10 years on Montreal Screwjob

[The Dungeon]

Ric Flair did what he did because he was forced to pay a 25 grand security deposit that WCW didn't want to pay back. If he had simply blamed it on Jim Herd, I would agree with your point, Dungeon. Flair had a legitimate financial concern he had to take care of. No double standard involved, as the situations were quite different. Flair's issue with giving back the belt had to do with the money legitimately owed to him by WCW, not whether or not Herd was a douchebag. The financial issues involved with the Flair situation differentiate it from Harts in a major way. When I point out the differences between Flair and Hart, it has nothing to do with Jim Herd, and everything to do with twenty five thousand dollars. If the NWA didn't require the security deposit, and Flair had refused to return the belt just because Herd was a jerk, I would agree that Flair was wrong, that he should have manned up, just like I criticize Hart. However, by all indications, if WCW had paid back Flair the money, he had no problems returning the belt to them. Flair's only problem was not getting his money back. He wasn't trying to protect his earning potential, wasn't exercising creative control over his character by refusing to give it back or anything, he just wanted his money. Certainly understandable.

Please, this is the SAME guy, who brags about spending more on spilt liquour, than another wrestler's ring gear, he not only said that in his promos, he actually said that in reference to wrestler's he would put down in real interviews. Flair threw around his money like Scrooge McDuck. This was a power play against Herd, at least that's how I see it. They were in a contract dispute, and Flair to his credit, was at least trying to work it out. But this deposit was put down, how long ago? I mean, was this before he dropped it to Sting in 1990? The fact is according to Herd, (mind you I don't know how good HIS word neccesarily is, but I'm just using it for arguements sake), that he had asked Flair on numerous occasions, and I think one of the Steiner's brought this up once too, I think it was Rick, and I'm PRETTY sure Vader mentioned it, I'll have to look that one up, but Flair was asked time and time again, by Herd and other booker in WCW, to drop the belt. And I'm guessing that they woud've given him his deposit back once they dropped it. The point is, judging by the way Flair talks about this situation, I think it was merely out of pride and spite toward Jim Herd.

If Hart simply wanted his career back on track, why bitch about it for the next ten years? What failure Hart had in WCW had nothing to do with Montreal, and everything to do with WCW's complete lack of organization, an inability to market anyone that wasn't named Sting or Hollywood. "Anyway he wants to leave" is not the same as "anyway he wants to drop the belt". Hart apologists seem to think that Hart was entitled to the WWF belt, and conveniently forget that it was never his to lose. He was ALLOWED to carry it for a while, as a prop, but it was never "his". Because Flair had to pay twenty five thousand dollars to be able to wear the World Heavyweight title, he had a legit legal claim to it. Hart didn't.

I love how you all, love to criticize Bret's crying about it for 10 years, it's sooo easy for all of you to do it, but yet I bet if something like this happened to any of you, you'd piss and moan about it too.

I'm merely pointing out fact that WCW screwed everything up as a random viewpoint, that really doesen't tie in with what we're talking about, that's all!

And um, that is kind of what it means, I mean, why would Vince have put that in the contract, with Bret as his champion, if it didn't neccesitate the belt? I mean, Bret was the champion when he gave his notice, he had been for almost 3 months at that point. If Vince was so worried, he should've taken the belt of Bret sooner. Becaue it was clear back in September, he wanted Bret gone. Which makes me wonder, why he didn't have Bret drop it in England to The Undertaker, or anytime between than and Survivor Series. I think him and Shawn would've worked without the belt on the line, the feud they had was the hottest feud the WWF had going at that point. But, Vince was just so desperate to have his golden boy get the belt, he couldn't wait. Understandable that Vince still wanted Shawn to be a huge draw, which he had the undeniable potential to be, but if Vince was so worried about HIS belt, why did he let Bret still have it in the time where all this back and forth negotiations were going on, during the last part of September, and all of October. Vince knew the chances were 50/50! In my opinion, Vince trusted Bret, but got paranoid later on, because I think, certain people got in his ear.

So the question remains, why didn't Vince take back, what was "His". See, the Stanley Cup is just a trophy, much like the belt, and I know Hockey is a legit sport, but stick with me here. The similiarities are that, Bret takes pride in that championship like, teams take pride in a sporting trophy, and he wanted to add honor not only to the belt, but to himself as a champion.

Sure, Bret takes the business a little too seriously, but he was raised with an old school mentality on the business, and I can see exactly why he's so serious, about this business! Being a champion meant something to him, and he refused to be disgraced over it. So I can see why he didn't want to drop, that "Piece of Tin", to HBK in Canada.

Bret took the belt home, travelled with it, and Vince never once said, "Since you're leaving, I'm going to need MY belt, just for security". The belt may not have been owned by Bret, but it was his to keep, as a champion in the WWF, that's how it is. Otherwise, Vince would hang on to it, or another official would, between every big show.

And Flair didn't OWN the belt either, he merely had a security deposit down on it, hence why, he should've never gotten his money, until the belt was safely returned, the deposit is based on the security of the belt, if something were to happen to it!

His character was Bret 'the Hitman' Hart regardless of whether he had the belt or not. With or without the WWF title, his character was unaffected. Nor is losing the WWF title to Shawn Michaels the same as losing to Barry Horowitz or the Brooklyn Brawler.

And again...I love how people make it sound so simple.

This wasn't just about a belt for Bret! It as about protecting his character, Bret had been built up as weak, old, lame duck, a chump and washed up, that's how I saw him as being portrayed, in the months, leading up to the show, as well as the buildup to his heel turn a year later.

See us die hard fans on this board here, we can be analytical over the situation. But we're in the minority here. Esepcially in 1997, smart fans were in the minority. And casual fans think a little differently. I mean, I even noticed my little cousin recently, point out what a "Loser", his favourite wrestler, John Cena has become lately.

Bret was looking really weak going into this show, he felt losing would've made it worse, and judging by what's been happening with Cena lately, had he not got injured, and kept losing "The Big One", like he has most of the year, on the PPV's, than I believe, his power as a draw would've bene greatly affected.

So I can absoloutely see why Bret felt that way.

Claiming that losing to HBK, one of the greatest wrestlers in the history of business is damaging to someone's career is ridiculous.

Also, one of the all time great assholes in this business. Bret only felt losing to Shawn in that Montreal match, would be devistating. He didn't think losing it in a rematch would be all that bad.

Claiming losing to HBK caused his earning potential to decline, when he was leaving the company anyway is ridiculous. It was WCW's job to maintain Hart's earning potential the second he agreed to leave the WWF for WCW.

Can't drink out of the glass if it's already broken.

I think Bret also clearly saw Vince & Shawn's motives to destroy him and bury him, which leading up to this match, which again, I recently watched a lot of those Raw's on Youtube, and Bret was being built up so poorly, he would've looked like "just another legendary name" going to WCW.

And judging by the politics in the last couple years at that point, Bret's paranoia, really wasn't paranoia at all, IMO.

Claiming that losing in his home country would drastically affect his career in a negative way is ridiculous. Wrestlers not only lose in their home countries, but their hometowns all the time. Just because you are from somewhere doesn't guarantee that you have to win. Case in point:

12/29/03 Monday Night Raw, from San Antonio Texas.
Shawn had a title match against Triple H for the World Heavyweight Title. He got 'screwed' out of the belt too, this time by Eric Bischoff, and that was his hometown, not just his home country. Was his career diminished at all by losing in his hometown? I think not. Did his earning potential decrease? Not in the slightest. That argument from Hart apologists is utterly ridiculous.

Was Shawn considered washed up? No. Was he built up or portrayed that way? No. Was he built up as a chump leading up to it? No. Was Shawn the champion going into this match? No. Had Shawn been buried by Hunter and looked like an idiot going into this match? No. I noticed Hunter's promos were just a "little more careful", than his other one's towards other opponents.

Was this a big PPV match? No. Had Shawn beaten Hunter before in a big match? Yes, twice if I'm not mistaken. Was Shawn a full time wrestler? No.

Did Shawn save face? Yes. Did Hunter make sure Shawn was protected? Yes. Would Shawn had done the same for Bret? Doubt it.

