Who is REALLY better?? Bret Hart Vs HBK

[Slyfox696]

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.

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore?

You're making my point for me.

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.

A) The WWF wasn't the strongest promotion when Hogan first started there. You had the NWA and it's territories, you had the AWA, WCCW, and a whole host of other territories. It was the only option, later on, BECAUSE of Hogan.

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

Do I need to explain to you what "irony" is?

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.

Nope. The reason it went down was because fans grew tired of HBK and they left to go watch the nWo.

HBK = loss of fans and getting booed. Your excuses are just ridiculous at this point, always pointing the finger everywhere but the one place it belongs.

Square on the steroid enhanced shoulders of Shawn Michaels.

 

[Blue Chipper]

I realized this is a little outdated and that I am a new user here but if those are the criteria being used, would that not make Shawn Michaels the better "performer" instead of "wrestler"?

Performer, wrestler, enetertainer, they're all basically the same. A wrestler is a performer and an entertainer.

Don't get a professional wrestler confused with a real wrestler.

And, welcome.

 

[Big Sexy]

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore?

You're making my point for me.

No I'm sticking with my point from earlier that Austin has nothing to do with Hart and HBK so why are you even discussing him.

Do I need to explain to you what "irony" is?

No, but my grammar doesn't have anything to do with the argument so there was no reason to put that in there.

HBK = loss of fans and getting booed. Your excuses are just ridiculous at this point, always pointing the finger everywhere but the one place it belongs.

There not excuses, I'm arguing my point, something that you need to do a better job of beacuse your Austin argument is irrelevant when it comes to the question of who is better; Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

Performer, wrestler, enetertainer, they're all basically the same. A wrestler is a performer and an entertainer.

Don't get a professional wrestler confused with a real wrestler.

And, welcome.

You're right. A wrestler is a performer, but a wrestler does not necessarily have to be an entertainer. Without using anybody as a scapegoat, I can say that from talking to wrestling fans of the modern product, very few of them consider someone among the likes of Dean Malenko to be an entertainer, even though he was acknowledged as a highly skilled grappler by those same people. When asked who was seen as an entertainer, names that were brought up were The Rock, Shawn Michaels, Stone Cold Steve Austin, etc.

Thank you for clarifying anyway. In that case, I think I should ask who everybody would think would be more likely to win a match as a "real wrestler" as you put it. When going hold for hold and not using closed fist punches, low blows, performance enhancing substances and other barred moves and objects, it is hard to really answer that question.

I think that both of them could do similar moves but that Bret Hart had the slight edge when it came to execution of submission holds. For example, it looked a lot more painful to me when he would put on a figure-four leglock than it did when Shawn used that manuever on similar opponents but this could just be due to Bret's larger body and size.

 

[Blue Chipper]

No I'm sticking with my point from earlier that Austin has nothing to do with Hart and HBK so why are you even discussing him.

Stone Cold binds in with this discussion because
Davi tried to claim that he wasn't responsible for the ratings increase, when clearly he was. A champion, as Sly states repetedly, is liable for the ratings.

In 96', when HBK was champion, RAW endured the poorest ratings its almost ever seen. The ratings were averaging all time lows of 2.7.

Soon afterward, Stonecold barely got the tourch passed to him. After a few weeks, the ratings remained consistently crappy because of the weak standard set by HBK. A few short weeks later, when the fans discovered there were a new champion, ratings launched to all time highs soley because of the top dog, Stone Cold.

I will say, at that time, even thought it goes against my original standpoint, that HBK was terrible draw.

 

[Davi323]

No, what I claimed was that Sly was applying a double standard in regards to Stone Cold. He wants to completely discount Austin when Bret Hart is concerned, claiming that RAW's ratings were completely because of Hart, at the same time claiming that when HBK was champion, it was all because of Austin. I never denied Stone Cold had an impact on ratings, what I was objecting to was the completely biased and inconsistent way it was applied by Sly, because he only wanted to apply it to HBK's title reign, and ignore Austin's impact during Hart's. I was objecting to the double standard of the Austin argument, not the Austin argument itself. I have no objections to claiming Austin boosted HBK's title run, if you also acknowledge that he was a boost to Hart's as well. Its only when you apply Austin to one but not the other that I raise my eyebrows at it.

And, go back and look at the data. It is simply not true that before HBK lost to Austin at WM that ratings were at all time lows. They were increased from when Bret Hart had the belt before leaving. Ratings were up from Hart's 1997 level ratings as champion BEFORE Austin won the belt, ie, while HBK was still champion. If HBK was a poor draw because of Austin's ratings after Austin won the belt, then Hart was an even poorer draw, because his last title run had lower ratings than HBK had, which were lower than Austin's.

Austin's title run ratings > HBK's title run ratings, but, HBK's title run ratings > Hart's immediately preceding title run ratings.

If you apply the same logic to both situations, you will see what I am getting at. IF I accept the premise that Austin helped HBK's ratings, I must also accept that he helped Hart's ratings prior to Montreal as well. IF I accept that HBK was a poor champion because Austin's ratings were higher than his, then by that same logic, I must also accept that Hart was an even poorer champion than HBK, because HBK's ratings were higher than his. Again, I am referring to the 97-98 runs, not earlier.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

Stone Cold binds in with this discussion because
Davi tried to claim that he wasn't responsible for the ratings increase, when clearly he was. A champion, as Sly states repetedly, is liable for the ratings.

In 96', when HBK was champion, RAW endured the poorest ratings its almost ever seen. The ratings were averaging all time lows of 2.7.

Soon afterward, Stonecold barely got the tourch passed to him. After a few weeks, the ratings remained consistently crappy because of the weak standard set by HBK. A few short weeks later, when the fans discovered there were a new champion, ratings launched to all time highs soley because of the top dog, Stone Cold.

I will say, at that time, even thought it goes against my original standpoint, that HBK was terrible draw.

Even if he was considered a bad draw, Shawn Michaels put on better matches than Steve Austin did in the WWE. Obviously, the increase in ratings were largely in part due to the character that was "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, its portrayed defiance of authority and Steve's domination of matches that involved a series of punches, kicks and stunners.

I don't mean to downlplay Steve Austin's abilities at all. I just mean to say that I feel he was shown to be a better brawler or a better "fighter" than a "real wrestler".

In my opinion, and without saying anyone is better than anybody else, I feel that Shawn Michaels was allowed to look like a greater technical wrestler than Steve Austin was allowed to, and that Bret Hart was given more freedom in his matches to look like a greater technical wrestler than both of them.

