Winter8905 Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 In terms of TEW a lot of the top end guys have higher SQ than Charisma. like 93sq to 87Charisma. I think HBK is the other way around. He'd be like 97 for charisma, he certainly has the swagger that carries him well like a star. but his SQ would be between 85-90. He still looked like a star but person would notice a Rock, Luger, Hogan or a Brock Lesnar before thery'd notice HBK was in the same room. The 86 SQ - 97Charisma would still enable him to be a figurehead and do it relatively well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oyaji Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Yeah, Shawn Michaels had GOOD star quality, but if he had elite Star Quality there would be no reason he wouldn't be as popular as Stone Cold or The Rock in reality. HBK was a complete package--Athletic, versatile, skilled, generous, intuitive, and charismatic. However, at around 6' tall and 225 pounds he simply doesn't exude the same kind of dominant arua that Heavyweights can generate. Look at Brock Lesnar: The guy has poor mic skills, decent at best ring skills, and needed to be protected early on with tons of power spots to hide his ring deficiencies. Despite all that, after a modest Monster Heel run the guy could pop like a mortar shell. Brock has that intangible look and poise that sold tickets. Shawn had a good look and aura but he could never sell seats like Hulk Hogan could no matter how well you wrote his storylines. HBK can figurehead a national company no doubt, but he wouldn't be able to compete with the truly great draws of history. He still had great Star Quality despite being on the smaller end of the spectrum , but it's a difficult deficit to overcome. Not to undo your post or derail the thread but... WHUT at the bolded part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan93 Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Whereas Bret Hart would struggle as a figurehead. I wouldn't rate him higher than a B in either SQ or charisma. Same deal as Shawn, he just wasn't the right guy, but he was an incredible talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Not to undo your post or derail the thread but... WHUT at the bolded part? I obviously can't speak for him, but I'm wondering if he meant how Shawn could make someone look like a million bucks with his selling, the Hogan match being an exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 What was prime Tommy Cornell in terms of star quality in the cverse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldStingberg Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 He'd be like 97 for charisma, he certainly has the swagger that carries him well like a star. but his SQ would be between 85-90. He still looked like a star but person would notice a Rock, Luger, Hogan or a Brock Lesnar before thery'd notice HBK was in the same room. I disagree about Luger (and Brock to a lesser extent). I think people would notice Luger before HBK when they walked into a room, but they'd end up watching HBK. There's a reason Adam described it as 'presence' in the game. It's not simply size and physique. That's certainly part of it, there's more than that. Luger was about as vanilla of a presence as possible. Sure, people noticed the ripped, muscular physique. But he never had the presence to get people to care to continue to watch him, and he was pushed to the moon multiple times. And I think that's where my disagreement on this comes from. If all star quality is is size and physique, I would buy in to more of the arguments here. But it's not just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldStingberg Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 What was prime Tommy Cornell in terms of star quality in the cverse Since he's only a toned middleweight, and TCW was never the number one promotion with him on top and constantly faced financial troubles, according to many of the arguments in this thread he should have had a B-C star quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bull Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Since he's only a toned middleweight, and TCW was never the number one promotion with him on top and constantly faced financial troubles, according to many of the arguments in this thread he should have had a B-C star quality. If you are strictly basing sizes on TEW standards Shawn Michaels would more likely be considered a Lightweight. . In my opinion anyway. Right around 6 feet tall and 220-230 pounds to me fits better calling him a lightweight. Strictly speaking on TEW size terms during the same time period, guys like Austin, The Rock, Triple H, so on so forth could be listed as Middleweights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan93 Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I obviously can't speak for him, but I'm wondering if he meant how Shawn could make someone look like a million bucks with his selling, the Hogan match being an exception. Easily one of the most entertaining matches I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Easily one of the most entertaining matches I've ever seen. It was definitely great to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 So does anyone know what Cornells star quality is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldStingberg Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 If you are strictly basing sizes on TEW standards Shawn Michaels would more likely be considered a Lightweight. . In my opinion anyway. Right around 6 feet tall and 220-230 pounds to me fits better calling him a lightweight. Strictly speaking on TEW size terms during the same time period, guys like Austin, The Rock, Triple H, so on so forth could be listed as Middleweights. The old help file listed the rough lower guideline of 230 lbs for middleweights. HBK was billed at 225. I can't imagine those five pounds would account for a letter grade or two worth of difference in star quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan James Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 It was definitely great to watch. ''The big boot, the impact!'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattywood Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 So does anyone know what Cornells star quality is? Currently? According to the in-game editor, 92. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bull Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 So does anyone know what Cornells star quality is? it's a 92/A The old help file listed the rough lower guideline of 230 lbs for middleweights. HBK was billed at 225. I can't imagine those five pounds would account for a letter grade or two worth of difference in star quality. True but again he was also a good 2 to 3 inches shorter than the vast majority of guys around him. It's not just weight but overall appearance is what I'm getting at. When you compare him to the guys around him he's not gonna have the same presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pogo92 Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I obviously can't speak for him, but I'm wondering if he meant how Shawn could make someone look like a million bucks with his selling, the Hogan match being an exception. Yeah, absolitely meant his ability to sell and put somebody over in the ring. Not his personal ethics or ease to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Nobody has ever said its exclusively about physique, but even if you want to go back to the Michaels thing, Austin was much more over by the time Shawn retired and he started being pushed as the ace 4 months after Bret left and then they lost Shawn as well, but for some reason they exploded in my popularity as a company. He only had a fraction of the ridiculous booking Michaels had to that point (it got worse as 98 went on, of course). When you consider how much more over Austin was and the drastic difference in business with how SQ effects these things in game, it's quite clear that Shawn was at least one level below Austin and probably more. Shawn wasn't a BAD figurehead, and he brought them up from the diesel reign where they were having shows in literal high school gyms, but it's measurable how much more SQ Austin had than Michaels and it had nothing to do with size. Austin had an innate ability to connect with more people, which is also a huge part of the equation and why Dusty Rhodes would have a high SQ score, also higher than Michaels. Nobody argues Flair's SQ and he was far from a big wrestler, he also had a lot more SQ than Shawn. There have been guys with inarguable SQ who flopped on top for various reasons, Sting was a massive failure in a business sense (in the early 90s) for instance but nobody questions him because he got another try with more favorable circumstances. People have a tendency to overstate Shawn Michaels because of 20 plus years of propaganda saying he's the best ever. In reality he was just really good but nowhere near the legitimate top tier of wrestlers as far as importance goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldStingberg Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 True but again he was also a good 2 to 3 inches shorter than the vast majority of guys around him. It's not just weight but overall appearance is what I'm getting at. When you compare him to the guys around him he's not gonna have the same presence. So The Rock would not have had nearly the same star quality had he been two inches shorter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I'm closing the thread since there's really only one person in disagreement and they are clearly not changing their mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.