Are Shawn & Hunter the best of friends and willing to anything to help each other out? Yes.

Were Shawn & Bret even friends at all? Not at that point.

Was Bret being portrayed as a lame duck champ? Yes.

As a matter of fact...lets find out what Bret was doing leading up to the show!

-A day after winning the belt at Summerslam, is thrust into this feud with the Patriot, who had a pinfal win over Bret to his credit, with Shawn's help, but was not a proven main eventer in any sense of the word.

-Shawn & 'Taker were the forefront, and while it would've been fine if Bret had a legit threat to feud with, the fact that he was feuding with a WWF newbie, and his match was secondary, made the matters worse. Not saying this is Shawn, or 'Taker's fault neccesarily, but again, it was also all in how Bret was booked.

-It looked as if a big title matc with Vader might've been on the horizon, but the Patriot was still involved in the matter, and after Bret got a devisive clean win on him, people stopped caring about this cheap heat character.

-His lame DQ win over 'Taker, was a classic battle, and largely forgotten, and only seen in the U.K and Canada.

-He and The Hart's looked like idiots, on two seperate occasions, when they didn't save the Bulldog at that same show, yet still managed to come out after it was over, and the damage had been done, and on an episode "Raw", a few weeks later, when they're chasing Shawn & Hunter, almost at random spots.

-A lame count-out loss, to Triple H, despite his association with Shawn, was not a proven main eventer yet.

-Booked in a horrible angle, being portrayed as a racist, as well as really obnoxious promos, by Shawn, portraying him as literally "nothing". Shawn never mocked 'Taker like that, probably because he KNEW better!

Again, variations of these angles, might've been fine without some of the others. But Bret's 3 months as champion, plus the feud with Shawn itself, just portrayed him as less than nothing. Whereas YOUR "point", leading up the "Raw" match in San Antonio, didn't work out that way.

Shawn was being portrayed as a top babyface getting big wins, in big situations, and getting screwed over and/or protected when he didn't triumph.

Bret was not being portrayed the way a top champion should be.

Nor is winning in your hometown or country a guarantee of success or increased earning potential. The rest of the pro-Canada faction, The British Bulldog, Jim Neidhart, Phil LaFon and Doug Furnas won their SS match in Montreal, the same night, did that positively increase any of their careers?

Umm? Huh? Ok, of course it did nothing for them! They're not main eventers. They are not iconic wrestlers. And the latter 3 are mid-carders who not many people cared about that time, and were all elimeated to boot. Bulldog was clearly the top guy on that team? And lets talk about the utterly humiliating defeated, he suffered in his home country a month and a half before. That really hurt him IMO. Why? Because it was BUILT UP TO THE POINT, he HAD to win, in someway, but suffered a huge loss.


And another point? All four of those names? Were gone by the time the new year rolled around.

 

[reddevil69]

Ric Flair did what he did because he was forced to pay a 25 grand security deposit that WCW didn't want to pay back. If he had simply blamed it on Jim Herd, I would agree with your point, Dungeon. Flair had a legitimate financial concern he had to take care of. No double standard involved, as the situations were quite different. Flair's issue with giving back the belt had to do with the money legitimately owed to him by WCW, not whether or not Herd was a douchebag. The financial issues involved with the Flair situation differentiate it from Harts in a major way. When I point out the differences between Flair and Hart, it has nothing to do with Jim Herd, and everything to do with twenty five thousand dollars. If the NWA didn't require the security deposit, and Flair had refused to return the belt just because Herd was a jerk, I would agree that Flair was wrong, that he should have manned up, just like I criticize Hart. However, by all indications, if WCW had paid back Flair the money, he had no problems returning the belt to them. Flair's only problem was not getting his money back. He wasn't trying to protect his earning potential, wasn't exercising creative control over his character by refusing to give it back or anything, he just wanted his money. Certainly understandable.

If Hart simply wanted his career back on track, why bitch about it for the next ten years? What failure Hart had in WCW had nothing to do with Montreal, and everything to do with WCW's complete lack of organization, an inability to market anyone that wasn't named Sting or Hollywood. "Anyway he wants to leave" is not the same as "anyway he wants to drop the belt". Hart apologists seem to think that Hart was entitled to the WWF belt, and conveniently forget that it was never his to lose. He was ALLOWED to carry it for a while, as a prop, but it was never "his". Because Flair had to pay twenty five thousand dollars to be able to wear the World Heavyweight title, he had a legit legal claim to it. Hart didn't.

His character was Bret 'the Hitman' Hart regardless of whether he had the belt or not. With or without the WWF title, his character was unaffected. Nor is losing the WWF title to Shawn Michaels the same as losing to Barry Horowitz or the Brooklyn Brawler.

Claiming that losing to HBK, one of the greatest wrestlers in the history of business is damaging to someone's career is ridiculous.

Claiming losing to HBK caused his earning potential to decline, when he was leaving the company anyway is ridiculous. It was WCW's job to maintain Hart's earning potential the second he agreed to leave the WWF for WCW.

Claiming that losing in his home country would drastically affect his career in a negative way is ridiculous. Wrestlers not only lose in their home countries, but their hometowns all the time. Just because you are from somewhere doesn't guarantee that you have to win. Case in point:

12/29/03 Monday Night Raw, from San Antonio Texas.
Shawn had a title match against Triple H for the World Heavyweight Title. He got 'screwed' out of the belt too, this time by Eric Bischoff, and that was his hometown, not just his home country. Was his career diminished at all by losing in his hometown? I think not. Did his earning potential decrease? Not in the slightest. That argument from Hart apologists is utterly ridiculous.

Nor is winning in your hometown or country a guarantee of success or increased earning potential. The rest of the pro-Canada faction, The British Bulldog, Jim Neidhart, Phil LaFon and Doug Furnas won their SS match in Montreal, the same night, did that positively increase any of their careers?

what does any of that have to do with justifying Flair trying to fuck over the WCW on WWF tv and try to damage the company where other wrestlers, lighting people,camera people and countless others had to still come to work at every day and try to earn a living? I'm sure Arn Andersen would have a different opinion of Flair if WCW had gone under before 1995 when Bischoff turned it around, and Arn couldn't get a job with WWF to pay his bills. What Flair did was calculated and malicious and deliberate...he could have settled his beef with Herd and WCW privately in court...he did not have to shit on the WCW title and have it brought with him to WWF.

What Bret did was only to himself, no one else was damaged by his actions and I'm pretty sure Bret would not have gone to WCW with the belt and tried to fuck over WWE, where his friends,Foley,Austin,Undertaker and not to mention his own brother Owen and brother-in-law-Anvil still had to work to feed their families.

And Bret hasn't bitched about it for the last 10 years...he let it go a long time ago, in 2002 when he had his stroke...he barely mentioned it in his speech at the HOF, he spoke for 45 minutes and it was barely mentioned...he spends only a small portion of his book talking about it and his book is twice the length of Shawn's.

it's Vince who keeps bringing it up and using it for storylines...hello, anyone remember Vince vs. God?...the whole HBk/Vince feud was jump-started by Vince bringing up screwing Bret and Shawn coming out and saying enough is enough, to let it go finally...How is Bret responsible for that?

Shawn also used it in his promos for his match with Hogan at Summerslam 2005, so that is Bret dragging it on?...The WWE knows damn well that it still matters to people and they will rape and exploit that night in Montreal as many times as they can if it will create controversy and translate into money for them.

Not to mention Bret has turned Vince down for several years when he was asked to appear at Wrestlemania starting in 2002 in Toronto, Canada, refusing to allow Vince to make light of the situation further...Bret is not the one who needs to get over it and quite frankly, it must be pretty hard to when the WWE keeps throwing it in his face all the time.

 

[Davi323]

Dungeon, if Bret character was made to look washed up, then its really Bret's fault, isn't it? If he had his magic reasonable creative control, he could have prevented the perception that he was weak and washed up.

Bret had been built up as weak, old, lame duck, a chump and washed up, that's how I saw him as being portrayed, in the months, leading up to the show, as well as the buildup to his heel turn a year later.

