Bret Hart's response to Flairs comments

[Excellance of Execution]

Originally Posted by loopydate And this is a big reason why I loathe Creative Control clauses in contracts. When the wrestlers can choose who they do and don't want to job to on any given night, then that leaves the writers in a hell of a bind. This is why so many people hate Triple H, so why do people love Bret Hart for the same reason? You'll all be creaming yourselves if Vince does a screwjob on Trips if he doesn't do a proper job to, say, Chris Jericho.

There's a big difference between Bret and Triple H. Bret had creative control for the last month of his contract, so his name wouldn't be ruined before he left the company (which was Vince's choice). Triple H doesn't have creative control in his contract, his power is all political because of who he's married to. There's a big difference between creative control and politic's. All i need to say is look at Hogan during the 80's or the Clique during the mid 90's.

[loopydate]

Originally Posted by Excellance of Execution There's a big difference between Bret and Triple H. Bret had creative control for the last month of his contract, so his name wouldn't be ruined before he left the company (which was Vince's choice). Triple H doesn't have creative control in his contract, his power is all political because of who he's married to. There's a big difference between creative control and politic's. All i need to say is look at Hogan during the 80's or the Clique during the mid 90's.

Who gives a shit if Vince ruined his name over the course of a month with the legacy he'd built up in ten+ years with the company? WCW would have just built it back up again. They'd gotten pretty good at it.

Whether it's written or not, it's using your position in the company to make demands that are unfair of your employer.

And you asked if you're the property of your employer? Yes. Yes, you are. If your employer is paying you to, say, write legal briefs for a living, but you decide that for whatever reason you don't want to write one particular legal brief, your employer has every right to take your job and give it to someone else.

Now, before you jump back with a "But Shawn Michaels--" argument, let me say again that I'm not condoning Michaels. Frankly, he should probably have gotten the same treatment that Bret got, because some of the shit he's pulled over the years has put WWF/E in awkward positions. The double standard is unfair.

But the actions of others don't excuse Bret Hart for not doing what was best for the company and dropping the gold on the show that people paid money to watch. Even if he didn't do that, if he'd been professional, swallowed his pride, and concentrated on establishing a legacy in WCW, rather than bitching about what Vince had done to the one he had in the WWF, I'd like him more.

The fact is, he didn't do either of those things and that's why I personally don't give a shit about Bret Hart anymore. Fantastic wrestler, for sure, but also the kind of person that I can't stand.

BTW, I think you probably could have stopped after one sentence. Your name is, after all "Excellance (sic) of Execution," which makes your view pretty clear on all this.

[HeartBreakMan2k]

Originally Posted by loopydate BTW, I think you probably could have stopped after one sentence. Your name is, after all "Excellance (sic) of Execution," which makes your view pretty clear on all this.

Well, to be fair my name is "HeartBreakKid2k" but that doesn't mean that I think Shawn is free of blame, granted I think he gets more shit than he should for it, but not free of blame. So just to be fair we shouldn't really write off his point of view based soley off of his name.

[loopydate]

Originally Posted by HeartBreakKid2k Well, to be fair my name is "HeartBreakKid2k" but that doesn't mean that I think Shawn is free of blame, granted I think he gets more shit than he should for it, but not free of blame. So just to be fair we shouldn't really write off his point of view based soley off of his name.

Dick Response: But at least you spelled your guy's gimmick right.

Honest Response: That's a good point. I shouldn't have been dismissive just because of the name. I do apologize for bringing that up.

My opinion stands, though. It doesn't matter how good he'd been for the company in the months leading up to November 1997. The saying is "You're only as good as your last match." In his last WWF PPV appearance, he didn't do the right thing (granted, neither did anyone else), and that's going to be his lasting legacy in my mind.

[Lara Emily]

Originally Posted by loopydate Dick Response: But at least you spelled your guy's gimmick right. Honest Response: That's a good point. I shouldn't have been dismissive just because of the name. I do apologize for bringing that up. My opinion stands, though. It doesn't matter how good he'd been for the company in the months leading up to November 1997. The saying is "You're only as good as your last match." In his last WWF PPV appearance, he didn't do the right thing (granted, neither did anyone else), and that's going to be his lasting legacy in my mind.

