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

[OYDK]

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.

1. Cesaro is awesome
2. GREAT in the ring, decent on the mic... What else is there really...
3. Casual fans meaning people who ONLY watched Shawn Michaels in his 2002 run right?
4. Bret had a god damn personality. Jeez, just because he stumbled over his words and didn't act like a jackass like Shawn in the mid-90s doesn't mean the guy didn't have a personality. He was SUPPOSED to be the serious technician. Wrestling to him was ABOUT the wrestling. Get it?
5. You say Bret Hart "freakin sucked..." but than you say he's basically in your top 10? Makes sense.
6. I have a strong feeling you didn't watch Bret Hart during his heyday. Either that or you just didn't grasp the greatness of the guy.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Its close as most of my favourite matches of all time has involved either Bret or Shawn I can't actually think of one bad match or felt bored at any point watching either of them even back at the start of both their careers before they got to the WWF, but I would choose Bret as the better overall and I guess that just comes down to personal choice.

 

[Wald]

Yeah I think Bret was hands down better than Shawn and I say that as someone who was a fan of both from their tag days up to their title runs (I lost interest in Shawn as a performer after he won the belt at Mania against Bret, he just didn't work as a face champion).

But Bret to me is better because I prefer my wrestling with an edge of realism to it and no-one brought that more than Bret Hart. Go back and look at the psychology of his matches and it is astounding. He remembers to sell moves twenty minutes after they've happened to him and he doesn't oversell them ever. You see the same psychology in guys like Benoit and Guerrero but they couldn't ever put together a match like Bret could.

People used to say that Shawn could make a mop look like a star in the ring but really that accolade belonged to Bret. From the Hart Foundation to IC classics against the likes of Bulldog, Perfect and Piper to matches against 1,2,3 Kid, Hakushi and Lawler he always had the best match on the night. He also brought out career best performances from everyone from Kevin Nash to Bob Backlund and knew how to put guys over even when beating them. His match against Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 13 is arguably the greatest Mania match of all time and his one man show at King of the Ring 93 rivals Flair's 1992 Royal Rumble for the greatest night a wrestler has ever had.

In comparison the Rockers were a good team but not on the Harts level and Shawn's IC reign was on par with Bret's but when Shawn got near the top and his attitude started appearing the quality of his work declined. People will say I'm wrong and point to matches against Undertaker, Mankind and Sid but I'm more talking about the times he'd fight lesser opponents and he wouldn't bother making them seem like credible threats to him. You could also always tell when Shawn wasn't going over by the sulk he'd throw in the ring with his performance.

Shawn was very, very good and should have been the best but his own paranoid ego let him down I think. Bret was better for all the reasons listed above. Was Bret the best ever? That's debatable, Steve Austin would probably get my vote

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Bret was FAR better for many reasons... you have to take into account some major influencing factors first.

Shawn had in effect 2 careers... his first run and the post 2002 return which was not only better than his first but by many is considered better than Bret's whole career. It's only really fair to compare the first career, because while Bret had a "comeback" it was after a stroke and the concussion so it can't compare. In reality the Shawn who returned was a different man.

You also have to accept some "ugly" facts about Shawn, that his first career is tainted by a near pathological inability to do jobs or drop titles in the "time honored way", he'd lose his smile, get fired/suspended, get beat up by Marines...he would also feign injury a lot. Both adversely affected the stories he would tell in the ring and it culminated in Montreal. If Shawn had done "better business" over the years, Bret would likely have had fewer qualms about losing to him. Even Undertaker had to basically "ensure" Shawn dropped the belt to Austin as instructed after the previous years debacle leading to Final Four.

Bret was a guy who, if he had to lose, could go out there and make the match of a quality that the guy beating him looked incredible, but he always emerged with equal credit. Summerslam 92, the match with Owen at Mania and the double turn at Mania with Austin are his "greatest stories" to most, but go back and look at other matches too... The Survivor Series in 90, most remember it for Taker's debut but the actual meat of the match was the final one on one segment with Bret and DiBiase... it was the match that earmarked Bret for a singles run. He could take that loss, but make it look like he won, same as far back as Mania 4, losing the Battle Royale to Bad News Brown. Shawn could NEVER do that... he had to win the match or had to have an excuse for the loss such as "Jose had a heart attack and I got hit with a camera" or "Tyson made a fast count".

