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

[FromGlasgow]

In which way were his mic skills weak? I can't see any kind of debate for them being weak here other than claiming it as just weak, I don't see his mic skills as weak, I always thought he was good and I especially liked his anti USA promos around 1997, I can only think that maybe he wasn't quick with comedy comebacks but not every wrestler has be quick with comedy comebacks like Piper, Rock, Jericho for example or has to scream into the microphone to be considered great I always thought the Hitman had a kind of laid back no nonsense believable cool style of his own in promos he wasn't the best talker in wrestling history but I don't feel it was part of his character to be, It wouldn't have worked for me if the Hitman sudenly started coming out with these quick comedy responses in his promos it wasn't his character, Equally it would be someone like the Undertaker cutting a jimmy hart style promo screaming into the microphone it wouldn't work.

 

[Wald]

Bret Hart is a underrated talker. Look at his mic work in 1996 and 1997 and you'll see a guy who was one of the best talkers in the business by that stage. I'm not just talking about the heel turn either as he did some great work leading up to his match with HBK at Wrestlemania and also in his return promo. His heel mic work. His heel mic work then was better than any other heel in the WWF or WCW at the time. He didn't have goofy catchphrases like the nWo but he was able to refine his character and make it believeable, all you can ask for from a guy on the mic. I'd honestly only say Austin and Foley were ahead of him on the mic in this timeframe.

Anyway, regardless of if you agree with the above, Bret Hart is an all-time great. He was the company figurehead for a stretch of time and was also the most popular babyface in the industry at one stage. Arguably he was the most over heel during 1997 as well. He was the joint record holder of the WWF Championship with Hogan before the belt was devalued. He was the first ever wrestler to have held the WWF triple crown of the IC, tag and World titles. He's still widely regarded as one of the best ever. To argue he isn't an all-time great is an absolute nonsense.

 

[Slyfox696]

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.

In the world of pro wrestling, there is no difference between wrestler and performer. So long as the match endings are scripted, they are all performers.

Some have legitimate fighting skills outside of pro wrestling. Angle was obviously a gold medalist. Lesnar was a UFC champion. Bret Hart was a legit shooter.

But when we're talking about the world of pro wrestling, they are all performers and we call those performers wrestlers. Whether they work a brawling style or an aerial style or a technical style or a hardcore style or whatever style they may work, they are all wrestler in the performance of pro wrestling.

 

[Waylon Mercy]

Sometimes what a wrestler says through his performance in the ring outweighs any limitations he has on the mic. Bret Hart is an excellent example of this. Night in and night out, he spoke volumes through the stories he was able to tell in his matches. There is an elite class of wrestler who is able to master that aspect of wrestling, and Bret ranks at the very top. As an aside, Bret's feud with Stone Cold, and then the subsequent anti-American heel run in 1997 was a work of art. He cut some really great promos during this time, and I don't think he gets nearly enough credit for all the heat he was able to generate through that.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

You can't just nitpick your way through a self made list of what you consider to be important traits and assign greatness to whomever matches up with said qualities on your list and to suggest otherwise is pretty much nonsense. As is the case with numerous threads, this is ultimately just another example of someone trying to pass off entirely subjective opinion as rock solid gospel truth. EVERY wrestler has some sort of shortcoming no matter who they are or what they bring to the table. Everyone is stronger in certain aspects than they are in others, I mean that's pretty much life in and of itself. Frankly, it sounds like the sort of dispassionate, corporate logic that many internet fans frequently accuse Vince of using.

A great wrestler is someone who can make that connection, can deliver when it counts and keep people coming back for more even though he has certain shortcomings that other wrestlers might not have. A good example is John Cena as he's CONSTANTLY shown over the past decade that, in my opinion and despite the crutch that his haters desperately cling to, John Cena can very much wrestle. The fact that he doesn't do suicide dives, turn double somersaults or uses complicated technical moves is seen by some as a weakness and, technically, it can be counted as a shortcoming because, as has been pointed out, everyone has them. By using that same logic that haters apply to Cena to justify their view as to why he "can't wrestle", you'd have to lump other big powerhouses and/or brawlers in there like Hogan, Warrior, Austin, Rock, Taker and numerous others as to guys who could "NEVER" be all time greats because they "can't wrestle" either.