Bret was looking really weak going into this show

Was Bret being portrayed as a lame duck champ? Yes.

But Bret's 3 months as champion, plus the feud with Shawn itself, just portrayed him as less than nothing.

Bret was not being portrayed the way a top champion should be.

Thank you for proving my point. You Hart apologists love to use his "creative control" clause to explain why Bret Hart was an innocent victim, yet, by your own admission, he was portrayed as a weakling. PRIOR to the PPV. That means that he either agreed to be portrayed that way, as part of his "creative control" veto powers built into his contract, or his "creative control" powers as part of his contract weren't really all that powerful to begin with. Whether or not Bret Hart agreed to look bad, or couldn't stop the booking that way, doesn't really matter. If he agreed to it, then he is still responsible for how his character was portrayed, and can't claim Montreal damaged his career any more than he had already done to himself by not rejecting previous outcomes, or, his "creative control" stipulation in his contract was weak enough where he was powerless to do anything about it, meaning his "creative control" doesn't mean diddly squat, so stripping him of the title in anyway he wanted didn't violate the clause. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't use his creative control to explain why it was so wrong for Vince to strip him of the title that way, claiming it was a violation of his contract, at the same showcasing how he was made to look weak in the weeks and months leading up to the PPV, which, his "creative control" should have been able to prevent. Either way, Bret Hart loses the argument. He either allowed himself to look weak, or his contract wasn't nearly as strong as you guys wish it was, and you need to stop using it as an excuse.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Dungeon, if Bret character was made to look washed up, then its really Bret's fault, isn't it? If he had his magic reasonable creative control, he could have prevented the perception that he was weak and washed up.







Thank you for proving my point. You Hart apologists love to use his "creative control" clause to explain why Bret Hart was an innocent victim, yet, by your own admission, he was portrayed as a weakling. PRIOR to the PPV. That means that he either agreed to be portrayed that way, as part of his "creative control" veto powers built into his contract, or his "creative control" powers as part of his contract weren't really all that powerful to begin with. Whether or not Bret Hart agreed to look bad, or couldn't stop the booking that way, doesn't really matter. If he agreed to it, then he is still responsible for how his character was portrayed, and can't claim Montreal damaged his career any more than he had already done to himself by not rejecting previous outcomes, or, his "creative control" stipulation in his contract was weak enough where he was powerless to do anything about it, meaning his "creative control" doesn't mean diddly squat, so stripping him of the title in anyway he wanted didn't violate the clause. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't use his creative control to explain why it was so wrong for Vince to strip him of the title that way, claiming it was a violation of his contract, at the same showcasing how he was made to look weak in the weeks and months leading up to the PPV, which, his "creative control" should have been able to prevent. Either way, Bret Hart loses the argument. He either allowed himself to look weak, or his contract wasn't nearly as strong as you guys wish it was, and you need to stop using it as an excuse.

I believe he only had creative control for the last 30 days of his contract, it was like that just for the reason Bret mentioned and that is to avoid being buried on his way out. I believe his contract ended December 1st(or somewhere around then) which was less then a month after Montreal so he was able to excercise it if he wanted to.

 

[The Dungeon]

Dungeon, if Bret character was made to look washed up, then its really Bret's fault, isn't it? If he had his magic reasonable creative control, he could have prevented the perception that he was weak and washed up.

Thank you for proving my point. You Hart apologists love to use his "creative control" clause to explain why Bret Hart was an innocent victim, yet, by your own admission, he was portrayed as a weakling. PRIOR to the PPV. That means that he either agreed to be portrayed that way, as part of his "creative control" veto powers built into his contract, or his "creative control" powers as part of his contract weren't really all that powerful to begin with. Whether or not Bret Hart agreed to look bad, or couldn't stop the booking that way, doesn't really matter. If he agreed to it, then he is still responsible for how his character was portrayed, and can't claim Montreal damaged his career any more than he had already done to himself by not rejecting previous outcomes, or, his "creative control" stipulation in his contract was weak enough where he was powerless to do anything about it, meaning his "creative control" doesn't mean diddly squat, so stripping him of the title in anyway he wanted didn't violate the clause. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't use his creative control to explain why it was so wrong for Vince to strip him of the title that way, claiming it was a violation of his contract, at the same showcasing how he was made to look weak in the weeks and months leading up to the PPV, which, his "creative control" should have been able to prevent. Either way, Bret Hart loses the argument. He either allowed himself to look weak, or his contract wasn't nearly as strong as you guys wish it was, and you need to stop using it as an excuse.
__________________

Well if you'd bother do a little research you would see that November 1st, was the exacty day Bret handed in his notice, the aformentioned storylines in my previous post were ALL before that day! How is it Bret's fault?? THank you for just proving MY point!

The terms of Bret's 20 year deal had no creative control clause, that was only written in the contrat, regarding the terms of his notice.

So basically, his creative control, means a lot more tha you think my friend. If Bret had it sooner, believe me, a lot of that would've been avoided.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Also Id like to add this for the people that are wondering why it was such a bad thing for Bret to lose to HBK that night and why Bret wasnt being that unreasonable.

First off in the previous 5 years or so Bret never beat Shawn which is what most fans remember. He lost to him cleanly at Wrestlemania in one of the most hyped and publicized matches in WWF history. Now you are asking for him to lose cleanly to HBK again at another one of the WWF's most hyped matches. Now this is where losing in canada comes into play. Bret was far and away the biggest face there was in Canada and HBK was the biggest heel. How often does the most hated wrestler go over the most loved wrestler cleanly at that time? Not very often. So how is Bret going to have any credibility when he goes to WCW when he cant even beat the other company's champion even when he had the home crowd behind him? I know technically it wasnt his home crowd but with his gimmick he basically was treated like it. Also at that time wrestling made a bigger deal about your home crowd having an influence on the match and helping you out. So basically it would be like even with the odds stacked in Bret's favor he still couldnt beat Shawn. So if he couldnt beat the WWF champion with the odds stacked against HBK how could he beat the WCW champion which was the stronger promotion?

Now by him losing to another wrestler even if he was lesser it wouldnt have been a big of deal. Because say Shamrock beat him, to my knowledge Shamrock never beat Bret before atleast not in a big match so in people's eyes it could just be considered a fluke victory. Besides Shamrock wouldnt have been champ long so it would have been easier to forget about. If he lost it to say Taker or Austin it wouldnt have been as bad because Bret beat both of those guys earlier in the year at Mania and Summerslam the two biggest PPVs so he proved he could beat them and people will remember that because of where they happened. Which was at the two biggest shows of the year.

So the fact that Bret was willing to do any other combination besides the one thrown at him, that makes him being unreasonable? You could have offered a 100 different combos of ways for him to drop the strap that month and he would have been game for it. He never even said he had to beat shawn or any other superstar cleanly, he would have taken a DQ. He even said he didnt want to make any other superstar look bad or hurt their stock he just didnt want to damage his. I dont see how that is being unreasonable?

 

[reddevil69]

Dungeon, if Bret character was made to look washed up, then its really Bret's fault, isn't it? If he had his magic reasonable creative control, he could have prevented the perception that he was weak and washed up.







Thank you for proving my point. You Hart apologists love to use his "creative control" clause to explain why Bret Hart was an innocent victim, yet, by your own admission, he was portrayed as a weakling. PRIOR to the PPV. That means that he either agreed to be portrayed that way, as part of his "creative control" veto powers built into his contract, or his "creative control" powers as part of his contract weren't really all that powerful to begin with. Whether or not Bret Hart agreed to look bad, or couldn't stop the booking that way, doesn't really matter. If he agreed to it, then he is still responsible for how his character was portrayed, and can't claim Montreal damaged his career any more than he had already done to himself by not rejecting previous outcomes, or, his "creative control" stipulation in his contract was weak enough where he was powerless to do anything about it, meaning his "creative control" doesn't mean diddly squat, so stripping him of the title in anyway he wanted didn't violate the clause. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't use his creative control to explain why it was so wrong for Vince to strip him of the title that way, claiming it was a violation of his contract, at the same showcasing how he was made to look weak in the weeks and months leading up to the PPV, which, his "creative control" should have been able to prevent. Either way, Bret Hart loses the argument. He either allowed himself to look weak, or his contract wasn't nearly as strong as you guys wish it was, and you need to stop using it as an excuse.

