Whose the better wrestler - Bret Hart or Michael Hayes
 

Whose the better wrestler - Bret Hart or Michael Hayes

As strictly a wrestler, Bret. But as an entertainer its Hayes by a mile.

Bret cause i never saw Hayes wrestle.

there's a theme developing

Why are you compaing them? Bret by a mile. I actually can't stand Hayes as a wrestler. His unathletic body and corny ass just makes me laugh.

Mick Foley had an unathletic body and a corny ass and he was much better than Bret Hart.

No he wasn't. I don't even think Mick Foley would say he was much better than Bret Hart. Come on with that BS.

Slik is causing calculated mayhem all up in this bitch.

The real mayhem is Slik jacking the Better Wrestler franchise right after Destor leaves.

We had a system.

Mick actually drew money

The question is better wrestler. Not entertainer/gimmick/promo/draw. If it's strictly just wrestling, there's not a ton of guys who are gonna beat out Bret.

I'm just trying to annoy Dale.

All that aside though. Mick Foley vs Bret Hart. Come on...

I’m sure Mick wouldn’t say he was better than Bret. He’s the nicest wrestler ever.

Bret would definitely say he’s better than Mick Foley though. He’s the biggest Bret Hart mark ever.

All true. Doesn't make Mick or Bret wrong though.

:rant:

If you ask Mick and Bret who the better wrestler is they will both say Bret Hart.
That's for damned sure.

I heard Bret rate himself out of ten for technique, promos and something else he considered essential and he was surprisingly humble so either he's bad with numbers or he would absolutely savage everyone else if he rated them.

I'm sure he gave himself an 8 for technique and a 6 for promos. Fuck knows what the other category was.

Bret has faith in himself, protects his legacy, and is often incredibly blunt about how he feels.

It was look, he gave himself a 10-7-7 for work, look and promos.

He gave Hogan a 1 for work.

10 for look and promos though.

Bret was a passable promo in his prime. The shorter the better.

I think he gave him 9s for those

https://cdn.prowrestlingsheet.com/ap...iner-promo.jpg

"Well, let me get this straight, Silk, you pint of SOY milk....So you wanna compare the King of Mexico North, Bret Hart, that Canadian sunava bitc against Michael Hayes?

Well, let's do some math.

You see, when facing a real man, a genetic freak like Big Poppa Pump, Bret Hart has a zero percent chance winning cause he didn't even try, so you take that zero percent chance winnin and divide it in half because any Canadian is half the man anybody else is and you get half of a zero percent points, chances for the King of Mexico North!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jMiGHPqjuq4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But then you look on the other side and look at Michael Hayes, now Michael Hayes is an American, so you don't divide his percent chance in half but multiply it by 2, so you get 0 by 2, but then you gonna say, well he beat Big Poppa Pump in 1989, so he gets another 100% chance for winning, but that sissy boy only won by CHEATING when he beat Big Poppa Pump so that means, you take his percents and turn them negative! So Michael Hayes gonna start with NEGATIVE 100% chance chances of winnin!

So if we look at our results, we see that Bret Hart has 0.5% points while Hayes has -100% percent chance of winning and one half is more than negative one hundred, so the king of Mexico North steals another win, but if you put either one of them against the Big Bad Booty Daddy you know who's gonna be the one coming home crying to mama and seeing her getting a taste of the peaks!

Holla if you heard me.

This has been a 100% scientific analysis of Michael Hayes vs Bret Hart using Steiner's patentended mathematical analysis model.