Its a fair argument HOWEVER the english love grappling based wrestling so the prospect of a home town boy working a worker that works the style they like def played a factor

HOWEVER bringing up the time bret sold out an arena in this conversation proved how thin his catalogue of achievements is

Also Wembley holds 90k and they only sold 80k SO HE DIDNT EVEN DO THAT.

Sick draw though. But not a sell out.

Isn't the English loving Bret's style kind of the point there though? Like, Americans loved them some Hogan, but you can't really say "Well, Americans love big, blond tan dudes who can sell. You kind of have to factor how good Hogan was at his job when attributing success to him."

If England had a prominent role in wrestling in the mid 90s bret would have legacy worth the telling of it. They didnt though so he doesnt.

Okay, fair point. That show is pretty legendary though. SummerSlam '92 being WWF's legit biggest gate while they used those initials is pretty prominent. I'm sure the region was thirsty for a show like that though, kind of like how Cody Rhodes is able to get 10,000 people in or around Chicago to go and see a non-WWE show. I'm not saying that there are as many Bret Hart fans as Beatles fans in the UK or anything, but when you're talking about giant crowds for the WWF, then it's WrestleMania III and SummerSlam '92, surely? That's a mention for Bret.

Its a high point for Bret. Probably the peak. Not sure id go around sucking my own dick for one big night if the company had to play in increasingly smaller venues for the rest of your tenure. But that night was a big night.

And "the second biggest gate while they had those initials" is going out of our way to create a belt to get this guy over.

And thats brets legacy. Everytime he comes up until people forget who he is will be this debate. "Was he good enough."

And if you have to ask...

tried thinking where i would rank Bret in WWE history in terms of overall everything (matches, drawing, moments, time on top etc...)

I would think somewhere in the 15-20 range is fair. would you guys put anyone ahead of him post 2005 era minus Cena? (I already included HBK, Brock, HHH, Taker as pre 2005).

Maybe Edge and even Punk. Punk had one hell of a 2 year run. Orton, Batista, Eddie, JBL?

probably a discussion for another thread. but it makes you think a bit.

Overall everything, I'd put a few guys above him. There have definitely been some guys who have been a more complete package. As a draw? I don't know. The company is kinda built so no one draws anymore outside of Cena/the legends.

Goldberg created a little spike for Survivor Series, but no one has really drawn since The Rock came back in 2011. He's a one million buy guy.

Above Bret? Edge? No. Punk? No. Certainly not Orton, Batista, or JBL either. Not in terms of draw nor in terms of talent.

Eddie was (arguably) equally talented (or at best slightly better than Bret) BUT he was also given the freedom to show it in a period where he had already been developed to be comfortable to do so when he was finally actually given the opportunity. That was not the case for Bret, no matter his natural talent level. Eddie was (at MOST) an equal draw, but again, that's hard to say given the roster split and differing time periods.

Eddie is the only one that comes to mind from the post-Attitude era for me too. He was a hit with that Hispanic demographic. That being said, I do think you need to adjust for inflation a little bit. I think a 2.5 then means a lot more than a 2.5 now. And I know there are more channels now, but I think the WWE has a built-in audience that just isn't turning off. Raw was finding itself during the time of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels in a period where there were other wrestling options widely known.

Punk, Orton and Edge were all better than Bret.

A modern day equivalent of Bret Hart in terms of drawing ability and talent is Dean Ambrose.

The way attendance is down I don't see anyone drawing 10K+ regularly anytime soon.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He was a draw at a certain level. Enough to be the top guy in WWF for years but not at the Hogan, Austin, Rock level <a href="https://t.co/kPZzFbF7by">https://t.co/kPZzFbF7by</a></p>&mdash; Dave Meltzer (@davemeltzerWON) <a href="https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/996815554261303296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

lmfao absolutely fucking not. You're just such a hater it's ridiculous.

Whatever edge Hart had over Punk in the ring, Punk WAY more than made up for as an overall performer. He was better.

And Orton would have been miles better as the face of the company.

Not a huge fan of Edge so... meh.

"Years"? lol He was the top guy for a year or so after Hogan left (and after they tried to push Luger as the new face of the company) before they went with Diesel then Shawn to be the top guy because Bret wasn't working.

Yet Diesel didn't draw well. He got kept as champion b/c he was big w/o muscles and Vince tried to replace Hogan as he did w/ Luger.

None of them drew at the time. Including Bret. If he did, they wouldn't have needed the others.

lol fuck how can I argue with Todd Pettingil? HE WAS THERE.

Consider this argument over.

https://i.imgur.com/8MZPLd8.gif

THE TODDSTER

Compared to Hogan of course they didn't draw though Hart had more time to be The Guy thus more opportunities headline more. Nash was lower on the Top 50 Draws list I posted.

Edge as a heel with Lita is my favourite pairing of the past 20 years

Lita's tits can make anyone seem better.

I've got this disagree with this. Punk could promo and I enjoyed a lot of his work, but retroactively there is no way Punk was overall better. I'd take Hart any day of the week. Punk's got one slight buyrate increase to his name. We've already discussed Wembley.

I never really bought into Edge. I have no hate for the guy, and I wish they had run with him more at the start of 2006, but something just doesn't connect there. I was thinking just yesterday that the dude was always in the main event though. Once he got up there, did they ever move him down to the mid-card for even a snooze? He won the belt in 2006, I can't remember what he did in 2007, he was headlining in 2008, in 2009 he was in the World Heavyweight Title scene at least, 2010 was still the World Heavyweight Title scene and more Jericho stuff, then it was Del Rio and he was done.

I said he was a better overall performer. If you wanna use houses where they headlined as the be all end all, you're putting yourself in the position of having to rationalize how Bret was better than a lot of guys I'm sure you think he's actually better than. Like Roman Reigns.

Also, Bulldog. Who was a bigger draw for that show than Bret. And you just can't honesty argue against that.

lol Bulldog never drew anyone to anywhere.

Seriously? You think people came to Wembley because of Bret and not Bulldog? Come on. lol

Laughable

I have no clue what you're trying to say here. I mean, I get that you think that Punk was overall better, but I'm saying that I don't think he was. So...okay?

Also, I'm sure the time will come where I will take Reigns over Punk too. I don't really miss Punk at all.

They came for both, Bulldog moreso.

Bulldog was over in England, but so was Bret.

Yeah I guess they should have just booked Bulldog versus Berzerker. Would have drawn the same.

If it was for the IC title then yes it would have.

Nah maybe Repoman instead.