Third Round - Chicago: Standard Rules Match - Randy Savage vs. Bret Hart

[klunderbunker]

This is a Third Round match in the Chicago Region.

Rules: This is a standard wrestling match with no special rules added.

Location: United Center, Chicago, Illinois

Randy Savage

Vs.

Bret Hart

​

Voting is open for 4 days.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

It's Savage in this match. Gimmicks are good and all, but when push comes to shove I would take Savage in a regular match against Hart. Yes, Hart can wrestle, and he's known as the excellence of execution, but he's also prone to choke in big matches. And this is a definite big match against a big time opponent in the Macho Man.

Few compare to Savage's in-ring abilities and his psychology in the ring as well. A 5 star classic that sees Savage hitting the elbow off the top rope and finishing Hart for a 3 count.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

This is a dream match.

Just go back to Wrestlemania 8 - my favorite WM ever. Savage beat Flair for the WWF Title in one of the best matches in WM history, and Hart beat Piper for the IC Title in another classic WM match.

Savage's intensity is negated by Hart's calm demeanor. Hart's technique is negated by Savage's experience. Savage's power is negated by Hart's technical skill. Hart's tencity is negated by Savage's fast pace.

I mean, this match is the very definition of a true draw. If they fought 10 times, I'd give 5 to Savage and 5 to Hart.

I am leaning Savage, but I'll wait two days to let the people who know which direction they're going in convince me.

 

[Slim Pickns]

It's Savage in this match. Gimmicks are good and all, but when push comes to shove I would take Savage in a regular match against Hart. Yes, Hart can wrestle, and he's known as the excellence of execution, but he's also prone to choke in big matches. And this is a definite big match against a big time opponent in the Macho Man.

Interesting comment in saying Hart is prone to choking in big matches. Not sure where you are getting that from. Plus, its not as if Randy Savage was invincible in big main events. Actually, you could seriously downplay all of his title reigns and most of his main events. His biggest championship run, was overshadowed by Hogan the entire time before "choking" at Wrestlemania and dropping the belt to Hogan.

These two are two of my rotating three all time favorites. Savage's matches at Wrestlemania III, V, and VII remain three of my all time favorites. The matches at III and VII consistently find themselves on best match lists. Hart's also put on many classics at Mania XII and 13 as well as Summerslam 91 and 92.

Even though their careers overlapped for a good chunk of time they are hard to compare. Savage was winding down in WWF when Hart became the major player and the WCW days were hard to gauge. When Savage was a main eventer hart was in the tag ranks. They do have one match against each other at Saturday Night's Main Event which Savage won.

Both men in their prime however, I'm picking Bret Hart in a match that lasts close to an hour. Both men were extremely resilient and had amazing endurance. They would both bust out every signature move they have and gain many near falls. The difference in this match is the Sharpshooter. Bret doesn't have to pin Savage, he can lock on the Sharpshooter and force him to tap out or pass out. After a grueling match Hart will catch him and force the submission.

 

[The Brain]

What a great match. These are two of the best performers WWE has ever had. I think I'm going to have to go with Bret. He seems to come out on the winning end in big matches more often than Savage does. When Bret does loose a big match he usually makes up for it in a rematch. He lost to Owen at WM10, but dominated him throughout the rest of 1994. He lost to Bulldog at SS92, but beat him at In Your House a few years later. Bret came out on the winning end against Piper, Perfect, Diesel, Taker, Austin, Flair, and more. Savage was great, and he carried some opponents to great matches, but he came out on the loosing end against Hogan, Warrior, Steamboat, and Flair. Of course Savage has his wins too, but I think Bret does better in the big match. These two did wrestle in Japan in 1994. Bret was WWF champion and Savage would be out of WWF in a few months, but I think Savage was still in his prime or close to it. Bret kicked out of the elbow and made Savage submit in the sharpshooter. I love the Macho Man, but I see Bret getting his hand raised here.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

I'm choosing to vote for Savage here for a variety of reasons:

• Bret Hart is boring.
• Bret Hart receives endless adulation for his talent when in reality, he really only had one sequence of moves.
• Repeat winners are boring and Bret won three tournaments last year.
• Bret's match at WrestleMania this year sucked.

