Does anyone think Bret Hart was better than Shawn Michaels, and why?

[Creepy Old Man]

Back in say, 2000, when they'd both retired (Shawn temporarily), the debate would probably be quite even, possibly in favour of Bret. Then Shawn came back and put in another 8 years of work, culminating in arguably the two greatest WrestleMania matches in history. Shawn was regarded as one of the best when he retired in 1998, but today it seems widely accepted that Shawn is the single greatest ever, while Bret has settled into that "one of the best" category.

Does anyone here and now, in 2014, think Bret was the better of the two? And why?

Remember it's all opinion, people...

 

[LBGetBack]

Back in say, 2000, when they'd both retired (Shawn temporarily), the debate would probably be quite even, possibly in favour of Bret. Then Shawn came back and put in another 8 years of work, culminating in arguably the two greatest WrestleMania matches in history. Shawn was regarded as one of the best when he retired in 1998, but today it seems widely accepted that Shawn is the single greatest ever, while Bret has settled into that "one of the best" category.

Does anyone here and now, in 2014, think Bret was the better of the two? And why?

Remember it's all opinion, people...

Yes, I do think Bret was better. I do not think it's fair to say Shawn is better because he had a longer career. Bret suffered a serious injury due to another wrestler's sloppiness that ended his career prematurely, and there's nothing he could do about that.

Shawn was fortunately able to recover from his serious back injury and extend his career.

But I believe you rank guys by how they were at their absolute best. I think Bret was better at his peak. He had much better championship runs, and personally I preferred the storytelling of his matches(slightly) over Shawn's.

Shawn put on phenomenal matches too, no question.

I also think Bret's feuds were more consistently great. Shawn had some great ones with the right opponents(Jericho, HHH, Razor), but Bret seemed to have more, with more opponents. I feel the same way match-wise.

If you compare the phases of their respective careers......Hart Foundation >>>Rockers. Bret's midcard IC days > Shawn's midcard IC days(close though). And Bret's WWF title days/top of the card days >> Shawn's title runs/top of the card days.

Now Shawn had a phenomenal late career run where he wasn't winning titles, but was usually in top matches. Unfortunately Bret never really got to have that phase of his career due to the Screwjob situation, WCW, and then the injury. I would've LOVED to see Bret Hart as a veteran in early-mid 2000's WWE taking on Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Rob Van Damn, HHH, Brock Lesnar, etc. So Shawn has that edge on him, and given that that phase happened recently, it's fresh in people's minds.

 

[enviousdominous]

If we're asking who was all-around better, my vote is for Bret.

They were both franchise players for the company, but from my perspective Bret took his role more seriously than Shawn did. When the fans turned on Bret, he adjusted his role to compliment the changing direction of the show. When fans turned on Shawn, he ranted about "I GIVE MY LIFE FOR YOU PEOPLE AND YOU BOO ME!?" in an unscripted rant on tv.

I see them as even in terms of how well they draw, I have to give the edge to the guy who put the fans first.

 

[The_Sharpshooter]

My name should tell you my opinion. HBK had the better character and was more of a showman, definitely. But the Hitman was more believable, had a better moveset, and didn't have to be extra dramatic to make his matches mean something.

 

[MCMG]

Not a chance. Bret was great. A phenomenal in-ring performer and easily the best technician. However, overall, there is only one guy, when inside the ring, I rank higher than Bret and that is Shawn Michaels.

Shawn had more personality too. Bret just didn't really have much charisma. He was fine but it was always a struggle for him. Shawn, however, had a character that worked and got over.

It's true that Shawn wrestled for longer and was able to work with some wonderful wrestlers when he returned. A luxury Bret never had but even if he did, I'm not sure he would have been capable of some of the performances that Shawn put on. I'll reiterate - Bret was amazing. His matches with Owen, Austin and Benoit (to name a few) are classics but Shawn was overall a better superstar. He has a greater catalogue of matches and the character to go alongside it.

