Bret Hart contract situation in 97

[ted sheckler]

I'm curious though... what are some of the other scenarios that Shawn says that Bret shot down?

I actually think Vince suggested Shawn beat Bret for the belt in Detroit a couple days before Survivor Series. Then Bret could have either beat Shawn somehow without the belt changing hands or fought to a DQ ect.

I do understand what you're saying about how it shouldn't have been Bret's choice on who he dropped the belt to, but you're forgetting the one thing that gave him that right...the final 30 day creative control clause in his contract.

The problem is..and the reason Bret didn't sue the WWE was because it wasn't "total creative control" it was in his contract as having "reasonable creative control" over the last 30 days. The clause was put in so that had Bret left WWE would not spend the last 30 days having him job to Doink the Clown and Repo Man.. and wear a dress to the ring. It was not in place so that he could refuse to drop the belt to someone he didn't like on a personal level.

I do agree that Shawn was the logical choice to drop the belt to, but I also agree with Bret's reasoning not to be the one to drop it to him. He was taking a stand against a spoiled primadona and standing up for what he believed in. The funny thing is... they could have used someone like Shamrock for example as a transitional champ, and had him drop the belt to Michaels immediately afterwards. They could have had Bret forfeit the title like Shawn did earlier in the year, and gone with an angle on RAW the next week to crown Shawn as the champion.

The problem is that WWE needed Shawn Michaels to beat Bret Hart. Cementing that the WWE's #1 guy is still with WWE. It is much more impactful to have HBK beat Bret than a transitional champion. The fued with Shawn and Bret had been building for 2 years.. It just made sense

I think Bret always realized that once the belt left him, it was going to end up with Shawn anyways, and there wasn't a think he could do about that. All he could control was him being the one to drop it to him, and that's what he tried his best to accomplish. Selfish? Yeah it was. Understandable given the circumstances? To me, it absolutely was.

Yes. I agree very petty and selfish. Because in my opinion Bret shouldn't have just been thinking about Shawn. He should have been thinking about doing the right thing for the company that made him a star.. for the wrestlers in the back who put him over for years.. the ring crew the camera guys..ect ect... WWE was at a time when they could have gone out of business and Bret put himself first.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

I actually think Vince suggested Shawn beat Bret for the belt in Detroit a couple days before Survivor Series. Then Bret could have either beat Shawn somehow without the belt changing hands or fought to a DQ ect.

Never heard that before. It's a solution, but not a great one.

They had been promoting the title match, and then to have the title change hands on a non televised show a couple days before, and the big match now isn't for the belt? That would have pissed off a lot of fans. Plus you now have to factor in that you want Austin to win the belt at WM, and that moment isn't as powerful if Austin's already been champ once.

I think they could have made that work eventually just based off of how over Austin was, but it's a bad solution. It doesn't make sense for Hart to drop the belt before Survivor Series.

The problem is..and the reason Bret didn't sue the WWE was because it wasn't "total creative control" it was in his contract as having "reasonable creative control" over the last 30 days. The clause was put in so that had Bret left WWE would not spend the last 30 days having him job to Doink the Clown and Repo Man.. and wear a dress to the ring. It was not in place so that he could refuse to drop the belt to someone he didn't like on a personal level.

This is a bit of a grey area... because the reverse of that argument is that McMahon could have just told Hart flat out that he was dropping the belt to Michaels in Montreal and that's all there was to it.

McMahon doesn't force the issue because of the creative control clause. Hart doesn't take action after the fact because his creative control clause wasn't exactly a slam dunk. If that had gone to court, who knows who wins? Probably McMahon because he can afford the better legal team... but if Bischoff decides to back Hart with Ted Turner's money, it could have been a court battle for the ages.

The problem is that WWE needed Shawn Michaels to beat Bret Hart. Cementing that the WWE's #1 guy is still with WWE. It is much more impactful to have HBK beat Bret than a transitional champion. The fued with Shawn and Bret had been building for 2 years.. It just made sense

I agree that it absolutely made sense. Since that wasn't happening without the screwjob, I'm just saying there were other ways to do it that would have also worked. Just like the workaround that you said Michaels had above, these were ideas that Hart had. None of them are as good as Michaels going over Hart in Montreal, but if you have to pick one, I think it's either bumping Austin's push on top up half a year, or going with Shamrock as a transitional guy. He can beat Hart convincingly with the ankle lock, and then HBK taking him after the fact still looks good. HBK was looked at as one of, if not the biggest name in wrestling at that time, so it doesn't hurt him beating a transitional champ... and it makes HBK look stronger than the outcome of the screwjob did.

