Who is better between those journeymen: Scott Steiner, Bret Hart or Shane Douglas?

[TEIWCSCSAATBHPHASP]

The trio of Scott Steiner, Bret Hart and Shane Douglas all come off to many of their fellow pro wrestling industry peers as outspoken guys who are all never afraid to speak their own minds. Sure, Bret may be the nicest of the trio even though he too had his own ego and issues such as refusing to lose to Shawn Michaels on his way out of the WWF in late 1997 heading to WCW, which was about the worst thing any pro wrestler could do in the days of living the kayfabe 24/7 in public.

But I say Scott Steiner was way better as an overall performer than both Bret Hard and Shane Douglas in every single aspect that doesn't just overly rely on being one-trick ponies such as Bret Hard being only good for technical wrestling, while Shane Douglas is a specialist of his own which is being exclusively good for the ECW-style shoot promos via swearing and cussing, even though Douglas initially started out as a real wrestler before the dude crossed over to ECW and found his niche as an unrepentant trash talker promo cutter. Scott Steiner was able to do both aspects of wrestling very well at the same time, and he also had the potential to be a bigger draw than Bret or Douglas ever were.

I would say Shane Douglas is the most difficult to deal with out of these guys, because Bret and Steiner have at least each contributed to the wrestling industry in various ways, while Douglas became a jobber to the stars for poor overall attitude and being generally uncoachable, even Bret and Steiner want nothing to do with the guy who ragged on Ric Flair (WCW) and The Kliq (WWF) every chance he gets in shoot interviews. Even Shane once had the potential to rise up the ranks of the ladder in his early years, and he still would've gotten his if he had kept his ego in check when it came to Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Vince McMahon and The Kliq.

Steiner after 2000-01 was a washed-up wrestler who didn't have the drive to improve his shape or his game to the point where he could even play near his level of his late 1980s/early 1990s past like Vince demanded when he signed him back to the WWE in late 2002. He may have been old, injury prone, overpaid, and a backstage cancer to a wrestling company. But, out of this lot, Steiner's the best of the lot, while Bret Hard and Shane Douglas' best years fell by the wayside. Steiner's more of an absolute edgy non-conformist while Bret and Douglas were both generally people-pleasing guys who both say the cliche right things to the media, only for them both to do the exact opposite to their peers in the form of either writing their books on their wrestling careers or doing shoot interviews.

Shane Douglas and Bret Hard (both being shallow and two-faced as human beings) are not exactly the kind of guys I'd wanna hang out with, that's for sure. I'd rather hang out with Scott Steiner because at least sticks by only one way all the time, and has far more honesty and integrity than Bret and Douglas, with Bret (portraying himself under the guise of a clean-cut Canadian Hero) while being a serial philanderer behind closed doors with Shawn's Sunny Days worked shoot comment in 1997 shining a light on Bret Hard's true colors regarding his real-life behavior, and Douglas being a trash performer who ruined his own career, and I know for a fact that Douglas always goes on to hate on Flair and The Kliq because he represented the NWA/WCW with Flair and the WWF with The Kliq and didn't get a major superstar push in any of the top two major leagues between WWF and WCW.

 

[Makaveli31]

Best in terms of what exactly? Who would you want if you were starting a wrestling promotion? Who would you want as a friend? Who had the better career?

Yes, Bret did refuse to lose to Shawn Michaels in 1997 but remember he also had 17 years of loyal service. He took a backseat to Luger, he took a backseat to Diesel, and he even took a backseat to Shawn in 1996 (which I think he resented) but he "passed the torch" nevertheless and I honestly think he tried to make it work with Shawn. In the end though, he couldn't stomach the disrespect Shawn showed him. But he was never a problem otherwise.

