Quote:
Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126
I'm going to break Kayfabe here.
Bret Hart was one of the best in-ring workers of the past 20 years. I've enjoyed a lot of his matches. However, for me, that's where he ends. He was a sub-par promo and always had the Randy Orton tone about him. Without the Canada angle he would have been a shitty heel as well. That angle is the ONLY reason he got over as a heel. If he didn't have it he would have been stuck as a face because he was impossible to hate. And not in a good way, his character was too bland to get over as a heel.
Michaels, on the other hand, is great in the ring, is great on the mic, and is very charismatic. Plus, Michaels can play multiple variations of a heel and a face. Of the two, he's the complete package.
|
If he wasnt a good heel then the Hart Foundation back in the 80's wouldnt have been the top badass tag team of the era.
ALSO, IMO, Bret Hart was a much better wrestler, and his matches speak for themselves. He owns the greatest match in North american history, or if you want, wwe history, and has carried more wrestlers to their best matches than anyone else.
His charisma and mic skills were fine, because it takes more than just being a good wrestler to get as over as he was.
Benoit was a great wrestler, but never attained that ELITE popularity status..Bret Hart did, and easily, because he had the complete package.
HBK also had the complete package, and I admire the mans work, he just wasnt as good.
Also, Bret has more worldwide appeal. Newbs today might vote HBK cuz they havent had the chance to see the best there ever will be.