Yes. I agree very petty and selfish. Because in my opinion Bret shouldn't have just been thinking about Shawn. He should have been thinking about doing the right thing for the company that made him a star.. for the wrestlers in the back who put him over for years.. the ring crew the camera guys..ect ect... WWE was at a time when they could have gone out of business and Bret put himself first.

Ironically, I think in his way, he was thinking about the guys in the back who had put him over for years. It's pretty well documented what a monster Shawn was at the time, and Bret taking that stand against him was in a way him standing up for the rest of the boys.

Honestly, both of them were being petty and selfish back then. They both have a lot of fault in how things turned out.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Yes Brett CHOSE TO LEAVE, GET OVER IT HART FANS! Vince initially made a really bad mistake offering Hart his last deal, afraid of WCW pilfering another known WWE commodity. Fact was Brett was certainly usefull, and like HHH and Taker could have stayed and been a major part of the show, but Austin had clearly become THE SHOW, and HBK was more entertaining, better on the mic, and Hart's equal in the ring. When all the "stay or go" drama was winding down Vince made it clear to Brett he was welcome to stay, make a nice pay check, but it he wouldnt be the main focal point of the show. Brett didnt like the idea of being a big part of the show after previously being the biggest part so he took a very lucratitf deal to go to WCW, who WAY OVER PAID for him (and in typical WCW fashion mis booked him, never giving him a full fledged feud with Hogan).

Vince probably was having some money issues but business was on an upswing in the late months of 97, Austin having established himself as the biggest phenom in either company in years (Goldberg was barely getting started, at least 4-5 months away from even getting close to Stone Cold). Remember, at the same time in 97 that Vince is going back and forth with Hart he was trying to sign Flair who was having very contentious contract extension talks with Bischoff and WCW, remember Jim Cornette's "commentary" segment on Raw ripping Hogan et all and encouraging Flair to return, or rumors online that Vince spoke directly with Flair before he signed the "letter of intent" to stay (what a mess that turned into, Flair walking out claiming the actual final contract didnt meet the terms of the letter of intent, Bischoff trying to fire him, competing law suits, protests at shows and online by fans, websites dedicated to providing contact info of Turner Broadcaster advertisers for letter writing campaigns, the whole People Magazine thing). Fact is, Vince couldnt have been interested in Flair not too mention Tyson if he had no cash flow.

Vince also was not crazy about "creative control" clauses and the havoc they could wreak on storylines. How many guys have such things now ? Certainly WCW handing such power out to multiple people didnt help them. No doubt Vince was happy to get out of that obligation.

Finally, I cant stand the argument that Hart's prescious character would have been damaged by losing on his way out. Didnt Flair and Hogan both lose on their way out of WWE ? Hall & Nash jobbed non stop for a full month before they left. Didnt Austin cleanly put over The Rock a few years ago on his way out when he knew he couldnt wrestle anymore ? Didnt Rock put over Lesnar when he quit and went to Hollywood full time ? Seems to me all these guys did just fine afterwards, in the cases of Flair, Hogan, Hall, & Nash they immediately started drawing money and expanding the viewership as soon as they started wrestling post WWE, Rock just headlined one of the biggest WWE PPVs ever in his return. Hart wasnt worried about damaging the "value" and promotability of hir character, he didnt like HBK personally and was jealous (with good reason, HBK had surpassed him on the depth chart although it is debatable if he was really a much bigger draw, and everyone knows HBK was a total jerk back then, especially to Hart, he's admitted as much).

Vince liked Hart and respected him but he didnt see him as the top guy any longer though I totally believe he could have stayed and like Taker been a major contributor and been treated well. Hart didnt like HBK, was vocal in his contempt for the new programming direction, he wasnt happy being a supporting act to the obnoxious Michaels or Attitude Laced Austin. After the dust of a possible contract renegotiation settled he was offered a chance to stay and he declined. Looking at the money and his relationship with HBK cant say I blame him. However, "BRETT SCREWED BRETT", no one else.

 

[ted sheckler]

Never heard that before. It's a solution, but not a great one.