As far as ring work I think Bret was one of the best. He had a realistic, physical style that was also pleasing to eye. It wasn't overly stiff like some of Steiner's work looked like. He could have great matches with guys like Shawn and he could have great matches with guys like Sid or Diesel. Steiner while a great tag team wrestler he never really got to see work as a singles in his prime. Could he carry a guy like Sid or Nash to a great match? I don't know. Yes he could work no doubt about it but I don't this body of work as a singles can measure up to Bret's when we talk about SummerSlam' 91 with Hennig, '92 with Davey, '94 with Owen, '95 with Diesel and Hakushi, and '97 with Shawn and Austin.

You'd have to give me examples of Bret being two-faced. Was he egotistical? Yes Did he "believe his own hype"? Yes. But who didn't? He admitted he was a serial cheater but he was on the road almost 24/7/365. I don't hold that against him. As far as Shawn Michaels goes that was a two way street. Both guys did things to throw gas on that fire the difference it I don't believe Bret was being malicious when he dealt with Shawn whereas Shawn was being malicious in dealing with Bret (not working with him at WM 13/ the "Sunny Days" comment", the worked shoot interviews."

As far as Hogan goes. There has always been this uneasy relationship between the two. I think Bret resented that Hogan didn't "pass the torch" in '93 and that hindered his career trajectory and his status as the "top guy". Bret also believes Hogan sabotaged his WCW run. If you believe Hogan's side though, Bret has always been very nice to him. I believe their is that side of Bret that is "always working" so you never know what is real and what isn't.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

First off, there is NO scenario where Scott is better than Bret... no point in history is that actually true. There was a time they could have been very close, but Bret's experience and time served in the business would always win out but we'll get to that.

Shane Douglas is the worst of the 3 in the ring and backstage. At one point in 1990-91 he had "something", potential, the intangible whatever you wanted to call it and he had time on his side and in theory, the perfect place to grow in the WWF. He's also the only out and out "two faced" guy on this list.

What let Shane down was he either didn't know how to do his business professionally or was wired in such a way that he didn't care. He was offered the original HBK gimmick back in 91 and plans were moving ahead... but Shane told Vince his dad was sick and he wanted to spend time with him and go to med school so got his release. This was long before the concept of a no-compete, although this incident probably first led to the idea.

Rather than do any of what he suggested, he buggered off to WCW for his midcard run... before throwing the NWA title down and becoming "The Franchise" in ECW. To this day Shane will blame The Kliq for what happened on his WWF return and there may be some small grain of truth in it... but reality was he screwed Vince in 1991 and that was always going to work against him later on, it was just an added thing that the guy with the power in The Kliq, was the guy who picked up the gimmick he rejected... awkward at best and with Shawn being a known dick... he was going to make sure Shane never overshadowed or played that card.

As a worker, Shane never improved as expected from working with Steamboat, The Blondes, Arn etc... he over relied on mic skills in ECW and WCW and has thus become now all about trash talk.

Scott is superior in that he does have some innovation in his career and could have been a top level guy had he been prepared to jettison Rick. He'll always be the guy who brought the Frankensteiner into being... but he's also the guy who turned down the chance to feud with Bret in 94... How much of his "shooting" now is down to personal bitterness and frustration is debateable. Steiner is an asshole, but he's not two faced... if he doesn't like you he'll tell you...or threaten to kill you at an airport.

Bret tops the list - like I said, the guy had 7 years of top level experience BEFORE the WWF... he was headlining shows in Stampede and was pretty much their main guy. For that era his rise was actually pretty meteoric, Tag titles within 2 years, IC and World within 6 and 7 respectively... he was pretty much perfectly seasoned to be champ when he got it.

When you look at some guys of that era who were in the WWF for longer and never got near the World title or those who are rushed to that position now then to call him a journeyman is very disrespectful. Sheamus is a journeyman, the Miz is a Journeyman, Yokozuna was a journeyman... Bret wasn't.

Bret has too much integrity, not too little. Whether right or wrong, he genuinely believes he is right in what he says and that's all a person can really have. To some he comes across as bitter, but the facts speak for themselves... he has been through more bad stuff than almost anyone living in the business, come out the otherside, gotten back involved and while not always a "cheerleader" he's not ashamed of it... he could easily have stayed like Martha Hart. He didn't have 17 years of WWF service, but he had 12... and that was, at the time the most of anyone actually on the roster.

