Which do you prefer?

[mcfly2012]

The subject I have is which of these events do you prefer.
Number 1. Wrestlemania 10. Bret Hart wrestling twice. Perfect storyline with Owen. A long build up. A mega great match. OK he lost. But gets his title redemption from earlier screw ups and has his redemption and wins title.

Number 2. Wrestlemania 30. Daniel Bryan wrestling twice. Perfect storyline with Triple H. A long build up. A mega great match. Ok he won. But gets his title redemption from earlier screw up and has his redemption and wins title.

 

[TheICChampion]

As a fan of the Excellence of Execution, I want to say Bret Hart's was more memorable, but I'd be lying. Daniel Bryan's story was of the ultimate underdog who, on top of being as small as he is, was also screwed over countless times by the Authority because he didn't fit their idea of a top superstar and one who should be the WWE champion. Despite all that, he went through all of it to capture the WWE title on the biggest stage, after going through Trips, Orton AND Batista. Add to that he was injured and it makes it unforgettable. Sure, it was ultimately for nothing after a month or so, whereas Bret had a decent reign, not to mention another decent reign a year beforehand. As far as who has had the most memorable moment, I think just about everyone is going to pick your second option.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I like Daniel Bryan and his whole "underdog" story, but I appreciate realism (or the appearance of it) in pro wrestling....and it never seemed real to me that a little, slightly flabby guy like Daniel could defeat all those behemoths. So, while I enjoyed the Daniel saga, there was always a grain of salt added. The sight of those big guys standing still while Bryan delivered kicks to their legs never appeared quite real to me.

Bret Hart's dealings at WM10 were different. I never expected him to lose to Owen early in the evening....and was knocked out by the match. Both of them showed excellence of execution that night, and the match was one of the best I've ever seen.

But as much as I figured Bret would beat Owen and was amazed when he didn't, I was totally floored when Bret finished his night winning the world title; I thought he would be crushed (maybe literally, given his opponent) and I won't forget the sight of Owen standing ringside after Bret's victory, shaking his head at the irony; had the order of the two matches been reversed, Owen would have been winning the championship from his brother at the end of the evening.

Incredible.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Speaking as a lifelong fan of the Hitman, and a big fan of the Bret/Owen match at WMX, I voted for Bryan at WMXXX.

Bryan's story was more cohesive and emotional, having to fight to overcome the Authority since SummerSlam, having to beat Triple H to get into the main event, etc etc. The Bret/Owen match is great but it didn't really have anything to do with Bret chasing Yokozuna. It was "well, Yoko and Lex will have to wrestle twice so I have to also". Bret still had his match despite losing to Owen earlier in the night. Bryan overcoming all of the odds just told a better story.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Its a really difficult one as I loved both sets of storylines and matches, At wrestlemania 30 It did feel Daniel Bryan had been getting held back by the authority for years for real and seeing he was my favourite current wrestler for the last few years getting missused it felt good watching him winning a deserved world title, Kind of like being a kid again rooting for my favourite to win.
Saying all that I had to go with Bret Hart at Wrestlemania 10, If it was judged on the world title match main event alone Daniel Bryan would have won it by far, but Bret and Owen feud was one of my favourite feuds of all time with the way it unravelled and included other family members like Bulldog and Anvil, I liked the way Owen won their first match to start off their feud which was an incredible match and I think underated due to the HBK/Razor ladder match on same card.

 

[relentless1]

Brets was better for a couple reasons:

1. The match with Owen was better than either the HHH or the triple threat match

2. Brets character and story were put together a lot better; it was a year long story about Brets championship redemption running concurrently with the brother resentment story with Owen, both culminating perfectly at WM 10 as well as giving Bret a legit contender in Owen going into the summer of that year.

3. Daniel Bryans story was not put together well at all, you could tell that they were calling an audible in the story and it really showed.

 

[Wald]

I'm a massive Hitman mark but I went for Bryan's story, simply because Bret's WM10 adventure was in an era of Raw & Superstars where the feuds weren't given a huge amount of storyline help. Bret vs Owen was a big story heading in to Wrestlemania but his match with Yoko wasn't given the proper build of the Hitman redeeming himself after losing the belt a year before.

Had the storyline centered around Bret needing to beat Yokozuna/Luger to prove to himself that he belonged at the top of the WWF whilst incorporating his story with Owen (perhaps make it seem like Bret was dismissing Owen's threat too readily?) than it could have been than Bryan's. As it stands though Bryan's Yes Movement is one of the most compelling Wrestlemania storylines ever. Imagine what it could have been if WWE Creative weren't so shoddy and actually got fully behind it?