Championship Region, Fifth Round: (3) Shawn Michaels vs. (4) Bret Hart

[Nate DaMac]

My be all end all is the Iron Man Match and Shawn came out victorious. This was when both men were at the top of their game.

So you admit Bret wins then, right? If that match is your be all end all and both men were at the top of their game, Bret wins no ifs ands or buts.


When the time stopped, Bret retained. He knew nothing about sudden death, if he did he would not have let go and he would have won.

If that match proves anything, it's that Shawn cannot beat Bret Hart in a straight up fair fight. He's winless in fair fights with Bret.

 

[Tastycles]

Neither of these guys belong in the last 8 of a greatest ever wrestler tournament. On the basis that Shawn Michaels lost the WWF fans across the entire globe, whilst Harr at least remained popular in Europe and Canada, the fact that Bret Hart did more for the industry in putting Austin over than Michaels did in his career combined and the fact that his matches are better, I'm going with Hart.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Oh looky! Match suggestions. Seen it, loved it, NEXT!





Good lord isn't it like a little bitch to start throwing the word 'fake' once things aren't going your way pal.



Your mindless babble befuddles me. Your belief in your babble makes me lose hope in common sense.







Again subjective isn't it? I find it fresh, I have been here awhile and seen a few top 8s and this is a nice change.

I started circa 93, thanks for asking.






Typical smark losing an argument on the internet, why did you even bother to debate if these are just 'what old wrestler they like better'? Coz your dumb thats why.




Yes it was, it was damn fun, but it was tough to make it in the era too. The olden wrestlers had the advantage of less media exposure and the business not being exposed as it got. From the AE kayfabe was gone, and still guys like Austin, Rock had us hooked.



As do I, I just detest people like you who come in here touting how old times were the besties. I have watched wrestling from 70s, documentaries because I love the heritage and how it used to be.

Sorry if THAT offends you





They still wanted to work, but Shawn offended Bret by saying 'Just so you know I wouldnt do the same for you' (in lieu to Hart saying he was ok passing the torch to HBK)

Then he should have kept the belt on Bret, as it is VKM couldnt pay the money for that 10 yr contract, he could have negotiated and let him stay champ, but times were changing and DX was hot. They needed to change the guard because Bret didnt work in that era.
Again yes all conjecture till he says so himself.






WCW nWo caught fire like a house full of gasoline, its sad because there were some great matches Shawn had, and good stories told. Yes I know about the politics but some of his feuds deserved their accolades. He ditched Bret and the Shawn coz Vince is a businessman.




My be all end all is the Iron Man Match and Shawn came out victorious. This was when both men were at the top of their game.






Never said that, try to keep up.







Havent, I have just called you out on your bullshit argument of real life scuffles and dark matches as a factor here. They are not, not when they wrestled each other in the pinnacle of their careers.

I



Sure ye real life shoots factoring into a kayfabe tournament are some of the things you have brought to the table. Your personal preference is fine, but you are using asinine arguments.




No I just think he is up his own ass a lot. He was a great wrestler, master of understanding what goes next, but a poor attitude at times and really didnt appeal to me much.



And what knowledge would that be; quoting obscure dark matches to show off your big smark dick to the IWC, give it up son, you are trying too hard, and HBK has won and rightfully so.

Ok, I've tried being as nice as I can be here despite you flying off the handle over absolutely nothing and developing some weird, real hate for me personally just because I don't share the exact same opinions on wrestling as you, and have the audacity to actually want to voice them in the exact same manner you voice yours.

But you're fucking ridiculous, so here goes.

First off, saying your winning an argument, and actually winning one... are two completely separate things. Notice how since you got your period in this thread, how the only people that have responded have argued against what you're saying? That's a sign you're not doing nearly as good as you'd like to think.

You only want to talk about the matches that you feel conveniently make your case for you I take it? Because you started here bleeding out of your twat when I simply corrected a comment that these two guys only ever fought twice (the guy I corrected... was among those that green repped me for my post... you know, the one you felt the need to defend? He apparently never even felt the need to have you defend him) Since you only have a very specific criteria of matches that can be discussed around you, I add a third one that fits your criteria... which you blow off and say you saw, but not to be discussed.

