Bret Hart was the most important wrestler from 1992 til 1997

[gunnascott]

Ted your facts are incredibly wrong and errorneous.Actually the headline to WM13 was Undertaker v Sid and IYH 3 was headlined with a tag team match feat Diesel and Shawn Michaels. Also Shawn Michaels and stone cold were not considered main eventers until Bret put them over. At back to back WMs

Finally the reason Vince went to other champs is because he loves muscle heads and large athletes. Diesel was 7 feet and yokozuna was 600 lbs and that's was vince likes and if you noticed Bret beat both of them after year long reigns after Yoko. Stopped being interesting and Diesels. Abysmal ppv buyrates

And as far as HBK goes he refused to put Austin over at first until he was forced and still was kicking and screaming every inch of the way and oh yeah he was a worse draw than his buddy Kev. I'm done for now rebuttal with more BS if you dare.

 

[ted sheckler]

Ted your facts are incredibly wrong and errorneous.Actually the headline to WM13 was Undertaker v Sid and IYH 3 was headlined with a tag team match feat Diesel and Shawn Michaels. Also Shawn Michaels and stone cold were not considered main eventers until Bret put them over. At back to back WMs

Oops.. actually your right.. although I wouldn't say "incredibly wrong". So I'll correct it. It was actually IYH 5 (Main Event: Bret Hart vs Bulldog) that had the lowest WWE PPV buyrate of all time.. and WM13 Bret Hart did not close the show because is wasn't for the title BUT it was certainly the top feud that WWF had going into wrestlemania was built around at that time.. Started back before Summerslam.. Austin Screwed Bret out of winning the rumble... great lead up to mania... and even given Ken Shamrock to be the Special Ref.. Just because he didn't go on last doesn't absolve this "international phenom" of drawing poor numbers. They had a great feud..great matches.. but they couldn;t get anybody to watch.. So technically I was wrong about the IYH number.. but right about Bret being the Main Event at the lowest PPV and a Co-Main Event at the Worst Drawing WM..

You call it BS.. but maybe you should argue my points instead of calling me out on mistaken numbers

Finally the reason Vince went to other champs is because he loves muscle heads and large athletes. Diesel was 7 feet and yokozuna was 600 lbs and that's was vince likes and if you noticed Bret beat both of them after year long reigns after Yoko. Stopped being interesting and Diesels. Abysmal ppv buyrates

So you think Vince took the belt away from Bret.. (Who you claim is THE most important wrestler in the 90's) because he just preferred bigger guys?? Vince is a businessman.. Under Bret the rating had been going down.. Vince was trying to simply find the next thing that would draw.. Bret wasn't it.. if he was Bret would have been given the "Hogan Treatment" and been the top babyface for years and years.... and of course Vince would have never let him out of his contract to go to WCW..

And as far as HBK goes he refused to put Austin over at first until he was forced and still was kicking and screaming every inch of the way and oh yeah he was a worse draw than his buddy Kev. I'm done for now rebuttal with more BS if you dare.

You seem to be regurgitating rumor as fact. The fact is Shawn didn't HAVE to do what he did.. The guy had a broken back.. he risked serious serious injury..even paralyzed.. So give the guy some credit were credit is due..

 

[gunnascott]

Ted I do give HBK some credit but let's be real the man refused to do jobs around this time and that's been quoted by several wwe workers before. And Austin v Hart at WM was thrown together at the last and taker vs sid was the main fued at the time.

History speaks for itself Vince does like huge bodybuilders that's why HBK dropped to sid at SSseries 96 and the Undertaker had it for the time he did because they are huge men. Since you wanna bring up Hogan Vince tried to push him out just the same with Warrior and Macho Man but when they didn't work out he went back to Hogan until 93

Finally it wasn't Harts fault for the low buyrates since the only believable main eventer at the time were He and Undertaker who were both in terrible and forgetful storylines. It wasn't their fault it was booking and Vince being in a creative nadir from 95-97 even Vince admited that



Your turn

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I do not think that Bret was the most important wrestler in the company during 1992 and 1993. In 1992 , Bret was taking baby steps into the main event scene and taken as a whole, it was not a very successful run for him. The importance of the Bulldog match is always blown out of proportion. Now, it was a great match and a cool moment for Bulldog but it did not amount to much. Bulldog was a career midcarder and Bret was going to get pushed to the main event anyway.