After all, the WWE must have realized that a small portion of its fanbase cared too much about pure wrestling abilities when compared with the majority who wanted fast-paced action to tune into without having to watch an entire episode of WWF Raw is War. For that reason, they had Bret Hart be a technician in the ring to have some credibility while delivering a show about "wrestling", they had Shawn Michaels to please the fans who were more into aerial action and high spots, and they had Stone Cold Steve Austin to bring in viewers who preferred to see brawling and attitude over "mat wrestling" and paced wrestling.

Also, I typed those last two statements before this one without meaning to sound like I am not recognizing the talent of wrestling that Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin had. I was just stating since the WWE is a business, it tried to appeal to a variety of consumers or fans in order to increase revenues.

 

[HBK-aholic]

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.

Have you actually watched the shows around this time or simply looked at your little figures? Well anyway, watch them. Watch the complete shows from when Shawn was champion, to into Austins reign. The whole product was better. Not just the part with Austin. For whatever reason, McMahon and creative had found things that work. People started watching again. So, while I'm not denying Austin drew a lot, you can't put everything down to him. The business is down to A LOT of people, and when it goes down it's not all because of the champion, and when it goes up it isn't down to one person either. You could have a great champion, but people won't sit through the shows if the rest of it is awful. And it's the same the other way around.

 

[justinsayne]

The business is down to A LOT of people, and when it goes down it's not all because of the champion, and when it goes up it isn't down to one person either. You could have a great champion, but people won't sit through the shows if the rest of it is awful. And it's the same the other way around.

when the ratings go up and down it may not ALL be because of one guy, but the champion does have a major effect on ratings, hence the only reason they put the WWE and World titles on to their biggest draws, ever wonder why you don't see guys like Val Venis or Al Snow as WWE champion, cause no one is going to tune in to see those guys as champions, people will tune in to see Austin, the company's biggest draw at the time, as champion, why do you think Hogan held the WWE title for four years at one point?, or more recently, why Cena held the title for two years?, it's cause those guys are the top draws in the business people tune in, and buy tickets to events just to see them

As for this tired old argument of who's better between HBK and Bret Hart, to tell you the truth at this point I'm really just kind of sick of both of them, but I'll say this Hart was clearly the better technical wrestler, where HBK was better when it came to wrestling a more fast paced, high risk style, both had their strengths, and both had their weaknesses, & both have acted like immature babies at points in their careers, right now I'd prolly have to say Bret Hart is the better, though that could largely be due to the fact that I'm just plain sick of watching the same old tired HBK routine every week for the past 6 fucking years, Hart was entertaining in his time in WWE (can't really say much about his stint in WCW as I really never watch WCW), HBK was also entertaining back in his prime in WWE, but right now if you gave the choice of watching some of Harts segments, promos, & matches, or some of HBKs segments, promos, & matches, I'd pick Hart, cause right now I just find his stuff to be more enjoyable, but then as I've said already said I'm just kinda sick and tired of HBK at the moment

 

[Slyfox696]

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.

No, I used the 1.8 as an example, while maintaining the entire how ratings dropped from the 2.7-2.8 rating to a general 2.0 rating. I've said that numerous times, you just need to read and understand it.

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

What I'm saying is that Bret Hart had LESS name talent around him and had a better drawing reign. Then HBK took the title, and with stronger talent around him (minus Bret), was champion when ratings did a nosedive.

but when they are higher, its everyone BUT HBK.

Not true.

When they were higher it was because of Stone Cold Steve Austin, not "everyone". Please don't misinterpret what I say because you know it's true.

Stone Cold Steve Austin was also around during Bret Hart's reign...yet, you ignore that completely.

He was? I thought that was the Ringmaster. I thought Stone Cold wasn't truly born until King of the Ring 1996, at which point Bret Hart was no longer the champion.

Maybe you should do your history homework.


I'm not taking Bret Hart's reign in 1997 as proof of his drawing, for the same reason I don't credit HBK's reign in 97 as drawing. Because the draw was in Steve Austin, and the controversy he was creating. I mean, you watch an episode of Raw back in mid-to-late 1997 and you'll see 147 different Steve Austin segments.

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.

Not at all. That's just how you're misinterpreting it because you know it's true.

When Bret Hart was champion in 1995-96, who else was doing the drawing? No one. As Wrestlemania 12 came around, HBK began chipping in some drawing power, but it was still the Bret Hart show until Wrestlemania 12. After Wrestlemania 12, who was doing the drawing? Shawn Michaels. Sure, there was still Undertaker, Foley, Diesel, Ramon, Sid, Yokozuna, Ultimate Warrior, etc., but there is no doubt that Shawn Michaels was the top guy. And with Shawn Michaels as the top guy, business declined drastically, to the point where the WWF came oh so close to having to close it's doors. Who else are we to blame? Did ANY of the personnel change from Hart's run to HBK's run? If so, the only change would have BENEFITED HBK, not Hart. And yet, it was HBK's run that tailed off in business, not Hart's.

As far as mid-to-late '97 and early '98, I'm not giving Hart or HBK credit for the rise in business, because anyone with half a brain knows it was Steve Austin driving business.

Unless its Stone Cold moving the meter, right?

Are you really trying to say that you don't understand the phenomenon that was Stone Cold Steve Austin?

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?

Your comment here is so phony, and we both know it. The only time you've ever called Bret a good wrestler has always followed with a "but". He was a good wrestler, but was wrong at Montreal. He was a good wrestler, but not as good as HBK. He made pink tights cool, but he...I don't know.

I read your "praise" of Hart, but also see how you always erase the praise with a putdown of some sort, trying to prove how he was wrong or inferior. So don't bring this nonsense, because we both know the truth. Every thing you say about Bret, you erase within the same post.

No I'm sticking with my point from earlier that Austin has nothing to do with Hart and HBK so why are you even discussing him.

Of course he does. I don't know how to explain this to you.

Me: HBK was a poor draw.
Someone else: But he drew well in '97.
Me: That wasn't HBK drawing, it was Austin.


Maybe that'll help. Does it make sense now why we have to talk about Austin? Because it disproves the HBK supporters position that HBK was ever a good draw, who use '97 to argue against my position that HBK was the worst draw in WWF history.

No, but my grammar doesn't have anything to do with the argument so there was no reason to put that in there.

Sure it did. It was ironic. I enjoyed it and felt like pointing it out.

There not excuses, I'm arguing my point, something that you need to do a better job of beacuse your Austin argument is irrelevant when it comes to the question of who is better; Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels.

And I've explained to you THREE TIMES now how Austin fits into the discussion. You're just having trouble understanding it.

No, what I claimed was that Sly was applying a double standard in regards to Stone Cold. He wants to completely discount Austin when Bret Hart is concerned, claiming that RAW's ratings were completely because of Hart, at the same time claiming that when HBK was champion, it was all because of Austin.

