I Wanna End The Montreal Screwjob Debate! | Page 2 | WrestleZone Forums

I Wanna End The Montreal Screwjob Debate!

You're a very funny guy my friend. Another rant at somebody's else yet again. Why do you tell us how old you are so we can make fun of your age?

If Vince wanted Hart to drop the title to HBK, than that's what he should have done. Vince brought Hart into the WWF and Hart should have done what was best for the business. If Hart wouldn't have been a selfish prick about the matter, then he could have left for the WCW and we wouldn't have had twelve years of bickering about something that could have been avoided in the first place.

I understand that, but I strongly disagree. He gave Hart a little bit of control for a reason. Hart was loyal to the company from day one and it was a nice gesture to get what you want on your way out. I remember in Bret's book where he said he had no problem losing to Shawn if Shawn would have lost to him months earlier.

I am not going to argue because I have done this several times in the last two years. To this day I believe Vince screwed Bret, and I am sticking with that. i just believe if Shawn would have lost cleanly to Bret months before none of this would have ever happened.
 
I thought the debate of this was over? I mean it's been 12 years, no new information is going to magically appear out of thin air, and no matter how many ways you twist it, it's going to be the same outcome. Every single fan that knows anything about the situation comes to the final decision.

Vince, HBK, and Bret all acted like bitches and the whole situation could have been handled better by every single person involved. Everybody acted in a selfish manner. Bret refused to drop the title to Shawn. It's the WWE Title. Not the WWEBH Title. If he would have just dropped the title to HBK, none of it would have happened. Shawn says he knew nothing about the situation until it was all over. Not one person will ever believe that. He could have manned up and shown maturity by going to Bret and telling him what was going down. Since Bret had a problem with Shawn being immature, that might have rubbed Bret in a way that showed him Shawn had some balls. Then collectively they could have gone to Vince and had something changed, or Bret would have maybe had a slight change of heart just long enough to then drop the title to Shawn. Vince... he obviously masterminded the whole situation and it was dirty, sneaky, rotten, and low. Case closed.
 
This coming from an 11-year old... haha. Your whole post isn't logical when you clearly fail to acknowledge that a contract is legally binding.

Would it not be breech of contract when Bret Hart signs with another wrestling promotion, thus rendering any clauses in his contract with the WWF null and void. I could be wrong, forgive me if I am (after all, I'm 11 and can't understand anything.), but Bret Hart would have been going outside of the grounds of his contract with the WWF by signing with WCW. His "creative control" would be gone. Again, it's simply a guess.

I beg to differ. Taker and Foley sided with Bret on this issue, as well as a number of other superstars. If Bret, to you, is a 'jerk and a snake' i wonder what Vince is?.. the person that you seemingly can't find anything wrong with.

I cannot find fault with Vince McMahon in this situation. In other areas, sure.

He was according to his contract, which you continue to neglect.

See: Above

Bret was and always has been loyal to his family. I don't even know how to respond to this comment. You don't know anything about his relations with his family. He opened the door for the Anvil, Bulldog, and Owen, and always looked after his parents. Some of his siblings became very jealous of his success and tried to ruin him. Why don't you read Bret's book, which Jim Ross himself claims is one of the best books, wrestling or not, he has ever read.

Of course Bret Hart is going to come off as a saint in the book that he wrote. I'm eleven and can understand that.

Oh yeah, you're 11... you probably wouldn't understand it. I don't even know why you are commenting on this when you weren't even born to see how these events transpired, leading up to the event. Why don't go you go cheer for John Cena or something.

You're right. I'll just go back to my coloring books and stop moderating this forum and owning you in this debate.

Word Life, yo! Chaing gang 4evr!

No, but you can't work forever as a wrestler. The money WCW offered Bret would set his entire family up for financial independence. Who says he has to stay with the WWF? As I said, Vince encouraged him to go to WCW, so don't rant that he should have stayed with WWF.

I don't care if he stays with the WWF, or leaves. I'm saying that since his choice was to leave, he shouldn't get to decide on what terms and shouldn't get to decide who leads the company from there on.

Bret was not against dropping the title. Again, because I'm dealing with an 11-year old, you fail to understand the concept of a legally binding contract.

See: Above

Bret did not have to agree with anything he didn't want to. It was very reasonable what Bret suggested- dropping the belt the next night on RAW and having DX interfere in the main event at Survivor Series.

Who says he drops it the next night on RAW? Bret can whisper all of the sweet nothings he wants in Vince's ear, but after having his Women's championship dropped in the garbage on Nitro, I don't blame him in the least. You, or anyone with any shred of common sense, would do the same.

Whether or not you think he has a say, he does legally. Again, these kids and their lack of understanding of a contract... and no, you can't just 'break' a contract because you are the boss. Get over yourself- why don't you call Vince and ask him for a job- you seem to look up to him as he's God. I'm looking at this logically from a legal standpoint. You, are not.

See: Above

AGain, it does not "Fly right out the window".. he has a C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T.

Blah, blah, blah..

For someone who is all for the 'cut and dry' business decisions that you seem to be sticking up for, you fail to acknowledge a contract, but then go on to say that it shouldn't matter what happens to Bret.

See: Above

If you were to make your boss millions, and then get unknowingly screwed publicly, it hurts your value as you go to another company. Bret didn't ask for a going-away parade- he had reasonable control and didn't want to drop it to Michaels. Vince shouldn't have signed the contract if he didn't want it to go down that way. It's not Bret's fault at all.

If I were to make my boss millions, then up and leave for the rival, I would accept that I'm not getting a cake on my way out, and leave it at that. I wouldn't demand a shoe-shining, jamba juice, and a new pen. Being "screwed" did nothing to hurt Bret. I think it helped him in WCW more than anything.