That's all really. Don't really like Bret Hart.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

Interesting comment in saying Hart is prone to choking in big matches. Not sure where you are getting that from. Plus, its not as if Randy Savage was invincible in big main events. Actually, you could seriously downplay all of his title reigns and most of his main events. His biggest championship run, was overshadowed by Hogan the entire time before "choking" at Wrestlemania and dropping the belt to Hogan.

It was the time of Hulkamania. No one would be able to avoid being overshadowed by Hogan. Macho Man was able to be the consistently second biggest star, just behind Hogan by a small margin. Some might even argue that at times, Savage was on par with Hogan in terms of drawing ability.

Even though their careers overlapped for a good chunk of time they are hard to compare. Savage was winding down in WWF when Hart became the major player and the WCW days were hard to gauge. When Savage was a main eventer hart was in the tag ranks. They do have one match against each other at Saturday Night's Main Event which Savage won.

According when Bet Hart was in his prime and at the top of his game, Macho Man was fading out. However when they wrestled in the very type of match that they are in now, Macho Man, who (according to you) was not in his prime, was able to beat Hart, who (according to you) was in his prime. Surely then, Savage would have an even easier time beating Hart when Savage is in his prime. Thanks for the Savage Support.

Savage pinned Hart while having to deal with the constant interference of Jim ‘The Anvil’ Neidhart & Jimmy Hart, as well as ensuring Elizabeth remained out of harms way outside the ring. He also wrestled over half of the match practically on one leg.

Savage won before, and he’ll do so again here.

 

[The Brain]

According when Bet Hart was in his prime and at the top of his game, Macho Man was fading out. However when they wrestled in the very type of match that they are in now, Macho Man, who (according to you) was not in his prime, was able to beat Hart, who (according to you) was in his prime. Surely then, Savage would have an even easier time beating Hart when Savage is in his prime. Thanks for the Savage Support.

You've got this mixed up. When they wrestled on Saturday Night's Main Event it was 1987. Savage was in his prime. Bret was not. The match they had in Japan in 1994 was much closer to both men's primes. Savage may have been slightly past his, but if so only very slightly. He was however at the end of his WWF run. Savage went on to wrestle for WCW for years and win many titles so you could say he was still in his prime when Hart beat him clean. As I stated before Hart kicked out of the elbow and won with the sharpshooter.

 

[Skillz]

This right here is without a doubt the best match of the entire tournament. If this match had actually happened with both wrestlers in their primes, it probably would have been the greatest match of all time. That's how good these two wrestlers were. There is simply no wrong winner here. Whoever wins deserves to go through.

They have only wrestled each other twice in televised singles matches. The first time was at Saturday Night's Main Event in 1987 when Savage who was in his prime, beat Bret who was about 5 years from entering his. This was a phenomenal match, probably the best in SNME history. For anyone who hasn't seen it, here it is:

[YOUTUBE]Z976fLWo3lc[/YOUTUBE][YOUTUBE]mXDcus9CrIA[/YOUTUBE]

Their other match was at WCW Slamboree 1998. They were both past their primes at that point, although Bret made Savage submit to the Sharpshooter. Looking at it strictly from a kayfabe perspective with both wrestlers in their primes, I think Bret beats Savage 6 times out of 10. Savage had a great career, but the one thing that lets him down is that he often came up short against other top stars.

From a credentials perspective, it's very, very close. They were both masters at in-ring psychology, storytelling and selling, but I will give Bret the slight edge in that department. Savage has the edge in charisma and promos, and was probably a better draw in the US, although internationally Bret was a very strong draw who still to this day has legions of fans from all over the world. They were both great WWF and IC champions, and elevated any title that was given to them. Everyone knows about the classics that these two had in their careers, but Bret has the larger body of work with more great matches to his name. Overall, I think Bret just edges ahead of Savage, but not by much.

 

[Ferbian]

I'm torn here, sure Randy Savage is pretty good in the ring and a tough opponent to beat, having beaten a large variety of opponents, but so has Bret Hart, and the problem is that as far as I know both have suffered their share of defeats in big match situations, Bret Hart loosing at Wrestlemania 12, loosing at Wrestlemania 9 and loosing to his brother at Wrestlemania 10 (only to win later in the night I know) where as Randy also have lost at Wrestlemania 3 and 5, but in the end, I think Randy Savage might be able to gain the upper hand in this match, ultimately defeating Bret Hart in a long grueling match that will be very back and forth.

Voting Randy Savage.

