Kurt Angle or Bret Hart?

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

The two best in ring workers that I have ever seen. I give the overall edge to Bret and here's why:

Bret had the ability (more so than anyone else) to draw you into his matches. That is a major trait that many many wrestlers lack. Its the reason why I may only watch one full match on Raw a week if I'm lucky (not counting the main event because its the main event). With Bret that doesn't exist. If we had dvr's back in the 90's I would never fast forward a Bret Hart match. That's because he's the best at delivering moves properly and making them look the best they can, taking punishment from his opponent and making it look so authentic which leads to Bret being able to make his opponents look so good. During his time in WWF he played a big part in building Austin and Shawn in back to back Mania's. Hell, he even made his brother Owen a legit contender to his title in 94.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

How is Kurt Angle winning this poll? I'm only in my 20's but are there that many youngsters on this board who have no recollection of the '90s?

Bret Hart is a top 10 pro wrestler in history and has had more classic matches throughout his career than Kurt Angle would know what to do with.

Kurt was good, but not even close to on Bret's level. I guess the only thing Kurt has over Bret was mic skills, but Bret wrestled in an era where that aspect of the business was far less important than it is now.

 

[BigBombB]

Lets clear a few things up. Kurt Angle was NOT that much better on the mic than Bret Hart, Angle grew up in the business around the same time that the writers began scripting everything. A lot of Angle's segments were backstage pre-tapes, even Brock Lesnar sounds like a great mic worker during these, while a lot of Bret Hart's work was done standing live in the middle of the ring. Hart had to rely on his own instincts on how to play to the crowd, Angle had to rely on his memory. Look at Kurt Angle promos in TNA, THESE are the ones you should be comparing to Hart's promos and you'll quickly see they are on very equal terms.

Was Angle the better all-around in-ring talent in terms of the variety of the things he was capable of? Maybe. You have to remember that when Bret Hart was wrestling, to be considered a heavyweight wrestler had the general standard of not using top rope maneuvers (plus, for a time they were actually illegal to do). It wasn't until guys like Shawn Michaels began to work a mixture of styles that the top rope stuff became so prominent. By then Hart was already well into his 30s and his style was the definitive style for a technical grappler, not to mention it was a lot safer.

I'm sure Hart could have been capable of more high flying stuff if he had come up in such an era, but he didn't. Angle certainly did utilize a lot more suplexes than Bret, and his style was exciting enough to carry a match with Ric Flair when he gassed about two minutes in, but Bret carried untold numbers of difficult workers and did so without the need of all the flashy moves. That isn't to say the flashy moves aren't a legitimate, impressive style because they absolutely are, but the Sharpshooter and the Hart Attack were both considered very impressive in their day (not to mention the large arsenal he had beyond that).

Where Hart wins for me could easily be summed up as "before Austin, Hart was THE guy", where Angle was always great enough to be considered equal to the greats of his time but was never considered above them. You can argue that there may have been less quality talent in the time that Hart was on top, Angle was only around for a year when WCW closed it's doors, but Hart helped the WWF stay alive during a difficult transition period because he was a household name and was putting on constant classics to keep fans tuning in. But this isn't why I think Hart is the better man.

While Angle may go down as the greatest all around worker of all time, an acclaim he greatly deserves, no one was better at telling stories with his work than Bret Hart. If you look at a list of feuds through the entire time Hart was in the WWF, nearly all of them were top billed feuds. He entered with the Hart Foundation and left with the Montreal Screwjob, any wrestler would be lucky to have even one such accomplishment, let alone the nearly countless others he had throughout his career.

If you went from the time Angle debuted to now, Angle would easily land on the top 5 list, likely top 3, but when it comes to a top 10 all time, Angle wouldn't be close. Hart on the other hand, would be nearly definite to be among them. To me, that is the difference and that is where Hart will go down as the better man.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

This is a match I would almost sell a family member for. These two in the ring at their prime would tear the roof down if not the first match more than likely in two or three matches together.

In terms of in ring ability, the two are pretty close, although I'd give the fisticuff/brawl advantage to Bret. Every punch he gave looked like he was hitting them with the kitchen sink. Fast, quick. Mat work, they're even. Mike work, goes to Angle. Bret was passable on the mike, not the greatest you've ever heard but good enough to handle the mike and be heard. Angle was better more funny, and could be intense when he needed to be.

