Bret Hart could NEVER be called an all-time great, due to lackluster mic skills.

[Creepy Old Man]

Similarly Warrior could never be held up as an all-time guy, due to a lack of technical wrestling ability.

Okay, these aren't my sentiments, but I've run into enough people who think this way to believe that it pervades a sizeable section of the IWC. I'm curious as to whether people believe that a wrestler is greater than the sum of his parts, or if he should be graded on individual aspects (e.g. in-ring ability, mic skill, charisma, strength) and an overall total of "greatness" drawn. For people who subscribe to the latter, they might see a guy like Bret Hart scoring well in in-ring ability, strength and charisma, but low on mic skill and so he does not reach the required subjective score to be considered an all-time great.

What's your position when it comes to wrestlers who do have an obvious weakness in their game, going down as all-time guys?

 

[klunderbunker]

This is nonsense for the most part.

No wrestler is perfect. Everyone has some flaw in their game, but that being said, there's a big difference between something you're adequate at and something you're horrible at. Take Bret for example. No he wasn't the best talker, but it's not like he was a mushed mouth jughead who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. You don't have to be Chris Jericho or Dusty Rhodes on the mic to get your point across and sound effective at the same time. On top of that, people didn't watch Bret for his promos, just like they didn't watch Hogan for his in ring prowess. Both of those guys are so good in other areas that it makes up for their shortcomings elsewhere. Just because Bret wasn't the greatest talker of all time, it doesn't make him bad at it. There are some promos he's given that worked incredibly well (his heel run in 1997 has some gems), but people have no logical reason to downgrade Bret or anyone else just because they aren't a master at everything. There's a short, short list of people great at everything and even they have flaws you can point out.

 

[Prince Vee]

Similarly Warrior could never be held up as an all-time guy, due to a lack of technical wrestling ability.

Okay, these aren't my sentiments, but I've run into enough people who think this way to believe that it pervades a sizeable section of the IWC. I'm curious as to whether people believe that a wrestler is greater than the sum of his parts, or if he should be graded on individual aspects (e.g. in-ring ability, mic skill, charisma, strength) and an overall total of "greatness" drawn. For people who subscribe to the latter, they might see a guy like Bret Hart scoring well in in-ring ability, strength and charisma, but low on mic skill and so he does not reach the required subjective score to be considered an all-time great.

What's your position when it comes to wrestlers who do have an obvious weakness in their game, going down as all-time guys?

This is asinine. Just like KB posted, everyone isn't perfect! No can be termed as perfect. You can't deem anyone in that way. Even the great one The Rock isn't super great in his ring. Dusty Rhodes doesn't have the looks or charisma, if you want to deem someone nor a great wrestler in your verdict no one can escape from your list.

People love Bret Hart for his skills. He's the greatest one ever was, ever been and ever will be! Not everyday a guy can come out and put extraordinary performances in both mic and in the ring. Bret has his moments. He certainly had great promos.

Cheers!!

 

[peter_midnight]

I think you're looking at this wrong. Bret Hart was good on the mic. However, he was a horrible babyface. Looking back, his actions as a babyface were good. He would do things like promise to win matches and follow through, restart matches that he didn't win fairly, give kids his sunglasses, etc. But, his regular interviews as a babyface were horrible and I used to hate him for that. In-ring skills could never be denied.

With that said, his original 1980s heel run was fine and so was his heel run in 1997. Some of his WCW heel stuff was okay too. He's just not a good babyface unless he's pro-Canada and Anti-America.

 

[Dirk]

If you want to talk ratings, that's fine. If you want to argue that the impact he made wasn't as striking as some earlier guys, that's also okay. If you want to limit "all-time great" to only a handful of people and exclude Bret (which would also exclude a ton of others that many, many fans could consider the best ever), then that's alright.

Just don't knock Bret for not being a rounded performer. His mic skills were a lot better than Hogan's skill in the ring.

 

[enviousdominous]

By your logic, there's no such thing as an all time great.

Maybe Bret on the mic isn't your thing, you're a random name on a random website. Entire crowds of people shut up and hold their "what?"s for the next guy who gets on the mic when Bret speaks.

You're not curious about how other people rate their favorites, you're trying to distract us from the fact that you declared Bret inadequate and didn't bother providing an actual explanation for your bullshit.

Please explain why you, random user name #5461282, chose to declare that Bret Hart's mic skills disqualify him from being sensibly considered to be an all time great.

 

[Goldie]

Had to vote now.

Bret was a much better talker than Bruno Sammartino! Bruno, despite his popularity, was softly spoken on the mic.... though in those days mic work was less important.
Faces were loved for being faces.... whereas the Attitude era saw wrestlers with the best catchphrases and mic work streak ahead in popularity.