Never did I do that. You just assume that my position of Hart's drawing was based on his Summerslam to Survivor Series run in 1997. It's not. For the same reason I discount HBK's run in 97/98.

I never denied Stone Cold had an impact on ratings, what I was objecting to was the completely biased and inconsistent way it was applied by Sly, because he only wanted to apply it to HBK's title reign, and ignore Austin's impact during Hart's.

What you REALLY mean to say, is that you completely misunderstood my position, because you think I am too dumb to apply my own logic to my own posts.

When in fact, I DO apply my logic to my posts, and you just don't understand that.

I have no objections to claiming Austin boosted HBK's title run, if you also acknowledge that he was a boost to Hart's as well.

Which I have never claimed otherwise.

But, Stone Cold Steve Austin wasn't drawing in 1995 and 1996. And considering YOU were the one who first started comparing Bret's 95/96 reign to HBK's 96 run, I would figure YOU would understand what I was talking about. But, maybe I give you too much credit for understanding your own posts. I don't know.

And, go back and look at the data. It is simply not true that before HBK lost to Austin at WM that ratings were at all time lows. They were increased from when Bret Hart had the belt before leaving. Ratings were up from Hart's 1997 level ratings as champion BEFORE Austin won the belt, ie, while HBK was still champion. If HBK was a poor draw because of Austin's ratings after Austin won the belt, then Hart was an even poorer draw, because his last title run had lower ratings than HBK had, which were lower than Austin's.

Austin's title run ratings > HBK's title run ratings, but, HBK's title run ratings > Hart's immediately preceding title run ratings.

Because of Steve Austin catching steam. How do you not understand this.

When you take Steve Austin's budding superstardom out of the equation, you look at 95/96. And there is no doubt who was the better international draw, and it's clear Hart was the better domestic draw as well.

If you apply the same logic to both situations, you will see what I am getting at. IF I accept the premise that Austin helped HBK's ratings, I must also accept that he helped Hart's ratings prior to Montreal as well. IF I accept that HBK was a poor champion because Austin's ratings were higher than his, then by that same logic, I must also accept that Hart was an even poorer champion than HBK, because HBK's ratings were higher than his.

Your statement ONLY works if you assume Austin's popularity stayed stagnant until he became champion. But, that's an asinine position to take, and you know it. We both know that Austin's popularity was on an upward slope (again, this is where TRENDS come in...something you still struggle to understand), and Austin's popularity was greater in January 98 than it was in August 97.

This isn't rocket science, so I don't understand how you struggle with it so much.

Have you actually watched the shows around this time or simply looked at your little figures?

Unlike you, I actually watched the shows when they were being aired for the first time, and could actually understand what was going on.

At this time, you were what...5? 6 years old? You wouldn't have had a clue. Sure, you can go back and watch them now, but it doesn't have the same impact. Watching them live for the first time, as it happens in real time, is the ONLY way to fully understand what all is going on. It's going to school and seeing Austin 3:16 shirts on half the high school and junior high. It's going to the stores, and seeing Rock merchandise hanging on the Wal-Mart shelves. It's watching ESPN Sportscenter and seeing grown professionals giving the DX crotch chops.

To fully understand, you have to live through it with the ability to understand it. You can read about it, and watch it ten years later, but it doesn't have the same impact.

So yes, I watched the shows, and I was part of the culture that the WWF cultivated. I watched the evolution of Steve Austin, and how his popularity soared. I watched Bret's famous promo, about how Canada cares about its elderly and has medical care for anyone who needs it. I watched as Bret had the Canadian national anthem play, and Steve Austin jumped them from behind. I watched it all as it happened.

And while I don't mean it in a demeaning way, it's something that you will simply never be able to understand on the same level.

Well anyway, watch them. Watch the complete shows from when Shawn was champion, to into Austins reign. The whole product was better. Not just the part with Austin. For whatever reason, McMahon and creative had found things that work. People started watching again.

The product was "better" because it evolved around Austin. The WWF found that Austin's raunch and shock TV drew fans, so they began tailoring every part of the show around the same raunch and shock tv.

Whether it's direct or indirect, the show was impacted, and the entertainment value increased, due to the success of Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Not Shawn Michaels.

So, while I'm not denying Austin drew a lot, you can't put everything down to him. The business is down to A LOT of people, and when it goes down it's not all because of the champion, and when it goes up it isn't down to one person either.

I see this statement all the time, and it's so ridiculous I don't understand how people can actually believe it.

Wrestling booms and periods of good business are ALWAYS due to the popularity of ONE wrestler, or in the rare case of Attitude Era, the popularity of ONE wrestler to be immediately surpassed by another ONE wrestler (Austin, then Rock). Wrestling has ALWAYS drawn on the success of it's top name. Always.

You could have a great champion, but people won't sit through the shows if the rest of it is awful. And it's the same the other way around.

They did during the Attitude Era. The Attitude Era was awful. Awful matches, awful gimmicks, awful characters, awful storylines...but because there was an Austin and a Rock, the people came in droves. You know when the popularity of wrestling ended? When Austin was too injured to continue full-time, and Rock began his transition to movies.

There's a reason for that.

 

[klunderbunker]

This is very close for me, but I'll take Bret. While he was less flashy, he was always consistent. Outside of Backlund, I can't think of a truly bad Bret match. He was a truly master craftsman out there putting on a performance every time that he stepped into the ring. For people that claim he did the same thing every night, that's half true. He did the same ending every night. How he got there could be a number of different ways. The name Excellence of Execution could not have been more appropriate.

On the other hand, there's Shawn Michaels. Almost as great, but just not there. He was by far the flashier, but I think that he was more random than Bret, which isn't always a good thing. Shawn has the better finishing move, but the setup was different. The Tuning up the Band thing was so stupid to me. Shouldn't the other guy hear him kicking the mat (in kayfabe)? Shawn's offense was based on landing one move. Outside of that, it was a lot of flash, but little substance, although in fairness, Shawn can put on classics with the best of them. Bret just barely edges him out here, but I could watch them both all day long.

 

[reddevil69]

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.



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.



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



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

I believe the Austin references are being made in order to dispute that HBK drove the ratings after Hart left...and that is not the case. Austin had already sold close to one million t-shirts by August of 1997...and that is a fact that is on paper to to prove it...Dave Meltzer has all the merch figures from that year documented in his newsletter....McMahon took an already mega-hot star and put him in to the stratosphere, but Austin was already the biggest star in the company before January of 1998 when the first seeds of the McMahon feud were sown.

 

[SAVE_YOURSELVES_111]

Ok...

RANDOM FACTS....

