Even a younger guy at that time like Chris Jericho had issues with it. He wrote in one of his books how he was uncomfortable with a lot of the WWE content at the time and wanted to make sure he wouldn't have to do any of that stuff before he jumped from WCW to WWF. He specifically made note about how he was watching a match where the finish was the Big Boss Man hit Meat's boner with his nightstick, and how he wanted no part of stuff like that.
Did Bret Hart bring the Screwjob situation on himself?
- Thread starter TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
- Start date
Even a younger guy at that time like Chris Jericho had issues with it. He wrote in one of his books how he was uncomfortable with a lot of the WWE content at the time and wanted to make sure he wouldn't have to do any of that stuff before he jumped from WCW to WWF. He specifically made note about how he was watching a match where the finish was the Big Boss Man hit Meat's boner with his nightstick, and how he wanted no part of stuff like that.
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
@person I am clearly talking to as I quoted your post above: OK, lots of people are difficult, doesn't mean you have to deceive them.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. It was already decided he would leave before the Screwjob.
I'm not sure why any of this means he had to be lied to. There were plenty of other options. Again, I don't feel that bad for Bret because it is just stupid professional wrestling gossip and it has helped him stay relevant well beyond his useful wrestling life, but he is the victim ultimately in all this.
Makaveli31
Championship Contender
I'm not too sure about that one. What made the "Attitude Era" was it's realism. It was a soap opera with intriguing characters like Stone Cold, Rock, 'Taker, Making etc....but they were real, believable characters. Warrior was a real-life comic book. His persona would fit in with other larger-than-life comic-book type characters rather than the drama-fueled Attitude Era-characters. I'll be honest I could not take Warrior seriously in the Attitude Era if he cut promos like he did in the early 90's and it he parodied himself as a backstage primadonna it would only look worse. There is nothing worse than a self-absorbed, bitchy, whiny, 290 pound bodybuilder it would bring nothing to the storyline. Rock pulled it off perfectly because he had wit and was charismatic, Warrior did not posses those traits in a heel-type character. He had to be the "good guy."
HBKperfect23
Championship Contender
Everyone involved had some wrong doing in the Montreal screwjob.
Shawn Michaels was hard to get along with, caused problems with Bret, and made himself someone Bret didn't particularly want to put over in his last match. Vince McMahon broke his contract with Bret. He should have gone with his gut instinct and never signed it to begin with. Earl Hebner swore on his kids he wouldn't let anything happen and went back on his word, which we can all agree is a pretty shitty thing to do.
That being said, Bret brought Montreal on himself. At the end of the day, you do what your boss wants to be done weather you like it or not. I truly believe the reason behind Bret not wanting to drop the title had EVERYTHING to do with him wanting to leave as an undefeated champion who forfeited the belt and gave his goodbye speech. I can even understand how he believes he deserved that.....Bret worked hard for that company. Unfortunately that's not how it works. Numerous people involved with the booking confirmed they gave Bret numerous scenarios to drop the belt and he just wouldn't listen to any of them. They even suggested him dropping the belt to Austin the night before at a house show.
Vince's hand was forced. Shawn did what he was told. Earl was told before he went out there and panicked. They all played their part but at the end of the day Bret did bring this on himself.
Shawn Michaels was hard to get along with, caused problems with Bret, and made himself someone Bret didn't particularly want to put over in his last match. Vince McMahon broke his contract with Bret. He should have gone with his gut instinct and never signed it to begin with. Earl Hebner swore on his kids he wouldn't let anything happen and went back on his word, which we can all agree is a pretty shitty thing to do.
That being said, Bret brought Montreal on himself. At the end of the day, you do what your boss wants to be done weather you like it or not. I truly believe the reason behind Bret not wanting to drop the title had EVERYTHING to do with him wanting to leave as an undefeated champion who forfeited the belt and gave his goodbye speech. I can even understand how he believes he deserved that.....Bret worked hard for that company. Unfortunately that's not how it works. Numerous people involved with the booking confirmed they gave Bret numerous scenarios to drop the belt and he just wouldn't listen to any of them. They even suggested him dropping the belt to Austin the night before at a house show.
Vince's hand was forced. Shawn did what he was told. Earl was told before he went out there and panicked. They all played their part but at the end of the day Bret did bring this on himself.
TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
Pre-Show Stalwart
@Makaveli31: And as for Ric Flair, he was in a car outside the arena (hosting the WWF Unforgiven 1998 PPV) talking with his lawyers, trying to find a loophole in his WCW contract that would allow him to jump ship because of his war against Bischoff. Had he found one, he would've entered the arena, meet up with Vince and try to be featured on that night's show.
Back to Warrior, I think I have to agree with you about his mic skills not quite matching with Austin's or Rock's, even D-Generation X would have trounced Warrior on promos, especially with Triple H.
Makaveli31
Championship Contender
Yes Jim Cornette tells that story. Those WCW contracts are iron-clad. Even if you just appear on the opposing company's TV show you are in breach of contract and it would cost the wrestler thousands (if not millions in the case of Hall and Nash). It's also the reason Hall and Nash could not meet up with DX outside the Norfolk Scope on RAW.
