WrestleZone Debater League Championship

[Mr. TM]

The D-Man versus IC25

WWE experienced a low point in the company's history in the "New Generation" Era in approximately 1995, a time when Bret Hart was at the top of the company. Should the low ratings be attributed to Bret Hart's proposed inability to draw?

IrishCanadian25 is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Sunday 6:00 pm Pacific​

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Hmmmmm...

Very interesting topic.

Out of respect for my opponent, I am differing the right to go first. I would like D-Man to select which side of the topic he would like to debate. As the home debator, I feel that is within my rights.

Once D-Man has selected his side, I will commence the evisceration.

 

[D-Man]

Ok. After a lot of thought, I choose that the low ratings should not be attributed to Bret Hart's proposed inability to draw.

IC, you can start. I've had a crazy day at work and can't begin until this weekend.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I figured you'd go with that side man. A Bret Hart apologist, perhaps? Or maybe simple revisionist historian who looks favorable upon Bret because of the less than stellar way in which his career ended?

In my opening post, I'm going to look at reasons why Bret Hart is absolutely responsible for not only the low television ratings, but also for the overall downturn of the WWE during his championship run in the mid-90's.

Reason #1 - The Champion is Responsible​

This is professional wrestling. The outcomes are predetermined and written. That means that the champion is decided based not on who would actually WIN in a fight. It's based on who the crowd gets behind the most, who carries the company, and who, to quote Tony Schiavone, "puts butts in seats." That's why the champion wrestles in the main event, and the rest of the matches are called the undercard.

WWF Dominated the pro wrestling landscape when Hulk Hogan was champion for a reason - Hogan was a terrific drawing champion. I'll explain later how what Hogan did in his tenure as WWF champion far outpaced what Hart did in his.

Now I am going to assume that my opponent is going to extol the merits of an undercard, which is fine. And do you know what? He and I can discuss that when I go to his place tonight to watch the Penn vs Sanchez UFC fight on PPV. Why are we ordering that fight? Bcause we want to see Penn vs Sanchez. It's the main event, Penn is a champion. It's the same reason I'll be going to Hooters in 2010 to see Pacquio vs Mayweather fight. It WON'T be because of the tremendous undercard.

Reason #2 - Lack of Interest​

When Hart took over as WWF champion in the 90's Hogan eventually made his way over to WCW and became their champion. It helped WCW, but it didn't really effect as much as one thinks. Hart wasn't really up against the nWo the way Michaels was, so competition cannot be a viable argument as to why Hart failed as champion. He simply did not generate enough interest as champion to suffice.

My opponent may even try to convince you that Hart had less to work with. Well let's see. Bret Hart's first title reign saw him defend against Shawn Michaels - the Intercontinental Champ at the time, and Razor Ramon. Michaels is a frst ballot hall of famer, and Hall would have been if not for his personal demons. Hart then worked with Yokozuna, pushed as the greatest mammoth Superheavyweight since Andre. Sure, Hogan had a run with Savage and Warrior, but Hogan also managed to make King Kong Bundy, Earthquake, Don Muraco, and Dino Bravo into fairly big deals. During his second reign, the only guy Bret really made into a bona fide star for any length of time was Owen Hart. And he did such a good job, that the best title Owen ever held was the IC Belt. Bret had plenty to work with, but he just didn't generate enough interest in the matches or the feuds to elevate himself, the title, or the characters he worked with.

Then there's Wrestlemania 10 - where arguably the best match of the night - Ramon vs Michaels - stole the show from the Main Eventing Hart. The irony? The men who put on the best show were the two men whom Hart defeated in his 1993-94 title reign. Whoops.

I feel that if I continue, my opponent will feel no need to post out of a feeling of hopelessness, so I am going to stop here an invite my opponent to offer up what he has to say about the subject. Besides, we still have a week to go.

 

[D-Man]

A very good opening statement was made by IrishCanadian25. Simple, to the point, and it sets the tone for this entire debate. Let's make it exciting, shall we?

PREFACE​

This subject is related to many of the debates that took place throughout the duration of this league. It is an argument and a subject that never seems to find closure in the wrestling business. Today, I will begin my quest to prove that there is no way that only one man can be responsible for an entire company's failure to product good television.

I will begin by saying that IN NO WAY am I exonerating Bret Hart in this debate. I feel that he was a major contributor in the decline of ratings and interest during the "New Generation" period of wrestling. But there's no way that we could put the full blame on his shoulders for the WWE's failure to produce good television at that time. My opponent is going to make all of you feel as if names like Shawn Michaels, Diesel, and The Undertaker were heroes while Bret Hart was Satan himself during the period of 1995-1998. I will prove to all of you that it takes much more than one man to help build a professional wrestling promotion and concede that while Bret Hart's reign as champion was lackluster, many more factors come into play that absorb the blame for the low ratings.

First off, let's face it... the WWE sucked out loud back then.
There's a reason why everyone is calling the modern-day WWE the "worst period since the New Generation in 1995." Since the Golden Era boom during the days of Hulk Hogan back in the early 80's, the New Generation was one of the worst times to be a professional wrestling fan. It was a major rebuilding period for the WWE, just as it is today. The WWE lost many of its top stars including Bobby Heenan, Randy Savage, and Hulk Hogan who were considered main draws for the company. This left young stars like Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker, Diesel, Razor Ramon and Bret Hart to pick up the pieces and start anew. This was much easier said than done.

Now, my opponent will probably use this as an opportunity to bash Bret Hart as a champion at the time and try and compare him with Hulk Hogan. But let's face it... how can Bret Hart possibly compare to Hulk Hogan? The WWE's audience instantly went from enjoying filet mignon to being force-fed ground beef. And the ground beef isn't just one man that wore the World Championship strap; it was a grouping of top stars that had the weight of the world dumped on them. And this talent pool (or lack thereof) wasn't ready to accept the task of picking up the pieces of their fallen company.

Before we start placing sole blame on Bret Hart for the lack of ratings in 1995, let's begin by looking at the first PPV of 1995... The Royal Rumble. Here was the card:

1. Jeff Jarrett (with The Roadie) defeated Razor Ramon (c). (Singles match for the WWF Intercontinental Championship)
2. The Undertaker (with Paul Bearer) defeated Irwin R. Schyster (with Ted DiBiase). (Singles match)
3. Diesel (c) fought Bret Hart to a draw. (Singles match for the WWF Championship)
4. Bob Holly and 1-2-3 Kid defeated Tatanka and Bam Bam Bigelow (with Ted DiBiase). (Tag team match for the vacant WWF Tag Team Championship)
5. Shawn Michaels won the Royal Rumble. (Royal Rumble match)

Please let me know when to wake up. I mean seriously? This is the best card they had? Jeff Jarrett was the IC Champion and Bob Holly & the 1-2-3 Kid were tag team champions? Masterful. But it's all Bret's fault, right?

Ok, let's move onto the granddaddy of them all from later on that year... Wrestlemania XI.

1. The Allied Powers (Lex Luger and The British Bulldog) defeated The Blu Brothers (Jacob and Eli) (with Uncle Zebekiah). (Tag team match)
2. Razor Ramon (with The 1-2-3 Kid) defeated Jeff Jarrett (c) (with The Roadie) by disqualification. (Singles match for the WWF Intercontinental Championship)
3. The Undertaker (with Paul Bearer) defeated King Kong Bundy (with Ted DiBiase). (Singles match with special guest referee Larry Young)
4. Owen Hart and Yokozuna (with Mr. Fuji and Jim Cornette) defeated The Smoking Gunns (c) (Billy and Bart). (Tag team match for the WWF Tag Team Championship)
5. Bret Hart defeated Bob Backlund. ("I Quit" match with special guest referee Roddy Piper)
6. Diesel (c) (with Pamela Anderson) defeated Shawn Michaels (with Sid and Jenny McCarthy). (Singles match for the WWF Championship)
7. Lawrence Taylor defeated Bam Bam Bigelow (with Ted DiBiase). (Singles match)

This entire PPV was hyped around Lawrence Taylor getting into the ring with Bam Bam Bigelow. Now, while I personally believe it was a great idea to gain mainstream attention, it backfired and was widely considered as one of the worst Wrestlemania's of all time. But when people look back on it's failure, they don't seem to blame it on Bret Hart... interesting...