Bret wasn't hideous on the mic (his heel work in 1997 was very good in fact)... just he doesn't stand out when you compare him to Hogan, Rock, Flair, Michaels etc..

As an overall package wrestler Bret is still very good.
The OP quotes Warrior as not qualifying as an ATG due to poor technical skills... well Hulk Hogan wasn't a good worker? and he knew every shortcut in the business..... yet he is generally regarded as the wrestler who put the biggest stamp on the wrestling industry.

This logic about lacking one skill just doesn't apply.

 

[Slyfox696]

Similarly Warrior could never be held up as an all-time guy, due to a lack of technical wrestling ability.

Okay, these aren't my sentiments, but I've run into enough people who think this way to believe that it pervades a sizeable section of the IWC. I'm curious as to whether people believe that a wrestler is greater than the sum of his parts, or if he should be graded on individual aspects (e.g. in-ring ability, mic skill, charisma, strength) and an overall total of "greatness" drawn. For people who subscribe to the latter, they might see a guy like Bret Hart scoring well in in-ring ability, strength and charisma, but low on mic skill and so he does not reach the required subjective score to be considered an all-time great.

What's your position when it comes to wrestlers who do have an obvious weakness in their game, going down as all-time guys?

I disagree with both your premise and your example.

First of all, a great wrestler is not limited by his weakest ability, but rather the impact he has on the business. Second of all, Bret Hart did not have "lackluster" mic skills, he had very good mic skills. People refer back to his early career and why he wore the shades, but that was YEARS before he entered the main-event and his prime. During his prime, his mic skills were very good.

So you're wrong in every way.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Brett was by his own words a "6" on the mic....Id give him a 7 for certain feuds and promos, he did some quality work heading into his WM 8 match with Piper, during his late WWE run heel turn, and had some excellent segments with Ric Flair when he first came to WCW.

Add to that his impressive in ring ability and his lengthy tenure as a top teir guy aand you have an "all time great" - I don't consider him "The Greatest" myself personally because I do feel his mic work isn't as good as guys like HBK and Flair who could in their prime could match him in the ring, or Austin for that matter....but I don't think he was THAT far away from those guys either. Ben Roethlisberger isn't the BEST QB in the NFL right now, but he is near the top and very good. I consider him like that. I also give him props for how hard he worked to carry the WWE banner during some down times, even though it seemed like mid 90s WWE was always looking for someone to replace him (maybe someone with better mic skills) they always came back to him because no one else could make money as consistently during that time as he could....he was John Cena in this decade or WCW Ric Flair in the 90s....no matter how much they tried to give the ball to someone else it always came back to him, and he always made them money and delivered quality work when it did. That right there is a huge part of his legacy and importance and elevates him as opposed to other performers who may have been better at individual aspects but never matched the total package.

Finding a way to figure who "The Greatest" is in pro wrestling is very subjective....do you look strictly at main event guys or include supremely talented mid card guys who never reached the top tier....do you rank it on star power where guys like Savage, Flair, rank behind Hogan....do you base it on longevity where a guy like Hart (due to injury) rank well behind HBK, Hogan, & Flair....do you rank it on World Titles where guys like Dusty Rhodes, an absolute all time legend, cant compare to HHH....do you rank it strictly on in ring skills where Hogan cant compete with Hart, etc ???

I think when you look at his popularity and importance to WWE and evaluate the growth of his career and longevity, adding in his in ring skill and including his "lackluster" promo skills, Brett Hart still makes the cut in the very elite of the very elite, maybe he doesn't hit the all time top spot, but when I look at the biggest, most successful, and transformative stars since the 1960s I see Hogan, Flair, & Austin, as well as Andre, Dusty, Piper, Harley Race, Bruno, Savage, HBK, Sting, and in more recent times I think Cena & HHH enter in the discussion...and I think Brett Hart is right in that mix. Although his career was short I think you have to include The Rock also.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Had to vote now.

Bret was a much better talker than Bruno Sammartino! Bruno, despite his popularity, was softly spoken on the mic.... though in those days mic work was less important.
Faces were loved for being faces.... whereas the Attitude era saw wrestlers with the best catchphrases and mic work streak ahead in popularity.

Bret wasn't hideous on the mic (his heel work in 1997 was very good in fact)... just he doesn't stand out when you compare him to Hogan, Rock, Flair, Michaels etc..

As an overall package wrestler Bret is still very good.
The OP quotes Warrior as not qualifying as an ATG due to poor technical skills... well Hulk Hogan wasn't a good worker? and he knew every shortcut in the business..... yet he is generally regarded as the wrestler who put the biggest stamp on the wrestling industry.