FACT: Bret Hart kept the company head above water and was a draw internationally, and drew substantially solid numbers on both "Raw", and syndicated shows such as "Superstars". His run with the belt in 1994, and feud with Owen, drew some of the largest houses the WWE had in years.

FACT: It wasn't until Bret's loss in 1994, that things started going south again, when Diesel had become the champion. Bret's shot down the undercard, didn't prove to be devistating overseas, but it hurt big time for the WWF's business in the States. Regardless, Bret still remained a high draw in terms of merchandising however.

FACT: Shawn Michaels' emergence in 1995, as a top babyface, and officially being a high up main eventer, was met with great welcome by the fans. However, in my opinion, he suffered the same fate as his good buddy Kevin Nash, and his character was watered down to be more of a white meat babyface. It hurt him.

FACT: According to offical statistics from the WWF, researched by Dave Meltzer, the house shows were the highest during the first three months of the year. Who was Champion then? Bret Hart.

FACT: Shawn actually drew good houses with Vader in the Spring/Summer and early fall of 1996, despite the fact they drew an abissmal buyrate at Summerslam '96, that could be attributed to poor buildup on TV. Much like a good chunk of Shawn's feuds in that timeframe.

FACT: Shawn's best feud in that whole reign was with Diesel, which drew a pretty good buyrated at "Good Friends, Better Enemies". I do not agree with the statements made by some that Shawn didn't have good enough guys to feud with. Maybe the Sid thing was a miss, but Shawn's feuds were victim to poor effort, and bad booking. I agree that neither Davey Boy Smith or Sid were what you would call good main eventers. But I do believe Mick Foley earned his shot in the context of storyline buildup, because he dominated the Undertaker like no other wrestler in the last near 6 years at that point. However, the feud again, had no real zip to its buildup.

FACT: While I do agree Shawn was a victim of lackluster booking, I also have to say that there were just some fans who either weren't ready for him, or were annoyed by his antics, or the working class fans, not wanting to cheer someone as flamboyant as Shawn. Shawn had a tremendous following to be sure, but around the world, the fans were still all about Bret Hart, hence why Vince McMahon needed him to do the world tours in 1996.

FACT: Bret's return in late 1996, drove up the ratings by a near full point for just one week. However, Bret wasn't even on TV until his return at the Survivor Series.

FACT: Bret was still massively over to the WWF loyalists. People like to dismiss saying that Bret wasn't popular anymore. That couldn't be further from the truth. Fans that were sick of Shawn were clamouring to see the likes of Bret come back, and the likes of Steve Austin, and at the time, Ahmed Johnson, emerge.

FACT: I will however, agree with statements made by some, that Bret's drawing power was indeed suffering in the States and he needed something to freshen him up again, hence the heel turn.

FACT: Bret made Steve Austin into a tried and true main event star.

FACT: In the "WCW 80+ Weeks in a Row" era, the highest ratings were at the height of the Bret Hart/Steve Austin feud, during the Spring of 1997, shortly after the angle where Bret's leg was broken by Steve.

FACT: The "In Your House" PPV's, were drawing some of there highest buyrates ever. The two highest of the year? Featured Bret & Shawn, and they were "Canadian Stampede" and "Badd Blood".

FACT: Survivor Series drew the highest buyrate of the year for the WWF. The "screwjob" match. 2nd highest, Summerslam '97, Bret vs. 'Taker.

FACT: Revisionist history, has tried to tell us fans today, that the numbers started going up in late 1997 because of D-X and Austin. Maybe that's what kept the fans tuning in, but it was because of what happened to Bret at SS 97, that they started watching again in the first place.

FACT: The WWF survived without Shawn in 1998, and then on in until 2002.

FACT: Canadian viewership, which has been WWF loyal, even in the time of the WCW domination period, was going down dramatically after Bret's departure. However, Austin's emergence, and Bret's poor treatment in WCW, the fans came back.

FACT: Bret's DVD is one of the top selling of all time for the WWE. While Shawn's latest DVD did very well, it didn't even crack the top 10 best selling.

 

[SAVE_YOURSELVES_111]

Oye Vei. I see that this debate is going to force me to take a stance that I never thought I would take. So I rule as such:

In the debate of which is better, Bret Hart or HBK, I rule that HBK is better and I offer such as my reasoning.

1. HBK, for some unknown reason, has been able to incorporate his own personal beliefs into his character in order to infuse it with a certain degree of new life and to give him longevity than Bret Hart would have had. Now when you think of this, what comes to mind? Hogan and the "take your vitamins and say your prayers" belief? The Ultimate Warrior with the deranged psychopath suffering from paranoia, I mean the Warrior Way, belief? I mean can you even image Bret Hart injecting his utter disdain for everything wrestling related into his character just because it isn't "wrasslin"? The shooter style is the way of the past and Hart would have been nothing more than a dinosaur. A legend in his own mind.

2. HBK made the right connections and made sure that his friend made even "deeper" connections, if you get my meaning. Wrestling these days is not "wrasslin", it's sports entertainment. And one of the biggest elements to have success in the "entertainment" industry is the ability to network. If you are in with the right people, then you end up being in the right places at the right times, even if that means doing the dirty work in the Montreal Screwjob. Hart? Well I don't think that he liked networking or kissing up. He felt that his reputation should carry him places. Um yeah, good luck with that one.

3. Shawn Michaels has show that he can carry a company without Bret Hart but Bret Hart has not shown the same. Sure you can put up the argument that WCW was a sinking ship or that Bret was booked wrong or that the death of Owen stunted Bret's chances, but the fact remains that HBK proved this and Bret didn't. And to be honest, I don't think that Bret could have. HBK can exist as a single entity and still be a credible asset. Bret Hart? Well he gets lost in the shuffle without back up. It's historic. Check the annuls of time.

Look, I respect Bret Hart and all and think that he is one of the all time greats, thing is that he hasn't earned what HBK has and never would have. He needs a catalyst to play off of while HBK is a singularity. And enigma if you will. So with that said. This case is therefore closed.

Fact of the matter is Shawn, cruises on not only his ability but the legacy of his ownself.

I certainly hope you don't honestly believe that the 4 year absence had nothing to do with Shawn's resurgance. He'd be a tired older guy who fans don't want around, if he'd been around in the Attitude Era.

Before his horrid acts, Chris Benoit was one of the most over guys in the company, and Bret had more depth to his character than Chris ever did. So don't give me that B.S.

And I also like how you justify the fact that Shawn got to where he is by stabbing people in the back. Yet people bash Bret for simply not doing one thing, and trying to find another soloution. What's really the lesser of two evils here?