A wrestler has to be more than just the sum of his/her parts, otherwise the notion of an "all time great" is nothing more than an oxymoron.

 

[Waylon Mercy]

You can't just nitpick your way through a self made list of what you consider to be important traits and assign greatness to whomever matches up with said qualities on your list and to suggest otherwise is pretty much nonsense. As is the case with numerous threads, this is ultimately just another example of someone trying to pass off entirely subjective opinion as rock solid gospel truth. EVERY wrestler has some sort of shortcoming no matter who they are or what they bring to the table. Everyone is stronger in certain aspects than they are in others, I mean that's pretty much life in and of itself. Frankly, it sounds like the sort of dispassionate, corporate logic that many internet fans frequently accuse Vince of using.

A great wrestler is someone who can make that connection, can deliver when it counts and keep people coming back for more even though he has certain shortcomings that other wrestlers might not have. A good example is John Cena as he's CONSTANTLY shown over the past decade that, in my opinion and despite the crutch that his haters desperately cling to, John Cena can very much wrestle. The fact that he doesn't do suicide dives, turn double somersaults or uses complicated technical moves is seen by some as a weakness and, technically, it can be counted as a shortcoming because, as has been pointed out, everyone has them. By using that same logic that haters apply to Cena to justify their view as to why he "can't wrestle", you'd have to lump other big powerhouses and/or brawlers in there like Hogan, Warrior, Austin, Rock, Taker and numerous others as to guys who could "NEVER" be all time greats because they "can't wrestle" either.

A wrestler has to be more than just the sum of his/her parts, otherwise the notion of an "all time great" is nothing more than an oxymoron.

I agree with your post, and even on the points you made about Cena. I personally do not care for him as an in-ring performer, much like I did not care for Hogan. Conversely, I was much more of a fan of the two when they performed as heels. Cena was great with his Marky Mark rap gimmick, and I enjoyed his in-ring performances so much more back then. Hogan had truly reached his saturation point before going heel with the NWO. It rejuvenated his career, and he played the heel role brilliantly. His promos were great, and he also seemed better in the ring as a result.
It's all subjective, though, and we can find all kinds of points for and against certain wrestlers when it comes to greatness. I respect Cena a lot for managing to stay on top all these years, and I have actually seen moments of greatness from him. That has depended a great deal on who he was up against at the time.

 

[d_henderson1810]

All the love for Bret here is obvious.

However, some here had not got behind someone like Shelton Benjamin because he had poor mike skills, despite being an incredible worker.

Also, Chris Benoit didn't get as high as he could have , and his World Title reign is looked at as a failure, because he was poor on the mike, yet was every bit as great in the ring as Bret.

So, stick work seems to be why people get behind someone, when it suits you. But someone like Bret got over because of the lack of other incredible workers in the ring at the time, having Canada behind him, and being part of the Hart family. This got him ahead of other poor speakers, because of his connections. Also, he was one of the few guys Austin put over.

Also, I don't know what criteria Bret uses when he disregards Triple H. Triple H is better on the mike, was as good at one stage as Bret, and sold more main event tickets than Hart, who was champion during the poorest rating years of Raw. Yet he bags him. Far be it for me to suggest that Montreal 97 had NOTHING to do with Bret's assessment of Triple H.

 

[Wald]

So, stick work seems to be why people get behind someone, when it suits you. But someone like Bret got over because of the lack of other incredible workers in the ring at the time, having Canada behind him, and being part of the Hart family. This got him ahead of other poor speakers, because of his connections. Also, he was one of the few guys Austin put over.

Also, I don't know what criteria Bret uses when he disregards Triple H. Triple H is better on the mike, was as good at one stage as Bret, and sold more main event tickets than Hart, who was champion during the poorest rating years of Raw. Yet he bags him. Far be it for me to suggest that Montreal 97 had NOTHING to do with Bret's assessment of Triple H.

Bret was the most over babyface in the world in 1992, that's why he got the title and that's why he remained in the title picture for the rest of his WWF career. Why do you think Vince went back to him after Yokozuna and Diesel if he wasn't drawing for them? As for Bret being the champion during the poorest rating years of Raw, well he wasn't. Raw's worst run of ratings all came during Shawn Michaels' 1996 reign.

