Tasty, we have very similar views upon this matter, and you're one of my favorite posters. So let's do this.
Very well, your also very good. Bigging each other up over, let us commence...
Now, it seems we're having conflicting reports on what we consider "Bret's prime". If you're using Bret Hart from 1997, then I'm not sure how you can really consider that the man's prime. He was a pretty good heel, but the fact remains that for a good chunck of the year, Bret was in a wheel chair. His knee was constantly plaguing him, and to me at least, it wasn't the same Bret. Vince, at this point, was aware that Bret was no longer the future, and treated him as such. If you're looking for a kayfabe strong Bret, I'd accept any of the following
Bret Hart during his first title reign, October 12th, 1992- April 4th, 1993 (And even after that, he was a pretty damn big star)
Bret Hart from Wrestlemania 10 through Wrestlemania 12, March 20th, 1994- March 31st, 1996.
And if you don't mind, I'd love to ask exactly what made Bret in 1997 better than he was in 1992 or 1994.
You can't chop and change a prime to be just when they were winning, a prime is an extended period of success. The Rock's prime happened to be about 1998/9-2002 because that's when he won everything. Harts would be 1991/2 until 1997. He won 2 of his 5 world titles in 1997, so it would be very facaetious indeed to discredit it.
Well, yeah, the people that are trying to make themselves believe that The Rock could beat Bret Hart. That, and the people that state Owen deserved a run with the WWE title.
I belong to the first, and not the second. Riddle me this though, when asked what they remember about that feud, it's always about Owen rolling up Bret not the cage match.
Or, there could be people that remember that Owen could never take the belt away from Bret himself, so he needed to rely on cheating for Bob Backlund to take the belt off Bret. You know, whichever. Owen had his chance in a 15 foot high steel cage. Yet, the story of this feud was that Owen through everything he had at Bret, yet he couldn't beat Bret when the title was on the line.
Whatever, the feud still ended with Owen having the upper hand, having cost his brother the title.
Wait, wait, wait.... So let me get this straight. You argue that Bret came off as a lesser man, yet you're using tis Bret as what you describe as his kayfabe height? You're completely contradicting yourself, Tasty. You're better than that. Furthermore, why does he wind up as the lesser man? He beat Stone Cold twice. Once clean by pinfall, and once to a bloody pulp in a submission match. How does Bret come off as a lesser man?
Nope, he comes off the lessar man because the end of the feud had Austin going over, and because the submission match was a pyrrhic victory in terms of the crowd's reaction to it. Austin never quit, and he looked the better man for it. As for him losing in his prime, wrestlers do that. It'sSim Snuka's prime now, it doesn't mean he's winning every week.
Well, that and refusing to fight Owen for a long time, before he finally realized he would have to give his little brother a beating. By your logic, the Undertaker never contributed anything to his feud with Kane. And we both know how wrong that is.
No, because The Undertaker attacked Kane, cut promos on him, went after Paul Bearer. Bret did literally nothing, it was all about Owen, who then beat him, lost at Summerslam and cost him the title at Survivor Series.
Yawn.... I've been over this before. I admit Shawn is a better wrestler than Bret. I also admit that Shawn is far better than The Rock. So what's your point? Bret lost an ironman match to HBK, and held him to only one fall. They proved they were about as even as possible. Meanwhile, in The Rock's ironman match, he allowed six falls in a wrestler far inferior than either Bret or Shawn, in Triple H. And before you go on saying "well, he had five falls, too", I want you to consider the falls. One fall came when Trips used a chair on The Rock. Two falls came between a spinebuster and a people's elbow (smart, yes. But a bit of a cheap way to come across three falls.) And more importantly besides that, The Rock lost. So what's your point in arguing The Ironman match here?
Triple H has beaten Shawn more times than the other way around, so he's probably better. You were the one who brought up iron men matches, not me.
Wow.... So for you going for the draw is bad, but trying to cripple someone is a moral victory? Besides that, we're not counting moral victories, are we? This is basically your way of admitting, "Well, Steve lost the feud. But hey, he had this, right?"
No, Steve won the feud, the last match in the feud went to him.
