Bret "The Hitman" Hart vs. "The Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels

[James Steele]

Originally Posted by midLfinger Not to choose a side, but does anybody actually feel like debating their, y'know, ability? Plenty of guys are dicks or cheat on spouses or have homosexual fans or got screwed by their promoter or made deals with WCW. That's neither here nor there. What about what they actually got paid for? Who did what best? ::Puts arms in front of face to shield self from oncoming onslaught::

Well, if that was the case then Bret Hart marks wouldn't have anything to argue about. It always ends up being about how HBK is a pretty boy or gay slurs and such.

[NeanderCarl]

They were pretty much equal in their day. If I picked a superior wrestler from the pair, my opinion may well change by tomorrow.

Both very good in different ways. Michaels was probably the superior all rounder, probably a bigger draw than Bret in the US, and a better interview. More charismatic, more diverse. Bret was the better technician, the better realist, better psychology, huge draw in Europe and Canada.

You could go back and forth all day.

Now, back to the semantics. Who was a bigger cunt???

[midLfinger]

I'd like to say that this whole "bigger draw" thing is not really a worthy point. You can't say Shawn was a bigger draw or Bret was a bigger draw. Even trying to say that Shawn was a bigger draw in the US while Bret was a bigger draw abroad really doesn't mean anything.

Certainly, we can all think of a few (at the very least) guys who were never a great draw but we consider epic wrestlers.

Additionally, we can all think of guys who were fantabulous draws (Hogan) who aren't on Bret or Shawn's level.

Finally, there's really no sure way to prove who could draw what. Bret was fortunate enough to be on the tail end of Hogan's run in WWE whereas Shawn was unfortunate enough to be headlining when the nWo was born and WWE was devoid of talent.

Was it that Shawn couldn't draw or was it that he was facing Vader, the Bulldog, Mankind and Sid? Was Bret a bigger international draw or was he fortunate enough to be Canadian and have a British brother-in-law? Also let's not forget that he constantly professes his love for every country that isn't the United States.

There's a lot of reasons for a person drawing. John Cena gets booed out of the building and still draws. I am of the opinion that it has very little to actually do with being a "better wrestler."

[Zen v.W.o.]

Originally Posted by midLfinger I'd like to say that this whole "bigger draw" thing is not really a worthy point. You can't say Shawn was a bigger draw or Bret was a bigger draw. Even trying to say that Shawn was a bigger draw in the US while Bret was a bigger draw abroad really doesn't mean anything. Certainly, we can all think of a few (at the very least) guys who were never a great draw but we consider epic wrestlers. Additionally, we can all think of guys who were fantabulous draws (Hogan) who aren't on Bret or Shawn's level. Finally, there's really no sure way to prove who could draw what. Bret was fortunate enough to be on the tail end of Hogan's run in WWE whereas Shawn was unfortunate enough to be headlining when the nWo was born and WWE was devoid of talent. Was it that Shawn couldn't draw or was it that he was facing Vader, the Bulldog, Mankind and Sid? Was Bret a bigger international draw or was he fortunate enough to be Canadian and have a British brother-in-law? Also let's not forget that he constantly professes his love for every country that isn't the United States. There's a lot of reasons for a person drawing. John Cena gets booed out of the building and still draws. I am of the opinion that it has very little to actually do with being a "better wrestler."

Those opponents Shawn faced that you listed were all pretty fucking talented. Well, except Sid. Just saying.

[midLfinger]

Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o. Those opponents Shawn faced that you listed were all pretty fucking talented. Well, except Sid. Just saying.

And Shawn had fantastic matches with all of them. Well, except Sid (but even that one was way above average).

My point was that Shawn was facing guys who were, at the time, mid-carders or nobodies. Mankind, to most, was the weirdo who fought Undertaker a lot. Vader was diminishing in skill. Sid was Sid. Bulldog never was a World Heavyweight Champion. Good wrestlers? I agree 100%. Good draws? Not a single one.

[James Steele]

Solid points, midLfinger.

[NeanderCarl]

I only mentioned their drawing power in a paragraph which tried to quickly assess, and mainly compare, the guys on many different levels. I also mentioned skill, ability and intangibles in there too.

To be honest, Shawn being the better draw in the US and Bret being the better draw overseas means fuck all anyway because neither of them have ever proven to be box office gold in their own right. It was a small point that I believe was fair to bring up.

I said Shawn is the better draw in the US based on the years since his return, more than anything. Arguing over which man was the better draw in the 90s is fruitless because fact is that the WWF was close to folding on many occasions during the Bret-Shawn era, no matter which was on top.

[NeanderCarl]

Also whether a champion was a success during that era (1992 through to the MNW) had less to do with ratings and buy rates and the likes they are judged by nowadays. The main indicator in those days was the house show attendance.

