The Official Shawn Michaels or Bret Hart Thread - Page 3

**Rob** · 12-13-2007, 02:56 AM

DX better than The Rockers? If people didn't think you talked shit before, this just proved it.

**Theo Dious** · 12-13-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero Limit 126

Canada doesn't suck.

How can something that doesn't exist do anything?

Yeah, I wish I'd remembered THAT before saying something so foolish.

**Heyman** · 12-13-2007, 08:05 AM

Preface - After reviewing my analysis, I realized that it.....kinda sucks.

Nonetheless, here is my viewpoint:

Shawn Michaels vs. Bret Hart: Who's the better man.

Wrestling Ability: Tie.

To me, it's a bit absurd to try and compare Shawn Michaels to Bret Hart in terms of who the overall better wrestler was. It's like trying to compare Joe Montana to Jerry Rice (or for us hockey fans, Patrick Roy to Wayne Gretzky). Bret and Shawn had different wrestling styles.....and were masters of their own respective styles. In my opinion, HBK and Bret are 2 of the 4 greatest wrestlers of all-time (Kurt Angle and Dynamite Kid being the other two). In the end, I don't think it matters that HBK had more speed, agility, and aerial ability. Similarily, I don't think it matters if Bret had greater mat skills and sold moves in a far more realistic way. In the end, both guys were wrestling geniuses in their own way.

Charisma: Tie:

I'm a little surprised at how many people are be-littling Bret's charisma. During the early mid-90's, Bret was the #1 face carrying the WWE in Hulk Hogan's absence. Bret had tons of international appeal, and did a great job in portraying the "no-nonsense / good guy" image. Even when Bret Hart was an American hating heel, the guy generated great heat in the Hart Foundation.

Anyone that watched the WWE in 1997 knows what I'm talking about. The guy got massive face pops in Canada and generated spectacular heel heat in the U.S. An argument can be made that a large part of Bret's success, came from the fact that he was portraying his real life beliefs (and hence - his promos/attitude came across as very real).

Bottom line? Bret was majorly over as a heel AND a face. HBK on the other hand, had more "flair" and probably had Bret beat in terms of the controversy he created (i.e. DX, MSG incident, etc.). However - HBK's greatest success was always as a heel. Like many other wrestlers, HBK simply could not deliver in the same way as a face. Bret on the other hand, CARRIED THE COMPANY as a major face.

So in conclusion here, I'll have to say "draw" for charisma. Bret showed an ability to be over big time as both a heel and a face. HBK created more overall controversy .

Overall Wrestling Legacy: Bret Hart

In my opinion, Bret's wrestling legacy overshadows HBK's. Bret had(s) more international appeal than HBK in my opinion, and also showed an ability to CARRY the company as both a heel AND a face. Almost anyone can "make it" as a heel. However - it takes someone truly special to reciprocate that as a face.....and Bret delivered from that standpoint. All the great ones have done this: Steve Austin, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, and Bret Hart.

In terms of "who had more memorable matches" (which ties in to overall wrestling legacy IMO), I'd call it a draw.

However, I'd argue that "backstage conduct" falls under wrestling legacy and Bret Hart easily wins hands down here. Bret was a team player for the most part, and almost always did jobs when asked to. Bret had the respect of almost anyone worth a damn backstage (i.e. Undertaker). HBK on the other hand, was a complete brat....and often times went out of his way to belittle others, etc. HBK refused to do jobs, etc. to many people on numerous occassions. HBK was a complete dick to emerging talents such as The Rock. HBK faked an injury to get out of dropping the title to Bret at Mania. At Wrestlemania 14, HBK tried to get out of his match with Austin (until Taker threatened to beat the shit out of him).

So - in terms of overall wrestling LEGACY, I'll have to go with Bret. Both men have had NUMEROUS 5 star matches. Both men had the ability to carry almost ANYONE. However - Bret's international appeal and classy backstage demeanour gives him the nod IMO.

Better current mental State: HBK

It truly saddens me that a guy as great as Bret simply refuses to let go of an event that happened over 10 years ago. It's debatable as to whether Bret screwed Bret or Vince screwed Bret 10 years ago, but Bret sure as hell is screwing Bret at current. EVERY time HBK's name is brought up to Bret nowadays, Bret can't resist taking shots at him (instead of being the "bigger man" and saying, "You know what? It happened 10 years ago. Let's drop it."). HBK on the other hand, truly seems like a guy who is trying to walk the path of spirituality. HBK acknowledges that he was a dick back in the day, and genuinely seems like he's trying to be a better person.

As the years go by, HBK's legacy continues to grow....based on his current wrestling matches and current backstage conduct, etc. "Montreal" on the other hand, seems to grow in relevance as it relates to Bret's wrestling legacy.....and that's sad. The more relevance "Montreal" has, the more it takes away from Bret's overall wrestling legacy....and THAT is a shame. However - Bret is digging his own grave as far as I'm concerned.

Overall - HBK

Although I think Bret has HBK beat in terms of overall wrestling impact, I still choose HBK for reasons NON-wrestling related. After an extremely troubled and tumultous youth, HBK finally seems to be happy....and seems to be walking down the right path. Bret on the other hand, just seems to be misreable...a guy that can't let go of the past.....a guy that keeps dwelling on the past. The funny thing here, is that a lot of Bret's fans have adopted the same mentality (which perhaps explains why a lot of Bret's fans still seem so passionate/angry about Montreal?).

Although Bret probably did more and achieved more than HBK did in his wrestling career (IMO), I also believe that as time goes on, HBK's legacy will continue to get bigger.....while Montreal will grow in relevance as it relates to Bret (which in effect, will continue to diminsh Bret's overall legacy).

At this rate - I think HBK will live a happy life one day after wrestling. Bret on the other hand (and his fans), will continue to be misreable for the most part while dwelling on the past.

**The One** · 12-13-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

DX better than The Rockers? If people didn't think you talked shit before, this just proved it.

I'm sorry, but I enjoyed DX more than I did the Rockers. I mean I realize that DX wasn't so much a "Tag Team" as it was a 2.5 man gang (Chyna being half man obviously). But still, DX is some of my fondest memories as a fan.