Again, been over this, and for the record, one of those ended in a screwjob
.
So what? In kayfabe, he looks like a bellend for it.
By disqualification, no less. I'll take two clean wins over one DQ win any day.
But what ended the feud? Oh yes, the ultimate win from which Steve moved forward.
Well yeah, they never needed to. Bret had already proven he was better than Bret. And if beating him wasn't enough, then surely you should consider that Bret went on to win the WWF Title again, while Owen.... Won a couple of Tag Team Titles and an IC Belt. Woo.
Doesn't matter. Shelton Benjamin did fuck al after winning a feud with HHH, still won the feud though, didn't he?
Eventually wound up winning the strap from Yoko. Oh, and Ric Flair's a mid-carder? Diesel was a mid-carder? The Undertaker's a mid-carder? Hmm.... Nope.
All of those guys beat Bret too, is only absolute victories were against, midcarders.
I mean within a kayfabe context, when we're talking tournament here. In kayfabe, Warrior lost, in his prime, twice. And neither of those times were clean. In that regard, it's completely believable for Warrior to go over Randy Orton. Again, I put a lot of credit into kayfabe for this tournament, and a lot of thought into wrestler's heights. And in my opinion, it's more believable to say, in a match, Bret's going over Rocky.
I completely disagree, for reasons I've stated many times.
It's not only a matter of looking good in the ring, it's a good matter of winning, too. And I'd say Bret, at his height, did more so than The Rock did
But he didn't did he? Your the stat man, not me, but your stats had one fewer win for the Rock, which would suggest he did fine at winning.
Nobody with the charisma of The Rock?
.....
But that's neither here nor there. Look, there's something separating Charlie Haas from Bret Hart. Namely, fans gave a shit about Bret Hart. He was loved. And not only that, Bret was a former world champion. Making the comparison of Charlie Haas to Bret Hart... Well, I just don't get it.
The point is is that if you have the charisma of the Rock, you will be a success, citing Hogan helps prove my point, cheers. If you are a good technical wrestler like Charlie Haas, you are not necessarily going to be a big success, so which trumps the other when the two face off? Charisma.
We're not running a business here. If this were a draft to start up an organization, I'd take The Rock. If this a kayfabe tournament on who would win these matches, I'm taking Bret Hart.
I'd take The Rock for both, unless it was Canada.
Sigh..... Again, I'm not factoring ratings into this matter. If ratings played a role, Bret would have never won a damn thing in the WWE. But he did. Because he was the best wrestler the WWE had to offer
.
He was the best they had to offer for a very brief period. As soon as somebody better equipped came along to takethe title off him, he lost out. That is why he was out of the picture while Diesel was there. Bret wrestled in the best and worse of times for WWE, when he was there in the best of times, he was an absolute nobody feuding with Jerry Lawler and Isaac Yankem, when the worst of times came around he floated to the top. The Rock was around only for the good times, and remained on top throughout.
Funny you should say that. Tasty.....
Was it not you that, on this very same forum, voted Jushin Thunder Liger over Shawn Michaels? Now I know you're not going to say Liger was more charismatic than HBK. Yet you chose Jushin. Why?
Well, let's hear directly from the horses mouth:
"So the way I see it, Liger is just as fast as Michaels, is stronger and is more capable of adapting to the match than Michaels and the match is in an environment that doesn't suit Michaels, so for me, that means a victory for Liger here."
You didn't seem to factor HBK's charisma too much into this match, now did you? No, you voted for Liger because you thought he was a better wrestler. And say what you will, Tasty.... You're the reason HBK is not in this tournament anymore. If you were voting then like you are now, Jushin Liger would have went home that round.
Why the sudden change, Tasty?
Because Jushin Liger doesn't have a history of losing to charisma guys like Austin, Michaels, Flair, Savage etc, all of whom hold more wins than losses against Bret Hart.
Again, that breaches the line's of kayfabe here. I'm not giving that as a whimper
Well it is a whimper isn't it. Shawn Michaels got the better of him decisively
So let me get this straight:
-Yokozuna needed Mr. Fuji's help to win.
-Bret had him in the sharpshooter.