The edge goes to Bret for 3 reasons. His experience and what he had to work with.His experience helped him become one of the greatest storytellers the business has ever seen. For the most part as a heavyweight champion, the performers Bret worked with weren't on the level of what Angle worked with. In terms of popularity. The storylines were less than ideal. All Bret could do was bring it to the ring and deliver whatever he could with the opponent they gave him. Bret was a seasoned professional by the time he had the belt and he knew how to make any performer he worked with look like a serious opponent. He did work with some quality performers but none as over as the ones that Angle did. Angle was a rookie when his climb started. He had a carefully crafted and favourable storyline done to help him. Angle worked with the Rock, Austin, the industries biggest stars ever, Triple H, Chris Jericho, a young John Cena , Taker, Eddie Guerrero, Benoit, Edge among others who were seasoned professionals who helped guide his career. WWE management did a better job all around with his promotion. You have to give Angle a lot of credit to accomplish what he did at the time he did but he had a lot more help to establish himself than I think Bret did. Which makes me prefer Bret a bit more.

 

[Wald]

I'm picking Bret over Angle and it actually surprises me (even as a Hitman mark) how easy it was to do so in the end.

I love Angle, think he's great in backstage segments, can cut a promo and is one of the greatest wrestlers ever. I just think the Hitman could put together and hold a match better than any in-ring competitor ever. He had the most realistic style of any wrestler I've seen (Benoit is the only one I can think of on his level on this score), had the most believable character ever and wasn't anywhere near as bad at promos as people make out. His mic work in 1997 was very, very good and he also cut this promo for one of the best in-ring segments WCW ever produced

[YOUTUBE]zDOJdsABsVI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[jameswalsh292]

Although not my favourite wrestler, (thats Austin), I consider Kurt to be the greatest wrestler of all time.

Kurt has everything and not only does he have everything, he excells in everything thats required for a wrestler. Kurt's character could change so fluidly and go in so many directions but he never seemed out of place with what he was doing. He always entertained me with his promos. His in ring work is the best I have ever seen too.

To be fair i only started to watch in late 98. So, at that time Bret had already left wwf and I didnt have wcw to watch at my home. So, I didnt get to see Bret's run as it happened. However, I do own both of Bret's DVD's and have watched them a number of times. Wow, Bret was amazing, vs Austin,Owen,hbk,perfect, etc. Some world class matches. For me though, his matches werent as exciting as Kurt's and while I do think Bret was good at promos (and better than people give him credit for) I dont think he was as good as Kurt.

I dont think we should take into account either mans personal issues behind the scenes as thats not really what this is about. Its about who was better or more entertaining in your opinion.

Bret is one of the greatest of all time, but Kurt is the greatest.

Ps I really hope Kurt returns to WWE as I dont watch TNA.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

For those who seem to claim Bret wasn't good on the mic, I encourage you to check out his promo the night after WM13:

[YOUTUBE]watch?v=dpQw5Aj-nGQ[/YOUTUBE]

Right around the 53min mark.

His heel turn in full effect, and the beginning of the Canada vs USA storyline. A 14 minute straight promo of just Bret talking, and he has the crowd in the palm of his hand the entire time.

Then of course Shawn comes out and shoots and then hell breaks loose. Really wish these two guys were more professional together backstage because they could have done so much more together. They also both do a good job putting Austin over.

But the point is, Bret is no "Malenko" on the mic. He could hold his own when the business evolved and required more promo's to sell the shows.

 

[Waylon Mercy]

There's also the fact that when Kurt came in to the WWE, it was practically a given that he would be given titles right away. He was a pretty high profile signing, having recently come off the gold medal win in Atlanta. Bret, on the other hand, was brought in as part of the deal for McMahon to take over his dad's Calgary Stampede operation. It wasn't a given that Bret was going to be a superstar, especially since he was coming in under the shadow of Hulk Hogan and the other giants of the time. Originally, Bret was given a really ridiculous gimmick, which was that of a cowboy face, much like Sam Houston was. That gimmick was destined to fail, and fortunately Bret knew that. He turned to the tag division, which was truly the area in which he could shine - especially with his limited promo skills at the time. Tagging with the Anvil, and managed by Jimmy Hart, Bret carved out a niche for himself, eventually breaking through the glass ceiling. Bret went on to legitimize the world of pro wrestling at a crucial time, when the spectre of the steroids scandal plagued Vince Mcmahon and the WWE. HE doesn't nearly get enough credit for being the torchbearer at that juncture.

 

[James Greiga]

There's also the fact that when Kurt came in to the WWE, it was practically a given that he would be given titles right away. He was a pretty high profile signing, having recently come off the gold medal win in Atlanta. Bret, on the other hand, was brought in as part of the deal for McMahon to take over his dad's Calgary Stampede operation. It wasn't a given that Bret was going to be a superstar, especially since he was coming in under the shadow of Hulk Hogan and the other giants of the time. Originally, Bret was given a really ridiculous gimmick, which was that of a cowboy face, much like Sam Houston was. That gimmick was destined to fail, and fortunately Bret knew that. He turned to the tag division, which was truly the area in which he could shine - especially with his limited promo skills at the time. Tagging with the Anvil, and managed by Jimmy Hart, Bret carved out a niche for himself, eventually breaking through the glass ceiling. Bret went on to legitimize the world of pro wrestling at a crucial time, when the spectre of the steroids scandal plagued Vince Mcmahon and the WWE. HE doesn't nearly get enough credit for being the torchbearer at that juncture.