Potentialwise, Scott had the most but let himself or his bro talk him out of going for it... The Scott Steiner who had the TV title in 92 and left for the WWF could have been UP THERE and in the Hall Of Fame by now... but he chose against it. Shane blew his chances early and Bret did what was asked until it conflicted enough with his own moral standpoint...but even then, he went back later on so he deserves respect.

 

[relentless1]

is this even a real question??? Bert Hart by far...

 

[Vanilla Midget]

It's difficult to quantify this type of question as the three of these wrestlers didn't exactly have mirrored careers. The question of the best is so subjective, for example: we all bring our personal biases into the equation.

I'm from Canada, so I'm naturally predisposed to prefer The Hitman. There's some logic behind this and not a purely nationalistic preference. Hart is the better wrestler of the three, I think we can all agree he drew the most and had the highest profile matches.

You on the other hand might just prefer Big Poppa Pump or the Franchise. Hart's career highs were in WWF, the other two were in WCW (primarily ECW for Douglas). Perhaps because you prefer WCW you might say Steiner was the best.

I would argue that despite being the weakest on the mic of the three, it has to be Hart. Hart managed to stay relevant and at the top of his game the longest. Steiner was a thrilling wrestler in the 80s and 90s, but come the late 90s, he wasn't the same wrestler, which became worse until that late career renaissance he had in TNA.

Steiner and Douglas didn't have the WWE (WWF) success that Bret did. Bret was a World Champion in both WCW and WWE. Bret headlined WrestleMania and Starrcade, whereas Scott never reached those heights in WWE. He may have headlined Starrcade 2000, but the Big Bad Booty Daddy never made it to the main event of the Grandaddy of them all.

I will give Steiner the promo win over Hart for sure. Although a lot of Scott's promos were fairly incoherent, but that's part of why they're beloved and memorable. Shane Douglas could cut excellent promos, perhaps better than Hart and Steiner. Bret wasn't a promo guy.

Overall, I have to give it to Bret - Canadian bias aside. The thing about comparing wrestlers, is that your favourite wrestlers will always be your favourite no matter what. Don't let other people's preferences prevent you from enjoying the careers of your favourites.

I don't really think any of the guys you brought forward as having comparable careers other than the fact they changed promotions (often for Douglas). The Franchise was an interesting character, but out side of ECW he was midcard at best. Steiner is legendary, but if we had the facts and figures - we'd find that Bret Hart was the bigger draw and the better technical wrestler thus making him the best there ever was, or ever will be.

 

[LBGetBack]

First of all "journeyman" is about the most inaccurate word ever to describe Bret Hart. Pretty sure he was the longest tenured WWF guy by far for his last few years there. Who else had a 13 year run with the same company in those days?

Second....I read very little of what you wrote because it's not necessary. Bret Hart was the best of those 3 and it's not even close. Young Scott Steiner was better than Douglas ever was. I'd take ECW Douglas over late 90s solo Steiner though. It's a shame that Steiner was basically washed up when he got his main event push, because he was a hell of a talent in his younger days.

 

[LBGetBack]

As an aside, I admittedly judge wrestling fans by how they view Bret Hart. Those who downplay him(seems like there's more and more of these guys lately) get no respect from me. He's one of the best ever, hands down.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Scott Steiner was awesome as a tag wrestler. I think the steiners are a top 5 team ever. Scott as singles competitor never interested me. I wasn't much of a WCW guy during his run but when I did watch, it wasn't too watch him.

I never understood the Shane Douglas love. To me, he was an average in ring wrestler who could only get over when he got to say "fuck" and "shit" and get cheap heat. One of the most overrated wrestlers ever IMO.

Bret Hart is one of the best wrestlers that ever lived. Yes, he relied heavily on his in ring work. That was clearly his strong point. Bret was carried by Anvil on the mic in the late 80s. By the 90s, Bret was pretty decent. His mania feud with piper, he had some good mic work. In 97, when the interview was essential to be over in any company, Bret thrived. You could even argue he was the best interview in pro wrestling.

