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

[MisterRob]

Bret Hart wins this without question for me.

I have always felt like there’s this great revisionist history by the WWE to make Shawn Michaels into this legendary wrestler whose viewed as far better than he was and referred to as things like “Mr. Wrestlemania”, when that title doesn’t even hold true. It’s like because of Shawn Michaels’ loyalty, or the fact Vince McMahon was an unofficial member of the clique, or because he’s best buddies with Triple H whose married to Stephanie McMahon, they’ve gone out of their way to create this aura in the WWE around their own poster boy, Shawn Michaels. But when you compare the two, and their careers, I can’t see how anyone can say Shawn Michaels was better.. unless you either have been wired by the propaganda of WWE to believe so, or you’re too young to know any better and never lived through Bret Hart’s career at all. I think a lot of people who view Shawn Michaels as better are those who are too young to have ever experienced much of Bret Hart's career, but have seen the twilight of Shawn Michaels' career which can be viewed much better then his prima donna career before his first retirement.

Shawn Michaels was flamboyant, sure, but I think his charisma is very overrated. Sure he could entertain, but dancing around and being silly doesn’t make a person extremely charismatic. Maybe people don’t know what the term “charisma” actually means. The definition is: “A spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.” Well Bret Hart clearly had this. He had a huge fan base, people of every sex and every age loved him. Whenever he was on screen, whether it was performing in the ring, being interviewed, or just standing around looking like a true champion with a belt over his shoulder, people paid attention.

People seem to mistake charisma solely with promo ability, it seems, and then they overrate Shawn Michaels… who really wasn’t anything special on the mic. And they underrate Bret Hart.. who had no problems cutting a promo and surely in his prime, and during his Anti-American angle, cut some great promos.

When comparing Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels directly through their careers I don’t see how Shawn Michaels wins on any level.

Their career as tag team wrestlers? The Hart Foundation was a corner stone of the tag team division in likely its most successful and prosperous time period. When they were stacked with great tag teams the Hart Foundation were having ground breaking, excellent matches that were often times at the top of the cards. They were multi-time champions who are one of the best tag teams in history. The Rockers on the other hand were good, and they were fun to watch, but they certainly did not have the success the Hart Foundation did and they were never (officially on record) tag team champions during their day. It’s not even comparable.

Their early solo careers? Both held the Intercontinental championship, but Bret Hart’s time as champion far exceeds Shawn Michaels. Sure Shawn Michaels had some memorable feuds and matches, mostly one with Razor Ramon.. but it doesn’t in any way compare to Bret Hart’s runs with the title and his countless feuds and phenomenal matches. Hart wins again.

Their careers as main eventers with the World championship? Once again I don’t see how Shawn Michael’s compares to Bret Hart’s. Hart was the image of a champion, and he made the championship mean something every time he went into that ring. During a difficult period for the WWF he carried the company and had great feuds and great matches every time he was in the ring, with anyone they placed in front of him. Shawn Michaels’ time in the main event gave some good feuds and sure he had some great matches, but he also refused to put people over and he was NOT the draw Bret Hart was, especially Internationally.

Then you compare other things…

Shawn Michaels was a great in ring performer, but he was never as good in the ring as Bret Hart. Hart was the best story teller in the ring in the history of the business. He could have a great match with anyone they gave him. When you put the library of Bret Hart matches against Shawn Michaels matches, Hart wins and I don’t even think it’s debatable.

Bret Hart also was a professional and didn’t put himself first. He put others over in the ring, and not only that, he went out of his way to make everyone he was in the ring with better for being in there with him. He helped make stars, just like he helped to make Steve Austin the star he’d become. Who did Shawn Michaels ever help make? What new star did Shawn Michaels help to elevate? Shawn Michaels was always out for himself, behind the scenes and even in the ring, trying to out perform everyone else in the ring, even at the expense of the match or the star he’s in there with.

I agree with others who have stated that if both men had retired after their “primes” and Shawn Michaels hadn’t returned from his back injury, then this topic wouldn’t even be debatable. But I disagree about why this topic is actually “debatable” now. I feel it’s because Shawn Michaels came back and he’s familiar with the modern day fans, where Bret Hart isn’t familiar to them in terms of actually wrestling. He was already retired and his career was over, so all they know is "history" which most have never witnessed for themselves. But the thing about Shawn Michaels.. even with the second half of his career, the feuds and the matches people remember him for and believe are so good.. are all with established performers, those who were already stars. Triple H, Chris Jericho, the Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, even John Cena and Randy Orton… they were already top talents who were established when he wrestled them. Michaels never came back and made ANYONE. He never came back and helped elevate new talent. Bret Hart did.