I would agree but he wasn't immediately given titles, he proved himself. He was good in the ring, he learned quickly, he was charismatic. You can't deny any of that. WWF didn't care how big a name you were, unless you were a profit then you were on your way. Angle didn't make it to the top so quickly because he got a medal, professional wrestling just fit him perfectly and he proved that by doing great mic work and pretty much having the best feuds and the best matches every year. His 2000 feud with HHH is a perfect example.

 

[Waylon Mercy]

I would agree but he wasn't immediately given titles, he proved himself. He was good in the ring, he learned quickly, he was charismatic. You can't deny any of that. WWF didn't care how big a name you were, unless you were a profit then you were on your way. Angle didn't make it to the top so quickly because he got a medal, professional wrestling just fit him perfectly and he proved that by doing great mic work and pretty much having the best feuds and the best matches every year. His 2000 feud with HHH is a perfect example.

Your point is well-taken, and there is no denying Kurt's talent right from the outset. I would venture to say, though, that Kurt had the added advantage of having a tremendous pool of talent to work with right away. Chris Benoit, Y2J, Edge and Christian, The Rock, Triple H and Stone Cold are just a few of the names that come to mind. When Bret first arrived as a singles wrestler, he didn't nearly have as many great workers to tangle with. He was looking up at a glass ceiling which appeared unbreakable. Fortunately for Bret, though, he entered the tag division right at the start of the golden age of tag team wrestling in the WWE, where he flourished as a heel alongside the Anvil and Jimmy Hart. From there, his stock shot up rapidly and the rest is history. I have to say that Kurt had it easier due to the era in which he rose to fame.

 

[My Name Is Michael Caine]

Man is this tough. Bret is my favourite of all time by a long stretch, but this is like Pacino/De Niro or Lennon/McCartney trying to choose “the best”. Here’s my take.

Babyface: Bret Hart. Kurt had a red hot run during the summer of ’01, but it fizzled out quickly and was kind of swallowed up by the alliance story. Bret on the other hand had a good 4/5 year run as THE guy in WWE. He’s a national icon in Canada and his popularity internationally is legendary. He’s huge over here in the UK. I went to a book signing he did about five years ago and the queue’s were ridiculous. That was ten years after he’d retired and about 12/13 since he was on WWE TV.

Heel: Angle. Bret’s stuff in 97 was great and rightly remembered as one of the best storylines ever and a catalyst of the attitude era. But Kurt Angle was a much better heel performer on a more regular and more consistent basis. Bret’s legendary El Dandy promo is the kind of thing Kurt did every week from 99-01 with his goofy heel persona. Then 05-06 you have the kick-ass, wrestling machine villain. Two completely different heel characters.

Mic work: Obviously Kurt, by a mile. Maybe ten.

In the ring: Honestly, I’ll take Angle by the smallest or margins. I’d say Bret is the greatest technical wrestler of all time. His matches told stories and were slow and methodically built. Kurt was just a freak. An athletic specimen who was every bit as tehnically sound, but also he could throw in high flying stuff. So on a pure “skill” based level, I’d take Angle.

Now, having said that….

Most memorable matches: Bret. Seriously name any five of the first Bret Hart matches that come to your head and you’re probably looking at a “greatest match of all time” contender. For example, vs. Hennig, vs. Davey, vs. Owen, vs. Shawn, vs. Austin. See what I mean? Angle, for all his in-ring greatness doesn’t have the same calibre of matches under his belt like Bret does, and I’d even argue Kurt had greater talent to work with during his career, too. So Bret wins that comfortably.

Historical significance: Easily Bret – First “small guy” world champion in WWE post Hogan. A catalyst of the attitude era, and Montreal.

Inside the ring. Kurt, by the SMALLEST of margins, like a mosquito’s pubic hair.
On the mic. Kurt
Overall performer: Kurt.
Matches: Bret
Legacy: Bret.

So going off that sort of criteria I’ve just pulled out of my ass, Kurt Angle. Keep in mind, Bret is my all time favourite by quite some distance, but in my opinion Kurt is the greatest all round Pro Wrestler that ever walked the earth.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

I think Harts bitterness has probably turned some people off and may be affecting the vote.

There could be a generation gap in play too: Older voters may lean Bret, younger ones Angle.

 

[Slash-LN]

This would be a fantastic match up.

I don't think people are giving credit to Bret for how versatile he was. He could get a good match out of pretty much anyone no matter their style. He could brawl with Austin and Diesel, he could put on technical matches with someone like Benoit, he could work with speedy guys like 123 Kid and Hakushi. It didn't matter who he faced. When he got into the ring with someone you knew you were about to see a good match.