Shawn was VERY good in the ring, but his matches were less about storytelling and more about upstaging others on the card. The nearest he truly got were the matches with Hall for the IC but even then he couldn't do it without the ladder. If given a "lesser opponent" Bret could still tell great stories, his feuds with Lawler had twists and turns like Hakushi and Doink, but the matches told great stories... Even his matches with the Patriot or 1-2-3 Kid. Shawn couldn't do that, he treated non champion opponents like dogshit... even if they were as good or better... look at how he treated Davey at One Night Only... he wasn't willing to tell a story, he just wanted the win, cos he could. In that first title run he had, his opponents did the story telling for him and got the shaft... Even if Davey didn't deserve the win at KOTR or IYH 8 or Foley wasn't champion material... Vader was... Bret would have taken any of those 3, lost the title and made them look immense doing so to the level that you would have been desperate to see the next match.

Shawn had arguably more raw athleticism and ability than Bret, but so much remained untapped due to him not using his gifts the right way and basically being addled on substances and so arrogant/being indulged. A big part of the real life rivalry was that Bret had been forced to fight for what he had, show improvement and consistency over many years in the Tag ranks... whereas Shawn hadn't really done that. As good as the Rocker's were and as much as you can say he and Bret were equals, they weren't... Bret was the "Captain" of the Foundation even as far back as Mania 3... Jannetty was always the same part of the Rockers and the one most expected to move forward... Shawn put paid to it of course but there is this myth that Shawn was always this wrestling god... he wasn't... he was good but like contemporaries like Taker and Nash they improved once it had already been decided they "were gonna be main event". In Shawn's case, Bret played a MAJOR part in elevating them all, teaching them in the ring... Shawn wouldn't have been what he did become without Bret's input throughout his career, the match for the title with the Rockers, the 1992 Survivor Series, Mania 12 and finally Montreal... the final proof is that without those 4 matches, Shawn's career isn't anything... Bret's already was... he'd done the hard work to get the belt and become the best on the way.

So much of Bret's appeal in the ring and out of it was he was the "everyman who made it" rather than the entitled prima donna. That's why his turn on the US fans worked so well, why people hated Vince so much after Montreal and why his latter "bitter old guy" thing was so disappointing.

In flat out technical terms, Bret wins... in shoot terms... Bret wins... in "showmanship" rather than storytelling, Shawn wins, in charisma and personality, Shawn wins... They are almost two sides of a coin, head and tails... but the leader, king, queen etc is always heads... and Bret was the head of the WWF for a lot longer than Shawn was and rightfully so.

 

[Kidpolean]

1. Cesaro is awesome
2. GREAT in the ring, decent on the mic... What else is there really...
3. Casual fans meaning people who ONLY watched Shawn Michaels in his 2002 run right?
4. Bret had a god damn personality. Jeez, just because he stumbled over his words and didn't act like a jackass like Shawn in the mid-90s doesn't mean the guy didn't have a personality. He was SUPPOSED to be the serious technician. Wrestling to him was ABOUT the wrestling. Get it?
5. You say Bret Hart "freakin sucked..." but than you say he's basically in your top 10? Makes sense.
6. I have a strong feeling you didn't watch Bret Hart during his heyday. Either that or you just didn't grasp the greatness of the guy.

Cesaro isnt a natural entertainer...I favor entertainers whereas most people on here favor technical wrestlers. Bret is top 10 because of his amazing matches but outside of matches he bored me to death. Just like the entire roh and most of the current nxt except Zayn. I watched Bret and I didn't like him. This is my opinion why argue it? Michaels acting like a jackass was great. Punk imo was better than Bret overall. So is Y2j, Macho Man, and Flair. Its just a difference of preference. There are people that love guys like Lance Storm and Dean Malenko but I just can't get into them no matter how good their matches are. I like a balance of wrestling and entertainment and imo Bret wasn't as well balanced as HBK overall. Cesaro is probably the best in the WWE right now as far as wrestling ability but he falls flat every where else which is how I feel about Bret. Bret had one personality trait...being serious and that was it. HBK could be serious, funny, sad, mad...everything. There is a reason so many call hbk the greatest of all time its because he is probably the most well balanced of all time with his only real competition being Savage.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

There is a reason so many call hbk the greatest of all time its because he is probably the most well balanced of all time with his only real competition being Savage.

Interesting comment, especially given that WWE has managed to convince so many that Savage didn't exist. I always saw Savage as the greatest all-rounder ever, with Angle second and Michaels third. I'm also a believer in performers being greater than the sum of their parts, though. Bret was awesome despite his deficiencies in personality, ditto for Warrior and his lack of technical ability.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

In his prime; Bret was the better technical wrestler; better professional and carried WWF when it was in it's darkest ever hour.