So you know I was 100% right in the first place, and that doesn't matter... because you'll still act like your some 7 year old kid who just got his favorite toy taken away by his dad (I have a hard time believing 1993 was when you first watched wrestling unless it was Saturday morning... because you would have had a bed time).

You don't like me bringing up other matches than the Iron Man Match (which has been argued beautifully and correctly by others in kayfabe) or the screwjob (which is just pathetic, lazy and shows your biased intent) because they hurt your argument.

80-12-17... and in those 12 times HBK was actually able to get the win, it was in 3 way matches including Sycho Sid, who would take the fall. The only times Shawn actually won against Bret? When a commissioner changed the rules of a match after the bell rang... when he was already defeated... and when an owner stopped the match and gave him the win. EVERY OTHER TIME... Shawn lost. Why didn't they fight more in '96/97? Because Shawn knew he would lose and refused to fight. Fucking Mr. Wrestlemania actually sat out of a Wrestlemania and gave up what would have been a big Wrestlemania payday... just so he didn't have to lose to Bret Hart. Shawn Michaels threatened to quit before King of the Ring 1997... because he didn't want to have to lose to Bret Hart (both confirmed planned finishes - both real things that actually happened).

What's going to happen here? The only times Shawn ever beat Bret, he had to get blatant help from the biggest authority figure of the time to do it. Is Klunderbunker going to change the rules mid match here to favor HBK? Is he going to call for the bell when Shawn puts on another sloppy sharpshooter? Because if he's not, then history showed that Shawn could not beat Bret.

The real history of these two men show that in the end, Bret always won. I say real because not the WWE revised history that you've seemingly learned to take as gospel when it comes to your wrestling knowledge. The actual history.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I struggle with this one because head to head decisions are very inconclusive if we are to speak of a prime period. The first time they met in a televised bout, neither had entered their prime and it resulted in a double DQ. The second time, Bret was WHC champ and Shawn was an IC champ as yet to ascend to Main Event status. Both the third and fourth meetings do not have conclusive finishes as the GM changed the rules after the match was ruled a draw in the first encounter and Vince preempted the scheduled finish of the infamous bout. Kayfabe wise, this means we only have one definitive decision in their four TV bouts which occurred prior to HBK reaching the ME scene.

As for careers; Bret and HBK technically did everything the old fashioned was - from working in a smaller promotion, to working in the tag division, to working the midcard belt to ascension to the World title. Everyone knows about the creative (and occasionally real) fights they had in the WWF. In my mind Bret had the better WWF career if we just take into account Shawn's first go round as I feel he is criminally overlooked in the creation of the AE and (better still), what was good in the AE - the increased physicality and believability of personal differences. HBK and DX, on the other hand, where more instrumental in some of the more garish elements - the toilet humor and sexploitation. Where HBK did redeem himself immensely was his second run were he was going out of his way to elevate opponents win, lose or draw.

In the end, I'm going to give my vote to Bret for two reasons:
1) For his part in the creation of what I really enjoyed about the AE, specifically in his part in cultivating the SCSA character.
2) From their beginnings to Shawn's enforced break in '98, Bret always seemed to be the more professional of the two with HBK the enfant terrible of the period. As I stated above, he did go a long way to redeem himself in his second run but (despite the quality of bouts) results, standing and accolades state we cannot regard this as his prime.

 

[enviousdominous]

Okay, look; I'm not voting because I think that my favorite has a snowballs chance in Hell of winning. It's the principle.

I grew up on pro-wrestling and never really got into the flashier performers. I was a die-hard Andre the Giant mark, which made me a bit of an outcast when Hogan got in his way. I'd vote Andre over Hogan anyday.

I respect Bret more, mainly because they didn't have dirt sheets when he was around and as a mark I saw his demeanor as being more professional than Shawn's. I was a huge fan of The Rockers, but I was an even bigger fan of The Hart Foundation. One was based on the hair bands of the day, the other was based on loyalty to family.

I really don't give a damn about who beat who or who won more belts. Every match is its own match, anybody can beat anybody in the world of fake sports. I would want Bret Hart to win this match, my vote is for him even though his win is obviously not happening.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

So you admit Bret wins then, right? If that match is your be all end all and both men were at the top of their game, Bret wins no ifs ands or buts.


