Bret "The Hitman" Hart vs. "The Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels

[Zeeboe]

Let's find out once and for all who is the more popular wrestler on tpww.net.

[Dorkchop]

El Dandy

[Nicky Fives]

I like Bret more, but HBK is better....

[TSI]

im a hbk kinda fan..but ill say this...this thread will not stay civil for very long

[jony lions]

im a hbk kinda fan..but ill say this...this thread will not stay civil for very long

go fuck yourself

now its started:wave:

[Kane Knight]

Michaels is awesome. Too bad most of his fans are drooling idiots.

Now it's started.

[The Fonz]

Things I No Longer Care About:

Potsie
Ralph
Richie
Chuck
Chachi
Mr. C
Mrs. C
Joanie
Bret Hart
Bret Hart Fans

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Michaels is awesome. Too bad most of his fans are drooling idiots.

Now it's started.

[Zeeboe]

Shawn Michaels doesn't care about black people.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

What are you talking about he was mad boys with Ahmed Johnson when they teamed at Survivor Series ;)

[James Steele]

I'll give you 3 guesses at who I voted for.

[ministrychick77]

hbk. never been a bret fan...

[thedamndest]

I will remind you all that HBK is already TPWW's favorite of the two after defeating Bret Hart in the first ever TPWW Dozens when Bret Hart failed to garner enough support to even put together a team. This poll is meaningless.

[Zen v.W.o.]

I like Bret more, but HBK is better....

I like Bret more, and Bret is better...

[The Gold Standard]

This argument is out of control. It will never end. I am sick of it. I am a huge Bret Hart fan, but I just don't care about this debate anymore.

[TSI]

go fuck yourself

now its started:wave:

oh come on now:D...im not starting anything...i just know that this debate never ends well...the fact is this is one of these debates that will never be settled...its like yankee and red sox fans trying to debate on whos better...we could be here forever

[Zen v.W.o.]

oh come on now:D...im not starting anything...i just know that this debate never ends well...the fact is this is one of these debates that will never be settled...its like yankee and red sox fans trying to debate on whos better...we could be here forever

The difference there is that Sox fans are quite delusional and actually think it's a debate. Meanwhile, checking their history, it doesnt compare, and they are generally the yanks bitches. Coming from an unbiased point of view.

[Zeeboe]

Debating is not needed. It's just a poll to see who is more popular. How about we just vote, and post why we voted for who we voted for and leave it at that?

[Kane Knight]

The difference there is that Sox fans are quite delusional and actually think it's a debate.

Yeah, only one side of that debate is delusional.

That is completely different, since both sides of the Hart/Michaels "debate" are staffed with little more than delusional marks choking down someone's cock.

[jony lions]

good one.its a poll not a?lets not be morons and try and intimidate eveyone else? debate.just vote dont need to hear your philosophy on it.....:nono:

[Kane Knight]

good one.its a poll not a?lets not be morons and try and intimidate eveyone else? debate.just vote dont need to hear your philosophy on it.....:nono:

"It's like he's trying to talk to me, I know it!"

[Juan]

http://forums.pcpitstop.com/style_emoticons/New_emoticons/dead-horse-fast2.gif

[Xerzes]

Needs a "shut up Zeeboe" option.

[James Steele]

Zeeboe, I found your best friend and he misses you:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BbbW4nFN_S8/SKsM9b86PzI/AAAAAAAAHSA/_49b2VYf8l8/s400/cp8.jpg

[KYR]

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/i%20see%20dead%20people%20vote.jpg

"I see stupid people..."

[Zeeboe]

Zeeboe, I found your best friend and he misses you:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BbbW4nFN_S8/SKsM9b86PzI/AAAAAAAAHSA/_49b2VYf8l8/s400/cp8.jpg

:lol: You should post that on my comment page. :y: I'm getting quite a little collection of pictures just like that on there.

[Jeritron]

Since these basically serve the same purpose as the BW threads, I will be closing them if they continue.

Also, the Bret vs Austin one has already occured, and the matchup of this thread has been done a million times.

[Nowhere Man]

Christ, how many times do we need to do this?

[Zeeboe]

Since these basically serve the same purpose as the BW threads, I will be closing them if they continue.

Well, I think some of us should be allowed to pick the polls too sometimes. But as the teenagers say, "whatever".

Also, the Bret vs Austin one has already occured, and the matchup of this thread has been done a million times.

But has there ever been an actual poll to see who was the more popular?

[Jeritron]

Yes.

[Zeeboe]

Alright, well, before I created the thread, I did a search to see if there was already a thread on the topic, and I found nothing. But if your last post is true, then as they say out on the streets..................."my bad."

[DAMN iNATOR]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/btS0OVdqkb0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/btS0OVdqkb0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Dave Youell]

And I just tipped it back in HBK's favour!

[Stealth-Icon]

Sorry Dave, I tied it again.

[thedamndest]

I think we need a poll to determine whether or not people like having polls about HBK and Bret Hart every other week.

[Zeeboe]

I think we need a poll to determine whether or not people like having polls about HBK and Bret Hart every other week.

So far, I have 58 reasons why people don't mind them.

[DaveBrawl]

There are currently 535 pages in this section of the board. 195 of them have to be filled with this.

[Stealth-Icon]

We should have a poll to see if there should be a poll about whether or not you like pole matches.