Bret Hart signed a 20-year deal in 1996 - not a $20 million deal. That the OP misses so badly on this very basic, easily researched fact hurts the overall credibility of his opinion. This wouldn't be such a big deal, but 40% of the OPs post centers around his dislike for how Bret Hart handled his contract situation in 1997. If the contract details are what's driving his opinion, and he has incorrect information regarding the contract, then his opinion is completely misguided.
The facts of Hart's contract are simple. Hart was a free agent in the summer of 1996. WCW wanted to sign him. Eric Bischoff offered him a 3-year / $9 million deal to jump ship. McMahon couldn't match the deal, but Hart wanted to stay and McMahon was desperate not to lose another star to WCW (he'd just lost Hall and Nash a few months earlier.) So the two came up with a creative deal that would pay Hart for 20 years - most of which included non-wrestling related roles. Hart signed that contract in October 1996.
Fast forward 11 months, and McMahon was getting crushed by WCW. There were reports that the WWF was in such bad shape that they couldn't even keep the gatorade coolers filled - though that's obviously just a metaphor. At this point, McMahon informed Hart that he had two options. 1) Hart could stay and not be paid since McMahon was going to default on the contract. 2) Hart could try to get WCW to re-offer the 3-years / $9 million contract that had been presented in the summer of 1996.
What I find astonishing, though, is that in the original post, the poster seemingly finds fault in Hart for merely wanting his employer to pay him money that he contractually agreed to pay him. There's a certain level of bias that shows when someone implies such things. He claims that Hart might've used WCW as leverage to get more money from McMahon in 1997, and writes off the entire situation as McMahon not wanting to play ball this time. He makes these claims without any shred of evidence other than to mention that Hart had twice used WCW to leverage more money from the WWF when he was a free agent. He doesn't mention that last part - that Hart was a free agent when he used WCW to leverage more money from the WWF. There is a huge difference between Hart leveraging a WCW deal into a larger WWF deal as a free agent versus doing so while he's under contract. One is the normal order of business. The other is considered extortion. One is legal. The other is not. That he cites instances of Hart going about normal business practices to draw a conclusion that Hart was tryign to extort McMahon in 1997 is just ludicrous.
But what really gets me is that the OP even goes so far as to question whether or not the 20-year deal existed. It did. It's documented. Why he would even question the veracity of an easily verifiable fact is beyond me. Again, Hart signed a 20-year deal in 1996. In 1997, McMahon informed Hart that he wouldn't honor the deal. Since when are these facts in question? I wish he'd point out the amateur blog he read that is 'reporting' such ridiculous statements. This idea that Hart overvalued himself in 1997 is dumb. Hart didn't have to place any value on himself in 1997 because he was already signed to a 20-year deal. That's a reality. These negotiations the OP suggests occurred in 1997? They never happened. Seriously, it's one thing for the OP to jump to ridiculous conclusions about Bret Hart extorting the WWF, but it's a completely other thing for him to commend Vince McMahon for having his head on straight during a negotiation that never took place!
The problem in this situation wasn't Bret Hart. It wasn't his contract. It was Vince McMahon having buyers remorse. Hart was never a real draw - few wrestlers actually are - and the WWF was moving to an edgier product that didn't necessarily fit Hart's character. McMahon wanted out of the deal in the fall of 1997 - not because he needed out of the deal - but because he couldn't justify paying all that money to someone that was no longer going to be the focal point of his product. That, mind you, is the commitment that Hart wanted in 1997. He didn't want to discuss money because he knew McMahon wasn't making the threat over money. Additionally, Hart knew that no matter what happened, he was going to get paid. Whether that meant going to WCW, getting paid late by the WWF, or it meant going to court with Vince McMahon, he was going to get paid. All he cared about was the direction of his character. He wanted to make sure the WWF wasn't going to relegate him to midcard work - or worse, keep him off the card completely with the hopes that he'd quit. If he could've gotten that commitment, he likely would have stayed. But McMahon didn't give him that commitment, and so he left.
Why do I feel that this wasn't about money for McMahon? Well, it's an opinion. But it's an opinion that many people share. If the WWF was having such money issues in late 1997, then it probably wasn't wise to give Mike Tyson $1 million for four appearances, especially given that Hart was in a prime position to sue the shit out of the company for breach of contract during this same time. Let's keep score on that. The WWF left themselves vulnerable to a potentially huge lawsuit with Hart, all the while agreeing to pay Mike Tyson an exhorbitant amount of money for a small number of dates - and they did this all at a time when they thought the company could go bankrupt? Come on... Really? I know Vince McMahon has some balls, but even his balls aren't that big.
But I digress. It's irrelevant why McMahon wanted to default on Hart's contract or how Hart responded to McMahon's decision to default. The only relevant aspect to that is that it was McMahon's decision to make that threat to Hart. It was McMahon's decision to reneg on the deal. And it was his decision to tell Hart to re-open negotations with WCW. None of this blame falls anywhere near Bret Hart. So all this talk about Shawn Michaels being younger or Steve Austin being more marketable - it's irrelevant. All this talk about Hart 'over-valuing' himself in 1997 means nothing. The fact is that Bret didn't demand anything in 1997. He had a contract. There were no negotiations in 1997. That the OP continually misses this point is absurd. Hart signed in 1996. This is easily verified. It is quite clear that the OPs negative opinion of Bret Hart is almost entirely based around ficticious events created by the OP to help him make sense of a $20 million contract the never actually existed. For real, Hart's decision to leave the WWF was not dubious. It was very basic. Company A told Employee A that they couldn't pay him. Employee A asked Company B if they could pay him. Company B agreed to pay him. Employee A joined Company B. What the fuck is dubious about that?
