Pick Your Poison: Shawn Michaels or Bret Hart

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

They both have their positives and negatives in comparison to each other (and are two of my three favorites, the third being the Undertaker). Obviously I don't know the guys personally, so I can't tell for sure, but to me it always seemed like they had friction between each other because of the fact that they were so similar. Both were/are incredibly talented and easily two of the best in the business that were AMAZINGLY skilled in both wrestling technique and connecting with the fans. To me, they were two sides of the same coin. Bret was from Canada, Shawn from Texas. Bret was more likely to put you in a sleeper hold and try to use his strength, while Shawn was more likely to throw some flashy aerial attack and try to use his speed. Bret was more of a moral and straightforward guy while Shawn had a bit of an edge. In a way, Bret was the guy on the left side of the tracks and Shawn was on the right, but the fact that they were so great and in the same company at the same time in their prime, they were naturally in competition with each other. I'm sure they both aren't perfect, and over the years they've probably taken a lot of cheap shots at each other, but I bet if something simple would've happened like if they'd have been in a tag team at some point in their careers, this whole situation would be different. All in all, I wouldn't like to pick between the two, but if I had to, I'd pick Shawn, since he's had a lot of memorable work in DX and as a heel, showing a little more versatility in the acting department and creativity section than Bret did.

 

[Hart>HBK]

Bret Hart was better than HBK because he was a better wrestler than HBK and he could also do high flying moves from time to time. Hart was like a Kurt Angle because he could wrestle and talk and he was used to put guys over like HBK.

 

[killcenanow]

Bret Hart wins a close battle, here we have two wrestlers who paid there dues in all the divisions. both led amazing stables the hart foundation (army) back in 1997 was my favorite stable but if the dx army (xpac NAO HHH) had HBK in it that could have changed my mind, i agree with the majority of posts that HBK=entertainment Hart=great wrestling to me its ironic that Owen Hart would be the natural person to be used as the exact middle between the two I actually like Owen better then either of the other 2. no answer in an opinion question is wrong so regardless if this reasoning holds much water I pick Bret Hart because in late 1996 I first tuned into raw with no prior knowledge of what this wrestling thing was all about and there's Bret Hart fighting the Undertaker and the British bulldog comes in and helps (I'd love to know the date of that) i tuned in and eventually watching the Hart army every week was the best thing I could do. I was a confused 9 year old with my parents on the brink of divorce. The best distraction from them was rooting on Bret Hart I damn near cried when they told me they couldn't afford cable anymore the last week of wrestling I saw before the cable was cut was the last raw before survivor series 97. Around summerslam 98 i got a fiend who had cable we watched raw and I asked where the fuck is brethart he changes the channel "what the fuck is he doing on that bullshit show with those old bastards" my exact quote when I was told about the screw job I hated michaels for years and years I'm still bitter about it but whenever the question comes up about whose better I give HBK te respect he deserves as an actor/athlete but if it ever came to a tie break point politics swings my vote on this one however if i could get a write in for this question OWEN HART is the best

 

[reddevil69]

Too bad that he was the one who actually jobbed to Austin to begin the whole Attitude Era eh? Face it, WCW was still winning in 1997 when Austin lost to Bret. More and more were tuning into WWF, but they didn't begin winning until he actually won the Belt. Oh, and who gave him the belt? Shawn Michaels. With tears in his eyes because of the pain he endured to do it, but guess what? It started a revolution. A revolution that Bret refused to put over until he saw how big Austin became.

