JJYanks121
The Mouth of the South Shore
I know I don't usually start threads. I would think I'm kinda known for butting into other ones and hopefully contributing in a positive manner. However, I haven't seen anything on this topic and felt it could be a solid discussion.
I remember being a 12 year old kid and seeing the screwjob and not knowing what to think. I remember subsequently buying Hitman Hart: Wrestling With Shadows and learned one side of the behind the scenes "screwjob debate". I've read numerous interviews, articles, posts, anything I can regarding the "feud" between Hart and the Kliq. I've read Shawn's autobiography and gotten his side too. I come to you on this forum with extensive knowledge and background to propose an educated view that I'm not sure is totally out there. While Bret Hart continues to lambaste and ridicule Shawn Michaels and Triple H, most recently called them "cancers", the other two have not acknowledged the thing in years. The reason, I feel, is that Bret was the true cancer, and him leaving might have been the best thing to happen to the WWE.
Hear me out here as we divulge into different situations and come to a conclusion that Bret was no saint. At the outset of his career in the WWE, he did something superstars today wouldn't dream of doing. Bret Hart told Vince McMahon no. Vince wanted Bret to be a cowboy, Bret wanted to be himself in the Hart foundation. While other future superstars took stupid gimmicks like an evil dentist, The Ringmaster, a Connecticut snob, a deranged psychopath, a loner turned vampire, and others, Bret from day 1 knew he didn't fit the mold of the WWE brand of wrestling and tried to do things "his way". While others made due and worked their asses off with lame gimmicks in order to grow, Bret worked tag matches with his brother-in-law being managed by Jimmy Hart. A no personality team, without Jimmy, they would have been another technical team. However, due to that pairing, they won some tag team gold over the years and stayed gainfully employed. At some point, it became evident that a somewhat normal looking guy was more marketable than a crazy blonde with a huge beard, so Bret was considered for a singles push. Creating the moniker of "Hitman", which I honestly never understood, Bret quickly became entangled in the Intercontinental championship picture. This move made a lot of sense as the IC belt at that point was "the wrestler's belt". Remember that in that time, the technical guys went for the IC belt, the big money draws and best gimmicks went for the WWF title. With no gimmick but plenty of technical prowess, Bret found his home and won the belt. Everything was great until..............
A year after winning the belt, the WWF was in a bit of turmoil, Hogan was on his way out, Warrior went AWOL, Macho Man was a commentator, Ric Flair went back to WCW, and the main event scene was under duress. Here's comes "the hero" Bret Hart, who to this point is an IC worker who draws only outside the US and Yokozuna, perhaps the best monster heel to come around in a while. Yoko got a huge push and Bret was thrust into the title scene too, even winning the belt quite quickly. Bret becomes disgusted when at Wrestlemania, Hogan won't "pass the torch". This is one of the big debates over time and one I could never side with Bret on. We're talking about the biggest draw in the history of pro wrestling to this point, the man who brought wrestling to the mainstream, the man who did movies, tv, anything in the media, and the man who carried the WWF on his back and made it a global empire, and here's little Bret Hart, a nice wrestler, who believes he's the second coming of Hogan after ONE year as a singles wrestler. Not only does he think he's the new Hogan, but he wants Hogan to put him over clean in a face vs. face match.......really? So Hogan in the weird situation, beats Yoko after Yoko beats Hart, and Yoko beats Hogan and "destroys Hulkamania" a few months later. From there, the Lex Luger pushed is blown and Bret goes over the man who destoyed the Hulkster at Wrestlemania X. To recap, Bret beat an unstoppable monster who was the most dominant man at the time, a man that beat the man Bret wanted the rub from, thus making Bret look dominant, but this was never good enough and Bret held a grudge and might still on Hogan for this instance. Now I know that wrestlers earn their spot and everyone at the top politics and whatnot, but to declare yourself the next Hogan basically is a bit much no matter who you are. I am not a fan of egos and I get that when you are young, you have one. The problem I have with Bret is, he never grew out of it.