In truth, I basically missed both Rockers and Hart Foundation. I mean I really only stared watching WWE when Flair jumped over and at that point The Rockers had JUST broken up and the Harts had been more or less done for some time. Obviously I'd gone back and watched just about every event and tape I could fine for WWE pre-1992, and I did watch somewhat off and on during the times that the teams were together, but I generally was not a fan of WWE's product at that time. So I will be up front that I missed the most of the time those two teams were together...

Either way, I stick with my original sentiment from what I HAVE seen.

**Theo Dious** · 12-13-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alienoid

Charisma: Tie

Well, that does it, you just robbed yourself of the last bit of credibility you may have had.

**Kane Knight** · 12-13-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthTedious

Well, that does it, you just robbed yourself of the last bit of credibility you may have had.

What, Alienoid is Heyman?

That would explain a lot, actually, but...

**Pardeep 619** · 12-13-2007, 03:53 PM

Shawn Michaels is the most overrated wrestler in history, and he is also the worst WWE Champion of all time. I appreciate a lot of people here like him and that, but I do think that WWE have tried way too hard to put him over as charismatic (they can't exactly bullshit too much saying that he's strong or tough because that's a blatant lie). The ass kissing in his dvd (and by the 'kliq' guys on here) is nauseating.

**Rob** · 12-13-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

I'm sorry, but I enjoyed DX more than I did the Rockers. I mean I realize that DX wasn't so much a "Tag Team" as it was a 2.5 man gang (Chyna being half man obviously). But still, DX is some of my fondest memories as a fan.

In truth, I basically missed both Rockers and Hart Foundation. I mean I really only stared watching WWE when Flair jumped over and at that point The Rockers had JUST broken up and the Harts had been more or less done for some time. Obviously I'd gone back and watched just about every event and tape I could fine for WWE pre-1992, and I did watch somewhat off and on during the times that the teams were together, but I generally was not a fan of WWE's product at that time. So I will be up front that I missed the most of the time those two teams were together...

Either way, I stick with my original sentiment from what I HAVE seen.

The Rockers vs. Orient Express @ RR91. Tha will change your mind.

**Loose Cannon** · 12-13-2007, 04:57 PM

well, match wise, the Rockers are better

Entertainment wise as far as promos, skits, etc... DX is miles ahead.

**Rob** · 12-13-2007, 05:40 PM

Rockers never really had promos and never had skits.

**The MAC** · 12-13-2007, 06:21 PM

Alot of people in here started watchng around 2000.I have been watching since 1991 and if you go back you will realise the magnitude of brets career.He carried the wwf thru the worst of times.Fuck Flair and anyone else who think Bret isnt the best.

**Nark Order** · 12-13-2007, 06:53 PM

I disagree with Heyman about Shawn failing as a face. Are you kidding me? HBK can believably turn face or heel at the drop of a hat and have better results than almost anybody.

**Heyman** · 12-13-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narcissus

I disagree with Heyman about Shawn failing as a face. Are you kidding me? HBK can believably turn face or heel at the drop of a hat and have better results than almost anybody.

Hey dude,

As far as I know, I never said HBK failed as a face. What I did say however, was that HBK did not deliver as a face in the same way as he did as a heel. Keep in mind, I didn't start watching the WWE reguarly until 1998. As far as I know, HBK never carried the company as a major face (if I'm wrong on this, I apologize).

If I have my facts straight however, the fans turned on HBK when they tried to push him as a face (i.e. when he feuded with Pyscho Sid).

And to answer an earlier query - I do think Bret and Shawn were equal in charisma. Bret may have been far more "low key" and "reserved" than Shawn, but his promos came across as EXTREMELY genuine (i.e. his feud with Owen, Lawler, etc.) Bret also garnered tremendous heel heat in 97' during the Hart Foundation/USA feud. Bret was also very over as a top face in years prior.

Just like their wrestling ability, I believe HBK and Bret were equally charismatic but in different ways. HBK had more "pizzaz" and "flair" which helped him immensely as a heel.

Anyway - just my opinion.

**Jeritron** · 12-14-2007, 04:02 AM

HBK as a face in 1996 was the only reason they didn't go under. Perhaps on paper he didn't "draw" because they were getting their ass kicked by the WCW/nWo. BUT, he was the only attraction on the card (Bret was on hiatus) and he WAS the WWF. For this, he is clearly one of the better draws ever. He succeeded immensely. HBK's 1996 title run was and is what a face title run should be.

**Loose Cannon** · 12-14-2007, 11:11 AM

it's a nice way of putting it if you are an HBK fan here, but let's be realistic. The company almost went under that year and HBK was on top. Basically, it's like saying The 2003 Detroit Tigers almost became the worst team ever in baseball history, but with a few key wins by Mike Maroth, they succeded in not acheiving that feat. Shit is still shit no matter how you look at it.

**Kane Knight** · 12-14-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeritron

HBK as a face in 1996 was the only reason they didn't go under. Perhaps on paper he didn't "draw" because they were getting their ass kicked by the WCW/nWo. BUT, he was the only attraction on the card (Bret was on hiatus) and he WAS the WWF. For this, he is clearly one of the better draws ever. He succeeded immensely. HBK's 1996 title run was and is what a face title run should be.

Uh huh...*backs away slowly*

**Zen v.W.o.** · 12-14-2007, 02:29 PM

Actually it was better than what nash was doing as champ in 95. But to defend HBK a bit here for a minute, yes shock to all, I dont believe, unless you are Hogan or Austin, that you are responsible for drawing for an entire company. It's the product overall that is the draw, not fair to say Shawn wasnt good because ratings or ppv buyrates were low during his time period.
Besides him, Bret(who took time off) Bulldog, Taker and Owen, what else was there in 96? Vader maybe.

NOBODY, unless wrestling in certain countries or states, under particular circumstances, is a guy that draws on his own name alone..only Hogan and Austin may have been able to say that they did.

**Heyman** · 12-14-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o.

NOBODY, unless wrestling in certain countries or states, under particular circumstances, is a guy that draws on his own name alone..only Hogan and Austin may have been able to say that they did.