[Rammsteinmad]

I just tipped the scales to 30-29 for HBK and I'm damn proud of it!

[Zeeboe]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XEOfcwy7f8s&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XEOfcwy7f8s&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What a feud.

[Dr. Abyss]

This is retarded it looks like someone is trying to get a fight going with this one. I will not vote because there both fucking prick there.

[Zeeboe]

All I asked was for folks to vote. Not to fight. :)

[Gerard]

I just tipped the scales to 30-29 for HBK and I'm damn proud of it!

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/random/shenanigans.jpg

[RGWhat316]

Shawn easily.

[thedamndest]

Since there is no end date on this poll, HBK wins by the de facto law of 3 days on Better Wrestler. You may close this thread now.

[Zeeboe]

I wanted to give everyone, including future posters a chance to vote.

[thedamndest]

I'm sure future posters will have many, many possible opportunities to express their opinion of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels.

Why would you even make it open and private? The only way you could have made this poll more useless is if you enabled multiple choice.

[Zeeboe]

I'm sure future posters will have many, many possible opportunities to express their opinion of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels.

Why would you even make it open and private? The only way you could have made this poll more useless is if you enabled multiple choice.

I made it private just in case some posters wanted to avoid drama based on who they voted for, and I figure, even if someone is losing in the poll, they should always have a fair chance to make a comeback.

[thedamndest]

So what does it prove if there is no end to the poll? How do you decide which wrestler is TPWW's favorite?

[Jannettyzilla]

Shouldn't this be HBK vs. Austin? Didn't the last poll kinda negate Bret?

[thedamndest]

No, you're confusing that with Better Wrestler. This is apparently the best of Bret Hart. Bret needs a win though, so coming next is Bret "The Hitman" Hart vs. "Iron" Mike Sharpe.

[Kane Knight]

Zeeb's next poll will be "who screwed Bret?"

[Zen v.W.o.]

I count 34 faggots.

[Zen v.W.o.]

It's like it always was back in the day...the cheering section for Bret had a little more bass in their voice.

[thedamndest]

Cheering sounds a lot like whining to me.

[Zen v.W.o.]

35....35 screeching faggots!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tBG2IgYSIHg/RxuuV9hyJCI/AAAAAAAAAb0/MqexGT7AHzU/s400/sesame_street_count_dracula.jpg

[thedamndest]

I see what you've done there. You've posted a picture of the Count from Sesame Street to signify you counting the "faggots" who voted for HBK. But you've made a tactical error. In posting the a childhood television character, you've left yourself open for a barrage of jokes questioning your own mental capacity, possibly some that would go into the area of pedophilia. I don't know. Be on the look out for that.

[Zen v.W.o.]

You are over analyzing.

[thedamndest]

You just used a word containing "anal". That's a big no-no in these quote-editing parts.

[KYR]

This is totally pointless and proves absolutely nothing.

For all I know, there could have been 5 Hart fans vote for him along with 25 of their sock accounts.

Conversely, there could be 35 legitimate faggot votes for HBK.

[thedamndest]

But at least they will be spared the cold, hard drama of answering for their vote. It was more important to do it this way.

[KYR]

NOT THIS WAY!!!!! NOT THIS WAY!!!!

[KYR]

VINTAGE ZEEBOE!!!

[Zeeboe]

So what does it prove if there is no end to the poll? How do you decide which wrestler is TPWW's favorite?

Look at whatever the scoreboard says at the time you are looking at it for the current result.

Shouldn't this be HBK vs. Austin? Didn't the last poll kinda negate Bret?

Like damndest said, this is totally different. More like a look back at the 90's. :) And a chance for us to let out our inner-mark.

Zeeb's next poll will be "who screwed Bret?"

No, no. I was thinking The Undertaker vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin. Like pretend it's May of 97', Cold day in Hell match, who do you think is gonna win, on wwf.com kinda thing, but they already have the better wrestler thread, and you have to be choosen to pick the rastlers in these polls, so fear not.

Honestly, even though I do support this thread, I decided against making it at first, but Savior's whining got on my nerves, so I finally had enough, and made the thread. I was also thinking maybe I could do a U.S.A. vs. Canada poll since I'm kinda reliving 97' again. Or maybe Hart Foundation vs. DX, but that's pretty much the same poll we are on, so maybe Hart Foundation vs. the Nation instead. I dunno....yet......

[Juan]

God Zeeboe, will you shut the fuck up already?

[Tazz Dan]

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/i%20see%20dead%20people%20vote.jpg

"I see stupid people..."

It's called a mirror :p

[Zeeboe]

God Zeeboe, will you shut the fuck up already?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AfIlAJ6flvw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AfIlAJ6flvw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Jeritron]

Someone needs to pull the plug.

[Zen v.W.o.]

This poll was doomed to start for you Zeeboe. Bret hasn't been wrestling since about 2000. HBK is still going, he's fresh in some older people's minds and he's there for the new fans who weren't watching back in the day, which tpww has a ton of.

Had you done such a poll while both men were wrestling in the late 90's, obviously Hart would win.

[James Steele]

:lol:

Incorrect.

[Zen v.W.o.]

No, that's correct.

[thedamndest]

You spelled "incorrect" wrong.

[James Steele]

Zen, give up already...

[James Steele]

...JUST LIKE BRET AT THE 1997 SURVIVOR SERIES!