There were no great solutions.. that was the problem. But you also forget about WHY Vince needed to get the belt of Bret by Survivor Series at the latest. There was a timing issue. WCW had signed a confidentially agreement that they would not announce signing Bret Hart until... you guessed it Nov 10th.. The day after Survivor Series!. So if Shawn Michaels does not take the belt off Bret THAT NIGHT the next night on Nitro Bishoff can come to the ring and announce on his show that he had just sign THE current WWE champion!!.. Thats huge!!

McMahon doesn't force the issue because of the creative control clause. Hart doesn't take action after the fact because his creative control clause wasn't exactly a slam dunk. If that had gone to court, who knows who wins? Probably McMahon because he can afford the better legal team... but if Bischoff decides to back Hart with Ted Turner's money, it could have been a court battle for the ages.

It all depends on what the court deems the definition of "reasonable creative control" is. Personally I think Bret would not have had good shot of winning this at all.

I agree that it absolutely made sense. Since that wasn't happening without the screwjob, I'm just saying there were other ways to do it that would have also worked. Just like the workaround that you said Michaels had above, these were ideas that Hart had. None of them are as good as Michaels going over Hart in Montreal, but if you have to pick one, I think it's either bumping Austin's push on top up half a year, or going with Shamrock as a transitional guy. He can beat Hart convincingly with the ankle lock, and then HBK taking him after the fact still looks good. HBK was looked at as one of, if not the biggest name in wrestling at that time, so it doesn't hurt him beating a transitional champ... and it makes HBK look stronger than the outcome of the screwjob did.

I agree and the whole behind Austin was supposed to be a 4 month build of Stone Cold going after the belt and winning it for the first time at wrestlemania... A HUGE moment.. Tyson.. Michaels.. !! Now if I'm Vince Mcmahon and I'm in a dogfight with WCW trying to save the business my father built.. that I made into a global company.. And now I need to change my biggest plans of the year.. the run that I'm I counting on to help turn around my company and compete with WCW simply because my employees are having a pissing match. I'm sorry but I'm looking out for my business.. my familiy.. my employees that count on me for a paycheck.. and Brets ego is not going to affect how I run my business.

Ironically, I think in his way, he was thinking about the guys in the back who had put him over for years. It's pretty well documented what a monster Shawn was at the time, and Bret taking that stand against him was in a way him standing up for the rest of the boys.

I've heard that from him before and honestly I've never..ever..ever believed that for half a second. He may have reflected on the situation and thought that but it's well known that had a massive ego same as shawn..same as vince.. But Bret is known by most as being the worlds biggest bret hart mark

Honestly, both of them were being petty and selfish back then. They both have a lot of fault in how things turned out.

Agreed.. And it was only in the last couple years I've finally started hearing Bret admitting that could have handled things better and has taken some of the blame which is nice to see they BOTH finally grew up.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Also, although Vince took a gamble elevating Hart's initial value with Montreal, he elevated HBK & DX even more, making them more reviled by fans, creating more negative heat for the guys that essentially became your top villains, the evil force that the unstoppable Austin would have to overcome to be champ.

 

[bitesthedust]

My view is the same as it was in 1997. Vince screwed Bret.

If McMahon had insisted Hart drop the belt before November 1, 1997 - before he signed with WCW (at his request, I might add) - Bret's 30 day "reasonable creative control" clause would have not affected the destination of the WWF World Title. Vince gave Bret permission to negotiate with WCW in September, so why not take the belt from him as soon as possible?

If Bret had retained at Survivor Series, then I understand the argument that a WCW announcement on Nitro of Bret's arrival would hurt the WWF but it wouldn't have been the massive blow it was feared at the time; in my opinion they still had plenty of name talent on the roster and Austin was lined up to take the belt at Wrestlemania.

Lastly, Bret had the legal right to refuse to put Shawn Michaels over the night, and he did that. It gave him the right to offer his standpoint to negotiate the situation with McMahon. If Michaels had kept quiet when Bret offered to put him over at the end of the run, then most likely he would have won the belt clean at Survivor Series.

 

[Wald]

Bret has stated many times that he would have dropped the title to various other wrestlers at Survivor Series or to Shawn on a Raw after the PPV and before he left for WCW.