Does Zen v.W.o. not smell what The Rock is cooking?!?!!?

<--- people's eyebrow

**RottingFreak** · 12-15-2007, 05:23 AM

Bret Hart is a bigger star than Shawn Michaels. Has Shawn Michaels appeared in the Simpsons? Clase closed.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 12-15-2007, 07:14 AM

I agree with Kane Knight and Heyman's analysis, to an extent. KK is right, because a lot of the shit hurled Bret Hart's way is ridiculous. I also generally agree with Heyman's break-down of their abilities. They were two completely different styles of wrestler, and Bret Hart did have comparable charisma to Shawn Michaels. He wasn't nearly as flashy, but he didn't need to be. His shtick was being a jock-like pure wrestler. Bret Hart did this well enough to leap over the barriers of being seen as bland. And some of you might say that you saw him as bland, but the success the man achieved does not agree with you.

Personally, I'm not as big on Bret Hart as others. I've seen very little of his work, and I'm not too keen to watch every match the guy has ever had, because I don't find something fantastically brilliant in each Bret Hart match to warrant its own viewing. To say the man has no charisma is asinine, though. His success and dedicated following is evidence of at least some form of charisma. Putting on a hat and dancing around to theme music you sung yourself does not make you more charismatic than someone, necessarily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RottingFreak

Bret Hart is a bigger star than Shawn Michaels. Has Shawn Michaels appeared in the Simpsons? Clase closed.

I was actually going to bring this up. Sure, it was only a cameo appearance, but the writers at The Simpsons found Bret Hart to be enough of a cultural icon to at least appear on their show. Shawn Michaels has never really been one of the major draws of wrestling. Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock are probably the biggest three, and then you go into the smaller, yet still notable stars wrestling has produced: Andre the Giant, Bret Hart, Randy Savage and The Undertaker. I'd never heard of Shawn Michaels until I was well and truly a wrestling fan.

This is a dodgy method of measurement, and I'll admit that, but look at how many World Championships they held during their era. Bret Hart ended his career with seven to his name, I believe. Shawn Michaels was nursing his back for four years with only three. If you look at how long each guy was WWE Champion, Bret Hart almost doubles the time HBK spent as Champion.

Yeah, it's a dodgy method, but I think it is worth bringing up. I really believe that Bret Hart is a little ahead as far as contributions to the industry go.

So yeah, everyone has their opinion, I guess. A Shawn Michaels match can be a lot more flat-out fun than a Bret Hart match, but I think each guy has his reasons to go down as one of the greatest, but all things considered, and not making this apples and oranges, and putting some kind of criteria on them that they can both meet, I think I'd go with Bret Hart, just for being a bit more relevant and iconic than Shawn Michaels.

**Kane Knight** · 12-15-2007, 09:31 AM

In fact, Bret's been referenced in a lot of places, and Michaels....Well, Michaels, I know of none.

**The MAC** · 12-15-2007, 10:54 AM

Bret has been on cnn and leno as well.

shawn was on baywatch once..non speaking role.. It was the one with ric flair as the champion on it. WCW invaded baywatch lol.

**Kane Knight** · 12-15-2007, 10:57 AM

Oh, right. Also, Shawn Michaels posed nekkied.

**Heyman** · 12-15-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver007

Bret has been on cnn and leno as well.

shawn was on baywatch once..non speaking role.. It was the one with ric flair as the champion on it. WCW invaded baywatch lol.

LOL - I think I remember that episode.

Hogan and Savage were faces, while Flair and ??? were the big bad heels.

**Kane Knight** · 12-15-2007, 10:58 AM

...Well, not really.

**Heyman** · 12-15-2007, 10:59 AM

In all seriousness, I think Bret has a bigger penis than Shawn.

Only JR would know for sure though.

**The MAC** · 12-15-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight

Oh, right. Also, Shawn Michaels posed nekkied.

yes, in a gay magazine.

**McLegend** · 12-15-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heyman

Bret Hart also appears on the introduction of "Malcolm In The Middle."

Puting Benoit in the sharpshooter no less.

**The MAC** · 12-15-2007, 11:57 AM

I bet most of you HBK lovers post on this forum : http://www.voy.com/23269/

**The One** · 12-15-2007, 12:36 PM

Let me try and understand this new measurement of someone's worth as a wrestler...it's dependent on how much they appear OUTSIDE of wrestling? Well Marc Mero has been all over CNN, Chyna has been everywhere from news rooms to reality TV, Steve Blackman is no stranger to appearing outside of the ropes, and even Billy Gunn has had a spot on a sitcom. I guess that automatically makes them better than say, The Undertaker, who, to my knowledge, hasn't made too many non wrestling appearances.

Honestly, the idea that because Bret was characterized on The Simpsons, that makes him better than Shawn, or that somehow makes him a bigger draw is simply idiotic.

**The One** · 12-15-2007, 12:46 PM

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.

**Kane Knight** · 12-15-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

Let me try and understand this new measurement of someone's worth as a wrestler...it's dependent on how much they appear OUTSIDE of wrestling? Well Marc Mero has been all over CNN, Chyna has been everywhere from news rooms to reality TV, Steve Blackman is no stranger to appearing outside of the ropes, and even Billy Gunn has had a spot on a sitcom. I guess that automatically makes them better than say, The Undertaker, who, to my knowledge, hasn't made too many non wrestling appearances.

Honestly, the idea that because Bret was characterized on The Simpsons, that makes him better than Shawn, or that somehow makes him a bigger draw is simply idiotic.

I think the idea that the Simpsons would compare on a resum� compared to an episode of "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" is simply idiotic. Or comparing it to Marc Mero, who shows up on news shows which talk about wrestling specifically.

Guesting on the Simpsons is a pretty big deal. Guesting on Sabrina? Not so much. Guesting on Larry King to talk about steroids? Again, not so much. Does that make Bret a better draw? No. Does it indicate a level of popularity and a potential status as a "household name" that the others shows do not carry? Uh...Yeah.

Should it be the only measure? No. Does it have an impact? Yes.