For the record, I have seen Wrestling With Shadows. I've also read Hart's book. That book does not give a 'clear indiciation' as to why he refused to job to Shawn Michaels in Canada. Hart gives several moments of his feud with Michaels, each of which played a role into an awful working relationship that led to Survivor Series 1997. Yes, there were moments between The Rockers and The Hart Foundation, most notably the instance where The Rockers won the titles on SNME only to have it reversed due to the turnbuckle breaking. You can lay blame on Hart for that one, but in reality, the decision was made because Neidhart stuck around. There's really nothing more to that decision. The company felt the Hart Foundation were more deserving of the titles than the Rockers, and they only gave it to the Rockers because they thought Neidhart was leaving. When he stayed, they reversed course. Even still, that didn't deteriorate their relationship.
Hell, they remained friends after a minor backstage scuffle around this same time, too. They remained friends through their feud in 1992 while Hart was the IC Champion and Michaels was losing to him on a nightly basis. They remained friends after Michaels stole the ladder match idea from Hart in 1994. How do I know this? Well, because the members of the Kliq have always said they wanted Hart in their group. Why would they want Hart in their group if he and Michaels hated each other? They wouldn't. It doesn't make sense.
The fact is that these two were fairly close during their time going up the ladder. Both were jealous of the other at times. Michaels was jealous that Hart got a quick singles push in 1991, and that's why he broke up the Rockers. Hart was jealous that Michaels was getting so much attention during Hart's initial title run in 1993. Michaels was jealous that Hart got the title first. Hart was jealous that Michaels' first title win was promoted significantly better than his was. That stuff is normal. The wrestling industry breeds jealousy because most of the success is based on the subjective opinion of one person - Vince McMahon. They all think they're better than the other guy, and they all get jealous when McMahon gives attention to someone else.
Even still, the feud that errupted between the two wasn't based on jealousy. It was based on having different ideas of what the wrestling industry should be. These ideas likely weren't brought up much as the two climbed the WWE ladder together. They didn't have enough of a voice in the locker room to envoke any of their ideas, and so both likely kept their mouths shut. But as both went higher up the card, as more established talent left the company, the locker room was eventually being led by Hart and Michaels. And that's when their difference of opinion started to take root. Hart, the son of a wrestling promoter, was big on tradition. He didn't politic. He left the decisions in the hands of the promoter. These are reasons Hart didn't join the Kliq in the first place. Michaels, on the other hand, wanted the wrestlers to have more power. He started the Kliq to ensure he and his buddies all received higher payouts, higher salaries, and that they received or maintained top spots on the card. Can the OP see how these differences might make people start to dislike one another? Can he see how someone who keeps his mouth shut might get annoyed by someone who can't keep it closed? Or how tensions might flare up due to one person using his friendships to leverage his way into someone else's spot?
That's the genesis of what happened in November 1997. But when did it start to boil over? Some say that it started to get bad at WrestleMania 12. It's reported that upon winning the belt, Michaels told Hart to get the fuck out of his ring. Some dispute that story. I tend to think the issue really started in February 1997 when Michaels bailed on a WrestleMania 13 rematch with Hart (where he'd have likely lost) in order to have knee surgery. Hart was upset about this because he thought Michaels faked the whole thing (Michaels did jump off the ropes during his 'lost smile' promo), and Michaels was upset that Hart kept saying publicly that Michaels was faking the injury. When Michaels returned, both hated each other. From that point on, the two couldn't be near one another. But it was during Michaels' 'Sunny Days' shoot promo that things got out of hand between the two. Michaels defends the promo, saying that he and Hart agreed to bring up real life in their promos. Hart was pissed because his kids started asking him if he was having an affair with Sunny.
I wonder if the OP is starting to see why Hart didn't want to drop the title to Michaels? In Michaels you have a guy that bailed on the first rematch (the one he was likely booked to lose) and then made comments on live television that negatively affected Hart's family. And this isn't even mentioning that Michaels blew his nose on the Canadian flag and dry humped it. It's also not mentioning that Hart initially agreed to lose the match to Michaels until Michaels told him: "Just know I wouldn't do the same for you." Fuck, at that point, why would he drop the title to him? He had creative control not to do so. Could he book the finish of the match? Debatable. But what isn't debatable is that he could've refused to wrestle in the match. But he chose to do so once he was given assurance of how the match would play out.
You call that giving an FU to the boys? Funny, none of the wrestlers outside Triple H felt that way. The rest of the locker room nearly revolted, agreeing to stay only because they were under contract. McMahon nearly lost the entire locker room over the incident. Rick Rude legitimately quit the company that night. Mick Foley refused to work the next night. Hell, there's a reason that Michaels was told not to admit any part in the MSJ for 15 years. It was because McMahon didn't want him to take the heat. If it was Hart that gave a massive FU to the boys, as you suggest, then why was McMahon worried about Michaels taking heat? If the wrestlers sided with Michaels on the issue, then why did The Undertaker threaten to kick his ass if he didn't work WrestleMania 14 and drop the belt to Austin? It's because the wrestlers sided with Hart, and they lost all trust in Michaels and McMahon.