I'm sure Montreal has a lot to do with Bret's poor opinion of Triple H as well but it's not like he's the only one in the business who thinks that HHH is overrated now is it? Everyone from Cornette to Tazz to the Road Warriors have said Triple H isn't a top level star. He's a very good worker but it's undeniable he has been elevated above where he should have been because of who he married. I mean the guy seems to think he's on HBK's level in the ring and the Rock's level in popularity. Also, again historically speaking, Raw ratings and PPV buys always fell within weeks of Triple H becoming champion. A semi-famous wrestling columnist on another site did a famous column where he analyzed Triple H's reigns and showed stats that backed up that Triple H as champ was bad for business.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Bret was the most over babyface in the world in 1992, that's why he got the title and that's why he remained in the title picture for the rest of his WWF career. Why do you think Vince went back to him after Yokozuna and Diesel if he wasn't drawing for them? As for Bret being the champion during the poorest rating years of Raw, well he wasn't. Raw's worst run of ratings all came during Shawn Michaels' 1996 reign.

I'm sure Montreal has a lot to do with Bret's poor opinion of Triple H as well but it's not like he's the only one in the business who thinks that HHH is overrated now is it? Everyone from Cornette to Tazz to the Road Warriors have said Triple H isn't a top level star. He's a very good worker but it's undeniable he has been elevated above where he should have been because of who he married. I mean the guy seems to think he's on HBK's level in the ring and the Rock's level in popularity. Also, again historically speaking, Raw ratings and PPV buys always fell within weeks of Triple H becoming champion. A semi-famous wrestling columnist on another site did a famous column where he analyzed Triple H's reigns and showed stats that backed up that Triple H as champ was bad for business.

You're using someone like Jim Cornette's opinion of Triple H. Jim Cornette is the most irrelevant, bitter piece of shit in wrestling. He is upset because he got fired from WWE, WCW AND TNA for sucking. So, instead of looking in the mirror, he blames all and sundry for his uselessness. I couldn't care less what Jim Cornette thinks about anything in wrestling.

I mean there have been other champions who were worse than Triple H. JBL's reign as champion wouldn't have rated well, and I don't think Mark Henry had a memorable run as champion. Maybe Triple H didn't rate as well because he was a HEEL champion, and people don't want to see a heel as champion, unless they think the heel is "cool" (like C.M. Punk).

 

[relentless1]

thats stupid, thats like saying Hogan isn't an all time great because he was limited in the ring or Macho Man wasn't because he did coke....what a dumb argument to make seriously

 

[Wald]

I mean there have been other champions who were worse than Triple H. JBL's reign as champion wouldn't have rated well, and I don't think Mark Henry had a memorable run as champion. Maybe Triple H didn't rate as well because he was a HEEL champion, and people don't want to see a heel as champion, unless they think the heel is "cool" (like C.M. Punk).

No doubt there have been worse champs than Triple H, I actually think the guy is a lot more talented than Bret would say, but I was just pointing out that Bret isn't the only one who thinks the guy massively overrates himself. By extension the WWE presents him as a key component of the Attitude Era when really he was just a high midcard guy for most of it and a lacklustre champion at the end of it. If you want proof of his influence in booking than read back what you just said.

"People don't want to see a heel as champion"

I agree for the most part, a heel's job is purely to set up a face beating him and becoming champion. But if that's true than how come Triple H booked himself as such a dominant heel champion for years? Even when ratings declined? The answer is the real reason guys like Cornette, Bret and the rest play down Triple H's abilities. It's like they're being shouted at that Triple H is one of the greatest ever and so they shout back that actually he's pretty rubbish. The truth of what he is is somewhere in between.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

All the love for Bret here is obvious.

However, some here had not got behind someone like Shelton Benjamin because he had poor mike skills, despite being an incredible worker.

Also, Chris Benoit didn't get as high as he could have , and his World Title reign is looked at as a failure, because he was poor on the mike, yet was every bit as great in the ring as Bret.