Whiny kid? You're 11. I'm not whining, but I feel the need to respond to your illogical, irrational comments that hold no base of reason.

Pot, meet kettle. Oh wait, you have no idea what that means.

THE CONTRACT, again C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T IS SUPPOSED TO HONOR THE WISHES OF A MAN ON HIS WAY OUT. Wow, you really are dumb.

I already warned you for prejudicial remarks towards Becca. Calling me dumb and being a complete ageist isn't helping you in the least. :disappointed:

Bret was often times the face of the WWF that kept the WWF on life support for much of the 90s. If there was no Bret, I doubt there would be a WWF today, especially with regards to its international presence.

Hogan made the WWF popular over the world, in Japan, Mexico, etc. Bret Hart gets too much credit.



Shawn Michaels being the next big thing doesn't guarantee him anything. I know it was in the best interest of the company, I agree, but if Bret doesn't want to, he doesn't ahve to. You can whine and say he 'should', but that doesn't change the contract.

So you're condoning Bret wanting to screw the company by leaving as champion, and being unwilling to drop it to the best candidate, yet whine about him being "screwed" by having to lose on the way out? You're loaded with integrity, mate.

I am not saying that 'everyone should care about how Bret Hart feels about this'. And Bret, because of his C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T DOES 'have any say in the matter'. You clearly haven't held a job in your life.

Ageist.

Wow... grow up.

Ageist.

My post is not biased. I am supporting it with reasonable arguments. It's call an argumentative post (or paper) if you ever went to school. Hypocritical? Clearly it isn't. Wrong? That's your opinion.
I think you need to stop playing with wrestling action figures, take your Vince McMahon posters down, and get a life.

Ageist.
 
Vince screwed Bret.

The guy has pretty much admitted it! He even said if he had the chance to do things differently he probably would do with hindsight.

Come on lets get over it, Bret 'almost' has, and when he inducts HBK into the HOF at some point hopefully this matter can be laid to rest finally.

I am a huge Hitman fan, and I am glad to see he is getting over this after 12 years, I think it's probably about time we all did the same.

Having said that, I would still love to see an angle where Bret came out and screwed Shawn for a title or something, just for fun. I can imagine it's the sort of thing HBK would go for himself.
 
Would it not be breech of contract when Bret Hart signs with another wrestling promotion, thus rendering any clauses in his contract with the WWF null and void. I could be wrong, forgive me if I am (after all, I'm 11 and can't understand anything.), but Bret Hart would have been going outside of the grounds of his contract with the WWF by signing with WCW. His "creative control" would be gone. Again, it's simply a guess.
No, it would not. The creative control kicked in BECAUSE the contract was breached.

Bret Hart did not breech the contract, Vince McMahon did. Bret Hart turned WCW down to re-sign with the WWF for much less money (I believe the terms were 1 cent more than Michaels made, or something like that). Both sides agreed, and Vince kept Bret.

Until Vince decided he no longer wanted Bret. He went to Bret and flat out told Bret he was going to breach his contract. Because Vince breached the contract, the Creative Control clause kicks in. Bret only signed with WCW, because he was told his WWF contract would no longer be honored.

I cannot find fault with Vince McMahon in this situation. In other areas, sure.
You can't find fault with someone who breached the contract of a ten year loyal worker, who turned down less money a year before to stay and help you out? You can't find fault with someone who couldn't be a man and say to Bret's face what was going to happen, but instead went behind his back?

You can't find fault with that?

Of course Bret Hart is going to come off as a saint in the book that he wrote. I'm eleven and can understand that.
Actually, he doesn't. In fact, I'd say any reasonable person would have less respect for Bret after the book.

I don't care if he stays with the WWF, or leaves. I'm saying that since his choice was to leave, he shouldn't get to decide on what terms and shouldn't get to decide who leads the company from there on.
You're wrong again. It was Bret's decision to stay or leave in 1996, and Bret decided to stay, for 20 more years. It was NOT Bret's decision to leave in 1997. Vince told him he was out of a job. It was that simple.

Who says he drops it the next night on RAW? Bret can whisper all of the sweet nothings he wants in Vince's ear, but after having his Women's championship dropped in the garbage on Nitro, I don't blame him in the least. You, or anyone with any shred of common sense, would do the same.
Because he would have to. Bret's contract wasn't going to end until the first or second week of December. Bret could not show up in WCW until mid-December, so there was no WAY that Bret could take the title to WCW.

That's just a myth populated by HBK marks who don't like Bret. The fact is there is no WAY that Bret could take the title to WCW. It wasn't like Medusa or even like Lex Luger. Bret's contract was not up on the night of Survivor Series.

If I were to make my boss millions, then up and leave for the rival, I would accept that I'm not getting a cake on my way out, and leave it at that. I wouldn't demand a shoe-shining, jamba juice, and a new pen. Being "screwed" did nothing to hurt Bret. I think it helped him in WCW more than anything.
If by "up and leave for the rival", you mean having your 20 year contract, which cost you millions of dollars to sign in the name of loyalty, breached by a dishonest and dishonorable man, a man who you kept in business back in '93 and '94 when that man was under federal steroid charges, then I guess you have a point.

But, you didn't mean that, so you really have no point.

So you're condoning Bret wanting to screw the company by leaving as champion, and being unwilling to drop it to the best candidate, yet whine about him being "screwed" by having to lose on the way out? You're loaded with integrity, mate.
If there was an ounce of truth in this, I would address it.
 
If creative control was breached to any real degree, Bret would have sued over it... he didn't... because reasonable in that context would read "in the best interests of WWE."

Bret had a preference that was not possible to accomodate... When he would not "play ball" there absolutely was no option than for the title switch to take place without his knowledge, when an employee leaves you wish them the best but cannot always do the best by them as they are going... otherwise no one would ever leave a job or be fired... Warrior, Alundra and had previously burned Vince's fingers with poor behaviour, so he was not going to tolerate it from Bret...