[James Steele]

WWF SURVIVOR SERIES 1997
November 9, 1997 - Montreal, Quebec - Molson Center


IC TITLE MATCH: Steve Austin defeated Owen Hart to win the Intercontinental title!
WWF TITLE MATCH: Shawn Michaels defeated Bret Hart via submission to win the WWF title!

[Zeeboe]

Like I once said before, you're a mark. :lol:

.....Just wait. ;)

[James Steele]

:lol:

Wrestling is fake, I know this.

However, there is a reason the greatest wrestling promoter of all time felt that both the Harts weren't good for business.

[Zen v.W.o.]

He did not feel that way. Classic case of twisting the facts. You really think if he could afford to keep Bret, he wouldnt? The only reason he was making any money back then was because of Bret and his feuds.
Shawn was never around to wrestle, he was always too busy crying or pretending to be crippled.

[Zeeboe]

:lol:

Wrestling is fake, I know this.

However, there is a reason the greatest wrestling promoter of all time felt that both the Harts weren't good for business.

Them being the heels MAY have had something to do with them both losing that night.....

[James Steele]

He did not feel that way. Classic case of twisting the facts. You really think if he could afford to keep Bret, he wouldnt? The only reason he was making any money back then was because of Bret and his feuds.
Shawn was never around to wrestle, he was always too busy crying or pretending to be crippled.

Except for the sabbatical Bret took.

[James Steele]

Them being the heels MAY have had something to do with them both losing that night.....

Yes, Bret Hart and Owen were totally the heels in Montreal,Canada during a USA vs Canada storyline.

[Zeeboe]

Yes, Bret Hart and Owen were totally the heels in Montreal,Canada during a USA vs Canada storyline.

They rarely wrestled in Canada. I think Vince was honestly more worried about his average week-to-week audiences, and since the WWE was getting destoryed by WCW, he knew by ripping off ECW and creating characters like Austin and D-X HBK was his only choice to keep up. :yes:

[James Steele]

They rarely wrestled in Canada. I think Vince was honestly more worried about his average week-to-week audiences, and since the WWE was getting destoryed by WCW, he knew by ripping off ECW and creating characters like Austin and D-X HBK was his only choice to keep up. :yes:

Which Bret was very vocal in his opposition to. Therefore, Bret held back WWF from having the success it would have post-Bret.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Which Bret was very vocal in his opposition to. Therefore, Bret held back WWF from having the success it would have post-Bret.

Are you honestly trying to imply that Bret could stop Vince from going through with his edgier direction? If so, that says a lot about Vince.

[James Steele]

Are you honestly trying to imply that Bret could stop Vince from going through with his edgier direction? If so, that says a lot about Vince.

BUT BRET WAS THE BIGGEST INTERNATIONAL DRAW IN TEH WORLDZ!

[Zen v.W.o.]

BUT BRET WAS THE BIGGEST INTERNATIONAL DRAW IN TEH WORLDZ!

Well he was certainly one of them. Bigger than Michaels, whose popularity certainly faded the further north you went up on a map.
Watching the thousands cheer Sid on in MSG as he dethrones HBK is a beautiful thing to watch.

[NeanderCarl]

In late 1991, it was widely reported in the wrestling "insider" media of the time that reigning WWF Intercontinental champion Bret Hart had verbally agreed to a deal with WCW that included showing up on WCW TV with the I-C belt, mainly in retaliation to Ric Flair's NWA title shenanigans on WWF TV at the time.

The deal was nixed when it emerged that due to the terms of Bret's contract, he was not legally able to appear for WCW until his soon-to-expire WWF contract was up. WWF immediately had Bret drop the I-C title on a house show to the Mountie.

Eventually they were able to convince Bret to return and re-sign with the company, but the very fact that Bret had a verbal commitment to show up to WCW with the I-C belt goes to show just how "honorable" he is. Funny how he neglected to mention this turn of events in his autobiography, and not surprising that Vince McMahon should have concerns surrounding Bret defecting with the belt when a similar circumstance arises a few years later.

[Kane Knight]

This poll was doomed to start for you Zeeboe. Bret hasn't been wrestling since about 2000. HBK is still going, he's fresh in some older people's minds and he's there for the new fans who weren't watching back in the day, which tpww has a ton of.

Had you done such a poll while both men were wrestling in the late 90's, obviously Hart would win.

If by "obviously," you mean "I'm saying it only because I'm one of those rabid Canucktards," Yes.

Yeah, Michaels is still going. Yeah, he's fresh to those young and old. Yes, Hart is some washed up cripple only rabid Canadians give a shit about.

But really? Obviously Bret would win? Based on wishful thinking? Or maybe that the majority of TPWW's Kliq hadn't been born yet?

[Kane Knight]

However, there is a reason the greatest wrestling promoter of all time felt that both the Harts weren't good for business.

LAWL.

[Juan]

LAWL

[KYR]

LAWL dustin

[Juan]

lulz

[James Steele]

LAWL.


Please tell me who was a better wrestling promoter than Vince McMahon.

[DaveBrawl]

In late 1991, it was widely reported in the wrestling "insider" media of the time that reigning WWF Intercontinental champion Bret Hart had verbally agreed to a deal with WCW that included showing up on WCW TV with the I-C belt, mainly in retaliation to Ric Flair's NWA title shenanigans on WWF TV at the time.

