"Is Bret Hart The Greatest Versatile Wrestler Of All Time"

[reddevil69]

Originally Posted by reddevil69 View Post
and as far as someone claiming that they have been a "wrestler" for 9 years, all i can say is, I've made my living in the music industry for a decade and while I may not be a big fan of Neil Young or Springsteen's current body of work and the direction they have gone in recently, I sure as hell respect them and what they have accomplished and I sure as fuck am not going to tell them how to write fucking music. If someone is truly a wrestler or aspiring to be one, they can only learn by watching footage of Bret Hart.Any person claiming Bret's accomplishments are not relevant to the craft of wrestling is biased or just ignorant.

I'm sorry when did I say Bret's accomplishments were not of merit? Furthermore when did I say he is not someone I have learned from. All i said was 1. he was not a big draw, and that is the name of the game, 2. while on a technical level he is one of the best in ring performers, I do not care for him, I find him to be bland and I do not understand the tribute he is constantly paid as a wrestling god, when there were better performers and draws. That said I have learned much from Bret. 1st don't cross the boss, 2nd it takes more then in-ring ability to draw. You have to be a compelling character people enjoy watching, i.e. Hogan, Austin, Rock. Now I would only list Austin as better performer then Hart, but that is simply my opinion. I will take a HBK, Austin, Flair or Steamboat match over anything Hart did, minus the matches against Mr. Perfect, because to me those were the best Hart ever had.

Bret was as big if not a bigger draw than Shawn was between 1992 and 1997. It is a widely known fact that 1996 was the worst fiscal year for WWF and shawn was Champ for 8 months of that year and Bret was on hiatus for 8 months and before you blow a gasket i'm not saying Bret being gone was the reason business was down, but, if HBK was such a great draw, as you claim that a wrestler has to be because it's all about drawing money, then why did the company tank on shawns watch? And don't start the WCW was becoming hot crap either because the NWO did not explode until July of that year and Shawn was champ for three and a half months prior to that.As Jim Ross has said "if the product is truly great and the fans truly enjoy and care about the performers, they will find a way to watch, regardless of the competition"

If Bret had been able to physically come back in 2002 and be a part of the WWE machine for the past 7 years as Shawn has, are you telling me that Bret would not be a draw? His dvd has outsold Shawns and that is fact..it charted higher and sold more copies, his book has outsold Shawns in the US and UK as well as Canada...it charted higher, stayed on numerous best-seller lists longer and it did not have the billion dollar machine called the WWE behind it's marketing...it was published by an independent publisher. therefore, Bret's products have created more revenue than Shawns. If HBK is so much bigger of a draw than Hart, then where are all his fans when it comes time to buy his book and dvd? I'm not taking anything away from Shawn Michaels as a performer, but to say that it is irrefutable, undeniable fact that Bret was not a draw is inaacurate and wrong. His numbers between 1992 and 1997 were right up there with Taker during that time and much higher than Diesel,Razor and they were higher than HBK for a longer period of time. If Shawn had never returned in 2002,I don't think anyone would be questioning any of this.

In keeping with the actual topic of this thread, Bret was one of the most versatile guys of his time...he was having innovative matches by WWF standards in 1992,93 and 94. He was the main reason guys like Shawn were able to be looked at as potential champions, and guys like Benoit,Guerrero and Jericho were getting looked at by WCW and later WWF in the first place because he was the first guy having main events centered around the WWF title that made it all about the match and the work rate as opposed to a cartoon show starring huge freaks like Warrior and Hogan...did he draw as much as those guys? NO, but their style of wrestling and gimmick died out and Bret was one of the fore-runners of the product that you saw throughout the 90's. Curt Hennig was great and regarded as one of the best ever and he did not draw close to what Bret did ever, before or after his injury.

 

[schaeffershawn]

Bret was as big if not a bigger draw than Shawn was between 1992 and 1997. It is a widely known fact that 1996 was the worst fiscal year for WWF and shawn was Champ for 8 months of that year and Bret was on hiatus for 8 months and before you blow a gasket i'm not saying Bret being gone was the reason business was down, but, if HBK was such a great draw, as you claim that a wrestler has to be because it's all about drawing money, then why did the company tank on shawns watch? And don't start the WCW was becoming hot crap either because the NWO did not explode until July of that year and Shawn was champ for three and a half months prior to that.As Jim Ross has said "if the product is truly great and the fans truly enjoy and care about the performers, they will find a way to watch, regardless of the competition"

If Bret had been able to physically come back in 2002 and be a part of the WWE machine for the past 7 years as Shawn has, are you telling me that Bret would not be a draw? His dvd has outsold Shawns and that is fact..it charted higher and sold more copies, his book has outsold Shawns in the US and UK as well as Canada...it charted higher, stayed on numerous best-seller lists longer and it did not have the billion dollar machine called the WWE behind it's marketing...it was published by an independent publisher. therefore, Bret's products have created more revenue than Shawns. If HBK is so much bigger of a draw than Hart, then where are all his fans when it comes time to buy his book and dvd? I'm not taking anything away from Shawn Michaels as a performer, but to say that it is irrefutable, undeniable fact that Bret was not a draw is inaacurate and wrong. His numbers between 1992 and 1997 were right up there with Taker during that time and much higher than Diesel,Razor and they were higher than HBK for a longer period of time. If Shawn had never returned in 2002,I don't think anyone would be questioning any of this.

In keeping with the actual topic of this thread, Bret was one of the most versatile guys of his time...he was having innovative matches by WWF standards in 1992,93 and 94. He was the main reason guys like Shawn were able to be looked at as potential champions, and guys like Benoit,Guerrero and Jericho were getting looked at by WCW and later WWF in the first place because he was the first guy having main events centered around the WWF title that made it all about the match and the work rate as opposed to a cartoon show starring huge freaks like Warrior and Hogan...did he draw as much as those guys? NO, but their style of wrestling and gimmick died out and Bret was one of the fore-runners of the product that you saw throughout the 90's. Curt Hennig was great and regarded as one of the best ever and he did not draw close to what Bret did ever, before or after his injury.

Actualy I never said HBK was a draw, just that he wa smore entertaining. Again read before you respond. As far as bret drawing, so he has sold more to marks, i dont care. What I care about is when teh ratings were down who did Vince can? When Vince had to choose he let Bret walk. I never said HBK outdrew Bret, I said and I maintain he is a better performer. And yes your absolutely right when HBK was the champion and had no one at all on the show who could draw with him, business was down. Bret had Nash, Hall, HBK, Taker, Austin.
But the argument as to whether Bret was a draw can be best summed up the way the economy runs. The current persident suffers because the former president screwed up the economy, so to when HBK was champion he was trying to make up ground that Bret lost to Hogan and the lol Dungen of Doom. I never said Henning outdrew Bret either although he was a better performer and likely could have outdrew him if Henning was given the title. And actualy you are wrong as far as Brets work rate and the title. henning first got that going when feuding with Hogan. Ric Flair carried it over, when he came in.
And while you can list the great segments and feuds bret had I can still name and have yet to here a true rebutle to the bad ones. Bret was the vet and should have pulled Yankeem/Kane to a good match, and he did not. Bret was an "all-time great" yet could not make up for Piper, even though he knew exactly how limited Piper was.

 

[reddevil69]

Actualy I never said HBK was a draw, just that he wa smore entertaining. Again read before you respond. As far as bret drawing, so he has sold more to marks, i dont care. What I care about is when teh ratings were down who did Vince can? When Vince had to choose he let Bret walk. I never said HBK outdrew Bret, I said and I maintain he is a better performer. And yes your absolutely right when HBK was the champion and had no one at all on the show who could draw with him, business was down. Bret had Nash, Hall, HBK, Taker, Austin.
But the argument as to whether Bret was a draw can be best summed up the way the economy runs. The current persident suffers because the former president screwed up the economy, so to when HBK was champion he was trying to make up ground that Bret lost to Hogan and the lol Dungen of Doom. I never said Henning outdrew Bret either although he was a better performer and likely could have outdrew him if Henning was given the title. And actualy you are wrong as far as Brets work rate and the title. henning first got that going when feuding with Hogan. Ric Flair carried it over, when he came in.
And while you can list the great segments and feuds bret had I can still name and have yet to here a true rebutle to the bad ones. Bret was the vet and should have pulled Yankeem/Kane to a good match, and he did not. Bret was an "all-time great" yet could not make up for Piper, even though he knew exactly how limited Piper was.