Where Bret's argument gets dragged down is cos of the documentary... we saw all of Bret's thoughts, carefully edited mind... then we see his book...again carefully edited and accept them as gospel because we saw it unfold... Vince on the other hand did what he did... did one interview and never spoke of it again...he moved on cos ultimately, the rest of his "boys" were safe... Had Bret had his way, he would have had far more difficulty looking himself in the mirror if Hart had shitcanned his belt and killed his company... Bret showed his true colors moments after the event by writing WCW in the air... there was no class in using Vince's airtime to promote his new employer, never mind the "role model" he claimed to be spitting and hitting a man who had given him every opportunity to shine...

Bret's view is he was "screwed" he is welcome to hold that view...and in some ways he was... but ultimately he acted according to the needs of the one...Vince acted to the needs of the many... History will show Vince in a far more positive light over this than Bret cos his arrival in WCW was to all intents and purposes was the beginning of the end... WWE is still standing, WCW isn't...
 
Hart gave notice to the WWF nine days before the Survivor Series pay per view that he was leaving the company and going to WCW. Which was far too late to find Hart another wrestler who Hart could drop the belt to therefore the best option was to drop the belt to Shawn because he had already earned a title shot against Hart.
Which means he could've dropped the title RAW before or after Survivor Series.Changing title on RAW is not something new on WWE.Even if they couldn't find a person to drop they could've easily stripted the title of Hartwhich Hart wouldn't refuse.Hart just wanted one thing not to drop to title Shawn clean in his hometown and as a loyal wrestler to WWE for many years doesn't he have a right to do?

But you see, this isn’t what Bret Hart wanted to happen. He wanted his match with Shawn to end via DQ.
I think it's not about Michaels at all.If we remember wrestling history Hart always was to one to lose Michaels(See WM 12) and I don't wanna even talk about I lost my smile thing.

So basically, Hart wanted to go to WCW who were clearly beating the WWF, who were his employers at the time.
Actually Hart wanted to stay but Vince wanted him to leave .Bischoff had negotiated with him in the past but Hart refused his offer just because he is loyal to WWF a company which can't even offer the half WCW offers him at that time.

He didn’t even want to help the company that gave him a big paycheck for more than ten years one last time, by doing something that will do nothing to him at all?Hart wasn’t going to lose any credibility at all by just laying down for a 3 count. No one would have really cared if he lost the WWF Title to Shawn, except for himself.
Yeah losing to Shawn would not damage him one bit but it wasn't about lating down for 3 Hart did that for various occasions but just didn't want it in his hometown and he has every right to refuse.

Furthermore, Hart wanted to keep his title after what we saw with Alundra Blayze totally screwing over the WWF's women's division by throwing its belt in a trashcan on an episode of Nitro.
You're wrong Hart has offered different ways to Vince to lose the title.Like stripping of the belt or losing to Shamrock or Austin the night after Survivor Series.He just didn't want to lose the title at that night.He was the biggest and most respected superstar of the company,he hasn't refused to lose a match to anyone or played politics like Michaels so why not he has a right to do a little demand like that.Going to WCW wasn't even his choice.Vince just understood he couldn't afford the contract he offered and told Hart to leave.

McMahon had a company to run that seemed to possibly be going bankrupt because of WCW. Why the hell should McMahon have to fulfill the desires of an employee when, in doing so, he might put both his and every other of his other employees' interests in jeopardy?
The travesty begins in here.The problem that you can't understand is Hart didn't say I want to go to WCW with my belt he just said I can drop my title to anyone except Michaels and in my hometown.So Vince had a lenghty time to take the title from Hart.


He either had to care for the employee who was on his way out of the company or for the employees who were staying with him. I think the decision is pretty obvious and McMahon made the right decision. It's not his fault Bret couldn't see things as they really were. Therefore, McMahon was totally right for doing whatever he could to get the title off of Hart. If this had been a totally different situation then I would completely disagree with Vince’s way of going about things, but this one time I agree with him because he made the right decision.
No it was just Vince's stubborness he wanted Hart to drop the title where and who he wanted.It wasn't that hard to take the title from Hart in somewhere different.
 
You're wrong Hart has offered different ways to Vince to lose the title.Like stripping of the belt or losing to Shamrock or Austin the night after Survivor Series.He just didn't want to lose the title at that night.He was the biggest and most respected superstar of the company,he hasn't refused to lose a match to anyone or played politics like Michaels so why not he has a right to do a little demand like that.Going to WCW wasn't even his choice.Vince just understood he couldn't afford the contract he offered and told Hart to leave.

No my friend, it is you who are completely wrong on that... he exactly refused to lose a match... to his employers requested manner on several occasions in the past and this time there was a massive PPV, hyped around "The Final Showdown"... Bret simply did not want to come off the loser in that match... Had

Wrestling titles are not won like UFC ones... they are given to you by a promoter on the strict understanding that they are handed to the next person as and when requested when the time comes... Hogan did it, Andre did it, Flair did it, Bruno Sammartino and Bob Backlund did it... so what makes Bret Hart worthy of being different?

Had Vince stripped Hart, the PPV would have been damaged... Shawn's push would have been ruined and the business would arguably not have survived the blow... Shamrock and Austin were not ready for titles, surely if Bret was really concerned he would have suggested losing to Davey Boy or Owen? After all, had the screwjob not been necessary, then Bulldog would have not have left... Bret made selfish decisions he wanted his place in history and he tarnished it by not doing the "the right thing by the business that made him..." Vince's words, not mine... and they are true...
 