Bischoff has stated many times that the idea of Bret coming over with the title had never been talked about because of two reasons. The first was that there was no way that Bret would have the title on November 1st and the second was that Bischoff had gotten so cocky over the ratings war that he didn't care about the WWF title at all.

That lie that Bret was going to show up on Nitro has been put out there by Vince and repeated by HBK supporters for 15 years, it doesn't hold up to common sense though.

Now, why was Bret leaving? Simply because Vince didn't think he fit with the company's direction any more. Straightforward business decision.

Someone else asked the question earlier in this thread and it's one that has never been answered properly. Why didn't Bret sue the WWF for shed loads of cash after Vince broke his contract agreements? He would have had an airtight case to sue Vince for the full amount of the contract after Survivor Series. The only thing I can think of is that it could have affected his WCW situation in some way, but I'm not sure

 

[ted sheckler]

Bret has stated many times that he would have dropped the title to various other wrestlers at Survivor Series or to Shawn on a Raw after the PPV and before he left for WCW.

Bischoff has stated many times that the idea of Bret coming over with the title had never been talked about because of two reasons. The first was that there was no way that Bret would have the title on November 1st and the second was that Bischoff had gotten so cocky over the ratings war that he didn't care about the WWF title at all.

That lie that Bret was going to show up on Nitro has been put out there by Vince and repeated by HBK supporters for 15 years, it doesn't hold up to common sense though.

If you read the posts I don't believe anyone brought up the whole thing about Bret bringing the title to WCW.

Now, why was Bret leaving? Simply because Vince didn't think he fit with the company's direction any more. Straightforward business decision.

Yep.. Nothing personal.. It's just business. Bret took it personal.

Someone else asked the question earlier in this thread and it's one that has never been answered properly. Why didn't Bret sue the WWF for shed loads of cash after Vince broke his contract agreements? He would have had an airtight case to sue Vince for the full amount of the contract after Survivor Series. The only thing I can think of is that it could have affected his WCW situation in some way, but I'm not sure

Well your certainly wrong about that. There was NOTHING airtight about a possible case. Again "total creative control" vs "reasonable creative control" that's very vague. Secondly he assualted Vince back stage which I'm sure he considers himself lucky no charges were brought against him there.

 

[ted sheckler]

My view is the same as it was in 1997. Vince screwed Bret.

I used to think that too. But over time as more and more info came out and I wasn't thinking about it emotionally but rationally I think Vince did what he needed to do for his company. And Bret did what he felt he needed to do for himself. Unfortunately for him he didn't have the power he thought he did in this situation.

If McMahon had insisted Hart drop the belt before November 1, 1997 - before he signed with WCW (at his request, I might add) - Bret's 30 day "reasonable creative control" clause would have not affected the destination of the WWF World Title. Vince gave Bret permission to negotiate with WCW in September, so why not take the belt from him as soon as possible?

If Bret had retained at Survivor Series, then I understand the argument that a WCW announcement on Nitro of Bret's arrival would hurt the WWF but it wouldn't have been the massive blow it was feared at the time; in my opinion they still had plenty of name talent on the roster and Austin was lined up to take the belt at Wrestlemania.

Thats your opinion.. That it wouldn't be a huge blow but remember this was a company that was up against the ropes. WCW was dominating them at this point. Vince was worried they were going to be put out of business. And just because you feel it wouldn't have been a big blow doesn't mean it wouldn't have been huge! And it's just kinda dismissive bias thinking that leads to "oh well.. they could have handled it"... They shouldn't have to handle that!! Bret simply needs to do his job.. Try to damage the company that made him rich.. made him a star. But instead he let his selfish petty feud with Michaels allow him to not do what was right for the business that made him.

Lastly, Bret had the legal right to refuse to put Shawn Michaels over the night, and he did that. It gave him the right to offer his standpoint to negotiate the situation with McMahon. If Michaels had kept quiet when Bret offered to put him over at the end of the run, then most likely he would have won the belt clean at Survivor Series.

Again I completely disagree with that. Reasonable Creative control was intended to be in place to keep WWE from running him through the gutter on his way out. It was not so he could refuse to lose a match against the #1 wrestler in your company.