The deal was nixed when it emerged that due to the terms of Bret's contract, he was not legally able to appear for WCW until his soon-to-expire WWF contract was up. WWF immediately had Bret drop the I-C title on a house show to the Mountie.

Eventually they were able to convince Bret to return and re-sign with the company, but the very fact that Bret had a verbal commitment to show up to WCW with the I-C belt goes to show just how "honorable" he is. Funny how he neglected to mention this turn of events in his autobiography, and not surprising that Vince McMahon should have concerns surrounding Bret defecting with the belt when a similar circumstance arises a few years later.

Not saying that story is or isn't true (I have no way of knowing), but just saying that it was "widely reported" is very far from being written in stone, especially in the wrestling industry in the early 90's.

Why did they have him drop the belt if it was just an unfounded rumor? Maybe Vince heard the rumors and thought they were true. I don't know, but a lot of things have been widely reported and not even close to true. Maybe Bret started the rumors himself to get more money on his next contract.

[Kane Knight]

James, you're adorable. Don't ever change.

[NeanderCarl]

Not saying that story is or isn't true (I have no way of knowing), but just saying that it was "widely reported" is very far from being written in stone, especially in the wrestling industry in the early 90's.

Why did they have him drop the belt if it was just an unfounded rumor? Maybe Vince heard the rumors and thought they were true. I don't know, but a lot of things have been widely reported and not even close to true. Maybe Bret started the rumors himself to get more money on his next contract.

Bret politicked as much as the next guy in his day. If you look back through the years, he was quite regularly "considering a move to WCW" and placated by title wins, lucrative contracts and the ilk during his WWF run. Look at his very first World title win, which took place in the same month his contract expired/was renewed. At that point he was apparently firmly decided on a WCW move. Vince played the World title card, and Bret stayed.

He may bleat about "always being loyal" to the company, but simply working somewhere for a number of consecutive years doesn't neccessarily equate to loyalty. Bret's loyalty mainly laid with his wallet and his ego.

[FourFifty]

Please tell me who was a better wrestling promoter than Vince McMahon.

I'm sure you can find more creative people, people with better business skills, richer people, and people who are in one way better than Vince McMahon.
However, it doesn't take one thing to be a better promoter. Vince is overall better than anyone else in the past 50 years.
You want proof? TNA is the second biggest wrestling promotion in the USA. Let's compare TNA to WWE.
"what about WCW? Or ECW? Or World Class? Or AWA?"
Yea, all property of WWE now.
There is no better wrestling promoter, regardless of how business may look today, than Vincent Kennedy McMahon.

[Kane Knight]

LOL 450.

[James Steele]

Kane Knight, instead of LOL and LAWLing like a jackass please tell me who is a better wrestling promoter than Vince McMahon.

[DaveBrawl]

Bret politicked as much as the next guy in his day. If you look back through the years, he was quite regularly "considering a move to WCW" and placated by title wins, lucrative contracts and the ilk during his WWF run. Look at his very first World title win, which took place in the same month his contract expired/was renewed. At that point he was apparently firmly decided on a WCW move. Vince played the World title card, and Bret stayed.

He may bleat about "always being loyal" to the company, but simply working somewhere for a number of consecutive years doesn't neccessarily equate to loyalty. Bret's loyalty mainly laid with his wallet and his ego.

That's my point. He probably had no desire to go there, but he was just spreading the rumors to get title runs and more money. As far as I can see no one has any loyalty, despite what they say, in any form of business.

[Zeeboe]

You HBK marks are just lucky I have my own battles to deal with right now, or I'd be sharpshooting all of you. But I may be back. For now, I will just say: Everything any Shawn Michaels fan posts on here is bullshit.

Thank you.

[addy2hotty]

Bret politicked as much as the next guy in his day. If you look back through the years, he was quite regularly "considering a move to WCW" and placated by title wins, lucrative contracts and the ilk during his WWF run. Look at his very first World title win, which took place in the same month his contract expired/was renewed. At that point he was apparently firmly decided on a WCW move. Vince played the World title card, and Bret stayed.

He may bleat about "always being loyal" to the company, but simply working somewhere for a number of consecutive years doesn't neccessarily equate to loyalty. Bret's loyalty mainly laid with his wallet and his ego.

Holy shit Carl, I never knew about this or The Mountie thing.

True or not, even as a 11 year old, I thought it strange that Bret got the WWF title like that.

You've enlightened me today, thank you.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Carl is a liar, his first title win was on a freakin non televised card against Flair, who was apparently in the dog house at the time due to Vince being unhappy with him. Bret was their man, he got the belt.

Bret was never considering any wcw contracts, because he never received any up until 1996.

[NeanderCarl]

Carl is a liar, his first title win was on a freakin non televised card against Flair, who was apparently in the dog house at the time due to Vince being unhappy with him. Bret was their man, he got the belt.

Bret was never considering any wcw contracts, because he never received any up until 1996.

I'm not a liar. What difference would it make that the title match was untelevised?? None whatsoever. It took place at a TV taping nonetheless, and was recorded potentially for television. I believe they didn't end up showing it due to match quality.

Flair wasn't in the dog house so much as he was injured (ear drum). Believe it or not, Vince's initial plan was to have Ric Flair drop the strap to "El Matador" Tito Santana.