You are quoted a couple of posts back on this thread as saying "Bret never drew a dime". Make up your mind. and sorry, Bret was having better matches than Flair in 1991 and 92 with Hennig,Bulldog,Martel, and even HBK in the summer of 1992...hell flair did not even wrestle on the biggest event of the year Summerslam 1992 at Wembley....Bret carried Bulldog that night, not the other way around, and it was the match of the year.that's why vince took the belt of flair and sent him packing, because he did not need him...if Flair was so important to the WWF Vince would not have let him go after one year. And I don't think Bret leaving has anything to do with drawing ability, the whole situation in Montreal runs far deeper than that.

and FYI Austin was nowhwere near a WWF ring during Brets first two title reigns between 1992 and 1994, Diesel only started a singles push in the summer of 1994, and Ramon was not nearly as over in 1992 and 1993 as he was in 1995. Shawn had the birth of 3:16 happen while he was champ,Takers industry buzzing program with Mankind all summer of 1996, Vader had huge heat before Summerslam in august of that year, Ahmed johnson made history as the first African-American IC champ, and Golddust was about as hot a heel as there was in 1996...quit nit-picking.

 

[jericho3150]

and FYI Austin was nowhwere near a WWF ring during Brets first two title reigns between 1992 and 1994, Diesel only started a singles push in the summer of 1994, and Ramon was not nearly as over in 1992 and 1993 as he was in 1995. Shawn had the birth of 3:16 happen while he was champ,Takers industry buzzing program with Mankind all summer of 1996, Vader had huge heat before Summerslam in august of that year, Ahmed johnson made history as the first African-American IC champ, and Golddust was about as hot a heel as there was in 1996...quit nit-picking.

I never quite understand how most Bret fans don't understand how entertainment works. Its simple math.. Doesn't even a part of you understand that when a companies top stars are HBK Bret Diesel Razor and Taker... and then you subtract...

BRET+RAZOR+DIESEL+HBK+TAKER
minus BRET..DIESEL..RAZOR
Leaves HBK and TAKER keeping WWFs head above water with no other established draws.

And if Bret was such a draw.. why did Wrestlemania 13 which featured a very high profile feud with Steve Austin tank and was the by far the worst Wrestlemania buyrate of all time with a .7 ?? The truth was because Bret by himself wasn't a big draw.. WWF in the 90's relied on the entirety of a card to sell shows... Until Austin came into mainevent scene.

 

[Megadeth]

And yes your absolutely right when HBK was the champion and had no one at all on the show who could draw with him, business was down. Bret had Nash, Hall, HBK, Taker, Austin.

So did Taker and Austin stop drawing after Bret left. And it seems like I remeber Nash and Michaels feuding up until Nash and Hall left. And with the exception of Undertaker, those people were not around or main eventing on a regular basis at the begining of Bret's run. Bret went from WMIX where he lost the title to Yokozuna, to having to take a backseat to Lex Luger. Of course things were going so well with that feud that they felt the need to have Bret fight 3-times at the King of the Ring. Bret then went to feuding with Jerry Lawler, to Issac Yankem, to Hakushi, basically all at the same time. They had to have Bret fight both Lawler and Hakushi in 2 different matches at the first IYH. Then when he finally got the title back, who did he have to feud with? Of course none other than the huge draw that is Bob Backland. Yeah Backland really helped draw the ratings. Then he finally got some decent opponents with Owen, HBK, and Diesel. It is really a testament to the Hitman that 93 to 97 or so is considered the Bret Hart era seeing How Yokozuna was champion for around a year, Diesel was champ for a year, HBK was champ for like 8 months, and Sid won it a couple times as well. Bret was rarely in the actual "main event" at PPV's when he wasnt the champ, yet his matches typically were the most hyped and anticipated.

Of course most of this was caused mostly due to the fact that Hogan was suppose to Drop the title to Hart at Summer Slam in 93 as a way to pass the torch, but Hogan instead decided to leave after KOTR which caused plans to be changed. Had Hogan actually put Hart over as a way to say Bret is the man now, think of how much more Hart would have been over. And the whole point of this thread was about the greatest Versatility not the greatest wrestler of all time.

 

[andy zones]

Thats all well and good. But just because Taker said it doesn't make it so. Shawn and Taker have 2 absolute classics with Hell and a Cell and WM25 that will be remembered for ever and ever.

Every once in a while I'll see a quick clip of the SS97 Taker vs Bret match but 99.9% times its with Shawn hitting Taker with a chair and then counting the 123.

Your are acting like you are the bigger judge of wrestling matches than the wrestlers invovled in it. If taker says that bret was the best opponent he ever faced and his matches with bret were his best then i dont think there is any point in arguing it.
So what if bret taker match at ss97 ended with hbk hitting a chair but that doesnt stop it from being one of the great matches. What if anyone starts swatching the hell in the cell match between taker and hbk from kane enterance and him hitting tombstone piledrive on taker. Does that stop it from being a great match.

 

[andy zones]

Just a question when did I say his Luger matches in the 1990's were good. Now the 1980's when flair was in his prime, yes those weer likely the best matches Luger ever had. And yes I do think the matches Hogan and Flair had when Hogan first got to WCW were good, and that's because as I stated Flair dragged hogan to quality matches. And while you may not have enjoyed the Vader/Flair title match it along with the wrestlemania ten ladder match and yes the Bret/Owen match are what inspired me to become a wrestler.

I asked about the best 5 star matches flair had between 1991-2008(Its a period of 17 years im talking about, it is half the time flair s entire carrier). Believe it or not i have not find a single match that flair had in those 17 years as a five star match or a match that could be worthy of keeping in memory.

you say that flair was in his prime before 90s ,if this is the case then please mention any 10 greatest matches that flair ever had.... We will compare them with brets 10 greatest matches to find out who really was the best in putting great matches.

 

[andy zones]

I have got an feeling that whenever and every time bret hart is credited with some praise for his great work(if not the greatest) a single or group of hbk marks try to put their shit fit replies in between to make hbk look better then bret. Off course he was never as good as bret but that s the pain hbk marks have carried throughout their reign as hbk fans. I will be glad to tell everyone the reasons why hbk was never as good as bret. I have tried to put some arguments which are always made by hbk marks to show he was better than bret.

Argument 1 :- HBK was a bigger draw than Bret in 90s.

Ans :- NO, HBK was not a bigger draw than bret in 90s. Bret was always considered
Bigger than HBK in 90s That why he got the first shot at the wwe title. Bret
Become champion in late 92 while HBK become the champ in early 96. It’s a
Difference of almost 3 and half years. Consider this at wm 9 and 10 bret was main
Eventing While shawn was wrestling for IC title. It was no secret that the wwe
Champion in 80s and 90s was the highest paid guy so between 92-96 bret become
Champion on 3 occasions while hbk was 0. Why the hell would a company be
Paying huge money to a guy who was not drawing them anything. wwe was
Paying the biggest amount of money to bret after Hogan left in 1993. There
Is no secret to that. That clearly shows who ruled the early 90s. As far as mid 90s
were concerned bret hart went to retirement in 96, and HBK took the main spot.
And we know what wwe ratings were during hbk s reign. WCW got big
and wwe was beaten all ends up. When Bret came in late 96s and started his feud
with steve Austin all the focus was shifted to bret and Austin feud and hbk took
time off for rehabilation of his fake knee injury. 97 also saw some of the greatest
heel work by bret and a astonishing rivalry between USA and Canada.
Another proof of bret harts bigger legacy was that when bret
Became a 5 time wwe champion hbk at time was a 2 time champ. Im bringing the issue of most
no of titles wins all the time because at that time wwe title had a meaning of pride
and greatness attached to it and the wwe champion was considered the best wrestler at that
Time.
As a proof of bret harts bigger drawing power than hbk (courtesy : Titans)

Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

April 1994 - March 1995
Earnings: $87,352,000
Loss of $4,431,000

April 1995 - March 1996
Earnings: $85,815,000
Profit of $3,319,000

April 1996 - March 1997
Earnings: $81,863,000
Profit of $6,505,000

April 1997 - March 1998
Earnings: $126,231,000
Profit of $8,466,000

1996 was probably WWF's worst year ever....Shawn Michaels happened to be built as the #1 star that year....He was probably the 2nd worst drawing champion in the history of the WWF/E.....Though Sid considered as the worst

Argument 2 :- Is HBK a bigger star than Bret .