If creative control was breached to any real degree, Bret would have sued over it... he didn't... because reasonable in that context would read "in the best interests of WWE."
He didn't sue because he wouldn't have won. Even if a judge or jury had ruled in his favor, it would be YEARS after the point, would cost Bret more in lawyer fees than he'd make and would never reverse the damage that was done to his character that night in Montreal.

That's not a valid line of thinking. Just because he didn't sue because he was wronged, doesn't change the fact that he was wronged.

Bret showed his true colors moments after the event by writing WCW in the air
:lmao:

This is just absurd. Bret turned down millions to stay with Vince, and had his contract and trust breached. He offered to lose the title to ANYONE in Canada except for Shawn, and Vince wouldn't agree. Bret had his contract breached, his creative control breached, and then was stabbed in the back by two people who, by the very nature of the business, he is forced to trust (HBK and Hebner). He was stabbed in the back by the man he had stayed with through thick and thin.

And when he finds out that he was stabbed in the back by everyone he is forced to trust, he's not allowed to vent, else he's showing "his true colors"? That's absurd. Try using a bit of logic.

there was no class in using Vince's airtime to promote his new employer
Uhh, genius, he didn't use Vince's airtime. The camera stayed focused on HBK after the bell rang, and Survivor Series was already off the air when he made the WCW sign. Does nobody know wrestling anymore?

never mind the "role model" he claimed to be spitting and hitting a man who had given him every opportunity to shine...
And then stabbed him in the back.
 
Uhh, genius, he didn't use Vince's airtime. The camera stayed focused on HBK after the bell rang, and Survivor Series was already off the air when he made the WCW sign. Does nobody know wrestling anymore?

And then stabbed him in the back.

I saw it live on Sky at the time and yes it did show the spitting, the whole thing... and I DO know wrestling as I was a featured writer on the main site for 4 years!

Spitting is NEVER acceptable when there are kids present... the "family man" lost his head, sure he was angry, hurt and confused... but even so he should have waited till he was out of the ring and backstage...
 
No my friend, it is you who are completely wrong on that... he exactly refused to lose a match... to his employers requested manner on several occasions in the past and this time there was a massive PPV, hyped around "The Final Showdown"... Bret simply did not want to come off the loser in that match... Had
No.Hart just didn't want to lose to Hbk in his hometown.Other than that before or after Survivor Series he accepted droping title.

Wrestling titles are not won like UFC ones... they are given to you by a promoter on the strict understanding that they are handed to the next person as and when requested when the time comes... Hogan did it, Andre did it, Flair did it, Bruno Sammartino and Bob Backlund did it... so what makes Bret Hart worthy of being different?
Cannot say anything about Backlund or Sammartino because their time was long before I was borned.But in your Flair and Hogan example you're wrong.When Flair was the booker of the WCW in early 90's he refused to lose the title to various opponents and not have to remember you one of the biggest letdown PPV main event.Didn't you remember Starrcade 1997.If I remember right Hart was even offered to be in Kliq which he refused.He haven't played politics in his pride and politely asked for something before he leaves.

Had Vince stripped Hart, the PPV would have been damaged...
Not as much as when screwjob happened.

Shawn's push would have been ruined
Shawn had already been an established main event star.If his push is ruined because of not getting the title then we can't accept Michaels in any way or form as a main eventer.

and the business would arguably not have survived the blow...
Survived from much worse(Montreal screwjob)

Shamrock and Austin were not ready for titles, surely if Bret was really concerned he would have suggested losing to Davey Boy or Owen?
It's not about Shamrock or Austin,Hart could've dropped his belt in very different ways.

After all, had the screwjob not been necessary, then Bulldog would have not have left... Bret made selfish decisions he wanted his place in history and he tarnished it by not doing the "the right thing by the business that made him..." Vince's words, not mine... and they are true...
Selfish decisions?He has never played with politics like the wrestler's you have listed and even Michaels did.He has never refused to put anyone over(includes Michaels)After he lef the WWF he left them nothing but maybe some of the best WWE matches in it's history with lots of unforgettable moments.So how can you say him selfish just because asking for one little favor in his whole career?How can that make Hart selfish?
 
I'm pretty sure you would spit in your employer's face of over 10 years if he offered you a contract, breached it, and then screwed you over in your own hometown. Bret did wait when he was backstage to knock Vince out cold in the locker room. While Shawn Michaels was balling like a baby who didn't know what was going on. I don't blame Michaels or Hebner for "doing their job" but it definitely makes them look like less of a man especially Hebner when he swore on his children he would never screw over Bret. Michaels is no saint and neither is Bret and at least they have both admitted their behavior in the past was wrong for business and Bret has forgiven Shawn. Of course Vince and Shawn have said they would do it again if they had to. None of us are experts, none of us were there. Except for watching DVD's or reading books none of us know for sure what went down then. I believe Bret was screwed, he had a no compete clause so obviously he wouldn't of had time even if he wanted to to bring the belt to Nitro and trash it on air. One thing that is true that Vince and Bret argee on is that WCW doesn't know how to use a talent such as Bret Hart. Man were they right. There is no use debating it anymore because everyone has moved on. Bret doesn't hold a grudge anymore, neither does Michaels or Vince. Everyone else needs to let go of it also.
 
Selfish decisions?He has never played with politics like the wrestler's you have listed and even Michaels did.He has never refused to put anyone over(includes Michaels)After he lef the WWF he left them nothing but maybe some of the best WWE matches in it's history with lots of unforgettable moments.So how can you say him selfish just because asking for one little favor in his whole career?How can that make Hart selfish?

I strongly suggest you seek out some shoot interviews, the Jacques Rougeau one is particularly enlightening but others share the same viewpoint on Bret... Refusing to lose in your hometown or country IS refusing to do business...

The situation Flair was in in 1991 with WCW based around Jim Herd's incompetence, Herd didn't even know that a belt came with a $25,000 deposit that Flair was due before he returned it...

