Hitman needs to get over it already

[TerranRich]

Originally Posted by Flair Wooo And if you a massivge hart fan like you say you are you would understand his reasons for not wanting to be a part of wrestlemania!

Yehs, I am a massivge Bret Hartr fan.

But that doesn't mean I can't point out simple, insignificant behavioral patterns that I find interesting. It's not like I'm out to assassinate the guy. Christ, it's a simple discussion.

[Flair Wooo]

Originally Posted by TerranRich Yehs, I am a massivge Bret Hartr fan.

I made one typo wow like you have never done it.

Originally Posted by TerranRich But that doesn't mean I can't point out simple, insignificant behavioral patterns that I find interesting. It's not like I'm out to assassinate the guy. Christ, it's a simple discussion.

Why the fuck am i arguing whith another bret hart fan over this? Look, the way i see it we should be gratefull he is doing what he is! He has made a quality dvd and now he is doing the HOF ..If you were a real hart fan like you say you are you would understand this!!!!

[UmbrellaCorporation]

Screw Bret Hart. Never liked him, and I really could care less whether he shows up or not. I can't judge the guy personally, but from where I'm sitting, he's certainly coming off as a pompous, whining little bitch.

[Funky Fly]

Whoa

http://www.wweshop.com/product_detai...uctId=01-07729

[NeanderCarl]

Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o. To the douche talking about Bret drawing like shit..well diesel was the champ throughout most of 95, and HBk through most of 96...the times when the wwf were at it's worst ratings wise. Do you then give Bret credit once he gets back into the main event for the increase in ratings throughout 1997? Hmm? Not to mention Bret was their best draw outside of the usa. Worldwide he dwardfs HBK. But you know what? It isnt just the champ that draws crowds to shows anymore. That may have happened years ago when house shows and regional shows were how the companies earned most of their cash, without the ability to get their shows on tv, but not wrestling is everywhere. Take that into effect, things are much different. Nobody can draw when the company has no idea what their immediate culture wants from them, and are so out of the loop. You can blame bookers and writers and guys in charge for that, not the wrestlers.

The WWE ratings/house show decline started in 1992, almost as soon as Hart took the WWF belt from Flair. Granted, a lot of big stars left around that time, but if Hart was a big draw, then the fans wouldn't have switched off in droves. Bret was then featured prominantly or in a main event position until 1997. When he left, and Austin was pushed to main event, ratings improved and the companys fortunes turned around. Maybe ratings took a slight upturn in 1997, but the WWE was very heavily in the red, and only became financially secure again during the Austin era.

I have realised that even the facts are pointless ammunition in an argument with a Bret Hart mark, however, so I'd may as well save my energy. But still...

I liked the "Hitman", he was a fantastic, realistic wrestler, and what happened to him both in Montreal and in WCW was a real shame. But that doesn't mean his loyal fans have to rewrite history. His legacy is that of a fantastic in-ring wrestler, not a huge mega-star. Bret seems to be fine with that, so why can't his fans be?

And, as I already admitted, Bret WAS a good draw in Canada, and even across Europe to some extent. But WWE is an AMERICAN company that promotes the majority of its shows in, uh, AMERICA. Any WWE champion who cannot effectively draw in the U.S. is normally considered a flop, no?

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by TerranRich Are you illiterate or just plain stupid? I already told you, I'm not forgetting what he has done for the fans, his entier career. I'm a huge Bret Hart fan. I was watching his WrestleMania X match against Owen Hart the other day, in awe of the match's greatness. I'm not calling him selfish. I'm just saying that it's a little odd that he's not showing his face at WM22 along with every other hall-of-famer That. Is. All.

Eddie isn't showing. That asshole. How hard would it be for him to show up?



***Credit: Rob Harvey

[Hired Hitman]

This can go on forever (But will probably stop after Sunday (American time) )

So Bret Hart isn't going to be at Wrestlemania, I personally don't think it's that big of a deal. If he does show up, yay, good for his fans that would like to see him there, if he doesn't show up, that's fine it's his choice, however he might lose some respect of his fans, but that's his loss.

People should understand that their favourite stars have the freedom to make the choices they want to make, you don't have to agree with them, nobody can change how somebody thinks, everybody makes mistakes, everybody has a flaw.

