WWE Region Finals: Bret Hart vs. the Rock

[tehblogger]

Lol, this isn't even close. Bret Hart is just about the greatest technician ever. The Rock was THE best on the mic, but alone in a ring with Bret Hart, it's his turn to feel silly. Rock Bottom isn't nearly enough to keep Hart down, Rock's sharpshooter is so terrible it's easy to reverse, and Rock's promos would get Hart so riled up Rocky wouldn't know what hit him. Ultimately Rock gets out-maneuvered, out-thought and he certainly has no power advantage. Hart wins fairly comfortably.

 

[Pickle]

When did Jericho, who has the finisher most like the sharpshooter, make The Rock tap out? Angle never made Rock tap out during a match. Mankind and Shamrock was before The Rock's prime. Benoit was after The Rock's prime during Benoit's massive push.

May 15, 2000 - RAW: Chris Benoit defeated The Rock (WWF Champion) in a Non-Title Submission match.

August 1, 2002 - Smackdown!: Chris Benoit & Eddie Guerrero defeat The Rock & Hulk Hogan when Benoit makes The Rock tap out..

I believe you said Rock's prime was 2000-2002 right?

You got me on Jericho though. That one was a case of bad memory. What happened was Rock was unable to get out of the Walls of Jericho and was about to tap, but Jericho released the hold because Stephanie McMahon ran to the ring with a chair. Jericho still won though, even after taking the dreaded Rock Bottom through the table earlier.

But that's besides the point. The point is that Rocky has submitted multiple times during his prime, and this will be no exception.

 

[WrestlingAuthority90]

I personally think that Bret's technical skills would be too much for Rock to handle. Rock is a great wrestler but he's never beaten a very technicaly skilled wrestler. Even though The Rock is probably the greatest entertainer in pro wrestling history, I dont think that he could take Bret Hart. With that said, I'm voting for The Rock just because Bret Hart is a huge douchebag.

Vote Rock

 

[justinsayne]

I personally think that Bret's technical skills would be too much for Rock to handle. Rock is a great wrestler but he's never beaten a very technicaly skilled wrestler. Even though The Rock is probably the greatest entertainer in pro wrestling history, I dont think that he could take Bret Hart. With that said, I'm voting for The Rock just because Bret Hart is a huge douchebag.

Vote Rock

WHAT?!?!?, are you fucking serious?!?, so I'm guessing based off this absurd statement that you don't consider guys like Angle, Benoit, and Jericho to be great technical wrestlers, he's beaten every damn one of those guys several times, not saying Rock runs away with this thing, just that he manages to get the win

 

[Razor]

This would be a war. A fucking war. Not a "Cena vs. Umaga" war. But a full-fledged, someone is stumbling from the ring while the other is bloodied in the middle of the ring war.

I'm going with Hart. Why? No reason, really. It came down to Power vs. Technical Ability, and I chose Technical Ability. I'm even going to weasel out and say "The Rock is powerful, no doubt. But the Rock will hit the Rock Bottom, Hart will do some crazy awesome technical stuff, and Rock will tap to the Sharpshooter."

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

The best there is
The best there was
The best there ever will be

Thats right: Brett Hart

This is probably going to be the closest of the final 8. I'm going with Brett Hart for a few reasons. Although both these men have very high endurance rates I think Brett can go harder then The Rock. Both are great technical wrestlers but Brett takes this one because of his training in the dungeon. Brett applies a better sharpshooter then the Rock, and can probably survive a people's elbow or rock bottom. So it will come down to Brett winning this one by submission, after wearing rock down in what will most likely be a very long back and forth match.

I think that stamina is a non-factor in this match. If it came down to who can go longer, I still think that The Rock takes it. You must remember, Dwayne Johnson played on the defensive line at The University of Miami. Playing around 30 minutes of game on the line is infinitely more difficult than is laying around and doing fake moves to each other for an hour. Bret may have gone for an hour in an ironman, but that doesn't compare to a football game.

Oh wait, I can't use that? It has nothing to do with wrestling and it isn't kayfabe? Well that doesn't matter. Strength, stamina, size.. those don't change, kayfabe or real life. Fact of the matter is, The Rock has plenty of stamina.

No-brainer here....Bret's diverse moveset and knowledge of different holds and counterholds make him one of the greatest amatuer style wrestlers of all-time....Bret's shown himself to be very effective working different styles compared to The Rock....Rock is going to have a difficult time countering Bret's strong ground game and could very well submit early....Winner, Bret "Hitman" Hart

No-brainer here.... Rock's experience brawling and knowledge of laying the smacketh down make him one of the greater wrestlers of all-time.... Rock's shown himself to be very effective working his style.... Bret is going to have a difficult time dealing with the power and toughness of Rock's great power game and could very well be pinned early. Winner, The Rock.

Obviously, Bret's credentials in 24 years far outweigh anything Rock has accomplished....Rock was a strong draw but the same can be said for the other main-event calibur wrestlers during the Attitude Era (An Era Bret was instrumental in helping create)....The Rock (unlike Hart) benefited from great timing...Steve Austin's character was mostly responsible for the boom period and The Rock helped sustain it...Rock by no means would have had the same global impact Bret had from 1992-1997....Bret quite simpily was one of the biggest international draws of all-time despite the negative public feelings on wrestling due to steroids....Hart was voted twice most popular athlete in Europe, most popular athlete in Japan, and most popular superstar six times from 1992-2000....The Rock was a strong performer from 1998-2002 but Bret's star shined bright for many more years whether wrestling in Stampede for his father, the UK, or the USA.

The Rock shined on wrestling's biggest stage, Bret just shined brighter.....Bret's Wrestlemania matches with Owen, Austin, HBK are not only considered three of the best in Wrestlemania history but three of the best period....The quality of Bret's matches completely dwarf anything The Rock....The Rock may have the edge as far as showmanship is concerned but overall Bret takes the cake.

The thing is, I don't choose a winner based on match quality, influence over seas, longevity of career, or technical ability. The Rock, though not having as long a career as Bret Hart, is actually more accomplished, winning the WWF championship and World Heavyweight Championships seven times along with his various other championships. He accomplished more than Bret Hart in only eight years. The Rock was infinitely more popular than Bret Hart, no matter what the polls say. When it comes down to it, Bret could never match the pops that Rocky got each and every night. He was the man that could make everyone stand on their feet with the raise of an eyebrow. Dare I say, The Rock was the most popular wrestler.... ever.

I'm going with Bret. I like KB's argument about how the Rock Bottom can finish Bret, quicker than the SharpShooter can finish Rocky, but I don't think it's valid here. First, The Rock is not as tough as Arn Anderson. Arn would never tap, because it's not in his blood. Rock has quit. Also, the DDT is a tougher move than the Rock Bottom. And, Bret beat Flair, so through the process, we can say that Bret would take the Rock Bottom, better than Flair took a DDT.

Besides all that (^^), I just think Bret is a far better wrestler. Had he been able to have a prime during the Attitude Era, I'm sure he would've been just as big as Rocky. Maybe not on Stone Cold levels, but he would've been big. He's just too good in the ring for Rocky to beat. It'll be a hell of a match, and will have fans torn, but I think Bret takes the win.

The DDT is not as tough a move as The Rock bottom, firstly. Everyone kicks out of the DDT, where the Rock Bottom has kept Stone Cold down for the count.

Bret never was as popular as The Rock, so he wouldn't have been on the same level. He couldn't talk like Rocky. The fans wouldn't be torn unless this match were in Canada.

Bret Hart is the better wrestling in this match and he is going to get my vote. I really don't think that the Rock throws are Hart will keep him down for the 3 count and win. Hart is a god when it comes to being a technical wrestler and he is one of the best if not the best technical wrestler that ever lived. I think he would more than capable of holding his own in this match and I think he could reverse and counter everything the Rock tries to do. In my opinion this would make for a very good match and I will be voting for the person who in my opinion is the better wrestler of the two which is Bret "The Hitman" Hart. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rocky get the win but at least I am hopeful that Bret has a pretty good chance of winning this match.

Technical wrestling receives far too much credit. Simply because you're able to lay around and exchange wrist locks with an opponent doesn't make you the greatest of all time. What makes you the greatest is telling a story and making the fans care about you. When talking about the greatest of all time, two wrestlers are mentioned. Neither is a technical master by any means. Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin. Technical wrestling means jack. The Rock is a god when it comes to brawling and using his strength. He's beaten Kurt Angle, a better technician than Bret Hart, on multiple occasions and his offense was very effective. Drop the bull about Hart being able to simply counter everything that The Rock throws at him.

It should be pointed out that Bret's feuds in the 90's (Austin, HBK, Owen) were some of the best of all-time....Bret's achievements in the business completely dwarf The Rock....Both men are widely respected for the right reasons but the fact is Bret in 24 years in the business did more for the game than Mr Rock.

Are you kidding? Bret's accomplishments dwarf Rock's? I ask, who has more World Titles? That's the be all, end all of accomplishments. As for effect on the business, were Bret Hart to never have wrestled, I'd say not much at all would be changed. If The Rock never were around, the WWF could have failed. The Rock deserves a lot more credit than he gets. Steve Austin didn't do it on his own.

Oh, the Austin/Rock lovers are gonna love me for this one. I'll be voting Bret Hart, for no other reason than because he's simply better. Much like most people believe Austin carried a Company in its greater time frame than Edge.. Bret Hart was the torch that went on from Hulk Hogan, the Ultimate Warrior, Randy Savage and Ric Flair. Hart means just as much, if not more to the business than Rock ever will.

This match-up is all about skill and the Rock barely holds a candle to what Bret Hart can showcase here, especially in an opening round match-up. 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. But I suppose that's neither here, nor there.

Klunker seems to think the Rock Bottom is a finisher that Hart won't be able to escape. Because apparently no one's repeatedly busted the Rock upside the head enough times to counter it. Oh, but this is the best part. Rock has applied the Sharpshooter to countless victim's, but has he ever made anyone submit from it? I'll assume so, since he kept using it..

HOWEVER, to counter-act Klunker's assumption that Hart can't keep countering the Rock Bottom - the Rock wouldn't be able to counter and escape the true master of the Sharpshooter. Oh, but this is where it gets good. Rocky is cocky and arrogant enough to believe he can make Hart quit from the Sharpshooter. Hart, (like he's done to Owen) will sweep Rock's legs and reverse directly into a Sharpshooter of his own - thus, making Rock tap to the true master of the submission hold.

Rock is the entertainment aspect of the Industry, no arguing that. So when Hart beats him and moves on, Rock can go to the back and cut some more classic one-liners on how he's gonna eat some jabroni's pie, in his aptly named Hotel, down the street on a corner that doesn't fucking exist!