I could break down the rest of the PPV's for that year, but I think everyone gets the idea. Bret's contributions to the WWE were severely lacking, but so was the rest of the rosters', as well as the writers and workers behind the scenes. As IC25 said at the beginning, pro-wrestling is predetermined and written. If they can't write good storylines, how can they rebuild a company after devastating losses of top stars?

Judicial Trials Gave the WWF a Bad Name
Many seem to forget that this time period was also the time when trials took place involving the WWE: Hulk Hogan testified against Vince McMahon in a trial relating to shipments of steroids received from Dr. Zahorian and allegations of sexual harrassment were made by WWE employees. This gained major, mainstream press and killed the credibility of the WWE and its stars. As a result, the WWE lost close to $5 million during a time period of low revenues and was forced to cut back on the salaries of many of its superstars. Naturally, this caused many of them to leave the company for more lucrative offers from WCW.

The Monday Night Wars Begin
The WWE was facing their biggest threat in competition, ever. They were up against a billionare with unlimited resources that was stealing the WWE's top drawing stars of yesterday that still had tons of drawing ability. And they were evolving under the leadership of Eric Bischoff.

As we all know, Bischoff used every dirty tactic in the book to steal ratings away from the WWE. He created a live broadcast to go head to head with Raw every Monday night. He had WWE stars like Lex Luger break the trust of a handshake deal with Vince McMahon, only to show up on the first live broadcast of Nitro. He created the dream match of Hulk Hogan vs. Ric Flair for the WCW Championship that the WWE failed to capitalize on. He gave away results of the WWE's taped, broadcasted shows on his live program. These factors turned many heads to the other promotion.

So we're to let Bret Hart's drawing power to battle all of this on his own? You can't possibly be serious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I would like to take the time to rebut a few of my opponent's statements that were made in his opening remarks.

Opponent's Point #1 - "The Champion is Responsible"
First off, quite simply, I agree with this statement... TO AN EXTENT. In other words, a champion of a wrestling promotion is responsible for drawing an audience, but how responsible? I touched on this point, earlier. No wrestling promotion is draped over the shoulders of just one man. And a perfect example of this is WCW. As a matter of fact, you already conceded this point. Allow me to explain.

IC25, you mentioned earlier in regards to Hulk Hogan:

When Hart took over as WWF champion in the 90's Hogan eventually made his way over to WCW and became their champion. It helped WCW, but it didn't really effect as much as one thinks.

Fast forward to 1996. So let's just say that Hulk Hogan didn't help WCW while he was champion. But then we have to ask ourselves, who did? As far as I know, the majority of WCW's domination during the Monday Night Wars came from brilliant storylines in the form of the nWo. Hogan was the leader of that group and the world champion, right? But (as quoted by you) if he wasn't "responsible" for the draw power, then who was? It's basically a contradiction of your own thoughts. You're saying that a champion in the WWE is responsible for draw power but a champion in WCW isn't? It makes no sense.

Opponent's Point #2 - Bret Didn't "Make" Any Big Names
First of all, you claimed that:

Hogan also managed to make King Kong Bundy, Earthquake, Don Muraco, and Dino Bravo into fairly big deals.

While I wipe the tears off my face from laughter, I'd just like to point out that ANYONE involved in a world title storyline is considered a "fairly big deal" for a limited period of time. I mean, if you can actually sit there and say these things about the likes of Dino Bravo and Don Muraco, then I can say the same things about Bob Backlund and Papa Shango. As a matter of fact, while we're at it, the Undertaker made the Great Khali into a "fairly big deal", right? And John Cena is currently making Sheamus into a "fairly big deal". Sorry, but this whole point is total hogwash.


In the closing of my first post of this debate, I'd just like to reiterate the fact that Bret Hart was a midcarder that was thrusted into the main event scene during a time period when the WWE was the most desperate. They needed a champion to take over after Hogan's departure and was the only legitimately popular superstar they had left in their bag of tricks. He had longevity with the company and was pretty over with the fans, so the WWE felt that he was the only person that could believably carry the world strap at the time. And during his "main event thrust," Bret was pushed so well by the WWE that his first title win was at an untelevised house show in Saskatoon. The WWE couldn't even let him win the championship from one of the greatest wrestlers of all time on a televised show. And the audience was supposed to believe that he was a credible world champion?

Just as a reminder, I firmly believe that Bret Hart did not have the drawing power to be a champion during the period of the New Generation. But then again, no one did. As proven by my previous statements, there is no fair justification for placing full blame on Bret Hart for the WWE's failures during that time period... only some of it.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Before beginning my rebuttal and bringing up some new points, I want to remind everyone, my opponent included, what the debate topic is.

WWE experienced a low point in the company's history in the "New Generation" Era in approximately 1995, a time when Bret Hart was at the top of the company. Should the low ratings be attributed to Bret Hart's proposed inability to draw?

What this asks is whether Bret should be held responsible for the downturn. Plain and simple. Obviously I'm not going to sit here and say that he was the ONLY one responsible, because that type of absolutism is foolish. But still, I will argue and convince the readers that, as the champion of the promotion in that time period, Bret was unsuccessful as a champion, as thus, was a major player in the "New Generation Era's" failure.

I will begin by saying that IN NO WAY am I exonerating Bret Hart in this debate. I feel that he was a major contributor in the decline of ratings and interest during the "New Generation" period of wrestling.

Okay, so you admit that Bret was a major contributor. So it's not a stretch for you to concede that, as the champion of the promotion, he was THE major contributor to whom the downturn can be largly attributed.

My opponent is going to make all of you feel as if names like Shawn Michaels, Diesel, and The Undertaker were heroes while Bret Hart was Satan himself during the period of 1995-1998.

I will do no such thing.

What I WILL do, however, is argue that Bret Hart, though a terrific in ring competitor, was a nightmare when it came to drawing fans and such a vanilla champion that the sense of urgency fans need to have to watch the programming and order the PPV's was missing. I will ALSO argue that, as the champion, it was at least partially Bret's responsibility to elevate those around him, such as Michaels, Nash, and Undertaker. Bret didn't accomplish that as often as he should have, with the exceptions of Michaels at Wrestlemania 12 and Austin at Wrestlemania 13. From WM9 - WM12, however, he did not succeed.

The WWE lost many of its top stars including Bobby Heenan, Randy Savage, and Hulk Hogan who were considered main draws for the company.

Yeah, I got amped up to watch WWF shows back then for Bobby Heenan.

Now, my opponent will probably use this as an opportunity to bash Bret Hart as a champion at the time and try and compare him with Hulk Hogan. But let's face it... how can Bret Hart possibly compare to Hulk Hogan?

Why is that so far fetched? Bruno Sammartino is compared to Hogan, and Bruno held the WWF Title longer than anyone in history. Steve Austin is compared to Hogan in thathe helped to create the 2nd boom period in wrestling. Even John Cena is compared to Hogan in his ability to enthrall young fans, move merchandise, and draw crowds.

I'd say Bret is the exception - not the rule.

Now, my opponent brings up the sujective "evidence" of the 1995 Royal Rumble's less than stellar card to prove that Bret alone was not the issue. Fair enough, but I'll go to the numbers.

Wrestlemania 9, featuring Bret as champion, did a buyrate of 2.00. The undercard of that PPV featured such stunners as Shawn Michaels vs Tatanka, Doink vs Crush, Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund, and Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales. Incidentally, Hulk Hogan teamed with Brutus Beefcake to face Money Inc. on that card.

Wrestlemania 10, featuring Bret challening for the title AND wrestling his brother Owen, did a buyrate of 1.68. The undercard? Michaels vs Razor in a ladder match, Randy Savage vs Crush, a 2nd title match featurin Yokozuna vs Lex Luger. A far better card, and yet the buyrate dipped by almost 25%. Thanks, Bret!

Jeff Jarrett was the IC Champion and Bob Holly & the 1-2-3 Kid were tag team champions? Masterful. But it's all Bret's fault, right?

While we're on the subject, I'd like to thank the Road Dogg Jesse James, the Intercontinental Champion at Wrestlemania 15, for his work on launching the 2nd boom period in wrestling. I'd also like to thank the team of Test and D'Lo Brown for their work in the tag division. Without men like that, that Austin fellow would have fallen flat on his face.

Let's do some numerical comparisons, shall we?