Please take you emotions out of it and think of it this way. What if it wasn't Bret? What if Shawn Michaels had creative control in his contract and when the got to Wresetlemania 14 he said. "I'm not dropping the belt to Austin..he stepped on my foot and I feel disrespected.. I'll drop the belt to Ken Shamrock.. Golddust.. or even Bart Gunn.. OR if you want WM 14 can end in a disqualification and the next night on Raw I'll come out and surrender the belt" You guys would SCREAM bloody murder!! Whether he had the "legal right" to do so or not

 

[SinCityBlitz]

The thing that has always bothered me about this is did Bret sue over the screwjob? Legally he'd be in his right's to do so with his 30 day creative control clause. If he did i've never heard about it, and if he didn't why not? surely he would have been able to sue for millions. If he didn't sue is this an indicator to suggest he was in on it?

Many people don't understand or don't know but Bret had REASONABLE creative control. he didn't have full creative control. Bret would have had to go to court to prove that he was being reasonable in his demands to not drop the belt to HBK. I seriously doubt that a court would have taken Bret's side in pre-determined form of entertainment.

Secondly, what is reasonable? Is it reasonable for Bret to hand pick who he drops the belt to when he is leaving for bigger money anyway? Bret dropping the belt to Shawn doesn't hurt him at all while him dropping the belt to whoever he wants might hurt the WWF.

A few things:



3) The reason the WWE didn't try to re-negotiate Hart's contract was because they didn't want him any more. The seeds to the Attitude Era had been planted and Hart was very outspoken against it. Adding further fuel to the fire was his very public, very intense feud with Michaels. The two couldn't co-exist anymore.

They did try to re-negotiate Hart's contract but everything else you post here is right. Hart was extremely outspoken against the Attitude Era. Hart wanted nothing to do with it and was becoming hard to work with because of it. Throw in the problems with HBK and one or the other had to go. As much as I like Hart, Vince made the right choice.

 

[Arashi]

Times were changing and the Attitude Era was beginning. Bret had problems with the sexual innuendo, the cursing etc. He had problems with HBK and his politicking and Vince turning a blind to it. Still, he deserved better treatment than what he got. I think if Bret had stayed he would have done a better job putting over Austin at WM than HBK did, and without being threatened by Taker to do so.

Okay never will I buy that HBK wasn't going to put Austin over. The guy was hardly able to walk and went out there and did his job. I'm sure if HBK didn't want to put Austin over, he could've just said "Hey I literally can't perform without risking my heath" (I'm sure he could've found a doctor to agree with that.) and not showed, or vacated the belt. It's not like the guy didn't have an excuse. He could've got out of doing the job (the fact he vacated every title in WWE). He decided to do the job to Austin, he didn't have to. Which bret should've done.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Bret has stated many times that he would have dropped the title to various other wrestlers at Survivor Series or to Shawn on a Raw after the PPV and before he left for WCW.

Bischoff has stated many times that the idea of Bret coming over with the title had never been talked about because of two reasons. The first was that there was no way that Bret would have the title on November 1st and the second was that Bischoff had gotten so cocky over the ratings war that he didn't care about the WWF title at all.

That lie that Bret was going to show up on Nitro has been put out there by Vince and repeated by HBK supporters for 15 years, it doesn't hold up to common sense though.

Now, why was Bret leaving? Simply because Vince didn't think he fit with the company's direction any more. Straightforward business decision.

Someone else asked the question earlier in this thread and it's one that has never been answered properly. Why didn't Bret sue the WWF for shed loads of cash after Vince broke his contract agreements? He would have had an airtight case to sue Vince for the full amount of the contract after Survivor Series. The only thing I can think of is that it could have affected his WCW situation in some way, but I'm not sure

Once again another biased point of view from this guy. Bret can do no wrong in your eyes. How do you know Bret wasnt going to show up on Nitro with the WWF title?....Did Bret personally tell you that?Also just to let you know, if you assault someone you cant sue them with an "airtight case" and not be counter sued.

Im a big Bret fan and think hes one of the greatest ever but he was wrong in the 97 contract situation. Shawn Michaels did a lot of wrong too, leading up that situation, but Bret was completely in the wrong by not doing business that night.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Both Bischoff and McMahon have talked about Brett taking the title to WCW and embarrasing it in some fashion. So has Hart who has said he would never have gone along with it.

