WCW Region, Greensboro Subregion, First Round: (12) Jeff Hardy vs. (21) Owen Hart

Okay, so lets say Owen's win against Bret counts. So does Jeff beating The Undertaker, Triple H, CM Punk, Edge and Kurt Angle. All former World Champions, one Hall of Famer, the rest arguably future Hall of Famers, and three of them he beat for World titles. The fact that Owen has beaten Bret is a bollocks reason for him to go past Jeff. Maven (remember him?) has beaten Taker in the past, but were he in this tournament, you wouldn't put him over Jeff, would you?

One win doesn't define a career, and Jeff Hardy has had more high-profile wins in the main event than Owen Hart ever did. No disrespect to Owen, as he was a great performer, but it's another example of a wrestlers ability being over exaggerated by tragic circumstances. he was good, and mabye could have gone on to be great. But he didn't

Jeff Hardy isn't exactly the greatest wrestler ever, not even a great human being at times, but he's a main eventer and world champion going against a guy who never past midcard.

Jeff wins.

 

I need to put my best foot forward here and, with all due respect to everyone voting for Hardy, I'd ask the remaining voters to consider a few things before placing their votes:

Owen also died before we could see if he actually would have won a world title.

Owen was in the WWE between 1988-1989 and then returned in 1991 and remained there until his death in 1999. That means he had around 9 total years in the WWE prior to leaving all of us.

Jeff Hardy entered the WWE in 1998 and won his first world title in 2008. So it took him 10 years to reach that pinnacle after spending 9 of those years in the midcard, winning nothing besides tag and intercontinental titles. Do you know who else had a similar career? Owen Hart. Except Owen died before he was given the chance to be a world champion.

If you guys think a year doesn't make a difference then I ask you all to view Daniel Bryan's career in the WWE.

But so was Jeff Hardy.

I think he definitely would have gotten a world title run. In today's market (and the way it's been for the past 4-5 years,) wrestlers who put in the time get world title runs. I direct your attention to guys like Mark Henry. Who would have thought he'd be world champion 5 years ago?

But why can't we? Isn't it a little unfair that you've got two men with extremely similar careers but we can't judge one of them because they died too early? I'd put them in the same boat, considering the similarities. And if this were the case, when speaking about beating their siblings in high-profile matches, Jeff defeated his brother Matt Hardy and Owen defeated his brother Bret. I'd give the edge to Owen there.

Here are some stats for you guys:

IC Championship
Jeff Hardy = 4 times
Owen Hart = 2 times

Tag Team Championship
Jeff Hardy = 7 times
Owen Hart = 4 times

King of the Ring
Jeff Hardy = 0
Owen Hart = 1

WWE World Titles
Jeff Hardy = 3 times, all after his tenth year in the WWE.
Owen Hart = 0 and he did not have a career that lasted ten years because of his death.

Sure, Hardy won more midcard titles but that was during a time period when WWE was playing hot potato. Owen was IC and Tag champion when it was more difficult to knock the champion off their pedestal. And he's got a King of the Ring title while Hardy does not.

Now, I'm not saying that Owen should run away with this but it's not as much of a landslide as people might think. This is a much closer match than meets the eye if you break down their stats. And we have to consider what "might have been" in order to make this fair. Either that or we need to judge both men's careers based on the first nine years that they were active in the major promotions.

(I wouldn't be able to sleep at night unless I put up a good fight for my man Owen here.)

All I ask is that everyone please judge these men based on a fair, just, and similar playing field otherwise it's an unfair contest. As long as that's done, I can accept the result.

 

It annoys me that Owen Hart looks likely to go out in the first round here, he was a phenomenal talent, and one that was cruelly taken away when he still had so much to offer. I do think Owen could have gone higher than he did, he was that good but it's a big IF.

Jeff Hardy has done it all. Multiple world title wins, multiple IC title wins, part of one of the all time great tag-teams and has given us many iconic moments in recent wrestling history, as well as pioneering the TLC match and revolutionising the ladder match.

Owen was much better technically, but Hardy has accomplished alot more and has beaten many more top guys than Owen ever did. If Hart had lived, this would be ALOT closer but when you compare the two, Jeff Hardy comes out on top for me.

Winner = Jeff Hardy

 

Are you also going to vote for Magnum T.A. like he hadn't been forced to retire? What about Umaga? He probably would have come back to WWE and gotten a World Title reign. Benoit and Eddie Guerrero? Kerry Von Erich?