Wrestlemania Buyrates Pre-Bret Era
Wrestlemania 6 - 3.8
Wrestlemania 7 - 2.8
Wrestlemania 8 - 2.1

Wrestlemania Buyrates Mid-Bret Era
Wrestlemania 9 - 2.0
Wrestlemania 10 - 1.68
Wrestlemania 11 - 1.4
Wrestlemania 12 - 1.2
Wrestlemania 13 - 0.77

Wrestlemania Buyrates Post-Bret Era
Wrestlemania 14 - 2.2
Wrestlemania 15 - 2.8
Wrestlemania 16 - 2.35
Wrestlemania 17 - 2.15

You make Bret Hart the major focal point in your promotion, and the buy rates of the biggest annual PPV in wrestling history plummet, at one point falling BELOW A ONE! That .77 means that just a shade over 300,000 people purchased that PPV. Rock vs Austin? Almost one million. Thanks, Bret!

As for the Monday Night Wars, let me ask you this. The Monday Night Wars started partially because the man from whom Bret supposedly took the top spot from, Hulk Hogan, turned heel in WCW. The WWF was losing the MNW's for years - until Austin came along and took the top spot FROM Bret. Again - what's the weak link here? Bret on top. I bet Sunny feels the same way - when Bret's on top, bad things happen.

Fast forward to 1996. So let's just say that Hulk Hogan didn't help WCW while he was champion. But then we have to ask ourselves, who did? As far as I know, the majority of WCW's domination during the Monday Night Wars came from brilliant storylines in the form of the nWo. Hogan was the leader of that group and the world champion, right? But (as quoted by you) if he wasn't "responsible" for the draw power, then who was? It's basically a contradiction of your own thoughts. You're saying that a champion in the WWE is responsible for draw power but a champion in WCW isn't? It makes no sense.

You're misquoting me. Or I need to clarify. Either way.

I stated that Hogan's initial move to WCW helped them out, but not terribly much, and I stand by that. In fact, I'll gladly call 1994-1996 Hogan's only failure point as a champion, and if we were talking about WCW from '94-'96, I'd damn sure hold Hogan responsible.

When WCW got huge starting in 1996, however, it was Hogan, turning heel and forming the nWo, that was the cause. And Hogan was the champion and the top guy in the promotion. So he gets the credit.

Hogan failed at first, and found a way to make it work. Bret failed at first and never recovered.

As a matter of fact, while we're at it, the Undertaker made the Great Khali into a "fairly big deal", right? And John Cena is currently making Sheamus into a "fairly big deal". Sorry, but this whole point is total hogwash.

Apples to Oranges. When Hogan was making legit threats out of guys like Bundy, there were less that 4 PPV's per year and only one major title. Cena / Sheamus and Khali / Taker both occured in an era with 13 PPV's and 2 or 3 major titles. Also, in the case of modern wrestling, the "secrets" of the business have be busted wide open. In Hogan and Bret's days, there was still a sense of mystery about pro wrestling.

Sorry to debunk your point, but that's a weird comparison.

My point is that Hogan succeeded while working with guys names Muraco, Bravo, and Bundy, whereas Bret failed while working with guys names Michaels, Undertaker, and Ramon. It seems that Bret actually had BETTER talent around him, and still he couldn't make it work.

And during his "main event thrust," Bret was pushed so well by the WWE that his first title win was at an untelevised house show in Saskatoon. The WWE couldn't even let him win the championship from one of the greatest wrestlers of all time on a televised show. And the audience was supposed to believe that he was a credible world champion?

Great point. You'd figure maybe Bret would think about the business and demand the title change hands at Survivor Series instead, but nom he just HAD to win the title on a taped Colisseum Home Video special because it was in front of his mom, dad, and hometown fans. Yet another reason Bret failed - he should have realized that his first title win not even being televised would set him up to fail. He said shit about it, and the fail was under way.

Incidentally, at that Survivor Series, Flair teamed with Ramon to wrestle Savage and Warrior. Warrior ditched, so Mr. Perfect jumped on. Bret defended against IC Champ Mr. Perfect. Why Bret couldn't demand that he win the belt off Flair at Survivor Series, I don't know. But he should've thought it through.

 

[D-Man]

Clarification​

First off, we need to establish that this is a debate with a MAJOR grey area. It doesn't state whether Bret's runs as world champion were the causes of the lack of PPV buys and audience ratings. The subject states that Bret Hart, during the New Generation period and in approximately 1995, is the focal point to take the blame whether he was champion or not. I took my side of this debate not thinking about how many different directions my opponent could go in order to turn everything that I say around to put Bret at the helm of the WWE's failure. But I guess now I see this as being a bigger challenge and I'm willing to take it on, full-force.

Also, we need to realize that if we're talking about Bret being champion during or around 1995, we need to realize that he was only champion from November 19, 1995 until Wrestlemania XI when he lost to HBK in the infamous Ironman match. So he was only champion for 42 days in 1995 and for three months in 1996. If you really want to look at who had the championship for the majority of time during those two years, Diesel had the belt for 358 days before Bret from 1994-1995 and Shawn Michaels had the belt for 231 days in 1996. The way I see it, Bret was the champion that held it the LEAST amount of time during that period, so since (as you quoted) "The Champion is Responsible", then I guess we should put more blame on Diesel and Michaels, no?

Was it ONLY Bret Hart's responsibility to draw and elevate others?​

I can understand where IC25 is coming from when placing blame on Bret Hart for the lack of ability to elevate other stars... or can I? Like I stated earlier, Hart held the title for the least amount of time around the period of 1995 that is mentioned in the subject of this debate. But, IC25 wants to dig back further and say that Bret elevated no one from WM9 to WM12. Let's take a look at that time period for a minute.

-Bret Hart had one the greatest Summerslam matches of all time with the British Bulldog in the summer of 1992. He dropped the title to Davey Boy and put him over tremendously.

-Bret won his first WWE championship at a house show in Sasketoon in October of that year against a legend in Ric Flair.

-Bret then feuded with Shawn Michaels and began elevating HBK as a main event contender.

-Bret Hart defended the WWE championship against an already established Razor Ramon at the Royal Rumble in 1993, prior to Wrestlemania 9.

-Wrestlemania 9 took place in 1993. Bret Hart lost his WWE championship to Yokozuna at that event, helping to elevate Yokozuna, but Hogan's ego was able to steal the WWE championship from Yoko just minutes later. Bret and Hogan both did their part that night.

-Bret won the KOTR Tournament in 1993 and immediately began a program elevating Jerry "The King" Lawler, a brand new superstar of the WWE, who ironically was a future Hall of Famer. The feud lasted through Summerslam of that year.

-Bret the infamous program with Owen Hart, putting him over during and after Wrestlemania X of that year. The feud continued through Summerslam as Bret was simultaneously putting over both Owen and Bob Backlund as he lost his WWE championship.

-Bret then feuded with an already established Diesel for the WWE championship and was successful.

-Finally, after HBK won the Royal Rumble in 1996, he and Bret Hart feuded and had the Ironman match. Even against his personal feelings, Bret turned HBK into a superstar that day.

Remember, Bret doesn't write the storylines. (After he finished putting the British Bulldog over at Summerslam,) throughout the entire time period that IC mentioned, the only UN-established wrestlers that Bret was given the chance to put over were HBK (he succeeded), Owen Hart (he succeeded), Jerry Lawler (he succeeded), and Bob Backlund (the only hiccup). So where can IC25 possibly say that Bret didn't do his job in putting wrestlers over?

My point is that Bret DID his job. He put those men over in (almost) every program that he was a part of. What more could he have done? The rest of the talent pool was dragging ass and not doing NEARLY what Bret was doing for the business at the time. Because of Bret Hart's work throughout the time period mentioned by IC25, one future Hall of Famer (Jerry Lawler), four sure-fire Hall of Famers (British Bulldog, Owen Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Yokozuna), and two highly likely Hall of Famers (Razor Ramon, Kevin Nash) began to pave their legacies. And if you don't think any of those choices will ever make it into the Hall of Fame, then allow me to remind you that if Koko-fucking-B. Ware was just inducted, the other names I mentioned are HIGHLY likely.

Because of reasoning mentioned above, the low ratings in the "Bret-Era" are mere coincidence.​

We could crunch the numbers of the era all we'd like, but there is no need for IC25 to show us that he did some research to further prove that the era we are debating was a failure. We already know. And if we didn't know this already, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? But, thanks for making us understand the topic of the debate some more .