 

[D-Man]

Oh man... I've been wanting to say my peace in a matchup like this for a VERY long time.

I always get crucified for saying this, but I really feel that besides RVD, Bret Hart is one of the most overrated wrestlers in history. I understand that this comment seems like I'm saying "Bret Hart sucks." Well, you're wrong. Bret Hart was a great wrestler, but everyone makes him out to be this unstoppable god that could win every match because he's the greatest technical blah, blah, blah... I must differ.

Now we have to look at the similarities between the two men. Both men are Kings of the Ring. Both men won the IC championship and defended it against world class opponents, both men won multiple WWE and WCW championships, and both men were technical geniuses. Of course, that's the short story.

I think Bret was great, but as an overall superstar he was barely main-event material. The guy never drew numbers, he won and lost matches just like any other (I don't remember him ever having a truly DOMINANT period of note), lacked the size to be a believable world champion, and I feel that he was only handed a world title because the WWE lacked babyfaces at the time that he was given the championship, so they tried to elevate Bret to lead a rebuilding era during a period when the WWE severely lacked star power.

On the other hand, Randy Savage just oozed star power from his first day in the company. As well as being another technical genius, Savage's charisma was off the charts. Naturally, Elizabeth added to that, but Savage also backed it up in the ring. Even though his reign as IC champion didn't last very long, for some reason, everyone remembers how great it was. And why? Because Savage made it great. He was able to take his feuds with Jake Roberts, George Steele and Ricky Steamboat and make them classic. But Savage did something that Bret Hart couldn't... he won the world title during Hulk Hogan's prime. I know it may not seem like much, but being over to the point where the world strap is put on you instead of the biggest babyface in history and then entering a YEAR LONG feud with him was quite an accomplishment for that time period.

I don't care if someone breaks down this post line for line and gives me a billion reasons why Bret Hart was better than Randy Savage. Personally, I feel that Savage was more influential with future talent, he was quicker, and was just a better overall superstar than Bret. Savage's speed cancels out with Bret's ground game. They both won championships. They both won the King of the Ring Tournament. But Savage has charisma, made his storylines more personal and memorable, and was more successful when he was spread between WWE and WCW, collectively.

I'm voting for Randy Savage.

 

[Suneeboy]

This is by far the best match of the tournament thus far and the toughest one for me to vote on. I really had to think about it, but I had to go with my instincts which was to vote for Savage.

To me, he was more fun to watch, had better promos, better feuds, and more memorable moments.

He is the epitome of toughness and heart for me. His first championship run in the WWE was fantastic, and solidified my love for wrestling as a child. I just can’t vote against Savage in this situation, although if he lost it would be completely understandable, as Bret deserves to win as well because he definitely is capable.

It’s a 50/50 coin toss here. Savage Heads, Hart Tails. Heads wins this time around.

 

[Skillz]

Bret Hart is one of the most overrated wrestlers in history.

It's kind of ironic that you're saying this, while having Owen Hart of all people in your sig.

I think Bret was great, but as an overall superstar he was barely main-event material.

Whether you think he was main-event material or not, the indisputable facts show that from 1992 to 1997 Bret main-evented more shows, won more world championships and drew more money than anyone else in WWE.

he won and lost matches just like any other (I don't remember him ever having a truly DOMINANT period of note),

During Bret's entire singles run in WWE (1991-1997) he lost clean a total of 4 times. FOUR TIMES! Once to The Mountie when in kayfabe Bret was suffering from the flu. Once to the Bulldog, when Bulldog had 80,000 of his home fans rooting for him. Once to Owen when in kayfabe Bret didn't give it his all because he was fighting his own brother AND had an upcoming WWF title match later on in the night. And once to HBK, when the only thing that stopped HBK from giving up to the Sharpshooter was the bell. As far as I can remember, those were his only clean losses.

So as you can see, even when Bret lost clean there were still other factors that played into it. If losing clean only 4 times in over 6 years is not dominance, then I don't know what is. Only Undertaker was as dominant during that period, but he didn't win all the championships that Bret did. Bret rarely lost, and when he did, it was usually by some kind of outside interference, like salt being thrown in his eyes or a towel being thrown in the ring.