So in answer to the OPs post, no. Hart was not to blame for MSJ. He had some blame in his rivalry with Michaels - both men did. But he did nothing wrong on his way out. Leaving was not his decision. How he left was not his decision. The aspect of control that was contractually given to him was stripped from him by the company. And he never threatened to leave the company with the title. He agreed to lose it the next night.
The facts of Hart's contract are simple. Hart was a free agent in the summer of 1996. WCW wanted to sign him. Eric Bischoff offered him a 3-year / $9 million deal to jump ship. McMahon couldn't match the deal, but Hart wanted to stay and McMahon was desperate not to lose another star to WCW (he'd just lost Hall and Nash a few months earlier.) So the two came up with a creative deal that would pay Hart for 20 years - most of which included non-wrestling related roles. Hart signed that contract in October 1996.
Fast forward 11 months, and McMahon was getting crushed by WCW. There were reports that the WWF was in such bad shape that they couldn't even keep the gatorade coolers filled - though that's obviously just a metaphor. At this point, McMahon informed Hart that he had two options. 1) Hart could stay and not be paid since McMahon was going to default on the contract. 2) Hart could try to get WCW to re-offer the 3-years / $9 million contract that had been presented in the summer of 1996.
What I find astonishing, though, is that in the original post, the poster seemingly finds fault in Hart for merely wanting his employer to pay him money that he contractually agreed to pay him. There's a certain level of bias that shows when someone implies such things. He claims that Hart might've used WCW as leverage to get more money from McMahon in 1997, and writes off the entire situation as McMahon not wanting to play ball this time. He makes these claims without any shred of evidence other than to mention that Hart had twice used WCW to leverage more money from the WWF when he was a free agent. He doesn't mention that last part - that Hart was a free agent when he used WCW to leverage more money from the WWF. There is a huge difference between Hart leveraging a WCW deal into a larger WWF deal as a free agent versus doing so while he's under contract. One is the normal order of business. The other is considered extortion. One is legal. The other is not. That he cites instances of Hart going about normal business practices to draw a conclusion that Hart was tryign to extort McMahon in 1997 is just ludicrous.
But what really gets me is that the OP even goes so far as to question whether or not the 20-year deal existed. It did. It's documented. Why he would even question the veracity of an easily verifiable fact is beyond me. Again, Hart signed a 20-year deal in 1996. In 1997, McMahon informed Hart that he wouldn't honor the deal. Since when are these facts in question? I wish he'd point out the amateur blog he read that is 'reporting' such ridiculous statements. This idea that Hart overvalued himself in 1997 is dumb. Hart didn't have to place any value on himself in 1997 because he was already signed to a 20-year deal. That's a reality. These negotiations the OP suggests occurred in 1997? They never happened. Seriously, it's one thing for the OP to jump to ridiculous conclusions about Bret Hart extorting the WWF, but it's a completely other thing for him to commend Vince McMahon for having his head on straight during a negotiation that never took place!
The problem in this situation wasn't Bret Hart. It wasn't his contract. It was Vince McMahon having buyers remorse. Hart was never a real draw - few wrestlers actually are - and the WWF was moving to an edgier product that didn't necessarily fit Hart's character. McMahon wanted out of the deal in the fall of 1997 - not because he needed out of the deal - but because he couldn't justify paying all that money to someone that was no longer going to be the focal point of his product. That, mind you, is the commitment that Hart wanted in 1997. He didn't want to discuss money because he knew McMahon wasn't making the threat over money. Additionally, Hart knew that no matter what happened, he was going to get paid. Whether that meant going to WCW, getting paid late by the WWF, or it meant going to court with Vince McMahon, he was going to get paid. All he cared about was the direction of his character. He wanted to make sure the WWF wasn't going to relegate him to midcard work - or worse, keep him off the card completely with the hopes that he'd quit. If he could've gotten that commitment, he likely would have stayed. But McMahon didn't give him that commitment, and so he left.
Why do I feel that this wasn't about money for McMahon? Well, it's an opinion. But it's an opinion that many people share. If the WWF was having such money issues in late 1997, then it probably wasn't wise to give Mike Tyson $1 million for four appearances, especially given that Hart was in a prime position to sue the shit out of the company for breach of contract during this same time. Let's keep score on that. The WWF left themselves vulnerable to a potentially huge lawsuit with Hart, all the while agreeing to pay Mike Tyson an exhorbitant amount of money for a small number of dates - and they did this all at a time when they thought the company could go bankrupt? Come on... Really? I know Vince McMahon has some balls, but even his balls aren't that big.
But I digress. It's irrelevant why McMahon wanted to default on Hart's contract or how Hart responded to McMahon's decision to default. The only relevant aspect to that is that it was McMahon's decision to make that threat to Hart. It was McMahon's decision to reneg on the deal. And it was his decision to tell Hart to re-open negotations with WCW. None of this blame falls anywhere near Bret Hart. So all this talk about Shawn Michaels being younger or Steve Austin being more marketable - it's irrelevant. All this talk about Hart 'over-valuing' himself in 1997 means nothing. The fact is that Bret didn't demand anything in 1997. He had a contract. There were no negotiations in 1997. That the OP continually misses this point is absurd. Hart signed in 1996. This is easily verified. It is quite clear that the OPs negative opinion of Bret Hart is almost entirely based around ficticious events created by the OP to help him make sense of a $20 million contract the never actually existed. For real, Hart's decision to leave the WWF was not dubious. It was very basic. Company A told Employee A that they couldn't pay him. Employee A asked Company B if they could pay him. Company B agreed to pay him. Employee A joined Company B. What the fuck is dubious about that?