He had a legendary career and he was the best ever. Bar none.

But because HBK had a longer career; certainly in the WWF/WWE and he had more amazing matches than anyone; I would say HBK was, with all things considered, the greatest wrestler in the Western hemisphere.

But, even when he was tearing the house down as part of DX or even having classic bouts with Hunter, Y2J, Undertaker and others; Bret was better in his prime than HBK in his. Hbk was a fitter and more athletic wrestler; and I wish to god we could have seen HBK 2003 vs Bret Hart 1997. that would be EPIC.

But Bret will always be my favourite wrestler.

 

[Mustang Sally]

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.

Can't think of a way to say it better than that. While Shawn might have added more drama to a match, Bret was a wrestler's wrestler with a workmanlike approach that told a story better than anyone I've seen.

In a technical sense, they were both superb but the contrasts in their styles, especially when opposing each other, indicated to me that while Shawn was a one man show and looked great doing it, Bret tended to bring out the best in the guy he was fighting.

I felt they were equal in raw ability, but overall, I enjoyed watching Bret more than Shawn.

 

[BenChillin]

Bret Hart just did not have the CHARISMA Shawn Michaels had.

You gotta appeal to the casual fan. For that, you need charisma and an impact finisher. Why do you think they changed Ambrose's finisher to the Double Arm DDT?

 

[LBGetBack]

Bret Hart just did not have the CHARISMA Shawn Michaels had.

You gotta appeal to the casual fan. For that, you need charisma and an impact finisher. Why do you think they changed Ambrose's finisher to the Double Arm DDT?

People say stuff like this though, and it's like they don't even take into account that Bret was OVER with the fans.

So why are we acting like he didn't "appeal to the casual fan"? He was the most popular wrestler on the roster for a good 3-4 year period.

He was extremely popular when he was in the Hart Foundation(when they were face), and as a midcard IC title contender. You don't have to be over the top to be "charismatic".

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It's a bit of a misnomer to use the "charisma" card as a decider... because Bret DID have it but in a different way. How many guys could make pink tights and wrap around shades and a Sgt Pepper or Leather Jacket a good look/work? or who could call themselves "The Best There is...etc" and make it work.

He didn't have Shawn's flamboyance or comedic timing, and he didn't play the mouthy guy in the same way but Bret DID have charisma and mic skills that improved through necessity. It's like comparing Pacino and DeNiro... both are great, top level at what they do... Pacino played the dogged good guy more often and better than DeNiro who could do the cocky bad guy better. When they switched in odd films it never worked as well... When they worked together, they exclusively stuck to their best, Al the Hero and Bobby the bad guy...

Same for Shawn and Bret... When Shawn was the cocky heel few could touch him, but when Bret was playing the "hero", even during that "heel in America" phase there have been few better...

 

[Mark Henrys Sandwich]

This Robtaylor guy speaks sense, some lovely posts from him in this thread.

 

[Slash-LN]

It's a bit of a misnomer to use the "charisma" card as a decider... because Bret DID have it but in a different way. How many guys could make pink tights and wrap around shades and a Sgt Pepper or Leather Jacket a good look/work? or who could call themselves "The Best There is...etc" and make it work.

He didn't have Shawn's flamboyance or comedic timing, and he didn't play the mouthy guy in the same way but Bret DID have charisma and mic skills that improved through necessity. It's like comparing Pacino and DeNiro... both are great, top level at what they do... Pacino played the dogged good guy more often and better than DeNiro who could do the cocky bad guy better. When they switched in odd films it never worked as well... When they worked together, they exclusively stuck to their best, Al the Hero and Bobby the bad guy...

Same for Shawn and Bret... When Shawn was the cocky heel few could touch him, but when Bret was playing the "hero", even during that "heel in America" phase there have been few better...

This is the type of post I wish I'd see out of you more often. It's a solid post and I agree with it.

Bret couldn't touch Shawn on the mic but he didn't need to. That didn't fit who he was as a "character". However he had that intangible factor. When he did interviews he felt real. When he came out to the ring the audience focused on him. There was just something about him that drew people to him. He played the perfect "fighting champion". While he may not have had the star power or drawing ability as a guy like Hogan or Austin when Bret was wrestling you knew you were going to get a good match. Like you mentioned in your other post Bret could make guys look credible. The best match of 123 Kid's career in my opinion is without a doubt the match he had with Bret on Raw in 1994 and I'll go out on a limb and say I'm not the only one who would think that.