This thread will now be the target of ToVo's markish reaction.

**The One** · 12-15-2007, 01:18 PM

AND ANOTHER THING...

This is something that's ALWAYS bothered me. Could someone point to the years that Bret Hart carried the company? I mean seriously, from the time I started watching WWE religiously in '92 to present day, I struggle with finding these years that the entire company was carried on Bret's back.

Most people claim that once Hogan left, it was the Bret Hart show...ok...Hogan left in 1993. And by the way, in 1993 Hogan left WrestleMania with the WWF Title who he won from Yokozuna because, as I understand it (and I could be wrong on this one, so any details about why 9 ended the way it did would be great), Hogan felt Hart wasn't a big enough name to win the belt off of. Anyway, Bret spent the last part of 1993 (the Hogan free section) feuding with...Jerry Lawler. No exactly the center focus of the WWF, nor was it keeping the entire company afloat I'd imagine...

OK, well maybe it was 1994. I mean he was the Champ during 94. But wait a second, was he supposed to be? I mean the fact that Luger couldn't keep his damn mouth closed before Mania X is really the only reason Bret walked away with the belt that night. And if memory serves me, Lex was just as much over if not maybe a little more so going into that event. Sounds like at best he might be co-carrying the company with old Lexy boy. And of course then AT WrestleMania X the entire WWF Title situation was overshaddowed by....oh this is gonna be good...Shawn Michaels and Scott Hall's ladder match. Bret had 2 matches that night, one against golden boy Owen (which he lost) and the other winning the freakin' title, and what do people remember from that night? The Kliq doing their thing. If you ask me, from that point on Michaels and Razor were at least on the same tier in terms of drawing ability and popularity as Hart. So wow, that's Bret, Lex, Shawn and Razor, sure isn't sounding like poor old Bret has the entire promotion on his back right now. But that's only one part of 1994...

Later in 1994, I'm going to do something I HATE doing, but I am going to admit that at SummerSlam 1994, Bret and Owen had everything going for them and did a better job than Hall/Nash/Michaels did. Their program was incredible...too bad both were outshined by Taker vs. Fake Taker. And BOOM, now we have The Undertaker to also be there to take some of the load off of poor Bret's back. And we round out the year 1994 with BRet Hart carrying the company by....droping the belt to Bob Backlund and not doing much else of importance.

So we open 1995; Kevin Nash is WWF Champion, Shawn Michaels and Razor while both still working the IC level could jump seamlessly from the IC belt to seriously WWF Title contender in the blink of an eye (including Michaels working the WWF Title match at Mania that year), we have The Undertaker doing his thing, we have Owen being looked up as a legit threat to anyone and everyone (especially big brother Bret) and then we have Bret Hart who after a brief feud with Nash goes back to feuding with Bob Backlund. Now I'm not even going to say a word about the quality of the matches, that's up to you to deside how you liked them, but I am going to say quite positively that Bret/Bob wasn't keeping the WWF afloat. Bret then went back to working with Lawler. Again, not the stuff a company is based on. Then at the tail end of the year Bret wins the belt again, and begins a feud with The Undertaker over the belt. Bret and the Undertaker, even if that was the ONLY drawing point of the company (which is WAS NOT) he still has the freakin' Undertaker to work off of.

We're now in 1996, and as far as I can tell Bret hasn't had a single second were he had to carry the entire company, well maybe 1996 will be the year; nope, cause he's got his program with Shawn Michaels for the title leading up to the Iron Man at Mania XII. We all know how it ends. And Bret's off, only to return months later to feud with; Steve Austin. By the end of their feud...nah fuck it...by the time their feud really began Austin was a bigger name and bigger draw than Bret EVER was.

So there you have it. If someone would like to point to the time; hell I'd accept something as asinine as the one day that Bret Hart was carrying the entire company on his own, I might give some validity to the concept that Bret is great because he kept WWE afloat during it's dark times. But in the mean time, I'm gonna go with the theory that unless your name is Hogan or Austin, you aren't carrying the company.

**The One** · 12-15-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight

I think the idea that the Simpsons would compare on a resum� compared to an episode of "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" is simply idiotic. Or comparing it to Marc Mero, who shows up on news shows which talk about wrestling specifically.

Guesting on the Simpsons is a pretty big deal. Guesting on Sabrina? Not so much. Guesting on Larry King to talk about steroids? Again, not so much. Does that make Bret a better draw? No. Does it indicate a level of popularity and a potential status as a "household name" that the others shows do not carry? Uh...Yeah.

Should it be the only measure? No. Does it have an impact? Yes.

This thread will now be the target of ToVo's markish reaction.

You're right KK. Well by my estimation The Simpsons is a far bigger and betetr show than That 70's Show, and CERTAINLY more in main stream than Star Trek shows...so does that mean The Rock, for a while anyway, didn't have the star power of a Bret Hart since he never was in the yellow town?

It was a 10 second clip of Burns moving out of his house. They could have put any worker of the time in there, or hell they could have made up a wrestler, which I'm almost positive most fans of The Simpsons who don't watch pro wrestling thought they did anyway.

I'm sorry, my examples weren't on par with the level of The Simpsons, my point was simply that it's fucking retarded to try and measure a wrestler's value based on their appearences on programs other than wrestling. But that's just me, I guess I watch wrestling for wrestlers, not to scope out who might make the next cameo splash.

**Kane Knight** · 12-15-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

You're right KK. Well by my estimation The Simpsons is a far bigger and betetr show than That 70's Show, and CERTAINLY more in main stream than Star Trek shows...so does that mean The Rock, for a while anyway, didn't have the star power of a Bret Hart since he never was in the yellow town?

It was a 10 second clip of Burns moving out of his house. They could have put any worker of the time in there, or hell they could have made up a wrestler, which I'm almost positive most fans of The Simpsons who don't watch pro wrestling thought they did anyway.

I'm sorry, my examples weren't on par with the level of The Simpsons, my point was simply that it's fucking retarded to try and measure a wrestler's value based on their appearences on programs other than wrestling. But that's just me, I guess I watch wrestling for wrestlers, not to scope out who might make the next cameo splash.