[Disturbed316]

Originally Posted by Funky Fly Whoa http://www.wweshop.com/product_detai...uctId=01-07729

I'm so getting that.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Originally Posted by NeanderCarl The WWE ratings/house show decline started in 1992, almost as soon as Hart took the WWF belt from Flair. Granted, a lot of big stars left around that time, but if Hart was a big draw, then the fans wouldn't have switched off in droves. Bret was then featured prominantly or in a main event position until 1997. When he left, and Austin was pushed to main event, ratings improved and the companys fortunes turned around. Maybe ratings took a slight upturn in 1997, but the WWE was very heavily in the red, and only became financially secure again during the Austin era. I have realised that even the facts are pointless ammunition in an argument with a Bret Hart mark, however, so I'd may as well save my energy. But still... I liked the "Hitman", he was a fantastic, realistic wrestler, and what happened to him both in Montreal and in WCW was a real shame. But that doesn't mean his loyal fans have to rewrite history. His legacy is that of a fantastic in-ring wrestler, not a huge mega-star. Bret seems to be fine with that, so why can't his fans be? And, as I already admitted, Bret WAS a good draw in Canada, and even across Europe to some extent. But WWE is an AMERICAN company that promotes the majority of its shows in, uh, AMERICA. Any WWE champion who cannot effectively draw in the U.S. is normally considered a flop, no?

Vince says he took the title off of Flair as it wasnt working out with him. Hogan was leaving, all their big time stars from the 80's were gone...of course they were going to lose viewerds, especialy once all those big stars left to the other company, the fans would follow them. Hardly Brets fault there.
Secondly, they then tried to market the next Hogan type of wrestler..they went with a few names, most notably Luger. They massively pushed this guy, shoved him down everyone's throats, and the fans wanted none of it. They didnt even want an american hero, they wanted the Hitman. That says alot.
He was their top man, their top draw. And he did his best with what he could do with the wwf at the time. Imagine if Bret had not have been there now? Yeah, pretty bad isnt it? Kinda scary, eh.
You gotta think about the entire scope of things here buddy.

You are only pinning everything on Bret. What about the boy toy who couldnt do anything better then Bret in 1996? Or Diesel who was awful in 1995. That proved most interesting, considering how Bret was not around for most of 1996.

Fact is, even if Bret did not draw as big numbers as Austin or Hogan in america, who fucking else has? Bret WAS their top draw in AMERICA for the time he was there. That says alot, it says he was the best they could do. That's a credit to Bret, not a discredit or anything else.

Seriously, think about what it is you're saying. Despite say Hogan, and Austin, who else touches the numbers those guys pulled in the good ol USA. Not really anyone, so how is Bret considered a flop by you when he is at the same level if not higher then anyone else but the two names I just mentioned?

Fucking schooled.

[Flair Wooo]

Great post zen

And isn't it micheals who was the worst drawing champ of that time?

[NeanderCarl]

Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o. Vince says he took the title off of Flair as it wasnt working out with him. Hogan was leaving, all their big time stars from the 80's were gone...of course they were going to lose viewerds, especialy once all those big stars left to the other company, the fans would follow them. Hardly Brets fault there. Secondly, they then tried to market the next Hogan type of wrestler..they went with a few names, most notably Luger. They massively pushed this guy, shoved him down everyone's throats, and the fans wanted none of it. They didnt even want an american hero, they wanted the Hitman. That says alot. He was their top man, their top draw. And he did his best with what he could do with the wwf at the time. Imagine if Bret had not have been there now? Yeah, pretty bad isnt it? Kinda scary, eh. You gotta think about the entire scope of things here buddy. You are only pinning everything on Bret. What about the boy toy who couldnt do anything better then Bret in 1996? Or Diesel who was awful in 1995. That proved most interesting, considering how Bret was not around for most of 1996. Fact is, even if Bret did not draw as big numbers as Austin or Hogan in america, who fucking else has? Bret WAS their top draw in AMERICA for the time he was there. That says alot, it says he was the best they could do. That's a credit to Bret, not a discredit or anything else. Seriously, think about what it is you're saying. Despite say Hogan, and Austin, who else touches the numbers those guys pulled in the good ol USA. Not really anyone, so how is Bret considered a flop by you when he is at the same level if not higher then anyone else but the two names I just mentioned? Fucking schooled.

Sorry, dude, but like I said there's no argueing with a Bret Hart fan by the looks of it.

I already mentioned that Diesel and Michaels were also low drawing cards during that period. Go back and read if you don't believe me.

