No I'll go ahead and be fair here, Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart had 2 totally different styles of working a match. Having said that, almost EVERY great wrestlers has their own style. Why can't we compare them? Anybody who's great at anything usually does it with their own specific style and flair, so we should not compare any great thing to another? I mean who was better The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? Oh well they were different styles so obviously you can't compare them.
I think their in ring styles is reflective of how each man viewed the industry. Shawn's style was much flashier and even by Hart marks' admission, more purly entertaining. Bret did his whole this is real thing, everything was done to make it 100% believable. Which is fine if you enjoy watching a fake sport trying to pass itself off as believable. Personally I'm more about watching something that is fake be entertaining. I guess it's up to each person to deside in Sports Entertainment, which element is more important to them. Personally I think Shawn is possibly the best ever when it comes to giving entertainment, and he wasn't too shabby about it's sport origin either...where as Bret was spot on selling it like it was real, but kind of let the entertainment aspect drop dead.
Wow, look at that, I compared two different styles! Do you have to agree with it? No, but don't do this cop out bullshit where because they worked two different kinds of matches it can't be compared.