Who is REALLY better?? Bret Hart Vs HBK

[joejoe]

Isn't it the job of thw champion of a company to be the one who carries said company? WWF was awesome in the 1980's because Hulk Hogan was it's champion, and he had to work with: King Kong Bundy, a well past-his prime Andre the Giant, Bad News Brown, One Man Gang, and a host of other unathletic SHW's. Hogan benefitted from heels like Ted DiBiase, but the company succeeded with Hogan despite a bigger derth of talent than Shawn had.

I do agree with the competition argument. Shawn was champ right up against the WCW powerhouse days. Hogan had just turned heel and the nWo was the hottest angle in wrestling SINCE Hulk Hogan himself. Had Bret been champ in 1996 against the nWo, we might be having a totally different conversation.

But when Bret was leading the Canadian faction, things started to turn. Shawn didn't. When Steve Austin arrived, Bret recognized the talent and the potential, and put Austin over. Shawn didn't, at least not until he had to because of injury. And when Mick Foley can show proof that his title win turned the Monday Night tide, but Shawn Michaels couldn't, what does that say about Shawn's championship run?
I love Michaels, I do (or I did) but Bret was better overall and Shawn of the last 5 years has been a different guy.

I don't think that is a fair argument to make. The reason Foley's title run turned the tide wasn't just because he won the title it was who he won it from and who helped him win it.

In fact Foley winning the title was actually in the backround of the Austin/McMahon/Rock feud.

Foleys title match involved some of the biggest names in the business with DX AND the Corporation being there. Throw Austin into the mix you're guaranteed some good numbers. Especially since people knew Foley was going to beat the Rock.


Shawns run on the other hand revolved around a "boyhood dream" and doing your best and never giving up on your dreams and targeting an audience (kids) the WWF was still high on at the time. However the tide was turning in pro wrestling and thanks to WCW and the nWo the target market changed and the masses we're no longer interested in seeing a product that was geared towards kids.

During Shawns first run the WWF was still pushing their product more towards kids and I think his run suffered because of that.

However during Brets run the audience was still accepting of the fact that the product was geared towards kids and a younger audience. Bret and his character were perfect for that time frame. I'd say if you switched both Bret and Shawns title runs time frames the numbers would be quiet different for both wrestlers.

 

[Big Sexy]

HBK is the better pro wrestler. To be a great wrestler you need to put on entertaining matches, be able to cut believable and entertaining promos, and you need to be able to actually wrestle.

Entertaining matches- HBK has put on better matches then Bret. Bret has had his moments, against Owen at Mania 10 and against Austin at Mania 13 and there's a few others, but the matches HBK has put on in his career are far superior. Anytime Shawn Michaels has a match on a pay per view even if it is not the main event it is often the highlight of the show. HBK is very innovative and he has influenced a lot of the guys that people enjoy watching today.

Promos- HBK is far superior to Bret in this regard. Bret was never the most charismatic guy and his promos often showed that. HBK on the other hand has had many memorable promos. Whether he cuts serious promos like he has done a lot lately, or if he was doing promos just messing around like in the DX days his promos are always good.

Wrestling ability- I will give this category to Bret. He is probably the best technical wrestler in history and that cant be argued, but HBK has always improved his work and even now he is still going strong.

Don't give me all this bs about HBK not drawing when he was champ because no one would have drawn at that time. That was when WCW and the NWO were at its peak. HBK did a great job drawing what he did. There is no way Bret Hart would have drawn more at that time. And don't forget that it was HBK who started DX and DX was one of the main things that started the attitude era.

 

[reddevil69]

I was away for a week and I just watched tapes of the past two episodes of RAW...I found it quite interesting that when Shawn was naming people who might be his mystery partner in the main event that night that when he made reference to a "real American", no one popped....he then referenced a "Texas rattlesnake"...big pop....when he referred to "a man who called himself the best there is, was and ever will be", the crowd popped huge...

HHH,Flair and yes, even Shawn have tried to downplay Bret's drawing ability and impact in America over the years and that proved right there that Bret mattered then and still matters today to American fans...the building where RAW took place was in Minnesota, last I checked, Minnesota is located in the USA. Bret's catchphrase received a bigger reaction than Austins, and Hogans barely registered....and Hogan was a huge star in Minnesota for the AWA in the early 80's.

Both Hogan and Austin have benefited form continuous appearances in WWE over the past 5 years on TV and PPV's...Bret has not wrestled or appeared in a wrestling capacity or on a wrestling program nearly 9 years, since January of 2000...the only appearance he's made is at the Hall Of Fame ceremony, and he left after and did not appear at Wrestlemania with the other inductees, and he had a 30 second clip last year on the Vince McMahon appreciation night on RAW....HBK has also benefited from being on WWE programming for the past 6 years...Bret's impact is still relevant without having been on TV for a decade, and much of that time he was ignored and removed from the WWE's history, and his contributions to the business were downplayed until the past couple of years.

there are a few posters on this site that seem to think that anyone who supports Bret's side of the screw job must be Canadian, and that is just nonsense...whether or not you are on one side of the screw job, or the other, Bret has a huge fan-base in America and that can not be denied...not by Ric Flair, Triple H, HBK or anyone else.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I don't think that is a fair argument to make. The reason Foley's title run turned the tide wasn't just because he won the title it was who he won it from and who helped him win it.