-Hulk came down immediately after the match, and Mr. Fuji foolishly threw his visibly winded giant into the fire.
-Count those five hundred pounds, so he's far more tired than the average wrestler.
-Bret had Yoko beat without Fuji's help.
Yes it's a whimper. Hart was dominated by Yokozuna then and again the following year. He didn't have Yoko beat at all, it looked like a shit sharpshooter and he looked like he was about to drop Yoko's legs. Hulk Hogan then beat the guy that just beat Bret in about 20 seconds.
And that's a whimper? Jesus, Tasty.
Well yes, actually.
Funny you should say that. Here's the match before The Raw one, in which Mankind has The Rock beat for the belt.
I'd say The Rock looked pretty damn weak here against Mankind.
Oh, and for the record, Mankind had The Rock dead to rights in the middle of the ring with the Mandible Claw before Ken Shamrock interfered and brok the hold. Austin was only returning the match to what it originally was destined to go to; The Rock getting beat by Mankind. So yeah, i'd say he looked relatively weak.
No, he looked like a heel, there's a massive difference.
To be frank, I don't know. Nobody saw it, so i'm sure others will tell you the same. All it proved was that The Rock couldn't beat Mankind without The Corporation.
Did it? Because he beat him for the title about two weeks later, as I recall.
i've said this many times.... It was one of the biggest angles because it was Austin/McMahon. Rocky was merely a pawn in the whole matter.
Bullshit. You think if Ken Shamrock had been champion then that match would have had the impact it did? Absolutely not. The Rock having his own personality is what drove that match, otherwise they might as well have just put Austin vs McMahon on the PPV.
Well yes, and lost enough falls to lose the matcgh, too. Moral victories count for jack shit here.
No, but it does show that Rock is more likely to come out on the attack now doesn't it.
A. Just because he was missing the Ankle lock doesn't he mean he wasn't a technician. He still worked submissions into his matches. One submission does not a technician make. Nice try, though.
Well it does though, doesn't it. If he's not using submission finishers he's exactly the same as every other wrestler.
B. All that does is add to my belief that The Rock can't beat Kurt when it matters. In a one on one match, while he's defending the title. And the last time I checked, this match was one-on-one.
You mean like when he beat Kurt Angle at No Way Out 2001 for the title? Oh yeah...
Yeah.... a match that he lost. Steve's specialty has always been Royal Rumbles. It's really where his bread and butter is. And again, still fairly kayfabe weak.
Right, this is so clearly bullshit it's hardly worth addressing. In 2001 Austin held the WWF title for a total of 237 days. That's 65% of the year, and you're saying that wasn't his prime? He also had his longest ever reign that year...
Which is exactly why I included the Big Four. Tasty, you even know that The Big Four have always been in place, and it's a constant number. So don't give me that. That's just you grasping for straws right there.
No I'm not, The Rock had more PPVs to have his feuds at. As a result, he occaisionally had to face dross at Summerslam. Bret Hart only had Summerslam to wrestle at, and he still faced shit people, because he wasn't on the level of the Rock.
I'm sorry.... insignificant? That was when The IC Belt actually meant a damn. It was easily Roddy's best match ever. And it is a Wrestlemania classic. Perhaps you should watch it again, and see what a great match it is. That is, unless you're too glued to The Rock wrestling... The Sultan? Ken Shamrcok?
Well, yes it is. Beating an old man is easy, just ask Diesel when he beat Bob Backlund, who had just beaten...Ah yes, Bret Hart, maybe this was important for Bret then...
Um, no, Bret's TEAM lost these. It was a team effort, Bret losing those Survivor Series. Besides, I also did you a favor by not including Royal Rumbles. The Rock competed in plenty more Rumbles than Bret did. You know, because Bret usually had a title to defend. But anyway, the fact still remains that I discluded both The Royal Rumble and Survivor Series, merely because they don't speak anything about an ability to wrestle. I did you a favor by counting off those Rumbles. Don't act like I did anything to skew the results, as I could have just left the Rumbles, and watch Rock's average plummet that much more.