Ans 2. Hell no. Bret was simply a bigger star and more popular than hbk ever was. The sale of bret harts book and dvd is a proof of that. Bret s almost retired for 9 years now . When he did interview with a wwe television show it was the most watched program in the history of that show. Bret s DVD clearly outsold HBK DVD . Bret s book is touted as the best book along with that of Mick Foley. It remained no. 1 bestseller for four consecutive week in Canada. It was one of the bestseller in USA. And Now its at No.5 bestseller in UK where bret is yet to start its promotional work. It clearly the name recognistion of bret hart not only in USA but across the globe.

Argument 3 :- Is HBK a better person and professional than Bret.

Ans 3. No, HBK Is known as one of most lousiest person ever. In 90s HBK had an
Habbit of doing the most lousiest things ever done. Some examples

1. After giving hbk the match of his carrier at wm12 bret wanted to shook hands with hbk, but instead hbk said to bret “Get the F*** out of my Ring”. After all a hand shake wouldn’t have harmed much.
2. HBK refused to do a job for bret at wm 13 after bret did the job for him at wm13. Instead a “Lost my Smile” Fake injury speech followed.
3. HBK refused to loose to Austin, until taker threatened him to a worse beating of his life.
4. Recently HBK said that montreal incidence was not right and he feels guilty for that, but hbk has quoted many times over the years if provided the opportunity he will do it all over again. That’s clearly the double standards for you
5. HBK has often referred by his fellow wrestlers as a person who hold talents back.
He even wanted to held the rock back and tried everything that could give hhh and edge over the rock
6. In 2006 when wwe was in Belfast, while making his enterance in the ring he saw fan wearing bret hart glasses , he garbed those glasses forcefully then got into the ring and wore it and yelled “ I Screwed Bret” , when the fan tried to get in the ring
He manhandled him and handled him to security over the ringside.

7. Acc to his tag partner marty and fellow wrestler adam bomb HBK was the most selfish wrestler they ever worked with. He was a cad then and hasnt changed over the years.

This list is endless. Do you need more arguments to prove that hbk was never as good as bret as a person or a wrestler.

 

[andy zones]

For all bret and wrestling fans. This is one of the greatest match of all time.
simply gold.
Link http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TJNKM6WB
Enjoy

 

[jericho3150]

Your are acting like you are the bigger judge of wrestling matches than the wrestlers invovled in it. If taker says that bret was the best opponent he ever faced and his matches with bret were his best then i dont think there is any point in arguing it.

No not at all... but at this time in 2009.. Its almost universal that everyone agrees that HBK's matches with Taker are still remembered and stand the test of time. This argument isn't even really debatable at this point.

So what if bret taker match at ss97 ended with hbk hitting a chair but that doesnt stop it from being one of the great matches. What if anyone starts swatching the hell in the cell match between taker and hbk from kane enterance and him hitting tombstone piledrive on taker. Does that stop it from being a great match.

In SS97 thats the most remembered thing about the matc.. the match was good.. not great.. in no way a classic.. Hell in a Cells howevers most memorable moments didn't involve Kane.. They were the match itself. And its considered a classic and a 5 star match.

 

[jericho3150]

Bret was always considered
Bigger than HBK in 90s That why he got the first shot at the wwe title. Bret. Become champion in late 92 while HBK become the champ in early 96. It’s a Difference of almost 3 and half years. Consider this at wm 9 and 10 bret was main. Eventing While shawn was wrestling for IC title.

First off are you really using Brets age as a plus for him?? Bret was 36 and an established singles star... Shawn was coming fresh out of the Rockers at this time. And if this is going to be your argument...Shawn won the title when he was 31... it took Bret 36 years... and bringing up WM 9&10?? You are aware that Bret and Yoko is one of the worst WM main events ever right?? and then the next year Bret and Owen put on a classic match... and Shawn (the lowly IC champ) stole the show from him.

As far as mid 90s were concerned bret hart went to retirement in 96, and HBK took the main spot. And we know what wwe ratings were during hbk s reign. WCW got big

and wwe was beaten all ends up. When Bret came in late 96s and started his feud with steve Austin all the focus was shifted to bret and Austin feud and hbk took time off for rehabilation of his fake knee injury.

Yep I remember... and as Ive said before that great feud of Brets... and all his drawing power amounted to a .7 for WM13 which is out of 25 Wrestlemanias... is still to this day the WORST Wrestlemania buyrate of all time...

Another proof of bret harts bigger legacy was that when bre Became a 5 time wwe champion hbk at time was a 2 time champ. Im bringing the issue of most no of titles wins all the time because at that time wwe title had a meaning of pride and greatness attached to it and the wwe champion was considered the best wrestler at that

Just a silly arguement...

Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

April 1994 - March 1995
Earnings: $87,352,000
Loss of $4,431,000

April 1995 - March 1996
Earnings: $85,815,000
Profit of $3,319,000

April 1996 - March 1997
Earnings: $81,863,000
Profit of $6,505,000

April 1997 - March 1998
Earnings: $126,231,000
Profit of $8,466,000

Haha your looking at the wrong number boss... They may have grossed less over all but in the end they made more profit in 95 and 96 which was Shawns time on top.

Is HBK a better person and professional than Bret.

Ans 3. No, HBK Is known as one of most lousiest person ever. In 90s HBK had an
Habbit of doing the most lousiest things ever done. Some examples

1. After giving hbk the match of his carrier at wm12 bret wanted to shook hands with hbk, but instead hbk said to bret “Get the F*** out of my Ring”. After all a hand shake wouldn’t have harmed much.
2. HBK refused to do a job for bret at wm 13 after bret did the job for him at wm13. Instead a “Lost my Smile” Fake injury speech followed.
3. HBK refused to loose to Austin, until taker threatened him to a worse beating of his life.
4. Recently HBK said that montreal incidence was not right and he feels guilty for that, but hbk has quoted many times over the years if provided the opportunity he will do it all over again. That’s clearly the double standards for you
5. HBK has often referred by his fellow wrestlers as a person who hold talents back.
He even wanted to held the rock back and tried everything that could give hhh and edge over the rock
6. In 2006 when wwe was in Belfast, while making his enterance in the ring he saw fan wearing bret hart glasses , he garbed those glasses forcefully then got into the ring and wore it and yelled “ I Screwed Bret” , when the fan tried to get in the ring
He manhandled him and handled him to security over the ringside.

7. Acc to his tag partner marty and fellow wrestler adam bomb HBK was the most selfish wrestler they ever worked with. He was a cad then and hasnt changed over the years.

This list is endless. Do you need more arguments to prove that hbk was never as good as bret as a person or a wrestler.

Im sorry I can't argue with this... not because your right... but because you seem to believe every single rumor you heard as fact... EXCEPT if it is something negative about Bret.. you seem to have quite an information filter.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Haha your looking at the wrong number boss... They may have grossed less over all but in the end they made more profit in 95 and 96 which was Shawns time on top.