1993 was YokoZuna's year. Bret may have lost to him but that wasn't even Yoko's most impactful victory that year. It was Yoko's win over Hogan that really put him on the map. Apart from main eventing WrestleMania, it was a pretty nondescript year for Bret.

1994 was undoubtedly Bret's year and he was possibly the most important wrestler in the industry that year.

1995 I believe was the year of Diesel and HBK. Diesel was champion for most of the year and Shawn was the one tearing up the midcard scene by putting on all sorts of awesome matches. He was the star on the rise. By comparison, Bret had a relatively tame year feuding with the likes of Jerry Lawler for most of the year.

Bret was out of action for most of 1996 and even though he had two good matches that year, I wouldn't even say that he was the most important guy for WWF that year. That accolade should go to Shawn followed by Austin. Of course, overall no one could touch Hogan that year.

1997 is a toss-up between Hart and Sting. Hart would probably win in hindsight as he had a feud with Austin that kickstarted Austin's rise to superstardom. Not to mention the fact that his shoot promos, the Hart Foundation and his feud with HBK had an important part to play in shaping up the Attitude Era. But I do not believe that at that moment, he was hotter than Sting. It is said that if Sting would have won cleanly at Starrcade 1997, WWF may have never beaten WCW. That is how hot he was.

So, ultimately you've got two years( 1994 and 1997) wheren Bret could be considered as the most important wrestler in the industry. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[ted sheckler]

Ted I do give HBK some credit but let's be real the man refused to do jobs around this time and that's been quoted by several wwe workers before. And Austin v Hart at WM was thrown together at the last and taker vs sid was the main feud at the time.

Thrown together?? This had 6 months of history... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YphBJ3G6xCc
this was the premiere feud going into mania... Sid vs Taker was simply a thrown together title match.. it didn't even get a promo before the match. no video about the feud.. nothing.

History speaks for itself Vince does like huge bodybuilders that's why HBK dropped to sid at SSseries 96 and the Undertaker had it for the time he did because they are huge men.

Thats not true at all.. the reason Sid won the belt from Shawn was so Shawn could win the title in his hometown in San Antonio TX.. which dispite Bret saying the event was highly papered.. HBK vs Sid drew 60,000 in the Alamo Dome in 1997

Finally it wasn't Harts fault for the low buyrates since the only believable main eventer at the time were He and Undertaker who were both in terrible and forgetful storylines. It wasn't their fault it was booking and Vince being in a creative nadir from 95-97 even Vince admited that

Ok after saying that.. would you say that its only fair to say the same could be said for Shawn Michaels?? And as far as the terrible storylines I agree but the reason I feel Michaels was more important during that time because he was given the white meat babyface thing and he ran with it BUT then when things weren't working out he changed direction.. not just of himself and his character.. but the direction of the company. Bret was the guy who went to the creative dept and said "So what do you got for me today" ..Shawn was "Ok so here's my ideas and here's what I want to do" which many wrestlers resented at the time because he made himself part of the creative team..

I think both guys did an outstanding job with the cards they were dealt.. they both had a hand in keeping the company alive during the downward swing..they both put on some of the best matches ever.. however I give HBK the edge in importance in the 90's simply because he had more influence of the general direction of the business.. pushing the envelope of what could be done and said on TV.. and what became Attitude which saved the WWF

 

[Awesome]

Completely disagree.

For people who enjoy 1980's style ring work, yawn inducing promos and charisma-less performers, Bret's your guy.

In his defense he did put guys over, like Hogan never did. Unfortunately when it was absolutely paramount that he did a job - he refused. Ironically this was the most influential thing he ever did - the montreal "screwjob" revolutionized pro-wrestling.

By the end of this period Bret was starting to stand out as a relic. He was throwback to the past as a new era of attitude unfurled. For this reason more than most Shawn Michaels was the most important wrestler of 92-97. In a time of extreme fakeness and ridiculous gimmicks there was one thing that was very real; Shawn Michaels - he was attitude before it was a catchphrase. Then in 97 came Degeneration X. I don't even need to mention any of Shawn's matches, matches that produced things we had never seen before - a fresh style that produced a generation of wannabees. We often hear the stars of today say HBK was their inspiration, It's not obvious Bret was half as inspiring. His influence and impact supersedes Bret to a crazy extent.