And I don't ever recall Shawn carrying company anymore than Bret did. Stop trying to revisionise history, because Bret did carry the company althrough the mid 90's.

And oh yeah, Shawn can do anything with anybody but Bret can't?

Come on man! What are you trying to prove to yourself? Is that why Shawn's feuds with Sid & The Bulldog drew so well???

Do you think Shawn would be having the year he's having WITHOUT Jericho?

Face facts, ALL of the greats were great, because of great rivals. Shawn needed someone to work with to draw in the main event every bit as Bret did.

When it came to carrying mid-carders, BOTH Bret & Shawn were masters of there craft! So your glorifcation of HBK in that market, is not valid.

And while we're on the subject...lets not forget, Bret made a main eventer out of his brother, and they drew good business in 1994.

 

[reddevil69]

Have you actually watched the shows around this time or simply looked at your little figures? Well anyway, watch them. Watch the complete shows from when Shawn was champion, to into Austins reign. The whole product was better. Not just the part with Austin. For whatever reason, McMahon and creative had found things that work. People started watching again. So, while I'm not denying Austin drew a lot, you can't put everything down to him. The business is down to A LOT of people, and when it goes down it's not all because of the champion, and when it goes up it isn't down to one person either. You could have a great champion, but people won't sit through the shows if the rest of it is awful. And it's the same the other way around.

While I dig Austins' run, i agree that it can't just be pinned down to one man...while Austin was hot in 1998, so was Foley,New age Outlaws, Triple H and Chyna, Kane The Rock and of course Undertaker...there were alot of people paying to see those performers as well, although Austin did carry the majority of the boom for WWE on his shoulders and drove the buy-rates through the roof......Shawn was merely keeping the belt warm for Steve.
The plan, even when Bret was around, was for Steve to win it at WM14 from Bret and that is mentioned in all three of their books and it was in place long before Shawn had his career ending back injury. Shawn was not going to be "the man" and Austin was not given the belt by default because Shawn was hurt...Austin and Hart were to be in the main event at Mania.

 

[Emmet]

Bret Hart without any doubt in my mind. Not only was he a better wrestler (a realistic wrestler I might add), he was also a bigger draw internationally and was also a better professional than HBK. Most sensible, logical fans can see that Bret was the better of the two. He made every wrestler he ever worked with look good. This has all been said before and in this thread so I wont repeat stuff everyone knows.

Bret won athlete of the year 3 times in a row in Germany, that includes every type of sport from what I understand of it. He was loved in the UK, Asia, All of Europe, Africa. Everywhere he went he was loved and still is.

Bret is a honest and better man than Shawn Michaels, if anyone has read his book he points out his own flaws, gives credit where its due to HBK, Hogan, Flair etc even though he doesnt get on with them. Does HBK give Bret much credit in his book? I doubt it.

HBK's career has been made out of gimmick matches, just like HHH's. Brets legacy is made out of just being the best wrestler in the business. Bar none.

 

[Undercurrent]

I consider Bret Hart to be the greatest in ring performer of all time and while Shawn may be an icon to millions of fans around the world along with his fellow peers...he just can't measure up to Bret.

I read a post where an individual claimed Shawn was more of an innovater than Bret. My question back to them would be...who do you think inspired Shawn? Shawn in the past had praised Bret on several occasions in regards to pathing the way for individuals such as himself.


Bret Hart earned his way to the top as he truly caught on with the fans around the world. Shawn Michaels definitely had a solid fan base but was pushed as Vince's new golden child. During the early portion of the 90's while Hogan was still with the company Bret was receiving more fan mail than The Hulkster himself. Back in the days when the WWE would frequently travel around the world performing in several different countries, it was requested that Bret Hart be there as the fans would leave disappointed without his presence. He was consistently that one wrestler that was requested to be there. Bret Hart was a WORLD champion as everyone looked up this man as a modern day hero for professional wrestling. Bret's fanbase in countries such as England, India and Germany completely blows me away. I agree with the statement that Shawn was champion in a time where the WWF was struggling but he hardly drew a dime! There were more individuals who would rather see him chase the champion or climb his way up to the main event than to walk out to the ring with the strap around his waist. As a champion he just wasn't believable at all. Bret Hart was our underdog, he was our valiant knight and lastly he was that one individual we could all believe in.

By the way......if you question Bret's ability to draw then go watch Summerslam 92 where in the main event he took on the British Bulldog at Wembly Stadium. There were 80,000 fans in attendance for that PPV and many of them were all wearing pink and black.

Shawn's in ring psychology has always been quite trivial to me. Why would he constantely attempt to Superkick Kurt Angle when we all know he'll just snap on the Ankle Lock? Why must he always feel the need to flip upside down on the turnbuckle? I agree with an individual who stated earlier that much of his match seemed like filler until the finish. He's been billed as a high flier, a daredevil, a man who consistently looks to steal the show but in reality he's always had trouble telling a compelling story in the squared circle. He's a great athlete and is guaranteed to put on one hell of a show but Bret Hart managed to do the same while never having a sub-par match and becoming the best story teller in the history of the business. There are many who consider Bret Har to be quite routine which I find completely insulting. Every wrestler has signature moves and much like any other wrestler he managed to sneak his in while telling a compelling story. Why would Bret hit his signature backbreaker, figure four around the ring post and work the legs? Psychology. It would all lead up to the sharpshooter and aside from that Bret knew his role as he would keep his opponent grounded. He never attempted to overpower Bam Bam...instead he kept him as grounded as possible.

Many have also claimed Shawn's matches are far superior to Bret's......I'll take an unbias approach to this. Off the top of my head I shall name great Shawn Michaels matches and great Bret matches and see who reigns supreme.

Shawn vs Razor Ramon - Wrestlemania 10
The Rockers vs The Hart Foundation
Shawn vs Bret Hart - Wrestlemania 12
Shawn vs Kurt Angle - Wrestlemania 21
Shawn vs Taker - Hell In A Cell

Already I am running very short of great Shawn matches

Let's move onto Bret

Bret vs Roddy Piper Wrestlemania 8
Bret vs Shawn Michaels Wrestlemania 12
Bret vs Mr.Pefect - Summerslam, MSG
Bret vs Austin - Wrestlemania 13
Bret vs Owen - Wrestlemania 10, Steel Cage Match
Bret vs Benoit - Owen Tribute Match
Hart Foundation vs The Rockers
Bret Hart vs The British Bulldog - Summerslam 92
1993 KOTF when he defeated Razor, Bam Bam and Mr.Perfect all in the same night where every match was fantastic and uniquely different.
Hell Bret Hart vs Diesel which turned out to be the best match Kevin Nash ever had.