And it may seem that Bret is the only blame, but I just proved that Bret was doing his job to the best of his ability back then. And judging by the amount of time that Bret held the title compared to HBK and Diesel, he was hardly the focal point of the organization. But, for those who still think that he was, so be it. That doesn't change the fact that there were four other men to be considered top stars of the company who had equal responsibility for pulling in the crowd attendences, television ratings, and PPV buys.

IC25 also wishes to compare the New Generation Era (a rebuilding era) to the Attitude Era, whose focal points were Steve Austin, The Rock, Mankind, a new verison of the Undertaker, Ken Shamrock, Degeneration X, Chris Jericho, Kane, Eddie Guererro, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Triple H, Edge & Christian, the Dudleys... whew, I'm out of breath. Come on now... you seriously wish to compare those two rosters? The New Generation Era had the greenest lineup since Vince McMahon Jr. founded Titan Sports. The Attitude Era had the strongest lineup in the history of professional wrestling as a sport. And I'm not just speaking about Austin and the Rock's notoriety against Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels (since that's a joke in itself). I'm talking about the entire lineup of the organization. This is the ultimate comparison of apples and oranges.

The Monday Night Wars argument.​

It seems that we both have good points that surround this time in professional wrestling. I still feel that the point I made stands clear. You were saying that a wrestling promotion's champion is responsbile for the promotion's success, but you contradicted yourself by stating that Hogan didn't make much of a difference in WCW while Bret's failure meant everything. With all due respect, your rebuttle to my claim just seemed to be a bit of backpeddling.

Not to mention that you're talking about Hogan "failing" in WCW? I don't see that at all. According to the Monday Night Wars DVD, it's been documented that Hogan's entrance into WCW was a major success but Bischoff wanted to continue to shake things up and hurt the WWE's credibility. Their decision was to turn Hogan into a heel, and it was a tremendous success. And when he turned heel, HE wasn't the one responsible for WCW's elevation above the WWE... it was the entire FACTION of the nWo. So where did he fail? Even Hogan, with his infinite ego and notoriety, can't enter a second-rate wrestling promotion and automatically corner a market that's been dominated for the past decade and a half. WCW went nothing but UP after Hogan signed on, so they never failed, which makes your point mooted.

Bret's Lack of Support​

Bret never stood a chance to become a champion in the same way that Hogan did, so how could he be blamed for picking up Hogan's scraps after he left? Let's compare Hogan and Bret's careers for a minute.

FACT: Hogan entered the WWE (again) and captured the WWE championship from the Iron Sheik in his first, returning match after being a superstar and top contender in two other wrestling promotions. He also had an iconic role in one of the most popular movies of the 80's, which also happens to be a part of one of the most popular movie series' of all time.

FACT: Bret Hart grew through the ranks of the WWE, spending the majority of his time in the WWE just like 90% of the other superstars... licking Hulk Hogan's boots and not getting a chance to be anywhere NEAR a world title since he lacked size in an era that focused on Hogan's opponents being "big men." After his loss to the British Bulldog at Summerslam for the Intercontinental title, without hesitation, he was thrust into the world title picture. He won his first world title off television, and then lost it at Wrestlemania, only to ironically watch it get wrapped around Hogan's ego (once again) just minutes after Yokozuna defeated him.

How can anyone take Bret Hart and justify him as being a legitimate champion? In my personal opinion, he was robbed of was he rightfully deserved at a time where it was close to impossible for him to shine to his fullest potential. There is no denying this.

Professional wrestling superstars are born and bred because of their personal skills combines with great timing and circumstance. Bret Hart had the skills to be a champion. But timing, circumstance, and the lack of a supporting cast worked against him.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

The term "top of the company" is fairly clear. Sure, it may or may not mean the championship belt is on a person, but the two often intersect. You could easilly make the argument that, when Chris Benoit was the World Champion, that Triple H and Shawn Michaels remained on top of the heap. When Chris Jericho was the first ever Undisputed Champ, it was still The Rock, Steve Austin, Triple H, and even Kurt Angle who were the company leads.

My point is that, even when Bret was chasing the WWF Title instead of defending it, he was still the man they put in charge of that "era."

As far as Michaels and Diesel are concerned, yes, they absolutely take responsibility. But the fact is that Bret Hart was chosen to lead the championship charge for the New Generation. I firmly believe that WWE saw that having Bret as their only major champion was not bearing a financial windfall, and tossed guys like Michaels and Nash up. The facts are undisputable - Bret was the leader of the New Generation and the ratings hit the toilet.

Bret Hart had one the greatest Summerslam matches of all time with the British Bulldog in the summer of 1992. He dropped the title to Davey Boy and put him over tremendously.

It was such a terrific job that Davey lost the Intercontinental Title to Shawn Michaels on Saturday Night's Main Event less than 3 months later and essentially disappeared for a while until he returned to feud with Hart during part of the IYH series.

Bret won his first WWE championship at a house show in Sasketoon in October of that year against a legend in Ric Flair.

I've already covered this. He won his first WWF Title by making a legend quit, and still couldn't capitalize. I throw partial blame to Hogan for not being the man to put Hart over, as well as to Hart for not requesting the title change hands at a PPV.

Bret then feuded with Shawn Michaels and began elevating HBK as a main event contender.

He did? After their first encounter at Survivor Series, Michaels entered into IC Title feuds with the likes of Ramon, Diesel, and Mr. Perfect. It was more than 3 years of Bret Hart as the main guy before he finally put Shawn over.

Bret Hart defended the WWE championship against an already established Razor Ramon at the Royal Rumble in 1993, prior to Wrestlemania 9.

Ramon was established? The 1993 Royal Rumble was Ramon's 2nd pay-per-view in the WWF. The first was the tag match pitting Ramon and Flair against Savage and Perfect. And the feud with Hart went so well that Ramon spent 1993 losing a first round KOTR match to Hart, losing to the 1-2-3 Kid and feuding with Money Inc. The first time Ramon looked legit and became an elevated star was against Michaels at Wrestlemania 10.

Bret won the KOTR Tournament in 1993 and immediately began a program elevating Jerry "The King" Lawler, a brand new superstar of the WWE, who ironically was a future Hall of Famer. The feud lasted through Summerslam of that year.

Ah yes, and Bret's work elevated Jerry Lawler into...commentary. Thanks, Bret!

Bret the infamous program with Owen Hart, putting him over during and after Wrestlemania X of that year. The feud continued through Summerslam as Bret was simultaneously putting over both Owen and Bob Backlund as he lost his WWE championship.

A neat program, no doubt about it. I truly loved Bret's work at the time. Too bad nobody really cared outside of the hardcore wrestling fans. You know, the ones who'll watch anything? Incidentally the Hart vs Hart SummerSlam match played backseat to Undertaker vs Undertaker, and the Hart vs Backlund match played backseat to Undertaker vs Yokozuna. Hell of a run for the WWF Champion there!

Bret then feuded with an already established Diesel for the WWE championship and was successful.

Oh dear god, could you please use some more vague and subjective words? PLEASE define what you mean by "successful." Because if by successful, you mean "failed to get anybody to watch," you'd be right.

Finally, after HBK won the Royal Rumble in 1996, he and Bret Hart feuded and had the Ironman match. Even against his personal feelings, Bret turned HBK into a superstar that day.

He then promptly left wrestling to film episodes of "Lonesome Dove." Yep, there's your "top guy" for ya! Lose a controversial Wrestlemania main event and then turn tail and run.

Proof that Bret was the Top Guy in the Downturn​

Here's the real deal, and the true evidence you need to see that Bret Hart's run atop the WWE in the "New Generation" era was the major contributing factor to the failure of the WWF for that time period. My opponent brought up that Bret, when compared to Diesel and Michaels, held the title the least amount of time from 1995-'96. My opponent also claims that Bret took much of that time to put Jerry Lawler over. Yeah, we'll move on.

1. From October 1992-November 1997, the five-year stretch Bret was on top of the WWF Food Chain, Bret held the WWF Title 5 times. Closest guy to that number was Shawn Michaels with 3 reigns.

2. During that 1,808 day stretch, Bret held the WWF Title for 654 days, or 36% of that 5-year period. That 654 days as champion is good enough for 6th place on the all-time list of total length of time as WWF Champion. Nobody else from the New Generation Era is above him.

If these two statistics aren't enough to prove that the WWF regarded Bret as the "top guy" in the midst of the worst period in the modern (post-1980) WWF era, then I don't know what to tell you.