For the record, I have seen Wrestling With Shadows. I've also read Hart's book. That book does not give a 'clear indiciation' as to why he refused to job to Shawn Michaels in Canada. Hart gives several moments of his feud with Michaels, each of which played a role into an awful working relationship that led to Survivor Series 1997. Yes, there were moments between The Rockers and The Hart Foundation, most notably the instance where The Rockers won the titles on SNME only to have it reversed due to the turnbuckle breaking. You can lay blame on Hart for that one, but in reality, the decision was made because Neidhart stuck around. There's really nothing more to that decision. The company felt the Hart Foundation were more deserving of the titles than the Rockers, and they only gave it to the Rockers because they thought Neidhart was leaving. When he stayed, they reversed course. Even still, that didn't deteriorate their relationship.
Hell, they remained friends after a minor backstage scuffle around this same time, too. They remained friends through their feud in 1992 while Hart was the IC Champion and Michaels was losing to him on a nightly basis. They remained friends after Michaels stole the ladder match idea from Hart in 1994. How do I know this? Well, because the members of the Kliq have always said they wanted Hart in their group. Why would they want Hart in their group if he and Michaels hated each other? They wouldn't. It doesn't make sense.
The fact is that these two were fairly close during their time going up the ladder. Both were jealous of the other at times. Michaels was jealous that Hart got a quick singles push in 1991, and that's why he broke up the Rockers. Hart was jealous that Michaels was getting so much attention during Hart's initial title run in 1993. Michaels was jealous that Hart got the title first. Hart was jealous that Michaels' first title win was promoted significantly better than his was. That stuff is normal. The wrestling industry breeds jealousy because most of the success is based on the subjective opinion of one person - Vince McMahon. They all think they're better than the other guy, and they all get jealous when McMahon gives attention to someone else.
Even still, the feud that errupted between the two wasn't based on jealousy. It was based on having different ideas of what the wrestling industry should be. These ideas likely weren't brought up much as the two climbed the WWE ladder together. They didn't have enough of a voice in the locker room to envoke any of their ideas, and so both likely kept their mouths shut. But as both went higher up the card, as more established talent left the company, the locker room was eventually being led by Hart and Michaels. And that's when their difference of opinion started to take root. Hart, the son of a wrestling promoter, was big on tradition. He didn't politic. He left the decisions in the hands of the promoter. These are reasons Hart didn't join the Kliq in the first place. Michaels, on the other hand, wanted the wrestlers to have more power. He started the Kliq to ensure he and his buddies all received higher payouts, higher salaries, and that they received or maintained top spots on the card. Can the OP see how these differences might make people start to dislike one another? Can he see how someone who keeps his mouth shut might get annoyed by someone who can't keep it closed? Or how tensions might flare up due to one person using his friendships to leverage his way into someone else's spot?
That's the genesis of what happened in November 1997. But when did it start to boil over? Some say that it started to get bad at WrestleMania 12. It's reported that upon winning the belt, Michaels told Hart to get the fuck out of his ring. Some dispute that story. I tend to think the issue really started in February 1997 when Michaels bailed on a WrestleMania 13 rematch with Hart (where he'd have likely lost) in order to have knee surgery. Hart was upset about this because he thought Michaels faked the whole thing (Michaels did jump off the ropes during his 'lost smile' promo), and Michaels was upset that Hart kept saying publicly that Michaels was faking the injury. When Michaels returned, both hated each other. From that point on, the two couldn't be near one another. But it was during Michaels' 'Sunny Days' shoot promo that things got out of hand between the two. Michaels defends the promo, saying that he and Hart agreed to bring up real life in their promos. Hart was pissed because his kids started asking him if he was having an affair with Sunny.
I wonder if the OP is starting to see why Hart didn't want to drop the title to Michaels? In Michaels you have a guy that bailed on the first rematch (the one he was likely booked to lose) and then made comments on live television that negatively affected Hart's family. And this isn't even mentioning that Michaels blew his nose on the Canadian flag and dry humped it. It's also not mentioning that Hart initially agreed to lose the match to Michaels until Michaels told him: "Just know I wouldn't do the same for you." Fuck, at that point, why would he drop the title to him? He had creative control not to do so. Could he book the finish of the match? Debatable. But what isn't debatable is that he could've refused to wrestle in the match. But he chose to do so once he was given assurance of how the match would play out.
You call that giving an FU to the boys? Funny, none of the wrestlers outside Triple H felt that way. The rest of the locker room nearly revolted, agreeing to stay only because they were under contract. McMahon nearly lost the entire locker room over the incident. Rick Rude legitimately quit the company that night. Mick Foley refused to work the next night. Hell, there's a reason that Michaels was told not to admit any part in the MSJ for 15 years. It was because McMahon didn't want him to take the heat. If it was Hart that gave a massive FU to the boys, as you suggest, then why was McMahon worried about Michaels taking heat? If the wrestlers sided with Michaels on the issue, then why did The Undertaker threaten to kick his ass if he didn't work WrestleMania 14 and drop the belt to Austin? It's because the wrestlers sided with Hart, and they lost all trust in Michaels and McMahon.