Bret Hart may be my all time favourite wrestler but I have also watched many Shawn Michaels matches and clearly his "best" just don't outweigh The Hitman's.

Bret has the ability to make every opponent look great. Whether it was Yoko or Papa Shango...when the match was over they appeared as gold and their stocks would rise.

At the end of the day Shawn Michaels may be considered an icon, the showstopper and Mr.Wrestlemania....but he's no Bret Hart and I believe that eats him up inside.

 

[wwe_scotland]

I have always consideed HBK to be the greatest of all time along with taker. Althrough Hart entertained me he didnt show me any charisma outside the ring and on the microphone. Through to give Hart his due along with HBK during the ninties had many classic matches but i belive as HBK as continued his WWE carear he is just building his legacy.

 

[Emmet]

How many truly 5 star matches has HBK had since his come back in 2002? I couldnt name too many. His match with Jericho at WM 19 was probably a 5 star match. Other than that im at a loss. His matches are all very predictable now.

HBK's greatest legacy is the ladder match, and it wasnt even his idea in the first place, whos idea was it? Oh yeah Bret Hart's. HBK's legacy is better than what it really is because of Vince's revionist history bullshit.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Well... it's kind of a tough call, but my vote will have to go to Bret Hart.

Now we know, both guys are tremendous performers, however both do have a very different approach to being a "wrestler", in my mind. Bret Hart was the last of a "dying breed", if you so will. He started in a time when wrestling was still considered more of a "real" sport, with genuine competition, whereas HBK only got started just around the time when the flashy characters started to emerge (especially) in WWE. Hart somehow managed to retain a "realistic" side to wrestling that with the advent of all those whacky characters VKM introduced in the early 90ies was almost lost to wrestling in its entirety. Bret Hart, in my mind, was more of a "wrestler", and HBK more of an "entertainer" - he just could do more in the soap opera elements of wrestling, whereas Bret Hart was one of the best there ever was inside the ring. He often gets critizised for always playing his same routine - the Side Russian Legsweep, the Backbreaker, the Elbow off the second rope, the Sharpshooter - but then again, every superstar, and especially every Top Carder at some point in their career have to deliver those trademark moves, since its what people will go off on. Just like Triple H has to do his Spinebuster and his Mighty Knee Of Power; just as Hogan had his Punch-Boot-Legdrop routine, and just as HBK has his Flying-Forearm-into-bouncing-up-from-the-mat-to-go-for-the-big-elbow, so too Bret Hart had his set. However, when it comes down to actually pulling off his in-ring moves, Hart truly was the "Excellence Of Execution". No one in the history of pro wresting even comes close to the beauty with which Hart was able to pull off his moves. It pains me to this day whenever I see anyone other than Bret Hart try to execute the Sharpshooter - from Rock, to HBK, to even Sting - no one, and I mean NO ONE, was ever able to pull off the Sharpshooter to make it look convincing other than Bret Hart. And the same goes for every other move he pulled off. He pulled moves off in a way that told you: "Yes, that's exactly what it's meant to look like." He made them look like he truly was doing these moves to his opponent, and didn't look like he absolutely needed his opponent to aid him in pulling them off, which happens all too often to quite a number of other guys. And Hart could definitely have pulled anyone to a great match. I mean, he pulled HBK through a 60 man Iron Man match, so... lol aite just kidding HBK is a great performer in his own right - but Hart in my opinion was just that bit better. In any case, he DID make Steve Austin into a star overnight when he made him "pass out" in the Sharpshooter

HBK on the other hand was always a flashy performer, one who basically was born to adopt the style Vince was looking for when he supersized the WWE, and even more so when it was time to bring Attitude to WWE. And while Bret Hart was still good in his role when his days in WWE were coming to an end, I still feel that his character was just not made to linger in that environment - since he simply was that "last of a dying breed". It seemed to me that the whole development of wrestling in the late Nineties was working against Bret Hart - and he just did not have it in him anymore to adapt with the times. Not because he wasn't able to - as said, he was still doing a tremendous job in WWE - but after the Screwjob, and after Owen's death, and with WCW not knowing what to do with him, I believe he became just a bit fed up, and didn't seem to be putting in everything he could anymore, and that was a shame. He could and should be all means have had a few more years in the absolute spotlight. But instead his career was cut short by the concussion and the subsequent stroke; and what an unfitting end to a great career. Without the Montreal Screwjob, or maybe even with that, he might have made it back to WWE if he had remained healthy, and might have had one last big "tribute" run, like Hogan, as well; who knows. He would have deserved it.

Maybe he has a become a bitter man, and even though a lot of crap has happened to him, he should have been able to walk out on a higher note. But then again, he's only human at the end of the day - which we all too often seem to forget when talking about wrestlers and their failings - and so I can understand that to a certain degree to. Is it a pity? Yes. Should he have acted differently? In some respects, yes. Should he have had a different end to his career? By all means, yes. Will he still be remembered as one of the greatest ever? Absolutely, and deservingly so.

So I say - when it was Bret Harts time to carry the torch, he did it, and he did it well. And more importantly, he did it alone. HBK had his time in an era where there was a number of great superstars around to help the entire company - from Austin over Rock and HHH to the Undertaker, who all together made the WWE just THAT popular in the days of "Attitude". And while HBK is a legend in his own right, and will also always be remembered as one of the greatest ever - so is Bret Hart, and given different circumstances, he definitely should have an even brighter spotlight in WWEs "history interpretation" than he does right now; for even though he is recognized by WWE now, and even though he has been inducted into the Hall of Fame, I feel he would truly deserve a spot way up higher in the ranks of the all-time greats.

 

[image1986]

Undercurrent you got to be kidding me? 5 matches by hbk you can name that were great but for bret the list goes on and on. Its one thing to say hbk wasn't a big draw its another to insult the man completely. Lets add some matches to you list shall we:

Hbk vs mankind: in you house mind games

Hbk vs jeff jarrett in you house

Hbk vs diesel : in you house

Hbk vs triple h: summerslam 2002

The first elimination chamber

Hbk vs jericho : wrestlemania 19

Hbk vs triple h three stages of hell

Hbk vs benoit vs triple wrestlmania 20

There you go that seems a little better got some 4 and 5 star matches mixed in there. Granted bret had a lot of good matches but lets remember boys and girls that bret main evented far earlier than hbk so he had practice. Hbk as champ was bad but not bad enough to keep him from getting the brass ring 3 more times. You know what's funny on paper hbk accomplished a lil more than bret as far as championships royal rumble wins and gimmack matches. Before you bret hart fans try to kill me, yes yes bret had accomplish a lot and credit is due to him as well just giving my view on why hbk legacy will be better than brets and in essence make him equal if not a better wrestler