So to answer the topic at hand: Yes, Bret Hart was better than Shawn Michaels.

 

[Mark Henrys Sandwich]

Is this the same Wrestling Observer who used to make up quotes and fake interviews for their magazines back in the day.

 

[pipebomber]

I bring it up because when Shawn was on top the business didn't go anywhere either. In fact, in 1996 WWF business actually went down. But I've been on record earlier in this thread saying that this is irrelevant because whether it was Shawn or Bret or even hogan on top of the WWF at the time, it wouldn't have mattered.

You say the business changed when Shawn was on top, how? He drew some of the lowest numbers in WWF history. I don't blame Shawn or Bret for this. I blame the industry in general, because pre-NWO Hogan Savage and Flair were drawing THE EXACT same numbers,. That's why I bring it up. Did Bret take the industry anywhere in 1993-4? No. Did Hogan? No. Did Savage? No. Did Shawn? No.

It took 1) Nitro going up vs Raw 2) Nash and Hall jumping ship and "invading" the competition 3) Hogan turning heel and 4) a general shift in the industry for realism vs bullshit campy kayfabe. As much as we would all like to sit here and think we were so smart that we could pinpoint it on one thing, we can't. It was a combination of many things which turned the industry in general around, not just WCW but WWF as well. As a result, D-X and Austin were born...

But thats besides the point of whether Bret vs Shawn could draw because they both had proven already that they could draw equally as well as Hogan, Savage and Flair during this time period.

You only seem to acknowledge HBKs time on top as 1995-1996 but that's just Stupid. Did flair make a huge impact on the nwa during his first run on top? no it wasn't until his second that Flair started to leave his mark. the fact that the ratings dropped for a while doesn't discredit hbk in a while because they got higher with him than they ever were with Brett.

You are absolutely right that you can not pin point one thing and say that caused the change. But you can pin point what HBK contributed to that Change... you cannot pinpoint anything that Brett did to really bring about turning the business around. And Brett was there through it all

 

[LBGetBack]

You only seem to acknowledge HBKs time on top as 1995-1996 but that's just Stupid. Did flair make a huge impact on the nwa during his first run on top? no it wasn't until his second that Flair started to leave his mark. the fact that the ratings dropped for a while doesn't discredit hbk in a while because they got higher with him than they ever were with Brett.

You are absolutely right that you can not pin point one thing and say that caused the change. But you can pin point what HBK contributed to that Change... you cannot pinpoint anything that Brett did to really bring about turning the business around. And Brett was there through it all

Bret left WWF in Nov. 1997.....Shawn was gone by April 1998. That's 5 months. You realize that, right? Shawn wasn't even a wrestler during the real boom period. So in those 5 months, HBK "contributed to the change" that "turned the business around?"

LOL. So many of you post like you weren't even watching wrestling at that time. Even so, with WWE Network and youtube I'd think you'd be able to get a little closer.

LMAO at thinking Bret didnt "contribute to the change". Are you at all familiar with 1997 WWF? Bret's feud with Austin is what took Austin from a talented midcarder to THE next guy. Bret's anti- american character was a beautiful adjustment and fit for the Attitude Era.

 

[FarFromFine]

If I could take 1994 Bret Hart and place him vs 1986 Andre The Giant or 1988 Randy Savage, I 100% would love to see those dream matches. Prime vs prime is what you're referring to, and yea I'd love to see Bret 97 vs Angle 2000. But a young Bret vs these 1980s stars doesn't = a vet Shawn vs the Jerichos, Angles or Triple H's. Unfortunately these things can never be compared because we will never know.



Bret took the ball from Hogan, and sure he didn't take the business anywhere. But let's not look at this in a vacuum. Hogan took himself to WCW and didn't take the business anywhere either. Hogan didn't draw 1980's numbers in WCW while poor Bret was struggling in WWF. In 1994/1995 Bret and Shawn were drawing the same numbers in WWF as Hogan, Savage, Flair in WCW. So let's stop acting like if it was Hogan or Savage main eventing WM 10 or 11 it would have been any different... it wouldn't.