He was happy to put the required people over, especially Luger and Windham as they were former Horsemen AND return the belt when they paid him... Herd decided not to pay him and thus let him take the belt over to WWE... Herd had made a poor business choice...

At roughly the same time over in WWE, Bret had to "have a cold" as an excuse to lose the IC to the Mountie when all it needed was to let the man use his gimmick, the shock stick... but it only worked on Bret cos he was poorly... The Rougeaus won the tag titles in 1987, but again due to Bret's whining the title change never got acknowledged... He also complained about losing to Shawn at WM12...

Bret was a great servant to WWE, but so was Hogan, Backlund, Sammartino they didn't complain when their time came, they did the favour and just walked away... Andre didn't HAVE to drop to anyone he didn't want to, and he did...within seconds

Ultimately it will always polarise people, Bret will always be god to those who want to see him as such but in reality his poor choices that night indirectly led to far worse consequences for he and his family than had he just gone along and done business...
 
I strongly suggest you seek out some shoot interviews, the Jacques Rougeau one is particularly enlightening but others share the same viewpoint on Bret... Refusing to lose in your hometown or country IS refusing to do business...
Yeah.No one denied that Hart refused to lose in his hometown but he had every right to do.Why?I explained it.

The situation Flair was in in 1991 with WCW based around Jim Herd's incompetence, Herd didn't even know that a belt came with a $25,000 deposit that Flair was due before he returned it... He was happy to put the required people over, especially Luger and Windham as they were former Horsemen AND return the belt when they paid him... Herd decided not to pay him and thus let him take the belt over to WWE... Herd had made a poor business choice...
It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.When he was a booker he refused to lose to title lots of names.That's why some people like Foley has always criticised him as a booker and fired from booking position.

At roughly the same time over in WWE, Bret had to "have a cold" as an excuse to lose the IC to the Mountie when all it needed was to let the man use his gimmick, the shock stick...
What the fuck?Hart having flu was just a storyline and has nothing to do with Hart and even trying to say Hart did not put him over is bullshit.Mountie has won his biggest win of his career against Hart.

but it only worked on Bret cos he was poorly... The Rougeaus won the tag titles in 1987, but again due to Bret's whining the title change never got acknowledged...
Bullshit.In your logic Jericho's one of the WWF title reign is ruined because of Hebner.WWE does not acknowledge it I don't know why but it certainly has nothing to do with Hart.Hart wasn't even a big star in the company why would Vince listen an ordinary tag team wrestler?Completely bullshit.

He also complained about losing to Shawn at WM12...
I don't know if he did but it doesn't matter.Did he put over Hbk in the grandest stage of them all?Yep.What's the problem?

Bret was a great servant to WWE, but so was Hogan, Backlund, Sammartino they didn't complain when their time came, they did the favour and just walked away...
Their situation is much more different than Hart's.They weren't told to drop to title someone he doesn't like in their hometown and Hogan used his creative control too much when he was on WCW(DO YOU REMEMBER BASH AT BEACH 00)

Andre didn't HAVE to drop to anyone he didn't want to, and he did...within seconds
You talk like Hart have always complained about dropping the title.Remember his one day reign?Please tell me one other match that Hart refused to drop title or lose.

Ultimately it will always polarise people, Bret will always be god to those who want to see him as such but in reality his poor choices that night indirectly led to far worse consequences for he and his family than had he just gone along and done business...
No it will always polarise people because Shawn Michaels fans will never accept that their favorites and Vince were wrong.Even Vince seems to regretted for what he did.That's why he inducted him to HOF.In Turkey when people do something ,regrets and try to fix we say these people they licked what they spitted.What Vince actually did.
 
Wrath, you need to really cool your jets and understand that I am referring to the testimony of people who know and have worked with Bret Hart for many years... you do not...

In the 80's there was a "Clique" much as there was in the 90's that housed the Harts, Bulldogs, Muraco, Bravo, Bad News... basically the stampede crew... All of those guys collectively would work for their benefit... Bret was considered the unofficial leader of this group, due to the fact that he was the main Hart, and Vince had bought Stampede out to get them all there... it was necessity as Hogan's Clique controlled the main event, this clique controlled the mid card...

Please seek out that Rougeau interview... See the other side of the story... Between Bret's book and that... I think I would take Jacques version over Bret...
 
For some reason, the concept of this thread just strikes me as humorous. Let me get this straight; multiple autobiographies have included, in detail, their portrayal of that night. Bret Hart, Vince, and to some extent, Shawn, have all went to any sort of dirt sheet outlet, and stated their case to the masses. Hell, an autobiographical movie, unintentional as it may be, was devoted to this entire night. People have been debating this subject for a good twelve years, and strong feelings still, to this day, resonate over the subject. And you are going to be the one to end all of that, in one fell swoop, in one thread, on a wrestling forum?

.... Good Luck With That

Now then, I suppose that really offers nothing for this discussion, so I’m just going to throw this one out there; I’m shocked by the multitude of people who have taken such a strong stance on this subject, which does indeed tell me one thing;