That would be great if I was arguing which the better show was, or that the Simpsons was the ONLY show for which this counted, ToVo. Or if anyone had made those notions. Thing is, nobody did.

The Rock, for example, HOSTED SNL. Certainly, appearances in Star Trek are pretty meaningless, especially since it was a deal brokered not because of the star power (I mean, the Big Show also appeared on Star Trek), but because of marketing (Paramount wanted it to happen), but not being in the Simpsons alone doesn't mean that someone hasn't had their own crossover success. I mean, looking at the Rock, was Star Trek the best example you could think of? Maybe SNL, or the movies he's been in, or his dozens...AND DOZENS...Sorry, markish Rock moment...Of appearances in various places cemented him as a household name, dyathink?

That "ten second clip" Was about as much as most of the pop culture icons got on the Simpsons, BTW. And I don't even know who was on that 70s show, but the show was not really as indicative of pop culture as the Simpsons. I know they had some cool guests, but there is a certain cultural standpoint to appearing on the Simpsons to an extent that doesn't exist on That 70s show, or most other shows on TV.

Does that mean there are no other outlets? No, but you chose some really shitty examples. Marc Mero has made himself a career that would be worthy of "Where are they now?" shows only, and Billy Gunn had a bit part on a comedy that's nowherein the same league. I also don't see anyone arguing that Bret is a bigger celebrity than, say, the Rock, or Steve Austin, etc. Really, I don't.

As for your point of measuring people by their appearances outside of wrestling, you're wrong. Crossover success helped make wrestling big in the 80s AND in the 90s. The big stars will almost certainly be multimedia stars. That's a point that really does need to be made. And while you will find exceptions, they will certainly be rare. At least as far as the top of a generation go. So yes, outside impact can and does affect how popular a wrestler is, and even how successful. I'm not addressing this for its relevance to Bret Hart (BEcause I don't think it's relevant in this case), but that line of thought was just so phenomenally stupid, I had to say something about it.

But we're not comparing Bret to the Rock, or Austin, or Hogan, or other people who have megastardom under their belts. We're comparing him to Shawn Michaels, who is nowhere close to the Rock, or Austin, or Hogan in terms of appeal, popularity, or draw.

**The One** · 12-15-2007, 02:12 PM

My point about Star Trek and That 70's Show was those were the first two places Rock made guest spots.

What I was going for in my argument was that Bret Hart's ten second spot on The Simpsons does literally nothing to measure his worth to the industry. Him appearing on there didn't bring one extra fan in or do anything other than give fans of both Simpsons and wrestling a chance to go "Oh hey, that was cool." I'm with you 100% that the only three names in wrestling history who have ANY value in main stream media are Rock, Austin and Hogan (MAYBE make possible exception for Andre The Giant). Hell, even Ric Flair's name means jack shit outside the ring. Flair, Hart, Michaels, Hunter, none of their names mean anything when you attach them to something other than a wrestling match. So why point out (and I know it wasn't you KK who did this originally) that Bret Hart was on The Simpsons as any kind of indication that his appearance on the show makes me better than Michaels?

It's like someone saying Terry Bradshaw is the best quarterback because he's one of the most recognizable faces in and outside of the grid iron. Is Bradshaw great? Hell yes. Does his name deserve to be mentioned and argued over if he is the best or not? Absolutely. But it's not because he's had more appearances in other mediums other than football.

**Pardeep 619** · 12-15-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

AND ANOTHER THING...

OK, well maybe it was 1994. I mean he was the Champ during 94. But wait a second, was he supposed to be? I mean the fact that Luger couldn't keep his damn mouth closed before Mania X is really the only reason Bret walked away with the belt that night. And if memory serves me, Lex was just as much over if not maybe a little more so going into that event. Sounds like at best he might be co-carrying the company with old Lexy boy. And of course then AT WrestleMania X the entire WWF Title situation was overshaddowed by....oh this is gonna be good...Shawn Michaels and Scott Hall's ladder match. Bret had 2 matches that night, one against golden boy Owen (which he lost) and the other winning the freakin' title, and what do people remember from that night? The Kliq doing their thing. If you ask me, from that point on Michaels and Razor were at least on the same tier in terms of drawing ability and popularity as Hart. So wow, that's Bret, Lex, Shawn and Razor, sure isn't sounding like poor old Bret has the entire promotion on his back right now. But that's only one part of 1994...

Later in 1994, I'm going to do something I HATE doing, but I am going to admit that at SummerSlam 1994, Bret and Owen had everything going for them and did a better job than Hall/Nash/Michaels did. Their program was incredible...too bad both were outshined by Taker vs. Fake Taker. And BOOM, now we have The Undertaker to also be there to take some of the load off of poor Bret's back. And we round out the year 1994 with BRet Hart carrying the company by....droping the belt to Bob Backlund and not doing much else of importance.

So we open 1995; Kevin Nash is WWF Champion, Shawn Michaels and Razor while both still working the IC level could jump seamlessly from the IC belt to seriously WWF Title contender in the blink of an eye (including Michaels working the WWF Title match at Mania that year), we have The Undertaker doing his thing, we have Owen being looked up as a legit threat to anyone and everyone (especially big brother Bret) and then we have Bret Hart who after a brief feud with Nash goes back to feuding with Bob Backlund. Now I'm not even going to say a word about the quality of the matches, that's up to you to deside how you liked them, but I am going to say quite positively that Bret/Bob wasn't keeping the WWF afloat. Bret then went back to working with Lawler. Again, not the stuff a company is based on. Then at the tail end of the year Bret wins the belt again, and begins a feud with The Undertaker over the belt. Bret and the Undertaker, even if that was the ONLY drawing point of the company (which is WAS NOT) he still has the freakin' Undertaker to work off of.

Ok a few points I would like to mention.

1. Although Lex was initially the guy WWE wanted as the main man, after the reaction of the Royal Rumble ending, Bret was scheduled to walk out of WM10 as WWE Champion. It only harmed Lex, rather than helped Hart, that he blabbed to the press.