So, stick work seems to be why people get behind someone, when it suits you. But someone like Bret got over because of the lack of other incredible workers in the ring at the time, having Canada behind him, and being part of the Hart family. This got him ahead of other poor speakers, because of his connections. Also, he was one of the few guys Austin put over.

Also, I don't know what criteria Bret uses when he disregards Triple H. Triple H is better on the mike, was as good at one stage as Bret, and sold more main event tickets than Hart, who was champion during the poorest rating years of Raw. Yet he bags him. Far be it for me to suggest that Montreal 97 had NOTHING to do with Bret's assessment of Triple H.

Beyond mic skills, there is something called charisma. They are not mutually exclusive, and they are not the same thing. Bret Hart had a look and swagger that made people pay attention to him, regardless of him saying anything on the microphone. Shelton Benjamin really lacked in that department. Chris Benoit as well to an extent, though he was champion 10 years after Bret and in an entirely different era.

That's another thing that hasn't really come up too much. The era matters. Bret came up in the era before Steve Austin and The Rock. The era before RAW opened with a 20 minute promo every week. An era where backstage promos were more prominent. Bret, for the era he performed in was just fine on the mic as anybody else... including Shawn, Diesel, Undertaker, Surfer Sting.

As for Triple H... I'm sure Montreal has a lot to do with his opinion of Haitch. I doubt he can judge him objectively due to some deep seeded resentment. Triple H is a better talker and he was around during a bigger era, though he takes too much credit for that. But one thing he's right about is that Triple H has never been as good in the ring as Bret.

 

[MartialHorror]

I honestly didn't take issue with Bret's mic skills during his prime. Was he great? No, but it always seemed to me that he knew his limitations so made sure to keep his promos shorter and more impactful.

 

[K Web V3]

Bret is my all time favorite wrestler, but his mic work was his weak spot. Granted, he wasnt horrible, just seemed to lack intensity. His brother Owen was much better on the mic and i always thought Owen shouldve been pushed farther than he was. Bret v Owen at wrestlemania X was MOTN imo, even tho most ppl recall hbk v razor in the ladder match first.

 

[rge2010]

Bret Hart is probably the greatest ring technician of all time. He was no slouch in terms of promos, in fact he cut some really good ones when he turned heel in the mid 1990s.

Bret carried WWE during its toughest ever period on his back and while Bret was popular in the USA, he was way over in Canada and MASSIVELY over in UK and you only have to watch him at SS92 against the local boy Davey Boy Smith to realise. I have read that Germany and India were his biggest markets though.

As an all time great his legacy is definitely in the top 10. Poor, average, good promos aside it is an irrelevance.

 

[Just Do It]

OP is off the mark and hasn't put forth a viable argument.

I know it's subjective, but the notion that Bret was a bad talker is mental. Was he Hulk Hogan? No. But he wasn't trying to be. Look at his sit down interviews talking about upcoming matches with Bulldog, Owen, Austin etc. It's a pun, but he had Hart. You felt what he was saying and got invested in the matches: that's the point of mic work.

 

[LBGetBack]

The thing is, Bret DID have good mic skills.

Dumb people think that if you're not a comedian showman on the mic like The Rock then you don't have mic skills.

Bret was one of the best in the world on the mic by the late 90's. And early-mid 90's he was perfectly solid and functional on the mic too.

 

[Goldie]

Bret Hart never tried to be a cartoon character. His promos were very direct- stating what he would do in order to defeat his opponent or win a title.

Not being 'super over-the-top' made Bret much more real. He was serious, he was no-nonsense. Its not always about who shouts the loudest.

Whilst other wrestlers did have more charisma- Bret was still a very popular wrestler regardless. How about the IC match with Piper at Wrestlemania 8?
There's no doubt Piper has far superior verbal skills.... yet in the ringwalks for that match, Bret got the much bigger reaction.

Because Hart wasn't super human in size or his interviews- some wrestling fans could imagine- 'if I could be a wrestler I could be like Bret Hart'. Hart was more human than some of wrestlings cartoon characters and people could relate to that,

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think it's ridiculous for anyone to say The Hitman can't be considered an "all-time great" due to his mic skills..he wasn't that bad on the mic at all, and towards the end of his career he was extremely good! His heel work with the Hart Foundation around 1997 was fantastic!