So in answer to the OPs post, no. Hart was not to blame for MSJ. He had some blame in his rivalry with Michaels - both men did. But he did nothing wrong on his way out. Leaving was not his decision. How he left was not his decision. The aspect of control that was contractually given to him was stripped from him by the company. And he never threatened to leave the company with the title. He agreed to lose it the next night.
d_henderson1810
Mid-Card Championship Winner
1) Bret IS a hypocrite. It doesn't matter that it was only once. Once is one time too many.
Besides, Shawn did play politics many times. The difference was, he never denied it. Bret was all for saying how he respected the business, and how he did the right thing, and everyone did the wrong thing. He should have done the RIGHT thing and done the job that night in Montreal.
Also, it is a bit hypocritical for Bret to criticise Shawn's lifestyle when he presented himself as a happily married man, but was seeing groupies, and possibly Sunny, behind his wife's back. Bret had a habit of the pot calling the kettle black.
2) Earl Hebner had little choice but to call the decision, no matter what Bret wanted. Vince pays Earl's paycheck, and if he doesn't do what he is told, he could have been fired. He is a referee, and easily replaceable. Hebner had a family to feed, so his arms were tied.
3) You say that Bret could have refused to have shown up, but he wanted to do the right thing by the business. Well, if he wanted to do the right thing by the business, he should have "seen the lights" that night, and passed the torch to Shawn. The time-honored tradition of "going out on your back". Shawn was the future, Bret was the past.
Many past greats have gone out with a loss, and "passed the torch". Not Bret. He refused to do the job.
According to Bret, he wanted the match to end in a no-decision, and then he would hand over the belt the next night. So, he wanted the fans in attendance, and the people who bought the PPV, to waste their money on a main event with no decisive result. If you are paying money, you want a finish, not a non-finish because neither guy would do the job.
I bet if it was a different city, or a different opponent, Bret would still not drop the belt. He was just as selfish as Shawn was. The difference was that everyone knew Shawn's antics, whereas Bret tried to be a pious person, but the things he did backstage, and when he did business that night, exposed him for what he is.
Goldie
Getting Noticed By Management
Had Bret not been booked against Shawn at Survivor Series there would not have been a screwjob. Austin, Taker, Vader.... he was even willing to drop the title to Steve Lombardi... just not Shawn Michaels whom he hated with a passion at the time.
Bret has said that his refusal to put Shawn over came from a discussion with Shawn earlier in the year- after SHawn had screwed WM13 plans over by pulling out rather than lose his rematch to Bret.
Bret had said that he was willing to work with, and had no problem doing a job for him.... Shawn replied 'I appreciate that but I am not willing to do the same for you'.
After Shawn said he wouldn't job for Bret, Bret called his bluff and decided to do the same.
Bret has said that his refusal to put Shawn over came from a discussion with Shawn earlier in the year- after SHawn had screwed WM13 plans over by pulling out rather than lose his rematch to Bret.
Bret had said that he was willing to work with, and had no problem doing a job for him.... Shawn replied 'I appreciate that but I am not willing to do the same for you'.
After Shawn said he wouldn't job for Bret, Bret called his bluff and decided to do the same.
TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
Pre-Show Stalwart
@Goldie, you see: That's the issue with Bret Hart. The common theme with him is that he paints himself as a white-knight who claims to have done business the right way, when in reality, they don't actually reflect his actual actions, especially in Montreal, and especially about Shawn Michaels' lifestyle at the time.
Even if he was to lose the WWF Championship Belt to a guy like Sting in an American country aka the United States in Washington, D.C. ; Bret would still refuse to go out on his back and lose the WWF Championship Belt to Sting. It doesn't matter if Shawn Michaels is a badly behaved drug addict, this is about Bret Hart's self-righteousness and moral crusader hypocrisies, and him saying the "CLICHE RIGHT THINGS" duh!
Makaveli31
Championship Contender
Wrong. One isolated incident does not make you a hypocrite. The definition of hypocrite is one who ACTS in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs. Bret Hart had a pattern of doing whatever was asked of him. Putting Yoko over so Yoko could put Hogan over for the WWF title. Putting over Diesel. Bret Hart's actions are of one who respected the business. You could argue Bret acted negatively in this instance when asked to put Shawn over but we've already gone down this road.
Well, you have a point but Bret wasn't criticizing Shawn's personal lifestyle rather the character 'Shawn Michaels' not the person. He makes this clear in his DVD. He never attacked Shawn for his drug problem or being insecure and neurotic. Rather, he criticized Shawn Michaels (the character) for displaying sexual behavior in front of young children in the audience. Now you could argue Bret was out of line but he attempting to build heat for an angle betweem himself and Shawn. So your analogy for Bret's real life infidelity vs Shawn's behavior while on TV and in character is incorrect.
Yes, we all know Earl was not "in" on the screwjob and had no knowledge of it until he went to the ring that night. So we absolve Earl of any deceit on Earl's behalf. I was just pointing out why Bret could've felt he was protected in the match with Shawn with "Baby Earl" in his corner. People always ask "Why after 18 years in the business did Bret not see this coming from a mile away" and his answer has always been because of Earl but Bret has also forgiven Earl and absolved him of any wrongdoing.
