1997: Who was the face of WWE?

[Ruthless-RKO]

I don't think there was 1 to be honest, I think the main draws of that year were HBK, Bret Hart, Austin and Taker..

But if you had a gun pointed to your head and you had to pick 1, who would you say?

I think HBK was injured for some of it, Austin had just had a 5* match at Mania, Taker was the champion for most of the year and the biggest star at the time was Bret Hart although he was screwed in November..

I would have to pick Bret Hart, but just by a hair..

 

[xXSlater420Xx]

As much as I would like to say bret hart I'm going to have to go with HBK. At the time DX was just starting and beginning to pick up momentum then survivor series 97 came and the rest is how do you say history. Also 1997 would be the last comparable year for HBK as 2 months after Montreal he broke his back at the rumble and we wouldn't see him in a wrestling capacity for 4 years. So yea I'd love to say Bret was the face of WWE in 97 but considering all the controversy surrounding 97 I have to go with Shawn because more often than he was a major player in most of it.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

How could Bret Hart be the face of the WWE when he was one of the biggest heels? He shouldn't even count as an option unless you mean biggest draw instead of biggest face. Going by that though, I'd say Shawn Michaels was the biggest face seeing as how DX formed this year and he was a dual champion (European & WWF). Undertaker's a close second, but 1997 definitely belongs to the Heartbreak Kid

 

[DeathClutch]

Biggest draw was Bret Hart by leaps and bounds,
The face of WWE debatable between Austin and Undertaker, one was World Champion and over greatly and the other was a freshly turned face that the CROWD turned into a fan favorite not WWE the FANS cheered Austin so I'd say Austin.

Anyone who says HBK was the face of WWE in 1997 is a idiot, I suggest you watch your DVD's/VHS from 1996 and 1997 and you'll see he was the face of WWE in 1996 but not 1997. he hardly wrestled for 2/3's of the year and when he did return he was turned into a heel and if a heel can be the face of WWE then I'd say Bret would have taken it 1997 easily. The fans genuinely hated Bret in the USA, yet he was LOVED everywhere else, not only did he make Austin look gold, he also made a lackluster Patriot look decent enough to challenge for the WWF title on a PPV.

 

[DeathClutch]

How could Bret Hart be the face of the WWE when he was one of the biggest heels? He shouldn't even count as an option unless you mean biggest draw instead of biggest face. Going by that though, I'd say Shawn Michaels was the biggest face seeing as how DX formed this year and he was a dual champion (European & WWF). Undertaker's a close second, but 1997 definitely belongs to the Heartbreak Kid

Going by your logic then nor can HBK be the face of WWE, he was injured the most of 1997 and when he did wrestle he was a heel.

 

[legendkiller1979]

1997 was a crazy year in wrestling. Shawn Michaels forfeited the world title. Wrestlemania 13 was at the bottom of the list of greatest manias. It did provide the match of the year but that was about it. The main event seemed to be randomly thrown together. I personally don't think there was a face in '97. The Undertaker's title reign wasn't that great. He certainly wasn't the focal point of the company. HBK spent alot of the years on the sidelines. Bret Hart's character was destroyed. And Steve Austin was just coming into his own. It speaks volumes that Lex Luger won was the wrestler of the year based solely on a five day world title reign in WCW. I think the main attraction in the WWF in 1997 was the pissing contest between Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Vince knew Bret was on his way out to he spent the majority of the year making him look bad and he did a good job. It was a year to forget.

 

[The Eighties]

I'll be an "idiot" and select HBK, he was in all of the main talking points of the year and the best feud of the year. He forfeited the title, was at constant war with Bret Hart for real, won the tag titles with Austin, cost Taker the WWF title, had a subsequent classic feud with Taker that saw the advent of arguably the greatest cage gimmick ever, screwed Bret out of the WWF title and formed the most controversial and popular group in the history of the business.