yeah Shawn put him over after weeks of bitching about it...have you not read Austin's book?...Austin says Shawn did not want to put him over....Shawn had no choice in the matter when it came to crunch time because (a)Austin was the guy Vince was going to run with and (b)HBK was leaving after the match with a bad back...don't pretend that Shawn was doing Austin the honors out of respect to launch the attitude era...if you are such an HBK mark then you would know that Shawn has admitted to acting like a dickwad to Steve Austin and says he regrets how he behaved leading up to WM 14....Shawn is a great performer no doubt, but he is not the one guy who made or broke the company and the WWE would still survive without him and prosper, like they did from 1998-2001. setting records for PPV buys and merchandising...all while HBK was not within 10 feet of a WWE ring....and FYI, it was supposed to Bret vs. Austin at WM 14, not HBK and Bret had agreed in August of 1997 after he won the belt from Taker to put austin over at Mania so don't give me this Bret refused to put over the attitude era crap...Austin, Taker and mick Foley have all said that Bret had agreed to put over any one of them at Wrestlemania that year....the only reason it didn't go down is because vince opted out of Bret's contract and we all know what happened after that....

 

[hbk&triple h]

Shawn in his earlier career did act completely selfish and was an ass but I do think he helped woth the Attitude Era.Even though he didn't really want to put Austin over.

But back to the topic Shawn all around is great in pretty much every department where as Bret lacks in a few areas.They both have contributed many things to the WWE so not one person can say one has done more than the other.But later on down the road people will talk more about Shawn than Bret.

 

[The Dungeon]

The Attitude era did not begin when Austin beat Shawn! Even Vince would tell you that! In every magazine article the WWE has done, as well as articles on WWE.com, and after hearing numerous Steve Austin interviews, they said the night Bret & Austin battled and switched sides, was the birth of the Attitude Era.

Here is why if you ask me...

The feud was different, Bret started out as the immensely popular legendary babyface, Austin was the cool fresh heel!. As time went on, Bret developed a chip on his shoulder in the angle, and fans started reacting to the cool and hip Ausitn, Bret resented it, by the end of it, Bret was a top heel, getting heat even better than what Hogan was getting in the nWo, and Austin was the top babyface neck and neck with the Deadman. However, North of the border, Bret was cheered like he was the conquering hero (as well as other parts of the world). That was what the Attitude Era was all about, something different and reveloutionary for the WWF.

Austin has put over Bret in his book as well as numerous interviews!. Even going for to say that they changed wrestling on that night! Which they did!. While double turns had been done before, this was the first one that was executed perfectly and properly, because of the months of buildup leading up to it! It was simple, yet so intriguing, because of the way the fans made this storyline to be.

Attitude was already around, just because the WWF wasn't winning the ratings war at that point, doesen't mean it wasn't around. Austin, The Hart's, D-X (incl. Shawn making semi-shoot comments, unheard of in the WWF), Pillman's XXX Files, the pure hatred of Bret & Shawn, Jim Cornette's little shoots among many other things were what Attitude was all about. Lets face it, it was around by 1997, not after Wrestlemania 14. The Revolution was well underway, and the term "Attitude" was being coined by late 1997, we also can't forget Vince's little speech!



Shawn didn't start the revolution, he was a huge part of it yes! But he didn't start it by any means!.

Now, the first Monday Night Wars victory for the WWF in nearly 2 years, was on Apr.13.1998!. And that's true...it was 2 weeks after Austin won the belt, so in that regard, you're right, they started winning at that point. But it was a buildup overtime, it wasn't JUST because Austin won the belt. I will agree that is what put the WWF over that final hill!

 

[hbk&triple h]

I agree with you when you say the Attitude Era was something different.It was a big change in the face of wrestling and people loved it.But I do not think the Attitude Era started that night.I think the Austin era started that night.But everyone will have their opinions on that topic.

 

[Skillz]

Hmm... 55.5/44.5 to HBK. That's pretty close. If Bret's career didn't end suddenly in 2000, he could've had a few more years left in him. Who knows, if he was still healthy when WCW went down, he might have returned to the WWE for one last run. If this happened then I'm sure Bret would be winning this poll. But it didn't happen, and Bret hasn't wrestled in almost 8 years. And HBK has consistently been wrestling for the last 5 years. Yet, this poll is still quite close. I think this shows people's respect for Bret. Even though he's been out of action for almost a decade, people still remember how great he really was.

