Bret Hart or Shawn Micheals, who was the better wrestler?

Vince135792003

Both of them were/are great wrestlers. No doubt about it and maybe even having this discussion is kinda futile and a little bit old. But basically in the ring who do you prefer watching?

gimmick

Bret was a better wrestler, thats not open to debate. Bret will always be remembered as one of the all time great technical wrestlers.

But basically in the ring who do you prefer watching?

Now, maybe thats what the poll shoud read - who do you prefer watching/who do you find more entertaining, and for me its HBK, as there is more to his matches, some nice technical when needed, high flying and spot taking. That said, I would love to see Bret and Angle or Benoit in a match, as that would be a clinic.

Mr.Nice Guy

I think Bret was the better wrestler. One gripe I would have with Michaels is that his matches with the bigger wrestlers were simply OK whereas Bret had great straight-up wrestling matches with the likes of Diesel and Undertaker.

J.R.HARTLEY

bret, michaels could get a bit repetitive in his matches with his winning wind up

Fozzy

Bret, no one compares in my mind. Shawn's definitely a lot better than most guys, but Bret's even more ahead

yak_kadafi

bret for sure...the guy could work with ANYONE regardless of size and his technical ability in the ring was AWESOME

Dragan

I would hardly say that Bret was technically brilliant. To me that implies that they could pretty much do anything (( Angle , Benoit etc )).

However he was brilliant. He knew exactly what his limitations were and he avoided doing things that would make them obvious. He knew exactly what moves looked well, what flowed, what worked best with what, and he drilled the crap out of them until noone was better at them than he was.

Finally, there was no ego in the way he wrestled, he just went out and had fun with it and that is one of the reasons the crowd loved him.

I think the younder Shawn Michels always wanted that pop, and had to work for it just a little bit more.

Terry

gimmick wrote:

Bret was a better wrestler, thats not open to debate. Bret will always be remembered as one of the all time great technical wrestlers.



Now, maybe thats what the poll shoud read - who do you prefer watching/who do you find more entertaining, and for me its HBK, as there is more to his matches, some nice technical when needed, high flying and spot taking. That said, I would love to see Bret and Angle or Benoit in a match, as that would be a clinic.

check out some of the old wcw footage. i used to watch bret in the wwf and benoit in the wcw and always wanted to see a match between the two of them. finally got to see it when bret went to wcw and it was worth the wait.
still prefer watching hbk though.

J.R.HARTLEY

Dragan wrote:

I would hardly say that Bret was technically brilliant. To me that implies that they could pretty much do anything (( Angle , Benoit etc )).

dragan a technical wrestler is someone who knows the technical aspects of wrestling and can use them expertly, bret was a technical wrestler, the difference is a lot of the stuff poeple throw in like dives splashes rope moves etc aren't technical wrestling, they aren't about holds and wrapping up your opponent. at which bret was brilliant, on his dvd they show you how good he was at technical amateur wreslting in school

Dragan

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

dragan a technical wrestler is someone who knows the technical aspects of wrestling and can use them expertly, bret was a technical wrestler, the difference is a lot of the stuff poeple throw in like dives splashes rope moves etc aren't technical wrestling, they aren't about holds and wrapping up your opponent. at which bret was brilliant, on his dvd they show you how good he was at technical amateur wreslting in school

Your missing my point. I was stating that Bret had his moves and he did them and he did them well, where as the like of Angle and Benoit are always trying to bring in new things and combo's etc, which to me makes them "technical wrestler" , to be blunt, there were many times when i felt that Bret Hart was "wrestling by numbers"

Did this make it any less enjoyable?

Not at all.

Vince135792003

A "technical wrestler" differs depending on who you talk to. Its kind of an ambiguous phrase.

For me being a great technical wrestler is not just about how many moves you do, its how you do them, when you do them and why you do them.


But in regards to Brets limited offence. He was having matches with Dynamite Kid in 1979 in Calgary that were 15 years ahead of their time in terms of the moves they used. Bret had a series of moves he used for a comeback, just like Benoit has with his 3 amigos, 3 german suplex followed by the headbutt, just like the Rock, Cena etc...
I would not say he was limited whatsover.

Fozzy

Dragan wrote:

there were many times when i felt that Bret Hart was "wrestling by numbers"

I never got that feeling with Bret. He always adapted to his opponent, it was never the same match again and again

I would say he was technically brilliant. The best there ever was (is, will be, etc..). Don't know where you're getting him being limited from

Dragan

Fozzy wrote:

Don't know where you're getting him being limited from

TO be honest lads, rather than drag the thread down into an argument that no one is gonna win ,( becuase opinions can't be proved wrong afterall !!!) I will simply agree do disagree.

Who do i think was the better wrestler? Bret.
In my mind was he an amazing technical wrestler. Nope.
Do i think he was one of the best to ever wrestler? Yeah.

Vince135792003

Dragan wrote:

In my mind was he an amazing technical wrestler. Nope.
.