 

[gunnascott]

He didn't wanna put HBK over because HBK flat out refused to do the same so see that as an eye for an eye.

Also HBK being more influential than Hart is highly debatable since he only has maybe 1 good match per year every year since 2004. Besides HBK wouldn't even be in this discussion had Hart not put him over. Finally if HBK is so great why did business tank during his reign?

Finally maybe saying hart v austin was thrown together was a little exaggerated but Mcmahon said that the original plan was for Hart v HBK II where bret would win.

As stated before without Bret you wouldn't have HBK, Diesel, Austin or half of the Attitude era Main eventers wouldn't be seen as Main eventers. HBK couldn't carry the WWE or anyone else without the rub for that matter

 

[ted sheckler]

He didn't wanna put HBK over because HBK flat out refused to do the same so see that as an eye for an eye.

So your saying it's ok that Bret refused to job to Shawn because Shawn refused to job first?? That sounds like the logic children would use in a fight.. Nobody is saying HBK was right for telling Bret he wouldn't job to him.. but guess what.. That doesn't make Bret right for refusing to job either.. By refusing to job he disrespected the wrestling business and didn't do the right thing for the people and the business that made him a star.. and if you think "WWF didn't make him a star..Bret made Bret a star..." save it.. We all saw how he turned out in WCW and that really shined a light on who made Bret..

Finally if HBK is so great why did business tank during his reign?

Wait wait wait!! Are you not JUST the guy.. that said this...

Finally it wasn't Harts fault for the low buyrates since the only believable main eventer at the time were He and Undertaker who were both in terrible and forgetful storylines. It wasn't their fault it was booking

That seems bit hypocritical.. Bret loses rating and gets low buyrates and "It's not his fault" but when Shawn Michaels becomes champ and 3 of the other top draws in WWF (Bret, Diesel and Scott Hall) leave you are wondering "HOW COME HE DIDN'T DRAW BETTER!!" You can't have it both ways Scott... and the truth is that his reign was actually going very well.. Until of course all the other stars left and he had no one to feud against..and no undercard to support him.. Not to mention that his character had changed from a cocky heel to a white meat babyface... which is not what got him over with the fans to begin with..

Finally maybe saying hart v austin was thrown together was a little exaggerated but Mcmahon said that the original plan was for Hart v HBK II where bret would win.

Mcmahon NEVER said that.. what your thinking of is Bret Hart telling you what Vince said (yes I read Brets book too).. those are two different things. Besides why should that affect buyrates?? The Michaels vs Bret match was never even mentioned to the public.. The fans had no clue that was even the plan.

As stated before without Bret you wouldn't have HBK, Diesel, Austin or half of the Attitude era Main eventers wouldn't be seen as Main eventers. HBK couldn't carry the WWE or anyone else without the rub for that matter

'=

Well not sure if that one is true.. Shawn stole the show at WM 10.. won the Royal Rumble twice.. Wrestled for the WWF title and got cheered by the fans at WM11 before he even wrestled Bret.. Infact Bret admitted to being jealous of all the focus that was on Shawn during 1995 and felt he was being overshadowed as the champion.. saying that during his 3rd title reign "everything was about Shawn" Bret did a great job in the Iron man match but Shawn was already the top face when he won the belt.. if you don't believe it watch this clip of MSG entrances at around 48 secs.. and then stay turned for Brets entrance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgkxMEIM8A

 

[gunnascott]

So your saying it's ok that Bret refused to job to Shawn because Shawn refused to job first?? That sounds like the logic children would use in a fight.. Nobody is saying HBK was right for telling Bret he wouldn't job to him.. but guess what.. That doesn't make Bret right for refusing to job either.. By refusing to job he disrespected the wrestling business and didn't do the right thing for the people and the business that made him a star.. and if you think "WWF didn't make him a star..Bret made Bret a star..." save it.. We all saw how he turned out in WCW and that really shined a light on who made Bret..

