Well considering you've asked me this before and I told you the early 90s, care to gues what I'm going to tell you again?
I must’ve had absolutely no reason to remember it. Sorry!
What I do however get is that you must like fairly boring matches. Hart's matches more or less consisted of him trying to score pinfalls before after about 3 moves, consisting of a backbreaker, an atomic drop and an elbow from the middle rope deciding he wanted the Sharpshooter, which makes perfect sense right? The only hold that he wins matches with is the Sharpshooter. Ok, why not go for that at the very beginning then? That's always been my issue with Kurt Angle. He spends the whole match beating someone down and then after an Angle Slam he grabs the ankle. Why not do that at the beginning? But I digress.
Boring matches? This brings me to believe you’ve never watched any Bret Hart matches. It’s a completely asinine comment, especially considering he’s known (and there’s no arguing this) for how great his matches are. Not to mention you bring up a silly point in having a specific signature of moves, which everyone whose anyone in wrestling does and has. Look at Cena. Look at Shawn Michaels. Look at Hulk Hogan.
And what do you think a backbreaker or an atomic drop hurts? The spine.
What do you think the Sharpshooter hurts? Its not the leg, my friend, it’s the spine. Which means he was focusing on the same spot and building up throughout the match to its finish. Thank you, come again!
Great matches with everyone? Yeah, those Backlund matches, Skinner matches, Jean Pierre Lafayette matches, DAMN they were classics. Bret had great matches and if you'd actually read something before you rant about it, you'd see that I say Bret is great. Do I ever say that's he's bad?
Not every match has to be a CLASSIC, nor can it be. The fact that matches with Backlund, Skinner, and no bodies were GOOD and entertaining, which they were with Bret Hart, speaks volumes. Can the same be said about Lesnar? Tell me some low card talent or forgettable names that he had matches with that were entertaining and good? This only goes further to proving Bret Hart is the BETTER wrestler and the BEST wrestler of this thread.
However, I say he's better than Lesnar.
I’m glad we agree! End of discussion.
Bret was just dull in the ring until the end.
Is that why he has such a HUGE list of GREAT matches and feuds? This isn’t my opinion this is wrestling history’s opinion. Is that why, no matter what part of his career you pick, he had matches that were viewed as some of the best regardless of where on the card he was? Another asinine comment that doesn’t make any sense.
Everything was building up to the finish.
You mean the way a match should be done? Even more proof towards my argument.
Why would what he did before the WWE matter when the question is the best in WWE history? I could care less what he did before that in this argument. Making people look good in the ring qualifies you as a great wrestler? Then let's sit back and watch Finlay against Noble. Should be a classic. Both are great after all.
I love how you pick one piece of a much larger paragraph and speak about that, while ignoring the entire point and all the rest of the paragraph that proves why Jake Roberts should be seen as one of the best in the business when it comes to wrestlers. Lesnar could only wish to have some of Roberts skills as a PRO WRESTLER.
Yes, making people look good in the ring, regardless of who the other people are, makes you a great wrestler. Finlay and Noble are both great wrestlers, glad to see you can actually see that. No, they shouldn’t be on this list, but they’re certainly good wrestlers. And if they were allowed to really GO in the ring I bet they could have a classic. But not on par with Bret Hart.
Holy cow... I guess no one reads my posts.
Speaking from personal experience, when people go to professional wrestling school and train, they are taught many things. There are classes on cutting promos, charisma, ring-psychology, etc... I think the subject that we are touching on in this thread is the skills on how to execute specific professional wrestling moves and holds inside of a ring. Other words that have been thrown around for this are "in-ring skills" or the physical art of professional wrestling. This is what has been questioned in this thread. PLEASE stop talking about "psychology", "story-telling", "charisma", "amateur wrestling", "MMA", and any other garbage that you guys are thinking up.
The simplest way I can explain it is we're talking about the superstars that are the best at performing all of the specific moves like the bodyslam, suplex, and chain-wrestling along with THOUSANDS of other professional wrestling moves that are performed in a ring.
Are we understood yet???
I don’t know what personal experience you have, but if you think a wrestling match isn’t made up of in-ring psychology or the PHYSICAL ART doesn’t also have to do with story-telling, where you take that physical art and paint a story on the canvas, then its no surprise you likely failed.
What do you do once you know how to perform the specific moves? You just go through a list of moves, performing them one after the other, with no rhyme or reason in the ring? That wouldn’t make you a great wrestler, whether you could perform the move better then anyone else or not.
And if, by some stretch of meaning, we’re going to go solely by the act of EXECUTING moves, then Bret Hart still wins this debate and is the BEST. He wasn’t called the EXCELLENCE of EXECUTION for nothing. Every move he did was seamless, flawless, and people praise him for as real and perfect as he looked performing in that ring.