You wrote a novel that I simply refuse to read. If it's anything like your Edge arguments over Lesnar, then it's just filled with shit.

Rocky is just cocky enough to try and go for the sharpshooter here. He won his first WWF Championship with it, it eventually became one of his signature moves, and now he has the chance to beat Bret Hart with it. It would be too much to pass up. And at that point it's just a matter of Bret reversing it.

Bret takes it.

Because The Rock going for the sharpshooter would cost him the match? Riiiiight.

The Rock has lost via submission to all of the wrestlers with submission finishers he has ever faced. Mankind, Ken Shamrock, Benoit, Jericho, Angle. Why wouldn't he lose to Bret Hart's Sharpshooter, which is very rarely escaped/came back from?

The funny thing about that statement, is that he has winning records over every single one of those wrestlers you mentioned.

Lol, this isn't even close. Bret Hart is just about the greatest technician ever. The Rock was THE best on the mic, but alone in a ring with Bret Hart, it's his turn to feel silly. Rock Bottom isn't nearly enough to keep Hart down, Rock's sharpshooter is so terrible it's easy to reverse, and Rock's promos would get Hart so riled up Rocky wouldn't know what hit him. Ultimately Rock gets out-maneuvered, out-thought and he certainly has no power advantage. Hart wins fairly comfortably.

1.) I've already expressed my thoughts on the "greatest technician" argument.

2.) The Rock bottom kept everyone else down. Why's Bret so different?

3. The Rock has a HUGE power advantage.

May 15, 2000 - RAW: Chris Benoit defeated The Rock (WWF Champion) in a Non-Title Submission match.

August 1, 2002 - Smackdown!: Chris Benoit & Eddie Guerrero defeat The Rock & Hulk Hogan when Benoit makes The Rock tap out..

I believe you said Rock's prime was 2000-2002 right?

You got me on Jericho though. That one was a case of bad memory. What happened was Rock was unable to get out of the Walls of Jericho and was about to tap, but Jericho released the hold because Stephanie McMahon ran to the ring with a chair. Jericho still won though, even after taking the dreaded Rock Bottom through the table earlier.

But that's besides the point. The point is that Rocky has submitted multiple times during his prime, and this will be no exception.

Bret has been pinned multiple times throughout his prime, and this will be no exception.

See what I did there?

I personally think that Bret's technical skills would be too much for Rock to handle. Rock is a great wrestler but he's never beaten a very technicaly skilled wrestler. Even though The Rock is probably the greatest entertainer in pro wrestling history, I dont think that he could take Bret Hart.

See: Kurt Angle.

Seriously, The Rock has beaten Angle, Jericho, Benoit... He's beaten all the technical wrestlers there are to beat. I see no evidence he can't handle Hart's "outstanding technical ability".

 

[LigerBomb]

VOTE HITMAN

In the end, this is still a wrestling match and, in Kayfabe, out of Kayfabe, and even somewhere in between, Bret Hart is the better wrestler and storyteller. Don't mistake me, I believe it's possible for The Rock to win, but I believe its more probable for Bret to get the better of him.

On the matters of Power/Endurance and other Exercise Science topics:
Some people here are throwing out terms that I don't think they fully understand, and are trying to apply them to "real" world aka fake Kayfabe Land scenarios which makes it worse... but I digress.
Power as it its used for athletic performance is the strength v speed continuum and its ratio to one another. Basic force production if you will. While it's true The Rock would be more outright powerful in a stand up game, Bret has the tools to negate most of that advantage with ground work. Leverage, limb length, and height dominance largely go out the window when you are both on the ground, or worse yet when the other guy is at a mechanical advantage standing up while you're laying there. That said there is also the real possibility of joint lock submissions that are at a higher pain rate when your limbs are longer as the leverage is no longer in your favor as they just become longer lever arm to fulcrum ratios. Ouch. Lastly I want to mention that in people of equal skill and ability, strength/power is almost always the factor that wins a match, however in people of varying skill levels the experience and technical prowess of the better competitor is largely what wins.
Endurance is a very specif quality that has plenty of factors involved. Work to Rest ratios, event duration, strength demands, nerve motor unit patters, economy of movement, etc. Suffice to say just because Rocky played college football years ago it has no bearing on what his overall conditioning years later would be. As the saying goes "if you don't use it, you lose it". But even if Rocky didn't "lose it", American football doesn't require high amounts of sustained endurance when compared to other sports by the very nature of the game. Worse yet Bret's training and career was from an era where matches lasted long and he had more work to do and his amateur athletic career was wrestling so any endurance benefits would more easily carry over if that was indeed the case. Specificity is paramount, that's why when Lance Armstrong, who is though to be one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time, absolutely sucked when he ran the NYC marathon. Endurance simply doesn't carry over to other disciplines like most people assume. Overall, I wouldn't say Dwayne is too too much behind Bret, but he's also bigger and carries more overall mass which requires increased energy pools even while at rest, not to mention some other posters believe in his tremendous "power" game that would also require high amounts of ATP-CP, and muscle glycogen, two short lasting forms of energy in the body that can't easily be replenished. Simply put Bret's physical build, training experience, conditioning, and personal wrestling style is much more suited for endurance than that of The Rock's.

VOTE BRET HART

 

[RVDgurl]

Man, I did love the Rock- Afterall, he was a Miami Hurricane. Putting that aside, the guy was one of the greatest wrestlers to even speak into a microphone. That man could hold an entire arena in the palm of his hand simply by raising his eyebrow. Not to mention, when talking he held every single person watching in the palm of his hand. And if this match would be based on character, charisma and promo cutting ability then Bret Hart would not stand a chance.
However, these are not the top criteria (for me, at least) for the voting here. Of course these things are a big part of the wrestling business and do need to be taken into account, but so does wrestling ability. And when it comes to wrestling ability, the Rock just cannot match up with Bret Hart. It's as simple as that.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

The thing about these matches that I don't understand is why people give so much credit to "wrestling ability". What is wrestling ability? Is it the skill of being able to chain wrestle an opponent on the mat for an hour, exchanging headlocks, body scissors, armbars, etc? If that's the case, why hasn't Bret Hart or Kurt Angle won this tournament yet?

Wrestling ability isn't about being able to lay down and do different holds to an opponent, moves that wouldn't actually hurt on an opponent that is willing. (Thanks to Slyfox for that.) I could go out into that ring and do that.

Wrestling ability is about winning. The Rock wins his matches. He's beaten them all: Kurt Angle, Steve Austin, The Big Show, Hulk Hogan, Kane, Chris Benoit, Ken Shamrock, Mankind, Triple H, etc. Bret Hart doesn't have the technical ability of Kurt Angle, the power of Big Show, the brawling game of Stone Cold, the mind of Triple H, the craziness of Mankind... The Rock has beaten every size and style of wrestler there is. I don't see why Bret Hart and his so-called "wrestling ability" would be any different.

 

[LigerBomb]

The thing about these matches that I don't understand is why people give so much credit to "wrestling ability". What is wrestling ability? Is it the skill of being able to chain wrestle an opponent on the mat for an hour, exchanging headlocks, body scissors, armbars, etc? If that's the case, why hasn't Bret Hart or Kurt Angle won this tournament yet?

Well I'd hazard to take a guess and say that its because the tourney is still going on, and doesn't end until all the matches take place? But I know what ya mean, and at 38 -33 clearly Bret is on his way to winning, at least in this round.

Wrestling ability isn't about being able to lay down and do different holds to an opponent, moves that wouldn't actually hurt on an opponent that is willing. (Thanks to Slyfox for that.)

Wrestling Ability, simply put is the ABILITY TO WRESTLE... now stay with me here, for our purposes it's about selling the idea that the match in the ring is real, and making an emotional connection with the audience. Certainly The Rock could do that -well at leas the second half- but to think Bret couldn't at all or couldn't do it better than Rocky is ignorant and naive. Bret Hart was one of the best in ring psychologists/story tellers of his or any era.

I could go out into that ring and do that.

And I will promise you that you would suck unbelievably hard at it. It is more than skill, more than practice, it is an art form. And Hart was DaVinci with a different kind of canvas

Wrestling ability is about winning.

No its not. At all. You can lose, lose hard, sell the shit outta the moves and put over your green unskilled opponent thereby displaying your oh so superior "wrestling ability". It's done all the time.

The Rock wins his matches.

Yes I forgot the Rock doesn't ever lose matches, how silly of me.

He's beaten them all: Kurt Angle, Steve Austin, The Big Show, Hulk Hogan, Kane, Chris Benoit, Ken Shamrock, Mankind, Triple H, etc.

And lost to some of them as well and to even lesser known people to boot. It happens, and it's all part of the show.

Bret Hart doesn't have the technical ability of Kurt Angle

You're right Hart is better

, the power of Big Show

or his lethargic, bloated, slow as a dying sloth, speed either

, the brawling game of Stone Cold

sure could bleed the fucker like a stuck pig though

, the mind of Triple H

you right it probably never occurred to Bret to knock up Steph

, the craziness of Mankind

Yea how sane of him to get over, make money, sell tickets, and not obliterate his body in process

The Rock has beaten every size and style of wrestler there is.

And I'm certain that Hart has been booked to go over guys of varying shapes, sizes, and ability as well.

I don't see why Bret Hart and his so-called "wrestling ability" would be any different.

Then you should probably watch more Bret Hart matches

 

[X]

VOTE HITMAN

In the end, this is still a wrestling match and, in Kayfabe, out of Kayfabe, and even somewhere in between, Bret Hart is the better wrestler and storyteller.

The better storyteller? Really? You mean his lackluster feuds with his own family during the lowest point in WWF history? What a storyteller! He can wrestle his brother (who he's been wrestling since he was 6) in front of 3,000 people! Wow!

You cannot even debate the Rock's charisma here. Call it "storytelling" if you like but that what it comes down to. Do you think Bret Hart would be able to headline a Hollywood movie and get people to actually come out and see it? No. Game over.

And what is a wrestler after all? You say Bret is a better wrestler...how? He knows more moves? He wrestled for a longer period of time? Last time I checked a successful professional wrestler is someone who gets over with the crowd and makes large amounts of money for his promotion. Hart was the most bland face in the history of the WWE, the man had absolutely no personality whatsoever. Isaac Yankem had more personality then Hart.

The Rock on the other hand was such a massively successful wrestler that he was able to branch out and make a successful career in Hollywood. Not even Hulk Hogan can claim that.

Bret spent his last wrestling days being put out of the business by an ex football player with not even a 1/3rd of the amount of experience as him.

I mean, can we just stop and take a look at Bret Hart's title reigns? Was there ever a period in WWE history with less competition in the main event scene? Who did he have to fight with? Yokozuna? Lex Luger?