Wrestling, unfortunately, is a business where way too many guys are forced to retire or die too early. It sucks, and it is one of the worst things about it. The problem is that you can't guess what would've happened in their careers if they hadn't died. I mean, Owen just as easily could have fallen into midcard hell until he retired. They didn't capitalize on his name after the Screwjob, why would they have done it in the Attitude Era?

Most educated guesses would say that Owen would've been a World Champ had he lived and I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that 6 real World Titles outweigh one hypothetical one to me.

 

While these are good points, they're not exactly what I was referring to.

First off, Magnum T.A. and Kerry Von Erich were not in top promotions and said promotions' midcards do not compare with WWE's.

Secondly, Eddie was a world champion so I'm not getting you there.

Thirdly, if you are trying to compare Umaga to Owen in terms of success in their careers then, come on... there is no comparison.

I cannot disagree with any of this. However, I can't agree either.

Obviously, I favor Owen here. In order to make my argument valid, the "hypothetical" points you mention must be realistic. After all, the entire Wrestlezone Tournament is hypothetical... why can't we judge this matchup in the same sense?

This whole tournament is based on the hypothetical. I feel this should be judged in every sense of the word. But much respect to you, sir.

 

D-Man's right. Decisions on this whole tournament are based on nothing more than extrapolations of each guy's career. Why is it unfair to extrapolate on what Owen accomplished? Best I know Jeff Hardy has never been in a 128 all-time top wrestler single elimination tournament yet people are clearly calling him a winner.

The other argument for Hardy that seems to win people over are his World titles. The same people that honor them and use them to put him through to the next round are probably the same people who use terms like hot-shotted, prop, and B-show. I think of Jeff Hardy as a tag guy who moved in to singles and was mostly used to hype a crowd and make heels get heat. A guy who got over and got his chance to pseudo-main event and gave the fans a nice but short drugged out moment or two.

Owen on the other hand was a huge heel troll during his prime. He would win things that a heel his size and personality should never win. This would be one of those matches. Not that it matters since most folks don't remember the bulk of Owen's career and just make decisions on Wiki pages and abridged DVDs.

 

The idea is the same though. Von Erich was Intercontinental Champion and pretty over in WWF, he easily could have moved to the main event. Magnum was on the path to become NWA World Champion, which was still an important belt in the 80s.

I know Eddie and Benoit were World Champions, I was saying that they could've been multi-time champions.

Umaga was in WWE in that gimmick for only 2-3 years. I mean, Jack Swagger got a WHC run, you don't think Umaga would've if he got cleaned up?

I get that it's all based on hypothetical , but a lot of it is based on the holding up one man's accomplishments against another's and using that to decide who would win a match. I just have trouble with giving people accolades that they may or may not have gotten if they got the chance. Same to you. Bromance 4 lyfe.

 

Wait a second... easily? With Hogan, Savage, Warrior, Undertaker, Slaughter, Ric Flair, and Bret Hart in the main event at the time, I don't think Von Erich would've shined the world title belt, let alone win it.

Once again, both of Owen's IC title runs happened when HBK, Bret, Undertaker, and Sycho Sid were playing hot potato with the title. There was no room for Owen. But fast-forward five years later and Owen could've been a major player.

Von Erich was in the WWE for two years. He won the IC title once for a total of 84 days. Owen won the title twice for a total of 132 days. If what you say about Von Erich is true, you have reinforced my point about Owen.

Besides, we can speak hypothetically about Kerry Von Erich all we want... if he were the one facing Owen Hart here. But he's not... Jeff Hardy is.

Apples and oranges, my friend. I don't think I need to say more here.

True, but it still has no bearing on this matchup.

I think we're taking this "hypothetical" thing too far if you're defending Umaga. I mean, "hypothetically", Yoshi Tatsu could win the WWE title on Monday night. But we need to look at this realistically. Owen and Umaga? Two completely different careers and career paths.

Then this entire matchup can come down to the fact that Owen Hart defeated Bret Hart in Bret's prime and Jeff Hardy has never defeated anyone of that caliber.

<3

 

While I see where D-Man's coming from because of the length of time it took Hardy to win a world title I'd like to mention something.