 

[chuckmdubya]

People tend to feel sorry for Bret because he had the screw job and his brother Owen died in the ring. He was very overated as a wrestler. Between the hulkamania and attitude eras wrestling sucked and Bret was the "biggest star." He was the leader of the suckiest period in pro wrestling history. He is part of the reason WCW almost won the war. Vince had to screw him to protect the integrity of the WWE. He spent most of a decade bad mouthing and putting down Vince, Shawn, Hebner, and HHH, then he all the sudden "forgives" them and comes back. Then he starts in on Hogan and Flair. Anyone see a pattern developing here? He tries to belittle people who were bigger than him.
Either he was a hypocrite trying to run public service for himself or just trying to make money off of "wrestling with shadows." Then when that dried up, he went on a forgiving war path because he needed to make some cash so he makes wwe appearances, make some dvd's and gets into the HOF.

People should stop listening to what he says and think about it, this guy is no different than CM Punk, a butt hurt primadonna out there asking "what about me?"

 

[wrestler36]

definitely a subjective question, but I lean towards Bret as my favorite. Shawn was definitely flashier and more in your face, but to me Bret always felt like a champion. When he said he was the best, it always felt like he was and people always challenged him. With Michaels, he always seemed to be more of the underdog. I guess it's kind of like comparing Ali to Joe Louis. King of the Ring '93, Bret beat Razor Ramon, Mr. Perfect, and Bam Bam in one night. Three completely different kinds of matches all within 3 hours.

 

[Kidpolean]

HBK was better at just about everything than Bret. This shouldn't even be a question.

 

[AlexWWE21]

People tend to feel sorry for Bret because he had the screw job and his brother Owen died in the ring. He was very overated as a wrestler. Between the hulkamania and attitude eras wrestling sucked and Bret was the "biggest star." He was the leader of the suckiest period in pro wrestling history. He is part of the reason WCW almost won the war. Vince had to screw him to protect the integrity of the WWE. He spent most of a decade bad mouthing and putting down Vince, Shawn, Hebner, and HHH, then he all the sudden "forgives" them and comes back. Then he starts in on Hogan and Flair. Anyone see a pattern developing here? He tries to belittle people who were bigger than him.
Either he was a hypocrite trying to run public service for himself or just trying to make money off of "wrestling with shadows." Then when that dried up, he went on a forgiving war path because he needed to make some cash so he makes wwe appearances, make some dvd's and gets into the HOF.

People should stop listening to what he says and think about it, this guy is no different than CM Punk, a butt hurt primadonna out there asking "what about me?"

Couldn't agree with you more. I'm not that big of a Bret Hart fan myself. Don't get me wrong he was a good wrestler, maybe to an extent of being a great wrestler.
My thoughts though is the Shawn Michaels is just a little bit better than Bret. Shawn had more charisma,could deliver stellar promos, could deliver a 5 star match on any given day even with a bad back,and was a WWE guy through and through. There is a real good reason why WWE refers to him as one the best wrestlers to ever step foot in the ring.

 

[AlexWWE21]

And whats so funny to me is when Bret Hart badmouth's Triple H alot. Like really? Are you that jealous of Triple H?

 

[Sweettre15]

Ok, In the 80s and 90s, I'd say Bret was MILES better. They were both equal in wrestling ability but unlike Shawn, Bret carried himself more realistically at the time.

As a face champion, Shawn wasn't believable or relatable because the whole "Chip N Dale" act was not something that could work for a face..especially at a time when people were use to guys that were more "badass".

Bret on the other hand was more believable because he not only emphasized his prestigious wrestling background but carried himself like someone that should be holding a world title. Even in kid's commercials Bret carried himself like a badass.

Then let's get into Bret's more consistent body of work where Bret would have quality feuds with almost anyone not named Isaac Yankem. His feuds with Hakushi, HBK, Stone Cold, Mr. Perfect, Jerry Lawler, Davey Boy, Roddy Piper, The Rockers, Owen The Killer Bees etc Then good matches with Bam Bam Bigelow, Yokozuna, Diesel, Bob Backlund, Doink, Ric Flair, 123 Kid etc

Shawn had quality feuds with Razor Ramon, The Model, Bret, The Hart Foundation, Austin, Diesel, Mankind and maybe Davey Boy..but who else in that time?