Hogan didn't take the business anywhere in WCW? Is that a joke or something? You're right that he didn't draw 1980's numbers.... he mutilated 1980's numbers. Your credibility went down the drain with that one. You can't just make up facts to fit what you wish happened.

LBG-- The most impactful things Bret did in his career were: 1. Lose to Austin and 2. Get screwed out of the title.

#1 happened because Austin was hot and popular and Bret was at the end of the road with his popularity. The reason he was such a great heel is because people were already tired of his same bland character. They had wanted to boo him for years so of course he was a great heel. This is also why Hogan was such a great heel in NWO, the people already wanted to boo him as a face because it had ran it's course. To give credit for that moment to Bret is like giving credit for Daniel Bryan's Wrestlemania moment this past year to Bautista for getting so much heat on his return.

#2 happened because Bret was too big of a baby to drop the title to Shawn in Canada. Shawn had his problems with doing jobs too, but at least he never expected for Vince to let him be WWF Champion while he was working for WCW.

Saying "who was the better wrestler" is a good debate. Like I said before, Bret was more clean in the ring but there were just some things Shawn could do in it that Bret couldn't. It's a matter of opinion.

Saying "who was better for professional wrestling" is not a debate at all. It was Shawn and I don't even think you can make a case for Bret there.

 

[LBGetBack]

Hogan didn't take the business anywhere in WCW? Is that a joke or something? You're right that he didn't draw 1980's numbers.... he mutilated 1980's numbers. Your credibility went down the drain with that one. You can't just make up facts to fit what you wish happened.

LBG-- The most impactful things Bret did in his career were: 1. Lose to Austin and 2. Get screwed out of the title.

#1 happened because Austin was hot and popular and Bret was at the end of the road with his popularity. The reason he was such a great heel is because people were already tired of his same bland character. They had wanted to boo him for years so of course he was a great heel. This is also why Hogan was such a great heel in NWO, the people already wanted to boo him as a face because it had ran it's course. To give credit for that moment to Bret is like giving credit for Daniel Bryan's Wrestlemania moment this past year to Bautista for getting so much heat on his return.

#2 happened because Bret was too big of a baby to drop the title to Shawn in Canada. Shawn had his problems with doing jobs too, but at least he never expected for Vince to let him be WWF Champion while he was working for WCW.

Saying "who was the better wrestler" is a good debate. Like I said before, Bret was more clean in the ring but there were just some things Shawn could do in it that Bret couldn't. It's a matter of opinion.

Saying "who was better for professional wrestling" is not a debate at all. It was Shawn and I don't even think you can make a case for Bret there.

Umm....Bret didn't lose to Austin. Pretty much seals the deal that you're lost here.

And no, the fans hadn't wanted to "boo Bret for years". You clearly didn't watch wrestling at the time.

They started booing him when he was "whining" all the time over getting screwed. His character was morphing into a bitter whiner who became more and more vicious and underhanded at the same time. It was a slow burn heel turn that went all the way at the exact right moment.....immediately after an insanely good WM match that had the fans emotions flying high, with the finish giving Austin that heroic sympathy from the crowd. All the while, Austin's act was hard not to cheer for. It was the perfect storm. You underrate/have no clue about Bret's role here.

Your Montreal comments are just more uninformed BS. Bret had more time on his contract and was willing to drop the title in basically any other way. This was his contractual right. The "take the title to WCW" is just some paranoid hyperbole BS that has no basis whatsoever. There's absolutely nothing that suggests Bret was trying to do that. He just didn't want to damage his own character......again, his contractual right to be able to protect his character. Shawn made that bed for himself by basically NEVER actually dropping the title. He'd get hurt or suspended and forfeit it, because he didn't want to lose to anyone.

 

[Starkiller]

This topic is who is better, not who had the better the Career. Even tho Bret was a better Champion(more Reigns, held world title longer) HBK had the better Career, i wont argue that. HBK got to see his career through, Bret just didnt get that chance.