What I see that's different about the two is that Hardy never really had a major gimmick change. He's essentially been the same guy gimmick wise, even as a heel (the artistic weird guy) whereas Owen seemed to go through a few his last being a comedy character. Now I may not be 100% right but if you become a comedy character you're very unlikely to escape that anytime soon. Sure you can and do something pretty good (Gregory Helms) but you'd have to be built up strongly and even then the likelihood of getting to the main event is pretty slim.

Oh and D-Man Jeff has beaten Kurt Angle, a guy somewhat on par with Bret Hart technical wise.

 

I'm not denying Owen beating Bret or trying to belittle it in any way. The problem is that it's one big win over a career.

[YOUTUBE]lc6b9frZECY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]3ZY0AQEPq3w[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]Qzk0Yc5XJW0[/YOUTUBE]

Those are three huge wins that you could argue are each as important to Jeff's career as that one win was to Owen's. Add in the fact that Jeff Hardy is pretty much the man in TNA while Owen was always Bret's little brother, even after that win, and Jeff takes this. I get why you are voting for Owen, but it's gotta be Hardy for me.

 

This is a big win and I actually forgot about it but it had a dirty finish with obvious interference from Matt Hardy while the Bret/Owen match was cleaner than Windex. One win completely trumps the other.

Not to mention the fact that Bret is LEAGUES above Triple H. Furthermore, Owen beat Bret the same night that Bret won the world title. That basically makes Owen Hart a former champion.

My main argument is how most of Jeff's major accomplishments happened after being in the WWE for ten years (a year longer than Owen lived) while his first nine years mirrored that of Owen's. I can just as easily say that if Owen lived (at least) another year, the same accomplishments would have happened to him, if not more.

These videos happened after the ten year mark for Jeff. If we're staying within the boundaries of my perfectly fair argument, we cannot even put them in the equation because if Owen lived longer, they could've happened to him, too.

...over ten years later...

Owen won multiple tag championships with different partners and two IC championships after his feud with Bret. Give the guy some credit, will ya? Especially since those accomplishments were the same as Jeff Hardy.

I respect your decision. Actually, I respect the decisions of the 51 other voters in support of Hardy. It's not their fault they're being completely unfair with their ways of voting. Oh, wait...

 

Jeff had the Swanton loaded up until Triple H shoved the ref into the ropes.

Come on now, that last part is a huge stretch and you know it. I've followed your line of thinking this whole time, but that is pushing it a bit too far.

Jeff was in WWE from '98-'03 and '06-'09. By my math, that puts him about just about the same amount of time as Owen. If you add in the 2 years he was in TNA the first time, that still only puts him at 10 or 11 years when he left WWE. So you can take out the TNA Title win, but that leaves in that first title win and puts that great feud with CM Punk just past your boundary.

That's still only midcard. Jeff rose to the main event and won the title. Owen had the one win over Bret and never really moved up from there.

 

Jeffs main accoplishments also happened five years younger than when Owen Hart died. He's only 35 NOW wheras Owen was 34 when he died. (And those ten years in WWE you keep talking about ignore the two years Jeff had spent in TNA.)

Would you expect him to have gotten his push so quickly before he retired? Because its well known Owen Hart had always planned to retire early to spend time with his family. He was back wrestling as the Blue Blazer, and guys like the Rock were sky rocketing beyond him. Owen was a talent wrestler, no doubt. But he wasnt going anywhere ahead of the Rock or Triple H. He was fighting the godfather, and teaming with double J.

Beating Bret Hart on the night Bret wins the title does not make you "basically a world champion". Beating Bret Hart isnt any less significant than beating Triple H, whether Bret's talent is leagues beyond H's or not, because this isnt a real sport.

To declare an arguement based on fact "unfair" is silly and childish. Owen never broke the glass sealing. Jeff did. And he was able to do that whilst CONSTANTLY fucking up with drugs and injures. Owen Hart is alot closer to being Matt Hardy, than Jeff. Ever the brother of the real talent. Vote Hardy.

 

I'm so confused. I mean, I voted Owen but even I can't follow the arguments for him in this thread.

It's irrelevant if he would of been a world champion/accomplished more, because he didn't. Simply put, Jeff rose higher than Owen ever did, he had more big moment than Owen ever did and has been in the main event for FAR longer than Owen ever did.

My argument was based on the kayfabe record of Owen Vs highflyers and Jeff Vs technicians, as well as how I thought this tournament would be booked if it happened. Any argument about Owen "deserving" a victory is ridiculous though.