His feuds with Sid, Vader, Santana, Mr. Perfect, Ken Shamrock, Owen and Tatanka were underwhelming. His only good match with Taker was at Bad Blood back then

Bret's first World title reign as the Fighting Champion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shawn's first World title reign

Bret's IC title runs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shawn's IC title runs

Bret's heel promos >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shawn's heel promos

Going on thst time frame, it's not even close. More Flamboyance does not automatically equal more Charisma. Not saying Shawn didnt have it but still..

 

[LBGetBack]

Not a chance. Bret was great. A phenomenal in-ring performer and easily the best technician. However, overall, there is only one guy, when inside the ring, I rank higher than Bret and that is Shawn Michaels.

Shawn had more personality too. Bret just didn't really have much charisma. He was fine but it was always a struggle for him. Shawn, however, had a character that worked and got over.

It's true that Shawn wrestled for longer and was able to work with some wonderful wrestlers when he returned. A luxury Bret never had but even if he did, I'm not sure he would have been capable of some of the performances that Shawn put on. I'll reiterate - Bret was amazing. His matches with Owen, Austin and Benoit (to name a few) are classics but Shawn was overall a better superstar. He has a greater catalogue of matches and the character to go alongside it.

This "Bret didn't have much charisma" is often repeated, and I truly wonder where it's coming from.

His 1980's heel Hart Foundation character certainly had charisma. Watch those promos. Certainly much more charismatic than Shawn was in the Rockers.

The early-mid 90's Hitman character was serious, no-nonsense, lots of integrity. That was his CHARACTER. He played it to a tee. He wasn't meant to be funny, or goofy, or over the top. He certainly connectd with the fans, as he was arguably the most popular wrestler on the planet for most of that time.

When he went heel with the Pro-Canada, Anti-American stuff in 1997, he was crushing those promos. And in WCW, he had quite a few funny promos("a groin pull the likes of which you've never seen", "who are you to doubt El dandy?", etc.?)

Bret never had the over the top characteristics that Shawn's early-mid 90's character had, or the goofball antics of DX Shawn......Bret was more subtle. He had plenty of charisma, IMO.

Just like there are different types of humor: dry humor, slapstick humor, etc......charisma comes in different forms. To make an analogy, Bret would be dry humor and Shawn would be slapstick.

 

[LBGetBack]

People tend to feel sorry for Bret because he had the screw job and his brother Owen died in the ring. He was very overated as a wrestler. Between the hulkamania and attitude eras wrestling sucked and Bret was the "biggest star." He was the leader of the suckiest period in pro wrestling history. He is part of the reason WCW almost won the war. Vince had to screw him to protect the integrity of the WWE. He spent most of a decade bad mouthing and putting down Vince, Shawn, Hebner, and HHH, then he all the sudden "forgives" them and comes back. Then he starts in on Hogan and Flair. Anyone see a pattern developing here? He tries to belittle people who were bigger than him.
Either he was a hypocrite trying to run public service for himself or just trying to make money off of "wrestling with shadows." Then when that dried up, he went on a forgiving war path because he needed to make some cash so he makes wwe appearances, make some dvd's and gets into the HOF.

People should stop listening to what he says and think about it, this guy is no different than CM Punk, a butt hurt primadonna out there asking "what about me?"

Completely ridiculous and flat out factually, incorrect. Were you even watching wrestling back then?

Here's a fact....when WCW took the ratings lead, Bret was on hiatus. He wasn't even active at the time. The WWF champ was Shawn Michaels. Bret came back in late 96 when WCW was already winning......and between his feuds with Austin and HBK in late 96 and through 97 he was one of the highlights of WWF programming at the time. And not to mention he was IN WCW from late 97 on, when WCW was "winning". So saying it was Bret's fault WCW was in the lead is flat out WRONG.

And LOL at "wrestling sucked" between the Hulkamania and Attitude Eras. Just because the masses(most of whom were idiots and just wanted to see boobies and hear dick jokes) tuned in, in record numbers in the AE weren't on board yet doesn't mean those years sucked. People like Bret, Owen Hart, Shawn Michaels, Razor Ramon, British Bulldog, Steve Austin, and others did some fantastic work at the time. The difference was the sideshow acts: clowns that wrestle, evil dentists that wrestle, and cowboys that wrestle don't draw in the mouthbreathers like pimps that wrestle, porn stars that wrestle, and nearly naked girls with big boobs that "wrestle" do.