When did WWF Break the Funk?​

We all know that the WWF came roaring back to eventually take the spot as the #1 wrestling promotion in the world from WCW. But what's the common denominator, and what were the events that led to WWF's resurgence?

1. The Attitude Era saved the WWF from the doldrums of the "New Generation. Four men carried the transition - Steve Austin, Vince McMahon, Shawn Michaels, and The Rock. But it was the feud between Austin and McMahon that truly did most of the work.

2. When did the New Generation END and the Attitude Era BEGIN? That's easy. "Bret Screwed Bret." In hindsight, the most important single moment in WWF history may well have been Vince McMahon's iconic "Bret Screwed Bret" speech. Hart was gone to WCW, Vince McMahon the announcer became Mr. McMahon the owner / chairman. The torch was never "passed." McMahon took it from Hart and shared it with Austin.

What was the result? Let's go back to one of my posts:

Wrestlemania Buyrates Mid-Bret Era
Wrestlemania 9 - 2.0 (Hart vs Yoko 1)
Wrestlemania 10 - 1.68 (Hart vs Yoko 2)
Wrestlemania 11 - 1.4 (Taylor vs Bigelow, Michaels vs Diesel, Hart vs Backlund)
Wrestlemania 12 - 1.2 (Hart vs Michaels)
Wrestlemania 13 - 0.77 (Taker vs Sid, Hart vs Austin)

Wrestlemania Buyrates Post-Bret Era
Wrestlemania 14 - 2.2 (Austin vs Michaels)
Wrestlemania 15 - 2.8 (Austin vs Rock)
Wrestlemania 16 - 2.35 (Fatal Four Way)
Wrestlemania 17 - 2.15 (HHH vs Jericho, Rock vs Hogan)

Whoa boy. Hart gets martyred, goes to WCW, and the tables turn completely?

And it may seem that Bret is the only blame, but I just proved that Bret was doing his job to the best of his ability back then. And judging by the amount of time that Bret held the title compared to HBK and Diesel, he was hardly the focal point of the organization.

Hmmmm...wait for it...

1. From October 1992-November 1997, the five-year stretch Bret was on top of the WWF Food Chain, Bret held the WWF Title 5 times. Closest guy to that number was Shawn Michaels with 3 reigns.

2. During that 1,808 day stretch, Bret held the WWF Title for 654 days, or 36% of that 5-year period. That 654 days as champion is good enough for 6th place on the all-time list of total length of time as WWF Champion. Nobody else from the New Generation Era is above him.

Yeah. That's good enough for me.

You were saying that a wrestling promotion's champion is responsbile for the promotion's success, but you contradicted yourself by stating that Hogan didn't make much of a difference in WCW while Bret's failure meant everything. With all due respect, your rebuttle to my claim just seemed to be a bit of backpeddling.

It does? Odd. Hogan jumping from WWF to WCW in 1994 didn't take the top spot away from WWF, but it made some noise. Hogan vs Flair wasn't the rousing success it would have been at Wrestlemania 8. But yes, I consider Hogan's impact on WCW from 1994-96 to be pretty ho-hum.

But as I already said - Hogan assessed the situation, and not only did he fix it, but he ushered in a new era in pro wrestling. One where even the eternal good guy could go bad. One where it became cool to be the heel. Bret never accomplished that.

And when he turned heel, HE wasn't the one responsible for WCW's elevation above the WWE... it was the entire FACTION of the nWo.

Hogan's heel turn is what legitimized the nWo. Indisputable. I mean, sure Buff Bagwell and Horace Hogan were THERE...but...

So where did he fail?

1994-96, as I've said. Fortunately for Hogan and WCW, the champion in the WWF at the time, being Bret Hart, didn't do enough to put an end to the WCW threat. In fact, one could argue that Bret's vanilla run as champion helped WCW in the end, because it made fans want to see something different, something more.

WCW went nothing but UP after Hogan signed on, so they never failed, which makes your point mooted.

WCW went up when Hogan turned heel in 1996 and formed the nWo. WWF started the comeback after "Bret Screwed Bret" and the Attitude / Austin era started.

And it's not "mooted." Just "moot." Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Bret never stood a chance to become a champion in the same way that Hogan did, so how could he be blamed for picking up Hogan's scraps after he left?

Why not? Austin did.

How can anyone take Bret Hart and justify him as being a legitimate champion?

So we agree! Then why are we arguing?

Oh yeah, it's the rules.

Bret Hart had the skills to be a champion. But timing, circumstance, and the lack of a supporting cast worked against him.

Sure, Bret had the skills to be champion. Just not the skills to get people to watch it happen. And, after all, isn't that the point?

 

[D-Man]

The Grey Area​

The term "top of the company" is fairly clear. Sure, it may or may not mean the championship belt is on a person, but the two often intersect.

Once again, this is one of the things I was talking about in a previous post. That's what makes this debate subject so open-ended. But then again, I feel this can help my side of the debate. If an admittance of intersecting points is made by IC25 and we can concede that it exists, it further proves the point that I've been making this whole time. How can we clearly put the blame of all of this on one man? But this is for the judges to decide.

The argument that I have been making is clear, but it all depends on how literally the judges wish to take the original subject. Just the mere fact that Bret was on the roster of the New Generation makes him "attribute" to the low ratings. But if we think about this from a realistic point of view, we can't fairly place this much blame on just Bret Hart. And as my opponent stated in his previous post, he would be a fool to think of this subject in the form of absolutes. Therefore, I will continue to speak on my side of the debate as if the judges are not taking the original subject in a literal sense.

Rebuttles of Previous Statements​

For this debate, I tried to keep things clean and not have another cut and paste war. And I will continue to do so, but right after I address a few points that my opponent made.

My point is that, even when Bret was chasing the WWF Title instead of defending it, he was still the man they put in charge of that "era."

Like I have been stating since the beginning of this debate, is this truly Bret's fault? Bret was probably the best wrestler the WWE had during that era, but that really isn't saying much. No offense towards him or his legacy, but Bret was kind of the "best of the worst." That's like blaming the captain of the Detroit Lions for their failure as an NFL team. It's completely unfair to think this way. If I may quote the movie "Waiting", saying that Bret Hart was the most drawing superstar in the WWE during the New Generation period is like saying he was "the smartest guy with Downs Syndrome." (I hope that doesn't offend anyone.)

Once again, I reiterate the point of how it takes much more than one man to carry a wrestling promotion. And I understand that most people would argue with me and refer back to the Golden Era and Hulk Hogan. I want to state for the record that I believe Hulk Hogan to be an anomaly of the wrestling business. Any promotion that man stepped into turned to absolute gold, with little to no help from his associates. As I stated in a previous post, Hogan was pre-established before walking into every promotion that he wrestled for when he was the top dog. Hogan is a one-man marketing machine and could turn a piece of lint into a diamond.

There has never been anyone like Hulk Hogan, nor will there ever be. No, IC25, not even Stone Cold. SCSA had a major supporting cast of superstars that already made names for themselves without Austin's help. Austin feuded with the likes of the Rock, Mankind, and the Undertaker after they had already been household names in the WWE with their own followings. And ironically, even you admitted that Bret Hart made Stone Cold.

1. From October 1992-November 1997, the five-year stretch Bret was on top of the WWF Food Chain, Bret held the WWF Title 5 times. Closest guy to that number was Shawn Michaels with 3 reigns.

2. During that 1,808 day stretch, Bret held the WWF Title for 654 days, or 36% of that 5-year period. That 654 days as champion is good enough for 6th place on the all-time list of total length of time as WWF Champion. Nobody else from the New Generation Era is above him.

If these two statistics aren't enough to prove that the WWF regarded Bret as the "top guy" in the midst of the worst period in the modern (post-1980) WWF era, then I don't know what to tell you.

First of all, digging back three full years prior to the subject of this debate shouldn't fairly win you any points here. This debate clearly states that we are to speak only of the New Generation Era which began after Hulk Hogan's departure in April of 1993 at KOTR, so we cannot use Bret's first title reign of 174 days. The New Generation era was a period that ended in 1996. Now that we've established that, let's break down the world championship title reigns again.

-Yokozuna captured the title from Hulk Hogan at KOTR in 1993 and held the title for 280 days. He was the first champion of the New Generation Era, not the supposed leader who was given the job of taking the WWE into the promise land... Bret Hart.