You say that Bret was never considering WCW contract offers because he never received any until 1996. This is simply not correct. NWA/WCW courted Bret (as part of the Hart Foundation) on a few occasions in the late 80s, again in late 1991, again late 1992, and every subsequent year until they snared him in 1997.

And as I say, he verbally accepted a WCW deal in 1991 when he thought he legally could, but it turned out he was unable to do so in accordance with his running WWF deal.

[The MAC]

proof?

[DeathValleyBarry]

Kane Knight, instead of LOL and LAWLing like a jackass please tell me who is a better wrestling promoter than Vince McMahon.


Past and present..... Absolutely no one!!!

[NoRoolz]

HBK/Bret, never fails.

[Kane Knight]

Steele's got a point. If I keep acting like a jackass, someone will confuse me for the Kliq.

[Zen v.W.o.]

I'm not a liar. What difference would it make that the title match was untelevised?? None whatsoever. It took place at a TV taping nonetheless, and was recorded potentially for television. I believe they didn't end up showing it due to match quality.

Flair wasn't in the dog house so much as he was injured (ear drum). Believe it or not, Vince's initial plan was to have Ric Flair drop the strap to "El Matador" Tito Santana.

You say that Bret was never considering WCW contract offers because he never received any until 1996. This is simply not correct. NWA/WCW courted Bret (as part of the Hart Foundation) on a few occasions in the late 80s, again in late 1991, again late 1992, and every subsequent year until they snared him in 1997.

And as I say, he verbally accepted a WCW deal in 1991 when he thought he legally could, but it turned out he was unable to do so in accordance with his running WWF deal.


Yeah, like someone before me asked, where's the proof of all this? Because not once before has any of this ever been mentioned, by any single individual.
Even if wcw wanted the Hitman, Bret never stated that he once remotely considered their offers, until his actual wwf contract with that very company was up in 96. BTW, Bret then turns down 3 million bucks base salary to take a longer deal, yet much less financially speaking.
So whatever the wcw was offering in the early 90's, when Bret wasn't nearlly as big as he was years later, doesnt seem to be all that tempting, or believable.

[James Steele]

Steele's got a point. If I keep acting like a jackass, someone will confuse me for the Kliq.

LAWL.

[redoneja]

I have never seen anything, anywhere that indicated Hart was leaving for WCW in late 1991, causing him to drop the belt to the Mountie.

Also, the only person I've ever heard claim that Tito Santana was going to get the strap in late 1992, was Santana himself.

[NeanderCarl]

The info came from the dirtsheets at the time, mainly Meltzer, who is usually pretty reliable.

I've heard the Santana story a few times, and it is mentioned in Bret's book but I don't think he names Santana specifically.

[NeanderCarl]

And also why is it so hard for people to believe that WCW made plays for Bret Hart prior to 1996? Of course they made several attempts to sign him, why wouldn't they have? They'd have been fools not to try to snare Bret (one of the better workers in the business, and a WWF Superstar™) whenever his contract came around.

I could understand people struggling to believe that Mr. Morality agreed to dump on the IC title on WCW TV - and as it is speculative you never know whether or not he would have actually gone through with it - but the mere suggestion that WCW negotiated with him several times prior to 1996 shouldn't be a point of contention but more common sense, even if you never saw the reports at the time.

[redoneja]

I'm not denying that WCW attempted to court Bret before 1996. I'm just saying I had never heard that he had verbally agreed to a deal with WCW when his contract came up at the end of '91.

[NeanderCarl]

A similar situation occured in 1990 too. Jim Neidhart had been fired whilst one half of the WWF World tag team champions The Hart Foundation, and made to drop the titles to The Rockers at a TV taping. So Bret and Jim negotiated to move over to WCW where they were reportedly going to wrestle under the name The Pink And Black Attack.

Pretty soon, Vince rehired Neidhart and smoothed things over, and The Harts were reinstated as champions with the title change never aired, and the explanation given that the ring rope (legit) broke during the match rendering the result void.

[Kane Knight]

And also why is it so hard for people to believe that WCW made plays for Bret Hart prior to 1996? Of course they made several attempts to sign him, why wouldn't they have? They'd have been fools not to try to snare Bret (one of the better workers in the business, and a WWF Superstar™) whenever his contract came around.

I could understand people struggling to believe that Mr. Morality agreed to dump on the IC title on WCW TV - and as it is speculative you never know whether or not he would have actually gone through with it - but the mere suggestion that WCW negotiated with him several times prior to 1996 shouldn't be a point of contention but more common sense, even if you never saw the reports at the time.

Of course they tried to court him. I doubt anyone's trying to say that's unlikely. I'd take that on faith because...Well, duh. It's the other hald of the equation people have a problem with, this idea that Bret was power playing on it, because it's news to them. News to me, too.

Not that you're wrong, but it makes sense to be skeptical of such information, especially in an instance like this where the information seems to be poorly sourced.

[NeanderCarl]

If Meltzer is a poor source then most insider wrestling news for the last 25 years has been "poorly sourced".

[Kane Knight]

"Poorly sourced," Carl. The problem isn't with Meltzer, it's with you. I mean, you could say it came from Dave, Bret Hart, or Jesus....