 

[LBGetBack]

And whats so funny to me is when Bret Hart badmouth's Triple H alot. Like really? Are you that jealous of Triple H?

Jealous? LOL. Bret is generally much more highly regarded in the wrestling world than HHH is.

I think it's more like his......when Bret and HHH were both in WWF at the same time, Bret was a veteran superstar and HHH was a newcomer nobody who was just starting to gain some traction in Bret's final WWF months.

And then HHH proceeds to have a role in the screwjob? You're Bret Hart....40 years old, been a superstar for years and some 25 year old nobody is sticking his big ass nose in your business and "screwing you"?

You'd be OK with that? When you were a HS senior, did you let 8th graders f with you?

I think that's a big part of it, and also HHH has never really come across as particularly apologetic or regretful over the incident. I don't blame Bret for not liking HHH.

 

[FarFromFine]

Okay LBG, we get it from your 3 posts in a row that you were a Bret Hart guy.

If you take the time to just look at facts Shawn was a bigger draw than Bret and since the beginning of professional wrestling that is the only thing that has mattered. Hart's biggest wrestlemania moments were against Shawn, and against Austin. And Hart wasn't the focal point of either one. He also had the one where he dropped to Yoko then Hogan got it and Hart was forgotten.

He did have great feuds with Owen, Shawn, and Austin, but even when he was "the man" he wasn't really the man.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

And LOL at "wrestling sucked" between the Hulkamania and Attitude Eras. Just because the masses(most of whom were idiots and just wanted to see boobies and hear dick jokes) tuned in, in record numbers in the AE weren't on board yet doesn't mean those years sucked.

Agreed. The Attitude Era was largely low-brow garbage.

If you take the time to just look at facts Shawn was a bigger draw than Bret and since the beginning of professional wrestling that is the only thing that has mattered.

What facts are those, out of interest? And drawing more money means you drew more money. Greatness comes down to the entirely subjective opinion of the viewer.

 

[OYDK]

During their nearly identical rises to the top, Bret Hart always seemed to be just one step ahead of Shawn Michaels. Whether they were battling for the Tag Team, Intercontinental, or World championships, Shawn Michaels always seemed to be looked at as the underdog and I think it was primarily because Bret was the one who was being groomed as the next "face". Bret Hart was truly the man after Hulk Hogan left in 1993 and IMO he would have remained the man for many years to come, if he had decided to re-sign with the WWF instead of jumping to WCW. Shawn Michaels in the mid-90s was Randy Orton and Bret Hart was John Cena.

If Michaels had never had that second run in the WWE this wouldn't even be a conversation right now. But since that run has to be taken into consideration, I would say Shawn Michaels had the better career, but Bret Hart is better than Shawn Michaels head to head.

 

[LBGetBack]

Okay LBG, we get it from your 3 posts in a row that you were a Bret Hart guy.

If you take the time to just look at facts Shawn was a bigger draw than Bret and since the beginning of professional wrestling that is the only thing that has mattered. Hart's biggest wrestlemania moments were against Shawn, and against Austin. And Hart wasn't the focal point of either one. He also had the one where he dropped to Yoko then Hogan got it and Hart was forgotten.

He did have great feuds with Owen, Shawn, and Austin, but even when he was "the man" he wasn't really the man.

I was responding to 3 different points made by others. Thanks for your concern.

You're leaving out that Hart also won the title in the Main Event of WrestleMania 10. He Main-Evented 3 out of 4 Mania's between 1993 and 1996. Sounds like he was "the man" in that time period to me. If not him, then who?

Shawn a bigger draw? The ratings went down the tubes in '96 when he was champ. Not that it was all his fault or anything, but it's what happened. What are you basing him being a bigger draw on? And when exactly was Shawn "the man", since you're claiming Bret never really was. IMO, Bret more definitively was "the man" and for a longer period of time than Shawn was.

 

[FarFromFine]

Agreed. The Attitude Era was largely low-brow garbage.



What facts are those, out of interest? And drawing more money means you drew more money. Greatness comes down to the entirely subjective opinion of the viewer.

It's all pretty easily found through simple google searches but I'll take a minute to show a little.