 

[Shocky]

Shayx, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. It has been nearly a decade since the Hitman was in the WWE and nearly 7 years since he has competed on a regular basis. Michaels on the other hand has had 5 years with newer fans to impress. It's a shame, but I think a lot of people on here probably never saw the Hitman wrestle, and only know Michaels as great because the IWC says he is.

It's been said time and time again, Michaels was a prick in the 90's. Let's not confuse him losing to Austin in the same category as putting the man over. Michaels had no intentions on dropping that belt to Austin if he was healthy. It's been published in books the Undertaker did a shoot on saying he would make Michaels to the right thing, so let's take Michaels off the Austin high horse right now.

 

[mikeRC]

Bret was probably one of the best pure wrestlers ever but HBK is one of the greatest entertainers of WWE history. i think if bret didnt get kicked in the head by that oaf bill goldberg then he might have had a few more amazing matches left in him. i'd give my vote to HBK because he has given wrestling too many classic moments with his charisma and exitement

 

[reddevil69]

Shayx, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. It has been nearly a decade since the Hitman was in the WWE and nearly 7 years since he has competed on a regular basis. Michaels on the other hand has had 5 years with newer fans to impress. It's a shame, but I think a lot of people on here probably never saw the Hitman wrestle, and only know Michaels as great because the IWC says he is.

It's been said time and time again, Michaels was a prick in the 90's. Let's not confuse him losing to Austin in the same category as putting the man over. Michaels had no intentions on dropping that belt to Austin if he was healthy. It's been published in books the Undertaker did a shoot on saying he would make Michaels to the right thing, so let's take Michaels off the Austin high horse right now.[/QUOTE

Finally someone gets it!!!!.....you are right on the money bro'.....

 

[Mad Metal]

I highly enjoy both athletes. Overall, I believe Bret was better including better in ring performance, better wrestling background as well as a better knowledge on the industry. When you hear Bret Hart speak, you hear nothing but the truth in a non-bias way. He gives credit to those that have earned it regardless if he loves you or hate you. Majority of the matches Bret pulls were all nearly or were 5 star matches. I truly believe Bret [overall] defined the terms "professional wrestler".

Shawn Michaels is/was a great athlete as well as a performer. Maybe his partying and immature behavior held him back with the somewhat negative reputation, but that shouldn't blind you from the fact he was very athletic and pulled many great matches. While I am a huge fan of Shawn Michaels, I must admit he didn't have nor carry as many "5 star candidates" as Bret did.

Many speak as if the 1998/1999 era of the WWE were the greatest years, but IMHO my favorite had to be in 1997 when Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart were in the top of their games as well as with a very good midcard and stables including The Nation, Hart Foundation, etc. which you can't forget the [then] excellent rising stars including Rocky Maivia and Steve Austin.

 

[whoopwhoop12]

bret or shawn

its like Wrestlemania XII all over again...

quite arguably the best match ever in the history of matches.

i have to say shawn.
shawn gave us something to remember him always whenever he was right then and there in the ring whether it was a promo, his theme music, his entrance and not to forget his wrestling. we didn't really have to go back to any matches we missed out on because shawn drew us into him.
bret was a wrestlers wrestler. no non-sense, technical, respectful, innovative in mat wrestling.

at their time, shawn's athletic ability was more eye appealing overall than brets wrestling. if people only got drawn to how great bret was in the ring, he would be the most popular star.

i think also charisma has a lot to do with you being an actual house hold name.

these days i respect the whole idea of straight up wrestling. i dont care for promos as i did when i was a youngster. back then i didn't know any better. i just saw shawn as something a lot different than any other person at the time.


but who would ever know how bret could've turned out to be if he just didnt get kicked in the head.

whats surprising is that even through shawn is getting a lot older, he still kinda has that step where he can really deliver and give excellent matches. which he steals the show always at wrestlemania.

i gotta say shawn.