My whole point is that Bret was not a draw. You already admit that business was in the toilet during that time. That's my point proven. If he was a draw, it wouldn't have been. That's the definition of being a "draw"!

Blame anybody else you want, but the whole point of being a draw is bringing in the fans. Bret didn't do that. And I know the product wasn't great, I've been watching since 1991. I've had to endure all that. But the WWF was putting on, for the most part, much better matches and angles than WCW from 1993 until Nitro got hot in 1996. Matches that are still strong when you watch them today. The fact is, the WWE did not have any wrestlers on it's books back in those days that were huge draws. HBK wasn't. Nash (as Diesel) wasn't. Ramon wasn't. Jarrett wasn't. Sid wasn't. Mabel wasn't. And, like it or not, admit it or not, Bret Hart wasn't. Granted, he was the best they had to offer. I agree. But when the best they have to offer is leading the WWF into the red, then my point is well and truly proven.

As for your question....

Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o. Fact is, even if Bret did not draw as big numbers as Austin or Hogan in america, who fucking else has?

Savage, Piper, Flair, Rock, Andre, Warrior, Goldberg... many more. Some of them may have sucked, and some of them may not have set the world on fire, but they've all drawn bigger than Hart at some time or another. Hell, even Sgt. Slaughter did.

I'm not trying to knock Hart. As I've said many times, I'm a fan. And that's not the point of this thread either. But you can't call him a great or consistant drawing card because that's never been proven true. Popular among the existing fan base at the time, yes. Great wrestler, yes. Canadian hero, yes. Good draw in Europe? Hell, Bret was in the main event of the largest attended WWF pay-per-view of all time, SummerSlam '92 in London. (There were more in attendance at Wembley Stadium that day than were at WrestleMania III, if you go by the genuine figures and not the official, overinflated figures). But where it counts, domestic PPV and ratings, you can't argue a case for Bret Hart as a great draw. It's a shame but it's true.

[NeanderCarl]

Originally Posted by Flair Wooo Great post zen And isn't it micheals who was the worst drawing champ of that time?

I believe Kevin "Diesel" Nash is the lowest drawing WWF champion of the modern era (1984 onwards), if not of all-time. This is not a time-comparitive scale. Nash held the title for about 9 months. In that time he was a piss-poor draw.

I'm not saying Bret was the worst draw ever, overall, but he wasn't a great draw, especially as the World champion, either. And if you total up his reigns as champion, there is a chance that he is right up there with some of the worst.

[Zen v.W.o.]

Originally Posted by NeanderCarl Sorry, dude, but like I said there's no argueing with a Bret Hart fan by the looks of it. I already mentioned that Diesel and Michaels were also low drawing cards during that period. Go back and read if you don't believe me. My whole point is that Bret was not a draw. You already admit that business was in the toilet during that time. That's my point proven. If he was a draw, it wouldn't have been. That's the definition of being a "draw"! Blame anybody else you want, but the whole point of being a draw is bringing in the fans. Bret didn't do that. And I know the product wasn't great, I've been watching since 1991. I've had to endure all that. But the WWF was putting on, for the most part, much better matches and angles than WCW from 1993 until Nitro got hot in 1996. Matches that are still strong when you watch them today. The fact is, the WWE did not have any wrestlers on it's books back in those days that were huge draws. HBK wasn't. Nash (as Diesel) wasn't. Ramon wasn't. Jarrett wasn't. Sid wasn't. Mabel wasn't. And, like it or not, admit it or not, Bret Hart wasn't. Granted, he was the best they had to offer. I agree. But when the best they have to offer is leading the WWF into the red, then my point is well and truly proven. As for your question.... Savage, Piper, Flair, Rock, Andre, Warrior, Goldberg... many more. Some of them may have sucked, and some of them may not have set the world on fire, but they've all drawn bigger than Hart at some time or another. Hell, even Sgt. Slaughter did. I'm not trying to knock Hart. As I've said many times, I'm a fan. And that's not the point of this thread either. But you can't call him a great or consistant drawing card because that's never been proven true. Popular among the existing fan base at the time, yes. Great wrestler, yes. Canadian hero, yes. Good draw in Europe? Hell, Bret was in the main event of the largest attended WWF pay-per-view of all time, SummerSlam '92 in London. (There were more in attendance at Wembley Stadium that day than were at WrestleMania III, if you go by the genuine figures and not the official, overinflated figures). But where it counts, domestic PPV and ratings, you can't argue a case for Bret Hart as a great draw. It's a shame but it's true.