2. The ladder match did not overshadow Bret/Owen or the WWE title situation. Only HBK marks or people who didn't follow wrestling at the time could believe such a thing. Don't get me wrong, I may dislike HBK but I loved that match and I give HBK a lot of credit for making that match enjoyable. However, Bret/Owen was the better match and helped draw the PPV. The quality of the ladder match was more of a surprise, and the only reason people may possibly remember the ladder match more is because it was the first ever on PPV and because HBK still works for WWE (hence why it will get mentioned more and people will remember it).

3. Shawn Michaels was nowhere near on the same popularity level as Bret back in 1994. Whether you like it or not HBK was still just a jobber who was nowhere near main event level. Maybe you've forgotten (or don't know) but running away from nearly all of his IC Title defenses in late 1993 and acting like a pussy in 1994 hardly makes him number 1 contender material. In fact, at that particular moment in time, I would say that HBK was the worst IC Champion in history (not any more compared to some of the other losers who have held it). Even though he won the Royal Rumble and wrestled in the WWE Title match at WM11 (in a midcard match) In my opinion, Shawn Michaels started to become a potential main event player around mid - late 1995 and then obvoiusly became one in 1996.

**Jeritron** · 12-15-2007, 02:29 PM

Bret being on The Simpsons is awesome. But Austin was never on The Simpsons.

Take actors, musicians or pro athletes and throw them into the argument.

Is Ed Begley Jr. a better actor/box office draw/performer than Arnold because the latter didn't lend his real voice and the former did?

Same goes for bands which haven't been on the Simpsons, or athletes.

The guest star list of The Simpsons does tend to read like a who's who in showbiz, but it's not like it's an effective measuring tool

**Loose Cannon** · 12-15-2007, 03:06 PM

Bret Hart

**Zen v.W.o.** · 12-15-2007, 03:07 PM

The One, if you even for a second thought Lex was as close to as over as Bret in 94, you're just turning a blind eye to the entire thing. The fans were puking on that shit, despite trying to build him into the next "american hero".

Watch the RR again and have a listen.

View Poll Results: Heartbreak Kid or The Hitman?
Shawn Michaels	43	58.11%
Bret Hart	31	41.89%
Voters: 74. You must log in or register to vote on this poll.

12-13-2007, 08:05 AM	#83
Heyman Father of Hinduship Posts: 21,083	Shawn Michaels vs. Bret Hart: Who's the better man. Preface - After reviewing my analysis, I realized that it.....kinda sucks. Nonetheless, here is my viewpoint: Shawn Michaels vs. Bret Hart: Who's the better man. Wrestling Ability: Tie. To me, it's a bit absurd to try and compare Shawn Michaels to Bret Hart in terms of who the overall better wrestler was. It's like trying to compare Joe Montana to Jerry Rice (or for us hockey fans, Patrick Roy to Wayne Gretzky). Bret and Shawn had different wrestling styles.....and were masters of their own respective styles. In my opinion, HBK and Bret are 2 of the 4 greatest wrestlers of all-time (Kurt Angle and Dynamite Kid being the other two). In the end, I don't think it matters that HBK had more speed, agility, and aerial ability. Similarily, I don't think it matters if Bret had greater mat skills and sold moves in a far more realistic way. In the end, both guys were wrestling geniuses in their own way. Charisma: Tie: I'm a little surprised at how many people are be-littling Bret's charisma. During the early mid-90's, Bret was the #1 face carrying the WWE in Hulk Hogan's absence. Bret had tons of international appeal, and did a great job in portraying the "no-nonsense / good guy" image. Even when Bret Hart was an American hating heel, the guy generated great heat in the Hart Foundation. Anyone that watched the WWE in 1997 knows what I'm talking about. The guy got massive face pops in Canada and generated spectacular heel heat in the U.S. An argument can be made that a large part of Bret's success, came from the fact that he was portraying his real life beliefs (and hence - his promos/attitude came across as very real). Bottom line? Bret was majorly over as a heel AND a face. HBK on the other hand, had more "flair" and probably had Bret beat in terms of the controversy he created (i.e. DX, MSG incident, etc.). However - HBK's greatest success was always as a heel. Like many other wrestlers, HBK simply could not deliver in the same way as a face. Bret on the other hand, CARRIED THE COMPANY as a major face. So in conclusion here, I'll have to say "draw" for charisma. Bret showed an ability to be over big time as both a heel and a face. HBK created more overall controversy . Overall Wrestling Legacy: Bret Hart In my opinion, Bret's wrestling legacy overshadows HBK's. Bret had(s) more international appeal than HBK in my opinion, and also showed an ability to CARRY the company as both a heel AND a face. Almost anyone can "make it" as a heel. However - it takes someone truly special to reciprocate that as a face.....and Bret delivered from that standpoint. All the great ones have done this: Steve Austin, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, and Bret Hart. In terms of "who had more memorable matches" (which ties in to overall wrestling legacy IMO), I'd call it a draw. However, I'd argue that "backstage conduct" falls under wrestling legacy and Bret Hart easily wins hands down here. Bret was a team player for the most part, and almost always did jobs when asked to. Bret had the respect of almost anyone worth a damn backstage (i.e. Undertaker). HBK on the other hand, was a complete brat....and often times went out of his way to belittle others, etc. HBK refused to do jobs, etc. to many people on numerous occassions. HBK was a complete dick to emerging talents such as The Rock. HBK faked an injury to get out of dropping the title to Bret at Mania. At Wrestlemania 14, HBK tried to get out of his match with Austin (until Taker threatened to beat the shit out of him). So - in terms of overall wrestling LEGACY, I'll have to go with Bret. Both men have had NUMEROUS 5 star matches. Both men had the ability to carry almost ANYONE. However - Bret's international appeal and classy backstage demeanour gives him the nod IMO. Better current mental State: HBK It truly saddens me that a guy as great as Bret simply refuses to let go of an event that happened over 10 years ago. It's debatable as to whether Bret screwed Bret or Vince screwed Bret 10 years ago, but Bret sure as hell is screwing Bret at current. EVERY time HBK's name is brought up to Bret nowadays, Bret can't resist taking shots at him (instead of being the "bigger man" and saying, "You know what? It happened 10 years ago. Let's drop it."). HBK on the other hand, truly seems like a guy who is trying to walk the path of spirituality. HBK acknowledges that he was a dick back in the day, and genuinely seems like he's trying to be a better person. As the years go by, HBK's legacy continues to grow....based on his current wrestling matches and current backstage conduct, etc. "Montreal" on the other hand, seems to grow in relevance as it relates to Bret's wrestling legacy.....and that's sad. The more relevance "Montreal" has, the more it takes away from Bret's overall wrestling legacy....and THAT is a shame. However - Bret is digging his own grave as far as I'm concerned. Overall - HBK Although I think Bret has HBK beat in terms of overall wrestling impact, I still choose HBK for reasons NON-wrestling related. After an extremely troubled and tumultous youth, HBK finally seems to be happy....and seems to be walking down the right path. Bret on the other hand, just seems to be misreable...a guy that can't let go of the past.....a guy that keeps dwelling on the past. The funny thing here, is that a lot of Bret's fans have adopted the same mentality (which perhaps explains why a lot of Bret's fans still seem so passionate/angry about Montreal?). Although Bret probably did more and achieved more than HBK did in his wrestling career (IMO), I also believe that as time goes on, HBK's legacy will continue to get bigger.....while Montreal will grow in relevance as it relates to Bret (which in effect, will continue to diminsh Bret's overall legacy). At this rate - I think HBK will live a happy life one day after wrestling. Bret on the other hand (and his fans), will continue to be misreable for the most part while dwelling on the past.