-So, I reiterate, in an era that he was supposed to lead, Bret had to wait 280 days to capture his first title in that generation. In an impressive run, he held the belt for 248 days. I broke down this title reign in my previous post and reminded everyone of the effort he put towards pushing the garbage he had to work with. IC25 can knock every title defense Bret had, but who could have done a better job at the time with the roster the WWE had? NO ONE. In order for Bret's title reign to be as superior as everyone wished it had been, he needed to face decent contenders. At the time, HBK, Diesel, Papa Shango, Razor Ramon, Doink the Clown, and Jerry Lawler weren't cutting the mustard. However, these days, these men are considered legends of the sport. Go figure, right? Irony is a bitch.

-Bret drops the title to Bob Backlund and wouldn't hold the title again for 361 days... that's almost an entire year! And he was supposed to be the leader of the New Generation? Now, as IC25 stated earlier, a leader doesn't have to be defined here as the "champion." But he's supposed to be the main focal point, and yet he would only get two shots at the WWE title through that period. The rest of the time, the WWE's brilliant writers had Bret feuding with the likes of Bob Backlund and Isaac Yankem!

-Bret would then hold the title for another 133 days before dropping it to Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania. Then he left the WWE for a while, and returned and turned heel.

How in the world was Bret supposed to be any kind of leader of a generation where he wasn't the focal point? You can add, subtract, multiply, and take the square root of the length of his title reigns in days, but unless you view the quality of them and see them in detail, you won't be able to view all of the holes in IC25's theory!

2. When did the New Generation END and the Attitude Era BEGIN? That's easy. "Bret Screwed Bret." In hindsight, the most important single moment in WWF history may well have been Vince McMahon's iconic "Bret Screwed Bret" speech. Hart was gone to WCW, Vince McMahon the announcer became Mr. McMahon the owner / chairman. The torch was never "passed." McMahon took it from Hart and shared it with Austin.

So what you're saying is, Bret Hart's part in his demise sparked the most popular era in the history of professional wrestling? I think we should give Bret a little credit there. The angle probably would've have been as effective if Bret wasn't such a God in Montreal.

Also, let's get something straight... Vince "took" the torch from Bret, but he handed it to Shawn Michaels. After Bret successfully MADE Austin at Wrestlemania 13, Stone Cold rode the wave all the way to Wrestlemania of the following year, defeating HBK. The dramatic "fast-forwarding" to display a stronger point is a bit unfair.

It does? Odd. Hogan jumping from WWF to WCW in 1994 didn't take the top spot away from WWF, but it made some noise. Hogan vs Flair wasn't the rousing success it would have been at Wrestlemania 8. But yes, I consider Hogan's impact on WCW from 1994-96 to be pretty ho-hum.

Can you prove any of this? This is the most opinionated paragraph of the entire debate. Once again, according to the Monday Night Wars DVD, Hogan's jump to WCW and initial feud with Ric Flair was a "huge success." Your opinion really doesn't matter here.

But as I already said - Hogan assessed the situation, and not only did he fix it, but he ushered in a new era in pro wrestling. One where even the eternal good guy could go bad. One where it became cool to be the heel. Bret never accomplished that.

No, Bret just ushered in the biggest heel faction in the WWE, The Hart Foundation. Granted, the nWo was a BEAST of a faction and did things for the sport of professional wrestling that had never been done, but like I stated before, Hogan was an anamoly. There is NO ONE that could've done that as well as Hogan... um... wait a minute, I guess Degeneration X did. From what I remember, they were a faction that made it "cool to be the heel." Once again, it's not just the man... a lot of it has to do with the writing. Which brings me to my next point...

The Promotion of Vince Russo to the WWE Creative Team​

Vince Russo was promoted to the WWE Creative Team in 1996 after Monday Night Raw hit it's all-time ratings low of 1.8 and was given the difficult task of changing the horrific writing that transpired throughout the New Generation Era. After introducing the new, edgy, and racy storylines to the WWE, the Monday Night Wars took flight and the WWE began to catch up to WCW, all while Bret Hart was still leading the charge for the WWE on television. So this is proof that the writing was the biggest problem that faced the WWE throughout the New Generation Era.

Summing Up the Main Point of My Opponent's Argument​

Just as I predicted, my opponent is making Bret Hart out to be the Satan of the WWE during the New Generation Era and is trying to compare him to an incomparable Hulk Hogan. So, allow me to make things easier on him and get this point out of the way... Bret Hart, in no way, shape or form, could EVER compare to Hulk Hogan in any dimension of professional wrestling except for in-ring ability. Bret Hart could never be a draw like Hogan, could never influence the fans like Hogan, and could never turn a storyline like Hogan.

WHEW... now that we've gotten that out of the way I feel a huge sigh of relief. And why? Because we can finally stop blinding ourselves with pages and pages of words, paragraphs and statements that really have nothing to do with the subject of this debate. My opponent is so busy comparing these two wrestlers that he doesn't realize that he's already won that war (and another debate subject). My point is that it's not about who was a bigger draw, Hogan or Bret. It's about the fact that Hogan wasn't just a bigger draw, but was the BIGGEST draw in history at that point, and everyone expects someone like Bret Hart to knock his socks off by himself?? Not even Austin was able to do that alone. He needed Vince McMahon, the Rock, Mankind, Triple H, and the rest of the roster that I had listed in my previous post! And who did Bret have in his New Generation? A pre-established Undertaker, a 358-day non-drawing champion in Diesel, midcarders in Razor Ramon and Shawn Michaels, and a dogshit writing team that was eventually replaced. That was the cream of the crop back then. How can all of this fall on Bret's shoulders? It is completely unfair.

So, I guess it all comes down to the judges sympathizing with me and Bret Hart. We see how the weight of the world was dumped on his shoulders. I've already proven that Bret did his job to the best of his ability. We see how he was given a shovel and some duct tape and was asked to build a shopping mall. But the question is, do all of you?

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Wow, loads of contradiction in my opponent's most recent post. It actually made my head spin a bit. Since my opponent felt is nessecary to spoon feed to the judges what position he'd be taking and precisely what he'd be debating, maybe I should indulge him and do the same.

The failure of the New Generation Era can be largely contributed to Bret Hart.

That's it. Didn't take two paragraphs to explain that.

There has never been anyone like Hulk Hogan, nor will there ever be. No, IC25, not even Stone Cold.

Is that so? One could, in fact, make the argument that Austin launched an era in professional wrestling even BIGGER than Hogan's. Hogan had to carry 4 PPV's a year at most - Austin carried 12 or 13. PLUS a live Monday night show. And THEN a Thursday Night Show. WITH direct competition.

The two biggest era-leading superstars in wrestling history are Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin. The blip on that radar? Bret Hart. He had to just hold things together, to bridge the gap from Hogan to Austin, and he still nearly let the company go out to WCW.

Austin feuded with the likes of the Rock, Mankind, and the Undertaker after they had already been household names in the WWE with their own followings.

Is that a fact?

Steve Austin's "break out" year was probably 1996, when he won the King of the Ring. In addition to that, Austin also won the 1997 Royal Rumble. He faced Bret at Survivor Series 1996 and Wrestlemania 13 in the submission match.

At the time, Mankind was either feuding with The Undertaker, defeating Henry O. Godwin, or playing Dude Love. Rocky Maivia didn't debut until Survivor Series 1996, the night of Austin / Hart 1. So in fact, the only "established" star of the group was The Undertaker. Mankind and The Rock were far from the "household names" my opponent suggested.

This lesson in wrestling history is free. The next one will cost you $10.

Incidentally, Hogan had Andre the Giant, Randy Savage, and eventually Ultimate Warrior to work with. Yet he's still credited with launching the era. Would those three have been as big without Hogan? Probably not.

Hart had Michaels, Nash, Luger, and The Undertaker to work with. He didn't capitalize the way Hogan and Austin did, hence the downturn. Vis-a-vis, Hart's fault.

And ironically, even you admitted that Bret Hart made Stone Cold.

Why is that such a shock? I fully agree, and I have since the start, that Bret is a terrific in-ring competitor and has a lot to his credit. He's an all time favorite of mine. But that doesn't exonerate him from being responsible for the downturn of the WWF when he was the man on top.

Oh, and Hart didn't "make" Austin. He sure as hell helped, the same way Mr. Perfect and Ric Flair helped Bret, but Austin's star was on the rise before the Hart feud began. And Austin didn't become a MASSIVE star until after Hart was long gone.