Shawn was definitely great on the mic and played his role to a t. The Shawn we saw on screen was believable even without knowing the backstage stuff at the time. Shawn like Bret would also put on fantastic matches. Taking the backstage stuff out of the equation when Shawn came out you still knew you were going to see something special.

It's somewhat hard to compare them because they had different attitudes and different wrestling styles. So there's going to be a bias towards which kind of style and promos you like better.

For me there's a bias towards Shawn because he's been my favorite wrestler since I was a kid but there's definitely a valid argument that can be made for anyone who picks Bret.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

It's a bit of a misnomer to use the "charisma" card as a decider... because Bret DID have it but in a different way. How many guys could make pink tights and wrap around shades and a Sgt Pepper or Leather Jacket a good look/work? or who could call themselves "The Best There is...etc" and make it work.

He didn't have Shawn's flamboyance or comedic timing, and he didn't play the mouthy guy in the same way but Bret DID have charisma and mic skills that improved through necessity. It's like comparing Pacino and DeNiro... both are great, top level at what they do... Pacino played the dogged good guy more often and better than DeNiro who could do the cocky bad guy better. When they switched in odd films it never worked as well... When they worked together, they exclusively stuck to their best, Al the Hero and Bobby the bad guy...

Same for Shawn and Bret... When Shawn was the cocky heel few could touch him, but when Bret was playing the "hero", even during that "heel in America" phase there have been few better...

Exactly.

I think people say the word "charisma" in reference to wrestling without actually knowing what it means. They think charisma = mic skills or catchphrases. That's simply not true.

Charisma is something, anything about an individual that makes others find them compelling, interesting or inspiring. It could be good looks, it could be the way they talk, it could be just the way they carry themselves.

Bret absolutely had this presence about him. The guy in colourful tights, with the leather jacket and the pink shades with his wet hair. He absolutely had the "look" that made people take notice and pay attention, as far back as 1990-1991 as he was breaking out of the tag division and starting his singles career.

I also don't buy this idea that Bret only had one personality trait: being serious. He was a cool babyface for 1991 or 1992. Yes, he was serious... he was all about honour, self respect, working hard, etc. He was also a sympathetic character, which often came out in his matches. If he needed to get angry, he absolutely got angry... see all of 1997 pre and post heel turn. The only thing he didn't do was comedy and run around acting like a 13 year old like Shawn did in his D-X days.

People may be quick to forget just how bland and boring Shawn Michaels was as a babyface in 1996. He was more serious than Bret, less sympathetic, uncomfortable on the mic and just all around bland. Anyways, this isn't meant to be anti-Shawn at all. It's just that there are a lot of misconceptions and untruths when it comes to Bret Hart's personality, charisma, and drawing ability.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Bret isn't the only reason I pretty much stopped watching wrestling in the early nineties but he deserves as much credit as anyone on the WWF roster. I'm glad people like him, good for them. I find most tend to be British or Canadian and now around 30 years old but this American who is older than that I would argue that Bret had a nice push in the early nineties and a few rewatchable matches but overall was dull and put in a position and received pay that was way more than he should have received.

Michaels had a more entertaining career.

P.S. - Pink and black are terrible and the Hitman didn't make it work, especially with Hart's brand of monotone.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Bret isn't the only reason I pretty much stopped watching wrestling in the early nineties but he deserves as much credit as anyone on the WWF roster. I'm glad people like him, good for them. I find most tend to be British or Canadian and now around 30 years old but this American who is older than that I would argue that Bret had a nice push in the early nineties and a few rewatchable matches but overall was dull and put in a position and received pay that was way more than he should have received.

Michaels had a more entertaining career.

P.S. - Pink and black are terrible and the Hitman didn't make it work, especially with Hart's brand of monotone.

LOL. It's funny, but you're not wrong.

I'm Canadian and I was 7 years old in 1992. Bret was already the World Champion when I started watching wrestling regularly as a kid, so naturally he was my favourite.

Who the top guys were in the era when we were young marks does play a big role in our later biases. I'm absolutely biased towards Bret Hart. That said, I think I can look back at things pretty objectively now. Prior to D-X, Shawn really wasn't "the showstopper". A few great matches aside, it was the D-X role that really allowed Shawn to breakout and be more of himself. And I agree, it was wildly entertaining... it just didn't last very long. His post-2002 comeback though, I have nothing but positive things to say about that.

 

[FarFromFine]

I think for the guys that are saying Bret was better that the fact he had a short career helped him. We saw him come onto the national scene, rise to the top, and start to slide for a while, then have his career ended. Although he was the WCW champ for a stint, he didn't really do anything impactful after the screwjob.