4 time world champion
3 time intercontinential champ
European champion
5 time tag champion
First grand slam champ
First ladder match
First hell in a cell
First person to win royal rumble twice( by the way at number 1)
First person to win elimination chamber
First iron man match

Damn that inpressive. Yea hbk was water down as a face champ and didnt draw well so when he became a tweaker in DX it make him much more entertaining. Bret was a kid friendly face(remember the glasses on fans thing pretty cool lol) for a long time so people were used to it. Hbk appealed to women look wise he was pretty boy. His charecter was changed completely in 1996 and it hurt bad but doesn't change what he accomplished. Austin being red hot during 97 is true but he had some help too I don't care how much people wanna claim its all him it wasn't because think about as much segments austin had dx had just as much. They both ushered in the attitude era and brought ratings. Triple h wasn't as popular as shawn at that time so hbk was the face of dx. Hbk went over bret during that time because he was far more edgier and said everything you should say. Bret pro candian promos were cool and got heat but hbk played a dick far better than bret cuz at the time in real life he was. He was a cool heel which was a different concept while bret as a heel was one dimesional. Not saying it was bad just classic and about to be change by the attitude era. Even his peers from people who hated shawn to the people who loved give a lot a credit to shawn in ring abilities. Drawings is apart of a a great wrestlers legacy not the whole I would say bret legacy was better but he tarnish his own and hbk build it further.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

Actually, Hulk Hogan was shown to be the first person to win the Royal Rumble match twice. I'm not sure if you meant to say that Shawn Michaels was the first person to win the Royal Rumble match twice while being the first entrant in both Royal Rumble matches that he won. I only remember him being the first entrant in the Royal Rumble match one time but I could be wrong about that.

 

[andy zones]

Undercurrent you got to be kidding me? 5 matches by hbk you can name that were great but for bret the list goes on and on. Its one thing to say hbk wasn't a big draw its another to insult the man completely. Lets add some matches to you list shall we:

Hbk vs mankind: in you house mind games

Hbk vs jeff jarrett in you house

Hbk vs diesel : in you house

Hbk vs triple h: summerslam 2002

The first elimination chamber

Hbk vs jericho : wrestlemania 19

Hbk vs triple h three stages of hell

Hbk vs benoit vs triple wrestlmania 20

There you go that seems a little better got some 4 and 5 star matches mixed in there. Granted bret had a lot of good matches but lets remember boys and girls that bret main evented far earlier than hbk so he had practice. Hbk as champ was bad but not bad enough to keep him from getting the brass ring 3 more times. You know what's funny on paper hbk accomplished a lil more than bret as far as championships royal rumble wins and gimmack matches. Before you bret hart fans try to kill me, yes yes bret had accomplish a lot and credit is due to him as well just giving my view on why hbk legacy will be better than brets and in essence make him equal if not a better wrestler

4 time world champion
3 time intercontinential champ
European champion
5 time tag champion
First grand slam champ
First ladder match
First hell in a cell
First person to win royal rumble twice( by the way at number 1)
First person to win elimination chamber
First iron man match

Damn that inpressive. Yea hbk was water down as a face champ and didnt draw well so when he became a tweaker in DX it make him much more entertaining. Bret was a kid friendly face(remember the glasses on fans thing pretty cool lol) for a long time so people were used to it. Hbk appealed to women look wise he was pretty boy. His charecter was changed completely in 1996 and it hurt bad but doesn't change what he accomplished. Austin being red hot during 97 is true but he had some help too I don't care how much people wanna claim its all him it wasn't because think about as much segments austin had dx had just as much. They both ushered in the attitude era and brought ratings. Triple h wasn't as popular as shawn at that time so hbk was the face of dx. Hbk went over bret during that time because he was far more edgier and said everything you should say. Bret pro candian promos were cool and got heat but hbk played a dick far better than bret cuz at the time in real life he was. He was a cool heel which was a different concept while bret as a heel was one dimesional. Not saying it was bad just classic and about to be change by the attitude era. Even his peers from people who hated shawn to the people who loved give a lot a credit to shawn in ring abilities. Drawings is apart of a a great wrestlers legacy not the whole I would say bret legacy was better but he tarnish his own and hbk build it further.

What are u comparing dude. now u compare this :-
Bret hart

Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum
Class of 2008
Pro Wrestling Illustrated
PWI Comeback of the Year (1997)[103]
PWI Editor's Award (2003)[104]
PWI Feud of the Year (1993)[105] - vs. Jerry Lawler
PWI Feud of the Year (1994)[105] - vs. Owen Hart
PWI Match of the Year (1992) vs. Davey Boy Smith at SummerSlam
PWI Match of the Year (1996) vs. Shawn Michaels in an Iron Man match at WrestleMania 12
PWI Match of the Year (1997) vs. Steve Austin in a Submission match at WrestleMania 13
PWI Most Hated Wrestler of the Year (1997)[106]
PWI Most Inspirational Wrestler of the Year (1994)[107]
PWI ranked him # 1 of the 500 best singles wrestlers of the year in the PWI 500 in 1993 and 1994[108][109]
Stampede Wrestling
NWA International Tag Team Championship (Calgary version) (5 times)[110] - with Keith Hart (4) and Leo Burke (1)
Stampede British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight Championship (3 times)[111]
Stampede North American Heavyweight Championship (6 times)[112]
Stampede Wrestling Hall of Fame[113]
World Championship Wrestling
WCW United States Heavyweight Championship (4 times)[7]
WCW World Heavyweight Championship (2 times)[6]
WCW World Tag Team Championship (1 time)[11] - with Goldberg
World Wrestling Council
WWC Caribbean Tag Team Championship (1 time)[114] - with Smith Hart
World Wrestling Federation | World Wrestling Entertainment
WWF Championship (5 times)[5]
WWF Intercontinental Championship (2 times)[9]
WWF Tag Team Championship (2 times)[10] - with Jim Neidhart
WWE Hall of Fame (Class of 2006)[12]
WWF King of the Ring (1991)[8]
WWF King of the Ring (1993)[8]
WWF Royal Rumble co-winner (1994)[8] – with Lex Luger
WWF Triple Crown Championship (Second)
Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards
5 Star Match (1994) vs. Owen Hart in a cage match at SummerSlam 1994
5 Star Match (1997) vs. Steve Austin in a Submission match at WrestleMania 13
Feud of the Year (1993) vs. Jerry Lawler
Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (Class of 1996)
Feud of the Year (1997) with Owen Hart, Jim Neidhart, British Bulldog, and Brian Pillman vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin
Best Pro Wrestling DVD (2006)
Best Pro Wrestling Book (2007)