[NeanderCarl]

Well I don't happen to have a link to a 1991 story, understandably. It's one of those "benefit of the doubt" deals, unfortunately.

[NeanderCarl]

Right.... best I can find right now is an archive of an early internet insider reporter named Herb Kunze, who it appears was reporting insider wrestling news on the earliest traces of the internet as far back as the late 80s.

His sources seem to be mainly the dirt sheets of the time, and principally Meltzer and the Observer.

He reported the following on Jan 30th 1992:

As everybody has reported, WCW apparently reached a deal with Bret
Hart for Bret to appear on the Clash of Champions live broadcast
on January 21st with his WWF Intercontinental belt. This was of
course meant to be a retaliatory blow against the WWF for using
the NWA belt when Flair jumped. Bret thought that his contract
was up, but, in fact, he can't give notice for another few months
and had to back out of the deal when he realized this. Bret knew
that he would be dropping the belt to the Mountie in Springfield
so that the title could be passed to Roddy Piper. Bret has been
promised the IC Title back at WrestleMania, but that seems kind
of unlikely, unless he turns heel. In the mean time, WCW insists
that Bret is going to come in later this year, and if he does in
fact give notice to the WWF, I'm sure we'll know since his push
will match that of the Berzerker.


Which differs slightly with my memories (ie. Bret already knowing he was due to drop to The Mountie before deciding to leave) but also corroborates the gist of what I said.

It is the best source I can find right now, short of digging up old magazines et al.

[NeanderCarl]

That report can be found in this archive: http://rspw.org/tidbits/, dated "920130"

[James Steele]

They won't believe you because their hard-on for "Our Lord and Savior" Bret Hart would not commit any such act. Hell, Bret Hart said in his book about how much he cheated on his wife but HBK (who was single) is the deviant.

[midLfinger]

Not to choose a side, but does anybody actually feel like debating their, y'know, ability?

Plenty of guys are dicks or cheat on spouses or have homosexual fans or got screwed by their promoter or made deals with WCW. That's neither here nor there.

What about what they actually got paid for? Who did what best?

::Puts arms in front of face to shield self from oncoming onslaught::

[NeanderCarl]

They were pretty much equal in their day. If I picked a superior wrestler from the pair, my opinion may well change by tomorrow.

Both very good in different ways. Michaels was probably the superior all rounder, probably a bigger draw than Bret in the US, and a better interview. More charismatic, more diverse. Bret was the better technician, the better realist, better psychology, huge draw in Europe and Canada.

You could go back and forth all day.

Now, back to the semantics. Who was a bigger cunt???

[James Steele]

Not to choose a side, but does anybody actually feel like debating their, y'know, ability?

Plenty of guys are dicks or cheat on spouses or have homosexual fans or got screwed by their promoter or made deals with WCW. That's neither here nor there.

What about what they actually got paid for? Who did what best?

::Puts arms in front of face to shield self from oncoming onslaught::

Well, if that was the case then Bret Hart marks wouldn't have anything to argue about. It always ends up being about how HBK is a pretty boy or gay slurs and such.

[midLfinger]

I'd like to say that this whole "bigger draw" thing is not really a worthy point. You can't say Shawn was a bigger draw or Bret was a bigger draw. Even trying to say that Shawn was a bigger draw in the US while Bret was a bigger draw abroad really doesn't mean anything.

Certainly, we can all think of a few (at the very least) guys who were never a great draw but we consider epic wrestlers.

Additionally, we can all think of guys who were fantabulous draws (Hogan) who aren't on Bret or Shawn's level.

Finally, there's really no sure way to prove who could draw what. Bret was fortunate enough to be on the tail end of Hogan's run in WWE whereas Shawn was unfortunate enough to be headlining when the nWo was born and WWE was devoid of talent.

Was it that Shawn couldn't draw or was it that he was facing Vader, the Bulldog, Mankind and Sid? Was Bret a bigger international draw or was he fortunate enough to be Canadian and have a British brother-in-law? Also let's not forget that he constantly professes his love for every country that isn't the United States.

There's a lot of reasons for a person drawing. John Cena gets booed out of the building and still draws. I am of the opinion that it has very little to actually do with being a "better wrestler."

[James Steele]

Solid points, midLfinger.

[NeanderCarl]

I only mentioned their drawing power in a paragraph which tried to quickly assess, and mainly compare, the guys on many different levels. I also mentioned skill, ability and intangibles in there too.

To be honest, Shawn being the better draw in the US and Bret being the better draw overseas means fuck all anyway because neither of them have ever proven to be box office gold in their own right. It was a small point that I believe was fair to bring up.

I said Shawn is the better draw in the US based on the years since his return, more than anything. Arguing over which man was the better draw in the 90s is fruitless because fact is that the WWF was close to folding on many occasions during the Bret-Shawn era, no matter which was on top.

[NeanderCarl]

Also whether a champion was a success during that era (1992 through to the MNW) had less to do with ratings and buy rates and the likes they are judged by nowadays. The main indicator in those days was the house show attendance.

Bret was not lucky to be coming off the back of the Hogan run by any stretch because Bret (and Flair before him) were at the head of the biggest domestic downswing the WWF had ever seen in 1992 which virtually crippled the company to the point where house shows were regular money losers for the company right through to 1997/98 when things got hot again.

[midLfinger]

Carl: I should've been clearer and apologize for it. I didn't mean for it to seem that I was referring exclusively to you. I just meant the "draw" argument in general.