No one can say for sure but I don't think he would have been able to adapt to the AE if Vince had wanted him to stay. However, if he could have survived until the new PG era he would have likely been a top star again. It's funny how little the wrestling actually matters in professional wrestling.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

I'm sorry but Bret didn't have a short career, He started wrestling in the 70's and his career is probably actually longer than Shawns if you cancel out the YEARS shawn missed because of injury. Bret was in wrestling for like 20 years from the time wrestling with shadows was done. I believe he says so in the movie.

So it's a stupid excuse and just flat out wrong. This is how I'd explain this, Bret was alright, but is Bret the most talented wrestler ever? Is he the best all around wrestler ever? No where near it. Is Shawn Michaels? I think it's debatable, I might say no, but with Shawn there's a debate when you say GOAT or at least most talented of all time, with Bret..... You just kind of laugh.

 

[Kidpolean]

LOL. It's funny, but you're not wrong.

I'm Canadian and I was 7 years old in 1992. Bret was already the World Champion when I started watching wrestling regularly as a kid, so naturally he was my favourite.

Who the top guys were in the era when we were young marks does play a big role in our later biases. I'm absolutely biased towards Bret Hart. That said, I think I can look back at things pretty objectively now. Prior to D-X, Shawn really wasn't "the showstopper". A few great matches aside, it was the D-X role that really allowed Shawn to breakout and be more of himself. And I agree, it was wildly entertaining... it just didn't last very long. His post-2002 comeback though, I have nothing but positive things to say about that.

Shawn Michaels was stealing the show every night way before dx started. He was frequently having either the best or second best match on the card. I'd actually say that his matches weren't as good when he started DX.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

Bret isn't the only reason I pretty much stopped watching wrestling in the early nineties but he deserves as much credit as anyone on the WWF roster. I'm glad people like him, good for them. I find most tend to be British or Canadian and now around 30 years old but this American who is older than that I would argue that Bret had a nice push in the early nineties and a few rewatchable matches but overall was dull and put in a position and received pay that was way more than he should have received.

Michaels had a more entertaining career.

P.S. - Pink and black are terrible and the Hitman didn't make it work, especially with Hart's brand of monotone.

Huh? I'm American and 46 years old and I'd take Bret over Shawn everyday and twice on Sundays.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Shawn Michaels was stealing the show every night way before dx started. He was frequently having either the best or second best match on the card. I'd actually say that his matches weren't as good when he started DX.

When I refer to being wildly entertaining, I'm talking about his promos and backstage D-X segments. I think Shawn only wrestled like five or six matches in his entire D-X run.

And as for Michaels stealing the show prior to this. That's simply untrue. His 1996 run as champion was not his best work.. there aren't many Michaels related redeeming qualities about this time period. In fact Bret/Austin stole the show both at Survivor Series 1996 and Royal Rumble 1997. Undertaker/Mankind stole the show at SummerSlam 1996.

Michaels best matches from his pre-2002 run include: both ladder matches with Hall, both his matches with Bret (Survivor Series 1992 and WrestleMania 12), Royal Rumble 1995, and maaaaaaybe vs Jeff Jarrett in 1995. That's really all I can think of. The truth of the matter is from 1994-1997 Shawn missed A LOT of time in the ring and didn't even compete on most main PPVs.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

When I refer to being wildly entertaining, I'm talking about his promos and backstage D-X segments. I think Shawn only wrestled like five or six matches in his entire D-X run.

And as for Michaels stealing the show prior to this. That's simply untrue. His 1996 run as champion was not his best work.. there aren't many Michaels related redeeming qualities about this time period. In fact Bret/Austin stole the show both at Survivor Series 1996 and Royal Rumble 1997. Undertaker/Mankind stole the show at SummerSlam 1996.

Michaels best matches from his pre-2002 run include: both ladder matches with Hall, both his matches with Bret (Survivor Series 1992 and WrestleMania 12), Royal Rumble 1995, and maaaaaaybe vs Jeff Jarrett in 1995. That's really all I can think of. The truth of the matter is from 1994-1997 Shawn missed A LOT of time in the ring and didn't even compete on most main PPVs.

well then you've at least forgot about his matches with taker which were all good including the best hell in the cell match ever.His match against Mankind, His match against Diesel won MOTY. You clearly forgot his matches against Jannetty which were always good. Had good matches with Bulldog (which everyone ignores because they're too busy crying about how "screwed the bulldog was" during Shawn's runs. Truthfully speaking, the dude did miss a bit of time, which makes those performances even more impressive. Maybe they didn't meet YOUR standard for excellence. During his first run Shawn had more matches of the year than bret, and as many five star matches as bret did. Seems like you're trying to diminish without a sound judgement of what that work was or even the basics since you completely ignored his five star classic with Taker in Hell in a Cell and many other near flawless performances.