I mean, I love Bret Hart, and he's been involved in countless classic matches. But in terms of professional wrestling (which is after all what we're judging isn't it?) The Rock puts Hart's career to shame in a quarter of the time. Bret Hart never brought in millions of viewers to simply watch one of his promos.

You know, I was on the fence at first here. I truly couldn't decide who to go with between the two. Then I read your post, and you've convinced me to vote for the Rock.

Vote Rock (if you aren't a hopeless smark)

 

[Kcorthe]

Everything that xfear just said above is absolutely true. This is professional wrestling, and as professional wrestlers, The Rock is simply better than Bret Hart. Rock made more money, Rock brought in MUCH bigger ratings, Rock did everyting that "The Hitman" failed to do during the mid-90s.

And like I said in my earlier post, just because Bret Hart has more classic 5-star matches than The Rock, does NOT mean he would win the match. The Rock has beaten bigger, better names than Hart; Rock never once lost clean during his prime, where as Hart has several times.

If you want to look at overall career accomplishment, this also goes to The Rock. The Rock held 9 World Titles, compared to Hart's 7 (Hart's last two he could not even defend due to injury). In less than half the time that Hart's career spanned, The Rock accomplished twice as much.

During the WWF's lowest period, who was a mainstay in the main event? Bret Hart.
During WCW's decline, who was in the title picture? Bret Hart.

During the WWF's biggest rise since the Hogan era, who was at the top? The Rock.
Who was partly responsible for many of WCW's viewers changing the channel to the WWF? The Rock.

Which would tell me that people chose The Rock over Bret Hart, as both men were big names in the two rival companies in the late 90s.

One more point: I consider Kurt Angle to be just on par or even better than Bret Hart, and guess what? The Rock has beaten Angle countless times; Angle has never beaten The Rock clean; and Kurt Angle's ankle lock, which is just as or even more deadly than Hart's Sharpshooter, has never once made The Rock tap out, nor has ANY submission hold during The Rock's prime.

For more examples of "GRAET TEKNIKAL WRESTLERZ" that The Rock has beaten a million times, see: Jericho, Guererro, Benoit, etc. The Rock has beaten them all, and none of them have ever beaten him clean. I mean, what more proof do you people want?

The Rock beats Bret Hart in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY: Charisma, money, fame, success, mic work, presence, drawing, EVERYTHING. The only single category Hart defeats The Rock in is overall match quality, and that is not what wins a match. And even so, The Rock has put on some damn fine matches as well.

I love Bret Hart, but there is just no way that he beats The Rock. End of story.

 

[shingi]

You have to go with The Rock. Bret maybe the most technically gifted wrestler of all time but The rock's strength and power goes over Bret's technical and slight speed advantage.

The Rock is the type of superstar that feeds of the crowd at the big events and will not go down, in his prime (00-02) he never lost cleanly, it took Austin 19 odd chair shots to put him away. Surely a sharpshooter or piledriver is not enough against the great one at his best. Bret may have done more for the business but in his prime he lost to the likes of British Bulldog and Owen Hart who were good but not extraordainary. A sharpshooter or piledriver will not be enough to put Rocky down.

A quick Rock bottom out of nowhere followed by the peoples elbow should be enough after a gruelling contest.

 

[CENAtion]

This is by far the most intriging match up out of this round to me. I'm really torn on who i think would win this match. On one hand you have a technical masterpiece in Bret Hart and on the other hand you have the man who probably has the most charisma and maybe the best entertainer there eever has been. Bret relies heavily on the ground game and plyaing it safe, where as the Rock is a little more power and speed in my opinion. I think the Rock's use of the sharpshooter will give him an advantage in this matcth if he is put in it i think he will be able to counter it and get out of it. I think the Rock is more built to take a opponents finisher and have the ability to kick out of it. Bret doesnt really have that go to finisher that requires a pin so i dont think he will be able to pin the Rock and i think the Rock has the ability to negate the Sharpshooter. In the end of the day, I think the Rock is somehow gonna pull this one out but it is going to take more than one Rock Bottom that is for sure.

The Rock wins.

 

[LigerBomb]

The better storyteller? Really? You mean his lackluster feuds with his own family during the lowest point in WWF history? What a storyteller! He can wrestle his brother (who he's been wrestling since he was 6) in front of 3,000 people! Wow!

First off he worked the story he was given and made it interesting. Second when did MSG the mecca of venues only hold 3k people... or the United Center in Chicago, Freeman center etc etc... be honest. Don't deflate or inflate numbers.

You cannot even debate the Rock's charisma here. Call it "storytelling" if you like but that what it comes down to. Do you think Bret Hart would be able to headline a Hollywood movie and get people to actually come out and see it? No. Game over.

Yea Dwayne's a regular Will Smith, Al Pacino, and Tom Cruise all rolled into one. In all honesty he's a marginally talented actor, no more no less, who can deliver his lines well, I'll give you that. How movie success matters in a Pro Wrestling Tournament I don't know. And I would not like to call it storytelling because charisma is not storytelling, and storytelling is not Charisma, perhaps you think it is, but it isn't. Charisma can certainly help but there's much more to it.

And what is a wrestler after all? You say Bret is a better wrestler...how? He knows more moves? He wrestled for a longer period of time? Last time I checked a successful professional wrestler is someone who gets over with the crowd and makes large amounts of money for his promotion. Hart was the most bland face in the history of the WWE, the man had absolutely no personality whatsoever. Isaac Yankem had more personality then Hart.

Bret got over with the crowd I don't know what revisionist history you believe happened or personally watched but people legitimately love Bret Hart and the matches he put on. They became emotionally invested in them and paid to see them. Hell, I'm sure if he were able to return to the ring people would still pay to see them this very day. This tournament isn't a gate drawing contest and even if it was you have to concede that the Rock didn't do it all on his own and had a tremendous amount of help from the other Superstars of the day and the general "Attitude Era" at large.

The Rock on the other hand was such a massively successful wrestler that he was able to branch out and make a successful career in Hollywood. Not even Hulk Hogan can claim that.

In a different era, at a different time, with less stigma attached to the business, more media outlets, and better project choices. Sure I'll concede all that. No problem, it still has nothing to do with a wrestling tournament though.

Bret spent his last wrestling days being put out of the business by an ex football player with not even a 1/3rd of the amount of experience as him.

A sad reality that has nothing to do with the topic at hand... or the tournament at large.

I mean, can we just stop and take a look at Bret Hart's title reigns? Was there ever a period in WWE history with less competition in the main event scene? Who did he have to fight with? Yokozuna? Lex Luger?

Exactly, he worked with the men he had available at the time and did his utmost to make the matches entertaining and enjoyable for the audience, where as Dwayne had a tremendous group of men (and women) who each helped each other succeed in an era the likes of which haven't been seen since. You can't honestly believe that it would have been the same if Dwayne started out in the same generation as Bret do you?

I mean, I love Bret Hart, and he's been involved in countless classic matches.

Matches that became classics no doubt because he worked well with all his given opponents and was a phenominal wrestler...

But in terms of professional wrestling (which is after all what we're judging isn't it?) The Rock puts Hart's career to shame in a quarter of the time. Bret Hart never brought in millions of viewers to simply watch one of his promos.

You're right Bret did all his best work in the ring, which is a good thing seeing as how this is a wrestling match these men are involved in and not the promo contest your making it out to be.

You know, I was on the fence at first here. I truly couldn't decide who to go with between the two. Then I read your post, and you've convinced me to vote for the Rock.

Good. So our votes'll cancel each others out, makes no difference to me.

Vote Rock (if you aren't a hopeless smark)

or a feeble minded mark as you yourself are proving to be

 

[Tastycles]

First off he worked the story he was given and made it interesting. Second when did MSG the mecca of venues only hold 3k people... or the United Center in Chicago, Freeman center etc etc... be honest. Don't deflate or inflate numbers.

While I accept that you are right to cry hyperbole, the WrestleMania's that Hart headlined, WrestleMania IX, X and XII had audiences of 16,891, 18,065 and 18,853. The one's the Rock headlined, WrestleMania XV, 2000 and X-7 drew 20,276, 19,776, and rather more saliently, 67,925.

Yea Dwayne's a regular Will Smith, Al Pacino, and Tom Cruise all rolled into one. In all honesty he's a marginally talented actor, no more no less, who can deliver his lines well, I'll give you that. How movie success matters in a Pro Wrestling Tournament I don't know. And I would not like to call it storytelling because charisma is not storytelling, and storytelling is not Charisma, perhaps you think it is, but it isn't. Charisma can certainly help but there's much more to it.

Not really. Bret Hart was good at selling, but his feuds were often focussed on the other person, the long term impact and selling were caused by the other guy. Seriously, the Owen Hart feud was about Owen's jealousy, the Shawn Michaels feud was about Shawn's boyhood dream, the Austin feud was about Austin. Bret couldn't develop angles, so they didn't let him. When you get into the ring, Bret is the more believable, and I'm not going to deny that, but the crowd don't get behind him or against him the way they do The Rock. It's like an art film and an action movie, people appreciate that the art film is probably better at getting its point across and made more intelligently, but they'd rather see Arnold Schwarzenegger shoot the shit out of something.

Bret got over with the crowd I don't know what revisionist history you believe happened or personally watched but people legitimately love Bret Hart and the matches he put on. They became emotionally invested in them and paid to see them. Hell, I'm sure if he were able to return to the ring people would still pay to see them this very day. This tournament isn't a gate drawing contest and even if it was you have to concede that the Rock didn't do it all on his own and had a tremendous amount of help from the other Superstars of the day and the general "Attitude Era" at large.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but if you are going to go by popularity and impact, which is what some people do go by, then you have to go with Rocky. The Rock's departure from WWE affected the ratings negatively, Hart's departure and subsequent arrival in WCW didn't change a thing.

In a different era, at a different time, with less stigma attached to the business, more media outlets, and better project choices. Sure I'll concede all that. No problem, it still has nothing to do with a wrestling tournament though.

If we are talking believability, then Hart has this won. However, in terms of getting the job done in kayfabe terms, then he absolutely doesn't. Hart's title reigns were all quite poor, and just about all of them ended with a whimper, save for maybe losing to Backlund. Hart never managed big wins over the large charisma guys, and his career spanned from Hogan and Warrior all the way through to Rock, who he lost to by DQ when he was still Rocky Maivia.

A sad reality that has nothing to do with the topic at hand... or the tournament at large.

Well it does actually. It shows that Bret's obvious technical superiority was insufficient against a guy who was quite a lot worse than him. That is quite an important factor.

Exactly, he worked with the men he had available at the time and did his utmost to make the matches entertaining and enjoyable for the audience, where as Dwayne had a tremendous group of men (and women) who each helped each other succeed in an era the likes of which haven't been seen since. You can't honestly believe that it would have been the same if Dwayne started out in the same generation as Bret do you?