Bret is Better, And i see the poll is agreeing. Bret had far superior in Ring Psychology, most of his matches he brought out the best in whoever he was working with, you could have him wrestle a broom and it would be believable. Where Shawn Michaels more times then not took all the spotlight in his matches that you wouldnt even know who his opponent was. Classic example, Shawn vs Diesel. Actually Shawn vs Hogan Summerslam. That match which could of been a classic ended up being a JOKE since Shawn over sold everything, after Hogan executed the Big Boot,i think Shawn oversold the bump by doing another front flip which just made the match look even more ******ed.(then SHawn Buried hogan in a promo on Raw the next night sarcastically saying he lost to Hogans far superior athleticism and speed) Bret wasnt wired that way, he only knew how to work high quality matches. And Brets Promos He would attack Wrestling Characters not Personal, which HBK got butthurt over since there is "Not much Difference between the two" *Rolls Eyes*

Those are Reasons why Wrestling Fans take Bret over HBK.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Once again you guys bring up matches...im not trying to bash Bret. It seems that people are saying Bret I better BUT nobody has answered my question....what, besides in ring ability, did Bret do better than Shawn? Simple freakin question that has been avoided like 20 times in this thread already.

I think you'll find I pretty well covered it in my post... Storytelling being the main thing he did better. Shawn limited himself cos he was a douche... he couldn't lose matches and tell a great story and needed gimmicks like the ladder or Iron Man match or Cell in that first stint to make the matches special.

Bret could make losing a Battle Royal to Bad News memorable... that's the difference between them.

 

[Starkiller]

I think you'll find I pretty well covered it in my post... Storytelling being the main thing he did better. Shawn limited himself cos he was a douche... he couldn't lose matches and tell a great story and needed gimmicks like the ladder or Iron Man match or Cell in that first stint to make the matches special.

Bret could make losing a Battle Royal to Bad News memorable... that's the difference between them.

Exactly, the only thing i could of what HBK did better then Bret Besides skipping around like a school girl is being a better showman. Being a Better showman doesnt have anything to do with being a better Overal Pro Wrestler.

 

[Kidpolean]

I think that people on here just like to have a different opinion than the norm. Shawn had the bigger impact on the business which is the point of being a wrestler. That can't really be argued. Vince says that Shawn was the best, Taker has said it, DB has said it...there are some many guys in the profession that say nobody has been better than Shawn. I'm not going to argue this anymore because there has been some down right absurd things said. All the actual wrestlers I know, agree that Shawn was the best. This poll shocked me at first but than I realized that this is the same forum where people said Cena wasn't successful, compared Punk to Savage, said Orton should retire, said hhh vs Taker HIAC sucked, the Shield should main event Mania lol, DB should wrestler for an hour and 30 minutes at Mania....o I could go on and on.

Maybe its that people are holding on to their childhoods. I've noticed that people still wont admit that Rock has surpassed Austin..maybe its the same with HBK and Bret. In 97, Bret wins this debate. But in 2014, HBK has surpassed Bret in just about every category and done so much more the business. This is evident by the fact that the majority of people saying bret are also using HBK:s actions during DX in their argument while completely looking past the fact that he wrestled for a decade after that time period. People saying that we are not talking about who had the better career BUT than you list a bunch of Brets matches and feuds spanning his entire career for your argument...matches and feuds are what make a freakin career!!! WM moments make a career!!! Try to explain to someone why Jordan was the best without mentioning his 6 rings lol. This whole argument makes no sense to me, it seems as though people are disqualifying anything that would put HBK over Bret. We can't mention careers and his second run doesn't matter as much because Bret wasn't around...and a bunch of other nonsense.

 

[Starkiller]

And i like how i read that Shawn Michaels is better because he made "what they gave him to work with" work. HBK had his hand in whatever gimmick or persona he was gonna protray, otherwise its not gonna work. Its Stupid Business to work that way. I dont argue that WWE officials will say to a guy we want you to try this, but its only gonna work if the guy personality and character traits fit somewhat in that mold.

Otherwise HBK wouldnt have got butt hurt when Bret attacked his Wrestling character in Promos in their last feud. He's out there doin the chip n Dale stripping in front of kids with his assless chaps, Yeah of course Bret is gonna use that, thats prime Material. HBK took offense cuz he said in their sit down interview "there isnt much difference between the Two"

 

[pipebomber]

Bret left WWF in Nov. 1997.....Shawn was gone by April 1998. That's 5 months. You realize that, right? Shawn wasn't even a wrestler during the real boom period. So in those 5 months, HBK "contributed to the change" that "turned the business around?"