He only had creative control for his last 30 days dumbass! Why don't you get your facts straight...that means during the months of August and September of 1997 Bret had no say in how he was booked and did what he was told. He couldn't exercise the control clause until the last 30 days, for the month of November, which, in this case it was already to late, the damage to his character had been done.

Dungeon's analogy about Cena could not be more relevant, Cena has looked like a complete jerk this past year and he is losing credibilty with many younger fans because he has been booked to look weak, jobbing all the time.This is what Bret was trying to avoid. Vince McMahon's motto is 'perception is everything' and what the fans perceive is a major reason why one guy is successful and another is not...the WWE was trying to give the fans the perception that Bret was an old, tired horse who was ready to be shipped off to WCW where all the old, tired wrestlers go, thus damaging his credibility.

 

[Davi323]

I love this...whenever Hart apologists get embarrassed, they resort to name calling...temper temper.

If hart had never beaten HBK in 5 years, as Dungeon says, then you cannot claim it hurt his earning potential one penny. His 20 year contract that he signed was signed after continually losing to HBK, and WCW signed him after continually losing to HBK. Bret Hart signed two contracts after losing to HBK that would have made him a LOT of money. Not beating Shawn Michaels in five years didn't negatively harm his career. And again, he had already signed with WCW by the Survivor Series, so losing to HBK there wouldn't have affected his contract at all either. The argument that he would look weak in WCW losing to HBK is laughable. Everybody knows wrestlers lose, and when you go to another company, you lose at the old company first. Razor Ramon lost to Triple H, Diesel lost to HBK in MSG, we get the hugs afterward, the Kliq goes kayfabe, and despite losing, both Nash and Hall had decent careers in WCW, I would say. They only became the originators of one of the greatest and well known factions in all of wrestling. Maybe you heard of them...a little group called the nWo. Them losing as they were leaving the WWF didn't really hurt them. Losing is not the same as being buried. How many times over the last ten years have we seen our favorite wrestlers lose? A lot. One of the most popular wrestlers in the WWE is Jeff Hardy, and he probably has more losses to main eventers than anyone else on the roster. Yet, there he is challenging Triple H for the WWE title at No Mercy.

OH, But Hart didn't want to lose in Canada? BIG FLIPPING DEAL. Maybe Bret Hart's ego told him he was a national hero, but, he is just a wrestler. That's it. He was leaving the company. The USA/Canada storyline had to end, as Hart was leaving, what better place to end it than Canada? Losing to Ken Shamrock the next night or whatever wouldn't have meant anything to the termination of the USA/Canada storyline that had been stoked for months. It had to end by one side losing to the other. Since Hart was leaving, that meant he had to be the loser. Since they had built it up around Hart vs. Shawn Michaels, HBK had to be the one to beat him for the storyline to have any resolution. Bret refused to accept that, and forced McMahon's hand.

the WWE was trying to give the fans the perception that Bret was an old, tired horse who was ready to be shipped off to WCW where all the old, tired wrestlers go, thus damaging his credibility.

This is common practice in every major wrestling promotion. It is perfectly acceptable. The WWF did it, WWE does it, WCW did it, the AWA did it, the USWA did it, the NWA did it, WCCW did it. In that, Bret Hart is hardly unique.

 

[The Dungeon]

HA! And I love when Hart haters, don't admit that they were wrong in a previous post.

If hart had never beaten HBK in 5 years, as Dungeon says, then you cannot claim it hurt his earning potential one penny. His 20 year contract that he signed was signed after continually losing to HBK, and WCW signed him after continually losing to HBK. Bret Hart signed two contracts after losing to HBK that would have made him a LOT of money.

Ok, I'm going to say tis ONE...MORE....TIME....it was NEVER...ABOUT....THE....MONEY!!!! Bret just wanted to be valued in the business still, the guaranteed money he had in WCW, meant diddly shit to him, that was just so he could be comfterable for the rest of his life, what Bret wanted was still be able to contribute his best to the business, and that meant main eventing big PPV's, having marquee matche with guys he's never faced before, that's what it meant to him.

Not beating Shawn Michaels in five years didn't negatively harm his career. And again, he had already signed with WCW by the Survivor Series, so losing to HBK there wouldn't have affected his contract at all either. The argument that he would look weak in WCW losing to HBK is laughable. Everybody knows wrestlers lose, and when you go to another company, you lose at the old company first.

This was the biggest feud they had in the company, these two guys were the forefront of the biggest show they had that year (not Wrestlemania that year), Vince's chance t crack a half decent buyrate for once that year, rested in the hands of Bret & Shawn. This was perhaps the most anticipated championship match the compay had in years, at that point even American fans, were starting to cheer Bret a bit, because they grew tired of Shawn, you could see that in the October Raw's.

Kevin Nash, Shawn's good buddy, said it best IMO, "Losing isn't always a problem, but you can't keep losing and coming up at the short of the stick all the time, because it kills your credibility, and when they book you like a chump, like I've seen the WWE do numerous times, because they have to protect certain people, it just hurts the chances of the others".

Take that for what you will, but Nash knows what being a poorly booked champion is all abut.

And you lose in the other company before you leave? Bret was more than willing to do that.

Razor Ramon lost to Triple H, Diesel lost to HBK in MSG, we get the hugs afterward, the Kliq goes kayfabe, and despite losing, both Nash and Hall had decent careers in WCW, I would say. They only became the originators of one of the greatest and well known factions in all of wrestling. Maybe you heard of them...a little group called the nWo.

Oh you criticize Reddevil for name calling, yet here we are Mr. Condesending Poster!!

Again, Bret was more than willing to lose, apparently from what Mick Foley said in an interview, Bret wanted to do a house show match with him on his final show, and really put him over strong, and have a classic show stealing battle too.

nWo...nope, never heard of them!!! Whatever...

Them losing as they were leaving the WWF didn't really hurt them. Losing is not the same as being buried. How many times over the last ten years have we seen our favorite wrestlers lose? A lot. One of the most popular wrestlers in the WWE is Jeff Hardy, and he probably has more losses to main eventers than anyone else on the roster. Yet, there he is challenging Triple H for the WWE title at No Mercy.

They made sure Diesel was protected real well on his way out. Yeah, that cage match with Bret, really had Diesel put Bret over strong. RIGHT! Oh and his match with The Undertaker, Diesel pretty much had 'Taker beat at one point, but decided to waste time, so again, he was protecte. And the match with Shawn, hey, Diesel put over Shawn strong, but he still beat the living piss out of him. Again, Diesel did lose to a few guys, but his status and heat were well maintained, he wasn't being built like Bret was. As a matter of fact, the weeks leading up to his final PPV show, he was cutting scathing promos against the company, Vince McMahon and Shawn, and attacked Shawn on a couple occasions.

Much better than chasing Shawn all over the lockeroom like an idiot, methinks.

As for Razor, bud, after beating the 1-2-3 Kid, he was suspended, and was thrown into a last minute match with Vader that wasn't even built up. The losses to Helmsley protected him too, the referee was knocked out when he hit the Razor's Edge. They were doing NOTHING to protect Bret.

Yeah, Jeff Hardy! Lets talk about Mr. Jeff Hardy for a bit shall we. Fact is, he's 31 years old, has just become a main eventer in the last year or so, and Bret himself suffered numerous losses before he became a main event star, hell even after Bret lost his first title, he was losing to stupid lugs like Mr. Hughes!

I dunno how comparing Jeff to this is even relevant, in my opinion, until he gets "The Brass Ring", as Hunter likes to call it, to me, IMO, he's still just the best upper mid-carder in the company. And I have no problem with that, Jeff Hardy is a large reason why I still like the business today.

So in a way, you comparing Jeff & Bret, is almost a striking similarity, to how both Bret & Jeff, spent the better part of a few years, winning and losing, winning and losing, winning and losing, winning and losing, and do you really think Jeff is going to win THIS match? Maybe he will, and believe I'd love nothing more than that, but they're going to hold off until Wrestlemania IMO, It's a 'Mania moment. Jeff deserves it, the way Bret did at WMX, to have that big shining moment. I hope he gets it.