When the time stopped, Bret retained. He knew nothing about sudden death, if he did he would not have let go and he would have won.

If that match proves anything, it's that Shawn cannot beat Bret Hart in a straight up fair fight. He's winless in fair fights with Bret.

Who has the W in his column after a grueling 60 minute match plus over time.

If anything it proves Shawn can more than hang with The Best There Is...yadi yadi ya and then has that extra something to beat him. Not cry about it to Gorilla Monsoon

Ok, I've tried being as nice as I can be here despite you flying off the handle over absolutely nothing and developing some weird, real hate for me personally just because I don't share the exact same opinions on wrestling as you, and have the audacity to actually want to voice them in the exact same manner you voice yours.

But you're fucking ridiculous, so here goes.

First off, saying your winning an argument, and actually winning one... are two completely separate things. Notice how since you got your period in this thread, how the only people that have responded have argued against what you're saying? That's a sign you're not doing nearly as good as you'd like to think.

You only want to talk about the matches that you feel conveniently make your case for you I take it? Because you started here bleeding out of your twat when I simply corrected a comment that these two guys only ever fought twice (the guy I corrected... was among those that green repped me for my post... you know, the one you felt the need to defend? He apparently never even felt the need to have you defend him) Since you only have a very specific criteria of matches that can be discussed around you, I add a third one that fits your criteria... which you blow off and say you saw, but not to be discussed.

So you know I was 100% right in the first place, and that doesn't matter... because you'll still act like your some 7 year old kid who just got his favorite toy taken away by his dad (I have a hard time believing 1993 was when you first watched wrestling unless it was Saturday morning... because you would have had a bed time).

You don't like me bringing up other matches than the Iron Man Match (which has been argued beautifully and correctly by others in kayfabe) or the screwjob (which is just pathetic, lazy and shows your biased intent) because they hurt your argument.

80-12-17... and in those 12 times HBK was actually able to get the win, it was in 3 way matches including Sycho Sid, who would take the fall. The only times Shawn actually won against Bret? When a commissioner changed the rules of a match after the bell rang... when he was already defeated... and when an owner stopped the match and gave him the win. EVERY OTHER TIME... Shawn lost. Why didn't they fight more in '96/97? Because Shawn knew he would lose and refused to fight. Fucking Mr. Wrestlemania actually sat out of a Wrestlemania and gave up what would have been a big Wrestlemania payday... just so he didn't have to lose to Bret Hart. Shawn Michaels threatened to quit before King of the Ring 1997... because he didn't want to have to lose to Bret Hart (both confirmed planned finishes - both real things that actually happened).

What's going to happen here? The only times Shawn ever beat Bret, he had to get blatant help from the biggest authority figure of the time to do it. Is Klunderbunker going to change the rules mid match here to favor HBK? Is he going to call for the bell when Shawn puts on another sloppy sharpshooter? Because if he's not, then history showed that Shawn could not beat Bret.

The real history of these two men show that in the end, Bret always won. I say real because not the WWE revised history that you've seemingly learned to take as gospel when it comes to your wrestling knowledge. The actual history.

Oh look at you bravo! BRAVO!

Finally no mention of how a real life skirmish and a dark match are not factors here; excellent you are evolving.

Again or the Iron Man Match look above ^

The real history is they had one big match that had a decisive winner. You are idiotic enough to think that I dont see through the WWE's propaganda machine so thats you being insufferable again. But one last time, so you can shut your yapping and understand:

SHAWN MICHEALS BEAT BRET HART AT WRESTLEMANIA 12 VIA PINFALL

HBK hung with someone who has presumed to be the best, and then beat him.

Its cute your bringing up his politics in Mania 13 for fucks sake Ugh. Let them straws go

 

[Nate DaMac]

Who has the W in his column after a grueling 60 minute match plus over time.

If anything it proves Shawn can more than hang with The Best There Is...yadi yadi ya and then has that extra something to beat him. Not cry about it to Gorilla Monsoon

Think about it like this; What if the only one-on-one matchup between Edge and John Cena was the cash in at New Year's Revolution. Do you give Edge the edge over Cena? Of course you don't, it was a ridiculous circumstance that he was not able to prepare for.