LOL. So many of you post like you weren't even watching wrestling at that time. Even so, with WWE Network and youtube I'd think you'd be able to get a little closer.

LMAO at thinking Bret didnt "contribute to the change". Are you at all familiar with 1997 WWF? Bret's feud with Austin is what took Austin from a talented midcarder to THE next guy. Bret's anti- american character was a beautiful adjustment and fit for the Attitude Era.

being as I was born in 1990, and with the network only having Raws up to 1995, no I don't remember it perfectly, but Just cause Brett was still IN WWF did NOT mean he was "the Guy." HHH was "The guy" during the ruthless aggression era but his time as "the guy" was over the minute John Cena was drafted to RAW.

Brett was good. Your acting like Im discrediting brett, all I want to know is what did brett do to make the business grow? answer: nothing. He was a great place holder. It's like comparing George Forman to Muhammad Ali. both were great, but who as they say "put more butts in the seats" putting butts in the seats is what matters in wrestling. that is the measure of greatness.

yes in 1997 brett had an Un-American gimmick and he was great with it, but where was the growth. Un-American gimmicks were old news. the only difference is the brett got cheered when they were in Canada. But I bet Iran Sheik would have gotten cheered in Iran. I bet Rusev gets cheered for in Russia and Bulgaria. Brett doing the same old thing that had been done for years. Shawn brought something Fresh. Shawn brought something new to the game by doing heel tactics as a face. humping the Canadian Flag, sticking it up his nose. He was a face using Heel tactics. THAT had NEVER really been done before.

 

[pipebomber]

Exactly, the only thing i could of what HBK did better then Bret Besides skipping around like a school girl is being a better showman. Being a Better showman doesnt have anything to do with being a better Overal Pro Wrestler.

what are you talking about? this isn't a legit sport! It's ALL ABOUT SHOWMANSHIP.

 

[Starkiller]

what are you talking about? this isn't a legit sport! It's ALL ABOUT SHOWMANSHIP.

No, there is an art form to Pro Wrestling. There is a lot more that goes into it then just showing off...

 

[LBGetBack]

I think that people on here just like to have a different opinion than the norm. Shawn had the bigger impact on the business which is the point of being a wrestler. That can't really be argued. Vince says that Shawn was the best, Taker has said it, DB has said it...there are some many guys in the profession that say nobody has been better than Shawn. I'm not going to argue this anymore because there has been some down right absurd things said. All the actual wrestlers I know, agree that Shawn was the best. This poll shocked me at first but than I realized that this is the same forum where people said Cena wasn't successful, compared Punk to Savage, said Orton should retire, said hhh vs Taker HIAC sucked, the Shield should main event Mania lol, DB should wrestler for an hour and 30 minutes at Mania....o I could go on and on.

Maybe its that people are holding on to their childhoods. I've noticed that people still wont admit that Rock has surpassed Austin..maybe its the same with HBK and Bret. In 97, Bret wins this debate. But in 2014, HBK has surpassed Bret in just about every category and done so much more the business. People saying that we are not talking about who had the better career BUT than you list a bunch of Brets matches and feuds spanning his entire career for your argument...matches and feuds are what make a freakin career!!! WM moments make a career!!! Try to explain to someone why Jordan was the best without mentioning his 6 rings lol. This whole argument makes no sense to me, it seems as though people are disqualifying anything that would put HBK over Bret. We can't mention careers and his second run doesn't matter as much because Bret wasn't around...and a bunch of other nonsense.

You do realize numerous wrestlers have called Bret the best and sang his praises too right?

Funny how you say Bret may have been considered the best in 1997 but not now. So......he got worse after he retired or something? Just because Shawn's greatness is more recent and more fresh in your mind, it has to mean he's better?

Certain people ALWAYS think the greatest in their own era of viewing is the greatest ever. You mention Jordan.......you realize there's a large segment too young to really have watched Jordan, who think Lebron is better? Some who think Kobe is better?

The problem is people ALWAYS feel they have to have an opinion on something, no matter what. Guess what? If you didn't watch Michael Jordan play? Don't speak on his career and who may/may not be better. Stick to what you know. Just say Lebron is the best you've seen and leave it at that. Same thing with wrestling. You're too young for Bret Hart? Don't speak on him then. You don't know. Stick to what you know,

I don't try to rate Bruno Sammartino or something. Before my time. I stick to what I know. I watched Bret, and I watched Shawn. Bret was better. That's how I see it.