Hart has had in his career the following to face: Flair, Steamboat, Hennig, Austin, Michaels, Diesel, Razor Ramon, Savage, Benoit, Jericho, Hogan, British Bulldog, Malenko, Jarrett, The Rock. There are very few people who were in WWF when Rock was and he wasn't that The Rock faced. He also had a year or two of decent people in WCW. There is absolutely no argument that he had a worse career long roster, unless you are seriously suggesting that Billy Gunn is somehow better than guys who the Rock never faced like Mr. Perfect.

Matches that became classics no doubt because he worked well with all his given opponents and was a phenominal wrestler...You're right Bret did all his best work in the ring, which is a good thing seeing as how this is a wrestling match these men are involved in and not the promo contest your making it out to be.

He did his best work in the ring, but probably his most feted match, the one against Shawn Michaels ended in a defeat. He lost to his brother in their key match, you see, while Hart always made it look good, he didn't always win, and that is important.

 

[LigerBomb]

Spoiler: the fact that we're really getting away from the point

While I accept that you are right to cry hyperbole, the WrestleMania's that Hart headlined, WrestleMania IX, X and XII had audiences of 16,891, 18,065 and 18,853. The one's the Rock headlined, WrestleMania XV, 2000 and X-7 drew 20,276, 19,776, and rather more saliently, 67,925.

Which is Harts fault why? The business was in an upswing when Rock was headlining and hence they could play bigger venues... that's not all because of Rocky and to say other wise is BS. Nor is it Harts entire fault that he was wrestling during a time when wrestling wasn't connecting to the audience as mainstream as a few years later. And once again this has little to do with who would win a wrestling match between the two unless you're voting based on popularity, which is obviously your right to do, but it's not how I vote or what I'm talking about, so I'm a bit mystified why people keep refuting my arguments as if it were.

Not really. Bret Hart was good at selling, but his feuds were often focussed on the other person, the long term impact and selling were caused by the other guy. Seriously, the Owen Hart feud was about Owen's jealousy, the Shawn Michaels feud was about Shawn's boyhood dream, the Austin feud was about Austin. Bret couldn't develop angles, so they didn't let him. When you get into the ring, Bret is the more believable, and I'm not going to deny that, but the crowd don't get behind him or against him the way they do The Rock. It's like an art film and an action movie, people appreciate that the art film is probably better at getting its point across and made more intelligently, but they'd rather see Arnold Schwarzenegger shoot the shit out of something.

Not debating that, in fact I'd say Rock would sell the promos but Hart would carry the match and make Rock look like a million bucks even if he was booked to lose. And for me it's the fact that Hart could work well with everyone and still make them look good that makes me believe he's a far superior worker. I don't vote Kayfabe cause Kayfabe is bullshit, although if it was real I'd still say Hart would still out wrestle Dwayne.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but if you are going to go by popularity and impact,

Which I'm not so why even respond and refute a point I'm not even making...

which is what some people do go by, then you have to go with Rocky. The Rock's departure from WWE affected the ratings negatively, Hart's departure and subsequent arrival in WCW didn't change a thing.

Well I would say that his Montreal Screwjob exit did set the stage for the evil Mr. McMahon character which along with Stone Cold was the factor that began WWF's eventual upturn... it's a shame that Hart couldn't benefit from it, but that's WCW booking fault not Hart's

If we are talking believability, then Hart has this won.

Agreed

However, in terms of getting the job done in kayfabe terms, then he absolutely doesn't. Hart's title reigns were all quite poor, and just about all of them ended with a whimper, save for maybe losing to Backlund. Hart never managed big wins over the large charisma guys, and his career spanned from Hogan and Warrior all the way through to Rock, who he lost to by DQ when he was still Rocky Maivia.

Yes. But it's a twisting of Kayfabe "reality" when you realize that Hart was booked to lose so as to make the Big Charisma guy(s) look believable in the ring. He did his job as he was supposed to. And it's facts like this that make Kayfabe a relatively ridiculous way to vote because it's in too much of a vacuum, and omits the bigger picture.

Well it does actually. It shows that Bret's obvious technical superiority was insufficient against a guy who was quite a lot worse than him. That is quite an important factor.

Once again no it doesn't, unless we talk in this Kayfabe nonsense which takes a tragic real world blunder and subsequent forced retirement and mutates it into what you said above, as if Goldberg was this monster who was so unstoppable he ended Bret Hart's career, it's an outlandish distortion of the facts and what really happened. The man fucked up a mule kick -cause he sucked- and ruined another man's career...

Hart has had in his career the following to face: Flair, Steamboat, Hennig, Austin, Michaels, Diesel, Razor Ramon, Savage, Benoit, Jericho, Hogan, British Bulldog, Malenko, Jarrett, The Rock. There are very few people who were in WWF when Rock was and he wasn't that The Rock faced. He also had a year or two of decent people in WCW. There is absolutely no argument that he had a worse career long roster, unless you are seriously suggesting that Billy Gunn is somehow better than guys who the Rock never faced like Mr. Perfect.

The way you twist this stuff around is good, real clever, sure some people even fall for it. However, the initial line of thought was that The Rock worked with and "beat" big name guys -selling more tickets to boot- while Bret worked with jobbers like Yoko and Luger, and therefore the Rock could/should beat Bret. Huh? Your point has nothing to do with what we were talking about, but nice try. Once again I'll make clear I don't vote for popularity or ticket sales so my arguments don't regard such things.

He did his best work in the ring, but probably his most feted match, the one against Shawn Michaels ended in a defeat. He lost to his brother in their key match, you see, while Hart always made it look good, he didn't always win, and that is important.

If you vote Kayfabe perhaps you could make an argument that it is important, though I don't believe so. However as I said he was booked to lose, and most of the guys he lost to would even say he was the better man. That said when I do talk Kayfabe I think about the in ring work not who beat who before and who did what, I stack up the guys based on their abilities and skills when they enter the ring not the BS that happened beforehand. So regardless of what their histories of "losing the big one" etc. I see what each man brings to the ring nothing more nothing less, and I can see how Bret's skills would allow him to beat Rocky. I already even posted as much earlier.

It's apples and oranges here, I'm writing about different things than others are, yet people are arguing with me about points I didn't make, don't regard, won't contend with, or don't even hurt the arguments I do make.

Lemme make this easy:

Rock sold more tix, was more charismatic, and cut better promos.

Bret Hart worked harder, longer, and was flat out better -for real/for Kayfabe- in between those ring ropes, where this match just happens to take place.

Therefore I voted for Bret. Simple as that.

 

[Tenta]

I never, in my wildest dreams, expected this match to be as close as people have it right now. Jeez, everyone's so wrapped around this little Attitude Era, aren't they? Well, no matter. Tasty, I never thought I'd wind up dueling with you, but here we go.

While I accept that you are right to cry hyperbole, the WrestleMania's that Hart headlined, WrestleMania IX, X and XII had audiences of 16,891, 18,065 and 18,853. The one's the Rock headlined, WrestleMania XV, 2000 and X-7 drew 20,276, 19,776, and rather more saliently, 67,925.

The ability to sell tickets should play a bit of a role, but it shouldn't be an end all, be all thing for the matter. I only use amount of tickets sold when there's an almost dead even tie when it comes to the wrestlers' in question ability. I dare say that is not the case here. Bret Hart is one of the most talented wrestlers in the annals of professional wrestling. The Rock has talent, but he is nowhere near as scientific, nor skilled, as the Excellence of Execution. Even more to the point, this is a wrestler that Bret Hart usually salivates over getting his hands upon. Namely, a wrestler that feeds off the crowds energy, and comes and goes with the crowd's reactions to the match. If you want a wrestler that panders to the crowd, you won't have to look too far to find The Rock. All of his moves are flashy, and are meant to get the crowd on his side, so that he may feed off the people's energy. Bret Hart knows how to suck the energy right out a wrestler so easily, and understands ring psychology better than any other wrestler in our era. He knows the exact mental workings of The Rock, and what he can to cut off any of The Rock's momentum as he goes. And as can be seen in many of his matches, when you cut off The Rock from his momentum, he becomes a sitting duck. Just ask wrestlers like Mankind and Brock Lesnar. Both wrestlers pulled the crowd into what they were doing, rather than anything the Rock was doing. And what happened to The Rock in both of these matches? They both claimed victory over The Rock. Bret Hart would basically do something along these lines, suck the fans energy away from The Rock, and leave him as simply an athletic guy with no clue how to handle Bret.

Not really. Bret Hart was good at selling, but his feuds were often focussed on the other person, the long term impact and selling were caused by the other guy.

Now then, again, doesn't matter. The fact remains that Bret, for the majority, got the upper hand in these feuds. Except for one, but we'll cross that bridge when we absolutely must.

Seriously, the Owen Hart feud was about Owen's jealousy,

The Owen Hart feud focused on two brothers, one who didn't want to fight his brother, but absolutely had to. And even if you're statement had any validity to it, I'd still point out that Bret got the upper hand in this feud.

the Shawn Michaels feud was about Shawn's boyhood dream,

Sigh... Ok, time to make a statement that I believe, and may open up some debate; Shawn is a better wrestler than Bret Hart. But he's also much better than The Rock, as well. Besides that, it took Shawn going to overtime with Bret to finally take him down in The Iron Match which is the only real evidence we can use between these two. These two were so evenly matched, that The Iron Match was the only way to decide who could win. Bret did such a good job of sapping Shawn's energy. But he surely couldn't have considered sudden death. After all, a draw goes to the Champion.

the Austin feud was about Austin.

Well, perhaps, but Bret still won that feud. Steve never did get that clean win over Bret, now did he?

Bret couldn't develop angles, so they didn't let him.

Yeah, but they constantly let him go over in all of his feuds, with the exception of one. Why? Because Bret was that damn good.

When you get into the ring, Bret is the more believable, and I'm not going to deny that,

Great, that should be it, then. Someone cue The Hitman's music.

but the crowd don't get behind him or against him the way they do The Rock.

Again, see my opening argument, and get back to me.

It's like an art film and an action movie, people appreciate that the art film is probably better at getting its point across and made more intelligently, but they'd rather see Arnold Schwarzenegger shoot the shit out of something.

Hmm......... Anaolgy time, eh? Suppose that this tournament, or for that matter, The WWE title, is The Academy Award. Does that Schwarzenegger
stand any chance on getting the nomination? Absolutely not. There's a reason those artsy films make it all the time; because they are the best, the most well made, and deserve the praise as such.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but if you are going to go by popularity and impact, which is what some people do go by,

Which in my opinion defeats the point of a kayfabe tourney, but I'm learning to be less strict on my kayfabe rules. I've told this to Xfearbefore, that we have different views on the tourney, and i'm somewhat learning to take tips on how he votes. So let's see what you have to say regarding the matter.

then you have to go with Rocky. The Rock's departure from WWE affected the ratings negatively, Hart's departure and subsequent arrival in WCW didn't change a thing.