In fact Foley winning the title was actually in the backround of the Austin/McMahon/Rock feud.

When Tony Schiavone blew the ending of RAW that night on Nitro, when hundreds of thousands of people changed channels from WCW to WWF, he didn't say "The Rock is about to lose the WWF Title." He didn't say "Steve Austin is about the help someone win the WWF Title." He said "Mick Foley, who used to wrestle here as Cactus Jack, is going to win their world title! That'll put some butts in seats." The fact that SO MANY PEOPLE switched at the sheer mention of Foley winning the title renders your entire argument erroneous.

Shawns run on the other hand revolved around a "boyhood dream" and doing your best and never giving up on your dreams and targeting an audience (kids) the WWF was still high on at the time. However the tide was turning in pro wrestling and thanks to WCW and the nWo the target market changed and the masses we're no longer interested in seeing a product that was geared towards kids.

So did Bret's. Do you remember the cheesy music videos WWF used to put out for Bret Hart during that run? How they sold him as a 2nd generation superstar, training in "the dungeon" with his father and brothers? Do you recall the music video "Makin' Some Noise?" It was all selling Bret's title run as the fulfillment of a boyhood dream - even a birthright of sorts.

Same with Foley's. Why do you think there was such a focus on the story of him going to Madison Square Garden at age 6 to see Don Muraco and Jimmy Snuka? Boyhood dream. You talk like Shawn was the first to go that route. Not at all, not by a longshot.

 

[HBK-aholic]

14 - 7? I've stayed out of this thread long enough, and all I can say is this is atrocious. Absolutely awful. It is such a close competition you can barely distinguish between them. They're arguably the 2 greatest wrestlers to step foot in the ring. So can someone explain to me now how one person has double the amount of votes?

I'd also like to address the point of Shawn 'not drawing'. As Big Sexy nicely put for me, who would have? He was champion at a time where the competition was stronger than it has ever been. The WWE was about to collapse. And instead of doing the constant bitching people do about the business, why not look at it from another angle? He kept the business up and running. The WWE kept its head above water long enough to sort everything out. Furthermore, since when can you blame the downfall of a company on one man? It's impossible. No one has ever carried the WWE because no one is bigger than it. The WWE was getting low ratings for a whole number of reasons. Why not think of the reign as a success at keeping the WWE 'alive' rather than him ruining it?

I just typed a long post full of my reasons for why Shawn Michaels is a better wrestler. But when I read it over I noticed one thing. I could have posted exactly the same for Bret Hart. Both are truely amazing; workers who give everything. They both deserve equal respect. Because they're just that damn good. The one differnce I could think of was that I wouldn't cry if I missed a Bret Hart match. I need to see every Shawn match. It's such a stupid thing, because I try my hardest to see all of Harts work too. And when you have to vote down to something like that you know exactly how close it is between them.

 

[joejoe]

When Tony Schiavone blew the ending of RAW that night on Nitro, when hundreds of thousands of people changed channels from WCW to WWF, he didn't say "The Rock is about to lose the WWF Title." He didn't say "Steve Austin is about the help someone win the WWF Title." He said "Mick Foley, who used to wrestle here as Cactus Jack, is going to win their world title! That'll put some butts in seats." The fact that SO MANY PEOPLE switched at the sheer mention of Foley winning the title renders your entire argument erroneous.



So did Bret's. Do you remember the cheesy music videos WWF used to put out for Bret Hart during that run? How they sold him as a 2nd generation superstar, training in "the dungeon" with his father and brothers? Do you recall the music video "Makin' Some Noise?" It was all selling Bret's title run as the fulfillment of a boyhood dream - even a birthright of sorts.

Same with Foley's. Why do you think there was such a focus on the story of him going to Madison Square Garden at age 6 to see Don Muraco and Jimmy Snuka? Boyhood dream. You talk like Shawn was the first to go that route. Not at all, not by a longshot.

Read the rest of my post. Yes I do remember Bret being pushed as a cheesy babyface but what I followed up with is that was more acceptable during his run as champion. Bret didn't have a rival company trying new things attracting a new type of audience away from him like Shawn Did.

As far as the Foley thing, while Tony Schiavone announced that Mick Foley was going to win the title the match between the Rock and Mankind was already announced on Raw. So a big part of the reason people changed over I think was because Mankind was going to beat the Rock for the gold and people wanted to see how that was possibly going to happen.