 

[LBGetBack]

being as I was born in 1990, and with the network only having Raws up to 1995, no I don't remember it perfectly, but Just cause Brett was still IN WWF did NOT mean he was "the Guy." HHH was "The guy" during the ruthless aggression era but his time as "the guy" was over the minute John Cena was drafted to RAW.

Brett was good. Your acting like Im discrediting brett, all I want to know is what did brett do to make the business grow? answer: nothing. He was a great place holder. It's like comparing George Forman to Muhammad Ali. both were great, but who as they say "put more butts in the seats" putting butts in the seats is what matters in wrestling. that is the measure of greatness.

yes in 1997 brett had an Un-American gimmick and he was great with it, but where was the growth. Un-American gimmicks were old news. the only difference is the brett got cheered when they were in Canada. But I bet Iran Sheik would have gotten cheered in Iran. I bet Rusev gets cheered for in Russia and Bulgaria. Brett doing the same old thing that had been done for years. Shawn brought something Fresh. Shawn brought something new to the game by doing heel tactics as a face. humping the Canadian Flag, sticking it up his nose. He was a face using Heel tactics. THAT had NEVER really been done before.

All you had to say was you were born in 1990 and really don't know.

What the hell is your last paragraph even about? Good God. The "heel in US, face in Canada, UK, etc." thing was VERY unique for WWF at that time. That BS you typed is flat out shameful and ridiculous. By the way, Shawn was NOT a face in DX. It was a heel vs. heel feud. The Nation were heels too. Another example of you being flat out incorrect.

 

[Kidpolean]

You do realize numerous wrestlers have called Bret the best and sang his praises too right?

Funny how you say Bret may have been considered the best in 1997 but not now. So......he got worse after he retired or something? Just because Shawn's greatness is more recent and more fresh in your mind, it has to mean he's better?

Certain people ALWAYS think the greatest in their own era of viewing is the greatest ever. You mention Jordan.......you realize there's a large segment too young to really have watched Jordan, who think Lebron is better? Some who think Kobe is better?

The problem is people ALWAYS feel they have to have an opinion on something, no matter what. Guess what? If you didn't watch Michael Jordan play? Don't speak on his career and who may/may not be better. Stick to what you know. Just say Lebron is the best you've seen and leave it at that. Same thing with wrestling. You're too young for Bret Hart? Don't speak on him then. You don't know. Stick to what you know,

I don't try to rate Bruno Sammartino or something. Before my time. I stick to what I know. I watched Bret, and I watched Shawn. Bret was better. That's how I see it.

Bret didn't get worse...Shawn got better. Its like saying Austin is better than Rock because he was better in 98. Shawn was just entering his prime in 96 whereas Bret had been in his prime for years. Its not fair to compare them based off of 97.

 

[LBGetBack]

Bret didn't get worse...Shawn got better. Its like saying Austin is better than Rock because he was better in 98. Shawn was just entering his prime in 96 whereas Bret had been in his prime for years. Its not fair to compare them based off of 97.

I'm not comparing them based off 1997. I'm comparing them based off everything.

Shawn wrestling for longer(in WWE, on a national stage) does not necessarily mean better. Bret at his peak was better than Shawn ever was, IMO.

There's an unfortunate thing for both......much of Shawn's would be prime was washed away due to a major injury(and his drug-fueled antics). And Bret's career was cut short by a career ending injury.

Those are the "what if" parts. I'm taking both of their entire careers and what actually happened into account. Just because Bret's run ended earlier, doesn't mean Shawn surpassed him. It just means Shawn is younger, and thus has wrestled at a high level more recently. For much of the younger set, that's apparently enough for them.

 

[pipebomber]

What the hell is your last paragraph even about? Good God. The "heel in US, face in Canada, UK, etc." thing was VERY unique for WWF at that time. That BS you typed is flat out shameful and ridiculous. By the way, Shawn was NOT a face in DX. It was a heel vs. heel feud. The Nation were heels too. Another example of you being flat out incorrect.

the "heel in US, face in Canada" was only unique because You never had any Anti-American gimmick go to their home country. WWE never went to Iran during Sheik/Slaughter's days in the un-American gimmick. If they would have they would have gotten cheered. Brett was just doing the same gimmick that had been done 100 times before. Maybe DX were heels, but not for long... their heel tactics were so loved that they became faces.