This logic about lacking one skill just doesn't apply.

With regards to Hogan vs Warrior....Hogan may not have had in ring skills comparable to other superstars (Austin, Flair, Hart, HBK, etc) and he was definitely protected by WWE during his heyday, usually matched up against overweight monster types with limited ability in short matches where he wouldn't be over shined....but Hogan could perform at a high level when he faced a top star. He had some excellent matches late in his career during his WWE return vs Chris Jericho & Kurt Angle, and his main event matches against Savage & Flair were routinely very entertaining. He also wrestled some excellent bouts vs Antonio Inoki in Japan. I still wouldn't call him an "in ring legend" but he could deliver good matches when he HAD to, even if he was often protected and not asked to.

Warrior never came close to matching that kind of production. Forget the fact that his career longevity was barely a footnote compared Hogan, Warrior had at best one match in his career that was comparable to Hogan's normal work vs Piper, Savage, Flair, etc....his Mania bout vs Savage. Warrior doesn't have longevity, he didn't have in ring skills, fact is as impressive as his BRIEF peak was, it didn't last as long as Goldberg who maintained star appeal longer and was better in the ring and as good if not better on the mic.

If you want to include UW among "the all time greats" you absolutely have to include Goldberg.

 

[Mustang Sally]

First of all, a great wrestler is not limited by his weakest ability, but rather the impact he has on the business.

That's the essence of it, with Hulk Hogan being the best example I can think of.

His wrestling skills were among the poorest (for a headliner) I've ever seen. He was more a showman than a wrestler, yet look at his impact on the business.

Even as a kid, I thought his antics in the ring were ridiculous. When one of his matches was nearing it's end, he suddenly became invulnerable to blows that had hurt him earlier. As he stomped around the ring, shaking his arms in anger as his opponent pounded on his back.....producing no reaction in Hogan except making him madder.....I wondered what in hell everyone loved about this, especially since it was repeated in every contest he engaged.

But the fans loved it.....because Hogan was Hogan and he knew how to make them love it. Whatever skills he might have lacked, he made up with his ability to entertain. How could anyone deny his impact on pro wrestling?

If a person can be considered an all-time great wrestler while not possessing great wrestling skills, it surely puts to lie the charge that a person's weaknesses necessarily take him out of the running for his/her.....er, all-time greatness.

 

[Xpyred013]

I think the term "all-time great" is thrown too much and often used many on people who WWE or WCW considered top talent.

As a fan, i think it's up to the fans to determine who is all time great. Yeah we may pop for this guy or that guy, but some of the best wrestlers never made it to the top. William Regal comes to mind. The guy is great on the mic and awesome in the ring. He never won the top gold. But i consider him an all time great. I always paid attention when he was on, be it a wrestler or as his comedic general manager role.

Raven though...I am a huge Raven mark and many wont consider him an all time great but I do. Why? The guy has great mic skills. The guy has great ring presence - dont believe me? Then view many of his WCW matches. Raven himself has said he was so high back then that he cannot remember the matches. Sure many of them were Raven's rules but he knew his way around the ring and could hold the match. He is amazing on booking and has a great mind for the business. But sadly his drug related problems have kept him down - especially in WWE. But Raven is most definitely an all time great in my mind.

 

[Slyfox696]

That's the essence of it, with Hulk Hogan being the best example I can think of.

His wrestling skills were among the poorest (for a headliner) I've ever seen. He was more a showman than a wrestler, yet look at his impact on the business.

Even as a kid, I thought his antics in the ring were ridiculous. When one of his matches was nearing it's end, he suddenly became invulnerable to blows that had hurt him earlier. As he stomped around the ring, shaking his arms in anger as his opponent pounded on his back.....producing no reaction in Hogan except making him madder.....I wondered what in hell everyone loved about this, especially since it was repeated in every contest he engaged.

But the fans loved it.....because Hogan was Hogan and he knew how to make them love it. Whatever skills he might have lacked, he made up with his ability to entertain. How could anyone deny his impact on pro wrestling?

If a person can be considered an all-time great wrestler while not possessing great wrestling skills, it surely puts to lie the charge that a person's weaknesses necessarily take him out of the running for his/her.....er, all-time greatness.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself in your post? You said Hogan wasn't a good wrestler and then went on to describe the things which made him such a great wrestler. He made people care about him, made them suspend their disbelief and become emotionally invested in him. His "Hulk Up" routine wasn't about him being invulnerable to blows, it was about "Good" overcoming the bleakest of situations, to demonstrate a never give up attitude, all to overcome evil.