As far as these guys and their backstage attitudes are concerned. Steiner/Douglas were more harm then they were worth. Again, I just have no tolerance for it since they didn't do much for me as performers. Brets abilities outweighed his trouble backstage, which I think wasn't too bad. He did selfishly hold on to his spot despite doing what was right for the company at times. I wouldn't put him in the same category as Shane/Scott tho.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

This question and thread seem ridiculous for thousands of reasons and I'm glad that a number of posters were able to touch on some of them.

Bret Hart. Bar none. He is simply an icon of the pro wrestling industry and without question one of the most successful people to ever be a part of it. In terms of in-ring ability I personally put him at #1 all-time but will accept the opinions of those who prefer Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair. In terms of top faces in the industry, how many guys can you really put above him? 6? I'm thinking Bruno, Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena, Sting. Maybe Backlund, maybe Dusty, maybe Goldberg, maybe Savage but I feel like those can be argued.

Who the hell would put Shane Douglas in the same class as Bret let alone have the nerve to say he was better. As for Steiner, I personally think he is miles behind Bret as well but at least he has had a memorable career. Long live the Hitman.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

This question and thread seem ridiculous for thousands of reasons and I'm glad that a number of posters were able to touch on some of them.

Bret Hart. Bar none. He is simply an icon of the pro wrestling industry and without question one of the most successful people to ever be a part of it. In terms of in-ring ability I personally put him at #1 all-time but will accept the opinions of those who prefer Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair. In terms of top faces in the industry, how many guys can you really put above him? 6? I'm thinking Bruno, Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena, Sting. Maybe Backlund, maybe Dusty, maybe Goldberg, maybe Savage but I feel like those can be argued. Not sure Sting makes that list if I am honest, other than the 97 feud, he wasn't ever really the focal point for long enough... and the ending to that was so shitty it ruined his legacy long before Trips and WWE could.

Who the hell would put Shane Douglas in the same class as Bret let alone have the nerve to say he was better. As for Steiner, I personally think he is miles behind Bret as well but at least he has had a memorable career. Long live the Hitman.

Bret makes top 10, but there are others ahead of him... Bruno, Rhodes, Flair all from that 70's 80's era arguably did better for longer... Undertaker, Rock and Austin go into that conversation... so does Cena... Goldberg potentially too and thats before Savage...

Bret probably goes somewhere in the lower top 10 all told. He does get a lot of credit for keeping WWF solvent in the mid 90's as he was so over in the rest of the world... but that's not unique to him, Undertaker, Davey Boy and Savage all did as much part in keeping outside the US interested in the product. Indeed had Davey not been released in 92, it's conceivable HE not Bret would have been the main guy and the UK more of their focus, with more PPV's and Bret would have been the top heel. They tried it 5 years later but it was too late... Had Davey stayed, Mania 11 would have been a "rubber match" for the title at Wembley... it was heading that way.

It comes down to this all told... Bret headlined Mania's, won titles and carried the WWF... Steiner never carried WCW, he just had the belt... Douglas didn't carry ECW, guys like RVD, Dreamer and Sabu did without the ECW title... So it's all about (wasted) potential with the other 2... rightly or wrongly, Bret fulfilled and arguably well exceeded his potential... the other two blew their chances.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

I cannot believe this is even a question. Bret Hart by far was the best. Did HHH post this in order to antagonise Bret? haha. Bret was never a Journey man. Nor was Scott Stiener to be fair. Bret was Stampede until it was purchased by WWF and he then worked for WWF for 14 long years. He headlined every PPV brand there had been when he left (multiple times). Bret had headlined multiple - Royal Rumbles, In Your House(s), King of The Ring, Summerslam, Survivor Series and Wrestemanias. I can recall only one show Stiener Headlined- that was against HHH at Royal Rumble 2003 - not that I was a fan of WCW really when Scott Stiener became Big Poppa Pump. Stiener was an exciting tag team wrestler in the early 1990s - very athletic and well over with the crowd. But he never touched Bret Hart on PPV sales, merchandise sales, public demand, DVD sales - I think of Bret Hart and I think of the world class matches he had with HBK, Undertaker, Bulldog, Piper, Perfect, against the Million Dollar Man at Survor Series 1990 as part of a elemination match, Diesel, Razor, Flair, 123 Kid, Owen and Stone Cold. He also had many exciting tag team matches before going solo. Ridiculous to even compare the two.