 

[reddevil69]

i know this thread is not about the 'screw job' but it seems that everyone that is pro-HBK seems to think that Bret was wrong for standing up for himself in Montreal....a thought to consider: Ric Flair came to the WWF in 1991 with the WCW championship belt and tried to fuck over the promotion...why is that acceptable...Flair knocks Bret in his book and HHH and Shawn constantly pander to Flair's legacy in this business, but they bash Bret?....i understand that Flair was doing what he thought was within his right to do but he still tried to hurt the company where his good friend Arn Andersen still had to work...if he had crippled the promotion and put a bunch of guys out of work would that have been ok?...Bret stood up for himself and and was not hurting the WWE in any way....i'm sure Lou Thesz,Harely Race and Terry Funk would have done the same thing and the latter two have actually applauded Bret for his actions, yet Flair and HHH both have nothing but respect for them and nothing but negative things to say about Bret Hart....pure hypocrisy on their part.....

 

[County]

The Better wrestler of the two is obviously Bret "Hitman" Hart. When I watch his matches; still today then I can see the magic of his wrestling he would put on such a big Match with such great moves that everyone would love that Match, like that one with Owen Hart at Summerslam for the WWE Championship in a Steel Cage. Both Owen and Bret worked so hard for the match and if you watch that match today you see how Awesome it was! If you have not seen this terrific Match then go watch it somewhere. Now back to the topic, Shawn Michaels looks more like a Ego-Maniac and someone who just goes on bashing everyone, but he is also a good wrestler he can put on a Main Event match just as good as Bret Hart but then again I'm on the side of the Hitman cause he is the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be - Bret "Hitman" Hart.

 

[tom b]

bret hart- a better heel that shawn michaels (USA vs. Canada) 24/7 is showing a raw during that time and damn did bret get heat but bret has better storyline telling ability and bret was a major factor in mcmahon becoming Mr. Mcmahon and Stone Cold match is when Stone Cold officially became a face

shawn michaels- has some of the most entertaining matches ever, mic skills superb, but my problem with shawn is a wrestler (wrestler= in-ring talent, mic skills, jobbing, and backstage power) guys hate losing but michaels is the worst ("I lost my smile" /his back had forced himb to retire(austin and the rock's popularity as the 1 & 2 guys made him to retire) and that Summerslam match against Hogan, as bad as Hogan is in the ring, show some respect the match came off more comical and michaels did not embrace the heel role bc he doesn't want to be heel...

sorry shawn, hart has got you beat

 

[wwe1581]

I'm going to be very biased here and go with Shawn Michaels it's funny cuz as a toodler i remember seeing Bret Hart's bright hot pink tights and that stood out to me as a kid he was my favorite but once i turned five it was and still is HBK the incredible matches and moves that he has come up with he has done it all when he won the title at WM12 i was jumping up and down cheering him on and when they played that video Tell Me A Lie which made it look like he had died or something i broke down and cried like a baby. I've always felt his passion Bret always seemed more bottled up and quiet to me so by far HBK is and always will be better than Bret Hart

 

[Wall_of_Jericho]

Both.

However if push comes to shove then I would have to say Bret Hart. I am more a fan of the actual "wrestling" and Bret is a better wrestler than Shawn however that's not me saying Shawn sucks. Shawn is a terrific wrestler and a great entertainer. But the old school in me says vote Bret.