First of all, digging back three full years prior to the subject of this debate shouldn't fairly win you any points here. This debate clearly states that we are to speak only of the New Generation Era which began after Hulk Hogan's departure in April of 1993 at KOTR, so we cannot use Bret's first title reign of 174 days. The New Generation era was a period that ended in 1996. Now that we've established that, let's break down the world championship title reigns again.

I see, so you have decided to assign when I can and cannot pull data? Funny, you had no problem using my time frame when trying to assert that Bret Hart made Steve Austin. So we'll just use my 5-year time frame when it's convenient for your arguments, but we will revert back when it works against you?

Bret Hart's time on top of the company lasted 5 years, so it is only right to look at that entire 5-year window when assessing his overall level of success. Furthermore, it's a fairly well accepted fact that the Attitude Era officially kicked off with the "Bret Screwed Bret" speech.

Tim Haught of "The Wrestling Pundit" sums it all up quite nicely here:

http://prowrestlingpundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-hard-has-bret-screwed-bret.html

We can look back at Bret Hart leading the charge for the "New Generation" and we see a time where WWE business wasn't very impressive. While Bret wasn't offensive as champion, he certainly didn't put the butts in the seats that Hogan did before him and Austin did after...I learned to live with Bret Hart as a World Champion. While I never cared particularly about the stories between Bret and Owen, Hakushi, or Bob Backlund, I knew Bret Hart could produce a great match. I point to his match with the British Bulldog at In Your House as a shining example of what Bret could do in the ring when he had the belt. That match is vastly underated, as most people tend to remember their 1992 Summerslam encounter. Outside of the ring, I didn't feel like Bret delivered. As a babyface champion, he was boring. I didn't feel that he was the best there is, best there was, or the best their ever would be, and resented him for making the claim.

How in the world was Bret supposed to be any kind of leader of a generation where he wasn't the focal point? You can add, subtract, multiply, and take the square root of the length of his title reigns in days, but unless you view the quality of them and see them in detail, you won't be able to view all of the holes in IC25's theory!

Too bad for you, the ratings clearly show that many fans DID NOT see the quality of them. Because they weren't watching. You know who they watched? Hogan, Austin, and now Cena.

Read up a bit on the Attitude Era, and most sources see the transformation of Vince McMahon into Mr. McMahon as the launching point of the Attitude Era. Do you honestly think it's coincidence that WCW was beating WWF while Bret was on top, and then all of a sudden after Vince screwed Bret and the WWF started making positive strides?

So what you're saying is, Bret Hart's part in his demise sparked the most popular era in the history of professional wrestling? I think we should give Bret a little credit there.

Yeah, you're right. In fact, if I got fired from my job tomorrow, and three months later the company made an additional $3 million in profits, I feel that much of that profit should be attributed to me and my efforts.

Can you prove any of this? This is the most opinionated paragraph of the entire debate. Once again, according to the Monday Night Wars DVD, Hogan's jump to WCW and initial feud with Ric Flair was a "huge success." Your opinion really doesn't matter here.

Yes, you're right. I looked it up. The Hogan debut against Ric Flair at Bash at the Beach 1994 earned the PPV a whopping 1.04 buy rate, or about 416,000 buys. As an aside, Royal Rumble averages around a 1.0 each year, often bigger than that.

So let's dive deeper into the PPV buys, shall we?

I found this site: http://www.gerweck.net/ppvbuys.htm

The site posts the top 21 Pro Wrestling PPV Buys of all time. Feel free to check it out, because they block their graphic from being cut and paste, but here are the numbers:

#1 - Wrestlemania 23 (1.19 Million) Cena vs HBK
#2 - Wrestlemania 24 (1.06 Million) Undertaker vs Edge
#3 - Wrestlemania 17 (1.04 Million) Rock vs Austin 2
#4 - Wrestlemania 21 (985,000) HHH vs Batista
#5 - Wrestlemania 22 (925,000) Cena vs HHH
#6 - Wrestlemania 20 (885,000) HHH vs Benoit vs Michaels
#7 - Wrestlemania 18 (840,000) Rock vs Hogan / HHH vs Jericho
#8 - Wrestlemania 16 (824,000) HHH/Rock/Foley/Show
#9 - Wrestlemania 15 (800,000) Rock vs Austin 1
#10 - Invasion (770,000) WWF vs WCW vs ECW
#11 - Wrestlemania 14 (730,000) Austin vs HBK
#12 - Summerslam '98 (700,000) Austin vs Undertaker
#13 - Backlash '00 (675,000) Rock vs HHH
#14 - Royal Rumble '02 (665,000) Jericho vs Rock
#15 - Starrcade '97 (650,000) Hogan vs Sting
#16 - Wrestlemania 5 (650,000) Hogan vs Savage 1
#17 - Royal Rumble '99 (650,000) Rock vs Foley
#18 - SummerSlam '05 (636,000) Hogan vs Michaels
#19 - Unforgiven '00 (605,000) Rock/Benoit/Taker/Kane
#20 - Bash at the Beach '98 (600K) Hogan/Rodman vs DDP/Malone
#21 - SummerSlam '99 (600,000) Austin vs HHH vs Foley

Ok, let's analyze:
# of times "Austin" appears on the list = 5
# of times "Hogan" appears on the list = 4
# of times "Hart" appears on the list = 0

That'll be $10 please.

Bret Hart, in no way, shape or form, could EVER compare to Hulk Hogan in any dimension of professional wrestling except for in-ring ability. Bret Hart could never be a draw like Hogan, could never influence the fans like Hogan, and could never turn a storyline like Hogan.

And yet Austin could, and it seems Cena can. Bret couldn't. 'Nuff said.

To my opponent - we've certainly pulled out a lot of evidence in this debate, and you'd expressed to me a desire to know when to say "enough is enough" and allow the judges to judge. At this point, I will allow you to decide when we will stop rebuttals and make closing arguments. If you'd like one more or more rounds prior to closing arguments, that is fine with me. I could always do MORE research. But if you'd like to make your closing arguments next, I will follow suit, and we will close the debate for judging. Your call entirely.

 

[D-Man]

There's really not a whole lot more we can do with this subject. We could BOTH do more research, I'm sure, since we've done such a good job of that already. But I think both of us have made our arguments clear and concise. So, I will try and post a closing argument today to be followed by yours at your earliest convenience.

 

[D-Man]

After numerous rebuttles, contradictions, and posts, IC25 and I have decided to give out closing arguments for this Debator's League Championship.

Summation and Conclusion​

If I haven't explained it enough yet, I have been stuck in a very large grey area throughout this debate. It would be easy to judge my side of the debate in a literal sense as a result of nothing more than Bret's association with the New Generation Era. If my loss in this debate only requires that Bret Hart be "attributed" to the low ratings during the New Generation Era, then there is no defense. After all, IC25 made it abundantly clear that the New Generation Era of professional wrestling was a failure (as we all know or else we wouldn't be debating this subject in the first place) and Bret Hart was the "Chosen One" to lead them to success like an army of thirsty soldiers being led by their general across the desert to a puddle of water.

There are two main points to keep in mind here before throwing Bret Hart under the bus for the lack of success that came out of the New Generation of the WWE. First of all, Bret Hart was chosen to be the leader of a weakened WWE roster that included inexperienced wrestlers who were forced to immediately crawl out of Hulk Hogan's decade-long shadow following his departure from the WWE. Furthermore, Bret was stuck working underneath a horrific writing team who was so bad that it was replaced by an editor of WWE Magazine (Vince Russo) that brought them back to success. These are the main factors to consider in this debate.

Not once has the lack of star power during the New Generation been disproven during this debate, except for mentioning their legacy 15 years later in the eyes of the current WWE audience. Nor has the existance of a horrible writing team been disproven during this era, since the proof of their replacement exists. In addition, this replacement occurred at the exact same time as the end of the New Generation Era and simultaneously shuffled in the Attitude Era, all while Bret Hart was still one of the top stars on the roster, proving that the writers were a huge factor for the low ratings.