Of course, your other points are valid. I especially appreciate that you brought up the psychology aspect which, in my mind, is at the heart of the debate. Is Bret's cold, business-like psychology better or is Shawn's emotional psychology superior? That's what, I think, unltimately decides who one prefers.

With regard to Bret coming on Hogan's tail end (that sounds so completely gross), I have to say that it was good fortune, particularly in comparison to Michaels situation, because Hogan wasn't gone until 1993, well after Bret was champion, whereas Michaels delt with a "fresh" Hogan as competition. Hogan was a heel. This was hot at the moment. It caught everyone's attention. Additionally, Nash and Hall were in WCW with him. What if in 1993, Bret was up against a WCW with a heel Hogan leading a faction with Randy Savage and Ultimate Warrior. The comparison is valid because Nash had headlined the previous WrestleMania with Michaels and Scott Hall could have done the same.

Additionally, we have to consider that Nash was the champion for a whole year whereas Shawn didn't have anyone who you could even dream of putting the title on for a long period during '96 (save for Undertaker who Bret also had). The talent was severely lacking. The '95 and '96 Rumbles have the most jobbers ever assembled in main events.

Finally, the WWF "Universe" were still jaded and "believed" during Bret's time. Shawn had to contend with the beginnings of the IWC.

Given the choice, I'd rather take Bret's place in his early 90s run to Shawn's mid 90s run.

[Zen v.W.o.]

I'd like to say that this whole "bigger draw" thing is not really a worthy point. You can't say Shawn was a bigger draw or Bret was a bigger draw. Even trying to say that Shawn was a bigger draw in the US while Bret was a bigger draw abroad really doesn't mean anything.

Certainly, we can all think of a few (at the very least) guys who were never a great draw but we consider epic wrestlers.

Additionally, we can all think of guys who were fantabulous draws (Hogan) who aren't on Bret or Shawn's level.

Finally, there's really no sure way to prove who could draw what. Bret was fortunate enough to be on the tail end of Hogan's run in WWE whereas Shawn was unfortunate enough to be headlining when the nWo was born and WWE was devoid of talent.

Was it that Shawn couldn't draw or was it that he was facing Vader, the Bulldog, Mankind and Sid? Was Bret a bigger international draw or was he fortunate enough to be Canadian and have a British brother-in-law? Also let's not forget that he constantly professes his love for every country that isn't the United States.

There's a lot of reasons for a person drawing. John Cena gets booed out of the building and still draws. I am of the opinion that it has very little to actually do with being a "better wrestler."

Those opponents Shawn faced that you listed were all pretty fucking talented. Well, except Sid. Just saying.

[Juan]

wtf wasn't this thread locked??

[midLfinger]

Those opponents Shawn faced that you listed were all pretty fucking talented. Well, except Sid. Just saying.

And Shawn had fantastic matches with all of them. Well, except Sid (but even that one was way above average).

My point was that Shawn was facing guys who were, at the time, mid-carders or nobodies. Mankind, to most, was the weirdo who fought Undertaker a lot. Vader was diminishing in skill. Sid was Sid. Bulldog never was a World Heavyweight Champion. Good wrestlers? I agree 100%. Good draws? Not a single one.

[NeanderCarl]

But then Bret Hart had the same problem too. If Bret had any big draws to battle against, he wouldn't have been champion to begin with. Bret as champion was a failed experiment, but one they kept going back to as a 'tide over' transitional reign whenever their newest experiment (Yokozuna, Diesel, Undertaker) proved just as lousy a draw as their predecessor.

[midLfinger]

But then Bret Hart had the same problem too. If Bret had any big draws to battle against, he wouldn't have been champion to begin with. Bret as champion was a failed experiment, but one they kept going back to as a 'tide over' transitional reign whenever their newest experiment (Yokozuna, Diesel, Undertaker) proved just as lousy a draw as their predecessor.

I agree. That's my whole point to saying that "draw" is not a reliable measure of who was a better wrestler. It depends entirely upon era (even a year or two make a big difference), competition from other promotions and opponents in the ring.

We're better off if we debate things like psychology, technique, story-telling ability, promo work, preferred move-set and catch phrases.

I think that the debate, over time, has become too much of a deal where if you like Bret than you must hate Shawn and his fans and "they are all teh gay!1!" Or if you like Shawn you must hate Bret and his fans and "they are all whinning crybabies."

I think that we can all agree on some of the aforementioned break-downs of wrestling ability (and maybe create some new ones) and decide who was better at what and figure out who was the best based on who had more attributes that we can consider them better than the other at.

[NeanderCarl]

But drawing power is such a massive element that to decide who is the better performer without taking it into account is to do a big injustice. By your criteria, Hulk Hogan wouldn't figure into anyones "greatest ever" list, yet how can you overlook the most famous wrestler of all time?

If you want to simply decide who was the better in-ring performer specifically, that's fine. Leave drawing ability out of it.

But being a draw is such an important aspect of being a wrestler, so much a part of the job description, that it's hard to ignore it if you're assessing the career of one. Al Snow, for example, was one of the better in-ring performers of the 90s, but he couldn't draw flies with a mouthful of shit. Andre the Giant was a huge draw for decades, yet he was the absolute pits, even when he was healthy. You have to take so many things into account.