I don't remember exactly what I was thinking but I'm pretty sure I thought there was no way Mankind would beat the Rock for the WWF title on a free Raw. I am many other people probably would have assumed that Mankind would get screwed somehow and the Rock would keep the gold.

The announcment made a lot of people switch because most thought there was no way it was going to happen.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Bret didn't have a rival company trying new things attracting a new type of audience away from him like Shawn Did.

True but Bret had some obstacles of his own. Bret was essentially the first champion and "the man" in WWE after Hogan and eventually Savage left. So he had to deal with being champion after the two biggest stars in the WWF the past decade and the biggest name of all time left. Thats a lot of pressure and responsibility. All those fans that were there from the 80s wrestling boom suddenly didnt have Hogan or Savage to watch or root for in the WWE. Those two particularly Hogan are obviously a huge act to follow and Bret was the one that Vince and the WWE chose. It was basically Bret's responsibility to try and keep people from tuning out wrestling all together or tuning over to WCW. Although many viewers did tune out he did keep the company afloat while he was champion.

So while the product from WCW at the time of Bret's reign wasnt as good as what WCW put out during HBK's reign, I think the circumstances that Bret had to deal with were tougher. Cause Bret had to take over a company that lost its face and the overall face of wrestling and was put in the spot of taking over a whole new generation of wrestling. I mean think about it majority of the fans that watched wrestling at that time started watching because of Hogan and now he was gone. That is an unbelievably tough situation to try and keep people from tuning out when the guy and reason they started watching wrestling in the first place was gone.

 

[Miko]

14 - 7? I've stayed out of this thread long enough, and all I can say is this is atrocious. Absolutely awful. It is such a close competition you can barely distinguish between them. They're arguably the 2 greatest wrestlers to step foot in the ring. So can someone explain to me now how one person has double the amount of votes?

Arguably the two greatest ever! The emphasis on arguably I assume. Thats a contest between Hogan and Austin surely?

It could be said that Shawn didnt draw as champion because of the competition from WCW, that being said Bret Hart, Sid Viscous and The Undertaker all had title runs during this period and while Sid was a poor drawing champion The Undertaker and certainly Hart held their own against WCW.

I also dont think that Shawn's gimmick can be blamed either because during his 3rd title run he was part of DX, Shawn on his own didnt draw, Shawn with DX did better from what I can remember but people were still watching WCW. The WWF never got truly back on its feet until the rise of Stone Cold Steve Austin (who's rise can be attributed to Hart).

So I dont think that anything other than Shawn Michaels himself can be blamed for his poor drawing ability, just like no one is to blame but Chris Jericho can be blamed for his poor drawing ability (undisputed title run I mean, we have to wait for this one to pan out).

 

[reddevil69]

Arguably the two greatest ever! The emphasis on arguably I assume. Thats a contest between Hogan and Austin surely?

It could be said that Shawn didnt draw as champion because of the competition from WCW, that being said Bret Hart, Sid Viscous and The Undertaker all had title runs during this period and while Sid was a poor drawing champion The Undertaker and certainly Hart held their own against WCW.

I also dont think that Shawn's gimmick can be blamed either because during his 3rd title run he was part of DX, Shawn on his own didnt draw, Shawn with DX did better from what I can remember but people were still watching WCW. The WWF never got truly back on its feet until the rise of Stone Cold Steve Austin (who's rise can be attributed to Hart).

So I dont think that anything other than Shawn Michaels himself can be blamed for his poor drawing ability, just like no one is to blame but Chris Jericho can be blamed for his poor drawing ability (undisputed title run I mean, we have to wait for this one to pan out).

I agree, WCW going head to head with WWF didn't help, but Shawn circa 1996, with his sexy-boy, cheesy baby-face did nothing to encourage males from the ages of 18 and up to get behind him as champion...as Jim Ross just said recently regarding RAW's flagging ratings: "if you produce a product the fans enjoy, they will find a way to watch"...there is no excuse other than wrestling fans did not enjoy the WWF product in 1996 as much as the WCW product...Shawn was the champ and he has to shoulder much of the blame.

At that time, the company still revolved around whoever was champ at the time, not like today where the champ is not the focal point. Jericho as champ does not necessarily affect the ratings and he's not looked upon as the guy to draw and be a difference maker...HHH,HBK,Taker,Cena, and Batista are the top guys and only one of them (HHH) has a title belt...Taker and Edge went last at Summerslam and there was no belt on the line....in 1996 the champ went last every time.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Arguably the two greatest ever! The emphasis on arguably I assume. Thats a contest between Hogan and Austin surely?

Those 2 are the reason I added arguably. However, coming from a Hogan critic, I stand by Shawn and Bret.

It could be said that Shawn didnt draw as champion because of the competition from WCW, that being said Bret Hart, Sid Viscous and The Undertaker all had title runs during this period and while Sid was a poor drawing champion The Undertaker and certainly Hart held their own against WCW.