Bret was not lucky to be coming off the back of the Hogan run by any stretch because Bret (and Flair before him) were at the head of the biggest domestic downswing the WWF had ever seen in 1992 which virtually crippled the company to the point where house shows were regular money losers for the company right through to 1997/98 when things got hot again.

[midLfinger]

Carl: I should've been clearer and apologize for it. I didn't mean for it to seem that I was referring exclusively to you. I just meant the "draw" argument in general.

Of course, your other points are valid. I especially appreciate that you brought up the psychology aspect which, in my mind, is at the heart of the debate. Is Bret's cold, business-like psychology better or is Shawn's emotional psychology superior? That's what, I think, unltimately decides who one prefers.

With regard to Bret coming on Hogan's tail end (that sounds so completely gross), I have to say that it was good fortune, particularly in comparison to Michaels situation, because Hogan wasn't gone until 1993, well after Bret was champion, whereas Michaels delt with a "fresh" Hogan as competition. Hogan was a heel. This was hot at the moment. It caught everyone's attention. Additionally, Nash and Hall were in WCW with him. What if in 1993, Bret was up against a WCW with a heel Hogan leading a faction with Randy Savage and Ultimate Warrior. The comparison is valid because Nash had headlined the previous WrestleMania with Michaels and Scott Hall could have done the same.

Additionally, we have to consider that Nash was the champion for a whole year whereas Shawn didn't have anyone who you could even dream of putting the title on for a long period during '96 (save for Undertaker who Bret also had). The talent was severely lacking. The '95 and '96 Rumbles have the most jobbers ever assembled in main events.

Finally, the WWF "Universe" were still jaded and "believed" during Bret's time. Shawn had to contend with the beginnings of the IWC.

Given the choice, I'd rather take Bret's place in his early 90s run to Shawn's mid 90s run.

[Juan]

wtf wasn't this thread locked??

[NeanderCarl]

But then Bret Hart had the same problem too. If Bret had any big draws to battle against, he wouldn't have been champion to begin with. Bret as champion was a failed experiment, but one they kept going back to as a 'tide over' transitional reign whenever their newest experiment (Yokozuna, Diesel, Undertaker) proved just as lousy a draw as their predecessor.

[midLfinger]

Originally Posted by Class Act Carl But then Bret Hart had the same problem too. If Bret had any big draws to battle against, he wouldn't have been champion to begin with. Bret as champion was a failed experiment, but one they kept going back to as a 'tide over' transitional reign whenever their newest experiment (Yokozuna, Diesel, Undertaker) proved just as lousy a draw as their predecessor.

I agree. That's my whole point to saying that "draw" is not a reliable measure of who was a better wrestler. It depends entirely upon era (even a year or two make a big difference), competition from other promotions and opponents in the ring.

We're better off if we debate things like psychology, technique, story-telling ability, promo work, preferred move-set and catch phrases.

I think that the debate, over time, has become too much of a deal where if you like Bret than you must hate Shawn and his fans and "they are all teh gay!1!" Or if you like Shawn you must hate Bret and his fans and "they are all whinning crybabies."

I think that we can all agree on some of the aforementioned break-downs of wrestling ability (and maybe create some new ones) and decide who was better at what and figure out who was the best based on who had more attributes that we can consider them better than the other at.

[NeanderCarl]

But drawing power is such a massive element that to decide who is the better performer without taking it into account is to do a big injustice. By your criteria, Hulk Hogan wouldn't figure into anyones "greatest ever" list, yet how can you overlook the most famous wrestler of all time?

If you want to simply decide who was the better in-ring performer specifically, that's fine. Leave drawing ability out of it.

But being a draw is such an important aspect of being a wrestler, so much a part of the job description, that it's hard to ignore it if you're assessing the career of one. Al Snow, for example, was one of the better in-ring performers of the 90s, but he couldn't draw flies with a mouthful of shit. Andre the Giant was a huge draw for decades, yet he was the absolute pits, even when he was healthy. You have to take so many things into account.

And if you just wanted to measure Bret and Shawn on in-ring alone, they're too close a match (in different ways) for me to bother trying to make a call.

[midLfinger]

Yes, but if we look at drawing power as an argument for better wrestler, we would have to ignore the fact that drawing power is entirely based on way too many variables.

Hogan was booked very well. Andre was 7 feet tall. Al Snow was booked as a ninja and a rocker (10 years after the Rockers were cool).

Those situations just prove how completely unreliable drawing power is. Additionally, if eliminating "drawing power" as criteria also eliminates Hogan from the list of "greatest ever," maybe he shouldn't have been on your list anyway. Personally, I think Hogan filled his role really well in other ways and could still make, at least, my top ten.