 

[The Brain]

I think that people on here just like to have a different opinion than the norm.

I don't think it's so obvious that the normal opinion is Shawn was better. This thread should have taught you that.

Shawn had the bigger impact on the business which is the point of being a wrestler. That can't really be argued.

Yes it can be argued. When the WWF faced its biggest threat in the steroid scandal they turned to Bret to be the top guy. The WWF got away from giants like Hogan and Warrior in favor of a more realistic looking athlete. Hart showed you didn't have to be all jacked up to make it to the top.

Vince says that Shawn was the best, Taker has said it, DB has said it...there are some many guys in the profession that say nobody has been better than Shawn.

Sounds like a nice thing to say on someone's DVD. I've heard Vince say Bret was the best too. And Austin. And Hogan. The answer changes depending on the motivation.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because there has been some down right absurd things said.

What's absurd is your inability to have any kind of open mind about this at all. We're not comparing Shawn Michaels to Zack Ryder. It's Bret Hart for crying out loud.

Maybe its that people are holding on to their childhoods. I've noticed that people still wont admit that Rock has surpassed Austin..maybe its the same with HBK and Bret. In 97, Bret wins this debate. But in 2014, HBK has surpassed Bret in just about every category and done so much more the business. This is evident by the fact that the majority of people saying bret are also using HBK:s actions during DX in their argument while completely looking past the fact that he wrestled for a decade after that time period. People saying that we are not talking about who had the better career BUT than you list a bunch of Brets matches and feuds spanning his entire career for your argument...matches and feuds are what make a freakin career!!! WM moments make a career!!! Try to explain to someone why Jordan was the best without mentioning his 6 rings lol. This whole argument makes no sense to me, it seems as though people are disqualifying anything that would put HBK over Bret. We can't mention careers and his second run doesn't matter as much because Bret wasn't around...and a bunch of other nonsense.

Or maybe you're just not remembering Bret because he's been gone for so long. Yes, HBK went on to wrestle for many more years in WWE than Bret did. That does not make him better. Emmit Smith has more records and more rings than Barry Sanders. Just because Smith played longer doesn't mean he was better than Sanders. I don't fault anyone for thinking HBK was better but to just dismiss Bret from the conversation at all is wrong.

 

[LBGetBack]

the "heel in US, face in Canada" was only unique because You never had any Anti-American gimmick go to their home country. WWE never went to Iran during Sheik/Slaughter's days in the un-American gimmick. If they would have they would have gotten cheered. Brett was just doing the same gimmick that had been done 100 times before. Maybe DX were heels, but not for long... their heel tactics were so loved that they became faces.

Rather than making up ridiculous hypotheticals, just take your L. The "face in one country, heel in another despite acting exactly the same" was completely fresh and unique for WWF TV in 1997. FACT. Deal with it.

And DX WERE NOT FACES when Shawn Michaels was in the group. Period. He was NOT a face when he was humping the flag and sticking it in his nose like you said he was. It's ok to be wrong, just admit it.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

You only seem to acknowledge HBKs time on top as 1995-1996 but that's just Stupid. Did flair make a huge impact on the nwa during his first run on top? no it wasn't until his second that Flair started to leave his mark. the fact that the ratings dropped for a while doesn't discredit hbk in a while because they got higher with him than they ever were with Brett.

You are absolutely right that you can not pin point one thing and say that caused the change. But you can pin point what HBK contributed to that Change... you cannot pinpoint anything that Brett did to really bring about turning the business around. And Brett was there through it all

Yes, I was only referencing his first run. Because like I said in my very first post (which may have got lost in all of this back and forth) if you ask this question in 2000 when both are retired, it 100% would be Bret. If you ask it post-Shawn's comeback (which was amazing), then I consider it to be pretty even.

Hogan didn't take the business anywhere in WCW? Is that a joke or something? You're right that he didn't draw 1980's numbers.... he mutilated 1980's numbers. Your credibility went down the drain with that one. You can't just make up facts to fit what you wish happened.

