The Rock takes this one.
I am a Hart fan as well as a Rock fan. Did Bret Hart put on more 5-star classics than The Rock did? Yes. But putting on 5-star matches does not automatically make him unbeatable in the ring. Rocky is very underrated as an in-ring performer, in my opinion. No, he is not as good as Hart in the ring, but he is still good. But really, there is nothing that Hart can throw at Rock cannot handle.
I seem to recall Hart defeating Scott Hall, followed by Curt Hennig and then a well rested Bam Bam Bigelow - all to become the first (official) King of the Ring. Rock, in the one-night version of the tournament, defeated Dan Severn, then lost to Ken Shamrock.
- This was also before what I would consider The Rock's prime, while he was a cowardly heel and still pre-World Champion. From The Rock's true prime, which I consider to be mid-'99 through '02, The Rock did not ever, not once, lose cleanly to anyone except for one man: Brock Lesnar, who in my opinion should also still be in this tournament but I digress...
But from that time period, mid-99 - 2002, The Rock did not lose cleanly to Austin, to Taker, to ANGLE, to Triple H, to Benoit, to Jericho, to Kane, to anybody. While during Hart's prime of what I would consider 92-97, he lost plenty of matches clean: including to the likes of Owen Hart and The British Bulldog, who while may have been great wrestlers never had any real great success in the WWF, and countless other clean losses.
For those that say The Rock has and will submit, I say bullshit. This tournament is about wrestlers' primes, and during The Rock's prime, he did NOT tap out. 99-02, Rocky did not tap out once. Sure, when he was the cowardly heel of 1998 he tapped to Ken Shamrock, but that's about it. The Rock has withstood several submission holds, including the Sharpshooter itself by men like Steve Austin at WrestleMania 17, and no, Austin is not the master of the Sharpshooter but give me a break. Its the same move, it could not be applied
that differently by different men. Rock withstood the Ankle Lock, which has made men like Austin, Jericho, Benoit, Edge, Cena, Lesnar, and countless others tap out, including The Undertaker (Summer of 2002, check it). Rock never once tapped to the move. The argument of The Rock tapping out to the Sharpshooter is not a feasable one, in my opinion; Rocky just won't give up.
Then there comes the impact to the business. Sure, Hart may have influenced several men throughout his time in the WWF, and he may have been the top man (during some of WWF's weakest years, mind you). But guess what The Rock did? With Austin, Rock turned the end of the 1990's into the biggest boom period of pro wrestling since the Hogan era. And guess what else? When Austin left to get neck surgery in November of '99, who carried the WWF even further than it had albready been? The Rock. I have heard that 2000 was the most succesful year in WWF history, and who was the main man that year? That's right, The Rock.
Whether you want to admit it or not, The Rock, in a career that was less than half the length of Bret Hart's, did more for the business than Hart ever could. Like I said, I am not discounting that Hart put on a ton of classic matches, feuds, and moments, but in the big picture, that's not what matters. What matters is money, ratings, buyrates, merchandise, etc. And in all of those categories, The Rock tops everyone (other than Austin/Hogan) ever, including Bret Hart, who is not even near The Rock in that category.
- Kayfabe, you cannot vote against The Rock here. He has beaten better men than Hart, he never lost clean during his prime. Unlike "The Hitman."
- Historical impact, you can not vote against The Rock. Nobody can deny that The Rock is more important to the WWF's success than Bret Hart.
Sorry to Bret Hart, whom I am a big fan of; he puts on a great fight/match, but in the end he does what his main job was throughout his career: he makes his opponent look good. In this match, Bret Hart will do what he does best, and that's put on a 5-star classic, and put The Rock over.
The Rock wins, end of story.