Bret Hart was, indeed, right in saying that he was viewed as a hero to all in Canada, and all of his fans. Not many wrestlers could ever assemble so much outrage for one man, and him being screwed over. Hell, even Hulk Hogan didn’t get this sort of treatment from fans, when he was “screwed over” by Vince Russo. I mean, sure, people were pretty pissed by the booking, but you don’t see people at TNA crowds chanting “You Screwed Hogan”, or other such things. Granted, one will say that WCW was closing down, so it didn’t matter nearly as much, and I’d be the first to admit such a thing. However, for people to have been outraged for so long regarding the matter certainly must mean that Bret had some type of a hero status in Canada. Surely, if you felt that you were viewed in that light, even if you’re wrong in your assessment (And quite frankly, I don’t feel that Bret was too far off in his perception. He may be a bit arrogant, but even I’ll admit that Canadians surely love their idols, and track their career from its origins), I can indeed see why you’d long to protect your image in front of others. Vince, to me, breached contract, in some sense, as he had let Bret out of his contract. Some will say that Bret was still under actual contract to McMahon, and that holds some bit of truth, I suppose, but Bret really had no reasoning to not go along with Vince’s plan for The Survivor Series. The man had it written that he had Creative Control, and if Vince was so worried about a wrestler having control over his character, he never should have offered such a thing to Bret in the first place. Bret himself does have an image to maintain, and though it may be a bit immature to be so conscious about one’s image, it happens to be a common issue regarding wrestler’s at the top. Men such as Hogan, Flair, Michaels, and even Austin were notorious for having massive egos. The common feeling shared by these men, who we have heralded as greats in the sport for completely warranted reasoning, have a duty to protect their own image. So what if Bret’s view of himself is a little skewed? I’d say he had every reason to have a little bit of an ego, considering that, from a work rate standpoint, Bret served Vince loyally for thirteen years, without much complaint on the matter, except regarding one issue in general, this being it. He dropped the belt when necessary, and his only complaints were when he felt like Vince was telling him one thing, yet also doing another thing behind as back. It’s called being two-faced, and we all hate it just as much as anyone else. And when said matters happen, we tend to call out said two-faced party. With the exception of that, however, Bret had always done the job when necessary, and worked with any man that Vince put in his way. If you were working for a company, and had busted your hump for that long, wouldn’t you hope for a little recognition on your way out, especially if your last day of work was in a place where people (allegedly. Though I buy it) idolized you and where your status is along the lines of men like Gretzky and… Well, those other Canadian athletes (I’m not Canadian myself; so admittedly, I’m not sure who is adored by you Canadian folk.)? It’s called having an ego, folks, and though society portrays a negative view on such a thing, we all have one, and we all like to have it stroked every once in a while. And, apparently, it’s something that is necessary once you reach the top of the business, if you plan on staying there for a long time. Legends like Hogan and Flair have egos just as massive, if not more so, than Bret’s, and while sometimes we call them out on it, we usually don’t care too much when it comes to their in ring performance, because we love how they work in the ring.

However, neither of these men presented as much a threat to Vince to walk out with their championship belt. One has to remember that this was in the midst of the Monday Night Wars, and one perilous mistake by the McMahons could lead to his business going belly up. Vince has to calculate every move he makes on a normal basis, but at this point, he was walking a tightrope of what he could do, and how WCW would react to it. Typically, when a wrestler does leave, he jobs on his way out, and if he holds a championship to his name, he must lose it, or otherwise their stands the risk of that superstar walking to the competition with that title. Ric Flair did it, and to a lesser extent (Yes, I do say lesser, as while it might have been controversial, it was still merely burying the Women’s Division. Vince does a good enough job of that by his own hand, on his own show.) Madusa did this exact same thing. Imagine the pressure of feeling as if your championship belt could wind up on the competition’s show. If there ever would have been a deadly blow for the WWE, this would have been it. I’m still, quite frankly, shocked that the WC W survived the departure of their title, but then again, even when they did see their World Title go to the competition, it would take three years to build themselves back up to the normal status, and within those three years, they managed to sign the biggest name in pro wrestling, Hulk Hogan. It took that to right the ship, after losing their World Title, and embarrassing WCW. And quite frankly, at the rate the Monday Night War was going, and the amount of money Vince was losing, Vince neither had three years to make up that sort of damage, nor did he have the resources to match Eric for any of the big names Eric had purchased under Vince’s nose. Losing the WWE Title was going to be the last thing that could very possibly have killed his company. The very same company in which he and his family have made their living for generation upon generation, and the only type of security Vince actually owned in their world. All of his other chances to explore options outside of the WWE had failed miserably, and this was Vince’s livelihood. Vince had to do whatever he could to preserve his business, and even if that meant screwing over a man that had loyally served him for years, so be it. Vince had done enough to help Bret by driving up the price for Bret, even though there was no way in which he had to do such a thing. He allowed him out of his contract, not only because he couldn’t afford to match Eric’s offer, but because he wanted to allow Bret to succeed. Vince didn’t have to let Bret out of his contract, as he could have kept him there all twenty years, nor did he have to help Bret drive up the cost for his services.

Jesus…. But I know what you’re asking. You’re probably thinking, “Tenta, who the fuck are you pulling for here? You never really picked a side here, and you just made a case for both men.”

Well, it should be fairly obvious here… neither of these parties are wrong in this situation, and both parties were working towards what I could only assume is their best interests. Pure enough, both men were working towards their best interest, and given the circumstances, neither man really owed anything to the other. Vince didn’t owe it to Bret to potentially put his company in jeopardy, nor did Bret owe it to Vince, in this particular instance, to agree to working a match in which would, in his perspective, belittle him in front of his fans, and make him seem inferior to a man that has always given him trouble while in the WWE. That isn’t to say that Bret didn’t bring some of this trouble upon himself, but what did Bret really owe to Vince at this point, in which he had to perform to Vince’s every whim. He had Creative Control, and that means he can decide things. However, if Vince does not like Bret’s decision, he is completely within his rights to change things, and preserve his company should he choose to. If that means he has to be a little deceptive, then so be it, because he’s only looking into what he feels is the best interest of his company.

Isn’t that right, Hulkster?

[youtube]WV6mf9ijX8s[/youtube]​

… Does anyone else miss NorCal’s avatar?
 
I saw it live on Sky at the time and yes it did show the spitting, the whole thing
No one said anything about the spitting, we were talking about Bret using Vince's airtime to promote WCW, which he did not.

