Bret vs Shawn (Again)

D-FENS

validreasoning! wrote: »

How about a wii fit style balance game?, as you play the part of Bret Hart trying not to fall off his bicycle!

VR!

Shawn could be in that too, trying to stand up straight and not faint like a girl in his Raw match against Owen :rolleyes:

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Shawn could be in that too, trying to stand up straight and not faint like a girl in his Raw match against Owen :rolleyes:

At least you'd be guaranteed points in the game if we're counting the amount of money made in that feud.

Sadly for Bret, it would be simply... game over!
VR!

D-FENS

validreasoning! wrote: »

At least you'd be guaranteed points in the game if we're counting the amount of money made in that feud.

Sadly for Bret, it would be simply... game over!
VR!

Who cares how much money a wrestler generates for himself or Vince McMahon? Big deal. :rolleyes:
We'll never see any of it, unless million dollar mania comes back and we all move to America to enter...

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Who cares how much money a wrestler generates for himself or Vince McMahon? Big deal. :rolleyes:

Actually i think you'll find it is a big deal, as wrestling is now a business, and people go into business to make... wait for it... MONEY! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

We'll never see any of it, unless million dollar mania comes back and we all move to America to enter...

Now you've just missed the point, as well as the joke!
VR!

rovert

VR has a point WWF nearly went bankrupt during Bret Hart's era.

What is best for business is usually the best and most exciting television.

D-FENS

validreasoning! wrote: »

Actually i think you'll find it is a big deal, as wrestling is now a business, and people go into business to make... wait for it... MONEY! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, but we're not in the business are we? we're the fans.
Gloating about how much money a wrestler makes over another is fine for the wrestlers and promoter themselves, but fans going on about is just...wait for it...stupid
Why do care about ratings? you're basically saying, well the public did'nt pay money to see this guy, so he must be crap, always agree with other's fan's opinions do you? you disagreee with a lot of them on here anyway.

And saying Bret Hart was the reason WWE wentdown hill is a cop out, there was a lot of reasons for the decline of the business in that period, the business on a whole was in a slump and Shawn did'nt do much better (Like i said, nothing he did from the moddle of '96 to the time he left in '98 stopped people watching Nitro instead of Raw)


[/QUOTE]Now you've just missed the point, as well as the joke!
VR![/QUOTE]

No, i get your joke, it just is'nt very funny

rovert

rovert wrote: »

VR has a point WWF nearly went bankrupt during Bret Hart's era.

What is best for business is usually the best and most exciting television.

Well they have HBK as a main eventer now and they have lost over 2 million viewers since he has been main eventing .


Actually i heard that in the new wrestlemaina game along with the health meter they were introducing a depression meter.
But due to it being realistic HBK couldnt make it to the ring and Marti Janetti couldnt get his tights on.

D-FENS

Deleted User wrote: »

Well they have HBK as a main eventer now and they have lost over 2 million viewers since he has been main eventing .

Thank you Sir, well said

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Yes, but we're not in the business are we? we're the fans.

Precicely, and when business is bad, we suffer as a result of poor storyline and television. Or don't you remember how bad WWE was in 1995 and 1996?

Gloating about how much money a wrestler makes over another is fine for the wrestlers and promoter themselves, but fans going on about is just...wait for it...stupid

Not really, if it was in the sense of a video game, (which i believe we are discussing), it may or may not make a difference to the character?

Why do care about ratings? you're basically saying, well the public did'nt pay money to see this guy, so he must be crap, always agree with other's fan's opinions do you? you disagreee with a lot of them on here anyway.

Hold up a second!...

EXCUSE ME!!!!...

... for not being a yes man and actually having an opinion! While your hero Bret was off sulking for six months in 1996 looking to be a movie star, who carried the promotion on two legs to get decent matches out of a washed up Vader, and luggage like Sid? I believe that was Shawn. It's not a case of deliberately disagreeing, it's a case of calling what i've seen over the years. Simple as!

And saying Bret Hart was the reason WWE wentdown hill is a cop out, there was a lot of reasons for the decline of the business in that period, the business on a whole was in a slump and Shawn did'nt do much better (Like i said, nothing he did from the moddle of '96 to the time he left in '98 stopped people watching Nitro instead of Raw)

Nobody said Bret was the sole reason, but he didn't draw jack sh*t during his last couple of reigns. The going got tough and Bret got going in 1996. Shawn actually didn't do a bad job in 96 when the business was on the last legs after poor drawing champions the years beforehand like Bret and Nash. And the monday night ratings don't exactly effect the PPV buyrates which were actually going up, while WCW's were plummeting.

A point you failed to bring up whilst defending your boy Bret. If he was such a master player, how come he didn't quite cut it for the 2 years he was in WCW? Because he didn't have Vince that's why.