It is pretty widely known that Shawn was the lowest rated champ in WWE history. Why do you think Vince pleaded with Bret to stay in 96 even offering him a 20 year contract and making him the highest paid wrestler on the roster and probably the highest paid wrestler period outside of Hogan? He knew(or atleast thought at the time) he needed Bret big time because Shawn wasn't getting the job done. He ended up backing out of that deal a year later because WWE was losing money but if Bret wasn't making him money to begin with or drawing why would he sign him to a 20 year contract? And why on Earth would Vince continuously comeback to Bret with the strap? He tried pushing Luger in 93 and he couldn't do anything so what did Vince do? He put the strap back on Bret. He gave Diesel a run with it in 95 and the WWE was at a low point so who was the guy he put it back on? Old reliable Bret Hart, in 97 he put it on Undertaker and the WWE wasn't doing anything so he again went back and put it on Bret Hart. Over that whole 5 year stretch he tried numerous guys and none of them could get the job done so Bret was the one guy that he had confidence in to repeatedly make WWE champ and the face of the company. No Bret didn't spark a boom period which is what Vince had hoped for by trying different guys but he was clearly the best and safest option he had at that time which is why he held the belt the most. So no Bret wasn't on par with the great drawers like Hogan or Austin but if you're going to use that argument against him you shouldn't bring up HBK because he definitely wasn't either.

As for the topic in the ring yes Bret was definitely one of the most versatile wrestlers ever, I don't know if he was the most but he was definitely near the top. If you need any proof just watch KOTR 93, he had 3 different matches with different types of wrestlers and all of them were pretty solid considering he didn't get a ton of time to work with on them because of all the matches on the card. If he wasn't versatile he wouldn't have been able to pull that off. And for those that say he only had good matches with good workers and anybody could do that, yeah it's true he had great matches with those guys but you could make a strong argument that Austin, Owen, Bulldog, Hennig and Piper's best matches of their life were against Bret so what does that tell you? Those guys wrestled 1000s of matches and if all of their best ones came with Bret Hart that tells you that he must have been pretty damn good.

 

[schaeffershawn]

ill adress this one at a time yes I think the Flair steamboat matches, the Flair dusty matches, the Flair sting matches, The Flair Funk matches, were better and stand up better then Bret vs yoko, Bret vs Lawler, Bret vs Yankeem or the Bret Sid matches. Sorry maybe its becausde Flairs ,atches which I listed have gone down as histrory as some of the best ever.

Who did Bret have during his first reign, well there was Flair, There was Macho, There was this guy who had returned wearing RED and YELLOW. His second regin HBK,RAMON,HALL,LUGER and one of the best developed midcards in company history. Third reign all those same people. His fourth was a joke. His fifth he had HBK, Austin, and was using the cheep heat antiamerica gimick.

On the other Hand during Shawns first two reigns he had Taker and mankind locked in with each other, which took away his best possible opponets. So he was left with non-mian event talent like Bulldog, Vader and others. A nd Yes HBK did have Nash for one month. Wow that must have been enough to make up for the near twelve he did not. In addition instead of being the natuaral heel he was, he was forced to be face. Inst that what fans bitch about all the time how Hart was forced to be the anti=american heel.

As far as brets mertis I never said in teh ring the guy was not good again for the millionth time I am saying HBK was more entertaining and at the end of teh day when Vince had to choose he chose HBK, not Bret.

As for being a good person. Bret has admitted to cheating on his wife and lying to his family, yet he would never lie to teh fans. How does that make sense at all. That is why I accuse teh Bret appoligist of blkind hero worship. Im the first to admit HBK was a prick, and you know what his being a prick made me want to wtach him because he showed more personality. You ever wonder why both companies Bret worked for ended up on the losing side of the ratings war. Maybe it was him he seems to be the only common denominator in this math equation.

finaly as far as Bret hold the title more, wow you mean he held a fake title which ment nothing and was bestowed upon him in a fake scripted fight more times. Im just flabbergasted at that. Although if you need to compare I think their accomplishments are about equal. You have Brets 7 reigns n in both companies, but the two in WCW and teh really Two in WWE were as transitional champion so that takes him down to three. Shawn had four with two being transitional. so two to three. Bret was a two time Ic champion. HBK three. Shawn won the European title becomming the first grandslam champion, Bret never won that title and was never a grandslam champion. Bret won one royal rumble and two king of the rings thoguh no one but marks knew about the first, Shawn won two royal rumbles. Brets US title reigns will ignore because they were an embarresment. Bret won two tag titles, Shawn won 6 and anothe unoffical. Bret main evented 3 wresltemanias altough Nine was really main evented by Hogans return. HBK has main evented 12, 14, 20, 23 and dpending on who you ask 11. In addition HBK has stolen the show at 10, 19, 21, 24, 25. Over all that strikes me is fairly equal. Call me crazy. Also as one pointed out it took bret til he was 36 to break into teh main event, Hbk did it 5 years earlier.

 

[schaeffershawn]

It is pretty widely known that Shawn was the lowest rated champ in WWE history. Why do you think Vince pleaded with Bret to stay in 96 even offering him a 20 year contract and making him the highest paid wrestler on the roster and probably the highest paid wrestler period outside of Hogan? He knew(or atleast thought at the time) he needed Bret big time because Shawn wasn't getting the job done. He ended up backing out of that deal a year later because WWE was losing money but if Bret wasn't making him money to begin with or drawing why would he sign him to a 20 year contract? And why on Earth would Vince continuously comeback to Bret with the strap? He tried pushing Luger in 93 and he couldn't do anything so what did Vince do? He put the strap back on Bret. He gave Diesel a run with it in 95 and the WWE was at a low point so who was the guy he put it back on? Old reliable Bret Hart, in 97 he put it on Undertaker and the WWE wasn't doing anything so he again went back and put it on Bret Hart. Over that whole 5 year stretch he tried numerous guys and none of them could get the job done so Bret was the one guy that he had confidence in to repeatedly make WWE champ and the face of the company. No Bret didn't spark a boom period which is what Vince had hoped for by trying different guys but he was clearly the best and safest option he had at that time which is why he held the belt the most. So no Bret wasn't on par with the great drawers like Hogan or Austin but if you're going to use that argument against him you shouldn't bring up HBK because he definitely wasn't either.

As for the topic in the ring yes Bret was definitely one of the most versatile wrestlers ever, I don't know if he was the most but he was definitely near the top. If you need any proof just watch KOTR 93, he had 3 different matches with different types of wrestlers and all of them were pretty solid considering he didn't get a ton of time to work with on them because of all the matches on the card. If he wasn't versatile he wouldn't have been able to pull that off. And for those that say he only had good matches with good workers and anybody could do that, yeah it's true he had great matches with those guys but you could make a strong argument that Austin, Owen, Bulldog, Hennig and Piper's best matches of their life were against Bret so what does that tell you? Those guys wrestled 1000s of matches and if all of their best ones came with Bret Hart that tells you that he must have been pretty damn good.

No one ever said shawn was a better draw, just taht he was abetter performer. Again maybe teh reason the boom periods did not happen when vince tried pushing the other gusy was because old reliable bored teh fans so mightly that it made it hard to change from WCW. I have a degree in political science so ill exlpain this in tems of the economy, and maybe you will understand. The problems Bush faced at teh end wih the economy, were cause by Clinton. Clinton deregulated the banks, which caused the loaning crisis two years ago, which caused the banking crisis now. In addition Clinton brough in NAFTA which sent millions of jobs to other countries. Bush for his part tried but at teh end of teh day teh damage was done, and now Obama has to overhaul the system completely. Now as this relates to Brets drawing and HBK. Bret would be Clinton in this situation, and being they both liek to lie to their families and cheat on their wives this is an awsome analogy. HBK would be Bush, just doing everything he could to try and turn the situation around, which Vince, HBK, HHH, Briscoe, Patterson and others have all said lead to HBK not enjoying his first two reigns because he was putting too much preasure on himself. Austin and DX would be the Obama administration, having to overhaul the whole situation.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

No one ever said shawn was a better draw, just taht he was abetter performer. Again maybe teh reason the boom periods did not happen when vince tried pushing the other gusy was because old reliable bored teh fans so mightly that it made it hard to change from WCW. I have a degree in political science so ill exlpain this in tems of the economy, and maybe you will understand. The problems Bush faced at teh end wih the economy, were cause by Clinton. Clinton deregulated the banks, which caused the loaning crisis two years ago, which caused the banking crisis now. In addition Clinton brough in NAFTA which sent millions of jobs to other countries. Bush for his part tried but at teh end of teh day teh damage was done, and now Obama has to overhaul the system completely. Now as this relates to Brets drawing and HBK. Bret would be Clinton in this situation, and being they both liek to lie to their families and cheat on their wives this is an awsome analogy. HBK would be Bush, just doing everything he could to try and turn the situation around, which Vince, HBK, HHH, Briscoe, Patterson and others have all said lead to HBK not enjoying his first two reigns because he was putting too much preasure on himself. Austin and DX would be the Obama administration, having to overhaul the whole situation.