Shane Douglas is most notable for 3 things really- 1 - he tanked in WWF, and 2- he shooted on the Clique members and ripped on HHH. Shane Douglas brought the truth out about the Clique in the dirtsheets. and 3 - he was a hardcore legend to ECW fans. But he hasn't done much of significance outside of ECW. So he can't be compared to Bret either (and I bet he would agree).

We all seem to say - GO BRET GO!

 

[Makaveli31]

Bret makes top 10, but there are others ahead of him... Bruno, Rhodes, Flair all from that 70's 80's era arguably did better for longer... Undertaker, Rock and Austin go into that conversation... so does Cena... Goldberg potentially too and thats before Savage...

I don't know how you can put Bruno, Dusty, and even Flair ahead of Bret. What are you judging this on? What is your criteria? I know the above listed were not better workers than Bret. Bruno was a great champion back in his day (top 10 IMO) but let's face it. He was a regional champion. He sold out in the northeastern United States but that's it. We never saw him in LA, Chicago, Texas. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't but the fact remains that Bret was not only a national superstar but international superstar. He not only sold out MSG but he sold out in LA, Chicago, Dallas, London, Tokyo etc....You could make an argument Bruno did it for longer and the WWWF as more financially successful during hir run and than the WWF was during Bret's but we have to to take into account the WWWF and the WWF were vastly different companies. Bruno didn't have the same appeal when he returned in 1985-87. The same applies to Dusty. Flair, though, you can make an argument for since he was NWA World Champion and he wrestled all over the country and internationally as well.

I disagree with Davey. He was only in the SummerSlam main event because the PPV was in England if it were in the States it would've Shawn Michaels so there was no conceivable way they were going with Davey over Bret. Meanwhile 'Taker was still working his way up the card. He was not the draw he would eventually become in the late '90's. Savage was over the hill by the '90's. Vince tried to give him another run with the strap but it wasn't working. There was a reason why the WWF Championship match was mid-card at SummerSlam and not main event. Savage didn't even last a year with the strap.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

Lol wow. I just stopped reading after the wrestlers names, Steiner and Douglas combined don't equal half of a Bret Hart.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I don't know how you can put Bruno, Dusty, and even Flair ahead of Bret. What are you judging this on? What is your criteria? I know the above listed were not better workers than Bret. Bruno was a great champion back in his day (top 10 IMO) but let's face it. He was a regional champion. He sold out in the northeastern United States but that's it. We never saw him in LA, Chicago, Texas. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't but the fact remains that Bret was not only a national superstar but international superstar. He not only sold out MSG but he sold out in LA, Chicago, Dallas, London, Tokyo etc....You could make an argument Bruno did it for longer and the WWWF as more financially successful during hir run and than the WWF was during Bret's but we have to to take into account the WWWF and the WWF were vastly different companies. Bruno didn't have the same appeal when he returned in 1985-87. The same applies to Dusty. Flair, though, you can make an argument for since he was NWA World Champion and he wrestled all over the country and internationally as well.

I disagree with Davey. He was only in the SummerSlam main event because the PPV was in England if it were in the States it would've Shawn Michaels so there was no conceivable way they were going with Davey over Bret. Meanwhile 'Taker was still working his way up the card. He was not the draw he would eventually become in the late '90's. Savage was over the hill by the '90's. Vince tried to give him another run with the strap but it wasn't working. There was a reason why the WWF Championship match was mid-card at SummerSlam and not main event. Savage didn't even last a year with the strap.