No, i get your joke, it just is'nt very funny

I laughed anyway.
VR!

ShawnRaven

Deleted User wrote: »

Well they have HBK as a main eventer now and they have lost over 2 million viewers since he has been main eventing .

Um, Shawn hasn't main evented in months, and one of the last times he did, he and Cena drew 80,000 people at Wrestlemania, something Bret never did.

Actually i heard that in the new wrestlemaina game along with the health meter they were introducing a depression meter.
But due to it being realistic HBK couldnt make it to the ring and Marti Janetti couldnt get his tights on.

I've also heard there was gonna be a face off mode, once Jerry Lawler is unlocked. To see how many wives they can get through in the quickest time!

VR!

D-FENS

Precisely and when business is bad, we suffer as a result of poor storyline and television. Or don't you remember how bad WWE was in 1995 and 1996?

Yes I do, but Bret wasn’t the reason it was bad, he was one of the few reasons for carrying on watching.

Hold up a second!...

EXCUSE ME!!!!...

... for not being a yes man and actually having an opinion! While your hero Bret was off sulking for six months in 1996 looking to be a movie star, who carried the promotion on two legs to get decent matches out of a washed up Vader, and luggage like Sid? I believe that was Shawn. It's not a case of deliberately disagreeing, it's a case of calling what i've seen over the years. Simple as!

Of course you’re entitled to an opinion, but people’s opinions vary. I’m no yes man either, that’s why I don’t care if the majority (through ratings) say Bret Hart was a chump, he simply wasn’t. And he carried a lot of guys in his time too, before you have HBK sainted, Bret had to wrestle a lot of the sticks he was booked against, and made the absolute most of the situation. And Shawn was fond of the sulks too (Help, I’ve lost my smile), he’s the Sis and ‘Taker was the title match at WM13 instead of Bret and Austin (Which still stole the show and is as good as any WM main event HBK has been in) and if he’d had his way, Austin wouldn’t have got the strap at the following year’s WM either, Shawn would have dodged the job and just gave up the belt like he did before with the IC title, but yet helped ensure Bret didn’t do the same with the world title in ‘97. Plus if we’re going to start slating wrestlers who’ve gone off to try and make movies, we’d have a long list.

Nobody said Bret was the sole reason, but he didn't draw jack sh*t during his last couple of reigns. The going got tough and Bret got going in 1996. Shawn actually didn't do a bad job in 96 when the business was on the last legs after poor drawing champions the years beforehand like Bret and Nash. And the Monday night ratings don't exactly effect the PPV buyrates which were actually going up, while WCW's were plummeting.

A point you failed to bring up whilst defending your boy Bret. If he was such a master player, how come he didn't quite cut it for the 2 years he was in WCW? Because he didn't have Vince that's why.

Rovert pretty much did say Bret was the reason, but i admittedly i should have replied to his post, not yours.
But besides that, Every wrestler is entitled to time off, or should be, Shawn’s had his fair share too. And saying Bret f*cked off because he couldn’t take the pressure of not getting the company up to heights seen previously and since is b*llocks. And Shawn wasn’t the only reason for PPV success either, I seem to remember the crowd being pretty into Sid winning the belt at Survivor Series, safe to say the viewings at home tuned in for him as well? And Bret did'nt miss that many actual PPV's between WM andSurvivor Series, what 4 or 5/ Safe to say when he returned for a such a great feud with Austin and then the whole heelturn angle that he played his part in any success that was had too?
I’m not a fan of Bret’s WCW days anymore than the next guy, I’m more or less talking about his WWE career which I think is to be commended (And most people agree), WCW was on a fast track to hell by the time someone there finally decided to use Bret for something anyway (Even though he still had some good matches with Benoit). I don’t kid myself that Bret or anyone else could have saved that company, it was too badly run and WWE started being too good again in comparison. I don’t even kid myself that Bret could have had more good years in WWE had Vince decided not to let him go, I just think he deserves more credit for the time he was there.
And Shawn, like everyone else, has Vince to thank for a lot of things just as much as Bret does.

PS. on your last reply to Dre, Shawn nowadays is lucky to be performing in a revitalised marketplace, he, Bret nor anyone else could'nt draw that kind of money ten years ago.

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Yes I do, but Bret wasn’t the reason it was bad, he was one of the few reasons for carrying on watching.

No, he wasn't the sole reason. WCW bought a rakeload of talent from them leaving them with a bunch of rookies and the non established still struggling to find their feet. This has been continued further down the thread which i'll touch on...