During one of Shawn's title reigns Hart had just left to go to WCW. You don't honestly believe that would have no effect? When he left, a lot of his fans did too. But this basically brings me back to my point of one man cannot carry a company. No one man can be blamed for the low ratings, just as none can be blamed for the high ones.

I also dont think that Shawn's gimmick can be blamed either because during his 3rd title run he was part of DX, Shawn on his own didnt draw, Shawn with DX did better from what I can remember but people were still watching WCW. The WWF never got truly back on its feet until the rise of Stone Cold Steve Austin (who's rise can be attributed to Hart).

I never blamed Shawns gimmick. Maybe if he had a title run now we'd see things properly. But I find it hard to look at what someone drew during thoe times and take it to mean everything. Especially when people compare it to the ratings of today. It really is stupid, and people forget about the great competition WWE had at the time.

So I dont think that anything other than Shawn Michaels himself can be blamed for his poor drawing ability, just like no one is to blame but Chris Jericho can be blamed for his poor drawing ability (undisputed title run I mean, we have to wait for this one to pan out).

Shawn Michaels cannot be blamed for what was going on at the time. All he could do was go out and put on great matches, in other words, do his job. And it's something he did great.

 

[BooCocky]

Shawn Michaels cannot be blamed for what was going on at the time. All he could do was go out and put on great matches, in other words, do his job. And it's something he did great.

Thats ridiculous, If michaels was so great during his title run people would watch, apparently that wasnt the case, because he's one of the lowest rated champions of all time. Apparently he wasn't putting on great matches because it didn't affect the ratings. In fact it hurt them. Bret Hart was the better draw, and it showed, if i can recall when he left for WCW the ratings plummeted a little more, showing in fact Hart had a lot of Wrestling Fans.

Usually the champion is the center point of the show, people tune in to see where they are heading with it, and when Michaels was champion people weren't interested.

It really is stupid, and people forget about the great competition WWE had at the time.

What Hulk Hogan and the NWO? Michaels is up their with Hogans drawing ability

During one of Shawn's title reigns Hart had just left to go to WCW. You don't honestly believe that would have no effect? When he left, a lot of his fans did too.

lastly, that whole thing points out why Bret Hart is better than Shawn Michaels.

 

[Big Sexy]

Thats ridiculous, If michaels was so great during his title run people would watch, apparently that wasnt the case, because he's one of the lowest rated champions of all time. Apparently he wasn't putting on great matches because it didn't affect the ratings. In fact it hurt them. Bret Hart was the better draw, and it showed, if i can recall when he left for WCW the ratings plummeted a little more, showing in fact Hart had a lot of Wrestling Fans.

You're acting like no one was watching the WWE when Michaels was champion. During his first few months as champion WWE was still winning in the Monday Night Wars and even after they started losing RAW still had solid ratings, and it did not matter who the champion was at the time because RAW wasn't going to win in the ratings.

And any time a big name superstar like Bret Hart leaves, a lot of his fans are going to go with him. If HBK would have left then a lot of his fans would have left to. It's just common sense that fans are going to leave when big name superstars leave, just like a lot of fans left the WWE when Hall and Nash left, which led to WCW getting higher ratings, which is leading to people saying that HBK couldn't draw as champion even though that argument is flawed.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Thats ridiculous, If michaels was so great during his title run people would watch, apparently that wasnt the case, because he's one of the lowest rated champions of all time.

Did you read none of my post, or does repeating things come easy to you? I'm not trying to argue he drew a lot. I'm arguing he isn't completely to blame. If that title reign was now and he was having the same great matches, I'd be willing to bet he'd draw a lot.

Apparently he wasn't putting on great matches because it didn't affect the ratings. In fact it hurt them. Bret Hart was the better draw, and it showed, if i can recall when he left for WCW the ratings plummeted a little more, showing in fact Hart had a lot of Wrestling Fans.

You're not addressing any of my points. Hart has a huge number of fans. So?

Usually the champion is the center point of the show, people tune in to see where they are heading with it, and when Michaels was champion people weren't interested.

People were interested. And the fact people were still watching shows that. I put forth the question I did earlier, instead of complaining, as wrestling fans seem to like, why not actually look at things positively? I know that's not in the usual criteria of being a wrestling fan, but give it a try please.

What Hulk Hogan and the NWO? Michaels is up their with Hogans drawing ability

Pretty damn sure I never said anything about Hogan, or Shawn's drawing ability compared to him. Yes, Hogan is a bigger draw. But what the hell does he have to do with this?

lastly, that whole thing points out why Bret Hart is better than Shawn Michaels.

Bret isn't a better wrestler than Shawn. They're quite possibly equally good, but Hart isn't better. If Shawn moved to WCW I'm pretty damn sure he'd have had an army of fans following him there too.