Hulk Hogan was a phenomenal wrestler. He knew how to make people care and he knew what it took to make fans become emotionally invested in his match. That's what being a professional wrestler is all about.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Hulk Hogan was a phenomenal wrestler. He knew how to make people care and he knew what it took to make fans become emotionally invested in his match. That's what being a professional wrestler is all about.

By that definition, yes.

I've always looked at a pro wrestler and an entertainer/showman as two different things. A person could be both......or could be one or the other. When comparing Hogan to, say, Bob Backlund or Bret Hart, I have a hard time seeing Hogan getting over as a wrestler in a technical sense .....although, yes, Hogan is a wrestler by trade.

In my posts, I continually use the word "performer" as a substitute for "wrestler" for this very reason.

Obviously, a person discussing pro wrestling would refer to Hogan as a great wrestler. I just see the question differently.

In all, I stand corrected.

 

[Vanilla Midget]

Wrestlers are the total of the sum of their parts, not disqualified for lacking in one category. The notion that one person is or is not an all time great or the notion of a "greatest champion of all time" is so flawed; It's so subjective. I see Bret as being an all time great, whereas some say he lacks mic skills. Others think Austin is the total package, while I agree, maybe I can't look past him hitting his wife (the separation of art and artist is another argument for another thread).

We're all humans, we all have opinions, some are more right than others. Nothing is black and white, if it were, it would be easier to comprehend this world. Some things are just more clear which way they lean on the spectrum. Bret clearly lacked on the stick, but he more than made up for it with skill legendary moments.

You don't have to like him, you don't even have to respect him if you don't want to. You can't deny his calibre of matches, his title reigns, the double turn, and the screw job as being important moments in modern wrestling history.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself in your post? You said Hogan wasn't a good wrestler and then went on to describe the things which made him such a great wrestler.

Except pretty much everyone who read what she had to say knows exactly what she is saying.

He made people care about him, made them suspend their disbelief and become emotionally invested in him. His "Hulk Up" routine wasn't about him being invulnerable to blows, it was about "Good" overcoming the bleakest of situations, to demonstrate a never give up attitude, all to overcome evil.

Hulk Hogan was a phenomenal wrestler. He knew how to make people care and he knew what it took to make fans become emotionally invested in his match. That's what being a professional wrestler is all about.

So who is a better singer, Taylor Swift or Pavarotti?

On topic, I never thought Bret was great at anything. I guess enough people think highly of him to be considered an all time great but does that mean top 5, top 20, top 50? I don't think he is top 20 but I am biased since I stopped watching for the most part shortly after he won the title. And you can have faults and still be considered great as long as you make up for those faults in other ways. Being great does not mean you have to check every box.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

Bret Hart could NEVER be called an all-time great, due to lackluster mic skills.

Similarly Warrior could never be held up as an all-time guy, due to a lack of technical wrestling ability.

Okay, these aren't my sentiments...

For all those going apeshit about me bashing Bret, I, well, didn't. I very much consider Bret Hart a top 5 guy, but some people disqualify him from the "all-time" conversation because he was lackluster on the mic. They do the same with Warrior because he couldn't wrestle well.

 

[Kidpolean]

I would say his mic skills take him out of the greatest of all time argument but he is still and should be considered an all time great.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

No chance in hell does this thread make sense. Firstly, Bret Hart was a fantastic Promo guy in 1997 when he turned heel and bashed America (tongue in cheek). I think you have to look at the WWE/WWF history when concluding things like this discussion started from. Who were the really amazing talkers (that were also active wrestlers) pre-1997 in the WWF? I am racking my brain and I can only think of Ric Flair and Roddy Piper and Jerry Lawler (particularly during his 1993 feud with Bret Hart). There is a reason many people relied on managers pre 1997 - such as Jimmy Hart and Bobby Heenan. And when you think of how awful some of the best talkers in the business were before they finally found their promo voice - it is ridiculous to suggest Bret is not one of the best ever all time greats. I urge you to look at promos from - Undertaker, Warrior, Savage, Rocky Miavia, Shawn Michaels and Steve "Ringmaster" Austin to name but a few - pre 1996/1997. Shawn Michaels had a few good promos with Psycho Sid before he becamse WWF champ but his promos as champ were a bit poor too.

But when it comes down to it - when I think of Bret Hart, I think of the quality matches he had as part of the Hart Foundation vs Demolition, The Rockers, Bulldogs and The Powers of Pain, or the excellent match he had at Survivor Series 1990; where he put on a master class with Ted Dibiase just 24 hours after his brother Dean had sadly passed away. I think of the classy matches with Mr Perfect and Roddy Piper where he won both his IC titles in flawless and HIGHLY entertaining matches. I think about the most attended WWF/WWE PPV ever - SummerSlam 1992 - where Bret Hart called one of the greatest wrestling matches of all time and put his brother in law over clean.