So if that's his lasting legacy in your mind. Who is it really that needs to get over Montreal?

[Batsu]

Disagree.

Bret used those last days and his last year in the WWF putting others over. I'll say that SS97 was the only exception. The reason why it was the exception was obvious... and anyway, the finish of this match was already determined. The match was already set to go. No one told Bret about anything, and you just knew he was going to job the belt before leaving for WCW, period. He -could- have done the easy thing and dropped the belt at the PPV, but as Bret said, there were other factors that led to his refusal to use that event as his goodbye. This is one time, only one time. Your argument is valid, but the way you put it makes him seem no better than Hulk Hogan, whose backstage politics have done more to hurt wrestling than to help it. Creative control clauses are bullshit, but Bret could have done a lot worse than what he had done in his last days. Fact is, that he didn't. He routinely did things he didn't really like (the Nation vs Foundation feud, the "snapping" promo, which is a personal favorite). I think Bret reserved the right (that was granted to him) not to do something he had what seems like moral objection to doing. It may seem frivolous on the surface, but who really wants to deal with a less-than-professional, less than cooperative worker that got by for all the wrong reasons?

Got a little long-winded there.

In short, the facts are WWE gave Bret power he didn't even really use, the night's finish was determined, and they reneged on it without informing everyone. Vince and the screwjob architects continue to bring it up. Canadian fans never let WWE forget. Bret actually brings it up less than anyone else. They just keep taking it to him and he has to respond.

The difference between Bret and HHH, Hogan, and the like is that Bret was willing to put over people, no matter how crappy (think of when Bret ruled in WWE for example). He wasn't exactly a model citizen at times, but he certainly wasn't on Warrior-levels of delusion, or bought his own hype as much as say Hogan was. In fact, when it comes down to it, I can't really even blame HHH for everything that's pushed him to the top. It's obviously, there's other links in the chain causing the trouble, because he certainly can't have creative control on the levels of Hogan and other problem cases. What went on with HHH is probably the same thing that was going on with HBK (who was a beneficiary of Hogan's exit from WWE as it was).

[Excellance of Execution]

Originally Posted by loopydate Who gives a shit if Vince ruined his name over the course of a month with the legacy he'd built up in ten+ years with the company? WCW would have just built it back up again. They'd gotten pretty good at it. Maybe WCW could have built his name back up, but c'mon it's WCW your talking about. Whether it's written or not, it's using your position in the company to make demands that are unfair of your employer. And you asked if you're the property of your employer? Yes. Yes, you are. If your employer is paying you to, say, write legal briefs for a living, but you decide that for whatever reason you don't want to write one particular legal brief, your employer has every right to take your job and give it to someone else. Maybe i shouldn't have compared it to a normal job, but the fact of the matter is, is that he had in his contract, that he had creative control over the last month of his contract. If he was so inclined Bret probably could have sued for breach of contract. Of course he didn't because that's the type of person he is. Now, before you jump back with a "But Shawn Michaels--" argument, let me say again that I'm not condoning Michaels. Frankly, he should probably have gotten the same treatment that Bret got, because some of the shit he's pulled over the years has put WWF/E in awkward positions. The double standard is unfair. But the actions of others don't excuse Bret Hart for not doing what was best for the company and dropping the gold on the show that people paid money to watch. Even if he didn't do that, if he'd been professional, swallowed his pride, and concentrated on establishing a legacy in WCW, rather than bitching about what Vince had done to the one he had in the WWF, I'd like him more. Best for the company, be for real. If i remember correctly, wasn't he already letting Vince out of a LIFETIME contract? Walking away from that because Vince asked him to is about as professional as you can get. The fact is, he didn't do either of those things and that's why I personally don't give a shit about Bret Hart anymore. Fantastic wrestler, for sure, but also the kind of person that I can't stand. BTW, I think you probably could have stopped after one sentence. Your name is, after all "Excellance (sic) of Execution," which makes your view pretty clear on all this.

My views aren't skewed because i like Bret Hart. I've never placed the blame on anyone but Vince. Not even Shawn, even though he's a piece of shit. I beleive Shawn did what he was asked, and i'm sure he didn't complain, seeing he was the one who benefitted the most.