12-13-2007, 02:56 AM	#81
Rob Part time poster Posts: 22,963	DX better than The Rockers? If people didn't think you talked shit before, this just proved it.

12-13-2007, 03:53 PM	#87
Pardeep 619 Posts: 2,256	Shawn Michaels is the most overrated wrestler in history, and he is also the worst WWE Champion of all time. I appreciate a lot of people here like him and that, but I do think that WWE have tried way too hard to put him over as charismatic (they can't exactly bullshit too much saying that he's strong or tough because that's a blatant lie). The ass kissing in his dvd (and by the 'kliq' guys on here) is nauseating.

12-13-2007, 04:57 PM	#89
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	well, match wise, the Rockers are better Entertainment wise as far as promos, skits, etc... DX is miles ahead.

12-13-2007, 05:40 PM	#90
Rob Part time poster Posts: 22,963	Rockers never really had promos and never had skits.

12-13-2007, 06:21 PM	#91
The MAC VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 2,957	Alot of people in here started watchng around 2000.I have been watching since 1991 and if you go back you will realise the magnitude of brets career.He carried the wwf thru the worst of times.Fuck Flair and anyone else who think Bret isnt the best.

12-13-2007, 06:53 PM	#92
Nark Order Soundly Defeated Wadding Posts: 40,590	I disagree with Heyman about Shawn failing as a face. Are you kidding me? HBK can believably turn face or heel at the drop of a hat and have better results than almost anybody.

12-14-2007, 04:02 AM	#94
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	HBK as a face in 1996 was the only reason they didn't go under. Perhaps on paper he didn't "draw" because they were getting their ass kicked by the WCW/nWo. BUT, he was the only attraction on the card (Bret was on hiatus) and he WAS the WWF. For this, he is clearly one of the better draws ever. He succeeded immensely. HBK's 1996 title run was and is what a face title run should be.

12-14-2007, 11:11 AM	#95
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	it's a nice way of putting it if you are an HBK fan here, but let's be realistic. The company almost went under that year and HBK was on top. Basically, it's like saying The 2003 Detroit Tigers almost became the worst team ever in baseball history, but with a few key wins by Mike Maroth, they succeded in not acheiving that feat. Shit is still shit no matter how you look at it.

12-14-2007, 02:29 PM	#97
Zen v.W.o. GO HABS GO! Posts: 4,018	Actually it was better than what nash was doing as champ in 95. But to defend HBK a bit here for a minute, yes shock to all, I dont believe, unless you are Hogan or Austin, that you are responsible for drawing for an entire company. It's the product overall that is the draw, not fair to say Shawn wasnt good because ratings or ppv buyrates were low during his time period. Besides him, Bret(who took time off) Bulldog, Taker and Owen, what else was there in 96? Vader maybe. NOBODY, unless wrestling in certain countries or states, under particular circumstances, is a guy that draws on his own name alone..only Hogan and Austin may have been able to say that they did.

12-15-2007, 05:23 AM	#99
RottingFreak Rave Autopsy Subculture Posts: 494	Bret Hart is a bigger star than Shawn Michaels. Has Shawn Michaels appeared in the Simpsons? Clase closed.

12-15-2007, 09:31 AM	#101
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	In fact, Bret's been referenced in a lot of places, and Michaels....Well, Michaels, I know of none.

12-15-2007, 10:54 AM	#102
The MAC VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 2,957	Bret has been on cnn and leno as well. shawn was on baywatch once..non speaking role.. It was the one with ric flair as the champion on it. WCW invaded baywatch lol.

12-15-2007, 10:57 AM	#103
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Oh, right. Also, Shawn Michaels posed nekkied.

12-15-2007, 10:58 AM	#105
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	...Well, not really.

12-15-2007, 10:59 AM	#106
Heyman Father of Hinduship Posts: 21,083	In all seriousness, I think Bret has a bigger penis than Shawn. Only JR would know for sure though.

12-15-2007, 11:57 AM	#109
The MAC VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 2,957	I bet most of you HBK lovers post on this forum : http://www.voy.com/23269/

12-15-2007, 12:36 PM	#110
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	Let me try and understand this new measurement of someone's worth as a wrestler...it's dependent on how much they appear OUTSIDE of wrestling? Well Marc Mero has been all over CNN, Chyna has been everywhere from news rooms to reality TV, Steve Blackman is no stranger to appearing outside of the ropes, and even Billy Gunn has had a spot on a sitcom. I guess that automatically makes them better than say, The Undertaker, who, to my knowledge, hasn't made too many non wrestling appearances. Honestly, the idea that because Bret was characterized on The Simpsons, that makes him better than Shawn, or that somehow makes him a bigger draw is simply idiotic.