I think you missed the point. I'm talking about the period in WCW from 1994-1996, pre-NWO. This is a period a lot of people seem to conveniently gloss over. It's not like Hogan went to WCW in 1994 and magically the business was hot again. He wasn't drawing any more than WWF was until the NWO happened.

WCW live events during this time period averaged less than WWF. So did WCW PPVs. 1995 Nitro/RAW ratings were even. WWF's "no draws" Bret/Shawn/Diesel were drawing just as well as WCW's Hogan/Flair/Savage.

 

[pipebomber]

Yes, I was only referencing his first run. Because like I said in my very first post (which may have got lost in all of this back and forth) if you ask this question in 2000 when both are retired, it 100% would be Bret. If you ask it post-Shawn's comeback (which was amazing), then I consider it to be pretty even.

but shawns first run went to 1998. Yes ratings initially dropped at the beginning of HBKs time at the top, but by the time he was forced out with a serious back injury they were on the rise, you can attribute that to many things, but DX was a major part of that. Brett was on his way to has been status. From what I have seen of the 1997 Hart Foundation was that the real standout in that time period was Brian Pillman and not Brett Hart.

 

[Kidpolean]

I don't think it's so obvious that the normal opinion is Shawn was better. This thread should have taught you that.



Yes it can be argued. When the WWF faced its biggest threat in the steroid scandal they turned to Bret to be the top guy. The WWF got away from giants like Hogan and Warrior in favor of a more realistic looking athlete. Hart showed you didn't have to be all jacked up to make it to the top.



Sounds like a nice thing to say on someone's DVD. I've heard Vince say Bret was the best too. And Austin. And Hogan. The answer changes depending on the motivation.



What's absurd is your inability to have any kind of open mind about this at all. We're not comparing Shawn Michaels to Zack Ryder. It's Bret Hart for crying out loud.



Or maybe you're just not remembering Bret because he's been gone for so long. Yes, HBK went on to wrestle for many more years in WWE than Bret did. That does not make him better. Emmit Smith has more records and more rings than Barry Sanders. Just because Smith played longer doesn't mean he was better than Sanders. I don't fault anyone for thinking HBK was better but to just dismiss Bret from the conversation at all is wrong.

Barry was obviously visibly better than Emmitt the same way HBK is to Bret. Anybody that says Emmitt was better is an idiot.

An open mind? I've stated the Bret imo is the best ever inside of the ring...i wrestle and Bret is who I study more than anyone. But HBK was better all around and that is freakin obvious. HBK has a better skill set. HBK is closer to being the perfect wrestler than Bret. If you were a wrestler, would you honestly rather have Brets skill set over Shawn's? This is an entertainment business. I have never EVER heard anyone refer to Shawn as boring. Tons of fans say that Bret was. Shawn's only knock was his personality and backstage antics. But when the cameras were on, he was damn near flawless. Bret had many flaws. Being the greatest inside the ring is an amazing accomplishment but Bret just can't go toe to toe with the guys that excelled at every aspect of wrestling.

Was Bret better than Savage? I would love to hear your opinion on that one.

 

[LBGetBack]

but shawns first run went to 1998. Yes ratings initially dropped at the beginning of HBKs time at the top, but by the time he was forced out with a serious back injury they were on the rise, you can attribute that to many things, but DX was a major part of that. Brett was on his way to has been status. From what I have seen of the 1997 Hart Foundation was that the real standout in that time period was Brian Pillman and not Brett Hart.

Oh, Good God. I'm out. Refuse to waste time with people this clueless. Watch more, please. Pillman barely wrestled by that point. He could barely move, sadly.

And WWF ratings slowly an steadily rose throughout 1997....which Bret was part of. They were losing to WCW through the whole year.....but the tide also started to turn with the Hart-Austin feud, the Hart Foundation-DX feud, the scewjob, Mr. McMahon becoming a character, Austin continuing to rise....and later DX(without HBK), The Rock, etc.


They both played a big part in starting the turn around. Austin-McMahon feud was the single biggest thing that made WWF win though......Bret was the biggest opponent who helped build Austin, and then unfortunately the center of the screwjob/Mr. McMahon character.

One could point out that ratings continued to rise after Bret left......and ALSO continued to rise after Shawn left.

No more comments from me in this thread as I've now realized just how uninformed on this era that those I'm going back and forth with are.