But now they can't have Jeff constantly losing once he reaches that moment now can they?

OH, But Hart didn't want to lose in Canada? BIG FLIPPING DEAL. Maybe Bret Hart's ego told him he was a national hero, but, he is just a wrestler. That's it. He was leaving the company. The USA/Canada storyline had to end, as Hart was leaving, what better place to end it than Canada? Losing to Ken Shamrock the next night or whatever wouldn't have meant anything to the termination of the USA/Canada storyline that had been stoked for months. It had to end by one side losing to the other. Since Hart was leaving, that meant he had to be the loser. Since they had built it up around Hart vs. Shawn Michaels, HBK had to be the one to beat him for the storyline to have any resolution. Bret refused to accept that, and forced McMahon's hand.

Do you live in Canada Davi???? Well I do, I for one can tell you, it's really easy for you to say that, but Bret was worshipped here like no WWF wrestler before him, and I can truly attest to that, seeing him at quite a few shows here. In Grade 8, I couldn't walk the halls, or the streets, in one whole day without seeing a Bret Hart shirt at almost every turn.

Bret reached Iconic status here...as a matter of fact, CBC TV up here, did a poll called "The Greatest Canadian", and it was a Top 100 list, a list including politicians, folk heroes, musicians, actors, philanthropists, and many other great people, only one wrestler...at #39, shocking everyone by how high he was voted...was Bret Hart.

Why did it have to end in Canada???? The main issue was between Bret & Shawn themselves, and Shawn DESICRATING the flag to boot. And as a matter of fact, Shawn wasn't exactly the American hero at the forefront of the USA/Canada angle....AUSTIN was!

And if they still wanted to end that storyline, I'd do it in the U.S.A, where they'd have someone win. Bret said to Vince, and has said numerous times, that he would drop the belt on National TV, and put someone else over if he wanted him too as well. Why not do a big Six Man Tag, Bret, Owen & Davey vs. Austin, 'Taker & Mankind (they were doing that match at house shows anyway), and have the U.S.A babyfaces win, and the stand victrious with the America flag in hand, in front of there country, getting a big pop in the process.

Bret & Shawn went way beyond the Canada/USA thing my friend. As a matter of fact, on a January "Raw", that year, as Skydome, in Toronto, Bret & Shawn had a confrontation, and the crowd pretty much made it as clear as day, that Bret was the guy they wanted, and Shawn wasn't welcome to be there champion. The lines were drawn already in the eyes of us here.

So don't give me the "Shawn had to end the storyline to win it for America theory", if that was the case, it should've been Austin!".

 

[reddevil69]

I love this...whenever Hart apologists get embarrassed, they resort to name calling...temper temper.

If hart had never beaten HBK in 5 years, as Dungeon says, then you cannot claim it hurt his earning potential one penny. His 20 year contract that he signed was signed after continually losing to HBK, and WCW signed him after continually losing to HBK. Bret Hart signed two contracts after losing to HBK that would have made him a LOT of money. Not beating Shawn Michaels in five years didn't negatively harm his career. And again, he had already signed with WCW by the Survivor Series, so losing to HBK there wouldn't have affected his contract at all either. The argument that he would look weak in WCW losing to HBK is laughable. Everybody knows wrestlers lose, and when you go to another company, you lose at the old company first. Razor Ramon lost to Triple H, Diesel lost to HBK in MSG, we get the hugs afterward, the Kliq goes kayfabe, and despite losing, both Nash and Hall had decent careers in WCW, I would say. They only became the originators of one of the greatest and well known factions in all of wrestling. Maybe you heard of them...a little group called the nWo. Them losing as they were leaving the WWF didn't really hurt them. Losing is not the same as being buried. How many times over the last ten years have we seen our favorite wrestlers lose? A lot. One of the most popular wrestlers in the WWE is Jeff Hardy, and he probably has more losses to main eventers than anyone else on the roster. Yet, there he is challenging Triple H for the WWE title at No Mercy.

OH, But Hart didn't want to lose in Canada? BIG FLIPPING DEAL. Maybe Bret Hart's ego told him he was a national hero, but, he is just a wrestler. That's it. He was leaving the company. The USA/Canada storyline had to end, as Hart was leaving, what better place to end it than Canada? Losing to Ken Shamrock the next night or whatever wouldn't have meant anything to the termination of the USA/Canada storyline that had been stoked for months. It had to end by one side losing to the other. Since Hart was leaving, that meant he had to be the loser. Since they had built it up around Hart vs. Shawn Michaels, HBK had to be the one to beat him for the storyline to have any resolution. Bret refused to accept that, and forced McMahon's hand.




This is common practice in every major wrestling promotion. It is perfectly acceptable. The WWF did it, WWE does it, WCW did it, the AWA did it, the USWA did it, the NWA did it, WCCW did it. In that, Bret Hart is hardly unique.

Jeff Hardy has beaten almost everyone put in front of him since returning in 2008, including Umaga and Cena. What have you been watching?

And the curtain call you refer to with the kliq was before internet was a major factor in our society...had youtube been around then you better damn-well believe that it would have done considerable damage to the business...if the internet was prevalent and all the shit with Nash and Hall got leaked like it would today, the NWO would have never been over like it was....Hogan's turn would have never been over like it was because everyone would have seen it coming.

that was a very stupid thing to do but look who was involved, Nash and Hall the two biggest jerks in the business, Hunter who was their errand boy at the time, and Shawn who was just as big a jerk then as well, and he admits that today....I doubt Undertaker found it amusing and he's the most respected wrestler in and out of the ring of the last 20 years and he respected Bret's decision in Montreal...hmmmmm...

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Id also like to add for the people that are Vince apologists, you say that the belt is just a prop and the title means nothing so Bret shouldnt care about it and do whats right for the business. IF the title or belt meant nothing then why should Vince give a shit if Bret took it on WCW TV or not, because after all its just a prop isnt it? If being champion doesnt matter in wrestling because its not real then again why should Vince care if bret left as champion? Because after all it doesnt matter who the champ is since its not real. Why would it be the final nail in the coffin for the WWF like you guys say if Bret went to WCW as champ? If wrestling is fake and having the belt is just a prop then why should it matter?

Not to mention Vince was taking a far bigger risk of putting the final nail in his coffin by doing what he did to Bret. He almost had a full fledged mutiny on his hands. There were plenty of wrestlers that were considering walking out. What would have happened to him if Austin, Taker and Foley quit the company because of it? He would have been screwed. And Im sure some of them thought about it because would you want to work for somebody that would screw you like that? He screwed the longest tenured wrestler at that time(I think he was) and face of the organization for the last 6 years so what would prevent him from doing the same to anybody else? I cant speak for all the wrestlers but I know if I was one that would be my mentality.

 

[Davi323]

Despite the belt being a prop, it was still the property of the World Wrestling Federation, not World Championship Wrestling. For the same reason Kevin Nash and Scott Hall couldn't appear in WCW using the names Diesel and Razor Ramon...the WWF Title, like their WWF characters, were the property of the WWF, not WCW. Why should Vince have allowed it to be seen on WCW television? Especially since Alundra Blaze had already taken the WWF Women's title, and threw it in the trash on WCW TV? Vince is just protecting his own property.

The fact that Vince went through with it anyway, despite the possibility of revolt just goes to show how much he knew he could trust Bret Hart's word. He had to have a damn good reason to do what he did, knowing that a revolt among his wrestlers was possible. And he did it anyway. But, none of them did walk, did they? In fact, those names you mentioned all became bigger superstars AFTER Montreal. Undertaker has been incredibly loyal to Vince McMahon in the last 11 years, but then again, if Undertaker were leaving the company, he could be trusted to do the right thing, unlike Bret. Undertaker doesn't think he is above the business like Bret did. Vince was only put in a position where he had to screw Bret Hart because of the unique position Bret Hart put him in. You can bellyache all you want about it, but you cannot change the fact that if Bret had sucked it in for one night, and held his ego in check, the screwjob would have been completely avoided.