 

[Slyfox696]

During one of Shawn's title reigns Hart had just left to go to WCW. You don't honestly believe that would have no effect? When he left, a lot of his fans did too. But this basically brings me back to my point of one man cannot carry a company. No one man can be blamed for the low ratings, just as none can be blamed for the high ones.

History proves your entire statement false.

Ratings dropped to the low 2's and even down in the 1s in '96 with HBK as champion. Throughout the summer of 07, ratings began a slow climb up. Then Steve Austin caught fire, and ratings kept going up. In 2007.

When Bret left, ratings didn't go down, they kept going up. Why? Because of Steve Austin. When HBK finally relinquished the best to Austin, ratings kept on a slow climb until we had the Austin vs. McMahon feud when ratings skyrocketed.

Your statement is false in every way imaginable. Hart leaving for WCW didn't have an effect on the ratings, because Austin was driving them up. One man CAN carry a company, and it was proven with Austin.

One man CAN be blamed for the low ratings and that was Shawn Michaels, whose ratings dipped in the low 2s and high 1s. And one man CAN be credited for the spike in ratings, and his name is Steve Austin.

 

[Big Sexy]

One man CAN be blamed for the low ratings and that was Shawn Michaels, whose ratings dipped in the low 2s and high 1s. And one man CAN be credited for the spike in ratings, and his name is Steve Austin.

You could not be any more wrong. One man can not change the ratings that much. If you think Austin is the only reason that the ratings went up then you don't know very much about wrestling. Austin was part of it but he also had The Rock, DX when they were still going strong, an enhanced version of the Undertaker, Mankind at his peak, new talent like Kane and Big Show, and don't forget Vince Mcmahon who was the perfect antagonist for Austin. Michaels did not have very many established guys to feud with. The only people he had at the time he was champion was Taker, Bret Hart, Sid , and Vader. Sid was never the greatest worker, and HBK's feud with Vader only lasted for one pay per view and then Vader's push stopped. And I also think that people are forgetting that Bret Hart had two title reigns during the same time that HBK had his first two title reigns, so if the WWE was struggling in the ratings because of their Champion at the time then Bret Hart needs to be blamed to because he had title reigns during the same time frame.

 

[Davi323]

Fact check time...

By cross referencing this website listing RAW's nielsen ratings from the 1990s,
http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm

and the wikipedia entry on WWE Champions to tell me who was champion during what weeks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_Champions

it just took about 30 minutes time to figure out if the tales of RAW's demise while HBK was champ were true or not. As it turns out, RAW's low ratings with HBK as champ are greatly exaggerated, and completely ignore the fact that after Survivor Series 97, while HBK was champ, RAW's ratings significantly increased from when Bret Hart was champion prior to November 9. AFTER Hart leaves and takes his fans with him. So, even with the disgruntled Hart fans refusing to watch RAW after Montreal, HBK actually increased the ratings from when Hart was champ. That isn't just bullshit, that is documented. Look at the websites yourself. That is why I linked to them. All the evidence is there, we know the dates each was champ, we know the ratings while each was champ. After Hart leaves, RAW's ratings go up. FACT.

Bret Hart as champ, November 19, 1995 to March 31, 1996 (he loses to HBK)
RAW Rating, average: 2.72

Shawn Michaels as champ, March 31, 1996 to November 17, 1996 (he loses title to Sid)
RAW Rating, average: 2.65

Difference between a 2.72 and a 2.65 is almost negligible.

Bret Hart as champ, August 3, 1997 to November 9, 1997 (he loses again to HBK)
RAW Rating, average: 2.4

Shawn Michaels as champ, November 9, 1997 to March 29, 1998 (he loses to SCSA)
RAW Rating, average: 3.3

Difference between a 2.4 and 3.3 average however, is NOT negligible.

 

[Big Sexy]

Bret Hart as champ, November 19, 1995 to March 31, 1996 (he loses to HBK)
RAW Rating, average: 2.72

Shawn Michaels as champ, March 31, 1996 to November 17, 1996 (he loses title to Sid)
RAW Rating, average: 2.65

Difference between a 2.72 and a 2.65 is almost negligible.

Bret Hart as champ, August 3, 1997 to November 9, 1997 (he loses again to HBK)
RAW Rating, average: 2.4

Shawn Michaels as champ, November 9, 1997 to March 29, 1998 (he loses to SCSA)
RAW Rating, average: 3.3

Difference between a 2.4 and 3.3 average however, is NOT negligible.

There it is everybody. Bret Hart actually drew less then Shawn Michaels during the time period that everyone is saying HBK couldn't draw in. So now one of the biggest arguments people had against HBK is non-existent.

 

[Slyfox696]

You could not be any more wrong. One man can not change the ratings that much.

Yes, he can and he did.

If you think Austin is the only reason that the ratings went up then you don't know very much about wrestling.

LOL

Yes, it must have just been a miraculous recovery that EVERYONE else was the same, and in the same position, but magically increased their drawing power. Yes, clearly that's what happened, especially after the WWF lost their strongest draw at that point in Bret Hart.