The Wrestlemania's that LBG mentioned had the following buyrates: 1993 430k, 1994 420k, 1995 340k, 1996 290k.

Shawn's main events from WM 26, 23, and 14 had buyrates of: WM14 730k, WM23 1.25M, WM 26 885k.

I can't credit Shawn with all of the success because the product was better all around, which helped garner interest. However, he was STILL the main event in those 3 even though the roster was better and the product was better.

Also, Shawn had 8 years in the PWI top 10. Bret had 4 years in the top 10. Some of this is a credit to Shawn having a longer career, but Bret had severely dropped after wrestling evolved out of the cartoon era. Shawn adapted and became an even bigger star, and some would say was one of the catalysts for the new movement. Bret became outdated and was unable to stay relevant even before his career ending injury.

This is really not even a question unless people want to debate who was better at certain periods in time. Bigger draw, more popular, longer career, more iconic moments... all go to Shawn.

In ring ability you could make an argument for Bret. Some preferred his style to Shawn's. Some thought he was more smooth in the ring and liked how he was more technically sound. The only issue I have with that is that there are no moves that Bret could do that Shawn couldn't. Bret may have done them "better" in the eyes of some, but you can't argue that there were things that Shawn could do in the ring that the Hitman just didn't have the ability to do.

For anyone that doubts that Shawn was a bigger draw than Hart just use Google or rewatch them both at their peak on the Network.

 

[Starkiller]

A lot of people in this thread have nailed it. Brought up some great points on why Bret is above HBK in pro wrestling rankings.

I agree. I would say Shawn has probably had a few matches that rank higher then Brets best matches but Bret has had more quality matches overall and better fueds, and could wrestle anyone and have a quality match that was believable and easy to buy into. Way more wrestling pyschology in his matches which is important.

Wrestling in the 90s during the Monday night wars was the best era in wrestling history. To major pro wrestling Companies going head to head. It made it more competitive, there was Competition which brought out more creativity risk taking. And when WCW was kicking ass Bret was on hiatus and HBK was the companies champion so you can't blame bret for that. It's on hbk because he didn't want to lose his spot to bret. Bret came back and figured he would be back feuding for the title with hbk which would of be epic, but shawn didn't want to work with bret so bret had to be in a feud with Stone Cold which was pretty darn good feud and that mania match made Austin. Really sparked his character and got him over huge. Then we know the Montreal screw job forced bret to leave and join the WCW machine which didn't hurt, certainly they didn't use Bret the way they should have but that's another topic.

There are so many more memorable feuds with Bret then HBK. You Have to take that into account. Brets title reigns were better cuz he made the world title mean something. You really felt he was the champion. He was The guy.

If hbk had a better attitude he probably could of went down as the greatest of all time, and probably would of had more memorable feuds and title reigns but he just wasn't wired that way. That's not Brets fault.

Bret was a better face and bret was a better heel. Bret really could get real heat as a heel which was great to watch. Now HBK riskier chip n Dale boy toy gimmick Probably wasn't the best gimmick to get over as a top face, but I do remember him having a few good face runs. But they don't compare to brets face runs.

You have to take everything into account when deciding who is better.

Bret is above HBK in all time rankings.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

I think Bret is better. It's also interesting that this poll is basically split, showing just how even these guys were amongst fans.

Bret was nowhere near as bad on the mic as some people think. Was he The Rock? No, of course not. But he was more than fine for the era he was in. And he actually was great in late 1996-1997.

Bret is the best storyteller in the ring, probably ever. Some examples:

1. His in-ring psychology was off the charts. It's no coincidence that A LOT of guys in his era are on the record saying that Bret gave them the best match they've ever had, including Shawn's buddies Nash and Waltman, and including one of the best performers of all time Stone Cold Steve Austin. Bret talks about his match with Davey at SummerSlam 1992, and how at the end of the match he wanted to play a sore loser and milk the handshake and by the time we shake we'll have 80K people crying. Davey didn't do it, but little details like this show just how smart he was as a performer.
   
   
2. Another example is when Bret got "screwed" at the Royal Rumble in 1997 by Austin. He immediately went to Vince at the announce table to try and convince him to right a wrong. He was working the boys. He was working the guys in the back, or the absolute smarks, because at the time very few fans knew Vince was the boss. This type of stuff. Bret made a fake sport feel very real.
   
