Should Austin VS Hart at Wrestlemania 13 have been for the WWF Title?

[The Scarred One]

It's been 20 years since WrestleMania 13, an event was considered a mixed bag as far as successful WrestleManias go. Some might consider it one of the worst, if not the worst, WrestleManias of all time. But that is a debatable topic for another thread.

What I want to talk about is one of the matches that took place at that particular WrestleMania. It could be considered the one true highlight of the show. Of course, I'm talking about the Submission match pitting Bret "Hitman" Hart against "Stone Cold" Steve Austin.

The build-up for the match began a year prior at WrestleMania 12. After having lost the WWF Championship to Shawn Michaels in the first-ever Iron Man match, Hart took a self-imposed exile from the WWE. Around the same time, Austin had ditched the horrendous "Ringmaster" gimmick and started climbing up the ranks by first winning the 1996 King of the Ring Tournament. Following his victory, Austin began taunting and insulting Hart to accept his challenge to a match. In October of that year, Hart returned to the WWF and accepted Austin's challenge for a match at that year's Survivor Series. Hart emerged victorious over Austin that night, but the war between the two men was far from over.

The next phase in the rivalry took place at the 1997 Royal Rumble as the final two participants in the titular match. Hart eliminated Austin, but the elimination was unofficial since the ringside referees were busy breaking up a brawl between other competitors and did not see it take place. Austin took advantage and eliminated Hart with the refs looking on to win the 1997 Royal Rumble. Not long after this, WWF Champion Shawn Michaels vacated his title following the whole "lost his smile" bullshit and a new champion needed to be crowned. The next month at Final Four saw a fatal four-way match between Hart, Austin, Vader and the Undertaker for the vacated WWF Championship. Hart would once again become WWF Champion that night, but he would lose the championship the next night on RAW to Sycho Sid following an attack by Austin.

It was decided that Austin and Hart would face each other at WrestleMania 13 in a Submission Match. But a week prior to the event, Hart got a title shot against Sid in a Steel Cage Match. Hart almost had the match won, but the Undertaker interfered and costed him the match. After the match, Hart cut a profanity laced promo talking about how he kept getting screwed over from everyone in the company. At one point, Austin appeared on the Titantron and called Hart a loser and how it could've been the two of them for the championship at WrestleMania but he blew it.

After watching that segment again a couple of weeks back, I thought to myself "Wait a minute, why wasn't it for the championship?" Instead of going with what became the boring main event featuring the Undertaker and Sid, the night would've closed with Austin and Hart going at it in a Submission Match for the WWF Championship.

Let's say that Hart would've retained against Sid the RAW following Final Four and would remain the WWF Champion going into WrestleMania. But at the event itself, it would be the same match; same booking, same finish and same famous double-turn at the end. But Hart would retain his championship.

With hindsight being 20/20, it seems like a no-brainer that this match should've been the main event of WrestleMania 13. At the time, Austin was the top heel in the company, despite getting increasing cheers from the audience, and Hart was the top babyface in the company aside from Michaels. It was clearly a match fans wanted to see and would gladly pay money for. Not to mention, it was seen by many as the starting point for the Attitude Era.

Looking back, I wouldn't have minded if it had been for the title. As I said, it's probably the only memorable match at that year's WrestleMania. But it could also be said that the match and the build-up to it was so personal and heated that a championship was unnecessary.

But what do you all think? Looking back 20 years ago at WrestleMania 13, should the event have ended with Austin and Hart going at it for the WWF Championship?

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

No, it shouldn't have been for the WWF Championship.

Austin wasn't ready to be a champion. Fans weren't going to be behind the match at the same level they were, because nobody would believe Austin would become the world champion.

Sid vs Taker might have been boring, but both were big names. Sid was a bigger name than Austin at the time. Austin was just a red hot heel, but not a bigger draw than Sid.

Also the company needed a fresh champion after two years of Hart/HBK. Taker was that guy. Also Taker deserved a title run.

Sid/Taker was the better option to be the main event of 'Mania 13.

 

[Makaveli31]

This question has been asked 100,000 times the FACT is Bret and Austin didn't need to have the WWF Championship on the line to build heat towards their match. Their feud was white hot as it was. Why throw the WWF title in Bret/Austin (which didn't need it) when it could be used to heat up another feud like 'Taker's and Sid's. The WWF title meant more to the 'Taker/Sid feud than Bret/Austin's (which already has a stipulation). In fact, I would argue the title itself would get lost in a Bret/Austin match because it was so heat.

Add the fact that Austin COSTING Bret the title on RAW heated their feud up even more. If Bret ended keeping the title, Austin's interference would've meant much less. The title change also set up the cage match on the next RAW between Sid and Bret with the cool scenario of Austin interfering to HELP Bret while 'Taker tried to help Sid.

It was also cool to have 'Taker win the title. He had been working with numerous injuries the past few years and it was an acknowledgement by Vince to the Undertaker's sacrifice for the company. He deserved to win the title at WrestleMania.

 

[relentless1]

Taker vs Sid NEEDED the title to be anywhere near relevant, Austin vs Hart did not. End of story.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

People forget that this Mania was not only a test for Taker... but a reward for he AND Sid.

He'd grown as a worker exponentially since they switched him from "Monster of the Quarter" matches after the Mabel injury not even 18 months prior. He'd gone from a relatively one dimensional attraction to one of the best talents on the roster by working with Foley, Goldust and so had Sid since his return. Remember Sid had a real shitty rep (and shorts by the end) but he had legit won Vince and the WWE locker room over since he came back.

They had planned to make Taker a main eventer/champion so he had to actually win the belt... and to do that at Mania was a big boost to what became this legendary character. He was still very much on the bubble at the time... he doesn't main event that, then he doesn't main event Summerslam or do the Match with Shawn... the streak doesn't happen without that title win at Mania 13... and Taker doesn't become the guy he became.

Did Austin need it at that time? No... but from a booking standpoint it was messy thanks to Shawn's "smile" and the convoluted title picture with Final Four etc... So they went the Submission route and used it to turn both guys AND debut Ken Shamrock.

Personally I think Taker v Vader would have had better prospects (and Leon wouldn't have shit himself in the ring) but the end justified the means. Roster wise that was probably the weakest Wrestlemania other than 11. There really was only Austin, Bret, Sid and Taker (perhaps Vader) who COULD have been in the main event at all.

 

[LBGetBack]

Im always in favor of the best match on the card with the best guy in the company being for the title. Crazy logic, I know.

Likewise, I'm rarely a fan of the spectacle, special attraction roid freaks or supernatural extra unrealistic gimmicks wrestling for the title. Frankly, that's the kind of stuff that makes me not really broadcast my wrestling fandom to too many people. It just makes it too hard to explain/defend.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Looking back in retrospect many years later, fans often may want the bigger matches to have been for the title. The way things actually happened is just fine here. Austin VS Hart is one of the best matches of all time. That feud didn't need the title. Sid VS Taker did. If you add the title to Austin VS Hart the title becomes an afterthought in an already intense feud. If you remove the title from Sid VS Taker it makes that match significantly less of a big deal. While within kayfabe the title SHOULD be between the two "best" guys competing in the "biggest" match.... There are times, like this very thread's subject matter, where the best match on the card simply did not need the title. The actual title match did. Plain and simple.