Did you even watch wrestling back then? You know, on a level where you could actually understand what was going on?

Austin was part of it but he also had The Rock, DX when they were still going strong, an enhanced version of the Undertaker, Mankind at his peak, new talent like Kane and Big Show, and don't forget Vince Mcmahon who was the perfect antagonist for Austin.

ALL of that, with the exception of the original DX (which wasn't that great to begin with), AFTER Austin had already bumped ratings.

Michaels did not have very many established guys to feud with. The only people he had at the time he was champion was Taker, Bret Hart, Sid , and Vader.

How many does one guy need? 5 main-eventers isn't enough to draw? Hell, what does Jericho have? Jericho, HBK and Batista? And they're doing far better ratings.

Sid was never the greatest worker, and HBK's feud with Vader only lasted for one pay per view and then Vader's push stopped.

Sid was a far better worker than people give him credit for, and just who do you think was responsible for the stop in Vader's push?

Could it be the main-event champion who bitched Vader out in the middle of the ring at the second biggest show of the year? Perhaps?

And I also think that people are forgetting that Bret Hart had two title reigns during the same time that HBK had his first two title reigns, so if the WWE was struggling in the ratings because of their Champion at the time then Bret Hart needs to be blamed to because he had title reigns during the same time frame.

Except that Hart's reigns weren't NEAR as bad as HBK's.

Fact check time...

Oh, this is my favorite.

By cross referencing this website listing RAW's nielsen ratings from the 1990s,
http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm

and the wikipedia entry on WWE Champions to tell me who was champion during what weeks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_Champions

You could have also gotten the information from the General Wrestling forum, where I put everything in a spreadsheet for you, and included many other bits of information.

it just took about 30 minutes time to figure out if the tales of RAW's demise while HBK was champ were true or not.

And I've studied and debated it for years, and I can tell you that without a shadow of a doubt, that it is.

As it turns out, RAW's low ratings with HBK as champ are greatly exaggerated,

What's exaggerated about going from a 2.7 to a 1.8?

and completely ignore the fact that after Survivor Series 97, while HBK was champ, RAW's ratings significantly increased from when Bret Hart was champion prior to November 9.

Which anyone with half a brain knows is due to Steve Austin's meteoric rise in popularity. By Summerslam 1997, Steve Austin was probably the most popular worker in the WWF.

So, even with the disgruntled Hart fans refusing to watch RAW after Montreal, HBK actually increased the ratings from when Hart was champ. That isn't just bullshit, that is documented. Look at the websites yourself. That is why I linked to them. All the evidence is there, we know the dates each was champ, we know the ratings while each was champ. After Hart leaves, RAW's ratings go up. FACT.

LOL, and I thought the WWE's spin team was good.

What a bunch of bullshit and you know it. That rise in ratings wasn't from Shawn Michaels. He was an afterthought as the champion. Hell, even SHAWN MICHAELS HIMSELF admits it. Ever read his book on why he threatened to refuse to drop to Austin at WM 14? Because he felt that everyone was kissing Austin's ass, and no one was kissing his for working hurt. Which is basically an admittance that everyone in the WWF knew where their bread was being buttered. And that was before the McMahon angle.

Shawn Michaels did dick for those ratings. It was Steve Austin, all the way, and anyone with half a brain knows it.

Bret Hart as champ, November 19, 1995 to March 31, 1996 (he loses to HBK)
RAW Rating, average: 2.72

Shawn Michaels as champ, March 31, 1996 to November 17, 1996 (he loses title to Sid)
RAW Rating, average: 2.65

Difference between a 2.72 and a 2.65 is almost negligible.

But the AVERAGE doesn't show the TREND.

Shawn Michaels started with a reign that hovered around the 2.7 mark, and ended with ratings that hovered around the 2.0-2.1 mark. That IS a significant ratings drop.

If you're going to use facts, actually use facts, and quit wasting our time with bullshit.

Bret Hart as champ, August 3, 1997 to November 9, 1997 (he loses again to HBK)
RAW Rating, average: 2.4

Shawn Michaels as champ, November 9, 1997 to March 29, 1998 (he loses to SCSA)
RAW Rating, average: 3.3

Difference between a 2.4 and 3.3 average however, is NOT negligible.

No, of course not. But all you proved there was that Steve Austin was a bigger draw than HBK and Bret Hart. Which no one here is arguing.

Why are you wasting our time?

There it is everybody. Bret Hart actually drew less then Shawn Michaels during the time period that everyone is saying HBK couldn't draw in. So now one of the biggest arguments people had against HBK is non-existent.

The only thing worse than bullshit is bullshit being blindly accepted as fact.

Try and do some original thinking for yourself next time sir.