And if you just wanted to measure Bret and Shawn on in-ring alone, they're too close a match (in different ways) for me to bother trying to make a call.

[midLfinger]

Yes, but if we look at drawing power as an argument for better wrestler, we would have to ignore the fact that drawing power is entirely based on way too many variables.

Hogan was booked very well. Andre was 7 feet tall. Al Snow was booked as a ninja and a rocker (10 years after the Rockers were cool).

Those situations just prove how completely unreliable drawing power is. Additionally, if eliminating "drawing power" as criteria also eliminates Hogan from the list of "greatest ever," maybe he shouldn't have been on your list anyway. Personally, I think Hogan filled his role really well in other ways and could still make, at least, my top ten.

[NeanderCarl]

The best booked wrestlers are booked as such because they have the intangibles to be viewed as stars. Al Snow was never booked like a Steve Austin because Al Snow didn't have the charisma, mic skills or ability to 'get over' that Austin did. Hogan got over, and was then booked like gold. Same goes for most guys who have been big stars in the business.

I think it's more than fair to judge drawing ability because drawing ability stems from the talent of the wrestler it is attached to.

The main part you would imagine they cannot control is the quality of opponents they battle, but an alchemist like Hogan could take a fat untalented piece of shit off the street, and sell the threat in such a way fans would buy tickets to see the match. Booking takes care of itself when you have an over World champion and an over challenger, and a talented great wrestler (by my definition) can get over, stay over, and get others over too.

[midLfinger]

The term "better," in and of itself, suggests subjectivity. What's better to me may or may not be better to you. What makes something better to me may or may not make it better to you.

The point is that this thread is about arguing who's the better wrestler: Shawn or Bret. Unfortunately, you and I have gone off on a tangent and now we're debating what's a better way to judge who could be a better wrestler.

We should just agree to disagree. IMO, an "ability to draw" is something that cannot be measured. There are, I believe, too many variables (so many that I didn't even mention including people were just bored while someone was champion, a great Monday Night show was canceled so more people watched Raw, a better overall show quality including wrestlers and booking, etc.). I don't believe it's easy or possible to say, "we know Bret was responsible for this percentage of fans drawn to the house shows."

You believe that "ability to draw" is important and can be measured. That's fine.

Let's just both say that both points are equally valid.

[NeanderCarl]

Of course drawing power can be measured. It can be seen in the company's bottom line. Back in the day, it was live attendance. Then TV and PPV buys came into play. Now merchandise is important too.

They matter because the profitability of the company matters and whoever is on top is considered the driving force, focal point and direction of the company (maybe less so today than back in the day, but it is still relevant even now).

A wrestler who has the ability to get over, sell the emotions required to compell fans to attend live shows and buy PPVs, and form an emotional bond with the audience will usually without exception be a successful drawing card (and prosper in spite of anything but the very shittiest of booking). These are important aspects of the overall act of being a top guy in a wrestling company. You could be the greatest in-ring in the world and the fans could still not give a damn about you or want to pay their hard-earned moolah to come see you, which isn't good enough.

I know what you're saying. You want to talk about who is the better in-ring performer. Which is fine, although you're comparing two very revered guys who are usually neck and neck in the 'talent' debate. But as far as I'm concerned if somebody asks me to compare "wrestlers", I'm looking at the overall picture. A "wrestler" is a guy whose job description has to include the ability to draw fans, work the mic, get himself over and get his angle over, as well as the prerequisite in-ring ability.

[NeanderCarl]

And it's moot in this case anyway, as my original point all along was that Bret and Shawn were neck-and-neck in this department too.

[midLfinger]

Out of TV, attendance, PPV and merchandise, only merchandise sales can actually be attributed to the wrestlers.

You cannot say for sure that a person is watching because Bret Hart is champion. You can see a trend that may have started when he became champion but even that is assumption.

Do you think people in 1997 were watching because Undertaker was champion or because Steve Austin was kicking somebody's ass weekly? You can't tell for sure.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean you absolutely no offense but I stated already about variables and how you cannot attribute increased ratings, attendance and buyrates to one absolute and it seems that you're ignoring this.

There are, of course, situations where it's really likely (Hogan or Austin) but even that comes down to variables of those around them (would Austin have been such a huge draw in WCW in 2000?).

In any event, I'm done defending this point. I feel I've stated my opinion and the facts around it to the best of my ability.

[NeanderCarl]

There is a documented history of TV rating, PPV buy and live attendance spikes upon the arrival of new champions in the fold. Edge is probably the most recent example, although short term.

You ask whether people were watching in 1997 because Taker held the belt or because Austin was whooping ass. The answer is most wrestling fans in 1997 were watching WCW instead, despite Austin tearing it up in much the same way that would set records a year or two later.

As soon as Austin won the strap, WWE took over. The World champion (pre-brand split) was the focal point of the company, therefore the focal point of the marketing, therefore the most important element in drawing, besides the "WWF" brand name. With Austin in the driver's seat as World champion, live attendance, TV ratings and PPV buys went through the roof. Why? Because Austin was a draw. If he wasn't, why would he smash PPV buy rates in matches against guys who had never come close to those figures in the past? He was a 'higher entity' in the eyes of the fans, and his rub brought other guys up to the same level. He got over, and his star elevated others by association because he was a draw.