[NeanderCarl]

The best booked wrestlers are booked as such because they have the intangibles to be viewed as stars. Al Snow was never booked like a Steve Austin because Al Snow didn't have the charisma, mic skills or ability to 'get over' that Austin did. Hogan got over, and was then booked like gold. Same goes for most guys who have been big stars in the business.

I think it's more than fair to judge drawing ability because drawing ability stems from the talent of the wrestler it is attached to.

The main part you would imagine they cannot control is the quality of opponents they battle, but an alchemist like Hogan could take a fat untalented piece of shit off the street, and sell the threat in such a way fans would buy tickets to see the match. Booking takes care of itself when you have an over World champion and an over challenger, and a talented great wrestler (by my definition) can get over, stay over, and get others over too.

[midLfinger]

The term "better," in and of itself, suggests subjectivity. What's better to me may or may not be better to you. What makes something better to me may or may not make it better to you.

The point is that this thread is about arguing who's the better wrestler: Shawn or Bret. Unfortunately, you and I have gone off on a tangent and now we're debating what's a better way to judge who could be a better wrestler.

We should just agree to disagree. IMO, an "ability to draw" is something that cannot be measured. There are, I believe, too many variables (so many that I didn't even mention including people were just bored while someone was champion, a great Monday Night show was canceled so more people watched Raw, a better overall show quality including wrestlers and booking, etc.). I don't believe it's easy or possible to say, "we know Bret was responsible for this percentage of fans drawn to the house shows."

You believe that "ability to draw" is important and can be measured. That's fine.

Let's just both say that both points are equally valid.

[NeanderCarl]

Of course drawing power can be measured. It can be seen in the company's bottom line. Back in the day, it was live attendance. Then TV and PPV buys came into play. Now merchandise is important too.

They matter because the profitability of the company matters and whoever is on top is considered the driving force, focal point and direction of the company (maybe less so today than back in the day, but it is still relevant even now).

A wrestler who has the ability to get over, sell the emotions required to compell fans to attend live shows and buy PPVs, and form an emotional bond with the audience will usually without exception be a successful drawing card (and prosper in spite of anything but the very shittiest of booking). These are important aspects of the overall act of being a top guy in a wrestling company. You could be the greatest in-ring in the world and the fans could still not give a damn about you or want to pay their hard-earned moolah to come see you, which isn't good enough.

I know what you're saying. You want to talk about who is the better in-ring performer. Which is fine, although you're comparing two very revered guys who are usually neck and neck in the 'talent' debate. But as far as I'm concerned if somebody asks me to compare "wrestlers", I'm looking at the overall picture. A "wrestler" is a guy whose job description has to include the ability to draw fans, work the mic, get himself over and get his angle over, as well as the prerequisite in-ring ability.

[NeanderCarl]

And it's moot in this case anyway, as my original point all along was that Bret and Shawn were neck-and-neck in this department too.

[midLfinger]

Out of TV, attendance, PPV and merchandise, only merchandise sales can actually be attributed to the wrestlers.

You cannot say for sure that a person is watching because Bret Hart is champion. You can see a trend that may have started when he became champion but even that is assumption.

Do you think people in 1997 were watching because Undertaker was champion or because Steve Austin was kicking somebody's ass weekly? You can't tell for sure.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean you absolutely no offense but I stated already about variables and how you cannot attribute increased ratings, attendance and buyrates to one absolute and it seems that you're ignoring this.

There are, of course, situations where it's really likely (Hogan or Austin) but even that comes down to variables of those around them (would Austin have been such a huge draw in WCW in 2000?).

In any event, I'm done defending this point. I feel I've stated my opinion and the facts around it to the best of my ability.

[NeanderCarl]

There is a documented history of TV rating, PPV buy and live attendance spikes upon the arrival of new champions in the fold. Edge is probably the most recent example, although short term.

You ask whether people were watching in 1997 because Taker held the belt or because Austin was whooping ass. The answer is most wrestling fans in 1997 were watching WCW instead, despite Austin tearing it up in much the same way that would set records a year or two later.

As soon as Austin won the strap, WWE took over. The World champion (pre-brand split) was the focal point of the company, therefore the focal point of the marketing, therefore the most important element in drawing, besides the "WWF" brand name. With Austin in the driver's seat as World champion, live attendance, TV ratings and PPV buys went through the roof. Why? Because Austin was a draw. If he wasn't, why would he smash PPV buy rates in matches against guys who had never come close to those figures in the past? He was a 'higher entity' in the eyes of the fans, and his rub brought other guys up to the same level. He got over, and his star elevated others by association because he was a draw.