 

[Jason Scene]

The face of the WWE wasn't just one person in 1997. It was emerging as Stone Cold Steve Austin, but there was no actual face, like a John Cena at the time. Instead it was a collection of guys like HBK, Undertaker, Bret Hart and Stone Cold, but at the time Steve was coming through as "that" guy.

From the segment where he Stunned Vince, that is when he truly became the face of the WWE, and then it was further by him beating HBK at Wrestlemania 14.

 

[justinept]

1997 is one of the trickiest years to pick a face of the company.

I've posted a few times that the way to figure out the face of the company is to see which wrestler had the most merchandise for sale. If it's a close call, then see which wrestler gets the most exposure outside the WWE ring.

The problem with 1997 is that it's hard to use that criterion because the company was in such financial dire straits that it almost went bankrupt. So the WWE' wasn't exactly cranking out loads of merch for any superstar! And because all the top stars became "tweeners," none were really marketable to the mainstream media. So the appearances went down as well.

So I'm almost at a loss with this year as to how to figure the company's face. Just from memory, I'm gonna go with HBK as the face prior to him losing his smile in February ... And Austin as the face after WrestleMania.

The reason I'm going with Austin is because I consider the summer of 1997 as the true beginning to The Attitude Era ... and who was the face of the Attitude Era? Austin.

 

[xXSlater420Xx]

Anyone who says HBK was the face of WWE in 1997 is a idiot, I suggest you watch your DVD's/VHS from 1996 and 1997 and you'll see he was the face of WWE in 1996 but not 1997. he hardly wrestled for 2/3's of the year and when he did return he was turned into a heel and if a heel can be the face of WWE then I'd say Bret would have taken it 1997 easily. The fans genuinely hated Bret in the USA, yet he was LOVED everywhere else, not only did he make Austin look gold, he also made a lackluster Patriot look decent enough to challenge for the WWF title on a PPV.

I am a huge Bret Hart fan but anyone who says he was the face of the WWF in 97 is an idiot. It's a well known fact that Shawn was in Vinces ear for a long time before 97 and any storyline Shawn was in during 97 was a main event program. And you said he didn't wrestle for 2/3 of the year, if I remember correctly he won the title at the 97 Rumble, gave it up in his "I lost my smile" speech was out for 2 or 3 months then came back after Wrestlemania and was there until he broke his back in 98. So I feel it's safe to say Shawn was the face of WWF in 97 both from a backstage stand point and a television standpoint.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

The biggest face, as in the biggest protagonist in the WWE in 1997 was The Undertaker. Undertaker had always been popular but this was the year in which Undertaker rose to prominence by winning his second world title and feuding with the likes of HBK and Bret Hart and embarking on a feud with his brother Kane towards the end of the year.

The biggest heel of 1997 was undoubtedly Bret Hart and that is pretty surprising considering the fact that he was only a heel in the US and a face everywhere else. He had a great year feuding with the likes of Stone Cold Steve Austin, Undertaker and HBK. He generated epic amounts of heat by forming the anti American stable Hart foundation.

So if you are asking as to who was the top protagonist in the WWF in 1997, it has to be The Undertaker. He is a clear winner as the other big stars of 1997 were either tweeners or heels.

But if you are asking as to who was the biggest draw in the WWF in 1997, I would have to go with Bret Hart. Bret was drawing so much heat that the WWF made a main eventer of a mediocre wrestler by the name of The Patriot who has never done anything great ever since. Bret's feud with Austin was the main attraction in the WWE for the first part of the year and his feud with Michaels kept the audience interested in the product in the second half. Towards the end of the year HBK overtook him as the biggest heel of the company but Bret Hart was the biggest draw in the WWF for the major part of the year.