Of course you’re entitled to an opinion, but people’s opinions vary. I’m no yes man either, that’s why I don’t care if the majority (through ratings) say Bret Hart was a chump, he simply wasn’t. And he carried a lot of guys in his time too, before you have HBK sainted, Bret had to wrestle a lot of the sticks he was booked against, and made the absolute most of the situation. And Shawn was fond of the sulks too (Help, I’ve lost my smile), he’s the Sis and ‘Taker was the title match at WM13 instead of Bret and Austin (Which still stole the show and is as good as any WM main event HBK has been in) and if he’d had his way, Austin wouldn’t have got the strap at the following year’s WM either, Shawn would have dodged the job and just gave up the belt like he did before with the IC title, but yet helped ensure Bret didn’t do the same with the world title in ‘97. Plus if we’re going to start slating wrestlers who’ve gone off to try and make movies, we’d have a long list.

I love the way everyone portrays Bret out to be a picture perfect saint. Conveniently forgetting some of the politiking he's done in the past. Like begging Vince not to air the tag title change match in 1990(when it could have been edited as that show didn't go live, and he admitted that in his shoot interview too), or nearly jumping to WCW in 1992 whilst still holding the IC belt (which is why Rougeau got that short run in January before transitioning it to Piper. Shawn was no saint, but Bret was a backstage politician too, as were Austin, Undertaker, Hogan etc.

I'm not so sure if that Undertaker threatening violence against Shawn before Mania 14 if he didn't drop the belt is entirely true either. I've heard a couple of different stories there. Not that it would surprise me if it was. But again, nobody ever claimed that Shawn was a saint now, did they?

Rovert pretty much did say Bret was the reason, but i admittedly i should have replied to his post, not yours.
But besides that, Every wrestler is entitled to time off, or should be, Shawn’s had his fair share too. And saying Bret f*cked off because he couldn’t take the pressure of not getting the company up to heights seen previously and since is b*llocks. And Shawn wasn’t the only reason for PPV success either, I seem to remember the crowd being pretty into Sid winning the belt at Survivor Series, safe to say the viewings at home tuned in for him as well? And Bret did'nt miss that many actual PPV's between WM andSurvivor Series, what 4 or 5/ Safe to say when he returned for a such a great feud with Austin and then the whole heelturn angle that he played his part in any success that was had too?

I never said the reasons for Bret leaving, as i don't entirely know them, i've heard a few stories, one was that he wanted to get into acting, another was being courted by Bischoff to be the original third man for the NWO. I just think that it killed a lot of momentum for him at the time as he was never the same by the time he came back. As for the crowd cheering Sid, New York crowds are known for not being big into babyfaces (watch whenever Cena performs in NY, he gets booed out of the building, some things never change in certain places). Fast forward two months later in San Antonio when he won the belt back off Sid at the 97 Royal Rumble in a badly booked match as Shawn was being groomed for a heel turn and then they copped on, "oh wait a sec, the Rumble is in his home town, better revert the turn!".

Bret's 1997 year was far from spectacular either, with the exception of Wrestlemania and Canadian Stampede. He still didn't draw sh*t then either. And that's not just me saying that as a fan, I believe Observer reported that at the time too, and even Flair has said it.

I’m not a fan of Bret’s WCW days anymore than the next guy, I’m more or less talking about his WWE career which I think is to be commended (And most people agree), WCW was on a fast track to hell by the time someone there finally decided to use Bret for something anyway (Even though he still had some good matches with Benoit). I don’t kid myself that Bret or anyone else could have saved that company, it was too badly run and WWE started being too good again in comparison. I don’t even kid myself that Bret could have had more good years in WWE had Vince decided not to let him go, I just think he deserves more credit for the time he was there.
And Shawn, like everyone else, has Vince to thank for a lot of things just as much as Bret does.

I won't take anything away from Bret and his WWE achievements, but his twilight years with the company, 1995-1997 were nothing to write home about. That wasn't entirely Bret's fault, although he was initially reluctant to change with said times, like not wanting to turn heel in the beginning etc. Taking the six months off did a lot of damage to him in the sense that the likes of Shawn and Austin got propelled higher in his absence (although Bret did cement Austin's position when he returned, but that Bret didn't exactly benefit from that feud).

PS. on your last reply to Dre, Shawn nowadays is lucky to be performing in a revitalised marketplace, he, Bret nor anyone else could'nt draw that kind of money ten years ago.

Bret, although not solely but he did play a part in it, was somewhat responsible for the gate at Summerslam 92 in Wembley with over 80,000 people. Although the advertised main event was Savage v Warrior II which did sell a lot of it, the rest of it was sold by Bret/Davey in Davey's country. The other rumour was that Warrior was booked to go heel at that PPV but changed his mind at the 11th hour, which is why that title match was stuck in the middle of the card. Which does make sense as you're not gonna want to send your international audience home pissed off. That said, i'm not sure how true that is either.