Bret was a victim of backstage politics and the old guard nothing more


Wait wait wait!! Are you not JUST the guy.. that said this...

That seems bit hypocritical.. Bret loses rating and gets low buyrates and "It's not his fault" but when Shawn Michaels becomes champ and 3 of the other top draws in WWF (Bret, Diesel and Scott Hall) leave you are wondering "HOW COME HE DIDN'T DRAW BETTER!!" You can't have it both ways Scott... and the truth is that his reign was actually going very well.. Until of course all the other stars left and he had no one to feud against..and no undercard to support him.. Not to mention that his character had changed from a cocky heel to a white meat babyface... which is not what got him over with the fans to begin with..



HBK had Sid and Vader who both had headlined Starcade and Wrestlemania. They were bigger than the 2 guys that left but not Bret. Besides Diesels year long title reign killed the company you couldnt expect bret to make it come back in a month.

Mcmahon NEVER said that.. what your thinking of is Bret Hart telling you what Vince said (yes I read Brets book too).. those are two different things. Besides why should that affect buyrates?? The Michaels vs Bret match was never even mentioned to the public.. The fans had no clue that was even the plan.

Look at the build at that time they were in eachothers face for the better part of 5 weeks before WM and the crowd knew what it was nobody wanted to see UT v Sid even tho UT deserved at title shot and victory more that anyone
'=

Well not sure if that one is true.. Shawn stole the show at WM 10.. won the Royal Rumble twice.. Wrestled for the WWF title and got cheered by the fans at WM11 before he even wrestled Bret.. Infact Bret admitted to being jealous of all the focus that was on Shawn during 1995 and felt he was being overshadowed as the champion.. saying that during his 3rd title reign "everything was about Shawn" Bret did a great job in the Iron man match but Shawn was already the top face when he won the belt.. if you don't believe it watch this clip of MSG entrances at around 48 secs.. and then stay turned for Brets entrance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgkxMEIM8A

Yeah cuz the Clique devalued Bret all they could in 1995 but when business tanked under Diesel who did he want to put Shawn over...............Bret, because he was the standard at the time and beating him meant something unlike Diesel who wasnt even over until his heel turn

 

[ted sheckler]

Bret was a victim of backstage politics and the old guard nothing more

Always the victim huh?? Nobody has ever said that politics held back Bret in WCW except for Bret.. most people have said that Bret just wasn't the same guy that he was in the WWF and that he arrived in WCW a broken man after Montreal.. And of course its easy to say "He was held back..he was screwed" and its harder and more honest to say.. you know what he didn't have a huge impact in WCW.. maybe the WWF had more to do with the creation of "The Hitman" than I thought"

HBK had Sid and Vader who both had headlined Starcade and Wrestlemania. They were bigger than the 2 guys that left but not Bret. Besides Diesels year long title reign killed the company you couldnt expect bret to make it come back in a month.

Vader was certainly a big name in WCW.. but he wasn't with a WWF crowd.. He main evented a starrcade that drew even less than the worst Wrestlemania (which was main evented by Sid).. Diesel and Razor were current top stars as well as Bret.. But in all honesty how can u say that Brets ratings weren't his fault but in the next sentence blame Shawn for his era?? It's beyond hypocritical at this point

Yeah cuz the Clique devalued Bret all they could in 1995 but when business tanked under Diesel who did he want to put Shawn over...............Bret, because he was the standard at the time and beating him meant something unlike Diesel who wasnt even over until his heel turn

Again.. Bret was victimized!! There's not always a conspiracy going on.. its actually pretty simple.. Bret was great.. but so is Shawn.. and he was the guy that came and took Brets "Top Spot"... just like Austin came along and took HBKS spot..its the circle of life in WWE

 

[gunnascott]

If politics didn't hold Bret back why wasn't he immediately put in the main event following starrcade. He was the hottest topic in wrestling after ss97 and could have helped ease some of the creative slump after the critical bust Starrcade was

The only reason I bring up HBKs title run was because you've been making it seem like Bret wasn't a draw when in fact he was on soldout tours and WWE began a downard spiral during 1996 even tho he had bigger money opponents than Bret. Maybe it was the way you worded it and I'm sorry if there was a misscommunication