The next part of his career that I will discuss is the on screen/off screen feud with Michael Shawn Hickenbottom (Shawn Michaels of course). Now, over the years, people have chose sides, defended them, and beat the horse that is the screwjob into the ground so far that I think it came out on the other side of the earth. What I want to discuss is the relationship between the two men. Bret liked to call Shawn an egomaniacal jerk who hung with the Kliq and did his share of politicking. All of this is true, as admitted by Shawn in his autobiography and in growing as a person and finding religion, he realizes he was not always the best person. However, it was a double edge sword as Bret was pretty much the same except with the "family" clique. In a time where the WWF was hurting, those 2 men were consistently the company's best draw when working together, but neither wanted to lose to the other. For a stretch, they both didn't want to "do business". However, this case becomes jaded when you factor in something Bret said in his documentary. As Bret left the WWF, the company and the industry in general was changing if not full blown changed already. The product was edgier, sexier, crazier and Bret was against it. I find that amusing because the first time I remotely enjoyed Bret Hart is when he was a dick in the Hart foundation. Before that, I felt he lacked direction. Granted I was like 13 in 1997 so I was a kid watching and I SHOULD have liked Bret as he was the "hero" he wanted to be, but I found him boring at the time. I know others will disagree and that's fine. My point is, Bret berates the direction the business was going in, a direction that made it more money than ever before. Now, it is fine to be against the creative direction, but I have a problem with him being in the minority yet thinking that his name alone should change the entire direction of a company. You get that vibe in his documentary that he felt that he was above it all and somehow the "Hitman" who was everyone's hero, could have still prospered. In a day where your biggest face stars are beating up their boss and telling others which way and where his size 13 boot will go, somehow I tend to believe that the "good guy" from the old school was a thing of the past. We talk constantly about guys having to stay current, and Bret is and was no exception.
Bret goes to WCW after "not doing business" but again, not a screwjob thread so I won't even get into it. The only thing I will say is that at the time, I wish both Bret and Shawn realized the other had talent in their own way because I don't think either one thought the other should be main eventing despite the fact that their feud and matches were excellent. Onto WCW, and not much to talk about until Bret's career is ended. While we all can agree that Goldberg wasn't the safest worker and basically ended the career of Bret after 2 and a half years of crap, culminating in Bret joining the group started by guys he hated, the nWo. Is it coincidence that Bret's time on top in WWF and his subsequent leaving for WCW is basically concurrent with the rating wars and when they turned? This guy thinks no, and that Bret was never the draw he thought he was. I know I'll get arguments as to him actually drawing ok, but let's be honest, in the broad scheme, we know that Hogan was the big draw, there was a dip, and the next boom was with Stone Cold Steve Austin, who I know will be argued was "made" by Bret, but I'll argue he wasn't "made" until he became champ and feuded with the boss, but that's for another time.
The final point I will make is that Bret Hart's career ended in 2000. You would think a man in his 40s who's career is over, would just quietly retire and enjoy life with the kids. However, this is a man who cheated on his wife, is now twice divorced, and continues to berate who he chooses, and despite efforts made by others to mend fences, Bret won't budge. Dude is over 50 and in my eyes, refuses to grow up. If you are retired, make your peace, it's never healthy to walk around with grudges over a feud in a business you love but no longer participate in. To me, Bret fits in that same mold of washed up, old wrestlers who stay bitter at a business that destroys them. Of course, Bret is a former champ who did very well financially and retired married, rich, and yes hurt, but young enough to rehab and live pretty healthy (until the stroke). I'm very turned off by the bitterness and the refusal over many years to admit very many others were talented, refusal to change and grow, and refusal to mend fences. This is a guy who sees himself above all others as g-ds gift to wrestling and I don't think that's a fair assessment.
In conclusion, I dont' want you to think Bret Hart is a bad wrestler. At no point did I say that. I did say he struggled from an entertainment aspect in terms of mic work and selling feuds, but he was a talented worker, a safe worker, and a reliable one, and I respect that. The point I am making is a response to this man calling HBK and HHH "cancers" and my belief that this is the pot calling the kettle black. Bret had a very high opinion of himself and still does and moreso, believes that his way is the only way for the wrestling industry despite overwhelmingly profitable decisions that "wouldn't be the way he woulda done it". So I say, respect Bret for the technical wrestler he is, but realize he is not the type of person that would be universally liked.