12-15-2007, 12:46 PM	#111
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	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.

12-15-2007, 01:18 PM	#113
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	AND ANOTHER THING... This is something that's ALWAYS bothered me. Could someone point to the years that Bret Hart carried the company? I mean seriously, from the time I started watching WWE religiously in '92 to present day, I struggle with finding these years that the entire company was carried on Bret's back. Most people claim that once Hogan left, it was the Bret Hart show...ok...Hogan left in 1993. And by the way, in 1993 Hogan left WrestleMania with the WWF Title who he won from Yokozuna because, as I understand it (and I could be wrong on this one, so any details about why 9 ended the way it did would be great), Hogan felt Hart wasn't a big enough name to win the belt off of. Anyway, Bret spent the last part of 1993 (the Hogan free section) feuding with...Jerry Lawler. No exactly the center focus of the WWF, nor was it keeping the entire company afloat I'd imagine... OK, well maybe it was 1994. I mean he was the Champ during 94. But wait a second, was he supposed to be? I mean the fact that Luger couldn't keep his damn mouth closed before Mania X is really the only reason Bret walked away with the belt that night. And if memory serves me, Lex was just as much over if not maybe a little more so going into that event. Sounds like at best he might be co-carrying the company with old Lexy boy. And of course then AT WrestleMania X the entire WWF Title situation was overshaddowed by....oh this is gonna be good...Shawn Michaels and Scott Hall's ladder match. Bret had 2 matches that night, one against golden boy Owen (which he lost) and the other winning the freakin' title, and what do people remember from that night? The Kliq doing their thing. If you ask me, from that point on Michaels and Razor were at least on the same tier in terms of drawing ability and popularity as Hart. So wow, that's Bret, Lex, Shawn and Razor, sure isn't sounding like poor old Bret has the entire promotion on his back right now. But that's only one part of 1994... Later in 1994, I'm going to do something I HATE doing, but I am going to admit that at SummerSlam 1994, Bret and Owen had everything going for them and did a better job than Hall/Nash/Michaels did. Their program was incredible...too bad both were outshined by Taker vs. Fake Taker. And BOOM, now we have The Undertaker to also be there to take some of the load off of poor Bret's back. And we round out the year 1994 with BRet Hart carrying the company by....droping the belt to Bob Backlund and not doing much else of importance. So we open 1995; Kevin Nash is WWF Champion, Shawn Michaels and Razor while both still working the IC level could jump seamlessly from the IC belt to seriously WWF Title contender in the blink of an eye (including Michaels working the WWF Title match at Mania that year), we have The Undertaker doing his thing, we have Owen being looked up as a legit threat to anyone and everyone (especially big brother Bret) and then we have Bret Hart who after a brief feud with Nash goes back to feuding with Bob Backlund. Now I'm not even going to say a word about the quality of the matches, that's up to you to deside how you liked them, but I am going to say quite positively that Bret/Bob wasn't keeping the WWF afloat. Bret then went back to working with Lawler. Again, not the stuff a company is based on. Then at the tail end of the year Bret wins the belt again, and begins a feud with The Undertaker over the belt. Bret and the Undertaker, even if that was the ONLY drawing point of the company (which is WAS NOT) he still has the freakin' Undertaker to work off of. We're now in 1996, and as far as I can tell Bret hasn't had a single second were he had to carry the entire company, well maybe 1996 will be the year; nope, cause he's got his program with Shawn Michaels for the title leading up to the Iron Man at Mania XII. We all know how it ends. And Bret's off, only to return months later to feud with; Steve Austin. By the end of their feud...nah fuck it...by the time their feud really began Austin was a bigger name and bigger draw than Bret EVER was. So there you have it. If someone would like to point to the time; hell I'd accept something as asinine as the one day that Bret Hart was carrying the entire company on his own, I might give some validity to the concept that Bret is great because he kept WWE afloat during it's dark times. But in the mean time, I'm gonna go with the theory that unless your name is Hogan or Austin, you aren't carrying the company.

12-15-2007, 02:12 PM	#116
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	My point about Star Trek and That 70's Show was those were the first two places Rock made guest spots. What I was going for in my argument was that Bret Hart's ten second spot on The Simpsons does literally nothing to measure his worth to the industry. Him appearing on there didn't bring one extra fan in or do anything other than give fans of both Simpsons and wrestling a chance to go "Oh hey, that was cool." I'm with you 100% that the only three names in wrestling history who have ANY value in main stream media are Rock, Austin and Hogan (MAYBE make possible exception for Andre The Giant). Hell, even Ric Flair's name means jack shit outside the ring. Flair, Hart, Michaels, Hunter, none of their names mean anything when you attach them to something other than a wrestling match. So why point out (and I know it wasn't you KK who did this originally) that Bret Hart was on The Simpsons as any kind of indication that his appearance on the show makes me better than Michaels? It's like someone saying Terry Bradshaw is the best quarterback because he's one of the most recognizable faces in and outside of the grid iron. Is Bradshaw great? Hell yes. Does his name deserve to be mentioned and argued over if he is the best or not? Absolutely. But it's not because he's had more appearances in other mediums other than football.

12-15-2007, 02:29 PM	#118
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	Bret being on The Simpsons is awesome. But Austin was never on The Simpsons. Take actors, musicians or pro athletes and throw them into the argument. Is Ed Begley Jr. a better actor/box office draw/performer than Arnold because the latter didn't lend his real voice and the former did? Same goes for bands which haven't been on the Simpsons, or athletes. The guest star list of The Simpsons does tend to read like a who's who in showbiz, but it's not like it's an effective measuring tool

12-15-2007, 03:06 PM	#119
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	Bret Hart

12-15-2007, 03:07 PM	#120
Zen v.W.o. GO HABS GO! Posts: 4,018	The One, if you even for a second thought Lex was as close to as over as Bret in 94, you're just turning a blind eye to the entire thing. The fans were puking on that shit, despite trying to build him into the next "american hero". Watch the RR again and have a listen.