 

[reddevil69]

Id also like to add for the people that are Vince apologists, you say that the belt is just a prop and the title means nothing so Bret shouldnt care about it and do whats right for the business. IF the title or belt meant nothing then why should Vince give a shit if Bret took it on WCW TV or not, because after all its just a prop isnt it? If being champion doesnt matter in wrestling because its not real then again why should Vince care if bret left as champion? Because after all it doesnt matter who the champ is since its not real. Why would it be the final nail in the coffin for the WWF like you guys say if Bret went to WCW as champ? If wrestling is fake and having the belt is just a prop then why should it matter?

Not to mention Vince was taking a far bigger risk of putting the final nail in his coffin by doing what he did to Bret. He almost had a full fledged mutiny on his hands. There were plenty of wrestlers that were considering walking out. What would have happened to him if Austin, Taker and Foley quit the company because of it? He would have been screwed. And Im sure some of them thought about it because would you want to work for somebody that would screw you like that? He screwed the longest tenured wrestler at that time(I think he was) and face of the organization for the last 6 years so what would prevent him from doing the same to anybody else? I cant speak for all the wrestlers but I know if I was one that would be my mentality.

You just hit the nail on the head dude! It was not about the belt at all...It was a power play by Vince because he finally had a wrestler who who not take his shit and mistreatment of talent any longer and knew him better than anyone having been there fourteen years. Bret for the first time said no to Vince and told him he wasn't doing it his way and Vince knew he had no leverage because of what was in Bret's contract...Vince started to sweat and regret ever signing the deal he did with Bret and felt backed into a corner and he did the only thing he could do within his power and that was book Bret poorly, try to make him look bad (racism angle) and screw him out of the finish of the match....

the belt meant nothing, just like it meant nothing when HHH was given the World Heavyweight Belt out of a haliburton by Bischoff in 2002 after all that time went into pushing Brock Lesnar as the real deal and winning the Undisputed title from the Rock at Summerslam, and then HHH goes and cuts Lesnar's credibity in half by saying "look, he's not the one and only undisputed champ, I have a belt now too, and I'm on Raw so mine is THE belt"! The business was about belts until about 1996, the guys with belts made more money than anyone else, after the contracts started coming in, belts meant fuck all and still don't mean what they once did, if CM Punk can win the World Title then anyone can...anyone who thinks Montreal was about a toy belt is kidding themselves.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

I didnt want to bring Hogan into this because Im a huge Hogan fan and he's my favorite wrestler but Im going to because his situation is similar to Bret's. The reason being is that both were leaving and were expected to drop the strap. Keep in mind this is speculation and things Ive heard throughout the net and various wrestlers I dont know if this stuff is true I apologize and just ignore it if it isnt. But I believe it is because of all the testimonial from different people.

In Hogan's case he refused to drop it to Bret Hart like Vince wanted because he didnt want to job to Hart because he didnt think he was legit and it would damage Hogan's credibility. So instead he jobbed to a 600lb Yokozuna who had only been defeated one time before(by Hogan) and Yoko needed outside interference to beat him. So by dropping it that way Hogan lost no credibility. To soften the blow even more he did it at a PPV where he wasnt even the focal point. The main event wasnt even that match it was the final of the tournament so his loss was easier to forget. So should you call out Hogan and blame him for not doing something the boss wanted?

So how would Hogan have liked it if Vince told him he was going to keep the title but run a feud with Bret all summer only for him to drop it to Bret at Summerslam? Do you think he would have been game for it? Of course not. So Davi how can you bash Bret and take Vince's side, yet support Hogan(Im guessing you do since you have his avatar) when he did something similar to Bret. Actually Bret's wasnt as bad because he didnt refuse to drop it to a certain wrestler he just didnt want to drop it on a certain night. So the point is that Bret isnt the only wrestler that has asked to do something the owner/promoter didnt want but he was the only one that ended up being screwed over like that. So if you're gonna say Bret put himself before the business you have to say that about countless other wrestlers.

 

[reddevil69]

I didnt want to bring Hogan into this because Im a huge Hogan fan and he's my favorite wrestler but Im going to because his situation is similar to Bret's. The reason being is that both were leaving and were expected to drop the strap. Keep in mind this is speculation and things Ive heard throughout the net and various wrestlers I dont know if this stuff is true I apologize and just ignore it if it isnt. But I believe it is because of all the testimonial from different people.

In Hogan's case he refused to drop it to Bret Hart like Vince wanted because he didnt want to job to Hart because he didnt think he was legit and it would damage Hogan's credibility. So instead he jobbed to a 600lb Yokozuna who had only been defeated one time before(by Hogan) and Yoko needed outside interference to beat him. So by dropping it that way Hogan lost no credibility. To soften the blow even more he did it at a PPV where he wasnt even the focal point. The main event wasnt even that match it was the final of the tournament so his loss was easier to forget. So should you call out Hogan and blame him for not doing something the boss wanted?

So how would Hogan have liked it if Vince told him he was going to keep the title but run a feud with Bret all summer only for him to drop it to Bret at Summerslam? Do you think he would have been game for it? Of course not. So Davi how can you bash Bret and take Vince's side, yet support Hogan(Im guessing you do since you have his avatar) when he did something similar to Bret. Actually Bret's wasnt as bad because he didnt refuse to drop it to a certain wrestler he just didnt want to drop it on a certain night. So the point is that Bret isnt the only wrestler that has asked to do something the owner/promoter didnt want but he was the only one that ended up being screwed over like that. So if you're gonna say Bret put himself before the business you have to say that about countless other wrestlers.

What Hogan did was actually far more unethical as in 1993 the man with the title belt was THE highest paid person in the company...this was way before guaranteed contracts and Hogan took it upon himself to change Bret's direction in the company and tell Vince " i know you want me to work with this guy and make him champ and the highest paid, but I've decided I'm going to give the belt to this other guy and he's going to make main event money for the next year instead"

Hogan directly impacted Bret's income by doing that in 1993...not to mention Hogan came back after a year off and worked TV's only, no house shows and still had the nerve to demand the belt, while guys like Bret,Taker,Shawn, Bam Bam, Hennig, and Razor were out on the road busting their asses night after night at that time...Bret's decision to not put over Shawn for one night had no financial effect on the WWE or any of it's performers period.

 

[Davi323]

Actually, assuming that Hogan's contract only had the same reasonable creative control that Bret Hart's did, and not the total creative control that gives him absolute veto powers, I would side with Vince if he had done something to Hogan too. I am a huge Hulk Hogan fan, but, unlike you Hart lovers, I am perfectly capable of finding faults with my favorite wrestlers. If Hogan's contract did not grant him far more creative power over his character, namely, specifically provided for Hogan to call his own shots, and have complete control over his booking, then yeah, Hogan needs to be called out too. It is difficult to know for sure, since none of us have actually ever seen a copy of their contracts, but if Hogan's contract only had the same limited control over character portrayal as Hart's is believed to, then what Hogan did was just as wrong. However, what you have failed to appreciate, is that IF Hogan screwed Vince that way, it may have been one of the contributing factors that led to Montreal, because Vince was sick of wrestlers refusing to drop the belts when he wanted them to, and Hogan stuck in his mind. It just becomes one more motivation for Vince to do what he did.

 

[The Dungeon]

Despite the belt being a prop, it was still the property of the World Wrestling Federation, not World Championship Wrestling. For the same reason Kevin Nash and Scott Hall couldn't appear in WCW using the names Diesel and Razor Ramon...the WWF Title, like their WWF characters, were the property of the WWF, not WCW. Why should Vince have allowed it to be seen on WCW television? Especially since Alundra Blaze had already taken the WWF Women's title, and threw it in the trash on WCW TV? Vince is just protecting his own property.

Sometimes I swear you just skim through posts without readin them dude. Honestly. Ok, what was the date Bret handed in his notice???? Nov.1st. When was the Survivor Series? Nov.9th. Ok, now legally, Bret couldn't appear on WCW, until December. Which means, the mathermatics DON'T ADD UP!!!! And comparing the relationship and trust Bret had with Vince to Alundra Blayze, is like comparing The Rock to Erik Watts, it's an opposite end of the spectrum. I explained why Vince had a trust with Bret, and I believe because people got in Vince's ear, he did what he did, IMO!!!!!