Vs
Shawn Micheals

American Wrestling Association
AWA World Tag Team Championship (2 times)[151] – with Marty Jannetty
Central States Wrestling
NWA Central States Tag Team Championship (1 time)[8] – with Marty Jannetty
Continental Wrestling Association
AWA Southern Tag Team Championship (2 times)[1][8] – with Marty Jannetty
Pro Wrestling Illustrated
PWI Match of the Year (1993)[152] vs. Marty Jannetty on Monday Night Raw on May 17
PWI Match of the Year (1994)[153] vs. Razor Ramon in a ladder match at WrestleMania X on March 20
PWI Match of the Year (1995)[6] vs. Diesel at WrestleMania XI on April 2
PWI Match of the Year (1996)[6] vs. Bret Hart at WrestleMania XII on March 31
PWI Match of the Year (2004)[152] vs. Chris Benoit and Triple H at WrestleMania XX on March 14
PWI Match of the Year (2005)[152] vs. Kurt Angle at WrestleMania 21 on April 3
PWI Match of the Year (2006)[152] vs. Vince McMahon at WrestleMania 22 on April 2.
PWI Match of the Year (2007)[152] vs. John Cena on Raw on April 23
PWI Most Popular Wrestler of the Year (1995, 1996)[153]
PWI ranked him # 1 of the 500 best singles wrestlers of the year in the PWI 500 in 1996.[154]
Texas All-Star Wrestling
TASW Texas Tag Team Championship (2 times)[8] – with Paul Diamond
Texas Wrestling Alliance
TWA Heavyweight Championship (1 time)[1][8]
World Wrestling Federation | World Wrestling Entertainment
WWF Championship (3 times)[151]
WWF European Championship (1 time)[151]
WWF Intercontinental Championship (3 times)[151]
WWF/E World Tag Team Championship (4 times)[151] – with Diesel (2), Stone Cold Steve Austin (1), and John Cena (1)
World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)[151]
Royal Rumble (1995)[151]
Royal Rumble (1996)[151]
First Grand Slam Championship
Fourth Triple Crown Championship
^ In October 1990, Shawn Michaels and Marty Jannetty defeated the Hart Foundation for the title. Despite winning the match, the win and reign are not recognized by WWE, as the ring ropes broke and the match was not aired on television. As a result, Michaels is only officially recognized as a 4-time World Tag Team Champion.

Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards
5 Star Match (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a ladder match at WrestleMania X on March 20
5 Star Match (1997) vs. The Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell match at Badd Blood 1997 on October 5
Best Babyface (1996)
Feud of the Year (2004) vs. Triple H and Chris Benoit
Match of the Year (1994) vs. Razor Ramon in a ladder match at WrestleMania X on March 20
Most Charismatic (1995, 1996)
Tag Team of the Year (1989) with Marty Jannetty as The Rockers
Worst Feud of the Year (2006) with Triple H vs. Shane and Vince McMahon

Now tell me who is more impressive

Granted shawn is a great athlete , but as far as the in ring skills are concerned bret hart is truly the best there ever will be.
Vince mc mahon has called bret the greatest storyteller the business has ever seen. He has been known as the biggest international superstar ever.
Mean jean has put bret hart into the 5 best technical wrestler he has ever seen. His DVD and now his Autobiography is considered some of the greatest work ever on wrestling. He was voted 39th greatest canadian of all time. Can u ever see HBK in top 100 americans ever. Definately not. If you are going to ask the wrestlers who have wrestled both of them which includes the likes of undertaker, mick foley, steve austin, rock, vader.. who is better between two their vote is definately going to be with Hitman.Though i was a huge fan of HBK back in 1996, but u cant match his in ring skills with bret hart. Bret had a great phycology in the ring and a great story to tell every time he wrestled. Even PWI rated him as the 4th greatest wrestler ever. In 2004 a huge fan poll was organised by wwe for greatest wwe champion ever. Not suprisingly Bret Hart won the poll for the greatest wwe champion ever. No disrespect to micheals , he has been a great performer, one of the best mic skills, great promos, but Bret has been a role model to millions of wwe fans across the world. Guys you just cant imagine his popularity in countries like germany, spain, Uk, Africa, even in countries like India, Pakistan he is a living legend. He beat the likes of borris becker (legendary tennis player) in germany to emerge as the most popular sportperson for 3 years in a row. Now that s just simply awesome. When wwe visited India in 1995, You just not going to beleive the reception he got there. It was like India became canada . You all know Bret hart status in country like UK. If not you just have to watch summerslam match between Bret hart and Bulldog and go through the reception bret got there. I can give you dozens of proof to show that bret s was not only better wrestler than hbk but his popularity still ( 8 Years since his retirement) is mind wobbling. He is simply the best ever . Period.

 

[Emmet]

^^^Amen to that.

HBK simply wasnt as good a wrestler as Bret Hart. Bottom line. His storytelling was poor compared to Bret's and his execution of moves were laughable compared to Bret's. His WWF world title reigns were awful and so were most of his IC title reigns. Except his one around WM X. Granted Bret didnt exactly always have great title runs himself but they were usually better than HBK's.

Bret in 1997 was a far,far,FAR better heel than HBK in 1997. Bret was truly dispised by Americans. HBK got loud boos and that was about it.

Bret simply put is better than HBK, Flair, HHH. All the assholes who ridicule him. They are jealous because they know they couldn't wrestle as good as he could. Bottom line.

 

[HBK-aholic]

^^^Amen to that.

HBK simply wasnt as good a wrestler as Bret Hart. Bottom line. His storytelling was poor compared to Bret's and his execution of moves were laughable compared to Bret's. His WWF world title reigns were awful and so were most of his IC title reigns. Except his one around WM X. Granted Bret didnt exactly always have great title runs himself but they were usually better than HBK's.

Bret in 1997 was a far,far,FAR better heel than HBK in 1997. Bret was truly dispised by Americans. HBK got loud boos and that was about it.

Bret simply put is better than HBK, Flair, HHH. All the assholes who ridicule him. They are jealous because they know they couldn't wrestle as good as he could. Bottom line.

This is the part of your post that actually made me laugh out loud. Did you stop watching the WWE when Bret Hart left? Or did you not see how hated Shawn was in Canada? How much he worked the crowd to turn hate to absolutely detesting him, to people physically wanting to throw him out of the country?

A small piece of advice - Shawn Michaels is just as good as Hart. Better, maybe. That's arguable. But, you hold Hart in such high status above him it's laughable. I realise you're a big Hart fan, I'm a huge Shawn fan. But you need to get over your hatred for him, and you'll enjoy wrestling a hell of a lot more. Just because you love Hart, doesn't mean you can't like Shawn.