Mr. Perfect, Ric Flair, Razor Ramon, Diesel, Undertaker, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Chris Benoit, Sting and Goldberg. These are all huge names and they all have one thing in common. None of them have ever beaten Bret Hart. Bret has beaten all of them, most of them multiple times, but none of them have ever had a decisive win over Bret.

Even though his reign as IC champion didn't last very long, for some reason, everyone remembers how great it was. And why? Because Savage made it great.

Savage was IC champion for 414 days.

 

[D-Man]

It's kind of ironic that you're saying this, while having Owen Hart of all people in your sig.

Good thing you spotted that, because I didn't notice.

Whether you think he was main-event material or not, the indisputable facts show that from 1992 to 1997 Bret main-evented more shows, won more world championships and drew more money than anyone else in WWE.

Which makes no difference, considering the fact that he was the only person to fill those shoes on the roster during that time period. This was during a time where the WWE was in a rebuilding phase, severely lacked star power, and drew the worst buyrates in the company's history at the time.

During Bret's entire singles run in WWE (1991-1997) he lost clean a total of 4 times. FOUR TIMES!

It's funny how you make this statement and completely discard all of his losses since they weren't CLEAN. You should probably also mention this was extremely common of babyface champions back in the 80's and 90's.

So as you can see, even when Bret lost clean there were still other factors that played into it. If losing clean only 4 times in over 6 years is not dominance, then I don't know what is. Only Undertaker was as dominant during that period, but he didn't win all the championships that Bret did. Bret rarely lost, and when he did, it was usually by some kind of outside interference, like salt being thrown in his eyes or a towel being thrown in the ring.

But a loss is a loss. Just because it was clean doesn't mean it shouldn't be noted. This is a bullshit argument.

Savage was IC champion for 414 days.

I don't know what I thinking with my previous post about his reign not lasting long. But then again, I'm writing this at work, so my attention is diverted elsewhere... and rightfully so.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Like a lot of others, I'm pretty torn here. This would have been a match for the ages when both were in their prime and I could honestly see it going either way. Physically, both of these guys match up pretty evenly overall. I'd give Savage a nod in strength as I never saw Bret Hart slam or suplex many 300+ pounders while Savage did. When it comes to overall technical knowhow, I've got to lean towards Bret Hart on this one due to the training he received under his old man Stu.

This one literally is a coin toss I think and is probably the best match of the tourney. I think I'm gonna give the nod to the Hitman here. Savage loved high risk moves from the top and one big mistake could allow Hart to capitalize for just long enough to get the job done. If Savage wins, however, I won't be upset at all.

 

[CH David]

I'll do my lazy version of repeating what people said. Dream match...yadda yadda.

Anyway, I'm voting Savage. This is a bit of a hometown match for him, whether it is acknowledged anywhere or not. He is a graduate from Downers Grove North High School, a suburb of Chicago. He even used to be introduced from Downers Grove at one time.

Bret is a great wrestler, but so was Savage, and Savage was more entertaining. I look back at old footage and matches from both of these men, and Savage takes the cake on that subject. He had a year title reign during Hulkamania. I don't care if the focus was on Hogan. He had it, can't take it away from him, end o' story. Give me the man that people cared about when he was wrestling, compared to the guy who is mostly known for a Screwjob. Again, that comes from a fan of Hart.

So yeah, vote Savage.

 

[gd]

I went Savage here. Partly because of Bret winning last year, but more because he's just as good if not better than Bret when it comes to most aspects. Overall, Savage was probably the more entertaining character and he could certianly match Hart move for move in the ring.

The fact that Savage beat Hart in the WWF also really helps his case here, but this should be a close one that comes down to the wire.

 

[Slim Pickns]

It was the time of Hulkamania. No one would be able to avoid being overshadowed by Hogan. Macho Man was able to be the consistently second biggest star, just behind Hogan by a small margin. Some might even argue that at times, Savage was on par with Hogan in terms of drawing ability.

If consistently second you mean for the one year he was champion then yes. After dropping the title to Hogan he sat next to Zeus for a while then feuded with Dusty Rhodes in the mid card. I don't know who is telling you Savage was on par with Hogan in terms of drawing power, but please inform them they are wrong. During his first title run he never main evented a PPV without Hogan in the same match.

According when Bet Hart was in his prime and at the top of his game, Macho Man was fading out. However when they wrestled in the very type of match that they are in now, Macho Man, who (according to you) was not in his prime, was able to beat Hart, who (according to you) was in his prime. Surely then, Savage would have an even easier time beating Hart when Savage is in his prime. Thanks for the Savage Support.