Your seriously bringing up politics to try to defend Shawn? That's bullshit. Bret was in a worse position than any wrestler when he took over. For starters he had to follow behind the most famous wrestler of all time and biggest draw of all time after he left them. The biggest draw leaves the company to go to another one and it was Bret's job to try to keep people from following him, that's a tough task considering 90% of the viewers at that time started watching wrestling because of Hogan. It would be like if Austin and The Rock bolted to TNA in 03 and the next wrestler that followed him had to keep all the Attitude era viewers from switching over, that's not an easy thing to do.

Secondly Bret had to take the reign during the steroid scandal when WWE was getting killed by the media, so many people turned off wrestling because of that.

And finally Bret had NOBODY when he took over especially in 94. You bring up Macho and those guys but Macho was a commentator most of the time and Hogan only wrestled 2 matches I believe the entire time Bret was champ and Flair wasn't even around. Here's the WWE's roster in the middle of 94, tell me who was worth anything at THAT time in turns of name value. The only person that was even close to established as a star was Undertaker and he was out of action then. The rest of the guys were nothing but mid carders at that time. Keep in mind Savage wasn't actually wrestling at that time. I got this from a website which is why it list their real names.

The WWF roster for June 1994 was as follows: "MVP" Steve Lombardi, Brett
"Hitman" Hart, Randy "Macho Man" Savage, Jim Powers, Virgil, Shawn
Michaels, Luke Williams, Butch Miller,The Undertaker, "The Mountie" Jauques
Rougeau, Mike "I.R.S." Rotundo, "Tatanka" Chris Chavis, "The King of Harts"
Owen Hart, Barry Horowitz, Crush, Fatu, Samu, Scott "Razor Ramon" Hall, Bob
Backlund, Yokozuna, Bam-Bam Bigelow, Jerry "The King" Lawler, "Made in the
USA" Lex Luger, Moe, Mable, Billy Gunn, Bart Gunn, The 1-2-3 Kid, Adam
Bomb, Diesel, Timothy Well, Steven Dunn, Pierre Oullete, "The Doctor of
Desire" Tom Pritchard, "The Gigolo" Jimmy Del Ray, Phil "Doink the Clown"
Apollo, Alundra Blayze, "Double J." Jeff Jarrett, The Mighty Kwang, Bob
"Spark Plugg" Holly, Nikolia Volkoff, Duke "The Dumpster" Droese, Jim "The
Andvil" Neidhart

 

[schaeffershawn]

Your seriously bringing up politics to try to defend Shawn? That's bullshit. Bret was in a worse position than any wrestler when he took over. For starters he had to follow behind the most famous wrestler of all time and biggest draw of all time after he left them. The biggest draw leaves the company to go to another one and it was Bret's job to try to keep people from following him, that's a tough task considering 90% of the viewers at that time started watching wrestling because of Hogan. It would be like if Austin and The Rock bolted to TNA in 03 and the next wrestler that followed him had to keep all the Attitude era viewers from switching over, that's not an easy thing to do.

Secondly Bret had to take the reign during the steroid scandal when WWE was getting killed by the media, so many people turned off wrestling because of that.

And finally Bret had NOBODY when he took over especially in 94. You bring up Macho and those guys but Macho was a commentator most of the time and Hogan only wrestled 2 matches I believe the entire time Bret was champ and Flair wasn't even around. Here's the WWE's roster in the middle of 94, tell me who was worth anything at THAT time in turns of name value. The only person that was even close to established as a star was Undertaker and he was out of action then. The rest of the guys were nothing but mid carders at that time. Keep in mind Savage wasn't actually wrestling at that time. I got this from a website which is why it list their real names.

The WWF roster for June 1994 was as follows: "MVP" Steve Lombardi, Brett
"Hitman" Hart, Randy "Macho Man" Savage, Jim Powers, Virgil, Shawn
Michaels, Luke Williams, Butch Miller,The Undertaker, "The Mountie" Jauques
Rougeau, Mike "I.R.S." Rotundo, "Tatanka" Chris Chavis, "The King of Harts"
Owen Hart, Barry Horowitz, Crush, Fatu, Samu, Scott "Razor Ramon" Hall, Bob
Backlund, Yokozuna, Bam-Bam Bigelow, Jerry "The King" Lawler, "Made in the
USA" Lex Luger, Moe, Mable, Billy Gunn, Bart Gunn, The 1-2-3 Kid, Adam
Bomb, Diesel, Timothy Well, Steven Dunn, Pierre Oullete, "The Doctor of
Desire" Tom Pritchard, "The Gigolo" Jimmy Del Ray, Phil "Doink the Clown"
Apollo, Alundra Blayze, "Double J." Jeff Jarrett, The Mighty Kwang, Bob
"Spark Plugg" Holly, Nikolia Volkoff, Duke "The Dumpster" Droese, Jim "The
Andvil" Neidhart

Yes I'm bringing up the economy because its relevant and a similar situation. By giving the title back to hart time and again it would be like Americans electing McCain or Clinton, both had and supported failed policies from the past. Ie Bret as champion is the failed policies. Luckily the American people were smarter then Vince McMahon who has always done this when a plan has failed he goes back to old reliable even if it hurts more in the long run, which going back to Hogan, Hart and HHH has.
And wow you just named likely the best put together and complete mid card ever in the company. Meaning any of those guys in the upper mid card were capable enough of rising into the main event. Ie. Luger who had main evented and was a former and future WCW champion, Savage a former and future world champion, Nash well we know what hes done and the money he has made, Hall who was arguably one of the best IC champions of the 90's, Jarret Who went on to be a multiple time world champion, Jerry Lawler one of the most effective heels in wrestling history, also a former world champion, Yoko a two time champion and the guy who ended Hogans first run in WWE and for the record someone the fans hated because he was anti America, then there was the awesome tag division at the time. As far as Hogans two matches yeah but who was wrestlemania suppose to be about and who did it end up being about. NO one remembers how Bret lost they remember Hogan coming out and beating Yoko. Then that Summer they did not spend the time building Bret as the guy to carry over they spent it building up Hogan, Yoko 2

 

[reddevil69]

ill adress this one at a time yes I think the Flair steamboat matches, the Flair dusty matches, the Flair sting matches, The Flair Funk matches, were better and stand up better then Bret vs yoko, Bret vs Lawler, Bret vs Yankeem or the Bret Sid matches. Sorry maybe its becausde Flairs ,atches which I listed have gone down as histrory as some of the best ever.

Who did Bret have during his first reign, well there was Flair, There was Macho, There was this guy who had returned wearing RED and YELLOW. His second regin HBK,RAMON,HALL,LUGER and one of the best developed midcards in company history. Third reign all those same people. His fourth was a joke. His fifth he had HBK, Austin, and was using the cheep heat antiamerica gimick.

On the other Hand during Shawns first two reigns he had Taker and mankind locked in with each other, which took away his best possible opponets. So he was left with non-mian event talent like Bulldog, Vader and others. A nd Yes HBK did have Nash for one month. Wow that must have been enough to make up for the near twelve he did not. In addition instead of being the natuaral heel he was, he was forced to be face. Inst that what fans bitch about all the time how Hart was forced to be the anti=american heel.