 

[DeathClutch]

I am a huge Bret Hart fan but anyone who says he was the face of the WWF in 97 is an idiot. It's a well known fact that Shawn was in Vinces ear for a long time before 97 and any storyline Shawn was in during 97 was a main event program. And you said he didn't wrestle for 2/3 of the year, if I remember correctly he won the title at the 97 Rumble, gave it up in his "I lost my smile" speech was out for 2 or 3 months then came back after Wrestlemania and was there until he broke his back in 98. So I feel it's safe to say Shawn was the face of WWF in 97 both from a backstage stand point and a television standpoint.

Learn to read, I said Austin was the face of WWE imo. Merely pointing out Bret was the more over heel of 1997 until the screw job then Shawn took over regardless of on screen or backstage.

And Shawn didn't wrestle from around late Jan until end of May then early June and he was off until around late July when it was announced he was the ref of the title match at summerslam.

Over all 1997 was a poor year for Shawn until the last quarter when it picked up greatly.

 

[xXSlater420Xx]

Either way 97 was a shitty year for the WWF Brets character in the US was destroyed, not saying I didn't enjoy the whole US vs Canada fued, money was tight and at the time they really didn't have any established superstars other than Bret, Shawn, Taker and that's about it as far as guys who had already been there for an extended period. Everyone else was just starting to break out. Regardless of who anyone thinks was the face of the WWF in 97 Shawn was the biggest egotistical self centered spoiled little brat around. And thinking about it Shawn and Bret were pretty much on the same level no matter what during 97 you were sure to hear something about one of the 2 if not both on a weekly basis.

 

[Somewhat Large Gonzalez]

When you look at the ENTIRE YEAR, it's The Undertaker. Putting aside the title reign for a moment (which was more significant that most people give it credit for), you still had...

Paul Bearer's first heel turn. Big deal.
The Shawn Michaels feud. Big deal, as it created a new gimmick match.
The debut of Kane. Bigger deal.
The fact that he was a babyface for all of 1997, unlike the other three men.

Stone Cold was the face of the company in 1998. Shawn's year was 1996. But 1997, that was Taker's year.

 

[xXSlater420Xx]

Paul Bearer's first heel turn. Big deal.

Actually Paul Bearer turned heel at Summerslam 96 if I'm not mistaken not in 97. It was a boiler room brawl with the Undertaker vs Mankind and at the end as Taker was about to win Bearer hit him in the head with the urn and then gave the urn to Mankind. Assuming that is the heel turn you are referring to, which it should be as I don't recall bearer being a face at all during 97.

 

[The Rob]

In 1997, I'd say The Undertaker was the face of the WWE. He was overall their main attraction. Whilst Shawn and Bret were, undeniably, two of the biggest stars in the industry at the time, Taker was the one selling the majority of the merchandise and he was a consistent baby-face through-out the whole year whilst both Shawn and Bret took it in turns being heels. Not to mention Undertaker was the WWE Champion for a good chunk of the year. Stone Cold wasn't quite there yet in my opinion. He was extremely popular don't get me wrong but I'm not so sure whether he was at that point the guy who 'put asses in seats' when in comparison to The Undertaker.

 

[bfprimetime]

Anybody with sense knows it HBK! He went into the years as champ and ended it as champ. He also had the two biggest feuds which were with Bret and Taker. He also was the European Champ and for all those who forgot he was the tag team champ during the summer with Stone Cold Steve Austin.

 

[TheKliq4Life]

Face meanimg "most over" or face meaning "good guy"? As far as answering the "good guy" part, it's obviously The Undertaker. Bret Hart turned heel at Wrestlemania and Austin turned face that same night (which marked the beginning of such a phenomenal draw). Shawn Michaels eventually turned heel teaming up with Hunter. So The Undertaker was obviously the most consistent "face" all year long.