Sigh.... Well, I did have an open mind until that. There are extenuating circumstances regarding the WWE's dip in ratings, and I don't think we can tie it into one wrestler's departure. Can there be a correllation? Yes, I suppose, but the science world has a funny statement for this; Correllation does not show causation. And the same should be said for one wrestler's departure, and how the ratings are affected. So much happened after Bret left, that The WWE marketed so well, and made such good business off of. If The WWE had a wrestler like Stone Cold wrestling right now, and chose to go down the Attitude Path once more, do you think they'd miss The Rock right now?

If we are talking believability, then Hart has this won..

Great. Someone cue the music again. God, I love that first string, and the overall music.

However, in terms of getting the job done in kayfabe terms, then he absolutely doesn't. Hart's title reigns were all quite poor, and just about all of them ended with a whimper, save for maybe losing to Backlund.

........ Surely, you jest. Surely you don't mean that. Surely you didn't call The Ironman Match a whimper. And surely you don't consider Montreal a whimper, either. Surely you must be kidding. I mean, a whimper? Let's consider all of The Rock's title losses

Rock's First Title Reign: Ended by Mankind on a Raw is War that was taped two weeks earlier. If Tony Schiavone didn't open his fat yap, we might have still been watching The Fingerpoke of Doom. It was a great moment, but how much of a moment was it really supposed to be if they taped it two weeks in advance?

Rock's Second Title Reign: Ended at a Super Bowl Halftime Show. You know why The WWE never tried something like this again? Because it bombed. Horrendously.


Wrestlemania 15: Has his ass whipped by Stone Cold. Again, I've said many a time that The Rock wasn't ready for the spotlight yet, but that match was pretty whimperish to me.

Rock's Fourth Title Reign: Ended in one of the worst Iron Man matches I've ever seen. Completely forgettable, as opposed to Bret and Shawn's at Wrestlemania 12.

Rock's Fifth Title Reign: Ended at The hands of Kurt Angle. A submission specialist. With an extensive background in technical wrestling. And was pretty damn good when it came to ring psychology. Hmmm..... Anyway, how eventful could that have been?

Wrestlemania 17: Loses to Stone Cold. And this is a Stone Cold that is absolutely nowhere near his prime. Granted, it was eventful, but not by anything the Rock did within the moment.

Hmm.... You know something? The Rock tends to be coming up on the short end of the stick when it comes to Wrestlemania. I mean, wow, lost the belt twice at Wrestlemania, which sandwiched a loss to Triple H at Wrestlemania 2000. Hmm... If I didn't know any better, I'd say The Rock has a habit of being a choke artist. You know, winning when it doesn't matter, and when he's placed upon the big stage, happening to piss himself on his leg. Bret, in his prime, was a man who won big matches. He didn't cower underneath the lights of Wrestlemania. He always came out much better than anyone could have expected, and happened to be pretty clutch when it comes to winning his matches on big stages. Don't believe me? Well then, let's take a look at the Big Four, shall we? Let's look into how each of these wrestlers performed at The Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series:

(Editors Note: I've chosen not to count The Royal Rumble as a loss against the Superstar, but if they won one, it will give them a victory. Shouldn't be much, as they both only won one. Nor will I count Survivor Series Matches or tag matches, as they don't reflect upon the wrestler themself, I believe, nor is this a tag tournament)



Royal Rumble:

Bret Hart's Career Record: 2-1-1 (1 Royal Rumble Win, Three WWE Titles defended, one draw against Diesel)

The Rock's Career Record: 3-1 (One Royal Rumble Win, One WWE Title win, One Intercontinental Title Defense By DQ)

Wrestlemania:

Bret Hart: 5-2 (One WWE Title Win, One IC Title Win, Two Lost WWE Title Reigns, One Wrestlemania Moment)

The Rock: 3-3 (Zero WWE Title Wins, One IC Title Defense, One WWE Title Shot losses, Two Lost WWF Championships Reigns, One Wrestlemania Moment)

Summerslam:

Bret Hart: 5-2 (One WWE Title Win, One WWE Title Defense, One IC Title Win, One win by DQ, One IC Title Loss, One Loss by DQ)

The Rock: 3-2 (One WCW Title Win, One WWE Title Defense, One WWF Title Reign Lost, One IC Title Reign Lost)

Survivor Series:

Bret Hart: 3-2 (One WWE Title Won, One WWF Title Defense, Two WWE Titles Reigns Lost, One Screwjob)

The Rock: 5-2 (One WWE Title Win, One WWE Title Shot Loss)

Combined Totals:

Bret Hart: 15- 7 ( 3 WWF Titles Won, 5 WWF Title Defenses, 2 IC Title Wins, One Wrestlemania moment, 4 WWF Title Losses, One Screwjob, One IC Title Lost)

The Rock: 14-8 ( 2 WWF Title Wins, 1 WCW Title Won, 1 WWF Title Defense, 2 IC Title Defenses 2 WWF Title Shots Lost, 3 WWF Title Reigns Lost, 1 IC Title Lost)

Doesn't look so bad, huh? Now let's eliminate all of the filler matches I added:

Bret Hart: 12-5 (10 Titles Won, One Wrestlemania Moment, One Royal Rumble Win, 5 Titles Lost)

The Rock: 7-6 (5 Titles Won, One Wrestlemania Moment, One Royal Rumble Win, 6 Titles Lost)

And if I really wanted to put a dent into these Rocky fan's hopes, I'd take away IC Title wins and losses, but I see them as important, so we'll add them. So what does this prove? That without a shadow of a doubt, Bret Hart is much more of a clutch wrestler than The Rock ever was. And seeing as how this is a pretty clutch match, I think I'll trust Bret Hart much more than I would The Rock.

Hart never managed big wins over the large charisma guys,

Yawn..... Look at my chart, Tasty. Stats don't lie.

and his career spanned from Hogan and Warrior all the way through to Rock, who he lost to by DQ when he was still Rocky Maivia.

Sigh..... Tasty, you're better than this. We all know Bret's prime was in between the wrestlers you just mentioned. Throwing that out is as much a half truth as I've ever seen one. And as for your DQ Victory, well yeah, in a match that Bret probably didn't give two shits about. He could afford to lose to a match by DQ by Rocky Maivia, because he knew it wouldn't matter. The only time he could ever predict needing that win is when member's of the IWC are pulling for straws, and trying to come up with reasons why The Rock would beat Bret Hart. Besides that, Bret was past his prime at this point, so your point is....?

Well it does actually. It shows that Bret's obvious technical superiority was insufficient against a guy who was quite a lot worse than him. That is quite an important factor.

Look, I'm not going to pretend to know who the subject is in this matter, so I won't comment on this. All I'll say is this; that Bret's technical abilities pulled him over more matches than anything else, and have given him many more wins than losses

Hart has had in his career the following to face:

Yes.....

Flair

Beat him. Oh, and isn't he one of those charisma wrestlers you were talking about earlier? Why yes, he really is.

Steamboat

Never wrestled, to my knowledge

Hennig,

Beat Him

Austin, Michaels, Diesel, Razor Ramon,

Are you trying to give me this debate here?

Savage, Jericho, Hogan,

Why, actually, no, he never got a chance to wrestle any of these wrestlers in his prime.

Benoit,

Um.... Owen Hart Memorial Match, anyone?

British Bulldog,

Beat Him, too.

Malenko,

Don't make me laugh.

Jarrett,

I'm pretty sure he beat him at a house show or two.

The Rock.

Will have him beat after this round.

There are very few people who were in WWF when Rock was and he wasn't that The Rock faced.

...... you're shitting, me right? I mean, you must be absolutely shitting me. Are you fucking serious? Are you really serious?

My God. Ok, let's start with that Austin fellow. How'd that go? Then let's go to Triple H. Then how's about The Undertaker. That do anything for you? Mick Foley? Kane? Kurt Angle? Y2J? Brock Lesnar?

Playing the "he didn't face anyone" card is pure poppycock. I can't even begin to describe how much poppycock it is. Granted, yes, Bret's fought more talented wrestlers. But The Rock has faced a few talented wrestlers, too, now hasn't he?

He also had a year or two of decent people in WCW. There is absolutely no argument that he had a worse career long roster, unless you are seriously suggesting that Billy Gunn is somehow better than guys who the Rock never faced like Mr. Perfect.

We're not in a tournament of theoreticals, Tasty. This is a tournament of who is better. C'mon now.

He did his best work in the ring, but probably his most feted match, the one against Shawn Michaels ended in a defeat.

I've already discussed this.

He lost to his brother in their key match,

Well, funny thing is, I'm pretty sure their most important match was when the WWE Title was on the line, in a Steel Cage, at Summerslam. And he won.

you see, while Hart always made it look good, he didn't always win, and that is important.

But he won more often than not, and in bigger matches, came up bigger than The Rock. Which is why Bret gets the nod.

 

[Tastycles]

I never, in my wildest dreams, expected this match to be as close as people have it right now. Jeez, everyone's so wrapped around this little Attitude Era, aren't they? Well, no matter. Tasty, I never thought I'd wind up dueling with you, but here we go.

I actually think the attitude era is hugely overrated, but then so is Bret Hart, so we're all good.

The ability to sell tickets should play a bit of a role, but it shouldn't be an end all, be all thing for the matter. I only use amount of tickets sold when there's an almost dead even tie when it comes to the wrestlers' in question ability. I dare say that is not the case here. Bret Hart is one of the most talented wrestlers in the annals of professional wrestling. The Rock has talent, but he is nowhere near as scientific, nor skilled, as the Excellence of Execution. Even more to the point, this is a wrestler that Bret Hart usually salivates over getting his hands upon. Namely, a wrestler that feeds off the crowds energy, and comes and goes with the crowd's reactions to the match. If you want a wrestler that panders to the crowd, you won't have to look too far to find The Rock. All of his moves are flashy, and are meant to get the crowd on his side, so that he may feed off the people's energy. Bret Hart knows how to suck the energy right out a wrestler so easily, and understands ring psychology better than any other wrestler in our era. He knows the exact mental workings of The Rock, and what he can to cut off any of The Rock's momentum as he goes. And as can be seen in many of his matches, when you cut off The Rock from his momentum, he becomes a sitting duck. Just ask wrestlers like Mankind and Brock Lesnar. Both wrestlers pulled the crowd into what they were doing, rather than anything the Rock was doing. And what happened to The Rock in both of these matches? They both claimed victory over The Rock. Bret Hart would basically do something along these lines, suck the fans energy away from The Rock, and leave him as simply an athletic guy with no clue how to handle Bret.