Flair was a minimal draw. While Bret was wrestling in front of thousands of fans worldwide, Flair was wrestling main events in front of half that. Drawing for venues that can fill no more then 4,000 seats in the arena is much different then doing it for arenas 3 times that size.

Again, wcw got big because of Hogan. Hogan drew. Goldberg did not, hence the fact it floundered. He was a thing of the moment , flash in the pan. Much like Warrior. Warrior eventually tanked, and very early on, and Goldberg didnt exactly do anything for the wwe, now did he?
All those other guys drew? Guess who they squared up against? HOGAN.

Bret never got that chance.

Rock is another guy who managed to become big during a time when the wrestling boom already was well on it's way. Austin stirred that, and once it was off the ground, Rock became a popular wrestler in that time, but he never had to do it alone. He reaped the benefits of a boom period..wrestling was actually realizing it's potential and booking was great..the product was great. It was all set up for him already.

You can bring back anyone you want right now though, and nothing will change. That says alot....if the product isnt good, and if the mood isnt right, you can have pretty much any wrestler you want available to you, and ratings and buy rates will not change.

Draws again, were easier to gauge way back on a regional basis. When you didnt have tv and you werent flooded with constant ppv's and ads etc.
Now if the product and company isnt at all fresh or good or interesting, then the wrestlers cant draw on their own.

[NeanderCarl]

Every wrestler who has been a draw eventually flounders. Hogan is no longer a huge draw (although he and HBK drew a big SummerSlam last year to be fair to them). Austin is no longer a major draw. Same goes for virtually everyone I've mentioned, even to a degree The Rock. Nowadays, the ratings don't tend to spike for those guys anymore.

However, at one point they did. Goldberg was certainly a draw until WCW killed his momentum by jobbing him out to Nash and also by putting him in sub-par title defences. Flair wasn't a great draw after his WWF run, but during and before he was certainly a big draw, and even in WCW's dying days, Flair's quarter-hour ratings whooped anything else on the show. Warrior still outdrew Hart, even though takings did decline when the spotlight was on him.

I'm not saying Hart was a totally shitty draw. Just not as big as people tend to make out. History is so often re-written in the wrestling business. Just keep some perspective of who Bret Hart REALLY was, at the time he was still active. Like I say, he could well be a bigger draw NOW then he was back then, due to all the controversy.

And anyone who says wrestlers can't draw on their own seem to forget about Hogan and Austin, who got hot despite shitty opponents (except Mick Foley in Austin's case). Their character or angle caught on with the public. The public made them stars. They never made Bret a huge megastar in that way. Bret had limited charisma as a babyface, never cut great promos (except in 1997 when he was a fantastic heel) and never spiked ratings or PPV buys. I'm not making this stuff up off the top of my head here. I got better things to do.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again: in the wrestling business, some fans are so blinkered that they can't accept a wrestler's shortcomings and simply accentuate their strengths in an argument.

If I was trying to sell somebody on Bret 'Hitman' Hart, I'd talk about the great matches he had, the way he carried the WWF from an in-ring standpoint for four years, his great work as a heel, the two incarnations of the Hart Foundation, the many wrestlers he had a hand in training, his rich wrestling heritage, the way he helped break the mould for smaller wrestlers to become main eventers... I wouldn't bring attention to the fact that Hart had limited mass appeal, was on top during most of the WWF's downward spiral, left due to a screwjob which led to the WWF's popularity picking up immediately as soon as he was gone, crashed and burned in WCW (not his fault, I know) and never drew the kind of ratings or PPV buys expected of a World Champion for either company. And I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to admit it, as a fan of his, if it were brought to my attention, nor make endless excuses about how it was everybody's fault but his own that he never caught on. I'm sure that's what BRET believes, but it just isn't true. Bret just didn't have the almighty intangibles to be up there with Hogan, Piper, Austin, Rock etc.

Originally Posted by Flair Wooo You're an idiot! Do you know anyone that has had a stroke? No i didn't think so. so shut the fuck up you fucking clueless moron.

I know several people in my family who have had strokes... they could make a trinatron appearance..

but i'm not gonna argue that..

also mcdoogle.. KANE KNIGHT OWNS YOUR ASS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE MOTHERFUCKER!

i have to defend the KK...