I think of the classic matches he had with 1-2-3 Kid, Razor Ramon, Bam Bam Bigelow, Diesel (Survivor Series 1995), the iron man match with HBK, the insanely fast paced and technical excellence matches with Owen. And I think of the way he made Stone Cold Steve Austin with the double turn at WM 13 - which Bret called the match.

I think about Bret and his awesome promos "I would lead these men in the depths of hell" when introducing the Hart Foundation 1997 circa and his tongue in cheek use of "my lovable brother Owen" which was meant to be funny because at the time Owen had played a brat on tv for 3 years. And who can forget his promo on Pittsburgh?

Sadly after the double cross - Bret only had a handful of amazing matches in WCW - with Ric Flair, Benoit and Booker T. But it does not detract that Bret Hart, was and still is, one of the all time greats.

Furtherm

 

[Slyfox696]

Except pretty much everyone who read what she had to say knows exactly what she is saying.

Given the number of times over the years I've heard similar things, I very much doubt this.

People think because someone doesn't work a technical style, it means they aren't a good wrestler. The more that myth can be dispelled, the better.

So who is a better singer, Taylor Swift or Pavarotti?

Who cares? We're talking about pro wrestling and pro wrestling and music could not be more different.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Bret wasn't good on the mic during his tag team run or early in his singles push. As someone pointed out earlier, Bret had some pretty good interviews leading up to wrestlemania 8 with Piper. From 93-96, Bret was OK at best. I definitely wouldn't say he was great but I wouldn't say he totally sucked either. In 97, Bret was on fire on the mic, the USA vs CAN stuff was pure gold. Brets mic work in 97 alone excludes him from being classed with those who can't talk.

 

[TheLittleOne]

i agree with the most recent comment.. BRET began tearing up the mic as soon as his return around Survivor Series 96.. he had Pillman and Austin and HBK and Vince to work with and he was teasing a heel turn.. Def showed a whole new side of Anger... and even times made US ( the old school iwc circa 96/97 in newsletters & chatrooms!!)
believe he was borderline breakin kay F.. and then once he gave that post WM promo officially turning heel, he became super white hot heel and was GREAT on the mic.. i sat 1st row RAW in 97 twice and at summerslam 97.. i never see anyone today get that much heat, real heat.. and he helped increase the popularity of every face he worked with like austin, shamrock, LOD, taker, even patriot!.. in that day, the E didnt need to pump in crowd noise..

now early on he was pretty lame, even though he was putting on amazing in ring performances.. but there were times where he truly shined, and each one sticks with me.. like the summerslam pre match backstage promo with anvil about demolition.. " anvil, calm down, get ahold of yourself! 2 hearts beating as one!"
or the teaming with Savage against HBK & Flair in 92 " you gotta be bold to wear the gold" and WM8 with piper was great, very great!

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

This is one of the stupidest polls I've ever seen. First, the answers don't really relate to the asinine statement... they're like "Yes, I disagree" and "No, I agree". Second, the statement is bullshit. Bret Hart is one of the greatest of all time, and his mic skills were entirely adequate.

 

[Kidpolean]

Ok ill be the one to say it...Bret bored me to death on the mic and in the ring. Technical wrestling is overrated. Id rather watch HBK/Punk/Rock/Austin than Bret Hart or Benoit and its not even close.

DB before he was in team hell no even bored the hell out of me as well.

I call Bret a great because other people say it so often but I never liked him

 

[Bernkastel]

People think because someone doesn't work a technical style, it means they aren't a good wrestler. The more that myth can be dispelled, the better.

I wouldn't call someone that is a technical pro wrestler a "wrestler" per say. There is a difference between being a "wrestler" and being a "performer." A wrestler is someone that has legit grappling skills, while a performer doesn't. Hogan worked a technical style in Japan, but that doesn't mean he was an expert grappler. In modern day terms that's Kurt Angle. I have a hard time qualifying Bret Hart as a wrestler, too. I'd say he was a performer.

But wrestlers and performers are both "pro wrestlers" and ultimately both are "workers." I usually refer to most modern pro wrestlers as performers because there are few actual wrestlers left in the industry.

As for the main topic, it's dumb. A pro wrestler doesn't have to have mic skills in order to be considered great or not. Mic skills is just an aspect of charisma. Bret Hart was highly charismatic, and didn't need to be an expert talker in order to connect with people.