Davey was extremely over in the US as well as the UK and was planned to be the "international star" from when he was resigned in 91... Injury derailed the initial push and it took until SS92 to really build it..and then it was cut away.

Remember Davey had had a massive stint in Japan as well, so he was well positioned to be in the top 3 names of the company... There may have been a plan B with Shawn if it was a US PPV, but Vince was keen to expand outside the US... so even then Davey would have been in the mix... Even if SS92 hadn't been at Wembley, a PPV soon after would have been and Davey would likely have been in the main event.

Criteria wise, there isn't a fixed one... Bruno was "a regional champ" yet you had guys like Arnold idolizing him from afar (allegedly) and he is still revered. You could throw Andre into the mix, after all he got the whole OBEY thing based on his popularity. It's not an exact science... but Savage even in 92 despite being washed up in Vince's eyes was mega over... the fans loved when he won the title from Flair and he arguably was overshadowning Warrior, anotther reason Vince wanted him in the booth rather than on the mat.

 

[LBGetBack]

Bret makes top 10, but there are others ahead of him... Bruno, Rhodes, Flair all from that 70's 80's era arguably did better for longer... Undertaker, Rock and Austin go into that conversation... so does Cena... Goldberg potentially too and thats before Savage...

Bret probably goes somewhere in the lower top 10 all told. He does get a lot of credit for keeping WWF solvent in the mid 90's as he was so over in the rest of the world... but that's not unique to him, Undertaker, Davey Boy and Savage all did as much part in keeping outside the US interested in the product. Indeed had Davey not been released in 92, it's conceivable HE not Bret would have been the main guy and the UK more of their focus, with more PPV's and Bret would have been the top heel. They tried it 5 years later but it was too late... Had Davey stayed, Mania 11 would have been a "rubber match" for the title at Wembley... it was heading that way.

It comes down to this all told... Bret headlined Mania's, won titles and carried the WWF... Steiner never carried WCW, he just had the belt... Douglas didn't carry ECW, guys like RVD, Dreamer and Sabu did without the ECW title... So it's all about (wasted) potential with the other 2... rightly or wrongly, Bret fulfilled and arguably well exceeded his potential... the other two blew their chances.

Not sure how you could say that about Davey Boy....the only time he really mattered as a solo wrestler was when he feuded with Bret. I can't think of a single, significant feud or match he had that was good outside of working with Bret. Too unreliable, too injury prone, and too unfocused. Bret was able to bring out the best in him though.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Pretty much everything that there is to be said has been said already.

The notion of Scott Steiner being a better overall wrestler than Bret Hart is pretty damn ludicrous. Steiner had a memorable career, but it was primarily as a tag team wrestler and the simple truth is that singles wrestlers are generally the guys who're ultimately thought of as "all time greats" when it's all said and done. The Steiner Brothers were an awesome tag team, most would consider them one of the top tag teams of all time but the greatest success for either man wasn't a singles career. Steiner had his opportunity to potentially break out as a singles star at one point, but he refused to break up the Steiner Brothers tag team. When Steiner finally did go solo, he wasn't anywhere near the in-ring competitor he'd once been; a combination of injuries and freakish steroid use forced him to reinvent himself and while he was a far more colorful character, his work inside the ring was a shell of its former self. Steiner did win the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, but it was in 2000 when the company was circling the drain and the quality of the product had long since deteriorated into pure garbage.

As for Shane Douglas...the guy, in my opinion, is a massively overrated never-was who simply wasn't remotely as good as he claimed to be. What Douglas is most famous for isn't his time in ECW, it's his over the top claims and conspiracy theories as to why he didn't become the star he felt that he should have been. Douglas has blamed everyone from Ric Flair to Vince McMahon to Paul Heyman and just about anybody else he's ever worked for. The guy was a douche, plain and simple, but I could've understood someone putting up with that if he had the talent to balance it out; however, he didn't, at least I sure as hell never saw it.