 

Whilst I can't argue that he hasn't beaten anyone on Harts level (though that is arguable), he has beaten guys like Triple H, Undertaker, Edge and CM Punk. Now, CM Punk at the time (2009 I believe) wasn't really a big deal at all, but then you have Edge; a mulitple-time world champion and hall-of-famer, Triple H; who at the point Hardy beat him in 2008 was one of the biggest faces in WWE, and The Undertaker, who is...well, the Undertaker.

I get what your overall point is, but I don't think you can use 'what might have been' as an argument in this. If you took Owen in his prime and Jeff in his prime, you can't take an Owen that would have won a world title had he not died, and even with that win over Bret, Owen was a midcarder with potential to go further, but didn't. Jeff Hardy in his prime, however, is a World Champion, who beat Triple H and Edge, one Hall of Famer and a future Hall of Famer, who at the time had 18 world titles between them, in the same match for the title.

But this all comes down to what you believe is an acceptable argument here. I do totally understand your point, and should Owen win I wouldn't be too disappointed. But for me, the fact that Owen probably would have won a world title doesn't change that it didn't happen, and sadly will never happen. It did, however, happen for Jeff Hardy.

 

And that's the criteria for voting in the tournament, is it not? You look at what the star did in his prime, and vote accordingly. Hardy hit his prime in 2007, beating Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, HHH, and Edge during this time. In late 2008, Armageddon in fact, he won his first World Title, and in a time oversaturated with rapid-fire title changes, won two more World Titles before leaving WWE just 8 months later. Beating HHH, Edge, and CM Punk for the World Title isn't bad.

Except for an in-his-prime Hardy generally didn't lose matches against those "huge douches." The best example is CM Punk, who Hardy beat clean in a one-on-one match. It's funny, people point to Hardy as a crash test dummy and a master of the gimmick match, but he beat HHH and Edge in a triple threat, and Punk in a single's match for two of his 3 title victories.

Hardy was main-eventing PPV's against a wrestler who had already reached a higher level then Owen ever did in CM Punk, and he beat Punk clean in a single's match.

Except for X-Pac didn't achieve half the success that Hardy did, nor did he ever rise above mid-card status. So the comparison really doesn't hold. And he's also a smarter wrestler then X-Pac was, as he showed during his peak when he beat Edge, HBK, HHH, and Undertaker in standard one-on-one matches.

A couple of things here:

1. He hit an enzeguri on HBK, who got up shortly after Stone Cold stunned the referee. There was no count, so we don't know if he had him beat or not.

2. Yes, the IC Title was the "wrestlers title" at the time, but it was still the midcard title. And it was held by Owen, who, 2 years after his victory over Bret at Wrestlemania, was defending a midcard title for simply the reason of getting Stone Cold over, and furthering the feud between Bret and Shawn. He was a stepping stone. Hardy, during his prime, wasn't a stepping stone.

This was actually a match to see who would face Bret at Wrestlemania, after Shawn won the Royal Rumble. And seeing how Jeff beat HBK in his prime, Im not sure how you can say that "he's a tougher opponent then Jeff." Jeff, in his prime, beat the guy that Owen couldn't.

The bolded part is all that matters. Main event Hardy would never have been booked to lose to freakin X-Pac.

Are you arguing for or against Hardy? What truly brought Hardy into his prime was his win over HHH at Armageddon 2007, where he pinned HHH clean. If it hadn't been for a drug suspension, his own fault, it likely wouldn't have been a year until Armageddon 2008 that he beat HHH and Edge

Yet he was still a main event heel, main eventing Summerslam and Night of Champions against Hardy. And in their one-on-one, non-gimmick match at Night of Champions, Hardy won clean.

Yes he had. He had won two, in fact. He had beaten Edge on Raw in May 2008, and Hardy in a MITB cash-in at the End of Extreme Rules 2009.

He won the two gimmick matches against Hardy, and cashed in MITB. The only one on one single's match(excluding the MITB cash-in) the two had, Hardy won. And this is a single's match, is it not?

What major highflyers did Owen beat? Further, see above. Hardy, at Night of Champions 2009, beat Punk in their only one-on-one non-gimmick match, clean.

Furthermore, he's the better guy in his prime. And he's gone from putting his own career in turmoil multiple times to recovering to become a 6 time World Champion, and remains in his prime, as he was TNA's World Champion until Sunday, holding the title for 5 months.