 

[zeus3007]

Bret Hart is a lot better than Shawn Michaels. Over the course of their careers, Bret has had more classic matches. If you watch any Michaels match that isn't a specialty match, it follows the same path...Micheals has a fast start, gets beaten on for 10-20 minutes, comes back, Sweet Chin Music, done. Bret wrestled a more varied style; technical, brawler, submission, some aerial moves. Shawn doesn't...the only match where he appeared to use any scientific moves is the Ironman, and that's because Bret would have made him look too useless if he didn't, and he needed the rest holds. Shawn is useless with submission holds, is not believable as a brawler. He is a high spot wrestler, and that is all. While Shawn has more charisma and somewhat better mic skills, Bret has the entire package. If Bret had not ushered in the age of the smaller wrestlers, Shawn would have been stuck feuding over the IC title for his career. He only had a couple of years as the top guy, wheras Bret had at least 5 years where he was the "guy". Even when HBK was champ, he wasn't the top guy for the most part.

 

[ChaseDavis]

I'm going to bump this back up if only to give my opinion on the match.

I remember watching this match live on PPV...this was a monumental occassion as it was the first PPV I was ever allowed to order. As a 12 year old this was huge.

This match was slow paced...boring is a subjective word and it obviously depends on what types of matches you enjoy. Just like baseball can be considered boring, this match can be considered boring. There were no smashed tables, no chairs to the head, no interferences, nothing fancy and shiny, just two talented individuals who put on a wrestling match.

Do not confuse this with todays matches as they are far from your daddys wrestling. This match was a chess match, back and forth. It was not obvious who was going to win, this was in a day before the IWC and although it was a well known fact things were predetermined, you weren't quite sure who was going to walk away champion.

I will admit that I hated the ending, if only for the fact that Hart lost and I thought that the ruling at the end was bogus, but for a 12 year old, wrestling logic trumps real logic.

This match will go down as a classic because it might go down as the last classic wrestling match. A match like that would never happen in today's business and that is what makes it so unique and signature.

I put this match near the top of my favorites

 

[Player_1]

The match between HBK and The Hitman is probably my favorite match period. Perfect story, the crowd was into the close falls, everything was in that match. Heck, even wrestlers that have been in the business for a long time consider that the greatest match, if not, one of the greatest matches of all time.

But again, people have their opinions. Ya'll entitled to mine.lol

 

[Wall_of_Jericho]

Even though I like the match and I do regard it as a "classic", I have one big gripe with it. The biggest problem with the match is because creative booked the match to end 0-0 at the end of the hour. So both men had to drag it out for so bloody long. I don't think it would have damaged any of the guys credibility if it was 2-2 at the end of the hour. I mean it would have brought us even more exciting action. Imagine one of them is losing 2-1 with minutes to go then scores a fall to level it up again and take it to sudden death.

 

[salopstick]

but if the best two guys in the company keep getting pinned how can they be the best

just the same as hbk beating the clock meant the click saved him.

you cannot beat the storytelling in the ring for that match something that imho is lacking now

 

[MMurray220]

I'm pretty sure they kicked the hell out of the timekeeper, too. That looked gross if I remember correctly.

You have to keep in mind, wrestling's tough. A lot of us have never been in a ring before, but you got to keep an open mind. 1st, you have the excitement of going live on PPV and infront of a huge audience, that's got to get your heart going and prone to blow up fast. Plus from what I've heard, the lights are pretty hot out there, and even quick 5 - 10 minute matches are enough to blow you up. When you know you have to wrestle for an hour, I think it's important they paced themselves. Sure it might have been boring but there's no physical way they could have gone that long, that hard, for an hour. I guarentee you even someone like AJ Styles would have to slow down at some point during the match.

Besides, the whole psychology of the match was to get the last five minutes of it over. After wrestling for an hour, those last 5 minutes meant EVERYTHING, much more than if they only did an iron man for 20 minutes or something like that.

 

[peteaypan]

Personally I think this match is great. However, I do believe that a couple of pin falls or submissions leading upto a close ending in the match would have made it better.

Saying that though, this is hindsight. For all we know, if there had have been some pin falls or submissions we may have thought that the match was very good but not a classic. Who really before the match had started would have expectedd a 0-0 leading to extra time. I bet no-one. That is why its so special because what happened was unexpected.