Savage pinned Hart while having to deal with the constant interference of Jim ‘The Anvil’ Neidhart & Jimmy Hart, as well as ensuring Elizabeth remained out of harms way outside the ring. He also wrestled over half of the match practically on one leg.

Savage won before, and he’ll do so again here.

Not what I said at all. I did not state this match was in their primes. Ask anyone when Hart's prime was and you'll get a few different answers. However, non will say it was when he was managed by Jimmy Hart as one half of the Hart Foundation. I was simply informing people of this match. It proves nothing in this tournament.

 

[Via Armbar]

Don't be a Hart-on. Vote Savage. The best all around performer in the history of professional wrestling. A man that has far more memorable moments than Hart does. A man that was there at the top when wrestling was at it's peak. There's nothing here other than sheer bias that should influence you to vote otherwise. If Hart's your favorite and your going to vote for him either way, then vote and go about your business. If you're one of the few who are leaving it open...do the right thing. Why wouldn't you vote for a man who has had just as many classic matches as Hart, was a bigger draw and a constant top level performer? No disrepsect to Hart, he was a great technician yadda yadda yadda. With all that aside, vote for the man who is better in every area. Vote Savage.

 

[Tastycles]

I think this one goes to Savage. Yes, they have a win each against each other outside of one of their primes, but I think you have to look a little deeper than that. The roster was probably stronger when Savage was in the main event, and while it is true that he was overshadowed to some extent by Hogan, Hart's first ever WrestleMania main event was totally thrown into pointlessness by Hogan's appearance.

As for what they could do in the ring, it would obviously be an excellent match. I don't really have any solid fact based precedents with which to make my argument except to say that I think Savage wouuld probably win an actual match between the two in their primes.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

I'm going with Savage. Hart went thorough two matches at WrestleMania X before winning the world title, Savage went through FOUR to win the championship at WrestleMania IV.

Savage has doen it all in the industry and really is one of the best all rounders in the history of the game. Savage deserves to win. Vote Savage.

 

[Mr. Truth]

My reasoning for voting Savage mirror D's. I've felt that Bret was a product of circumstance where nobody else could really be the top babyface of the company. Savage on the other hand was far more entertaining both in and out of the ring. As Tasty said, Savage faced tougher competition. As they say, parody is the best form of flattery, and did Bret have someone parody his gimmick (save for Charlie Haas one night)? No. But we have Jay Lethal's Black Machismo gimmick. Also, I think Bret is overrated. So I'm going with the Macho Man.

 

[Supernova]

I like both but I voted for Hart because, even though it was a bad time, he was at one point THE guy in the WWF. That means he follows in the lineage of guys like Hogan, Warrior, HBK, Austin, Rock and Cena as opposed to being on the level of Undertaker, HHH, Batista, Edge etc, which is the level I see Savage at. Close match though and it doesn't really matter who progresses because they both deserve to.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

I like both but I voted for Hart because, even though it was a bad time, he was at one point THE guy in the WWF. That means he follows in the lineage of guys like Hogan, Warrior, HBK, Austin, Rock and Cena as opposed to being on the level of Undertaker, HHH, Batista, Edge etc, which is the level I see Savage at. Close match though and it doesn't really matter who progresses because they both deserve to.

I fail to see how, if you're saying Warrior, HBK, and Bret were "the guy", that Savage was not. HBK and Hart were the exact same time period, and Savage was the champ FOR A YEAR while Hulk HOgan was still around. Savage is every bit on that level. He's nearly as technical a wrestler, but much more powerful, agile, and athletic.

 

[The Underking]

I like both but I voted for Hart because, even though it was a bad time, he was at one point THE guy in the WWF. That means he follows in the lineage of guys like Hogan, Warrior, HBK, Austin, Rock and Cena as opposed to being on the level of Undertaker, HHH, Batista, Edge etc, which is the level I see Savage at. Close match though and it doesn't really matter who progresses because they both deserve to.

Okay so you're going to tell me that Bret was the guy and that Randy is The Undertaker's level. Undertaker beat the guy after Bret who beat Bret in an Iron Man Match two times straight. Hell Bret needed to cheat to beat Taker so in a singles match what are Bret's odds he gets caught cheating and loses.