My opponent has clearly pointed out that the ratings suffered while Bret was the chosen leader of the New Generation. Putting up more buyrates, numbers of top PPV's featuring Bret Hart (or lack thereof), or quotes from wrestling writers doesn't prove anything that we don't already know. The New Generation, when categorized as an entire era, was an abysmal failure. Bret was at the helm, but like I said in a previous post, he was just the leader of the New Generation just as Barry Sanders was a leader of the Detroit Lions. But just because your team sucks, you cannot and should not fully attribute the failure to the captain/leader. No matter how hard they try or how good they are, sometimes their best just isn't good enough unless they receive the support that they require. In professional wrestling, this support comes in the form of other wrestler, writing, advertising, and sponsorship. Advertising and sponsorship were apparent during the debated time period, but the other wrestlers and writing were proven to be severely lacking.


On a personal note, I just want to say thanks to IC25 for a killer debate and thank the judges for their hard work during the course of this league. Especially a big thanks to TM for a great job running it.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Folks, this is going to be the final post of the final debate of the first successful debators league in WZF history. Thanks to TM for his work and organizational skill, thanks to the judges for their dedication, and thanks to all of the participants. Especially, thanks to the D-Man, for doubling my excitement aboutthe finals.

Now that's out of the way, I don't have an exhaustive closing post. I've made my points, I feel they are crystal clear. I don't have any excuses about the "ambiguity" of the topic, because the topic is crystal clear.

1. Bret Hart is responsible for the failure of the New Generation Era.

Bret was the champion and the man chosen to lead the era. He consistently failed to elevate new stars, instead entering into feuds with the likes of an over the hill Jerry Lawler, Papa Shango, Doink the Clown, Hakushi, Pierre LaFitte, etc. While his matches and in-ring work were all very solid, his legacy leaves much to be desired.

2. Bret Hart's era gave way to WWF losing its spot as the #1 Wrestling company.
Bear in mind, it was under Bret's watch that WWF was overtaken in the ratings wars by WCW, and it wasn't until Bret was screwed by Vince McMahin and left for WCW that WWF made its come back. That's not a coincidence, folks, it's a crystal clear correlation of events. Bret as top dog = ratings tank. Bret gone = ratings back. Bret's vanilla demeanor and lackluster out of ring work created a desire in wrestling fans to see something different out of boredom, which they first found in WCW / nWo and later found in DX and Steve Austin. Bret stood for everything that held the WWF back in the 90's.

3. If you break the WWF's eras down into 5 names (Sammartino, Hogan, Hart, Austin, Cena) there is no question that Hart's was the least successful.

My opponent wants you to believe that the failures of the attitude era were as attributable to the midcarders and other main eventers as they were to him. But men like Sammartino, Hogan, Austin and Cena have a way of making the people around them BETTER. Hart always was terrific in the ring, and he made his opponents look strong in the ring, but he failed to elevate them in a meaningful manner. Fans didn't care. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around to hear it, does it submit to the Sharpshooter?

The fact is, we revere Bret for the same reason we revere Owen - its less a function of their career and what we felt about them when they were performing, and more a function of how they left. Owen's is obvious - we treat him with reverence because of his tragic end. With Bret, were regard him highly because of his in ring quality and the manner in which he left WWF for WCW. Eric Bischoff coined the phrase "controversy creates cash." Unfortunately, tyhe only controversy - and thus cash - Bret created for WWF was a result of his controversial depature, and not a result of his tenure as head of the abysmal "New Generation."

 

[Mr. TM]

Well I beleive you two just won the Mentor Mentee award on WZ, did you not?

IC is coming in here as one of my favourite posters to read, and there is good reason for it, he is a hell of a debater. The Dman is coming in here as a rookie, and also the ROTY, and this is the reason why. He tied for the award, but anyone who had read this thread needed to give him his vote.

Information: IC always brings the most information to the table in debates, and he brought it here, some of it I wouldn't have brought, as it might have hurt other aspects of the debate, but he deserves this point.

Emotion: The D-Man did a wonderful job of never undermining his opponent, while I feel that IC took some things a little uncomfortably. I think this probably has to do with their friendship, but I have to give it to Briguy.

Clarity: Both were clear throughout this debate, both made their posts extremely clear, but Dman, you were able to keep this debate in a straight line, which is why you deserve this point more.

Punctuality: IC was late a couple times in this, something I don't think he has ever done, and Dman was always on time.

Pursuasion: This is a very interesting topic, and I must say, I have always pondered this very debate. I am a huge Bret Hart fan, and I know his in ring work spoke wonders of his ability to put on a great match, but there is also the issue of his ability to draw. I feel DMan took the debate by the horns and moved it forward in the first half, and although IC brought in a lot of information, I feel he told a lot of points that could be disputed leaving himself open. The reason was instead of just proving Bret's worth, you really worked with people in that era, showing if it wasn't for Bret, it could have been worse. The debate question of Brets ability not to draw is put into a comparison with these wrestlers and we can see the results. The Dman's ability to do that convinced me of his argument.

The D-Man 4-1 IC25

Congratulations to both of you, and I will love to see what my colleagues have to say on this.

 

[BooCocky]

Information: Point IC. He brought a lot of information to the table in this debate. Like ratings and such.

Point: IC

Emotion: IC was being a big old butthead in this debate by taking some cheap shots. I did say keep everything above the belt and he failed to do so. Point D-man

Point: D-Man

Clarity: I thought IC had his post layed out very well. So did D-man but I believe IC went the extra yard.

Point: IC

Punctuality: IC was late.

Point: D-man

Pursuasion: I am a big Hart fan and I had a hard time blaming him. Even though IC throughout a lot of numbers he had a hard time convincing me. D-Man had some great counter arguments which kept me on his side. I believe IC had him a couple times backed in the corner but in the words of Dennis Green he let him off the hook.

This was a very close debate but I give the final point to D-Man because he held on just long enough to keep me on his side.

Point- D-man

My total

D-man: 3
IC: 2

 

[Mr. TM]

IrishCanadian25 3 (Clarity 0.5, Punctuality 0.5, Informative 1, Persuasion 1), The D-Man 2 (Clarity 0.5, Punctuality 0.5, Emotionality 1). There's my score; if you want comments, I'll post them.

Tdigle's score, just require two more to determine the winner!

 

[Ty Burna]

Well I really slacked on judging this whole league, and my apologizes, I thought I had way more time to help with it than I did. But he asked me to judge the finals here so I will since I got a spare moment.

Information: Point IC, he brought a lot of information to the table. D-Man had a difficult task of being on the wrong side of the ratings info.

Clarity: IC's was just a little better clarity wise. Both were excellent I might add but I'm giving the point to IC.

Punctuality: IC was late, Point D-Man

Emotion: I think D-man took the more difficult side of the debate, so to make up for the lack of information on his side, he brought more emotion to the table. Point D-Man

Persuasion: Difficult to say really. I tend to mirror TM's line of thinking on this, and I think D-Man gave just enough to convince me that without Hart it would have been even worse. D-Man had a more degree of difficulty. I took that into consideration and I believe he did a little better job. Point D-Man

Final Score:
D-Man - 3
IC25 - 2

 

[CH David]

Well, yesterday I told D-Man that I was going to judge this yesterday. I lied, and ended up falling asleep when I got home. My apologies, and let's get to the final judging.

Clarity: Both were very clear posts, well written as well. IC veared a little bit and copy and pasted, but I won't take a point off for that.

Point: Split

Punctuality: IC had an uncharacteristic move (if I recall correctly) and was late twice. D-Man however was on time the entire debate, oh he was ready.

Point: The D-Man

Informative: IC had the distinct advantage being able to use the numbers in his favor. D-Man tried to spin them a little, but IC definitely used his advantage well.

Point: IC25

Emotionality: I enjoyed what I saw out of the both of you. IC was giving little potshots, and D-Man was serving information, and trying to put himself above IC. But it was fun to see. The shots IC tried giving, D-Man took it, and served it by being the better guy. It evens out in my opinion, especially when it is too good friends like this.

Point: Split

Now what it all comes down to. The last point...

Persuasion: I am a big Hitman fan. I was able to put that aside for this debate so I wouldn't be biased to D-Man's front. IC used a lot of numbers to try and get us going, using the factual argument. D-Man went with a semi-factual, yet subjective and argumentative. It worked for him. He got me with the fact that the supporting cast was not a stellar one to work with, and it wasn't. IC had his chances, but D-Man fought back and has taken the top spot.

Point: The D-Man

And there you have it ladies (the few who see this) and mostly gentlemen.

CH David scores this D-Man 3, IC25 2.