However, in reference to Vince, he was embarrased by Luger & Medussa (did the Rick Rude incident happen after Survivor Series ?). Bischoff was giving out taped WWE Raw results live on Nitro. Vince also convinced Ric Flair to bring the WCW Title to WWE in 1991, which he proudly displayed all over his TV programs. Flair was the ultimate company guy until WCW gave him trouble over his contract, next thing you know the company guy and his belt were all over WWE TV and WCW was humiliated. Imagine if Bischoff had plastered the WWE Title all over Nitro playing "Oh Canada" to announce the newest NWO Member, the NWO now held both the WWE & WCW Titles. The WWE brand would have been severely damaged.

Brett should have put Michaels over at Survivor Series. Vince had serious and legit concerns about his programs and his brand. He did what was best for WWE.

 

[bitesthedust]

Hart would not have been in possession of the WWF World Title on December 1, 1997, so the only way he could appeared on Nitro with the belt would have been for him to no-show the November 10 Raw and instead appear on Nitro. This wouldn't have happened as he would have been in breach of contract.

People talk about how Bret Hart should have done what was right for business, but Shawn Michaels did not do this when he refused to put Bret over at Wrestlemania 13, he exaggerated a knee injury to sidestep this (and forfeited the title to avoid losing to Sid on Thursday Raw Thursday).

Now, why did Bret refuse to put Shawn over at Survivor Series? Because Shawn had refused to lose to Bret. I'll concede that a compromise could have and should have been worked out - maybe Bret wins in Montreal then loses the next night in Ottawa.

 

[Wald]

Once again another biased point of view from this guy. Bret can do no wrong in your eyes. How do you know Bret wasnt going to show up on Nitro with the WWF title?....Did Bret personally tell you that?Also just to let you know, if you assault someone you cant sue them with an "airtight case" and not be counter sued.

I know because Bret isn't an idiot and would have realised he would have been sued into the bankruptcy had he not shown up on the Raws leading up to his last date to drop the title. How hard is that to understand?

And I see fault in Bret. He held on to the bitterness about this for too long, for one, plus I can understand why Vince would think Bret wouldn't fit in the new Attitude era (I don't think he would have either). But I can fully understand why he refused to drop the title to HBK, a guy who, even by his own accounts, was a complete asshole backstage who cared about no-one but himself. Take into account HBK refusing to job for Bret and I understand why he would pull creative and say that he won't lose it to Shawn on that night.

 

[HBKperfect23]

I know because Bret isn't an idiot and would have realised he would have been sued into the bankruptcy had he not shown up on the Raws leading up to his last date to drop the title. How hard is that to understand?

I guess pretty hard because Bret DIDNT HAVE TO SHOW UP ON RAW. He had already worked all the dates (and more) that he was under contract for.

And I see fault in Bret. He held on to the bitterness about this for too long, for one, plus I can understand why Vince would think Bret wouldn't fit in the new Attitude era (I don't think he would have either). But I can fully understand why he refused to drop the title to HBK, a guy who, even by his own accounts, was a complete asshole backstage who cared about no-one but himself. Take into account HBK refusing to job for Bret and I understand why he would pull creative and say that he won't lose it to Shawn on that night.

It doesnt have to be about Bret/Shawn at this point. Like I said earlier, its Vinces decesion that Bret drops it to Shawn, not Shawn or Brets decesion. The whole point of this is for Bret to drop it to a hot heel in the company (Shawn) so Shawn can make Steve at WM. Bret should have put his personal feelings aside and done business for the company who made him a star.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

I think Bret was a good draw. This stuff about him being a terrible draw is somewhat exaggerated in my opinion. He's obviously no Rock or Austin, but you need to consider the circumstances:

WrestleMania13:
I'm sure this had more to do with Sid & Taker than Bret. Bret was billed with Austin - soon to become the biggest draw since Hogan. Is Austin to blame for low WM13 buyrates? No way.

Being the face of the New Generation:
This is true. But he wasn't always the top guy. This era had year or almost year long reigns from Yokozuna and Diesel. A lot of Bret's time during this era was spent feuding with guys like Bob Backlund, Jerry Lawler and Isaac Yankem. Can't blame Bret for bad houses and buyrates headlined by Diesel and Sid or Mabel, while Bret is wrestling Isaac Yankem. SummerSlam 1995 anyone? God that card is awful.

It's not like Shawn or Taker really did any better in this era.