Maybe it's not a lack of knowledge of wrestling, as much as it is an inability to follow along with a conversation.

and I DO know wrestling as I was a featured writer on the main site for 4 years!
Hardly an impressive feat, being featured as a writer on a site that has been the butt of jokes for years. I'd say the current day WZ is the most credible it's ever been. And even still people mock it.

Spitting is NEVER acceptable when there are kids present... the "family man" lost his head, sure he was angry, hurt and confused... but even so he should have waited till he was out of the ring and backstage...
Which has NOTHING to do with writing out WCW in the air on WWF television. Again, please follow the conversation.
Ultimately it will always polarise people, Bret will always be god to those who want to see him as such but in reality his poor choices that night indirectly led to far worse consequences for he and his family than had he just gone along and done business...
Gone along and done business? Bret WAS going along and doing business. He didn't want HBK to be his WWF send-off, but he agreed to it anyways. HBK and Vince agreed to work Bret's last match in the double DQ, so Bret was working the match under those assumptions.

The only people who DIDN'T go along and do business was Vince, HBK and Hebner. THEY were the ones who made the low class decision to not be honorable. Don't give that "gone along and done business" crap, as everyone and their uncle knows what really happened.

Vince didn't go along and do business when he intentionally broke his contract with Bret. HBK didn't go along and do business when he violated the trust of the guy he was in the ring with, which if you have ever read any wrestler speak about the subject, you'd know is THE most crucial aspect of wrestling. And finally, Hebner didn't do business when he looked Bret Hart straight in the eye and lied to him.

THAT'S not going along and doing business.
 
Wrath, you need to really cool your jets and understand that I am referring to the testimony of people who know and have worked with Bret Hart for many years... you do not...

In the 80's there was a "Clique" much as there was in the 90's that housed the Harts, Bulldogs, Muraco, Bravo, Bad News... basically the stampede crew... All of those guys collectively would work for their benefit... Bret was considered the unofficial leader of this group, due to the fact that he was the main Hart, and Vince had bought Stampede out to get them all there... it was necessity as Hogan's Clique controlled the main event, this clique controlled the mid card...

Please seek out that Rougeau interview... See the other side of the story... Between Bret's book and that... I think I would take Jacques version over Bret...
I have never heard a midcard kliq in 80's.Even it there were one I don't care it.Because if Rougeau tries to say that Hart family tried to bury him he is one of the most idiot person I've ever seen.His biggest accomplishment was against Bret Hart and even there were a midcard clique like you said which I have no idea about that it has not been criticised by some people like Hbk's kliq and if Hart played politics during 80's why did he refuse Hbk's offer when he was invented to Kliq.So it doesn't make much sense for me but if I have some time I'll look at some of his shoot videos.
 
This really strikes me as the wrestling version of the JFK assassination.
Who did what, who screwed who. As I've stated, I'm a huge Bret Hart fan, however if I was in Vince's position and I was worried about my champion going to my rival with my federation's title, I would have done the same thing.
Business is business. Vince could have easily placed the Undertaker, or anyone else in HBK's position, but he didn't have to. Shawn was already scheduled to be in the match and honestly, it was a money match.
It seems to me that everyone was a bit immature and if egos were pulled out of it, none of this crap would have happened and we could all go on and argue about something else.
 
=Because if Rougeau tries to say that Hart family tried to bury him he is one of the most idiot person I've ever seen.His biggest accomplishment was against Bret Hart.

Listen to the interview and you will see that Jacques Rougeau is nothing like an idiot... Probably the most articulate and affable guy in the business... To the point even Hogan would job to him in his hometown...

My point was not IF Bret did jobs... he did... but invariably he was unhappy about them and had to have a storyline excuse for it...even at Survivor Series 90, they announced his brothers death as an excuse for losing to DiBiase... DiBiase, a main eventer!... They had to have Owen cost him the belt to Backlund, rather than have him do a clean job to Bob...

He was the leader of a Stampede clique in the 80's that much is certain from his own book...Hart did not bury anyone, just not go along with the original plans happily, he would push changes through... and he was happy to allow the bulldogs to be the muscle that enforced things...

There is a famous story of them picking on Jacques in 89... and Jacques standing up to them... Let's just say the Bulldogs went...and Jacques stayed...

I am not a mark for the man... I only really listened to the interview this week... but my point stands... of the two... I would take his words over Bret's any day...

There is much that went on back then that you have to seek out to know about... today it's out there in an instant thanks to the news sites... but listen to some old guys stories sometime, don't just take Bret and Vince's word for everything... Even the Hitman has shades of grey to him... it isn't just Pink and Black...
 
After all these years, this is still the most entertaining wrestling-related debate.

Some of the posters and/or fanboys are very biased here. As if one of the sides was "good", and the other was "evil". That's ridiculous. Both sides screwed up, both sides admitted it, and both sides moved on.

I doubt this debate will ever completely go away. Some people, like myself(LOL), whom never even seen the actual match, take the time to give their insight on it. It's the damn 'Montreal Screwjob', it'll be almost impossible for that title to go away anytime soon in my book.
 
48.5- I thought that was a joke when I saw your age as 11? LOL ageism. Very talented writer for 11 if you really are, but I don't agree with most of what you had to say or the immature way you went about saying it.

Besides Tenta and Slyfox reading this thread was big waste of time. I don't have too much of an opinon here, because like Tenta said this debate has been going on for over a decade and it still goes back an forth. I just always thought Vince should have worked things out with Bret face to face, rather then screwing Bret. He had known Bret for twenty years at the time, yet he had to resort to sending him out with a surprise Fuck you. IMO if Vince had worked harder in negotiating and expressed his uncomfort for Bret's ideal Survivor Series match outcome then they may have agreed on another outcome. I know business is business and Vince was out to protect his regardless.
 