   
3. To this day several wrestlers still think the Montreal Screwjob was a WORK, just because of how good Bret is at telling a story. Now of course it wasn't, but the fact that so many are actually unsure speaks volumes.

Shawn has a halo effect around him, mainly because of his post-2002 comeback. Well deserved, he had some great matches vs Triple H and The Undertaker. But prior to him "finding God", Shawn was not as good as many people claim him to be. WMX? Sure. Iron Man Match? Yes. The potential was there, and every now and then it would shine through. But for the most part he was spoiled and lazy. A reputation he was lucky enough to rectify when he realized he wasn't as finished as he originally thought.

If you ask this question back in 2000 when both are retired, it 100% has to be Bret. Since Shawn's comeback and the great matches he's put on since, it's probably split pretty evenly.

I also just want to say how silly it is to talk about "drawing" when comparing these two guys. Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair and Randy Savage were drawing the exact same numbers in WCW that Bret and Shawn were drawing in WWF during the same time period. The business as a whole was down, and it wouldn't matter who the guys were at the time, the numbers weren't moving. It took a significant storyline in the n.W.o. (two WWF guys invading WCW coupled with a Hogan heel turn) to turn the business around. And you can't blame the 1996-97 WWF ratings on Bret or Shawn either, they were probably the only reason they didn't completely go out of business. 1997 saw the business in general pick up, including WWF live events... it just took longer for them to climb all the way back. Comparing PPV buys from 1993 to 1998 or 2007 is ridiculous.

 

[FarFromFine]

I think one thing to keep in the back of your mind when making a comparison is that Hart is 8 years older than Shawn. Bret peaked in the mid 90's around age 35-40. He had 8 years more experience in the ring at that time than HBK, whose best years may have been spent on the sidelines due to injury.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

It's interesting to hear all these thoughts on these two. All you have to do is do a comparison about Shawn and Bret and you get some of the most bizarre comments. Bret Hart a prima donna ? More than HBK was ? Who are you guys trying to fucking kid ? He found religion, that doesn't erase his actions in the past. As for Bret knocking Triple H, while I disagree with some of what he said, I do agree that H is overrated as a talent in the ring.

Shawn was an amazing athlete, who was off the charts in terms of athleticism. He was okay on the mike. He was a lousy draw during his championship run who spent as much time forfeiting titles rather than defending them.

Bret not great on the mike, but can be understood. Great story teller in the ring. Better draw than HBK but not near to the heights of Hogan, Austin or the Rock.

I give the edge to Bret because I found his progression to singles star and world champion far more enjoyable, memorable. The rivalries were better, he knew how to bring the best out of any performer. Bret helped develop talent not keep them down like HBK. He became the one who people had their true main event experience with.

The only thing HBK did better than Bret (besides politicking and forfeiting titles) was pardon the CM Punk quote 'kissing Vince McMahon's ass.

 

[Kidpolean]

I guess I have to be the one to say it...Bret freakin sucked!! He is no different than a guy like Cesaro. Good in the ring but is terrible at everything else. If this question is asked outside of this forum to more casual fans HBK would win by a landslide. This forum is obsessed with "technical" wrestling and it really shows when questions like this are asked. Bret was boring, and puts today's younger audience to sleep...trust me I've literally seen this happen. No personality hurt Bret. I personally believe that Flair and HBK are the two greatest and Bret just because he has some amazing classic matches barely cracks my top ten. If we are talking about only in ring ability than its close and maybe just maybe Bret was slightly better BUT if we are talking overall package than it isnt even close...HBK by a mile. HBK better on the mic, DX, better WM matches than Bret, arguably has best match in Raw history, more charisma, and just more entertaining in general. HBK DX stuff is better than anything Bret ever did and HBK vs Jericho imo is better than any feud Bret was ever in. I also take HBK vs Angle/Taker over Bret vs Austin. I just think Bret is flat out overrated.

 

[MERPER]

To be honest, the phrasing of the question in this topic made ma laugh.

I think Bret might be the best all-around wrestler I ever saw.

HBK never REALLY impressed me...