Except it's wrong. Hart was in 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994 and 1997 and won one. Rock was in 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001 and won 1.
And it's still better than The Rock winning a Rumble that, in reality, he didn't even win (watch the tapes. His feet hit before any part of show's body.), and anything else Rock has done at the Rumble. He won his match with Shamrock because Shamrock snapped.
Neither did Bret Hart! It was a fucking draw, but also, Lex has to touch second, by the way they went over, hence why there is no footage from that side of the ring.
Oh, I'm sorry, where was Rock's WWF Title win at Wrestlemania again? He had three chances, and blew each and every one. Bret has one to his credit, and a fairly eventful one at that. The best thing I can say about The Rock is that he beat a fifty year old guy that was nowhere near his prime anymore. I love Hulk, but he was nowhere near what he use to be in that match.
How many people beat him clean that year?
That's laughable at best. Perhaps the Hogan one. Stone Cold and Rock was good. But it's not a Wrestlemania moment, and for that matter, Stone Cold was nowhere near his prime.
Again, how many people beat Austin at that time?
I'm sorry... Do we want to go into details, here? The Rock lost to a Triple H that was nowhere near the man he'd become, he beat Mr. Ass (Mr. Ass, for christ sakes. I dare you to say that any of the wrestlers Bret beat are worse than Mr. Ass). He beat Trips and Kurt, which is good, he then beat a Booker T that was nowhere near as good as he was in WCW, and lost to Brock Lesnar, a two year flash in the pan. Besides that, most of the wrestlers you mentioned are hall of famers, and Bret wrestled these men in their primes.
Mr Ass was king of the ring at the time. Booker T was still the same guy he was in WCW, literally it was about three months later.
Admittedly, i made a mistake. I accidently counted one loss by Rocky in 1997, which didn't occur. My apologies. Even so, the match was still nothing more than filler, which as I've said, really doesn't amount to much. Also, if we're really going to get technical about it, all of the names you've mentioned are basically Bret's Summerslam, in that with the exception of Taker and Mankind, he beat no one of consequence. Plus, he never really beat Mankind, Vince screwed Mankind.
A win is a win.
More titles? Shit, Rock never went after the European title. Are we talking about the WCW Title? Well, in that case, that's only two matches, and if anything, it's more of a chance for Rock to step up into the spotlight. Which he blew, yet again.
The Rock blew his chance in the spotlight? Dear God, you did not say that.
Asinine nature of the comment. I could say Rock faces submission wrestlers, and lost, so it stands to reason Bret would beat Rocky. The only charisma wrestler that I'll give you is Shawn Michaels. Bret beat Ric Flair for the WWF Title. He beat Mr. Perfect, a very charismatic wrestler in his own right. He beat Roddy Piper, who is as charismatic as they come. He's beaten The Undertaker, one of the more resilient wrestlers in history. Sure, he's lost, but he's also won against these same charismatci guys.
Mr Perfect was about perfect technique and shizz, Bret did beat Flari, but not before Flair had beat him several times, Piper wasn't even wrestling very regularly when Hart beat him.
Austin? Michaels in 1992 (future world champion)? Undertaker? Flair? Diesel?
But all of them beat him too!
Are you serious? Flair is just as charismatic as Hogan, if not more. He's the Nature Boy, for Christ Sakes! If by charismatic, you mean "three hundred pounds of pure muscle", then sure I guess you're right. But come one? Flair as not charismatic? Jesus.
But he wasn't a face, which is evidently what I meant by the wrestlers I named.
Funny thing, actually. Yes you're right, but really watch the match here.
[youtube]cfIQGhR5IR8&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]_4yMwHuo7k4&feature=related[/youtube]
You notice something here that you just don't see in Ricky? He was getting frustrated, because he simply couldn't put this rookie away. Bret had no business making this a match, as he was merely a rookie. And yet here he is, giving Ricky everything he can handle, and then some. Not only that, but bret has him beat in the middle of the ring.
But he still loses! Bret Hart is a loser!