That would all be fine if Rovky Maivia, the version of The Rock with no charisma at all, had been complete dominated by Bret Hart firmly in his prime,but as we see here, that didn't happen.

Now then, again, doesn't matter. The fact remains that Bret, for the majority, got the upper hand in these feuds. Except for one, but we'll cross that bridge when we absolutely must.

He might have got the win against Owen in the end, but that's not the match anyone remembers is it? People remember Owen winning at WrestleMania, and Helen Hart throwing in the towel against Backlund. And the Austin feud? Hart came out looking the lesser man there, and you know it.

The Owen Hart feud focused on two brothers, one who didn't want to fight his brother, but absolutely had to. And even if you're statement had any validity to it, I'd still point out that Bret got the upper hand in this feud.

The build started with Owen at Survivor Series, then his behaviour in the Royal Rumble tag match. Somewhat unsuprisingly, Bret Hart's contribution was limping.

Sigh... Ok, time to make a statement that I believe, and may open up some debate; Shawn is a better wrestler than Bret Hart. But he's also much better than The Rock, as well. Besides that, it took Shawn going to overtime with Bret to finally take him down in The Iron Match which is the only real evidence we can use between these two. These two were so evenly matched, that The Iron Match was the only way to decide who could win. Bret did such a good job of sapping Shawn's energy. But he surely couldn't have considered sudden death. After all, a draw goes to the Champion.

He didn't do a good job of sapping his energy though did he? He fucking lost at the end of the match. A guy who plays for the draw is not a good wrestler.

Well, perhaps, but Bret still won that feud. Steve never did get that clean win over Bret, now did he?

No, but he did put him in a wheelchair, I'd argue the moral victory was his.

Yeah, but they constantly let him go over in all of his feuds, with the exception of one. Why? Because Bret was that damn good.

Really? He was beaten in two feuds with Michaels, he lost the last mach in his feud with Austin, Owen cost him thw WWF title and they never fought again, he lost one feud with Yokozuna and got the flukiest win of all time in another so the only people he beat were midcarders, really.

Great, that should be it, then. Someone cue The Hitman's music.

What? He's more believable so he'd win? I don't want to attack your views, but you said Warrior should beat someone, I forget who it was. If that's the case, then how can you possibly argue believability as a decisive factor. If making your matches look artificial means you don't win, then why do The Rock, Austin, Cena, Hogan, Warrior, Goldberg etc. matches all look phoney?

Again, see my opening argument, and get back to me.

I can show you umpteen wrestlers who were technically proficient but never got anywhere in pro wrestling. E.g. Charlie Haas. You will not be able to show anyone with the charisma of the Rock that got nowhere, that is a categorical fact, and it is why charisma is important.

Hmm......... Anaolgy time, eh? Suppose that this tournament, or for that matter, The WWE title, is The Academy Award. Does that Schwarzenegger
stand any chance on getting the nomination? Absolutely not. There's a reason those artsy films make it all the time; because they are the best, the most well made, and deserve the praise as such.

But wrestling isn't about awards for in ring skills, otherwise Dynamite Kid would be the most feted wrestler in the history of WWE. Wrestling is about making money by selling tickets. Predator made $100 million, Blue Velvet made $10 million, but which is more feted as artistic quality?

Which in my opinion defeats the point of a kayfabe tourney, but I'm learning to be less strict on my kayfabe rules. I've told this to Xfearbefore, that we have different views on the tourney, and i'm somewhat learning to take tips on how he votes. So let's see what you have to say regarding the matter.

I wholheartedly agree with you, but it is what people vote on, so it needs to be argued.

Sigh.... Well, I did have an open mind until that. There are extenuating circumstances regarding the WWE's dip in ratings, and I don't think we can tie it into one wrestler's departure. Can there be a correllation? Yes, I suppose, but the science world has a funny statement for this; Correllation does not show causation. And the same should be said for one wrestler's departure, and how the ratings are affected. So much happened after Bret left, that The WWE marketed so well, and made such good business off of. If The WWE had a wrestler like Stone Cold wrestling right now, and chose to go down the Attitude Path once more, do you think they'd miss The Rock right now?

The ratings wouldn't have been so tightly correlated if they weren't directly linked. So what you're saying is WWE was better off without Bret, ratings wise? Because that relly doesn't help your argument.

Great. Someone cue the music again. God, I love that first string, and the overall music.

If believability is your only criteria, then nobody has any business voting for anyone that isn't Japanese.

........ Surely, you jest. Surely you don't mean that. Surely you didn't call The Ironman Match a whimper. And surely you don't consider Montreal a whimper, either. Surely you must be kidding. I mean, a whimper? Let's consider all of The Rock's title losses

Montreal is a massive whimper. He got screwed, good and proper, and let the whole world see that he did. The iron man match is probably not a whimper no, but losing to Yokozuna only to have Hogan beat him 20 seconds later is a huge whimper. Losing the title after a day is a whimper.

Rock's First Title Reign: Ended by Mankind on a Raw is War that was taped two weeks earlier. If Tony Schiavone didn't open his fat yap, we might have still been watching The Fingerpoke of Doom. It was a great moment, but how much of a moment was it really supposed to be if they taped it two weeks in advance?

But the Rock didn't look weak for it, did he? He only lost because Austin interfered.

Rock's Second Title Reign: Ended at a Super Bowl Halftime Show. You know why The WWE never tried something like this again? Because it bombed. Horrendously.

Yeah, but the match was anything but losing it in a whimper wasn't it?

Wrestlemania 15: Has his ass whipped by Stone Cold. Again, I've said many a time that The Rock wasn't ready for the spotlight yet, but that match was pretty whimperish to me.

So the culmination of the biggest angle in the history of the WWF was a whimper was it? Come On.

Rock's Fourth Title Reign: Ended in one of the worst Iron Man matches I've ever seen. Completely forgettable, as opposed to Bret and Shawn's at Wrestlemania 12.

Yeah, except unlike Hart, Rock actually won a few falls.

Rock's Fifth Title Reign: Ended at The hands of Kurt Angle. A submission specialist. With an extensive background in technical wrestling. And was pretty damn good when it came to ring psychology. Hmmm..... Anyway, how eventful could that have been?

Eventful enough to have occured before Angle was using the ankle lock, thus making him not a submission specialist at the time, but good try. Also, after he had beaten Angle on more than one occaision.

Wrestlemania 17: Loses to Stone Cold. And this is a Stone Cold that is absolutely nowhere near his prime. Granted, it was eventful, but not by anything the Rock did within the moment.

Three moths after he wins the Royal Rumble and two months after one of the best matches he ever had is pretty fucking close to being in his prime.

Hmm.... You know something? The Rock tends to be coming up on the short end of the stick when it comes to Wrestlemania. I mean, wow, lost the belt twice at Wrestlemania, which sandwiched a loss to Triple H at Wrestlemania 2000. Hmm... If I didn't know any better, I'd say The Rock has a habit of being a choke artist. You know, winning when it doesn't matter, and when he's placed upon the big stage, happening to piss himself on his leg. Bret, in his prime, was a man who won big matches. He didn't cower underneath the lights of Wrestlemania. He always came out much better than anyone could have expected, and happened to be pretty clutch when it comes to winning his matches on big stages. Don't believe me? Well then, let's take a look at the Big Four, shall we? Let's look into how each of these wrestlers performed at The Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series:

Firstly, this entire thing is completely bullshit because in Bret's day there were fewer PPVs, so all of his matches would have been on these shows. Secondly, the whole thing is skewed because Bret was in the midcard for a shitesight longer than Rock, meaning more insignificant wins against Roddy Piper.

(Editors Note: I've chosen not to count The Royal Rumble as a loss against the Superstar, but if they won one, it will give them a victory. Shouldn't be much, as they both only won one. Nor will I count Survivor Series Matches or tag matches, as they don't reflect upon the wrestler themself, I believe, nor is this a tag tournament)

Read: Bret Hart lost a damn sight more of these.

Royal Rumble:

Bret Hart's Career Record: 2-1-1 (1 Royal Rumble Win, Three WWE Titles defended, one draw against Diesel)

One winning defense against Razor Ramon in 1993, that he won, a defeat against Undertaker by DQ and a draw with Diesel and a co-win of the Royal Rumble. That's abysmal.

The Rock's Career Record: 3-1 (One Royal Rumble Win, One WWE Title win, One Intercontinental Title Defense By DQ)

Beating Foley for the title in an I quit match, whinning a rumbe outright, eliminating the Big Show singlehandedly, beating Ken Shamrock and losing to Jericho. I'd say that's better for two reasons: it contains 3 wins, and those wins are unuestionably against better wrestlers.

Wrestlemania:

Bret Hart: 5-2 (One WWE Title Win, One IC Title Win, Two Lost WWE Title Reigns, One Wrestlemania Moment)

So he lost 40% of his titles at WrestleMania... sounds to me like somebody chokes on the main stage. His WWE title win came when a fat arse fell over.

The Rock: 3-3 (Zero WWE Title Wins, One IC Title Defense, One WWE Title Shot losses, Two Lost WWF Championships Reigns, One Wrestlemania Moment)

Also beat Austin and Hogan in two of the most iconic matches this decade.

Summerslam:

Bret Hart: 5-2 (One WWE Title Win, One WWE Title Defense, One IC Title Win, One win by DQ, One IC Title Loss, One Loss by DQ)

The Rock: 3-2 (One WCW Title Win, One WWE Title Defense, One WWF Title Reign Lost, One IC Title Reign Lost)

Again this is skewed by Bret Hart's longevity and opponents. He beat Mr. Perfect, never a world champion, Owen Hart, never a world champion, Isaac Yankem, never a world champion, and the Undertaker. He lost to Jerry Lawler, never a world champion and old, and British Bulldog, never a world champion.

Rock lost to HHH, future 13 time world champion and Brock Lesnar who was in the middle of the biggest push for years. He beat Billy Gunn, who is obviously poo, but a former IC champion nonetheless and King of the ring at the time, Kurt Angel & HHH, and Booker T, a 6 time world champion. He lost to better people than Hart, and he beat better people than Hart, and that is undeniably true.

Survivor Series:

Bret Hart: 3-2 (One WWE Title Won, One WWF Title Defense, Two WWE Titles Reigns Lost, One Screwjob)

The Rock: 5-2 (One WWE Title Win, One WWE Title Shot Loss)

Bret Hart lost to Shawn Michaels and Bob Backlun, no shame there. He beat Diesel, fair enough, Shawn Michaels 4 years before he won the Championship, and Steve Austin long before his prime, but all in all, not a bad selection by Bret Hart.