Now I'm a huge Bret Hart fan. But I can admit the guy is a HUGE mark for himself. Some things he says lately make me cringe. He comes across so bitter these days I really wish he could just move on. He really does pat himself on the back at every turn.

--------
For the Screwjob - I really think Vince didn't want Bret anymore, and chose Shawn. The two couldn't co-exist in the back anymore, they both refused to put the other over and when it came down to it, Vince picked Shawn. Bret being vocally anti-attitude era I find very interesting because I think 1997 is the best stuff Bret ever did. I often wonder how Bret would have fit in to the attitude era, considering Shawn was basically done in the ring after WM14. I imagine heel Bret would have been a better opponent for champ Austin than Dude Love. But he wouldn't have been the top guy and I don't think his ego could have handled that.

 

[byrnside]

Okay never will I buy that HBK wasn't going to put Austin over. The guy was hardly able to walk and went out there and did his job. I'm sure if HBK didn't want to put Austin over, he could've just said "Hey I literally can't perform without risking my heath" (I'm sure he could've found a doctor to agree with that.) and not showed, or vacated the belt. It's not like the guy didn't have an excuse. He could've got out of doing the job (the fact he vacated every title in WWE). He decided to do the job to Austin, he didn't have to. Which bret should've done.

I wasn't going to post on this thread because it seems like, for the most part, everything I've read from other posters is accurate. I just wanted to make a comment on this. There have been several documented sources that said Michaels had considered and voiced that he might not do the job for Austin, including, if memory serves, Michaels' own book. The most important of which comes from The Undertaker in an interview with Michael Landsberg from Off The Record. Landsberg brought up the rumor that HBK might not have put Austin over at 'Mania XIV and whether or not it was true that The Undertaker threatened to "make" Shawn put Austin over.

Fast forward to 4:55 if you want, but the interview, which is in 3 parts, is really awesome and very rare. It's probably a huge reason why 'Taker is in my top 5, all-time.

[YOUTUBE]O8XNMDyStFk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

The interesting part of that interview is when the guy asks Taker about Shawn and Taker says he is, thenquickly changes it to was a great wrestler. At the time of the interview (WM X8) we were only a few months away from Shawn returning to the ring and even before that he was involved in storylines with NWO and Trips. Best guess is that Taker knew by the time of the interview Shawn was returning and that's why he said "is" but quickly changed it to "was" because Shawn wasn't back yet.

 

[ted sheckler]

I think Bret was a good draw. This stuff about him being a terrible draw is somewhat exaggerated in my opinion. He's obviously no Rock or Austin, but you need to consider the circumstances:

I don't think Bret was a terrible draw at all.. BUT over time people like to rewrite history a bit and talk about Bret and his MASSIVE fan base. He was a good draw.. not great.. but I also consider the time period too which is wrestling was in a down swing.. however the same people that say "Hey take it easy on Bret he was dealt a hard hand" in the same breath will not concede the same points for Shawn even though he had even less stars to support him being that Bret, Nash and Hall all left after he took over.

WrestleMania13:
I'm sure this had more to do with Sid & Taker than Bret. Bret was billed with Austin - soon to become the biggest draw since Hogan. Is Austin to blame for low WM13 buyrates? No way.

But don't kid yourself. The WWE title went on last but the most hyped match by far was Austin vs Bret. Do I think it was his "fault" not really but when someone tries to argue Bret being a big draw you just have to point to the numbers.

Now I'm a huge Bret Hart fan. But I can admit the guy is a HUGE mark for himself. Some things he says lately make me cringe. He comes across so bitter these days I really wish he could just move on. He really does pat himself on the back at every turn.

It's actually refreshing reading the stuff of a huge Bret fan that can actually step back and look at things objectively. And believe me HBK fans where blindly think that he never did anything wrong drive me equally crazy.

 

[Arashi]

I wasn't going to post on this thread because it seems like, for the most part, everything I've read from other posters is accurate. I just wanted to make a comment on this. There have been several documented sources that said Michaels had considered and voiced that he might not do the job for Austin, including, if memory serves, Michaels' own book. The most important of which comes from The Undertaker in an interview with Michael Landsberg from Off The Record. Landsberg brought up the rumor that HBK might not have put Austin over at 'Mania XIV and whether or not it was true that The Undertaker threatened to "make" Shawn put Austin over.