So, is Bret the real cancer? I think so. I'm sure I left out points but hopefully they will be discussed. Please post your comments and keep them focused on whether Bret's personality is cancerous to the industry or not. I hope we get some good dialogue. Enjoy!
I remember being a 12 year old kid and seeing the screwjob and not knowing what to think. I remember subsequently buying Hitman Hart: Wrestling With Shadows and learned one side of the behind the scenes "screwjob debate". I've read numerous interviews, articles, posts, anything I can regarding the "feud" between Hart and the Kliq. I've read Shawn's autobiography and gotten his side too. I come to you on this forum with extensive knowledge and background to propose an educated view that I'm not sure is totally out there. While Bret Hart continues to lambaste and ridicule Shawn Michaels and Triple H, most recently called them "cancers", the other two have not acknowledged the thing in years. The reason, I feel, is that Bret was the true cancer, and him leaving might have been the best thing to happen to the WWE.
Hear me out here as we divulge into different situations and come to a conclusion that Bret was no saint. At the outset of his career in the WWE, he did something superstars today wouldn't dream of doing. Bret Hart told Vince McMahon no. Vince wanted Bret to be a cowboy, Bret wanted to be himself in the Hart foundation. While other future superstars took stupid gimmicks like an evil dentist, The Ringmaster, a Connecticut snob, a deranged psychopath, a loner turned vampire, and others, Bret from day 1 knew he didn't fit the mold of the WWE brand of wrestling and tried to do things "his way". While others made due and worked their asses off with lame gimmicks in order to grow, Bret worked tag matches with his brother-in-law being managed by Jimmy Hart. A no personality team, without Jimmy, they would have been another technical team. However, due to that pairing, they won some tag team gold over the years and stayed gainfully employed. At some point, it became evident that a somewhat normal looking guy was more marketable than a crazy blonde with a huge beard, so Bret was considered for a singles push. Creating the moniker of "Hitman", which I honestly never understood, Bret quickly became entangled in the Intercontinental championship picture. This move made a lot of sense as the IC belt at that point was "the wrestler's belt". Remember that in that time, the technical guys went for the IC belt, the big money draws and best gimmicks went for the WWF title. With no gimmick but plenty of technical prowess, Bret found his home and won the belt. Everything was great until..............
A year after winning the belt, the WWF was in a bit of turmoil, Hogan was on his way out, Warrior went AWOL, Macho Man was a commentator, Ric Flair went back to WCW, and the main event scene was under duress. Here's comes "the hero" Bret Hart, who to this point is an IC worker who draws only outside the US and Yokozuna, perhaps the best monster heel to come around in a while. Yoko got a huge push and Bret was thrust into the title scene too, even winning the belt quite quickly. Bret becomes disgusted when at Wrestlemania, Hogan won't "pass the torch". This is one of the big debates over time and one I could never side with Bret on. We're talking about the biggest draw in the history of pro wrestling to this point, the man who brought wrestling to the mainstream, the man who did movies, tv, anything in the media, and the man who carried the WWF on his back and made it a global empire, and here's little Bret Hart, a nice wrestler, who believes he's the second coming of Hogan after ONE year as a singles wrestler. Not only does he think he's the new Hogan, but he wants Hogan to put him over clean in a face vs. face match.......really? So Hogan in the weird situation, beats Yoko after Yoko beats Hart, and Yoko beats Hogan and "destroys Hulkamania" a few months later. From there, the Lex Luger pushed is blown and Bret goes over the man who destoyed the Hulkster at Wrestlemania X. To recap, Bret beat an unstoppable monster who was the most dominant man at the time, a man that beat the man Bret wanted the rub from, thus making Bret look dominant, but this was never good enough and Bret held a grudge and might still on Hogan for this instance. Now I know that wrestlers earn their spot and everyone at the top politics and whatnot, but to declare yourself the next Hogan basically is a bit much no matter who you are. I am not a fan of egos and I get that when you are young, you have one. The problem I have with Bret is, he never grew out of it.