You need your head checked !

No your right, its all about opinions.

Clareman

I was always under the assumption that a great "technical wrestler" was someone that was great in the ring, could pull off a great match. There are loads of legends out there that were fantastic in the ring, Bret, Steamboat, Owen, Benoit, Angle and more.

But to be a great "sports entertainer" you had to be great on the mic, great "show man" and great in the ring. Bret was not at the same level as an entertainer as he was in the ring, which takes him down a couple of notches in the overall ladder of who was the best.

You can name a number of 5* matches that Bret was involved in, but how many 5* angles could you name? Even those that he was involved in (Michaels and Austin spring to mind) were told in the ring or outside events (*cough*Montreal*cough*).

FX Meister

Shawn Michaels, I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Vince135792003

Clareman wrote:

You can name a number of 5* matches that Bret was involved in, but how many 5* angles could you name? Even those that he was involved in (Michaels and Austin spring to mind) were told in the ring or outside events (*cough*Montreal*cough*).

As a heel in 1997, Bret was in some brilliant angles. I'd agree it was not somthing he was naturally great at and he admits it himself. But as his carreer went on I thought he became really good.
Plus at his peak as the top guy 93-95ish, creative in WWE was not at its best.

Dragan

Vince135792003 wrote:

Plus at his peak as the top guy 93-95ish, creative in WWE was not at its best.

It didn't really need to be , wrestling was still kinda.........good.....then. ha ha ha

D-FENS

Clareman wrote:

I was always under the assumption that a great "technical wrestler" was someone that was great in the ring, could pull off a great match. There are loads of legends out there that were fantastic in the ring, Bret, Steamboat, Owen, Benoit, Angle and more.

But to be a great "sports entertainer" you had to be great on the mic, great "show man" and great in the ring. Bret was not at the same level as an entertainer as he was in the ring, which takes him down a couple of notches in the overall ladder of who was the best.

You can name a number of 5* matches that Bret was involved in, but how many 5* angles could you name? Even those that he was involved in (Michaels and Austin spring to mind) were told in the ring or outside events (*cough*Montreal*cough*).

I always seen Bret's gimmick as the straight man of the WWF, as opposed to the flamboyancy of people like Michaels, Razor or Even Diesel or the out and out gimmick wrestlers like Undertaker, Vader or Yokozuna.He always came across as normal if you know what I mean. Some might say this is boring, similar to the stigma attached to Benoit a lot, but for me it always worked well.
His was never the Rock on the mic, but that wouldn’t have suited the Hitman character, he was always cool, calm and collective, but still had an assertiveness that got the job done in my view.
And what's the definition of a showman, when you're talking in wrestling terms? For you it might Shawn’s style, which is entertaining (Don't get me wrong, this isn’t a Shawn bashing), but for me, Bret's role, both in the ring and out, was always just as entertaining, if not more.
And again, everyone has their own opinions on what merits a 5* angle, but I just as entertained by Bret's feuds with Owen, Backlund, Lawler to name a few, which involved more than just ring work.
Plus, his feud with Austin consisted of a lot more than great matches, they had a tremendous chemistry, that was not just down to Austin, and done plenty of outside, entertaining, stuff.
And obviously his real life issues with HBK, accumulating with the whole Survivor Series thing, was their major connection, but they could still do a great angle, in and out of the ring, and Bret plays his part just as much as Shawn
Bret was just as much an all-rounder in my view.

Mr_Enigma

Bret was a better wrestler, Shawn is a better athlete. Bret once said he thought Shawn was a great athlete, but wasn't necessarily a great wrestler

J.R.HARTLEY

i think people are mixing up their T's
Shawn = Tenacious
Bret = Technical

The OP

Shawn Michaels.

BigWilly

Bret ftw

The best there is, was, and ever will be!


His heel stuff in WWE was amazing

Wacker

Bret Hart. Shawn is great, but his comeback routine is too predicatable. Everyone has their own routine, but Shawn's is too long and easily called. Every time, it starts with the lariat, then a nip-up, inverted atomic drop, two clotheslines, a scoop-slam, a diving elbow, and then he stamps his foot for the sweet chin music, which will be reversed. Someone, tell me I'm wrong!

See my point?

Laguna

Hey, forget these two, I say Marty Jonnetty! (Michaels old partner in "The Rockers"!)..

J.R.HARTLEY

Laguna wrote:

Hey, forget these two, I say Marty Jonnetty! (Michaels old partner in "The Rockers"!)..

Jannetty even?!

tH3_UnS0cial_1

Bret was a better wrestler.. gotta love da hitman

jcoote

they are different wrestlers tbh...shawn is an entertainer and will get any crowd goin even with his predictable comeback...bret was a wrestlers wrestler and a wrestling fans wrestler...

if u seen 2 bret harts fighting as your 1st wrestling match it wouldn't be as exciting as 2 shawn michaels

but as a wrestler bret was better hands dwn