, it's not because he's covered in tattoos.

Look at Shawn's chest, shoulders, and upper arms and then look at Punk's. There is no comparison.
Click to expand...
 
#22 ·
Pauly3 said:
He was one of the best WWE champions. He's listed as 6'1 but we know he's less than that. Him and Bret Hart feuded a lot and im pretty sure bret is 5'11.5 as well? Theres a site called celebheights that they talk about heights and bret is listed at 6'0 and hbk is 5'11.5.

You have those other WWE champions like Undertaker, HHH, The Rock etc and all of them are at least 6'2. Stone Cold is 6'1 and obviously wasn't a short guy unless he was fighting Kane or Undertaker.

The WCW champions were pretty big in height. Guys like Luger, Nash, Hogan etc.

Do you guys consider HBK to be undersized? Back then when i watched him, he was known as the heart break kid. However back then i never considered him to be short. Now that i look at it, would you say he's pretty undersized for a WWE champion? Thing is he doesn't look that much taller than Chris Jericho.
Click to expand...
Height is irrelevant to me. I consider a guy undersized based on weight, not height. And Michaels has been undersized based on weight for a LONG time. Circa 1992 he was actually quite muscular, but he's been skinny for years.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Catalanotto said:
Punk looks nothing like a 'daily pizza delivery boy' and HBK was basically a male stripper. Just because Punk doesn't come out in fancy costumes doesn't make him any less of a serious wrestler. He wanted to come out and be himself....yet people knock him for it? Pretty weak, imo. He doesn't like to wear suits and ties. He likes to dress in what he feels comfortable in. Who cares? Can you even explain 'the look'? Everyone has their own opinion of what 'the look' should be. I happen to just personally think there is nothing wrong with Punk's look at all. It isn't a huge deal.

Earthquake and Typhoon were tag team champions. Did they have 'the look' to you, or were they just two really fat, nasty looking guys?

Mick Foley was champ a few times, did he have 'the look', or did he just look like a fat homeless guy?
Click to expand...
So basically your saying you don't mind an average joe, with bum clothes, and hella ugly tats as your WWE champion for 400+ days?

You don't have to have THE LOOK, but you gotta at least look better than a hobo.
 
#24 ·
Undersized for what exactly? He was incredible in the ring and it was believable when he beat anyone. I don't understand the undersized argument and I imagine I never will.
 
Save
Like Like
#25 ·
And the 'Punk - Pizza Delivery' comparison is really getting old. I've never ordered a pizza and been greeted by someone who has held the WWE Title for a year.
 
Save
Like Like
#27 ·
Catalanotto said:
It's funny because the same people who shit on Punk for being a smaller guy are the same ones who will get a massive boner for HBK and call him a legend (which is is, just making a point here).

Even in Shawn's younger days, there wasn't that much of a difference between his size and Punk's now. Punk haters just need to shut the fuck up. Neither of them were, or ever will be, ripped to shreds. That doesn't mean either is out of shape.
Click to expand...

Michaels back around Wrestlemania 14 was to be honest.
 
#28 ·
Billion Dollar Man said:
Exactly. Hornswoggle for WWE champion sounds good to me.
Click to expand...
That's not the point, nor is it even close to my point. Size becomes nullified when the story or character is believable enough. Is there any match that HBK ever won where you thought he was too small to be believed as the winner? For me the answer is "no" because he backed up everything he did in the ring, he made his opponent look a million bucks and made himself look even better.

Was it unbelievable when CM Punk beat John Cena at Money in the Bank? For me the answer is "no" and the same could be said for anytime they've faced each other. That is why these guys are considered elite in-ring athletes because they can make their size not be a factor, in fact they use it to their advantage. It doesn't hurt that they also happen to be good enough on the mic that they can put themselves over even further.
 
Save
Like Like
#29 ·
Little Mac said:
And the 'Punk - Pizza Delivery' comparison is really getting old. I've never ordered a pizza and been greeted by someone who has held the WWE Title for a year.
Click to expand...
It's referring to what he LOOKS like, not, obviously, what he has accomplished.

And I agree with some posters, Michaels looked like a star in the mid 90s (and 2000s too), and Punk quite frankly looks like a dosser with a 16 year olds build who's trying to get in shape and all he does is eat a lot of protein.
 
#30 ·
It's okay, BDM just gets turned on by body builder type men...or men that are oiled up.

In all seriousness though, there's nothing wrong with HBK's size or look.
 
Save
Like Like
#32 ·
I don't really understand this whole size nonsense.

HBK, imo, looks a lot smaller than Benoit and Guerrero did and Austin looks to be about the same size as them...