Hart did come across as a bit nervous in his early promos, as he doesn't have the extravagent confidence and charisma of someone like The Rock or HBK but he got better and better over time. He was more believable and realistic than being cheesy and cartoony like alot of his peers in the mid 90s. He just said his bit and got the job done in the ring. I think he's quite underrated on the mic to be honest.

 

[NSL]

This is nonsense for the most part.

I disagree with both your premise and your example.

So you're wrong in every way.

Yep. Uh-huh. Bingo.

Except for a few (Jericho, Austin, HBK sometimes, Flair, etc), there are no perfect wrestlers that excel in every area of the business. Some of them are great talkers, but are pure shit in the ring (Hogan?), while others are great wrestlers, but shitty talkers (Hart, per your example, though I disagree). As many others have said, it comes down to their impact on the business in the short term (buys, merch, ratings, etc) and their legacy when their gone (championships, main events, etc).

Bret Hart has certainly left his stamp on both facets of the business, and I personally was a fan of his promos as a main eventer.

 

[LBGetBack]

Would love to see an example of Bret's "bad mic skills". Let's see/hear it. Where are these promos that he bombed or fell flat?

And I'm not interested in a mid 80's early promo or a 2000's post-stroke, post retirement promo. Prime Bret Hart. Where's the "weak mic skills"? Waiting for evidence.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

Bret Hart was one of the best wrestlers to ever enter a ring. He had supremely great matches with Mr Perfect, The British bulldog, Kevin nash, Shawn Michaels, Roddy Piper, Randy Savage, Ric Flair, Owen Hart, Chris Beniot, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock (as Rocky Miavia), 123 Kid, Jerry lalwer, Terry Funk, Goldberg and many more.

Bret hart is one of the top 3 best mat wrestlers to ever enter WWE/WWF/WCW - with HBK and Kurt Angle. He may not be in the same league as the Rock on the mic but he was excellent in 1997.

The best there ever will be!

 

[Poop Master Flex]

His mic work in '97 was pretty damn good so you're immediately wrong, and even before that, although he wasn't this great talker he was good enough to get his point across and to get the fans at the time into buying what he's selling which is the point of a promo in the 1st place.

I was listening to a podcast with Heyman last week, Dusty Rhodes asked him to sell Starrcade by giving him 5-6 minutes on the mic. At the end of the promo a lot of people praised Heyman for that promo because it was very entertaining, Dusty walks up to Heyman and says "that was very entertaining I enjoyed it a lot, but where's the money?". Although the promo was very fun it didn't get the job done. Frankly there's a lot of guys these days that are a lot more entertaining and comfortable on the mic than Bret ever was but they're in essence not selling anything to the fans, in my eyes that makes Bret better because even though he wasn't comfortable a lot of the times, even though he wasn't as entertaining he got his point across and sold the feud he was in whether it was against Lawler, Owen, Yokozuna or anyone else he was facing. Sometimes people look at guys who are entertaining on the mic and praise their mic skills forgetting that the point of being on the mic isn't to entertain the crowd, it's to sell the crowd on what's going, it's why I absolutely hate commentary these days because they spend all their time joking around (badly I might add) instead of selling what's happening on camera.

One more thing, even if Bret sucked on the mic (which he didn't) it still wouldn't take away from his greatness. You know how many people drew a ton without having any mic skills? Brock isn't that good on the mic either but when he talks he gets his point across and sell himself pretty damn well, even without Heyman he has proven he can do that, I'll take that over guys like Ambrose and Rollins any day of the week.

 

[Faaahn Daaahn Gooooo]

Bret is my all time favorite. He got straight to the point and wrestled anyone as champ. His heel run after wm 13 was brilliant. As a kid I still stuck by the hitman even when he USA bashed

 

[Just Do It]

The thing is, Bret DID have good mic skills.

Dumb people think that if you're not a comedian showman on the mic like The Rock then you don't have mic skills.

Bret was one of the best in the world on the mic by the late 90's. And early-mid 90's he was perfectly solid and functional on the mic too.

Excellent way of summarising the issue. Bret had that calm sit down and talk thing going. Look at the promos talking about being reluctant to fight Owen before Mania 10...