Rock beat The Big Bossman Ken Shamrock, The Undertaker and Mankind in the same night and Rikishi. He lost to Big Show and I'm not sure where this other loss was, to be honest.

Combined Totals:

Bret Hart: 15- 7 ( 3 WWF Titles Won, 5 WWF Title Defenses, 2 IC Title Wins, One Wrestlemania moment, 4 WWF Title Losses, One Screwjob, One IC Title Lost)

The Rock: 14-8 ( 2 WWF Title Wins, 1 WCW Title Won, 1 WWF Title Defense, 2 IC Title Defenses 2 WWF Title Shots Lost, 3 WWF Title Reigns Lost, 1 IC Title Lost)

So the Rock has a similar record against superior opponents? Thanks for pointing that one out.

Doesn't look so bad, huh? Now let's eliminate all of the filler matches I added:

Bret Hart: 12-5 (10 Titles Won, One Wrestlemania Moment, One Royal Rumble Win, 5 Titles Lost)

The Rock: 7-6 (5 Titles Won, One Wrestlemania Moment, One Royal Rumble Win, 6 Titles Lost)

More titles to lose, arguably. Also calling Rock vs Hogan "filler" is nothing short of ridiculous.

And if I really wanted to put a dent into these Rocky fan's hopes, I'd take away IC Title wins and losses, but I see them as important, so we'll add them. So what does this prove? That without a shadow of a doubt, Bret Hart is much more of a clutch wrestler than The Rock ever was. And seeing as how this is a pretty clutch match, I think I'll trust Bret Hart much more than I would The Rock.

No it doesn't, it shows that The Rock fought better opponents and had a similar record. Not to mention that the whole process is completely flawed.

Yawn..... Look at my chart, Tasty. Stats don't lie.

Yes they do, unless Isaac Yankem is a big charisma guy for you.

Sigh..... Tasty, you're better than this. We all know Bret's prime was in between the wrestlers you just mentioned. Throwing that out is as much a half truth as I've ever seen one. And as for your DQ Victory, well yeah, in a match that Bret probably didn't give two shits about. He could afford to lose to a match by DQ by Rocky Maivia, because he knew it wouldn't matter. The only time he could ever predict needing that win is when member's of the IWC are pulling for straws, and trying to come up with reasons why The Rock would beat Bret Hart. Besides that, Bret was past his prime at this point, so your point is....?

Bret Hart fought charisma wresters on a number of occaisions and he lost. The Rock is a charisma wrestler, so it stands to reason he'd beat Bret Hart.

Look, I'm not going to pretend to know who the subject is in this matter, so I won't comment on this. All I'll say is this; that Bret's technical abilities pulled him over more matches than anything else, and have given him many more wins than losses

But against World Champions, future World Champions and past World Champions, his record is far from good.

Beat him. Oh, and isn't he one of those charisma wrestlers you were talking about earlier? Why yes, he really is.

Lost to him more though, and he isn't really a charisma wrestler like Hogan, Warrior, etc.

Never wrestled, to my knowledge

(Steamboat) I have a feeling Hart fought and lost to him, not fact though.

Beat Him

(Hennig) Yup.

Are you trying to give me this debate here?

(Austin, Michaels, Diesel, Razor Ramon) all beaten before prime, except Diesel.

Why, actually, no, he never got a chance to wrestle any of these wrestlers in his prime.

Apart from when he was losing to Savage in 1992? He had the chance to wrestle Hogan, but he didn't get it, why? Because nobody would have bought him as a contender and the future of WWF would look weak.

Um.... Owen Hart Memorial Match, anyone?



Beat Him, too.




Don't make me laugh.




I'm pretty sure he beat him at a house show or two.




Will have him beat after this round.






...... you're shitting, me right? I mean, you must be absolutely shitting me. Are you fucking serious? Are you really serious?

Right, I'm bored of that, the point was that Bret Hart had a large potential pool of opponents, not whether he beat them or not. I think I've showed that.

My God. Ok, let's start with that Austin fellow. How'd that go? Then let's go to Triple H. Then how's about The Undertaker. That do anything for you? Mick Foley? Kane? Kurt Angle? Y2J? Brock Lesnar?

Only Brock Lesnar couldn't have faced Bret Hart, and the people Hart faced more than make up for it.

Playing the "he didn't face anyone" card is pure poppycock. I can't even begin to describe how much poppycock it is. Granted, yes, Bret's fought more talented wrestlers. But The Rock has faced a few talented wrestlers, too, now hasn't he?

Yes, which was my point entirely. They have both had the potential to face huge names, but only Rock did do it. It wasn't because the talent wasn't there for Bret, it is because he wasn't a contender.

We're not in a tournament of theoreticals, Tasty. This is a tournament of who is better. C'mon now.

And the answer is The Rock.

Well, funny thing is, I'm pretty sure their most important match was when the WWE Title was on the line, in a Steel Cage, at Summerslam. And he won.

It's not the match that mattered in the feud though, is it? Think Hart vs hart, and you think of him getting the towel thrown in and WrestleMania X.

But he won more often than not, and in bigger matches, came up bigger than The Rock. Which is why Bret gets the nod.

This is emphatically false.

 

[Kcorthe]

Bret Hart's job in his career became to make others look good. That is what he would do here.

This will be the third time I state this in the third post, but you people just won't seem to grasp it: The Rock NEVER ONCE lost clean during his prime! Bret Hart lost clean SEVERAL times, to the likes of Never-World Champions, such as Owen Hart, British Bulldog, etc.

Hart lost many of the major 5-star classic matches everyone is raving about: Ironman against HBK, against Owen at WrestleMania X, Bulldog at SummerSlam, etc etc etc. Bret put on awesome matches, he made people look good, but he has never been the guy that is unbeatable in the ring.

...Where as The Rock, once again, say it with me: NEVER LOST CLEAN.

According to this post right here http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=50911, conducted on these very forums and voted on by you very people, The Undertaker's prime was during his Ministry days, and his very lowest point in his career was during the Deadman 2 phase (92-97). With this in mind...

At SummerSlam 1997, during the period of time where The Undertaker got ONE single vote for this being his prime on these very forums, Bret Hart needed help to BARELY beat The Undertaker.

Skip to less than two years later, where you people, on these very forums, voted that 'Taker's Ministry days were his prime. King of the Ring 1999, The Rock not only had 'Taker beat in the first 30 seconds of the match with the Rock Bottom, but The Undertaker needed the help of Paul Bearer, Triple H, an unconsious referee, and cheating tactics to beat The Rock.

So, what have we learned?

- Bret Hart cannot beat The Undertaker, in Taker's lowest career period, clean.
- However, The Rock was very much capable of beating The Undertaker, during what all of u consider to be his prime.

Hmmm...

This is just one of many examples I could use. Bret Hart lost to the British Bulldog clean at SummerSlam '92. Skip forward seven years later, and The Rock defeats Bulldog with ease at No Mercy 1999. Now, I realize that 1999 was not the Bulldog's prime, believe me I am not trying to say that. But it should at least be taken into account that The Rock defeated Bulldog in about five minutes, and while it may not have been Bulldog's prime, a man that could defeat THE ALMIGHTY TECHNICAL BRET HART during Hart's prime, could surely have at least given The Rock a bigger challenge in 1999, no? Do you see what I'm saying?

Face facts, people. Bret Hart put on a more better matches more often than The Rock did, but so the fuck what? THAT DOES NOT GIVE WRESTLERS WINS AUTOMATICALLY. My god, people. Just because Bret Hart IZ SOOO TEKNICAL AND KNOWZ SO MANY MOVEZ does not mean he would just beat The Rock. I have proven why The Rock would beat Bret Hart, end of story. Hart would put up a good fight, and he would make Rocky look even better than he already is, but he would not win. That was Hart's job: to put over the younger talent, and this would be no different. The Rock did not lose clean during his prime, not one single time, and Rock beat men on par with Hart's AMAZING TECHNICAL MOVESET, such as Benoit, Angle, Jericho, Guerrero, etc., and he beat all of them MULTIPLE TIMES, without EVER tapping out a single time.

Take all of this into account, plus the fact that The Rock literally WHOOPED Hart's candy ass when it came to drawing, money, ratings, etc. Bret Hart simply can not win.

Its not fucking rocket science, people. I know all of you are trying to be SMART WRESTLING FANZ that just loooove men like Bret Hart, and so do I, but I am not blind enough to see that Hart was there to lose to people like The Rock. End of fucking story.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

You know what I just noticed? Every single Hart supporter's argument is wrong. Bret Hart could not out wrestle him nor could he confuse him on the mat. Rocky Maivia went hold for hold with Bret Hart. He used his strength to drain Bret's energy with multiple slams and strikes to the midsection. The only mistake that Rocky Maivia made was going into the corner and getting put in that figure four, but it won him the match. A veteran Rock wouldn't fall for that.

So, if a green Rock can go hold for hold with a prime Bret Hart and control about half of the match and win the match, couldn't a prime Rock, a Rock that has held world titles and beaten the world's best, beat Bret Hart?

 

[Tenta]

I actually think the attitude era is hugely overrated, but then so is Bret Hart, so we're all good.

Tasty, we have very similar views upon this matter, and you're one of my favorite posters. So let's do this.

That would all be fine if Rovky Maivia, the version of The Rock with no charisma at all, had been complete dominated by Bret Hart firmly in his prime,but as we see here, that didn't happen.

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.

He might have got the win against Owen in the end, but that's not the match anyone remembers is it? People remember Owen winning at WrestleMania,

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.

and Helen Hart throwing in the towel against Backlund.

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.

And the Austin feud? Hart came out looking the lesser man there, and you know it.

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?

The build started with Owen at Survivor Series, then his behaviour in the Royal Rumble tag match. Somewhat unsuprisingly, Bret Hart's contribution was limping.

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.

He didn't do a good job of sapping his energy though did he? He fucking lost at the end of the match. A guy who plays for the draw is not a good wrestler.

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?

No, but he did put him in a wheelchair, I'd argue the moral victory was his.

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?"

Really? He was beaten in two feuds with Michaels,

Again, been over this, and for the record, one of those ended in a screwjob.

he lost the last mach in his feud with Austin,

By disqualification, no less. I'll take two clean wins over one DQ win any day.

Owen cost him thw WWF title and they never fought again,

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.

he lost one feud with Yokozuna and got the flukiest win of all time in another so the only people he beat were midcarders, really.

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.

What? He's more believable so he'd win? I don't want to attack your views, but you said Warrior should beat someone, I forget who it was.

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.

If that's the case, then how can you possibly argue believability as a decisive factor. If making your matches look artificial means you don't win, then why do The Rock, Austin, Cena, Hogan, Warrior, Goldberg etc. matches all look phoney?