As far as brets mertis I never said in teh ring the guy was not good again for the millionth time I am saying HBK was more entertaining and at the end of teh day when Vince had to choose he chose HBK, not Bret.

As for being a good person. Bret has admitted to cheating on his wife and lying to his family, yet he would never lie to teh fans. How does that make sense at all. That is why I accuse teh Bret appoligist of blkind hero worship. Im the first to admit HBK was a prick, and you know what his being a prick made me want to wtach him because he showed more personality. You ever wonder why both companies Bret worked for ended up on the losing side of the ratings war. Maybe it was him he seems to be the only common denominator in this math equation.

finaly as far as Bret hold the title more, wow you mean he held a fake title which ment nothing and was bestowed upon him in a fake scripted fight more times. Im just flabbergasted at that. Although if you need to compare I think their accomplishments are about equal. You have Brets 7 reigns n in both companies, but the two in WCW and teh really Two in WWE were as transitional champion so that takes him down to three. Shawn had four with two being transitional. so two to three. Bret was a two time Ic champion. HBK three. Shawn won the European title becomming the first grandslam champion, Bret never won that title and was never a grandslam champion. Bret won one royal rumble and two king of the rings thoguh no one but marks knew about the first, Shawn won two royal rumbles. Brets US title reigns will ignore because they were an embarresment. Bret won two tag titles, Shawn won 6 and anothe unoffical. Bret main evented 3 wresltemanias altough Nine was really main evented by Hogans return. HBK has main evented 12, 14, 20, 23 and dpending on who you ask 11. In addition HBK has stolen the show at 10, 19, 21, 24, 25. Over all that strikes me is fairly equal. Call me crazy. Also as one pointed out it took bret til he was 36 to break into teh main event, Hbk did it 5 years earlier.

You claim that Bret won a fake title that means nothing because it was bestowed upon him, and two pages back you say it's all about drawing money and he didn't draw a dime? Which is it? The guy who held the belt or as you say had it bestowed on him was given the belt as recognition by the office that he was the top guy in the company and had earned the right to be the highest paid wrestler in the promotion and receive the lions share of all house show and PPV revenue.

Bret had four of his five title reigns before guaranteed contracts came in so that tells me that Vince kept going back to Bret because he felt Bret was deserving of the title and being paid the top wage and being the guy everything centered around...and FYI shawn was never offered the kind of money Bret was to jump ship, he has said that numerous times...he was approached but never to that level which tells me Bret was perceived as the bigger name and draw in 1996-97. It does not matter what he accomplished in WCW, the fact is he obviously had done enough in WWF to be given the kind of contract he received from WCW. Flair never made that kind of money and he was the cornerstone of NWA/WCW for over a decade.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Yes I'm bringing up the economy because its relevant and a similar situation. By giving the title back to hart time and again it would be like Americans electing McCain or Clinton, both had and supported failed policies from the past. Ie Bret as champion is the failed policies. Luckily the American people were smarter then Vince McMahon who has always done this when a plan has failed he goes back to old reliable even if it hurts more in the long run, which going back to Hogan, Hart and HHH has.
And wow you just named likely the best put together and complete mid card ever in the company. Meaning any of those guys in the upper mid card were capable enough of rising into the main event. Ie. Luger who had main evented and was a former and future WCW champion, Savage a former and future world champion, Nash well we know what hes done and the money he has made, Hall who was arguably one of the best IC champions of the 90's, Jarret Who went on to be a multiple time world champion, Jerry Lawler one of the most effective heels in wrestling history, also a former world champion, Yoko a two time champion and the guy who ended Hogans first run in WWE and for the record someone the fans hated because he was anti America, then there was the awesome tag division at the time.

Let's see Macho wasn't even on TV then(except for commentating KOTR and being MC at Summerslam) but he was still under contract which is why he was still listed, Lawler was a part time wrestler then, Nash really wasn't established yet, Yoko was buried by that time teaming with Crush and really did nothing after that, same with Luger who by that point was feuding with Tatanka and was on his way to teaming up with Bulldog in a failed tag team and Jarrett was a nobody at that point. Yeah Hall and HBK were great mid card wrestlers and the mid card division was solid but that's not what draws, the main event does and Bret had very little to work with.

He was feuding with his brother who did nothing before Bret and nothing after Bret, he was only relevant because of him and his other major feud was with a guy that wasn't relevant in over a decade in Bob Backlund. Yeah that's a ton to work with. Meanwhile the WCW had Hogan, Flair, Sting, Vader, Foley and eventually Savage showed up so I would say name wise that was much more than Bret had to work with. Despite that he was still drawing better or atleast comparable numbers to WCW which shows just how unpopular wrestling was as a whole at that point, so it wasn't just Bret it was just wrestling as a whole, there just wasn't a wrestling audience then. But when Shawn failed people watched WCW so that shows that there was a wrestling audience but they just chose not to watch him. By the way I'm not saying Shawn was in an ideal situation either because he wasn't but the fact is he still failed and never proved to be a draw so it doesn't make sense to tear Bret down because he didn't draw yet say Shawn was so great when he was worse in that aspect than Bret.

As far as Hogans two matches yeah but who was wrestlemania suppose to be about and who did it end up being about. NO one remembers how Bret lost they remember Hogan coming out and beating Yoko. Then that Summer they did not spend the time building Bret as the guy to carry over they spent it building up Hogan, Yoko 2

Of course it was freakin Hulk Hogan, I'm not arguing that Bret was in his league because obviously he wasn't but nobody was save for Austin.

Also you talk about how Bret only had great matches with great wrestlers what lousy wrestlers did Shawn carry to great matches? Every one of Shawn's so called classics came against either a great worker or was benefited by being a gimmick match. His ladder match was a classic but it was the first ladder match so that aided it greatly, same thing with his HIAC match with Taker. His other great matches consisted of Jericho, Benoit, HHH, Taker and Angle all of whom are solid to great workers. I would say Bret carrying a stoned out of his mind Bulldog at SS92 was a better carry job than anything Shawn ever did.

 

[schaeffershawn]

OK first as far as Shawna greats, there was the tag title matches with doug sommers and buddy rose, the IC Title against bulldog, and jarret, the matches with vader, sid, Mankind, Nash, as far as great carry jobs, one word Hogan.

As far as drawing again. Look at it from a businness perspective. Brets first regin is a failure so who does Vince bring back, thats right Hulk. His 2nd reign less then a few montsh and then Nash is given the title. The damage is done by this point and viewers are pouring into WCW. Then they give Bret the belt again only for him to loose it to Shawn, they then procede to push Bret aside for eigth months. He comes back gets two more reigns one lasta freaking day. the other is fielkd with cheap heat, and ends with Vince canning him.

For the guys they had, ok so why is it that Bret gets credit for a weak card, but shawn who had a depleated mid card, and his only two credible main event opponents locked in a feud over Paul Bearer.

Bottom line much like going back to hogan when warrior and savage failed, going back to Bret was not good for business it was merely a fill in until Vince could come up with his next plan. As far as titles yes it is stupid to argue who one the most titles, when they are simply props. Period. This is not like the UFC title we are talking abotu this is a title which history begins in a tournament that never happened. Furthermore Vince only ever gave Steamboat the IC title does that take away from the fact that he is arguabley the best in ring performer ever.

As far as being the highest paid afer 12 who was the highest paid wrestlers in the company HBK and Taker, it was not until bret played wcw and wwe against each other to get an incredibley unresasonable ammount of money did he become the nighest paid. By teh way read Bischoffs book he states clearly he wishes he never waisted that much money on Hart.

 

[reddevil69]

OK first as far as Shawna greats, there was the tag title matches with doug sommers and buddy rose, the IC Title against bulldog, and jarret, the matches with vader, sid, Mankind, Nash, as far as great carry jobs, one word Hogan.

