First of all, at what point on television has it ever been said that Bret hasn't been back because he was "too injured" by the kick to the gut? You act as if this is the explanation given to why he hasn't come back, when in reality the reason he hasn't been on TV since Jan. 4th is because, from a storyline perspective, he has no reason to be there.
Well, the reality is that I said it was one of two possibilities that I could come up with that make sense:
1) He is injured
or
2) He is simply avoiding going on Raw to confront Vince. And this makes him look cowardly, in the process. Because even though he may "not have been invited back to Raw", when did that ever stop Steve Austin or The Rock when they were "fired" when they worked for the company, from coming back and confronting Vince?
So Vince kicks Bret, and Bret is powerless to go back and get revenge (sneak in a building, etc.)?
So .... yeah.
Now, I realize that may be a little difficult for you to grasp, so I'll explain.
Oh, please do. Looking to try to make a name for yourself, huh? All to happy to oblige.
Yes, getting screwed over by McMahon again, getting a limp kick to the gut, those are both reasons that would set up Bret for coming back out and getting his revenge. If he were John Cena, or HBK, or HHH, or even freaking Santino, it would make perfect sense for him to come down to the ring the following week and demand retribution. The difference between Bret and all of those guys, though, from a storyline perspective, is that he is not an employee of WWE, or a member of any roster. It would be akin to Jeremy Piven coming out and demanding revenge against John Cena for the Attitude Adjustment, or Jon Heder demanding a rematch against Hornswaggle. Forget for a moment that it's Bret Hart we're talking about, from a storyline perspective its a weekly guest host who has no further tie to the show after his week is up. Add to that the fact that Vince publicly banned him from ever appearing in a WWE ring again the following week, and his absence right now makes perfect sense.
Sorry. Explanation not accepted. Here Bret is a face, and he was made to look like a chump from McMahon by the end of the show. And he doesn't even make an attempt to come back for revenge the next week or even the week after, simply because he "wasn't invited"?
Give me a fucking break. What that makes him look like is a gutless coward and that is why I criticized the booking to High Hell.
Given some of your comments throughout this thread, the only conclusion I can draw is that you wanted a big confrontation that night, either between Hart and Michaels, or between Hart and McMahon.
Something like that. And there was ample opportunity in both cases to do something much larger to actually live up to all the hype it got.
My God, it has been 12 years since the WWE has seen Bret Hart and the best they can come up with in terms of confrontation is a hug between Michaels and Bret and a limp kick from McMahon?
It's bullshit. And the people who justify only prove to everyone else how big a "WWE Universe Fan" (etc. WWE and Vince mark) they really are. To the casual person, that was absolutely disappointing given the tremendous hype his appearance got. And it is no wonder that Impact got the far better reviews that night, compared to Raw.
Its obvious from your Mod comment at the beginning of this post that you feel that the people who believe Bret is limited by his health concerns are all a bunch of idiots and morons.
Well, those are "Editor Comments" and not "Mod comments". That isn't Lord Sidious the Moderator speaking ... it's Lord Sidious the poster. And yes, from the ridiculous posts I have seen on here telling me how fragile and frail Bret supposedly is despite planning on actually having a match at Mania, yes, people are a bunch of idiots for trying to claim that "a kick was the best he could take since he can't take bumps".
It's bullshit, and bullshit is going to be called out publicly.
But even you, Sid, have to admit that Bret is going to be limited in how much he can do. More than likely, he can have a decent, if not spectacular, fight, as long as all precautions are taken to protect his head. And if you think that protecting his head isn't vital, then I've given you far too much credit.
When did I ever say that he had to be attacked in the head?
Yes he is limited, but the problem is that you are going from one extreme to the other.
Just because I may say "they could have done a lot more than a kick" .... you go to the complete opposite extreme and try to claim I am saying "they should have kicked him in the head repeatedly until he received a concussion".
Wrong. That is not what I am saying. All I am saying, again, is that they should have done more than a simple limp kick.
So let's look at that, shall we? Bret has it in him to give a limited performance, but can still probably put on a pretty decent fight. Why in the hell would you do it on that Jan. 4th show? Why blow your wad at the beginning of the feud, knowing that the ultimate showdown at the end is going to be...about the same, really? It makes no sense from any perspective, be it that of a business trying to build an angle, or a fan hoping for a huge climax.
Because it was a huge letdown. The fans have waited 12 years to see Bret Hart interact once again with Shawn Michaels and Vince McMahon, and it was a huge letdown to see what transpired that night. So the bottom line is that Vince didn't give the fans enough that night.
And when you don't give the fans enough, you risk them losing interest in the feud.
And the problem is that he ALSO didn't give them anywhere near enough the following week and nor the week after that.
If you want to start a hot feud, you have to start off strong, then you can have your ups and downs in between, and then end on a high note at Wrestlemania.
Starting off what was expected to be a very strong feud in such a weak fashion is a recipe for disaster and disappointment.
I for one, if I saw the two go at it on Jan. 4th, would be quite disappointed if they had that final fight at WM or wherever, and it ended up being the exact same fight they had at the beginning of the feud. The kick to the gut was, as Norcal said, symbolic, and was the first shot in what promises to be a long (by today's wrestling standards) war that will eventually culminate in one final battle. So no, perhaps Bret doesn't need to be coddled as much as some people seem to believe, but at the same time, he also doesn't need to be exposed right away either.
Again, nobody is saying they had to wrestle each other on the 4th. You seem to like to put a lot of words in people's mouths with what they are saying.
What's that?
Hmmm...so "newbies" need to pay their dues before they dare to disagree with Sid? I suppose I can understand that. After all, you are the moderator of the WWE section. You craft well thought out, well written posts telling everyone why you hate the current WWE product so much, and you vehemently defend your position. You ridicule anyone who dares think that their opinion is as valid as yours, and defend to the death the idea that your view of how the WWE should be run is the only correct view. So yeah, a "newbie" like that shouldn't dare to challenge your views, because he's probably not prepared for the ridicule he is going to receive.
Pretty much. Keep in mind that my position as Moderator doesn't have as much to do with it as much as I feel I have consistently provided the forum with high quality, well-thought-out posts to contribute to the quality of the discussion. Me being a Mod has nothing to do with it.
If you want to challenge me, go ahead. Any are welcomed to challenge me. But I especially am not going to take it easy on new people that may challenge my opinions. Because I can defend my opinions to the death and newer posters need to show me how confident they are in being prepared to do the same ... if they are.
I, however, am no newbie. I may not have the highest post count in the forums, but I've damn sure paid my dues, and I will say for the record, right here and now, that just because you don't like what's on TV right now does not mean it's not worth watching. If you don't like what you see, go watch TNA. You seem to enjoy it more anyway.
I do watch TNA. However, the Staff apparently is content with me here overseeing the WWE section. It's a shit product, but liking it isn't part of the requirement of Modding the section. So we can all suffer through it, together.
And for the record, I do watch TNA, and I enjoy it a Hell of a lot more than WWE.