I doubt it. You compared Owen to Punk, and I already showed how when they went one-on-one in a straight up single's match, Hardy beat Punk. I don't see the result here being any different.

Hardy doesn't need my endorsement, he's winning handily here. Just thought Id lend some perspective.

 

I've read through just about all the posts in this thread and two things stuck out at me:

Personally, I'll take Triple H over Bret Hart, but that's not even what I'm here to argue. It's just the blatant hyperbole in this statement that I thought was funny. Bret isn't "leagues" above Triple H -- far from it, in fact. I'll take Triple H (at his peak) over Bret Hart any day. Maybe I'm a product of the generation of wrestlers I grew up watching, but Bret's so overrated in this respect. He was great, but let's not place him in the same echelon as the true greats of professional wrestling.

Nope. Not at all. That's one hell of a stretch you're making there, D-Man. Do you think Owen still would have gone over if Bret had been champion at the time? I certainly don't. It doesn't matter, though -- it's all speculation.

It's a shame Owen never got the chance he may have received later in his career to run with the world title, but we have to judge his career within the parameters given. It's tragic that he passed away, but he never did grab that brass ring and making statements like, "he's basically a former world champion" won't change that. I know you're trying to argue for your boy here -- hell, I like Owen a lot, too -- but this is just distorting things too much.

His win against Bret was probably the pinnacle of his career, but it's not enough to take him past a guy like Jeff Hardy (who has plenty of strong wins in his own right). Hardy has all the accolades that Owen might have achieved later on in his career -- and while, yes, you may very well be right about Owen being a world champion had his career not been cut short, it's not a valid criteria to judge on. Nor is it fair to say that his win against Bret basically makes him a former world champion, just because of what Bret went on to achieve (even if it was later on that same night), especially when you consider the fact that Bret beat Owen in a title defense during that very same reign reign, didn't he?

 

Great reply . Honestly, I agree with the vast majority of what you say and always knew I was arguing a tenuous point. As I said a lot, Hardy certainly deserves to go over, I could just envision Owen getting the W. Anyway, since you took the time I'll reply, but I'm mostly on the same page if truth be told.

I mean, everyone has their own criteria for voting. I treat the matches similar to a "rock-paper-scissors" system - Lesnar would beat Rock, Rock would beat Cena, Cena would beat Lesnar as of 2012, for example. I just think this makes the tournament the most fun possible, otherwise you can work out "Austin will win" before anything happens. Owen Hart is exactly the type I could imagine going over Jeff Hardy, although it's hard to define why. Something about the mix of a high-flyer and a fast paced technician screams "roll up" to me.

I agree, of course this is Hardy's peak. Owen's was 1994, going clean over Bret Hart who at the time was #1 in the company was a huge deal. Winning King of the Ring at the time is a huge deal. He was in a world title match at the second biggest PPV of the year. I'm not arguing that Jeff's prime was higher, I'm just saying Owen had a reasonable one too that lasted a similar length to Jeff's. Jeff's push lasted a while, but he only held the World Heavyweight Championship for 28 days and the WWE title for 42 days. That's a really short time for his three world title reigns.



Your kayfabe arguments I really can't answer, which is why I have to kinda sheepishly back down here. I mean, I'm not denying that Jeff has gone over more big names. He certainly has, my only argument was centric to "Owen is good vs highflyers and Jeff sucks against technicians", which you've done a good job of debunking

My point with comparing Hardy's win loss vs Randy/HHH compared to Punk was that undoubtedly Orton/HHH were more credible opponents at the time for Hardy, and yet he had more trouble against Punk, the guy most similar to Owen Hart in size and style. I agree that Punk in this era is a bigger threat than Owen in his prime however and Hardy winning the only singles match is an irritating argument that I didn't notice and have no counter for. Nor did I remember that he cleanly beat HBK on Raw - tbf this isn't a prime HBK. During the time Shawn was mostly used for developing talents and hadn't been World Champion in 6 years. Say what you will, that second video of Owen Vs Shawn was Owen dominating a match vs a main eventing, prime HBK. Still, Owen didn't win and Hardy went over clean so I completely take your point and commend your argument.