Austin was about to go into his prime, and be made a star, Razor, I'd argue, was at kayfabe height, at least in terms of his Razor character. He was built as this unbeaten giant. He was put into a program with Ric Flair, Randy savage, and Mr. Perfect. That's pretty kayfabe strong. Michaels I'll agree with, but he was also built to be roughly Michael's equal. And, seeing as what you just argued in the next line, I'll pull this one out; Bret was supposed to go over Shawn at Wrestlemania 13. But we know how that went.
Supposed to doesn't matter, what happened does, and that was Bret Hart losing.
Well, either that, or Hogan was pulling strings. You know, because he's never done that. As for Savage, show me a match where Savage beats Bret. I'd love to watch it.
I've never seen it, Bret talks about it in his book.
And most of them, as I've proven, have been beaten by Bret. Bret has beaten some of the biggest names the game has to offer. And he's a far better wrestler than Rocky. So the edge, to me, goes to Bret.
But these guys were always over Bret more than he over them.
The only consistency I see in the matter is that Tasty used raw ability to determine the winner of this match. That, if what Tasty meant by the post, could be understood, but my question comes as to why HBK's charisma no role in his loss to Liger, yet Rock's charisma gets him over the hump against a wrestler that is better suited for a one-on-one wrestling match. Rock has lost many times to people he was bigger, stronger, and faster than. Just ask Mick Foley.
Because unlike Bret Hart, Jushin Liger doesn't have a history of losing to more charismatic wrestlers. In his prime, Hart lost to Austin, Savage, Flair, Michaels, Bulldog (in the UK). Notice that with the exception of Flair, they were all faces when Hart lost to them. Rock's prime was probably 1999-2002, when he was predominately a face.
Aside from that, this match takes place in Houston, which is a fairly neutral area. Rocky has no ties with Houstin, nor does Bret, really. So this idea of home-field is kinda unnecessary. I'd say that it comes at about an even crowd, half for Bret, half for Rocky
Nope. Bret Hart was notoriously not very over in the US, which is why he never fought Hogan, because the crowd would have turned on him had he won. The WWE didn't want that, and they didn't want Hogan to go over their future guy when he was leaving, so the match never happened. The Rock was hugely over in the US, definitely moreso than Bret at least.
As to that one match on Raw... did you ever think bret knew he didn't need the match? Maybe Bret just didn't care that much about the match. After all, this Rocky fellow was just a kid here. It's highly probable Bret overlooked him.
Bret Hart on that match said:
Rocky was destined to become one of the all-time greatest in the business
Doesn't sound like the description of a man overlooked.
Do you think there's any way Bret looks over a Rock that is as strong as he is? I think not.
What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. He wasn't as good as Rocky Maivia, so he'd magically become better than a much older better version? Absolute bollocks.
Hmm well every one keeps saying that "The Rock will hit the Peoples Elbow or The Rock Bottom to win!", but need I remind you The Rock may not even be able to hit the Rock Bottom or the Peoples Elbow with all the genius counters and revarsels Bret has under his sleeve, plus Bret Hart has far more stamina and is a WAY better wrestler than the rock, The Rock is a great draw but when it comes down to it he isn't the greatest at wrestling, and Bret can work a long ass match and weaken the Rock and eventually get him on the sharp-shooter for the win, its basic logic.
Winner in my opinion: Bret 'The Hitman' Hart!
These arguments are so ******ed. Yes, Bret Hart is a technical wrestler, but when a wrestler "works an area for the finisher prevention" it almost never results in the person actually being unable to do it. What is Bret going to do that will stop both moves? Paralyse him? Think about it properly, come on now.
Are people REALLY trying to compare Bret Hart to Kurt Angle, and saying that Angle is better? What a complete fucking joke. When Angle learns how to use psychology and storytelling in his matches then maybe he'll be good enough to shine Bret Hart's boots. And how the fuck is Angle more successful? Let's take a close look at their accomplishments in WWE, WCW and TNA. Nowhere else as that would be pointless.
. If anyone actually watched the match in question, you would see that the heel Hart was dominant for most of the match, then the face Rock made a small comeback at the end, before Hart got DQ'd for using the figure-4 around the post. It was a standard face vs. heel match, and in no way did Hart seem weak or unable to finish off his rookie opponent.