Fast forward to 4:55 if you want, but the interview, which is in 3 parts, is really awesome and very rare. It's probably a huge reason why 'Taker is in my top 5, all-time.

[YOUTUBE]O8XNMDyStFk[/YOUTUBE]

Again this might all be true but it also could've just been bluster. If you watch HBK's documentary, Vince said Shawn would often do things like that but once Vince said something was going to happen Shawn ALWAYS did what he was told, no matter how much it pissed him off.

If Shawn showed up at WM14 ready to wrestle he was going to job the belt he had the choice to say he couldn't go, but he went.

 

[theHeadliner]

In October of 1997 at Nassau Coliseum, Vince came to Bret and said money was no longer a problem, that he could pay him in full. This is documented in Bret's book. Bret chose to leave due to direction of his character. Vince laid out plans that involved Bret losing and not being champ, so he chose to leave.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

Why is it an issue for Bret to choose who to put over ? Shawn had refused to put over plenty of people, no problem. He didn't even want to put over Austin at WM - he only changed his mind once Taker threatened to kick his ass. Both Taker and Austin confirm this. Now let's look at that. Here you have Michaels who was a part of the screwjob, maligning Bret for not doing the job to him, and now he turns around 6-8 months later at WM refusing to put over Austin, until Taker threatens to kick his ass. That's pretty fucking hypocritial. Yeah, Vince really made the right decision there.

Hogan had that kind of control over who he lost to. Taker has the control, Triple H has that control. HBK had control. Let's not sit here, and pretend like Bret didn't have a right to make that call. He earned it.

I think it would have been better for him to put over HBK and just move on. However, when you have a performer who has consistently been a fucking prick to you and others in the lockerroom, refusing you the same respect and consideration that he wants himself i.e putting you over, it's understandable to say no. You can't always be a good soldier and do what you're told to do. Sometimes you have to say no.

 

[Arashi]

Why is it an issue for Bret to choose who to put over ? Shawn had refused to put over plenty of people, no problem. He didn't even want to put over Austin at WM - he only changed his mind once Taker threatened to kick his ass. Both Taker and Austin confirm this. Now let's look at that. Here you have Michaels who was a part of the screwjob, maligning Bret for not doing the job to him, and now he turns around 6-8 months later at WM refusing to put over Austin, until Taker threatens to kick his ass. That's pretty fucking hypocritial. Yeah, Vince really made the right decision there.

That's not what Taker says at all. What he said was it was questionable if he'd do the right thing, and then says "Who really knows?" Thing is that Shawn ALWAYS did his job if Vince asked him to or Shawn couldn't convince him of his way, Shawn did it vince's way. If you watch Heartbreak and Triumph and Shawn vs Bret you'd realize that... I'm saying it makes no sense for Shawn NOT to put over Austin when he could've phoned it in and no one would've blamed him. Remember at this time Shawn wasn't the most trusted person on the roster. After SS with bret, even a whisper of shawn not doing a job would've caused an uproar. Shawn could've dropped the belt saying he shouldn't wrestle as a risk to his health (which was true btw) but he did. So if Shawn showed up, he was planning on jobbing. Did Taker threaten him? Yes, do I think there was a reason for it? No..... Never have never will.

Hogan had that kind of control over who he lost to. Taker has the control, Triple H has that control. HBK had control. Let's not sit here, and pretend like Bret didn't have a right to make that call. He earned it.

Hogan jobbed on the way out, HBK jobbed on the way out, Hart wouldn't do what was right.... Flat out, you can say HBK only jobbed for this or that reason but he still did the job. Bret didn't.

I think it would have been better for him to put over HBK and just move on. However, when you have a performer who has consistently been a fucking prick to you and others in the lockerroom, refusing you the same respect and consideration that he wants himself i.e putting you over, it's understandable to say no. You can't always be a good soldier and do what you're told to do. Sometimes you have to say no.

He was paid to do a job, the WWE made bret hart, and he didn't do what was right.

 

[HBKperfect23]

I dont think Taker actually threatened Shawn. What I got out of that was Taker would have stepped in if he had to but he didnt since Shawn did the job.

Shawn was unhappy during his first and was a dick at times. Since then he decided to man up and admit his mistakes and change during his second run. I just dont see when he ever refused to job. Did he make that week before WM14 very hard for everyone involved? absolutley...as Vince said, Shawn always did business in the end so I dont see that as refusing to job.