This is pretty much the same thing. The time limit ends, Shawn was beaten dead to rights. If there was no time limit, he either loses or dies. Luckily for him, there is a time limit and it's just a draw. Then a ridiculous circumstance that no one was prepared for comes into play. Had both men been prepared for this circumstance, Bret wins. End of story. Since neither man was prepared, Shawn was given a clear advantage. Therefore this is NOT a clean win. Shawn has ZERO clean wins over Bret while Bret at least has the one clean win over Shawn when neither man was in their prime.

Your argument holds absolutely no water.

 

[GI Cake]

Bret Hart might be known as the Hitman but HBK and his Sweet Chin Music has plenty of marks in his Assassination game. The most note worthy of targets have been Abraham Lincoln, Moses, Bruce Campbell's movie career, and Michael J Fox's equilibrium. Shawn Michaels is a boy toy and as a boy toy his action figures have sold across the galaxy outselling Cock Chestner himself. It is quite clear that HBK should take the nod.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Think about it like this; What if the only one-on-one matchup between Edge and John Cena was the cash in at New Year's Revolution. Do you give Edge the edge over Cena? Of course you don't, it was a ridiculous circumstance that he was not able to prepare for.

This is pretty much the same thing. The time limit ends, Shawn was beaten dead to rights. If there was no time limit, he either loses or dies. Luckily for him, there is a time limit and it's just a draw. Then a ridiculous circumstance that no one was prepared for comes into play. Had both men been prepared for this circumstance, Bret wins. End of story. Since neither man was prepared, Shawn was given a clear advantage. Therefore this is NOT a clean win. Shawn has ZERO clean wins over Bret while Bret at least has the one clean win over Shawn when neither man was in their prime.

Your argument holds absolutely no water.

There is a big difference between Edge's cash in and that overtime come on man. This was a grueling match where they both gave it all and then Shawn took it in overtime. Bret couldnt dispose of him in the end and the match continued. Time was added, Hart's storyline did deem him complaining but they were both at equal footing, equally tired and he won

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Oh look at you bravo! BRAVO!

Finally no mention of how a real life skirmish and a dark match are not factors here; excellent you are evolving.

Again or the Iron Man Match look above ^

The real history is they had one big match that had a decisive winner. You are idiotic enough to think that I dont see through the WWE's propaganda machine so thats you being insufferable again. But one last time, so you can shut your yapping and understand:

SHAWN MICHEALS BEAT BRET HART AT WRESTLEMANIA 12 VIA PINFALL

HBK hung with someone who has presumed to be the best, and then beat him.

Its cute your bringing up his politics in Mania 13 for fucks sake Ugh. Let them straws go

And here we are again. You sticking your fingers in your ears, screaming at the top of your lungs, and refusing to acknowledge any arguments that are made.

Since real match history is the be all and end all with you, I trust that you've been completely consistent all tournament long whenever this has been a factor?

Oh wait. No you haven't.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=292045&page=4

Rather convenient of you... just like it's rather convenient that you completely ignore the entire history that points to the fact that Shawn Michaels was only ever able to defeat Bret Hart with help from the highest authority figure available at the time of those specific matches. When he didn't get that help, he could NEVER beat Bret Hart. When he got sick of the fact that he could never beat Bret Hart without that extreme level of help, he threw a PeeGeeesque tantrum and refuse to fight... just like you refuse to pay any attention to the arguments you can't refute.

You mentioned in that Yoko/Hogan thread that we're talking about 'primes', and how in Hogan's case, when Yoko beat him that Hogan was being fazed out. Funny thing about that? Is that when Shawn beat Bret in their 'one and only big match with a decisive winner' according to you (false, but whatever), Hart was being 'fazed out'. He actually speaks about this in his book. Vince had been looking for someone to fill an 'ambassador' role for years. He'd wanted it to be Hogan during that faze out period, but Hogan didn't want that. He'd decided that one of the reasons he was putting the belt on Shawn was because he wanted to move Bret into that role. Also, in case you didn't realize because it was all past your bedtime back then... Bret wasn't on TV for half a year after that Iron Man match. And for Bret's 'prime' including that match? The buildup for it was that Hart was the grizzled veteran who'd have to use all his wiles to hold off a guy at the peak of his game. He was never portrayed as someone who was also at his peak.