I agree that Angle is/was better on the mic. And that's not a slight on Bret. Bret was very good about getting his point across and then backing it up in the ring. He wasn't bad by any means but he wasn't as good as Angle.

For that reason I'm picking Angle over Bret but just barely.

 

[FlairFan2003]

This is isn't even a fair question....Kurt Angle

being a professional wrestler, and being really good, takes a unique combination of speaking ability and acting skill (mic skills), athleticism, and creativity. Brett Hart cant compare to Angle.

Angle on the Mic was so much better than Hart it isn't even close. As a fan fave or heel, deadly serious or cartoon funny, Angle can sell it on the mic. Brett managed to come up with a few crowd pleasing catch phases but he was one step above sleep aid on the mic. Having grown up watching Dusty Rhodes, Randy Savage, Jake Roberts, and probably THE greatest of all time Ric Flair, Brett Hart didn't have it. There were guys who were worse, but there were a lot of guys who were better.

Fact is Brett's lack of charisma was always holding him back. Vince was constantly searching for his replacement, from going with a heel champ in Yoko Zuna to pushing Hart underneath both HBK and Kevin Nash, Hart's inability to excel and sell it on the mic really hurt him. He was lucky he left WWE when he did because the promo crazy Attitude Era would have overwhelmed him between Austin, Rock, Foley, and HHH. John Cena is the Brett Hart of today, playing the hard working, kid friendly character to the hilt, but Cena is also way better on the mic than Hart.

In the ring both were very good. Brett sold believably and took a variety of falls, Angle was just as good, maybe a little better off the top rope. Hart had way more charisma, or at least knew how to maximize his image, in the ring than on the mic, but Angle matches were often mini events in themselves due to the hype machine surrounding the "Olympic Gold Medalist", and he always delivered. Angle gets this one by a slight margin.

Im not going to compare toughness....I know Angle wrestled with numerous injuries, but the fact is Hart was an iron man in terms of total matches for most of his main event run 1993-97, surpassing 200 plus matches per year regularly all over the world. You have to be pretty tough to do that. Hulk Hogan rarely wrestled more than a half dozen matches in a month in his prime, by comparison Hart was a machine. He wasn't quite as impressive as Flair topping 300-350 matches per year 1981-1985 but that was surreal. I give Angle credit for surviving the injuries but Hart gets credit for wrestling a grueling schedule and not missing much time.

Hart had a very good career, no one can dispute that. Fact is although WWE never seemed happy with him, constantly trying to replace him, they often went back to him because the Yokos, Sid Justice's, HBKs, and Nash's didn't bring in the revenue they wanted. Hart is often criticized for not being a big time draw, seeing as how he came after the period dominated by the likes of Flair, Hogan, and Savage, but Hart reached the top at a time the industry was fading and had been even when Hogan was still there on top in 1991. He also wasn't supported by a particularly strong undercard. If he was truly a bad draw WWE wouldn't have kept going back to him after experiments with so many of his contemporaries. I do feel his lack of charisma was contributing to his slide in 1997 and the advent of Austin & Rock would have been terrible for him, but he was the company's MVP 1993-1996. Angle may technically be considered a better draw but he spent less time as the focal point of the storylines as Hart did (although prominently featured) and he was supported by a much better cast with Austin, Rock, & Foley and latter HHH, HBK, Flair, & Taker. That's an element of star power Hart never had as a main eventer.

In the end, Angle is still the best over all wrestler. Great in the ring, great on the mic, convincingly playing good guys, tweeners, and villains, both as a serious character and as comical, Hart just cant compete. He was solid on the mic but nowhere near Angle's equal. In the ring it's too close to call but I think Angle was a tad better, more creative. Im going to call it a draw in terms of drawing power, based on the explanations of the previous paragraph. That scores well for Angle however, he's the best here. It's real....It's Damn Real!!!

 

[BadGuy]

It's hard to compare them,because they were performing in different era.Bret Hart in opposite to Kurt Angle was a face wrestler, but in my opinion Kurt was much better in few aspect like: mic,fighting,curious gimmick and attire.
Kurt Angle was a gold medalist in wrestling so it tells everything about his talent and potentcial to do it great.I want to say that Bret was overrated,while Owen was underrated.

 

[roipdh123]

Bret Hart is better.
In my opinion the in-ring is not a factor here because both are amazing in-ring performers.The mic is not a factor too because both are decent in the mic. About personality I believe that Angle is slightly better but the real decision maker was this:

Look Angle was always a Main Event guy when he was with the WWE but Bret was THE Main Event guy in his prime in the WWE
So as much as I respect & like Angle and think he is a great wrestler in-ring and he has lots of personality - Bret is better.