Now with out question, Stone Cold Steve Austin was on a HOT streak after Wrestlemania. He had his following already however, when the audience was chanting "Austin, Austin, Austin..." after his watch with Hart, that was the beginning of his era because he had the support from ALL the WWE fans. Yes Undertaker was the face, however I don't remember the audience erupting when the Undertaker was present like they did for Austin. He ended up feuding with the Hart Foundation most of the time and with Nation. He captured the Intercontinental Title from Owen (got injured in the process) and eventually would go on to win the Royal Rumble in the beginning of 98. Now Bret and HBK had alot of exposure due to their heated rivalry and their fued, however, they were both heels and weren't really the "face" of the company. WWF/WWE during this time seemed like they were going through a transition peroid, and although there was no Super Cena, Hogan, Rock, or Austin so prominently perceived as the face of the company, I still do say that since the majority of the wrestling audience were behind Austin he was the new face of this new era of their company. This is simply my opinion, being a wrestling fan since the late 80's.

 

[Minnesota Connection]

Stone Cold was just starting, he didn't reach full star-dom until wrestlemania against HBK.

Shawn himself was more of a heel to begin with in DX with HHH to start off, I don't think they were face throughout the year...

Undertaker possibly, but...

Bret Hart was still THE man until Survivor Series.

At least in my eyes.

 

[metans]

Wow, some heated discussion here then! I really wish you had put someone (specific) in the poll, maybe Faarooq or Savio Vega because it would have made it a damn sight easier to pick a loser.

And as much as I would have disagreed until the cows come home before I read this thread, I now have to agree with those who said The Undertaker

It's odd really because when people say 1997, you really do instantly think of "Austin" "Bret" "HBK" "DX" and "Screwjob" and the ol' Deadman gets somewhat forgotten. But let's break this down:

HBK: Generaly had a good year, held the WWF and European titles simultaneously (remember the european title?), Won the WWF title itself twice, and got to put one over his big rival Bret. Along with Austin, DX helped bring in the new "Attitude Era". All that said however, he did miss a large part of the year trying to *ahem* "Find his smile" which some see as his refusal to drop the title to Bret at Mania. Plus, he was a heel during the later parts of the year.

Bret Hart: Would probably be most people's automatic choice, given that once Hogan left the company, WWF=Hitman Country. But the crown was slipping, HBK and HHH were so-say in McMahon's ear and Vince's initial desperation to keep him (his contract that he signed in 1996 was to run up until 2016) turned to a willingness to release him to WCW to free up money. Time and again when Bret looked about to return to the top of the game, he was thwarted. Controversially defeated in the Royal Rumble, and throwing a hissy fit during the Main Event of Wrestlemania, he was eventually turned heel as the leader of the New Hart Foundation. Won the WWF title twice, and was screwed over at the Survivor Series.

• Both Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart were, I believe, too inconsistent in their "alignment" to be marketable (I know marketing has already been explored here) as the true face of the company. While The Hart foundation were Heel and Shawn Michaels was still a face in the USA, in Canada and the UK (I can't speak for the rest of the Commonwealth however) the reverse was true - Bret, Owen and Bulldog made them popular outside of the USA, and when Michaels beat Bulldog for the European title in Birmingham, England, he was booed out of the building and littered with trash.

Stone Cold: The rising star of the company at this point, hit the big time with his famous "Austin 3:16" speech after winning the 1996 King of the Ring, and became a solid competitor in the Intercontinental title rankings feuding with the Rock and the Nation of Domination. As far as 1997 is concerned, Austin was on a real roll. He was #1 contender a number of times without actually winning the title, and of course he won the Royal rumble in somewhat controversial fashion. Lost to Bret Hart in a brutal submission match at Wrestlemania XIII, he was undoubtedly one of the most popular superstars at the time despite being intended as a bad guy. No matter how bad they made his character, the fans kept cheering. But while the Attitude era is considered to have begun in mid-1997, it wasn't until another Rumble win and subsequent title match victory at Wrestlemania XIV over an outgoing Shawn Michaels that the Age of Austin truly begun.