It's an identical situation... yet for one guy you argued that it shouldn't be held against him, and that his body of work preceding that should be what's more important. In this case... literally the only thing that matters to you is the end result of that single match. Well it used to be that and the end result of the screwjob, but you finally seem to be off that.

Like I said... convenient.

And no. You can say all you want how you can see through the WWE propoganda machine. You probably even believe it. Everything you write here though... screams differently.

I just wish you'd gotten involved in this thread sooner. Bret's been gaining ground ever since you got your period here.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

And here we are again. You sticking your fingers in your ears, screaming at the top of your lungs, and refusing to acknowledge any arguments that are made.

Since real match history is the be all and end all with you, I trust that you've been completely consistent all tournament long whenever this has been a factor?

Oh wait. No you haven't.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=292045&page=4

Rather convenient of you... just like it's rather convenient that you completely ignore the entire history that points to the fact that Shawn Michaels was only ever able to defeat Bret Hart with help from the highest authority figure available at the time of those specific matches. When he didn't get that help, he could NEVER beat Bret Hart. When he got sick of the fact that he could never beat Bret Hart without that extreme level of help, he threw a PeeGeeesque tantrum and refuse to fight... just like you refuse to pay any attention to the arguments you can't refute.

You mentioned in that Yoko/Hogan thread that we're talking about 'primes', and how in Hogan's case, when Yoko beat him that Hogan was being fazed out. Funny thing about that? Is that when Shawn beat Bret in their 'one and only big match with a decisive winner' according to you (false, but whatever), Hart was being 'fazed out'. He actually speaks about this in his book. Vince had been looking for someone to fill an 'ambassador' role for years. He'd wanted it to be Hogan during that faze out period, but Hogan didn't want that. He'd decided that one of the reasons he was putting the belt on Shawn was because he wanted to move Bret into that role. Also, in case you didn't realize because it was all past your bedtime back then... Bret wasn't on TV for half a year after that Iron Man match. And for Bret's 'prime' including that match? The buildup for it was that Hart was the grizzled veteran who'd have to use all his wiles to hold off a guy at the peak of his game. He was never portrayed as someone who was also at his peak.

It's an identical situation... yet for one guy you argued that it shouldn't be held against him, and that his body of work preceding that should be what's more important. In this case... literally the only thing that matters to you is the end result of that single match. Well it used to be that and the end result of the screwjob, but you finally seem to be off that.

Like I said... convenient.

And no. You can say all you want how you can see through the WWE propoganda machine. You probably even believe it. Everything you write here though... screams differently.

I just wish you'd gotten involved in this thread sooner. Bret's been gaining ground ever since you got your period here.

Lol Hart was not being fazed out like Hogan. VKM told Hogan it was time to wind up Hulkamania, same time he made Macho Man a color guy. In no way was Bret Hart being moved to the alumni section. He was still gonna be a part of the active roster and he was scheduled to go shoot that fruity TV show and HBK was hot; so the change was made.

Get your points right boy.

I like HBK despite all that propaganda. And he beat Hart after Gorilla added extra time, HBK had it in him to take it after a grueling 60 minutes.

Rather than holding that against him, it stands as a testament to the fact that HBK had more in his reserve than Hart. He didn't jump Hart from behind, the bell rang, they slugged it out, superkick and he won.


This was gonna be close regardless as people will mostly vote through preference and not read your or my long winding posts word by word.

Good job pining that on me. Real classy since you got nothing more

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Lol Hart was not being fazed out like Hogan. VKM told Hogan it was time to wind up Hulkamania, same time he made Macho Man a color guy. In no way was Bret Hart being moved to the alumni section. He was still gonna be a part of the active roster and he was scheduled to go shoot that fruity TV show and HBK was hot; so the change was made.

Get your points right boy.

I like HBK despite all that propaganda. And he beat Hart after Gorilla added extra time, HBK had it in him to take it after a grueling 60 minutes.