As someone else pointed out, I don't really see how Bret Hart qualifies as a "journeyman." When I think of that term for a pro wrestler, much like boxing or martial arts, I think of someone with a lot of ability but really isn't a main event guy. Names who spring to mind are guys like the British Bulldog, Eric Young, James Storm, Dolph Ziggler, etc.

 

[Makaveli31]

Davey was extremely over in the US as well as the UK and was planned to be the "international star" from when he was resigned in 91... Injury derailed the initial push and it took until SS92 to really build it..and then it was cut away.

Not sure how you could say that about Davey Boy....the only time he really mattered as a solo wrestler was when he feuded with Bret. I can't think of a single, significant feud or match he had that was good outside of working with Bret. Too unreliable, too injury prone, and too unfocused. Bret was able to bring out the best in him though.
__________________

I concur. While Davey Boy was extremely over and had massive potential and talent he had a few things working against him to be considered main event material.

1) He had developed a negative reputation. He had already walked out on Vince once w/ Dynamite and then walked out on Dynamite and All Japan to go back to the WWF. He was "injury prone" or if you believe Bret had developed a nasty drug habit. He was totally MIA before SummerSlam '92 and the plan was already set that Shawn would win the I-C strap from Davey. I think it was more Bret lobbying Vince that gave Davey this shot.

2) Davey was a notorious PED user and Vince was being indicted for steroid distribution.

The main argument that Davey was an asset to Bret during his run is incorrect in that when Bret had his title runs from '93'-'95 Davey was out of the company or was low on the card. He could still work no doubt about it but he wasn't the draw he was or could've been in the early 90's.

but Savage even in 92 despite being washed up in Vince's eyes was mega over... the fans loved when he won the title from Flair and he arguably was overshadowning Warrior, another reason Vince wanted him in the booth rather than on the mat.

I don't know about "mega over" he was still over but I think fans were wanting some new blood i.e. Bret, Shawn and even Scott Hall, Diesel etc....I don't think Savage's heart was into it after the divorce w/ Liz.

 

[pyrusane]

I've never been a huge Bret fan, although I respect the hell out of him as a worker. I just never saw a lot of charisma in him. He was always a little too dry to me, I didn't feel any real fire or passion in his mic work. His work in the ring was a different story though, and there were very few who could ever measure up to him there.

That all being said, to put him in a "Who is the best" list with Scott Steiner and Shane Douglas is just stupid. There is no polite way to say it, it's stupid. Scott Steiner was a very impressive, very athletic tag team wrestler who ended up taking a lot of steroids and going a little crazy. Shane Douglas was just a crappy wrestler with a huge ego.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Scott was the most athletic out of the three, Shane was the best talker(imo) but Bret was far and away the best wrestler.

In fact nobody in the modern era was a better wrestler than Bret Hart. He was the most over guy in the company despite having limited mic skills. Besides maybe Benoit no wrestler can say that. The reason he was so over was because the story he told in the ring. I can vouch for that first hand.

I grew up idolizing Hogan and Warrior, the larger than life characters. I never thought I would like a guy like Bret Hart. Yet I grew a liking to him at WM8 with his match with Piper, and he ended up being my favorite wrestler ever. It wasn't his talking but something about his ring work drew me to him. Very few guys could do that, but he was one of them. He was just unreal in that ring.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

I don't know how you can put Bruno, Dusty, and even Flair ahead of Bret. What are you judging this on? What is your criteria? I know the above listed were not better workers than Bret. Bruno was a great champion back in his day (top 10 IMO) but let's face it. He was a regional champion. He sold out in the northeastern United States but that's it. We never saw him in LA, Chicago, Texas. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't but the fact remains that Bret was not only a national superstar but international superstar. He not only sold out MSG but he sold out in LA, Chicago, Dallas, London, Tokyo etc....You could make an argument Bruno did it for longer and the WWWF as more financially successful during hir run and than the WWF was during Bret's but we have to to take into account the WWWF and the WWF were vastly different companies. Bruno didn't have the same appeal when he returned in 1985-87. The same applies to Dusty. Flair, though, you can make an argument for since he was NWA World Champion and he wrestled all over the country and internationally as well.