As far as drawing again. Look at it from a businness perspective. Brets first regin is a failure so who does Vince bring back, thats right Hulk. His 2nd reign less then a few montsh and then Nash is given the title. The damage is done by this point and viewers are pouring into WCW. Then they give Bret the belt again only for him to loose it to Shawn, they then procede to push Bret aside for eigth months. He comes back gets two more reigns one lasta freaking day. the other is fielkd with cheap heat, and ends with Vince canning him.

For the guys they had, ok so why is it that Bret gets credit for a weak card, but shawn who had a depleated mid card, and his only two credible main event opponents locked in a feud over Paul Bearer.

Bottom line much like going back to hogan when warrior and savage failed, going back to Bret was not good for business it was merely a fill in until Vince could come up with his next plan. As far as titles yes it is stupid to argue who one the most titles, when they are simply props. Period. This is not like the UFC title we are talking abotu this is a title which history begins in a tournament that never happened. Furthermore Vince only ever gave Steamboat the IC title does that take away from the fact that he is arguabley the best in ring performer ever.

As far as being the highest paid afer 12 who was the highest paid wrestlers in the company HBK and Taker, it was not until bret played wcw and wwe against each other to get an incredibley unresasonable ammount of money did he become the nighest paid. By teh way read Bischoffs book he states clearly he wishes he never waisted that much money on Hart.

Bret's second title reign was 8 months long and then Nash got the belt...where do you come up with a 'few months'? and hogan got the title in 93 because he politicked for it and still was in a position with his relationship with McMahon to get it, not because Bret failed....Hogan was supposed to drop it back to Bret at summerslam that year and even HBK says in his own book that he felt bad for Bret and that the whole locker room was pissed at hogan for getting the belt and then refusing to put Bret over....

Hogan failed miserably and fans were turning away in droves because they were sick and tired of him...i watched Mania 93 in a bar in South Carolina and when Bret lost people were shocked and when hogan came in and won the belt in two minutes from yoko the whole bar was booing and cursing at the screens. that's why hogan was gone two months later. the entire wrestling audience was alot smaller in 1993 and it was because of steroids, sex allegations and people just plain tired of the product, kids that were 10 years old when hogan ruled were now 18 and getting laid and drinking beer, not saying prayers and taking their vitamins.

the business was in a down cycle, but the fans that were watching were behind Bret and he was a draw for that audience and he put the focus back on mat skills and having a competitive match, not posing and yelling. Flair was back as top man in WCW for all of 1993 until June of 1994, why is it Bret drew more than Flair during that period? WWF was still pasting WCW at that point...Bret was still the best draw on the roster along with taker at main event level...Yoko was champ from june of 1993 until March of 1994 and everything still centered around Bret...Vince built up yoko and made him unstoppable, he beat Luger who was getting a mega-push, he beat Undertaker and he beat everyone else in his path until one guy finally beat him and won back the belt from the Japanese monster for America and that was Bret Hart...he then carried the company for 8 months as champ, while Taker was gone for 6 of those months.

and you don't have your facts yet again...if you bother to read Shawns book you will clearly see that Bret was paid more than him in 1996 and shawn was not happy about it...Bret had a bigger salary than shawn because he was a bigger star, do you think vince just flipped a coin? Bret was Vinces biggest international star at that point and voted athlete of the year three times in a row in Germany....the WWF makes money outside the USA in case you didn't know and Vince is not stupid, he's not going to just give a guy a big contract or pay him a large sum of money if the person is not going to create revenue for him...vince is in the business to make money, not lose it.so no Shawn was not paid more....Taker and Bret were the highest paid members of the WWF locker room from 1993 until 1997. I also have an interview on DVD with Nash where he says in 1995 when he was champ and was supposed to be the highest paid guy, he found out Bret and Taker were making more than him....in the very same interview he says that of his top three career matches, two were with Bret.

and i have bischoffs book and he does not say that he wishes he did not waste money on Bret at all...he states that by the time Bret got to WCW he was so screwed up mentally from being betrayed by Vince after 14 years of loyalty that he had lost his drive and passion for the business and was a mere shell of himself by the time he got to WCW and that the Bret he inked the deal with months earlier was not the same Bret he got in WCW, and he completely understood the reasons, and that Owen getting killed also did not help the situation....Bischoff was just up here in my home city last Friday just before Wrestlemania and did an interview and when asked about Bret he had nothing but positive things to say about him.

once again I ask you: if Bret is not a draw then why is his current biography outselling both Shawns and flairs, without the benefit of the WWE's marketing behind it? why did it chart higher? and why did Bret's dvd out sell Shawns and why did it chart higher?

last time i checked Shawn was still being featured on tv every week and flair was on TV until last year, long after his book came out in 1994...Bret has not been on WWF television since 1997 and WCW since 2000...he had a 30 second spot in 2007 for McMahon appreciation night and did the Hall Of Fame in 2006, that's it....not near the exposure that HBK and flair have had to the wrestling audience and his products still sold more.

 

[schaeffershawn]

again i do not carea bout books or dvds I carea bout the question at hand was bret hart the most versitile wrestler ever. i never once said HBK out drew him, I nveer said Flair did, although if you take inflation into account the argument could be made flair did. I have shown clearly how Brets pour drawing ability hindered the WWE. And yes your right Brets 2nd reign was for eight montsh my bad. And yet I od not remeber anything form this period. i remember HBK and Dissel winning tag titles. I remeber Take and Yoko having a good fues. I even remember the million dollar coorperation, but not one thing bret did stands out in my mind, except of course losing to double b. And you can blame hogan and others all you wnat but the facts are at Mnia 9 when vince had to build the show more attetion was paid to the megamaniacs and money inc. then Bret. Bret went out and had one of the most horrible matches I have ever seen. Hogan came in and saved the PPV and at the end of teh day Vince is the boss he truely believed in bret why did he not make Hogan fight Bret, The reason was because he knew deep down bret was not the guy he needed. He went back to Bret in times of panick. I have read Shawns biography and if you bothered to really read it you would see where he talks about Vince promising Shawn he would be the highest paid, along with Taker, and when he found out about Brets new deal, he almost quit. But again it must be nice to have this blind hero worship for bret the next thing you'll say is it really was not Bret's fault he cheated on his wife more times then bill clinton, John Kennedy and every elected offical ever. come on man we can argue this for years. Both were great I gave my reasons why Bret was not the most versitile ever and i have yet to here one refute that has anything even remotley to do with what I said.

 

[schaeffershawn]

and because you have to bring up bboks and DVDs, alright leyts look at the. maybe just maybe it is possibel teh fans are tired of hearing HBK, McMahons and the WWE side of the scre wjob and of Brets career. maybe just maybe they think they can get a clearer picture by at least looking at Brets side, because after all Shawn's side is always being pushed on television, the website and his books/dvd, HHH's dvd and Flairs stuff, and for teh matter teh mcmahon DVD. Simply put it is much easier to get HBk's side vs. Bret, which would economicly speaking increase demmand for Brets merchandise. But hey thats business for you supply and demmand, and when you are over supplied from one perspective you likely will have more demmand for the other.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

again i do not carea bout books or dvds I carea bout the question at hand was bret hart the most versitile wrestler ever. i never once said HBK out drew him

You may not have said HBK out drew him but you have praised HBK but knocked Bret Hart and one of your reasons was because Bret didn't draw, so how could you praise HBK but bash Bret when HBK was worse than him in that aspect.

And yet I od not remeber anything form this period. i remember HBK and Dissel winning tag titles. I remeber Take and Yoko having a good fues. I even remember the million dollar coorperation, but not one thing bret did stands out in my mind, except of course losing to double b.

I guess you didn't see his match with Owen at SS94, a match that was rated a rare 5 star match from Wrestling Observer(1 of only four WWE matches ever to get one) and was arguably the greatest cage match of all time.

Bret went out and had one of the most horrible matches I have ever seen.

What? His match with Yoko was by no means a 5 star classic but you couldn't ask for a better match when you're wrestling a guy Yoko's size. I don't take everything Meltzer says for gospel and don't think he is the be all end all of rating systems but that was the highest rated Yokozuna match of his career according to him so it must not have been that bad.