Somebody had their facts mixed up..

First, Bret signed a 20-year contract.

Second, Vince went to Bret and ASKED HIM to resume talks with WCW to try to get Bishcoff's original offer back on the table because he couldn't afford to pay him in full and would pick up his salary in the back end of his contract.

Third, Vince laid out plans over the next months(leading into 1998 if he stayed) to Bret where he'd be losing more to HBK and Austin, essentially not being the champ and getting the main event spot and money. Bret still felt he was championship material and the top guy so he obviously disagreed with this thought.

Then you have to go into Vince and Shawn:

Vince felt Bret betrayed him by going behind his back to strike up a deal with WCW in 1996. Michaels was pissed about Bret using his leverage against Vince and by signing the biggest contract in WWF history when HBK was champ. Vince was afraid that Bret would bury the WWF in WCW after the decision was made that he was leaving and quite possibly take the belt with him. Michaels felt Bret wasn't supportive of him as champ and thought he was taking personal jabs at him every chance he got is newspaper articles, dirt sheets, and shoot interviews(mostly due to the fact that HBK did have a hurt knee and Bret thought he faked it. Vince NEVER ASKED SHAWN to put over Bret, only to work a match with him).

After Bret signed the contract with WCW, he wasn't obligated to do anything WWF-related after the Survivor Series. That's why you didn't see him on TV after. If he was technically still under contract Vince could have made Bret show up and sued him for not coming. There was a 30-day grace period before he HAD to start at WCW but the Series was his last contractual PPV.

The talks on Bret dropping the belt after Montreal would have been purely on his word an nothing else. Vince was betrayed by Nash, Hall, Luger, etc. who all gave Vince their word on not leaving and look what happened. The WWF also felt that since Bret was leaving, he should have not gone out not losing the belt and just forfeiting the title on RAW when he was NOT contractually obligated to. It would have been bad for business to have the WWF champ show up on the competition having not lost, who was winning the battle, to play an even bigger role in the destruction of the WWF.

There was a lot of personal animosity between Bret and Shawn and it was mostly fed by the office by lies and he said/she said to get the other one going. Shawn felt he had the right to be upset with Bret and not do certain things with him because in his drugged-out mind he thought he was right that Bret was acting like a spoiled, selfish, kid who wanted everything his way. Bret, likewise in his holier-than-thou-mindest felt the same things about Shawn.

The bottome line is that it was a shame and if Bret stayed him and Shawn could have had some of the most memorable feuds ever, not to mention the newer guys that came in at the time, but it was cut short by things that couldn't be avoided.
 
It's great how I haven't heard anything on this in a long time. Then you come along and say your going to end the debate over this.... In trying to end this great debate all you did was spark a bigger fire under a lot of people. So now you have people going crazy calling each other 17 year old and 11 year old...

On the actual point. Now I most likely don't have all the facts. Because for a long amount of time I just didn't care about it. Though with that said, I'm going to give my opinion on the situation.

In 96 Bret had signed a 20 year deal with Vince. Turning down more money from wcw, and going back to wwf. This is during the time that being the champion meant that you were the highest paid man in the company. Now once Bret became champion in 97 Vince realized that he wasn't going to be able to live up to his end of the deal. Asking Bret to see if he could reopen talks with Bishoff to see if there was a possibility that he could go to wcw. It was at that point that he signed his deal with wcw. He informed Vince 9 days before Survivor Series that he would be leaving to go to wcw. The Survivor Series match had already been made. So for anyone who says Bret could have faced anyone else is wrong. It was going to be Michaels vs Hart in Bret's last PPV in the company.

Going into the match no one had heard from Bret, at least that's what I have heard. Bret hadn't given anyone any ideas of what he was doing. Now on that night Bret got there, and he and Vince had their conversation, in which Bret said that he didn't want to lose the title. He wanted there to be a run in and double dq so that he could come back the next night and surrender the title. Going into the match Vince had agreed that with Bret that there was going to be a run in. He then told Shawn Michaels that Bret wasn't going to give up the belt, so that he was going to take the belt off of him. He also told Shawn to deny everything and say that he didn't know anything. We all know what happened at that point. Shawn put Bret in the sharpshooter and the ref called for the bell.

I know many have there opinion in this so here's mine. I thought that the right thing was done. Bret should have done the right thing, he was leaving and wasn't going back for the foreseeable future. He should have given up the belt. He says that he respects the business then he should have lost. Do I doubt that he would have come back the next night and surrendered the title? No I don't, but I wouldn't have put it past Bishoff at that time not to have let Bret go to raw. As he was then under contract with Bishoff. Bishoff could have told him that you can't go to Raw and your going bring the belt to Nitro. I think this is were a lot of people get caught up in blaming Vince. He wasn't protecting himself from Bret, he was protecting himself from Eric. Vince did what he had to do to protect his business. Bret should have understood that.

Another thing that I don't understand is peoples hatred for Shawn Michaels in this situation. The guy did as he was told. He went out there did the job, and he's the bad guy? He did as he was told, and what he thought was good for business. if anyone in this situation should be labeled the bad guy it should be Vince. He went behind Bret's back to cover himself. Shawn was just the guy who got caught in the middle. I wonder how much heat a guy like Undertaker would have gotten if he would have won the HIAC match and gone on to face Hart at Survivor Series, and did the job HBK did. For some reason I don't think he would have gotten anywhere near the level heat that Shawn got. Now I know that Shawn wasn't the most loved guy in the back, but I digress.

In the end I think that Bret didn't do the right thing. He should have lost the belt to HBK. He should have done business and gone on to wcw. Not create a situation in which he was bound to get hurt in the end.

Note: i'm a fan of Bret hart, as well as Hbk.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top