The next part of his career that I will discuss is the on screen/off screen feud with Michael Shawn Hickenbottom (Shawn Michaels of course). Now, over the years, people have chose sides, defended them, and beat the horse that is the screwjob into the ground so far that I think it came out on the other side of the earth. What I want to discuss is the relationship between the two men. Bret liked to call Shawn an egomaniacal jerk who hung with the Kliq and did his share of politicking. All of this is true, as admitted by Shawn in his autobiography and in growing as a person and finding religion, he realizes he was not always the best person. However, it was a double edge sword as Bret was pretty much the same except with the "family" clique. In a time where the WWF was hurting, those 2 men were consistently the company's best draw when working together, but neither wanted to lose to the other. For a stretch, they both didn't want to "do business". However, this case becomes jaded when you factor in something Bret said in his documentary. As Bret left the WWF, the company and the industry in general was changing if not full blown changed already. The product was edgier, sexier, crazier and Bret was against it. I find that amusing because the first time I remotely enjoyed Bret Hart is when he was a dick in the Hart foundation. Before that, I felt he lacked direction. Granted I was like 13 in 1997 so I was a kid watching and I SHOULD have liked Bret as he was the "hero" he wanted to be, but I found him boring at the time. I know others will disagree and that's fine. My point is, Bret berates the direction the business was going in, a direction that made it more money than ever before. Now, it is fine to be against the creative direction, but I have a problem with him being in the minority yet thinking that his name alone should change the entire direction of a company. You get that vibe in his documentary that he felt that he was above it all and somehow the "Hitman" who was everyone's hero, could have still prospered. In a day where your biggest face stars are beating up their boss and telling others which way and where his size 13 boot will go, somehow I tend to believe that the "good guy" from the old school was a thing of the past. We talk constantly about guys having to stay current, and Bret is and was no exception.
Bret goes to WCW after "not doing business" but again, not a screwjob thread so I won't even get into it. The only thing I will say is that at the time, I wish both Bret and Shawn realized the other had talent in their own way because I don't think either one thought the other should be main eventing despite the fact that their feud and matches were excellent. Onto WCW, and not much to talk about until Bret's career is ended. While we all can agree that Goldberg wasn't the safest worker and basically ended the career of Bret after 2 and a half years of crap, culminating in Bret joining the group started by guys he hated, the nWo. Is it coincidence that Bret's time on top in WWF and his subsequent leaving for WCW is basically concurrent with the rating wars and when they turned? This guy thinks no, and that Bret was never the draw he thought he was. I know I'll get arguments as to him actually drawing ok, but let's be honest, in the broad scheme, we know that Hogan was the big draw, there was a dip, and the next boom was with Stone Cold Steve Austin, who I know will be argued was "made" by Bret, but I'll argue he wasn't "made" until he became champ and feuded with the boss, but that's for another time.
The final point I will make is that Bret Hart's career ended in 2000. You would think a man in his 40s who's career is over, would just quietly retire and enjoy life with the kids. However, this is a man who cheated on his wife, is now twice divorced, and continues to berate who he chooses, and despite efforts made by others to mend fences, Bret won't budge. Dude is over 50 and in my eyes, refuses to grow up. If you are retired, make your peace, it's never healthy to walk around with grudges over a feud in a business you love but no longer participate in. To me, Bret fits in that same mold of washed up, old wrestlers who stay bitter at a business that destroys them. Of course, Bret is a former champ who did very well financially and retired married, rich, and yes hurt, but young enough to rehab and live pretty healthy (until the stroke). I'm very turned off by the bitterness and the refusal over many years to admit very many others were talented, refusal to change and grow, and refusal to mend fences. This is a guy who sees himself above all others as g-ds gift to wrestling and I don't think that's a fair assessment.
In conclusion, I dont' want you to think Bret Hart is a bad wrestler. At no point did I say that. I did say he struggled from an entertainment aspect in terms of mic work and selling feuds, but he was a talented worker, a safe worker, and a reliable one, and I respect that. The point I am making is a response to this man calling HBK and HHH "cancers" and my belief that this is the pot calling the kettle black. Bret had a very high opinion of himself and still does and moreso, believes that his way is the only way for the wrestling industry despite overwhelmingly profitable decisions that "wouldn't be the way he woulda done it". So I say, respect Bret for the technical wrestler he is, but realize he is not the type of person that would be universally liked.
So, is Bret the real cancer? I think so. I'm sure I left out points but hopefully they will be discussed. Please post your comments and keep them focused on whether Bret's personality is cancerous to the industry or not. I hope we get some good dialogue. Enjoy!
