Better Good Or Bad: Bret Hart

[RicoLen]

It's been a while since anyone's done one of these threads and it's come to my attention that Bret Hart has yet to be discussed in this manner. So... which version of Bret Hart did you like better?

The Canadian Crybaby that pissed everyone and their mother off and who was the focal point of the Montreal Screwjob and put over Steve Austin to propel him to the new face of the company?

Or did you prefer the take on all comers Intercontinental and WWF Champion who exemplified the excellence of execution and was the face of the New Generation Era?

 

[KatCoog]

I liked Bret Hart better as a face, but I think that has something to do with the fact that I most remember him as a heel in WCW. As we all know, they badly botched having Hart on their roster.

 

[relentless1]

face, like you say, he took on all comers, thats the bret hart that had technical prowess and arguably his best matches were put on as a face ( owen, mr perfect)...definelty bret hart as a face with the whole better man wins attitude

 

[Foshinzo]

I guess I took the road less traveled and picked heel.

He was probably best as a face, but I think his personality stood out the most as a heel. They did the whole, "Crybaby," angle, which I think fit the situation while adequately giving Hart a voice. Sure, he was being a crybaby by kicking and stomping about the changing WWF landscape, the oncoming Attitude Era, etc., but he had a good reason to be:

Bret had never really done anything wrong, he had always been there for the fans, he always gave 100%, he had always been a great role model, and yet they grew up and turned on him for no reason at all, just for the guy who was flipping them off, drinking beer, essentially promoting blasphemy with Austin 3:16, and beating up his boss; Austin was the heel who was loved for it. I'm sure a lot of people could understand Hart's anger, especially with the American crowd who was eating it up, and they gave him the voice to try and express that.

That's the most real personality we ever got from Bret.

But, even as a heel, he was a class act in the form of WrestleMania 13, when he gave Austin arguably the best match of his career and his most defining moment in the WWF, and he should be commended for that. Bret Hart was a man who got black labeled because cooler heads didn't prevail, grudges couldn't be resolved, and people refused to cooperate. He was a company man who didn't get to ride off into the sunset like he deserved to, and that's why I like Bret better as a heel: it was his only time to get that off of his chest. At least, after all the hardships his family had to endure, he has that to maybe feel good about.

 

[JWGunslinger]

I was definitely a bigger fan of Bret Hart as a face, I was a big fan of Bret whether he was a good guy or a bad guy but I will always remember him for being a beastly face. Bret was a top notch technician inside the ring at all stages of his career but character wise I don't any other point in his time was better than Bret Hart the face who took on everyone one and outclassed them.

 

[The Brain]

Bret did a masterful job of playing a heel in 1997. He really got under the fans’ skin. The beauty of it was there was a lot of truth in everything Bret said. He could talk a good game and everyone knew he had the ability to back it up.

With that said, I thought Bret was best as a face. I always liked him playing the role model. He took pride in his work and never backed down from a challenge. He could hold his own against a mat technician, a brawler, or a giant. He had a nice look with the long hair, leather jacket, and patent shades but Bret ultimately won the fans’ respect and admiration because of his ability and hard work. By the way, Bret was such a good face that even when he was a hated heel he was loved throughout most of the world. He was only hated in the United States.

 

[justinept]

Bret as a face was my favorite wrestler of all time, but his time as a heel is so vastly underrated that it's amazing.

For my money, the USA vs Canada angle of 1997 was the single-best story line the WWE ever wrote - and outside the first month or two of the NWO, I'd say it was the best story line in the history of pro wrestling. Not even the NWO blurred the lines of good and bad quite like Bret Hart did in 1997 ... booed out of every American arena ... treated as a King in Canadian arenas.

His heel persona built the legend of Austin ... enhanced the legend of HBK ... played a large part in forming the Mr. McMahon character ...

As much as I loved him as a face ... his time as a heel was simply legendary.

 

[RicoLen]

Yeah, you know? I answered face on the poll, but I think I would change it to heel. I liked him best as a face, and enjoyed him more, however as a heel he was the catalyst of change and it seems like he did far more constructive work towards the future as a heel. If I don't like him as a heel, well, that's a good thing too right? But as a face is how I'm going to remember him always, and as the 2nd best intercontinental champion of all time (behind Randy Savage at #1, and ahead of Mr. Perect at #3)

 

[lowandmighty]

I thought Bret Hart was crap whether he was good or bad. The best match I ever saw him have was the one where he loses to HBK at wrestlemania 12 the famous iron man match. I think he was a pretty neutral character in this match, neither face nor heel and thats what Bret Hart was good at being - neutral. Like stone cold for example he was meant to be face but acted like an ass to everybody and that was entertaining, Bret didn't act like an ass when he was neutral but he showed that he was in it for himself a good example is how he tried to walk away after the match was a draw before it went to sudden death (wrestlemania12).