Rather than holding that against him, it stands as a testament to the fact that HBK had more in his reserve than Hart. He didn't jump Hart from behind, the bell rang, they slugged it out, superkick and he won.


This was gonna be close regardless as people will mostly vote through preference and not read your or my long winding posts word by word.

Good job pining that on me. Real classy since you got nothing more

Once again, can't handle the actual arguments.

You didn't read Bret's book, did you? He talks about how Vince told him that he wanted him to be his "Babe Ruth", which was his way of saying that he'd be more than just a wrestler anymore. He'd still wrestle, but he'd also be spending most of his time promoting the WWF brand. He wouldn't be full time in the ring anymore.

EXACTLY what he wanted to do with Hogan when you say he was being 'fazed out'.

I love how you can't respond to the Iron Man match argument that keeps getting thrown at you though. Let me try another way to see if it can sink into your head.

You're using the kayfabe argument when you're going strictly on match outcome. Kayfabe meant that it was treated as if it was real. So let's look at Gorilla Monsoon's decision for sudden death overtime on that basis.

Prior to the match, there was no mention that there had to be a winner. The rules were simple. Both guys wrestle for 60 minutes. Whomever gets the most pinfalls and submissions wins. Nothing whatsoever about what happens if it's a tie, so normal kayfabe wrestling rules apply here. If there isn't a winner at the end of the time limit, the match is considered a draw.

This was the assumption both men should have had going into the match. They were never given a reason to think otherwise.

Once upon a time, the NHL didn't have overtime or a shootout to determine the winner of a game. You played for 60 minutes, and the score at the end of that 60 minutes was your final score. What do you think would have happened if, at the end of a hockey game, one team shoots at the net, and the puck goes in right after the final buzzer goes. The puck crosses the line half a second too late. By the rules that both teams understand, the goal doesn't count and the game ends in a tie. However, after that, the NHL commissioner decides that this game can't be a tie, and orders sudden death overtime. In this sudden death overtime, the team that gave up what would have been the winning goal half a second too late, scores and wins the game.

How do you think the sports world would react to something like that?

Of course nothing like that would ever happen, and the NHL isn't the WWE. But again, you're using the kayfabe argument, and kayfabe meant that it was considered real, and in that sense, that's exactly what happened in that Iron Man Match.

Had they been told ahead of time that in the event of a draw, there would be a brief intermission before overtime, then your argument would stand. If they'd been told that there had to be a winner, and the match would just continue until one of them won, then it doesn't, because HBK submits at about 60:00:20.

But they weren't. The WWE commissioner made up the rules on the fly, so that they benefited one guy who happened to be the one who won.

Without that intervention, you have zero argument for this match today.

Funny you of all people want to talk about 'class' though. Maybe you should re-read your posts in this thread that started all of this and ask yourself how classy you've been? Besides, I was simply pointing out a fact. Hart's gotten about 60-65% of the vote since you started arguing against him. Not bad... considering you said I was the one who should stop posting since I wasn't doing him any favors.

But then again, we all know why you said that.

BTW, if you don't think people are reading your long winded posts, then why waste your time writing them? Do you really have that little to do?

Maybe they're not, although I disagree and think they just don't like yours (proof is this thread since you joined it). I've been getting a lot of positive feedback on this thread though, so they're at least reading mine.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

At this point I dont even have to quote you coz its just you and me, and everyone can see HBK won and for good reason.

i have answered the IronMan Match question again and again and its tiring. He won it in over time; the champion couldnt dispose of him in the time allotted and Gorilla added more time. It was fair, sure Bret was screaming all part of kayfabe but it was built to make him look strong in defeat. On any other night it would have ended as a draw but this was the ME of Mania, the most important match of WWE and how much sense would it have made had it been a draw. Kayfabely, Gorilla did the right thing and let the match go to sudden death where a beaten up Shawn mustered enough to hit the Sweet Chin Music and win.

And they are not reading our every word for fucks sake, they would have replied consistently quoting us otherwise.

In any issue dear boy, this was a great debate, thats all this is. How do you make compelling cases and you made yours and I made mine. It was brilliant, and I learned a few facts too as did you (dont be shy)

Here's my hand, shake it and see you in the next round