The Undertaker: The winner by Michael Jackson's nose here I think. The main reasoning is because he was a consistent good guy, instead of flim-flamming in between or being face in one country, and heel in the next. Involved much like the other three in heavy-hitting storylines all year long, firstly as one of the final 4 in the Royal Rumble, to being the last man eliminated in the Vacant WWF title match in february after HBK left. From there, he went on to beat Psycho Sid for the Title at Wrestlemania XIII, and defended it against Mankind, Stone Cold, Faarooq and Vader before finally dropping the belt to Bret Hart at Summerslam. Was then involved with Paul Bearer, and the debut of his brother Kane. his year began to slow down somewhat at this point however, he wasn't at the Survivor Series and lost to the returning Jeff Jarrett (complete with shiny silver cape) by disqualification after interference from Kane at In your House: D-Generation X, which began to set the stage for their eventual showdown at Wrestlemania XIV.

So there you go, my 2 cents worth (and more) but I believe that if you are going to say was one guy alone the face of WWF in 1997, it would be Undertaker. Not by much, and Steve Austin is certainly a valid pick himself. Maybe it should be Austin... no, I've said Undertaker and I'm sticking by it. See how hard this is? But HBK and Bret, their best days were behind them (although HBK did enjoy a lot of success after his return in 2002) and Bret was apparently too much of a persona non grata at WWF headquarters to make him the sole star any more.

 

[mrpops]

All of them. They were all 4 equally the top draws/faces of the company. Back then everyone was equal and amazing.

Look at the 80's. You had Hogan. Thats it. Then we lead in to where everyone was over like shawn, bret, stone cold, taker, rock and later HHH, angle, jericho, benoit, eddie etc.

Now? We have Cena. Thats it.

I look forward to the future young guys who will all become great faces and theres not just that one guy hogging all the spotlight.

 

[Hitman-HBK United Inc.]

I'm in complete agreement with mrpops

1997 was such a difficult, yet productive time for the company, where they were making the extra effort to make there product better, to eventually make themselves profitable again.

It was times like this where the WWF main event guys really had to pull together to make everything work. They all did there part, and were key in the whole "shades of grey" aspect coming into play. The birth of the Attitude Era, had it's Godfather, Steve Austin, but if there was a league of elders paving way to that era, Bret would have to be up there. His charachter posed a question that wasn't so black & white, was he really wrong, was he truly a bad guy? Or were the american fans the bad guys? Bret and Austin showed people that regardless of what the office may say, you can choose who you want to be your hero. Fans felt liek they had control of what's what....that's part of what the era became all about.

Shawn did the same thing, he blurred every possible line you can think of. The Undertaker was the constant, no matter how evil his ambitions, the loyalty stayed. But those four guys were the reason why the comapny ended up turning around like they did. Bret may not have been around to see it....and Shawn only got a taste of it, but both were key performers in the year that was a big turnaround. The events of 1997 changed Austin's career forever, and for The Undertaker, it was inception of the Kane feud, a feud which propelled 'Taker to a new level of appeal from a charachter standpoint, and lead him to feud with Austin...which lead to drawing huge money!

It was a domino effect, and all four guys contributed in different ways....some more than others...but it was the old cliche of the table standing on four legs....

 

[nwo1234life]

Bret Hart was the face of wwe in 1997. from 1992 to Survivor Series 1997 he was the top dog then after Montreal to Mania 14 HBK took over and passed the torch to Austin.

 

[byrnside]

Although it's hard to say that any one of these guys was the face, I'm going with "The Hitman." Bret had been the face of the WWF for several years at this point and 1997 was no exception. He started the year against Steve Austin and pretty much helped make Stone Cold what he eventually went on to become. Later on he turned heel and reunited The Hart Foundation and turned it into a legendary stable. And last but not least, his feud with DX/HBK. The feud that changed the wrestling business as we knew it and gave us "The Montreal Screwjob," the main reason why I chose Bret Hart. It was such a huge deal when Bret signed his contract with WCW and left the WWF, the screw job itself should show you why.