But again it must be nice to have this blind hero worship for bret the next thing you'll say is it really was not Bret's fault he cheated on his wife more times then bill clinton, John Kennedy and every elected offical ever.

Who's showing blind love? The people that our defending Bret are mostly backing them up with facts. And no I don't agree or defend Bret's actions for cheating on his wife, especially as many times as he says in his book. That's all on him but every wrestler from that era did negative things, whether it was cheating on their wives or being hopped up on drugs it was one of the two. So he wasn't the only one, not that that makes it right but you can't single him out for it.

come on man we can argue this for years. Both were great I gave my reasons why Bret was not the most versitile ever and i have yet to here one refute that has anything even remotley to do with what I said.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to tear down HBK either, I think he is a hell of a performer and one of the best ever but I was trying to stick up for Bret who I happen to think was better and also was confused by the fact that somebody could defend HBK but put down Bret for drawing.

But the reasons I thought Bret was one of if not the best ever in the ring was because he brought a sense of realism to wrestling that no other wrestler did. Bret sold better than anybody and nobody executed their moves cleaner and more crisp. He rarely if ever botched a moved. Listening to his promos you thought he genuinely hated that guy he was feuding with also, he didn't crack jokes like a comedian, he made you think that that match meant everything to him which made it seem real. His matches also consisted of the best storytelling I ever seen and even Vince McMahon agrees with that and is on record saying it.

Again I hate to bring up Meltzer and the Wrestling observer again but he is the most popular rating scale and according to his scale Austin, Bulldog, Owen, Hennig, Nash, Yokozuna, Lawler, Bigelow and Piper's best match all came against Bret Hart. Those guys have been in a ton of matches and are some of the bigger names in wrestling and all are different sizes and most wrestle different styles yet according to one of the most respected rating scales they all had their best match of their life with Bret. If he wasn't versatile how could that be?

 

[reddevil69]

again i do not carea bout books or dvds I carea bout the question at hand was bret hart the most versitile wrestler ever. i never once said HBK out drew him, I nveer said Flair did, although if you take inflation into account the argument could be made flair did. I have shown clearly how Brets pour drawing ability hindered the WWE. And yes your right Brets 2nd reign was for eight montsh my bad. And yet I od not remeber anything form this period. i remember HBK and Dissel winning tag titles. I remeber Take and Yoko having a good fues. I even remember the million dollar coorperation, but not one thing bret did stands out in my mind, except of course losing to double b. And you can blame hogan and others all you wnat but the facts are at Mnia 9 when vince had to build the show more attetion was paid to the megamaniacs and money inc. then Bret. Bret went out and had one of the most horrible matches I have ever seen. Hogan came in and saved the PPV and at the end of teh day Vince is the boss he truely believed in bret why did he not make Hogan fight Bret, The reason was because he knew deep down bret was not the guy he needed. He went back to Bret in times of panick. I have read Shawns biography and if you bothered to really read it you would see where he talks about Vince promising Shawn he would be the highest paid, along with Taker, and when he found out about Brets new deal, he almost quit. But again it must be nice to have this blind hero worship for bret the next thing you'll say is it really was not Bret's fault he cheated on his wife more times then bill clinton, John Kennedy and every elected offical ever. come on man we can argue this for years. Both were great I gave my reasons why Bret was not the most versitile ever and i have yet to here one refute that has anything even remotley to do with what I said.

Your exact words from one of your earlier posts were "Bret never drew a dime". That tells me and anyone else that you were in fact saying Shawn outdrew him unless you are willing to say that Shawn never drew a dime, which is not true either... And you don't remember Owen and Brets Mania match in 94?...you don't remember their cage match in 94 at summerslam?...you don't remember diesel vs.Bret at King of the Ring 94?...you don't remember Owen costing Bret the belt to Backlund at Survivor series 94?...and you claim to be a wrestling fan?

and you can say what you want but Shawn still never made the kind of money Bret did during the 90's and never was offered the kind of guarantee that Bret got from WCW...you can claim that Vince only used Bret in times of panic but it does not change the fact that Vince still thought Bret was worth paying him the amount that he did, which was still more than Shawn. Bret's popularity in Europe was huge and that is where WWF toured most of the mid-nineties when business was bad in the USA, and it is a fact that Bret and Taker were the biggest stars internationally for the promotion...Shawn was not even on half of the European tours between 93 and 96 because he was not needed. You may find this hard to believe but there is a world that exists outside the United States.

and Bret had as good a match with Yoko as anyone ever did, probably Yoko's best match ever...I would just love to have a time machine and be able to go back and put Flair in that position and see how he would have carried a guy Yoko's size.That shows you Bret's versatility right there....oh but wait, you are going to tell me that HBK vs. Tatanka was a better match that night,right?

and what does Bret's infidelities have to do with any of this? I never once made any reference to Shawn's personal conduct outside the ring. And none of what I have said is an indictment of Shawns talent or place in history, it just pisses me off when guys like you say Bret never drew or he was over-rated and then try to tear apart the guys entire career and bash all of his matches and then say out the other side of you mouth that HBK was better because Bret 'never drew a dime'...if you want to say Shawn was more versatile in your estimation, then that's fine you are entitled to that, but when you counter someone's post about Bret with "Bret was over rated and he never drew a dime", and use that as your reasoning, then that is inaccurate and simply not true...you've spent more time telling everyone that Bret was champ by default and only used in times of panic and his matches were crap which I find asinine.

 

[schaeffershawn]

Ill say it plainely HBK was not a draw when compared to Hogan Austin, Rock. But I will hoist that balme on the guy who came before him because thats how national economies and for that matter Wrestling companies economies work. Yes I believe the HBK Tatanka match was much better. I believe the HBK Yoko match from around 95 was better. I believe HBK was MORE ENTERTAINING, which si for teh recrod all I ever said. And while I remember teh Bret Owen match form 10 there was this little ladder match that kind of stole the show. Obviously i remember teh Bret Own match as I credited earlier as one of teh macthes that insire me to become a wrestler. I do not knock bret or tare down his career. I can just realisticly say I do not think he was the best there is the best there was and teh best there ever will be. While id gladly put him in my top ten, I believe there were times when his matches were not only hard to watch but down right horrible. I have listed those very macthes. And no I did not remember Dissel vs Bret from KOR but then again when you have been watching for 21 years and have a tape collection going back to the 50's sometimes your memoeries slip. Add to that at that time Bret had made me switch to WCW, and I only watched WWE for the midcard. Also I brought up Brets cheating, because someone a few pages back brought up HBK's supposed past which most of which Mcmahon himself said never happened.I.E. Shawn refusing to job to Hart at 13, although according to Mcmahon and HBK that was never the plan. So while someone was attacking Shawns character i felt obliged to attack Brets. Honestly they both sucked as human beings, but thats neither here nor there. Actualy if you look at it there is a case beig Bret had one reign for over 5 months that Vince did in fact just go back to Bret when his new stars did not work out. Nostly because that is what Vince does even now. Hogan for instance oassed the torch to both savage and warrior, but who at the end of wrestlemania 9 had the belt. I have higlighted the times he switched back to Bret so no reason to go there. And the iWC has complained for years that HHH gets the belt back when things dontg work out, I.e. Goldberg, Benoit, Orton's first reign, anytime now things are down Vince uses his fall back options Cena and HHH. Thats all Bret was. Hes not teh first and taht in no way diminishes him. Flair was a fall back option, Hogan in both wwf and wcw, Shane Douglas and the Sandman in ECW. If you have actualy gotten to teh point where the booker knows you may not be the boom guy, but your good enough to keep ratings average until the next boom guy comes, you actualy have had a pretty good career. Again this topic was who is teh most versitile performer. I do not believe it was Bret because Bret has had terrible macthes which I have listed. I do Not subscribe to the Observers rating system mostly because I think Metzler is just a smark who for the record has never stepped in the ring. Who is he to judge a match when he has never been in one. Thats just my opinion as a wrestler though, but I know alot of guyw on thw indies feel the same way.