Not only have I used Davi's own numbers to prove HBK's lack of drawing (2.7-2.0), you also have to remember that TV ratings only measure domestic TV viewers, and don't even begin to calculate drawing ability worldwide, which was where Bret Hart REALLY did his damage in moneymaking. Europe loved Hart, Canada love Hart, Africa loved Hart....not only was Hart the bigger domestic draw, he was also, by far and away, the biggest international draw that the WWF had at the time, and is still one of their strongest international draws of all time.

So, there you have it folks. Bret Hart > Shawn Michaels.

 

[Big Sexy]

Yes, it must have just been a miraculous recovery that EVERYONE else was the same, and in the same position, but magically increased their drawing power. Yes, clearly that's what happened, especially after the WWF lost their strongest draw at that point in Bret Hart.

Nothing was the same after Bret left. Bret leaving was when Vince Mcmahon started his feud with Austin and without Mcmahon Austin would not have been as successful as he was. Mcmahon was involved in every angle Austin was and those two together helped turn around the WWE along with the young superstars coming in.

Also why do you keep on bringing up Austin in your arguments. Last time I checked the question was who was better between Bret Hart and HBK, yet your arguments are starting to revolve around Austin for some reason.

How many does one guy need? 5 main-eventers isn't enough to draw? Hell, what does

Like I said Vader didn't last long as a main eventer and Bret Hart and Taker didn't feud at all with Michaels during HBK's first title reign. So it was really just Sid and then a couple of filler guys thrown into a main event to give HBK someone to face.

Except that Hart's reigns weren't NEAR as bad as HBK's.

Great statement. Too bad you have didnt give any evidence to back it.

And I've studied and debated it for years, and I can tell you that without a shadow of a doubt, that it is.

Do you have a PHD in wrestling history or something. Just because you think you no more then everyone doesn't mean you do.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

I don't know if the ratings for when Shawn Michaels was the WWF Champion after Survivor Series of 1997 should be taken into account in this discussion because Bret Hart was not even on WWF television after "losing" the belt.

 

[Slyfox696]

Nothing was the same after Bret left.

EVERYTHING was the same EXCEPT Steve Austin. What did Shawn Michaels begin farting a different way and all of a sudden began drawing?

Bret leaving was when Vince Mcmahon started his feud with Austin and without Mcmahon Austin would not have been as successful as he was. Mcmahon was involved in every angle Austin was and those two together helped turn around the WWE along with the young superstars coming in.

A) The Austin vs. McMahon feud didn't really start until after Wrestlemania 14, after which HBK was gone.

B) Even if that was true, it wouldn't change the fact that it was Steve Austin who was responsible for the change in ratings and not Shawn Michaels.

Also why do you keep on bringing up Austin in all of your arguments. Last time I checked the question was who was better between Bret Hart and HBK, yet all of your arguments revolve around Austin for some reason.

Because all the arguments trying to disprove that Shawn didn't draw poorly involve time periods where Austin was drawing the best for the WWF.

In 1996, HBK drew terrible. Business was down, ratings were down, live event attendance was down, ppv buys were down...all with HBK as champion. Which proves he was a terrible draw. However, some people are trying to use his 97/98 reign to prove his drawing power which is just asinine as it was clearly Austin who was driving business, not HBK.

So, I use Austin to disprove all the mistaken statements about HBK's drawing power.

Like I said Vader didn't last long as a main eventer and Bret Hart and Taker didn't feud at all with Michaels during HBK's first title reign. So it was really just Sid and then a couple of filler guys thrown into a main event to give HBK someone to face.

While I disagree with your statement, allow me to just say this.

Lack of other stars never seemed to hinder Hogan's drawing power. Didn't seem to stop Austin's drawing power. Didn't seem to keep fans away from buying Bret Hart.

Why do we make the excuse for HBK that we don't have to make for anyone else?

Great statement. Too bad you have didnt give any evidence to back it.

The hell I didn't.

I said how Hart's reign drew 2.7 where HBK's dropped from that 2.7 down to 2.0 area.

What kind of evidence are you wanting?

Do you have a PHD in wrestling history or something.

No. However, I do have a brain, and I know how to think objectively and rationally, so that automatically puts me in the upper 10% of wrestling board posters.

Just because you think you no more then everyone doesn't mean you do.

The irony is in the fact you misspelled "know".

And, yes, it does.

 

[Davi323]

After Montreal, while HBK was champion, RAW only dropped below a 3.0 once, Dec 15, 1997. I also find it incredibly ironic that you want to bitch about the 1.8, (october 14, 1996) that was there, ONCE, while ignoring the 4.1 (May 6, 1996) he got during that same reign. But, I get it...when the ratings are marginally up when Hart is champ, it is all because of dear old Bret, but when the ratings are even higher when HBK is champ, well, it can't be HBK, its everyone else! Its every wrestler but Shawn Michaels! If you had any more of a double standard, it would be triple.

 

[Slyfox696]

After Montreal, while HBK was champion, RAW only dropped below a 3.0 once, Dec 15, 1997.