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

I can show you umpteen wrestlers who were technically proficient but never got anywhere in pro wrestling. E.g. Charlie Haas. You will not be able to show anyone with the charisma of the Rock that got nowhere, that is a categorical fact, and it is why charisma is important.

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.

But wrestling isn't about awards for in ring skills, otherwise Dynamite Kid would be the most feted wrestler in the history of WWE. Wrestling is about making money by selling tickets. Predator made $100 million, Blue Velvet made $10 million, but which is more feted as artistic quality?

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.

The ratings wouldn't have been so tightly correlated if they weren't directly linked. So what you're saying is WWE was better off without Bret, ratings wise? Because that relly doesn't help your argument.

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.

If believability is your only criteria, then nobody has any business voting for anyone that isn't Japanese.

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?

Montreal is a massive whimper. He got screwed, good and proper, and let the whole world see that he did.

Again, that breaches the line's of kayfabe here. I'm not giving that as a whimper

The iron man match is probably not a whimper no,

Thank you.

but losing to Yokozuna only to have Hogan beat him 20 seconds later is a huge whimper. Losing the title after a day is a whimper.

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.

And that's a whimper? Jesus, Tasty.

But the Rock didn't look weak for it, did he? He only lost because Austin interfered.

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.

Yeah, but the match was anything but losing it in a whimper wasn't it?

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.

So the culmination of the biggest angle in the history of the WWF was a whimper was it? Come On.

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.

yeah, except unlike Hart, Rock actually won a few falls.

Well yes, and lost enough falls to lose the matcgh, too. Moral victories count for jack shit here.

Eventful enough to have occured before Angle was using the ankle lock, thus making him not a submission specialist at the time, but good try. Also, after he had beaten Angle on more than one occaision.

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.

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.

Three moths after he wins the Royal Rumble and two months after one of the best matches he ever had is pretty fucking close to being in his prime.

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.

Firstly, this entire thing is completely bullshit because in Bret's day there were fewer PPVs, so all of his matches would have been on these shows.

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.

Secondly, the whole thing is skewed because Bret was in the midcard for a shitesight longer than Rock, meaning more insignificant wins against Roddy Piper.

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?

Read: Bret Hart lost a damn sight more of these.

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.

One winning defense against Razor Ramon in 1993, that he won, a defeat against Undertaker by DQ and a draw with Diesel and a co-win of the Royal Rumble. That's abysmal..

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.

So he lost 40% of his titles at WrestleMania... sounds to me like somebody chokes on the main stage. His WWE title win came when a fat arse fell over...

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.

Also beat Austin and Hogan in two of the most iconic matches this decade.

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 this is skewed by Bret Hart's longevity and opponents. He beat Mr. Perfect, never a world champion, Owen Hart, never a world champion, Isaac Yankem, never a world champion, and the Undertaker. He lost to Jerry Lawler, never a world champion and old, and British Bulldog, never a world champion.

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.

Bret Hart lost to Shawn Michaels and Bob Backlun, no shame there. He beat Diesel, fair enough, Shawn Michaels 4 years before he won the Championship, and Steve Austin long before his prime, but all in all, not a bad selection by Bret Hart.

Rock beat The Big Bossman Ken Shamrock, The Undertaker and Mankind in the same night and Rikishi. He lost to Big Show and I'm not sure where this other loss was, to be honest.

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.

More titles to lose, arguably. Also calling Rock vs Hogan "filler" is nothing short of ridiculous.

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.

Bret Hart fought charisma wresters on a number of occaisions and he lost. The Rock is a charisma wrestler, so it stands to reason he'd beat Bret Hart.

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.

But against World Champions, future World Champions and past World Champions, his record is far from good.

Austin? Michaels in 1992 (future world champion)? Undertaker? Flair? Diesel?

Lost to him more though, and he isn't really a charisma wrestler like Hogan, Warrior, etc.

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.

(Steamboat) I have a feeling Hart fought and lost to him, not fact though.

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.

(Austin, Michaels, Diesel, Razor Ramon) all beaten before prime, except Diesel.

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.

Apart from when he was losing to Savage in 1992? He had the chance to wrestle Hogan, but he didn't get it, why? Because nobody would have bought him as a contender and the future of WWF would look weak.

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.

Right, I'm bored of that, the point was that Bret Hart had a large potential pool of opponents, not whether he beat them or not. I think I've showed that.

Only Brock Lesnar couldn't have faced Bret Hart, and the people Hart faced more than make up for it.

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.

Now, on to Kcorthe, who quite frankly makes similar points, only less structured, and frankly, far worse than Tasty. Then again, Tasty is one of my favorites. So...

The Rock NEVER ONCE lost clean during his prime! Bret Hart lost clean SEVERAL times, to the likes of Never-World Champions, such as Owen Hart, British Bulldog, etc.

He's beaten both of these enough times to prove that he's outright better than any of the wretlers you mentioned.

Hart lost many of the major 5-star classic matches everyone is raving about: Ironman against HBK, against Owen at WrestleMania X, Bulldog at SummerSlam, etc etc etc.

I can only assume you're referring to Dave Meltzer's way of scoring matches. In which case:

A. Meltzer never gave the Bret-Shawn match five stars. Nor did he give five stars to Bulldog-Bret. I'm not sure where you picked up that stat, but it's just either an incorrect source, or laziness on your part. And I'll assume laziness.

B. Having said that, three of Bret's matches have gotten five stars from Meltzer:

Wrestlemania X- Owen VS. Bret (admittedly, a loss)
Summerslam 1994- Owen VS. Bret- Steel Cage (avenges a loss, and proves once and for all that he is the better of the Hart brothers)
Wrestlemania 13- Austin VS. Bret- Submission Match (Do I really need to say it)

So using that little five star argument you had there is pretty much a terrible argument.

According to this post right here http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=50911, conducted on these very forums and voted on by you very people, The Undertaker's prime was during his Ministry days, and his very lowest point in his career was during the Deadman 2 phase (92-97). With this in mind...

At SummerSlam 1997, during the period of time where The Undertaker got ONE single vote for this being his prime on these very forums, Bret Hart needed help to BARELY beat The Undertaker.

Skip to less than two years later, where you people, on these very forums, voted that 'Taker's Ministry days were his prime. King of the Ring 1999, The Rock not only had 'Taker beat in the first 30 seconds of the match with the Rock Bottom, but The Undertaker needed the help of Paul Bearer, Triple H, an unconsious referee, and cheating tactics to beat The Rock.

So, what have we learned?

- Bret Hart cannot beat The Undertaker, in Taker's lowest career period, clean.
- However, The Rock was very much capable of beating The Undertaker, during what all of u consider to be his prime.

I'm not going to bother breaking that whole thing down completely. Sure, you have that at your disposal, but did you ever take the time to look at the actual thread? Or for that matter, who voted for whom? And if you look at it, most of the posters that have a clue have concluded that either his first incarnation, or the one you see now, is better than that Attitude Era Undertaker. The only person that voted for that version of The Undertaker that I give credit to is xfearbefore, and Shocky. And somewhat KingPatrick. either than that, the general consensus, if you ask around, is that either The Undertaker's beginning or current state is the strongest of Undertakers.

You know what I just noticed? Every single Hart supporter's argument is wrong. Bret Hart could not out wrestle him nor could he confuse him on the mat. Rocky Maivia went hold for hold with Bret Hart. He used his strength to drain Bret's energy with multiple slams and strikes to the midsection. The only mistake that Rocky Maivia made was going into the corner and getting put in that figure four, but it won him the match. A veteran Rock wouldn't fall for that.

So, if a green Rock can go hold for hold with a prime Bret Hart and control about half of the match and win the match, couldn't a prime Rock, a Rock that has held world titles and beaten the world's best, beat Bret Hart?

I'd agree if the match took place in 1994. Again, the match took place at a point where Hart was hurt, and wasn't seen as Vince's guy anymore. No one will be able to convince me that Bret's peak happened before 1997.

That Bret, a kayfabe strong Bret, goes over the Rock.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Because I'm too lazy to multi-quote an entire book, I'll highlight this small part of JohnTenta's post.

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?

He stated that Liger is just as fast as Michaels, and stronger. In this match, The Rock is just as fast as Bret Hart, and stronger. Tastycles seems pretty consistent here. Now, neither man has to do any adapting in this match. It's a standard, one-fall match, something they've both competed in more times than could be counted. Lastly, this match isn't in Canada. Bret Hart was infinitely more popular in Canada than in America, where this match takes place. The Rock has home-field here. Then again, I'd still say that it's a push. I don't think either man would be uncomfortable in this environment. The way I see it, The Rock, out of those four categories won two and drew the others. That would justify Tastycle's vote. Therefore, he didn't have any sudden change.

And this too, I suppose.

I'd agree if the match took place in 1994. Again, the match took place at a point where Hart was hurt, and wasn't seen as Vince's guy anymore. No one will be able to convince me that Bret's peak happened before 1997.

That Bret, a kayfabe strong Bret, goes over the Rock.

So, a green Rocky Maivia wrestles hold for hold with a Bret Hart just out of his prime, though that fact is arguable, and wins. Thus, a veteran and nigh unbeatable Rock in his prime would go over a slightly stronger competitor in the 1994 version of The Hitman. I don't see how you refute that logic.

 

[Tenta]

Because I'm too lazy to multi-quote an entire book, I'll highlight this small part of JohnTenta's post.



He stated that Liger is just as fast as Michaels, and stronger. In this match, The Rock is just as fast as Bret Hart, and stronger. Tastycles seems pretty consistent here. Now, neither man has to do any adapting in this match. It's a standard, one-fall match, something they've both competed in more times than could be counted. Lastly, this match isn't in Canada. Bret Hart was infinitely more popular in Canada than in America, where this match takes place. The Rock has home-field here. Then again, I'd still say that it's a push. I don't think either man would be uncomfortable in this environment. The way I see it, The Rock, out of those four categories won two and drew the others. That would justify Tastycle's vote. Therefore, he didn't have any sudden change.

And this too, I suppose.



So, a green Rocky Maivia wrestles hold for hold with a Bret Hart just out of his prime, though that fact is arguable, and wins. Thus, a veteran and nigh unbeatable Rock in his prime would go over a slightly stronger competitor in the 1994 version of The Hitman. I don't see how you refute that logic.

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.

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


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.

Do you think there's any way Bret looks over a Rock that is as strong as he is? I think not.

 

[TMumbai]

bret heart liek held togutha the wwwf durin their tuffest yers. all the ruck did was hit peepl wit elboez durin a tiem tht wud huv strivd witowt hem. you cunt goe wrung wit bret heart he is the teknicul masta tht any prmoshun owna wud huv wunted. u cunt pssiblee tull me bret heart luzez becuz he doznt do dizknee movehsz