Someone please explain to me how Benoit/Guerrero are classified as vanilla midgets and Austin/HBK aren't.
 
#33 ·
#Mark said:
HBK, imo, looks a lot smaller than Benoit and Guerrero did and Austin looks to be about the same size as them...
Click to expand...
Off topic. Austin and Michaels are several inches taller than Benoit and Eddie. It's not even close. And Austin is a inch or 2 taller than Michaels and would have NEVER wrestled as a cruiser weight no matter what his character was.
 
#34 ·
#Mark said:
I don't really understand this whole size nonsense.

HBK, imo, looks a lot smaller than Benoit and Guerrero did and Austin looks to be about the same size as them...

Someone please explain to me how Benoit/Guerrero are classified as vanilla midgets and Austin/HBK aren't.
Click to expand...
Well Eddie was 5'7, Benoit 5'8, but built like trucks (well Eddie in his later years) so they can get by from that, as most "vanilla midgets" were their size but with little to no muscle in proportion to the norm.

Michaels and Austin were both over 6 foot, notably taller then Eddie/Benoit, with good muscular builds in their prime, hardly "vanilla midgets". The perfect fit for a "vanilla midget", based on height and build would be Dean Malenko. In my opinion.
 
#36 ·
Billion Dollar Man said:
Excusez moi for wanting his wrestling entertainment to look believable.
Click to expand...
It's scripted ffs :lol.

We're past the point where you have to be a 6ft 5in minimum jacked up monster to be entertaining to masses or a draw. The whole notion of looking believable is nonsense when the general public knows its not a shoot fight.

You want any further proof you only have to look at Austin. Top 3 minimum draw yet he was 6'2. Hardly a giant, nor was he jacked up. Sure you can say "Well Austin looked believable, Punk's a bum hurr durr" but the point still stands. Question is about being undersized and we past the extremely stupid notion of look and size over everything else that you advocate a long time ago.
 
Save
Like Like
#38 ·
I love how the post which was supposed to show Punk as = HBK was a very early in match HBK when he still had a kind of puppyfat look in comparison to a clearly photoshopped promotional image of Punk.

HBK always looked like an athlete until his career finished, in his prime (mid 90's) a well conditioned and strong athlete.
Punk never has.
 
Save
Like Like
#39 ·
And of course, the Punk wars overtake yet another thread that has literally nothing to do with him. fpalm

#Mark said:
I don't really understand this whole size nonsense.

HBK, imo, looks a lot smaller than Benoit and Guerrero did and Austin looks to be about the same size as them...

Someone please explain to me how Benoit/Guerrero are classified as vanilla midgets and Austin/HBK aren't.
Click to expand...
Well, in terms of height, Benoit is shorter than Austin and about the same as Shawn, while Guerrero is noticeably shorter than all three. Ironically though, Benoit and Eddie were both fairly massive during their world title reigns.
 
Save
Like Like
#40 ·
Pauly3 said:
He was one of the best WWE champions. He's listed as 6'1 but we know he's less than that. Him and Bret Hart feuded a lot and im pretty sure bret is 5'11.5 as well? Theres a site called celebheights that they talk about heights and bret is listed at 6'0 and hbk is 5'11.5.

You have those other WWE champions like Undertaker, HHH, The Rock etc and all of them are at least 6'2. Stone Cold is 6'1 and obviously wasn't a short guy unless he was fighting Kane or Undertaker.

The WCW champions were pretty big in height. Guys like Luger, Nash, Hogan etc.

Do you guys consider HBK to be undersized? Back then when i watched him, he was known as the heart break kid. However back then i never considered him to be short. Now that i look at it, would you say he's pretty undersized for a WWE champion? Thing is he doesn't look that much taller than Chris Jericho.
Click to expand...
They finaly worked out that Bret is 5'11 and Shawn is 5'10. Both are about 20 pounds lighter as well on average. That makes them quite a bit smaller than the 6'1 and 230 pound billed heights which is moch more attainable at say 200-210. Austin is bang on 6 Feet but had about 20 more pounds on his frame. Not a fan of the bullshit heights and weights as it discourages younger possible talent from getting in the ring. By todays standards that is now a normal sized professional wrestler with quite a few being under those figures. Jericho is a laugh claiming 6 feet tall, I met him in europe and he was no more than 5'8-5'9 tops. Nice guy mind you.
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
40 Replies
27 Participants
Last post:
Deathrowe
Wrestling Forum
posts
24M
members
272K
Since
2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General WWE RAW Future & Past WWE PPV TNA Wrestling General AEW