Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Cruz
I really never understood the hard-on for Bret Hart. Perhaps part of this comes from the fact that I first started watching wrestling in 1998 with WCW, so my first memories of Bret are when he was 41/42 years old and had basically checked out. He was also dealing with injuries and then he of course Goldberg concussed him and he retired a year and a half into me watching.
Like, I'm not saying Bret sucked or anything. If I'm watching an old show and he's there I can appreciate the match from a technical standpoint. But I don't find myself binge watching old Bret matches on the Network as I do with other wrestlers.
|
Well, in that case:
* This is the kind of thing one says to completely destroy their credibility as a commentator, but I'm also not that big on Bret Hart. I can admit objectively that he is good by whatever agreed upon metrics there are to define a great wrestler, but as someone that has had to go and re-watch his work without the emotion at the time, I find him kind of boring and have always found Owen to be better. His I Quit Match against Austin at WrestleMania 13 may be lauded as the greatest WWE match of all-time, but I honestly have trouble paying attention during it. What is wrong with me and how can I be fixed?
* I've found NXT boring since August of last year. It roughly coincides with the departure of Charlotte, Sasha and Becky as performers. Also, I have been underwhelmed by Charlotte, Sasha & Becky as main roster performers. I know each has worked hard and their WrestleMania match was great, but beyond that, they haven't manage to hit the stride they did in NXT -- possibly due to the lack of planning that gets to go into their work in NXT and their overall presentation as just part of the scenery on RAW and SmackDown.
* If you were suddenly thrust the booking power in WWE starting with WrestleMania X-7, given that he had beaten Stone Cold Steve Austin at No Way Out that year, Triple H beating The Undertaker would have been a sane call. Without the streak there, it is debatable whether or not Taker would have gone over A-Train and Big Show at Mania XIX, Orton at Mania 21, Batista at Mania 23, Edge at Mania XXIV, HBK at Mania XXV, etc. I believe the streak is kind of horse-shitty.
Taker was already an iconic figure in wrestling and arguably pop-culture by the time Jim Ross pointed out the streak at Mania X-7 and since then, a lot of The Undertaker's booking has held back others and may have potentially even held back Taker himself. Responding to losses is an important part of any wrestler's career, and Taker was robbed of that opportunity until he was a part-time star.
Taker's streak also put emphasis on the win-loss record of other wrestlers. Edge beating Alberto Del Rio at WrestleMania XXVII comes to mind. A lot of people criticize ADR these days, but when he first showed up, beat Rey Mysterio in his first match, slapped the urn out of Paul Bearer's hands, and won the largest Royal Rumble of all-time -- things were clicking for him. Then he lost to Edge because someone realized that Edge hadn't won a WrestleMania match in some time. Probably because he didn't get to go over Chris Jericho at the previous WrestleMania despite being a returning babyface, but I digress: Del Rio was dead in the water after he lost to Edge.
You can sense how the streak influenced the booking of guys making their debuts at WrestleMania, and you can feel certain wins and certain losses really crushing certain guys, and a large part of that is because of the emphasis that had been put onto the streak, particularly between 2005 and 2014. Shawn Michaels became Mr. WrestleMania because of the quality of his WrestleMania performances. And who knows, if it had never existed, maybe The Undertaker could have made some stars? Cue maniacal Kane laugh.