And people only "steal the show" when they have the chance. Meaning I've never heard anyone say that HBK vs Taker at either wrestlemania "stole the show" that's because it's expected. Stealing the show, means it wasn't about you to begin with, during shawn's run in DX and even before that. It was expected for him to be awesome. So stealing the show is hard when the show belongs to you.

 

[FarFromFine]

I'm sorry but Bret didn't have a short career, He started wrestling in the 70's and his career is probably actually longer than Shawns if you cancel out the YEARS shawn missed because of injury. Bret was in wrestling for like 20 years from the time wrestling with shadows was done. I believe he says so in the movie.

So it's a stupid excuse and just flat out wrong. This is how I'd explain this, Bret was alright, but is Bret the most talented wrestler ever? Is he the best all around wrestler ever? No where near it. Is Shawn Michaels? I think it's debatable, I might say no, but with Shawn there's a debate when you say GOAT or at least most talented of all time, with Bret..... You just kind of laugh.

I should have been more clear. Bret had a short career in the national spotlight is what I meant. And, obviously, it would have been longer if not for the injury.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

well then you've at least forgot about his matches with taker which were all good including the best hell in the cell match ever.His match against Mankind, His match against Diesel won MOTY. You clearly forgot his matches against Jannetty which were always good. Had good matches with Bulldog (which everyone ignores because they're too busy crying about how "screwed the bulldog was" during Shawn's runs. Truthfully speaking, the dude did miss a bit of time, which makes those performances even more impressive. Maybe they didn't meet YOUR standard for excellence. During his first run Shawn had more matches of the year than bret, and as many five star matches as bret did. Seems like you're trying to diminish without a sound judgement of what that work was or even the basics since you completely ignored his five star classic with Taker in Hell in a Cell and many other near flawless performances.

And people only "steal the show" when they have the chance. Meaning I've never heard anyone say that HBK vs Taker at either wrestlemania "stole the show" that's because it's expected. Stealing the show, means it wasn't about you to begin with, during shawn's run in DX and even before that. It was expected for him to be awesome. So stealing the show is hard when the show belongs to you.

I'm not talking about his post-2002 run, so I won't comment on his matches with Undertaker at WrestleMania, because I agree they are great. The Hell In A Cell match at Badd Blood was great for it's innovative concept, Shawn's bump, and Kane's debut. Sure, I'll give this match to Shawn because you're right, I did forget about it.

I disagree that Shawn vs Diesel at WM11 is MOTY, and not because I'm some Shawn hater/Bret fanboy. Maybe PWI gave it MOTY because 1995 was BAD in general. Nash himself has said his match with Bret at Survivor Series 95 was better, and I'd agree. Personally, I'd give Shawn vs Razor Ladder Match II (which I did mention in my post) MOTY over his WM match with Diesel.

Anyways, the entire point of my post isn't to bash Shawn Michaels. I've said Shawn Michaels had some great matches and if his head was screwed on even close to straight, who knows what he could have done in his prime. The potential was always there, and sometimes he delivered on it, but many times it went wasted. Shawn was very inconsistent during this period, and for every great match he had, he would have a "lose my smile" moment, hand a title away and be out of the ring for 3-4 months.

I'm happy for him that he had the chance to comeback, put on some incredible matches with Triple H, Chris Jericho and The Undertaker, and basically re-write his legacy. I wish Bret had a similar opportunity to work with the great workers of a new generation like Angle, Jericho or The Rock .. who knows how many more great matches we could be talking about.

 

[Starkiller]

Bret didn't have charisma? LOL

So because because didn't skip down to the ring like 7 year old school girl like your boy HBK means he just didn't have charisma?

You need charisma to get over with the fans. When he was a top face fans bought in and believed him to be a real champion.

Also, he had great charisma in 97 as a heel. He had basically major heat from a us nation when he was knocking promos out of the park during that time. He had so much heat. People legitimately hated him so much they would throw trash at him. It was great. During that same time he could cross the border or pond and be the uktimate hero to all the wrestling fans. Those promos were far more entertaining and interesting than any of HBK's promos telling people to suck it and doing a dx chop...