The fact is, there wasn't many that wrestled the style of Hardy during Owen's WWF tenure, hence why I resorted to the 1-2-3 Kid video and such. He won 5-4 against Jushin Liger, went 7-0 over Too Cold Scorpio, 1-0 over prime Sabu, 1-0 over Brian Pillman, 1-0 over Taka Michinoku - he lost 1-0 to Muta though

Hardy vs technicians

Lost 5-10 to Jericho
1-1 with Lance Storm
1-0 over Malenko
Lost 3-0 to Eddie Guerrero
Lost 8-13 to CM Punk

Oh and, in Hardy's prime (2007-2009 by your own acknowledgement), CM Punk won 12 out of 20 one on one matches including house shows Vs Jeff Hardy

 

Hardy wins this one and it should not even be an argument. Jeff is a 6 time world champion which is 6 times more than Owen. Owen had one serious run at a world title against his brother and he failed each time on the big stage. Sure Hardy is not as technically sound as Owen but if that was what we were voting on Dean Malenko would win this tournament. Hardy wins this one in a fast paced match

 

I've booted up my old desktop to make this post and it's chugging along just quickly enough to keep up with my typing speed. First thing's first - this is just bad maths, isn't it?

Jeff Hardy is a man who I've called a cunt at least half a dozen times in the past week. He is a cunt. I don't like him; I've never particularly liked him. He's succeeded despite himself. But he still beats Owen Hart. This sentiment doesn't appear to be as unique and revolutionary as I was hoping it to be, but it's nice to know that the results would be quite different if the question read "Who's the bigger cunt?"

To quote myself from t'other thread:

Look at that - handsome and clever.

 

Would love to go for Owen because I believe the WWF didn't make use of him when he was hot and I have never had any time for Jeff until recently... but...

Owen might have beaten an all time great in Bret Hart but if there was one main eventer he would be likely to beat, it would be his brother and the fact he couldn't do it when it really mattered doesn't bode well for him beating a SCSA, Rock or HHH down the line.

Like it or not, Owen's stock diminished in the wake of Bret leaving for WCW (hence the terrible gimmick at the time of the tragedy). While there is a list of superstars who have grasped the brass ring a long period into their career, it's a remarkably short list. It has always come across that Owen was on Vince's 'shit list' at the time of his death and the list of people who have come off that is incredibly small... and have names like Hulk Hogan and Bret Hart. Plus, I believe that he was highly unlikely to have been endorsed by power players like Austin and Michaels.

'What if Owen had lived?' is still a popular topic but if we're brutally honest with ourselves, chances are he'd have done nothing of note in the WWF/ WWe.


Jeff on the other hand was given his title runs because of incredible popularity with the WWe Universe due to his willingness to put his body on the line (let's face it, it's not for his sparkling repartee) coupled with his impeding contract expiration. We might regard him as a spot monkey but the fans lapped it up.

The fact that this is in Hardy's home state further diminishes any chance the 'King of Harts' would have. I just could not see him being booked over the 'Charismatic Enigma'.

 

Oh my. Remember this thread for comedy thread of the year. D-Man, this shit being thrown around in this thread is even beyond the OneBigWill zone. Absolutely wild.

Jeff Hardy has beaten MULTIPLE Hall Of Famers en route to the world title, a world title he ACTUALLY DID win, multiple times, and he spent time as easily THE most over guy in the indurstry. All things Owen Hart never even touched.

One great feud, when they were working buildings that fit under a thousand people, when the roster was at its absolute worst since the WWE hit the airwaves. Any other time he was lost in the shuffle of the mid card and tag divisions. You can say wouldve couldve shouldve had he not died, and ill say woulldnt have, couldnt have, damn sure SHOULDNT have...Given how stacked the roster was to become directly after his passing (The Rock, SCSA, Big Show, Mankind, Triple H) Are you going to sit there with a straight face and say that Owen "im not a nugget!" Hart was going to be put in front of those guys?

At his best, Owen was a formidable challenger. Hardy was a world champion, the most over guy in the buisness.

 

I like Owen Hart a lot more than Jeff Hardy. I think Owen was very talented in the ring. Everything he did was always smooth and crisp. I think he was underrated on the mic. He could be funny or annoying depending on the situation. I think Owen would lose to Hardy here. Besides WM10 and KOTR 94 Owen never really beat anyone that wasn't significantly lower than him on the card. Too bad Savio Vega and Aldo Montoya aren't in the tournament. Owen would have a great match and put on a great performance. He would make himself and Hardy look great before getting beat.