Well according to Bret own words in his book and in interviews including the most recent face to face with Shawn, Bret offered to drop the belt multiple times before Survivor Series. In his book he says he even "offered to drop it to Lombardi at the Garden" so do you have any proof that Bret wanted to "hand over the belt the next night?" The DQ finish was Vince's idea to placate Bret knowing full well he was going to screw him over. The DQ was not Bret's idea. As far as a different city or different opponent we'll never know. I fully believe Bret wanted to leave Canada with his head high and with his hand raised. We'll never know the true story of what went on behind the scenes because only Vince and Bret were privy to those talks (Russo said he listened in on the phone conversations but he also said the "Screwjob" was his idea so I put no stock in what Russo says). Bret said he offered to drop it to anyone BUT Shawn Michaels for the remark Michaels said about "never putting him over" then you have Vince's side.
Makaveli31
Championship Contender
Besides this one incident, what "actions" (plural) are you speaking of? He put over Davey at Wembley in '92, he put over Yoko at WM 9 only to have Yoko job to Hogan in five seconds, he took a back seat to the Lex Express, He put over Diesel at Royal Rumble 1995, he put over Shawn at WM 12, but you say refuses to "go out on this back?"
TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
Pre-Show Stalwart
Bret even took some pot shots at Yokozuna (Rodney Anoa'i) for eating junk food (ie: chocolate bars, sweet lollies, burgers and fries) while the inspirator for the future Rikishi character was a member of Undertaker's Bone Street Krew clique. Bret also had the gall to say Yokozuna got a big head from being a World Champion. I know Yokozuna is an actual humble person, because he comes from a Samoan wrestling family led by Afa and Sika. The Anoa'i wrestling family, why would Yoko be less than graceful about being World Champion?
The Anoa'i wrestling family create the most charismatic wrestlers who are absolutely good on the mic, and the Hart family create the most technically sound wrestlers who are considered boring and bland, nothing but the workrate. The Anoa'i family have created Afa, Sika, Rock, Yokozuna, Rikishi/Fatu, Samu, Reigns, Umaga, Rosey, The Usos, Peter Maivia and Rocky Johnson, while The Hart family have created Bret, Owen, Bulldog, Neidhart, Diana, Ellie, Keith, Bruce, Ross, Teddy, Natalya and Tyson Kidd.
Makaveli31
Championship Contender
Again, these were opinions. We all know Yokozuna eventually ballooned to over 600 pounds and it ended not only his WWF career prematurely but his life prematurely as he dies of a congestive heart failure at the age of 34. His weight was around 580 at the time. Yokozuna had been de-pushed and eventually suspended by Vince due to his weight so Bret wasn't the only one worried about Yoko's weight. It doesn't matter is he is humble or not his out of control weight was a significant factor in his decline so no Bret was not out of line for criticizing Yoko over his weight.
As far as the "big head" thing that was a matter opinion not any actions Bret took. He thought Yoko got a big head as champion. So what? That was his opinion. He can't be criticized for having an opinion.
Makaveli31
Championship Contender
Well the Hart family didn't "create" Bulldog and Jim Niedhart LOL. I don't know were Diana and Ellie fit into the equation as they were only sisters and wives and Kieth, Bruce,and Ross were only brothers but Stu Hart and the "Dungeon" did create some of the most technically sound wrestler's of that era. A Hall Of Fame-caliber list. It's called the House of Hart. Certainly Bret and Owen top the list but you had Benoit, Jericho, Dynamite Kid, certainly Davey Boy Smith, Bad News Brown, Brian Pillman, Lance Storm, Jushin Liger, Tyson Kidd and DH Smith and they were certainly NOT boring and bland.
agentmichaelscarn
Old School
Didn't read through the responses the fact is that there is no way you can pin this on Bret. Should Bret have just dropped the title to Shawn? Yeah probably, but that's irrelevant, BRET HAD CREATIVE CONTROL IN HIS CONTRACT, that right there is all that matters. Vince was not only stupid enough to give him the title when he knew he was going to get rid of him, but also put that clause in his contract. So the bottom line is Bret had the contractual right to do what he did so it's not his fault.
Also Bret isn't the first person to refuse to do a job, it was ok for Hogan to refuse to lose to Bret on his way out, for Shawn to refuse to lose to Bret at Mania 13, for Nash to refuse to lose to Warrior on his way out, for HHH to refuse to lose to Booker at Mania 19 etc. etc. there have been countless instances where guys refused to do the honor and never have they been screwed and none of them had the contractual right like Bret did.
Also Bret isn't the first person to refuse to do a job, it was ok for Hogan to refuse to lose to Bret on his way out, for Shawn to refuse to lose to Bret at Mania 13, for Nash to refuse to lose to Warrior on his way out, for HHH to refuse to lose to Booker at Mania 19 etc. etc. there have been countless instances where guys refused to do the honor and never have they been screwed and none of them had the contractual right like Bret did.
TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
Pre-Show Stalwart
@agentmichaelscarn : Because Hogan, Hall, Nash, Sting, Flair, Savage, Austin, Rock, Warrior, HBK, HHH, DDP, Undertaker, Angle, Piper, Jake Roberts, Paul Wight, Sid, Jericho, Vader, Bagwell, Booker T, Luger, Jarrett, Hennig, Rude, Batista, Miz, Sheamus, Cena, Orton and Scott Steiner were all better than Bret Hart in terms of charisma and mic skills (which is what a WWF top guy should expect to have), so therefore, those guys all have the right to dictate who to lose to, and Bret definitely had NO right to refuse to lose to HBK, because the Hitman isn't good enough to even make those unreasonable demands. Those unreasonable demands should be made by the likes of Hogan, and I mean, those unreasonable demands should only be granted to Hogan, Hall, Nash, Flair, Sting, Savage, Austin, Rock, Warrior, HBK, HHH, DDP, Undertaker, Angle, Piper, Jake, Paul Wight, Sid, Jericho, Vader, Bagwell, Booker T, Luger, Jarrett, Hennig, Rude, Batista, Miz, Sheamus, Goldberg, Lesnar, Cena, Orton and Steiner.
You know what? The likes of Hogan, Hall, Nash, Sting, Flair, Savage, Austin, Rock, Warrior, HBK, HHH, DDP, Undertaker, Angle, Piper, Jake, Paul Wight, Sid, Jericho, Goldberg, Lesnar, Vader, Bagwell, Booker T, Luger, Hennig, Rude, Steiner, Batista and eventually Cena, Orton, Miz and Sheamus (will) have all had the opportunity to say no, and decide to refuse to lose their final match on their way out of the WWF, and unlike Bret, they all decided that losing their final match out on their backs is worth it, in order to put over the future and passing the torch. I included HHH because he hasn't been a full-time wrestler since 2012 when he still had the long hair and lost his final full-time match to Brock Lesnar.
Mind you, Bret Hart should remind you of two core members of The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. Those two are crybabies on an equal level with Bret.
Stone Cold Tea
Getting Noticed By Management
So Miz or Jarret or Big Show can refuse to do the job because they're a big enough star? I don't like Bret Hart but please stop talking shit. You're actually wasting space on the internet.
TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
Pre-Show Stalwart
@Rock Lesnar: Sometime in the year 2017, I am gonna plan on self-funding a special self-funded documentary called "The Hypocrite And Bret Hart" in six episodes, set to be later released on DVD.
Episodes 1 and 2 will concern his side of the story (although we will have just snippets of his version without interviewing him), episodes 3 and 4 will cover Diana and Ellie's account, episodes 5 and 6 will fill in the rest via Bret's mortal enemies in Shawn Michaels, Triple H, X-Pac, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Vince McMahon, Stephanie McMahon, Billy Gunn, Road Dogg and Eric Bischoff. They all have raised valid points and legit criticisms when it comes to Bret Hart and his hypocritical self-righteousness and moral crusader way of thinking.
Stone Cold Tea
Getting Noticed By Management
Please don't do that. Donate the money to a worthy cause.
TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
Pre-Show Stalwart
@CowSlayer : On the record, Jarrett and Warrior never held Vince up for money like Meltzer heads portray these situations as. Jarrett quietly wanted out of the WWF because Vince Russo was going to leave soon after, and Vince asked him to lose to Chyna....without a contract. So Jarrett gets another day to buy him more time to lose the WWF Intercontinental Championship Belt to her in a Housekeeping Match, and then he leaves for WCW soon afterwards.
Warrior was a bigger star, what do you expect?!? The Ultimate Warrior was upset that his WrestleMania VII (7) payoff with Randy Savage was so low compared to what Hulk Hogan made vs. Sgt Slaughter. Warrior wrote a diplomatic letter, nicely asking Vince to pay him the reasonable required amount he deserved for his work with Savage. Vince shot his request down, and painted Warrior as a monster who held Vince's head with a gun at gunpoint demanding more money. Vince suspended Warrior, and Warrior rightfully took it as an insult so he left the WWF after SummerSlam '91.
If Bret was in the same situation as Warrior, I would have no sympathy for him, since Bret was NOT in a position to make those unreasonable demands. Warrior was. And just for the record: Warrior actually negotiated peacefully and calmly with Vince, whereas Bret just couldn't even take his time to keep his mouth shut and head down about doing the job for Shawn Michaels without causing a public scene and throwing a magnum opus of his temper tantrums. I am so forever glad and forevermore grateful Vince McMahon never yielded to Bret's crybaby routine any longer.
TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP
Pre-Show Stalwart
@Rock Lesnar: Why do you not want me to do the "The Hypocrite And Bret Hart" expose documentary for? It would've shown the whole worldwide universe about what a hypocrite Bret truly is. As for 'worthy cause', what do you mean by saying I donate my self-funding money to a worthy cause you just talked about?
Stone Cold Tea
Getting Noticed By Management
You understand what a contract is right? If not google it.
Now you understand the concept of a contract......
Bret was in a position to not want to lose because he had creative control in his contract. A clause in a legally binding document. Stop saying he didn't.
If your basing it on your conception of his as a star then your wrong as he was the top guy. You may not of like him but a hell of a lot of people did.
Stone Cold Tea
Getting Noticed By Management
What do you even mean? Don't waste your money on a shit documentary. Give that money to a charity or a homeless person or pay your fucking taxes but don't make that documentary.
Similar threads