Vince said it himself, that he let Shawn get away with things, that nobody else did. And a lot of former wrestlers, some of whom have an axe to grind, but yet some of whom who don't and actually like Shawn, say the exact same thing. They believe Shawn had an influence on Vince like nobody else.

The fact that Vince went through with it anyway, despite the possibility of revolt just goes to show how much he knew he could trust Bret Hart's word. He had to have a damn good reason to do what he did, knowing that a revolt among his wrestlers was possible. And he did it anyway. But, none of them did walk, did they? In fact, those names you mentioned all became bigger superstars AFTER Montreal. Undertaker has been incredibly loyal to Vince McMahon in the last 11 years, but then again, if Undertaker were leaving the company, he could be trusted to do the right thing, unlike Bret. Undertaker doesn't think he is above the business like Bret did. Vince was only put in a position where he had to screw Bret Hart because of the unique position Bret Hart put him in. You can bellyache all you want about it, but you cannot change the fact that if Bret had sucked it in for one night, and held his ego in check, the screwjob would have been completely avoided.

See you don't listen to a damn word anyone else says. You're full of shit, seriously!

Obviously you've known NOTHING of Vince's and Bret's relationship. Vince used the same lame ass excuses you're using. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them now. On a talk show we have here in Canada, called "Off the Record" on TSN (Canadian equivelant to ESPN), Vince was grilled and put on the spot, by the host, and admitted that he had a solid relatioship with Bret, and when he was put on the spot about Bret's contract not even being up, and there being no immediate danger of him going to WCW in November (because Bret would get sued, and lose to boot if he did), Vince did everything he could to sidestep the queston, and wouldn't appear on the show again, until Owen Hart died, where again, he was put on the hotseat, and again, sidestepped everything, and since then, he's recieved numerous invitations to be on the show, and has declined everytime. Because the host here did a greater job than Bob Costas ever could putting Vince on the spot.

Bret had never done anything to make Vince think he couldn't trust him, I truly believe that either Shawn, or some of the powers that be (Russo or Brisco, etc.), or all of the above, got in his ear. Shawn even touches on it, in his book, persuading Vince that Bret wasn't doing good business the whole time anyway, which is laughable, because Bret playing the american heel, and pro canadian and pro world babyface at the same time, drew higher than Shawn's title reign, and it's a proven fact!!!!

If anything, it was Bret who NEVER should've trusted Vince, after years of deciet and empty promises. After all that, Bret STILL tried to give Vince the benefit of the doubt.

And it's true, no wrestlers did walk out! But almost everyone on that roster, called Bret up after it happened. Bret said, he didn't want any of them to walk out, nor did he expect them too. They have to look out for themselves and there family.

Btw, both Rick Rude & Brian "Crush" Adams left the company. Not as if it were devistating, to the company, but there was a bit of loyalty there. Again, Bret didn't want anyone to leave, he said this a WEEK later on Canadian TV. He said exactly this, "I don't want any of my friends or peers in that company, to walk out because of what happened. They have not only an obligation to look out for themselves, but what's best for there families, and there careers as performers".

And I find it hilarious btw, that in a pevious post, you say Bret getting buried was his fault because you thought he had creative control then. But yet when I pointed out you were wrong, you backtrack by saying, "So what, it happens all the time", yet you still acknowledge the misuse of Bret in those final few months.

I'd also like to point out while 'Taker has loyalty to Vince, he still tries to maintain loyalty to his friends and peers, and was the one who called Bret, telling him that he heard it straight from Vince, and Shawn was in on it.

 

[The Dungeon]

Actually, assuming that Hogan's contract only had the same reasonable creative control that Bret Hart's did, and not the total creative control that gives him absolute veto powers, I would side with Vince if he had done something to Hogan too.

I have a hard time believing that's true!

I am a huge Hulk Hogan fan, but, unlike you Hart lovers, I am perfectly capable of finding faults with my favorite wrestlers. If Hogan's contract did not grant him far more creative power over his character, namely, specifically provided for Hogan to call his own shots, and have complete control over his booking, then yeah, Hogan needs to be called out too.

Lets see...Bret stood up to protect his character, as well as stand up to Shawn's complete and utter disrespect and ********edness.

Hogan wouldn't put Bret over for reasons that Bret, "wasn't in his league". Bret liked Hogan, and gave him nothing but respect and props for years.

It is difficult to know for sure, since none of us have actually ever seen a copy of their contracts, but if Hogan's contract only had the same limited control over character portrayal as Hart's is believed to, then what Hogan did was just as wrong. However, what you have failed to appreciate, is that IF Hogan screwed Vince that way, it may have been one of the contributing factors that led to Montreal, because Vince was sick of wrestlers refusing to drop the belts when he wanted them to, and Hogan stuck in his mind.

To me it was all about Vince not being able to let Hogan go, he had this weird attatchment to him that he just couldn't cut loose.

At least Bret was willing to drop it to the SAME guy, despite his outright disrespect. Protection over his character, and keeping his self respect were the reasons he didn't want to drop in Montreal.

Also the fact that Bret had put over Shawn at the biggest event of the year, a year and a half before Survivor Series, when Hogan had never stepped in the ring with Bret, at ALL! Hogan dropped it to the guy who'd be more "believable", beating him.

 

[Davi323]

Again, as I do not know the level of creative control Hulk Hogan had built into his contract, I cannot state for certain that the issues are comparable. If Hulk Hogan had total creative control, meaning, he could veto absolutely anything he wanted that the WWF asked him to do, meaning he could reject ANY storyline, ANY result, then Hogan would have been perfectly within his rights to refuse to lose to Bret Hart. IF that is what his contract stipulated. If it did not, and Hogan only had the same reasonable creative control that Hart had, meaning he could reject only storylines that would significantly impact his character in a negative way, then Hogan had no real standing to refuse to do it, other than the fact that he was Hulk Hogan.

This is where most of our dispute comes from I believe, you Hart fans believe that losing cleanly to HBK would have been a colossal negative mark on Hart's career, thus bringing in his creative control clause, and I believe that it really wouldn't have made a difference, so his creative control was moot...this is purely a matter of opinion though, not objective fact finding. I don't side with Vince McMahon because I hate Bret Hart. Far from. I have never hated Bret Hart, I watched him as a kid, I watched him grow from being the weaker link in the Hart Foundation (meaning less powerful than Anvil) to being a World champion. There is no underlying hatred towards Bret Hart when I criticize him. Looking at it objectively, though, I see a wrestler, who gets paid by his employer to perform in scripted matches, to participate in storylines that he is instructed to, and then I see that wrestler refusing to do what it is he is paid to do. That it was Bret Hart is only incidental, because it actually happened to him. Had it happened to someone else and not Bret Hart, my opinion would be the same. Bret Hart had a job to do, and he didn't want to do it the way the company wanted him to do it, so the company took action against him. For me, that makes sense. On this issue, I side with management over the employee. Get into a discussion about whether wrestlers should form a union, receive benefits, etc, you will find I will lean heavily on the side of the wrestlers against management. But, in this specific kind of circumstance, Bret Hart was more wrong than Vince McMahon, because if Bret hadn't refused to do his job, Vince wouldn't have been in a position to force the issue. Two wrongs do not make a right, but in many cases, the second wrong is caused by the first wrong. I see Hart as the first wrong.

Whether you choose to believe me or not doesn't have any bearing on its truth. So, if you choose to believe that I hate Bret Hart, that is your own opinion, and I cannot change that. You accuse everyone who disagrees with you, and me in particular, of not reading anything you write, because obviously, if we did, we would do a 180 degree about face, and completely switch sides, because you think your arguments are ironclad...when that doesn't happen, you resort to calling us names, and insulting us. Grow up. If you can't have a genuine disagreement over something without getting belligerent, if you are incapable of debating calmly, you aren't worth the effort. I understand where Canadians would want to side with Bret, I can understand why people would want to villify Vince McMahon, I just think you are wrong, as you think I am wrong. That's fine. Differences of opinions happen. But, you can either debate the topics in a mature, adult manner, or you can throw a hissy fit. I leave that choice to you.