Bruno was a regional champion strictly in the sense that the way the business worked in his day, the company he worked for the majority of the time was confined to a set region.

Bruno was an attraction around the world. He competed regularly in St. Louis for Mushnick. During his break from the WWWF in the early 70's, he was THE attraction for the WWA in Los Angeles (little remembered, but in it's day a very important territory). He was a massive draw in Japan and toured there frequently. He was a huge draw in Canada... especially in Toronto for the Tunney's.

Outside of wrestling circles, Sammartino was one of the most well known wrestlers in the country. Wide World of Sports (popular 70's TV program), featured him frequently just as one example.

The man was far more than just a regional champion. He was a major attraction everywhere he went, and everyone knew who Bruno Sammartino was, and how important he was.

You are right that in the 80's he didn't have the same appeal. But in fairness, once VKM took over, it was a completely different audience in the 80's than the one that Bruno won over. Last time Hogan was around, he didn't have the same appeal he did in his heyday either. The audience had changed though, and he was the old guy who hadn't been gone long enough to be missed. Same deal with Bruno back in the 80's.

Also Dusty was one of wrestlings biggest attractions in the 70's as well. Florida was his home, but like Bruno, he could go anywhere and draw. And he did. Frequently.

You're wrong about the level these guys were at. Whether or not that puts them above or below Hart as all timers? That, my friend... is an entirely different (and long) discussion.

I disagree with Davey. He was only in the SummerSlam main event because the PPV was in England if it were in the States it would've Shawn Michaels so there was no conceivable way they were going with Davey over Bret. Meanwhile 'Taker was still working his way up the card. He was not the draw he would eventually become in the late '90's. Savage was over the hill by the '90's. Vince tried to give him another run with the strap but it wasn't working. There was a reason why the WWF Championship match was mid-card at SummerSlam and not main event. Savage didn't even last a year with the strap.

Exactly.

There were two plans for Summerslam that year. One was going to be in Washington, DC, and the match was going to be Hart versus Michaels, with Michaels going over and winning the IC title. The other was Wembly. Once they decided on Wembly, it was Hart I believe who suggested Davey Boy instead of Michaels... the main reason of course being that his brother in law was the natural one to get a match of that magnitude on England. Plus as much as Michaels always looked out for his Kliq... Hart looked out for the Stampede crew. The plan though, was always that the Bulldog was going to be a short term champion who would quickly pass the title off to Michaels.

Had they not been able to get Wembly and stuck with Washington? Smith had been working with Repo Man and Rick Martel mostly on the house show circuit for months leading up to Summerslam. Repo wasn't on the show, but Martel was (and against Michaels ironically enough). Odds are, that's the match that Davey Boy Smith would have received.

I'm not sure where it's conceivable that McMahon wanted to go with Smith as his champion and shift his focus to Europe, with Hart being the main heel. Never heard that before in my life. The main reason McMahon went with Hart was because of the heat that was on him with the steroid trial. He needed to go with someone who had a more natural look than so many of his wrestlers, and he needed a strong worker. Davey Boy was a good worker, no question about that. But he was juiced to the gills and looked it.

With the legal trouble McMahon was in, a guy like Davey Boy Smith was the last guy he would have gone with. Besides, if he wanted to expand his base in Europe, Hart was actually an excellent choice. Bret Hart was incredibly over all over the world. Ironically, the United States was probably the country where he drew the worst. And he was still pretty good there too.

 

[Just Do It]

In terms of destination, i.e. Who ended up as the best? Bret, and it's not even close.

However young Scott Steiner was the most entertaining and seemed to have the most potential. Had WCW have stayed alive, WWE would have done more with him in 03 and his legacy would look very different.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Bret Hart and it's not close. He headlined WrestleMania and won the WWF Championship. He was also so much better in the ring and carried the WWF for a couple of years.

Shane Douglas didn't do much of anything. Scott Steiner had most of his success as a tag team wrestler. This has to be a joke thread.