In real life he's the sort of person who is pretty selfish, arrogant, opinionated and holds grudges so he seems crap as a face but too respect for technical wrestling oriented to be a heel. He doesn't have a very expressive face (visage) thats why I personally never really liked him. When he used to give his sunglasses away that was the only time he ever seemed likable.

The worst thing about Bret Hart is that best there is, was, ever will be line cause he's not any of those things. If he was he really could have used that to come across as an arrogant heel. To justify this theory I'll use Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan as examples, Flair went on about how he was a "wheelin dealing kiss stealin sun of a gun woooo" and the multiple time world champion and that gave him a pretty good reason to be hated because it was all true and Hollywood Hogan went on about how he raised professional wrestling to new heights and half the guys in the back wouldn't have even gotten into wrestling if not for him and he slammed andre the giant, sold arena's world wide out on his own name, changed the wrestling business blah blah blah and all that was also true giving his character more of a reason to be hated etc but bret harts line was just crap, he never really achieved all that much he was just sort of popular so my answer to the question is bret hart better as a heel or a face is neither cause in the end he's pretty mediocre all round, he could wrestle but he had the personality of a toyota camry.

 

[amazing_blue]

I have to go with heel here. Like another poster said, the USA vs. Canada storyline was perhaps the greatest of all time, or at least up there. Bret's rally against the quickly approaching attitude era, the filthy American fans and the repulsive characters like HBK and Stone Cold was awesome.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I liked both versions of Hart and to be honest it is very difficult to choose between the two. I'd go with his face gimmick here because I feel that as wonderful as he was as a heel, that gimmick would not have lasted the distance. In wrestling history, Bret Hart would go down as a great face character regardless of anything that happened and anything that could have happened. Bret also seemed more natural as a face and by all accounts disliked his heel character because he genuinely loved all the fans of USA. His heel gimmick for all its game changing attributes was somewhat of a "right place at the right time" sort of thing.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Bret Harts anti-american character might have been one of my favorite characters of all time. It gave Bret a personality and his character was finally being responded too instead of simply his ability. Not to mention his feud with Austin produced two of his best matches ever.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

While I really enjoyed Bret's run as a heel towards the end of his time in WWE, in the Hart Foundation and the whole anti-America gimmick, The Hitman was one of the all time greatest faces in WWE history.

The fans adored Bret, he was a true hero to them and was always one of, if not THE most popular wrestler whenever the WWE went abroad. While some faces tend to become cheesy and uncool when they are always trying to play the honourable good guy, such as John Cena, Bret was never like this. He was always playing by the rules, but simply by being the better man in the ring.

WCW should have capitalised on this by making Hart one of the top faces in the company, but they totally messed up on him. WWE got it right with Bret by having him as a face most of his career. The heel run was perfectly done too, but he will be remembered as a great babyface when people look back on his career.

 

[FlairFan2003]

As aside, I loved the comment from the guy who said Hart had the personality of a toyata camry - great line.

Now, Brett may have injected some true feelings into his heel persona in 97, and if he was upset at the booking direction of the company he had a right to be, colorful anti heroes like Austin were getting huge cheers. Hart had issues (likely many of them legit) with HBK, and maybe he wasnt happy that his spot in the company was slipping.


As far as Heel or Face Brett, Hart worked best as face, he really was the WWE's John Cena of the early 90's, kids loved him as a straight forward cookie cutter good guy but older fans found him too one dimensional and boring. Hart definately had great in ring ability (I think Cena is underrated in that area, but he's no Brett Hart). He was being booed by fans before he adopted his 97 heel character because he was not as entertaning as guys like Austin & HBK. In WCW he was booed against Ric Flair even though they tried deparately to make Flair look like a jerk before their match. Fact is, as wrestling became bigger and it was widely known to be "entertainment" certain heels, usually the more colorful, charismatic ones, started becoming cheered. This actually started in the late 80's but it really caught on in the mid 90's when there was a large audience of older fans watching who appreciated the work it took to make those characters compelling.

Hart did a great job as the har working people's champion, giving sunglasses to kids at ringside, etc, kind of Hulk Hogan only with really good wrestling skill. In terms of interiews and charisma, Hart was average to slightly better than average at best. He was terrific in the ring, so so on the mic. This is why WWE started looking for guys to replace him long term as top of the card. They fell into Austin almost by accident, but Vince and company had already invested a year into Kevin Nash as champion and started moving HBK into the No. 1 spot long before Montreal in 97.

Heels have to be especially entertaining - we like good guys mostly because they are good, they beat up bad guys, they dont cheat, the represent good things. If they have some real marketability as talkers even better. We loved Ricky Steamboat because he was good guy family man. Not great on the mic. We loved Hulk Hogan and Dusty Rhodes partly because they were role models but also because they were entertaining as could be with charisma to spare. Hart did better than I would have expected in his "cry baby" persona of 97 but he really excelled as The People's Champ of 92-95, a character where he did not have to be great on the mic to be successful.