He wasnt a good storyteller. He just had Superman matches with overbumping and comedy selling. It was no wonder NY stuck with Benoit over him at WM XX.I'm out on the Tana comparison.. I think Tana might be better
But Will Ospreay? nah. he's more athletic but that's where it stops. HBK, who I don't even really fukk with, was a damn good story teller in his day, Ospreay will probably never reach that level, he's impressive as an athlete but as a wrestler he's not superior
Michaels wasnt Benoit level. Bret level. Eddie level. Damn sure wasnt prime Rey level. He was a failure really who had matches that werent really watched all that much until Tyson and Austin's angle blew up. His WM 14 match is probably the most watched thing he ever did prior to his first 10 yrs there. If Shawn was so great in the ding, fans would worship him like they do Bret Hart when he comes around. But he barely gets pops and looks like an afterthought when that Taker going hits...sad.we talking who can do the most difficult moves or who was the most interesting when doing the moves they did? this isn't even just about shawn, but evaluating artforms in general.
more complicated doesn't necessarily = better.
i know 12 year olds that can play every riff jimi hendrix ever played, at twice the speed, but they ain't ever gonna be jimi.
Jumping Bomb Angels Royal Rumble match is better than 90 % of Shawn Michaels matches.there were some women in AJPW that were better than Michaels too