Thank you Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Seriously, what's your point? Are you really trying to say that Steve Austin had nothing to do with those ratings, and it was HBK who was driving them? Seriously?

I also find it incredibly ironic that you want to bitch about the 1.8, (october 14, 1996) that was there, ONCE, while ignoring the 4.1 (May 6, 1996) he got during that same reign.

Who gives a fuck what rating he gets on one night in the first month of his reign, tell me how his OVERALL reign went.

There's only once answer. It went DOWN. His reign got worse. No one cares about Day 1, they want to know about the change from Day 1 to Last Day. And the change was bad. It was in the negatives. That's like saying George W. Bush is the most popular President in US history because he had a 90% approval rating the month after 9/11, while conveniently ignoring how that 90% dropped all the way down to the mid 20% throughout the rest of his term.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

But, I get it...when the ratings are marginally up when Hart is champ, it is all because of dear old Bret, but when the ratings are even higher when HBK is champ, well, it can't be HBK, its everyone else! Its every wrestler but Shawn Michaels! If you had any more of a double standard, it would be triple.

This paragraph might would make sense if you were to make a valid point otherwise.

But considering it's obvious you don't understand the difference between average rating, rating trends and one night rating, I'm not going to bother responding to it.

 

[Big Sexy]

EVERYTHING was the same EXCEPT Steve Austin. What did Shawn Michaels begin farting a different way and all of a sudden began drawing?

Austin was there before Bret left. He didn't just suddenly appear after Bret was gone he was just filling a void left by Hart and the combination of Austin and HBK at the top was greater then the combination of Hart and HBK at the top. That is just showing that Austin drew better then Hart and HBK, it's not showing anything between Hart and HBK.

Lack of other stars never seemed to hinder Hogan's drawing power. Didn't seem to stop Austin's drawing power. Didn't seem to keep fans away from buying Bret Hart.

No one can compare to Hogan's drawing power and Hogan and the WWE were really the only option wrestling wise back when he was on top in the WWE and Austin never had a lack of stars around him. And Bret Hart once again did not draw that well when he had his 2 reigns in 97.

The irony is in the fact you misspelled "know".

I'm sorry I don't proof read my posts to make sure they are completely mistake free, I didn't know I was writing a paper for my English class.
But if it is English class then you forgot a "d" in loved after Canada

Europe loved Hart, Canada love Hart, Africa loved Hart

The reason HBK's rating gradually went down was because he had an 8 month reign and half way through the reign there wasn't anybody left to feud with. The Undertaker was in a feud with Mankind and Bret Hart was taking a leave of absence. They finally had Sid take the title off HBK to see if that would do anything, but he did even worse then HBK was doing at the end of his reign. The only people that could have helped the ratings were Hart and Taker. Hart was gone and Taker was involved in another feud so HBK was basically left out to dry.

 

[Davi323]

Sly, You apply inconsistent standards, that is what my point is. You claim individual nights don't matter, then try to claim HBK sucked as champion because he drew a 1.8 for one night. You claim that RAW's ratings while Hart was champion was only because of Hart, but RAW's ratings when HBK is champion, when they are lower, is all because of HBK, but when they are higher, its everyone BUT HBK. Stone Cold Steve Austin was also around during Bret Hart's reign...yet, you ignore that completely. You want it both ways. You want to give HBK all of the blame when things were bad, but none of the credit when things were better, at the same time giving Hart all of the credit, but none of the blame.

It was bad because Shawn Michaels was bad. The champion is what moves the meter. And HBK didn't.

Unless its Stone Cold moving the meter, right?

But then again, as long as you've posted here, you've been a clear Bret Hart basher, so at what point am I to take your feelings seriously?

It's ok. I'm just using EVERY other post you've made on Hart to do that. You don't like Bret Hart. We get it.

You have accused me of being a Bret Hart basher, for as long as I have been here, yet, I have been completely upfront about my position on Hart's career, Survivor Series, about how I don't think either wrestler are saints, that I disagree with things HBK has done in the past, etc. Perhaps you just skipped over the numerous times I called Hart a very good wrestler, where I made sure to mention that my objection to Hart in Montreal was only in regards to that one incident, and not against Hart in general, perhaps you just misunderstood when I praised Hart, falsely taking it as sarcasm.

You just get so worked up, you have little choice but to accuse people of being haters, when the evidence just doesn't support it. Claiming Bret Hart was wrong for his actions leading up to Montreal is not an attack. I am sick of your whining about it. Find a direct insult from me about Bret Hart and how terrible he is, or shut the hell up about it. People can disagree with you for legitimate reasons that don't involve hating. A person that can think objectively and rationally would understand that, and not resort to claiming everyone who disagrees with them is a hater.

Or was this quote complete bullshit?

No. However, I do have a brain, and I know how to think objectively and rationally, so that automatically puts me in the upper 10% of wrestling board posters.