 

[The Dungeon]

Again, as I do not know the level of creative control Hulk Hogan had built into his contract, I cannot state for certain that the issues are comparable. If Hulk Hogan had total creative control, meaning, he could veto absolutely anything he wanted that the WWF asked him to do, meaning he could reject ANY storyline, ANY result, then Hogan would have been perfectly within his rights to refuse to lose to Bret Hart. IF that is what his contract stipulated. If it did not, and Hogan only had the same reasonable creative control that Hart had, meaning he could reject only storylines that would significantly impact his character in a negative way, then Hogan had no real standing to refuse to do it, other than the fact that he was Hulk Hogan.

Hogan did not have creative control until he went to WCW. It's fact.

This is where most of our dispute comes from I believe, you Hart fans believe that losing cleanly to HBK would have been a colossal negative mark on Hart's career, thus bringing in his creative control clause, and I believe that it really wouldn't have made a difference, so his creative control was moot...this is purely a matter of opinion though, not objective fact finding.

You don't know that for sure is what you're saying then. I happen to believe it was possible and believe THAT'S why, I believe Bret was within his rights.

I've weighted this time and time again, and have even doubted Bret's stance against everything, and a couple years ago, after reading Shawn's book, and now Bret's, I believe he was right.

I don't side with Vince McMahon because I hate Bret Hart. Far from. I have never hated Bret Hart, I watched him as a kid, I watched him grow from being the weaker link in the Hart Foundation (meaning less powerful than Anvil) to being a World champion. There is no underlying hatred towards Bret Hart when I criticize him. Looking at it objectively, though, I see a wrestler, who gets paid by his employer to perform in scripted matches, to participate in storylines that he is instructed to, and then I see that wrestler refusing to do what it is he is paid to do. That it was Bret Hart is only incidental, because it actually happened to him. Had it happened to someone else and not Bret Hart, my opinion would be the same. Bret Hart had a job to do, and he didn't want to do it the way the company wanted him to do it, so the company took action against him. For me, that makes sense. On this issue, I side with management over the employee. Get into a discussion about whether wrestlers should form a union, receive benefits, etc, you will find I will lean heavily on the side of the wrestlers against management. But, in this specific kind of circumstance, Bret Hart was more wrong than Vince McMahon, because if Bret hadn't refused to do his job, Vince wouldn't have been in a position to force the issue. Two wrongs do not make a right, but in many cases, the second wrong is caused by the first wrong. I see Hart as the first wrong.

Ok, well you're not a over zealous HBK mark and Bret hater, I was wrong about that. At least I admit when I'm wrong.

Wow, so if your boss would figuretively piss on you, you'd stand for it. That's called an abuse of power, and Bret wouldn't take that. My boss's treat me the way they want to be treated, with "Respect", they use the power and authority they have in a manner where they are not misusing the authority they have. Vince was misusing his authority, and pretty much writing Bret off as someone who didn't do anything for him, when all he did for most of the 90's is keep the company head above water.

And you want to talk about first...or second wrongs....what about in Tulsa, in October, when Shawn, himself, said, he would never do the favor for Bret!!! DIdn't THAT happen first? And it sparked Bret's refusal?

You accuse everyone who disagrees with you, and me in particular, of not reading anything you write, because obviously, if we did, we would do a 180 degree about face, and completely switch sides, because you think your arguments are ironclad...when that doesn't happen, you resort to calling us names, and insulting us.

Sorry, who's "Everyone", you're the only one who I've been responding too on this board, the past few days. When I "call you names" as you like to think, I see something that if if looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a DUCK! And I'm merely stating my opinion in the context of what you written, not who you are, if I think something is idiotic or assanine, than I'm going to say it. I've never attacked you pesonally, I don't know you, and don't want too.

Grow up. If you can't have a genuine disagreement over something without getting belligerent, if you are incapable of debating calmly, you aren't worth the effort. I understand where Canadians would want to side with Bret, I can understand why people would want to villify Vince McMahon, I just think you are wrong, as you think I am wrong. That's fine. Differences of opinions happen. But, you can either debate the topics in a mature, adult manner, or you can throw a hissy fit. I leave that choice to you.

Yet here you are, being condesending, telling me to "grow up", because you think I'm huring you feelings.

Bud, my posts are usually a mile long, and I'm sorry, but last I chekced my posts weren't full of insults and name calling! I reviewed your posts and replied to them with a an analytical view on every viewpoint you come up with.

I've dealt with numerous people on this board who, I can tell have taken in what I say, and also analyze it in a careful fashion. I'm not trying to change your mind, but when I read your replies, it's as if, you really didn't read everything, I, or anyone else you've replied too you for that matter.

I take in what you say, I analyze it, come up with my rebuttal, try to base my opinion on facts. So don't you dare tell me, that I'm not debating this in a fit manner.

 

[reddevil69]

This seemed like the only place to comment on this since this thread is about Montreal, and this subject is tied to the HBK/Bret scenario....

I was away for a week and I just watched tapes of the past two episodes of RAW...I found it quite interesting that when Shawn was naming people who might be his mystery partner in the main event that night that when he made reference to a "real American", no one popped....he then referenced a "Texas rattlesnake"...big pop....when he referred to "a man who called himself the best there is, was and ever will be", the crowd popped huge...

HHH,Flair and yes, even Shawn have tried to downplay Bret's drawing ability and impact in America over the years and that proved right there that Bret mattered then and still matters today to American fans...the building where RAW took place was in Minnesota, last I checked, Minnesota is located in the USA. Bret's catchphrase received a bigger reaction than Austins, and Hogans barely registered....and Hogan was a huge star in Minnesota for the AWA in the early 80's.

Both Hogan and Austin have benefited form continuous appearances in WWE over the past 5 years on TV and PPV's...Bret has not wrestled or appeared in a wrestling capacity or on a wrestling program nearly 9 years, since January of 2000...the only appearance he's made is at the Hall Of Fame ceremony, and he left after and did not appear at Wrestlemania with the other inductees, and he had a 30 second clip last year on the Vince McMahon appreciation night on RAW....

there are a few posters on this site that seem to think that anyone who supports Bret's side of the screw job must be Canadian, and that is just nonsense...whether or not you are on one side of the screw job, or the other, Bret has a huge fan-base in America and that can not be denied...not by Ric Flair, Triple H, HBK or anyone else.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

Hello, everybody. I have read all of the posts in this thread up to this one but at the moment can not recall if there is any proof of Vince McMahon admitting that he did verbally agree with Bret Hart to letting him win at Survivor Series in 1997. If they both agreed to the outcome of that match resulting in Bret leaving as the champion that night, then in that situation, Vince did in fact lie to Bret.

A lot of people continue to say that it is Vince's company and that he had every right to do what he did but I am not debating that. I just want to make it clear that if they both did agree to Bret winning the match, then Bret was not wrong for expecting to win it and that he was right in being surprised at what took place.

 

[Slyfox696]

Hello, everybody. I have read all of the posts in this thread up to this one but at the moment can not recall if there is any proof of Vince McMahon admitting that he did verbally agree with Bret Hart to letting him win at Survivor Series in 1997.

He did not agree to let him win, but DID agree on a double DQ finish, which would have kept Bret as champion, HBK as face, and no one would have come out for the worse.

This has been verified by the audio mic that Bret Hart was wearing that day for filming of his documentary "Wrestling with Shadows". If you watch the documentary, you'll see it on there.

If they both agreed to the outcome of that match resulting in Bret leaving as the champion that night, then in that situation, Vince did in fact lie to Bret.

Then Vince did in fact lie to Bret.

 

[SAVE_YOURSELVES_111]

I don't see what the arguement is, Vince has clearly acknowledged he lied to Bret, in numerous interviews.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

When it comes to the issue of being concerned about the WWF championship belt being shown on WCW television, couldn't Vince just have walked away from the ring area with Bret Hart to the back stage area away from the cameras and just physically taken the belt from him there after the end of the match at Survivor Series since it was his property and just a "prop" as many users on this thread called it?