VR!

rovert

VR is pretty fair and on point in what he has posted so there is no need for me to do a long post.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well they have HBK as a main eventer now and they have lost over 2 million viewers since he has been main eventing .

He isn’t pushed as a main eventer but when he was in early 2007 business took an upswing. Again Bret wasn’t the draw Shawn Michaels was/is, Shawn is a much better promo, much better at being both being a babyface AND heel, better facial expressions and had alot better and different with a wider range of people. When it comes to new young wrestlers far more influential.

D-FENS

I never said the reasons for Bret leaving, as i don't entirely know them, i've heard a few stories, one was that he wanted to get into acting, another was being courted by Bischoff to be the original third man for the NWO. I just think that it killed a lot of momentum for him at the time as he was never the same by the time he came back. As for the crowd cheering Sid, New York crowds are known for not being big into babyfaces (watch whenever Cena performs in NY, he gets booed out of the building, some things never change in certain places). Fast forward two months later in San Antonio when he won the belt back off Sid at the 97 Royal Rumble in a badly booked match as Shawn was being groomed for a heel turn and then they copped on, "oh wait a sec, the Rumble is in his home town, better revert the turn!".

Bret's 1997 year was far from spectacular either, with the exception of Wrestlemania and Canadian Stampede. He still didn't draw sh*t then either. And that's not just me saying that as a fan, I believe Observer reported that at the time too, and even Flair has said it.

I won't take anything away from Bret and his WWE achievements, but his twilight years with the company, 1995-1997 were nothing to write home about. That wasn't entirely Bret's fault, although he was initially reluctant to change with said times, like not wanting to turn heel in the beginning etc. Taking the six months off did a lot of damage to him in the sense that the likes of Shawn and Austin got propelled higher in his absence (although Bret did cement Austin's position when he returned, but that Bret didn't exactly benefit from that feud).

I personally rate his last year with WWE as much as any other, at least he was feuding with proper talents like Austin and Shawn and not sticks people like Backlund, Lawler and Issac Yankem.

Bret, although not solely but he did play a part in it, was somewhat responsible for the gate at Summerslam 92 in Wembley with over 80,000 people. Although the advertised main event was Savage v Warrior II which did sell a lot of it, the rest of it was sold by Bret/Davey in Davey's country. The other rumour was that Warrior was booked to go heel at that PPV but changed his mind at the 11th hour, which is why that title match was stuck in the middle of the card. Which does make sense as you're not gonna want to send your international audience home pissed off. That said, i'm not sure how true that is either.

I’d love to credit Bret for Summerslam, or even partly, but I think that was the novelty of such a big wwf event taking place on English people’s doorstep being the main attraction, with their favourite son bulldog in the main event being a bonus.

I love the way everyone portrays Bret out to be a picture perfect saint. Conveniently forgetting some of the politiking he's done in the past. Like begging Vince not to air the tag title change match in 1990(when it could have been edited as that show didn't go live, and he admitted that in his shoot interview too), or nearly jumping to WCW in 1992 whilst still holding the IC belt (which is why Rougeau got that short run in January before transitioning it to Piper. Shawn was no saint, but Bret was a backstage politician too, as were Austin, Undertaker, Hogan etc.
I'm not so sure if that Undertaker threatening violence against Shawn before Mania 14 if he didn't drop the belt is entirely true either. I've heard a couple of different stories there. Not that it would surprise me if it was. But again, nobody ever claimed that Shawn was a saint now, did they?

Bret’s no saint either certainly, but as you say being a manipulator is almost a nessessity for success in wrestling sometimes. You never said HBK as a saint, but he’s not the only guy to have carried the company in bad times, Bret did it before him and as I said before, made the most of it.And as you say, rumours are just that, so who’s the know the real truth behind any of them. I only believe what I see in fornt of me, and what I seen is Bret Hart being just as entertaining a performer as HBK, end of story for me.

D-FENS

rovert wrote: »

VR is pretty fair and on point in what he has posted so there is no need for me to do a long post.
He isn’t pushed as a main eventer but when he was in early 2007 business took an upswing. Again Bret wasn’t the draw Shawn Michaels was/is, Shawn is a much better promo, much better at being both being a babyface AND heel, better facial expressions and had alot better and different with a wider range of people. When it comes to new young wrestlers far more influential.

Shawn is only one part of any success WWE has had in recent years. He was a better heel, and his mic skills are miles better than almost anyone in history not just Bret's, but Bret was just as good a face in a more no-nonsense, straight man role, which at one time worked very well before the need for a more outragious face.Bret's work with other wrestlers, young or otherwise, was also just as good as Shawn's.

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

I personally rate his last year with WWE as much as any other, at least he was feuding with proper talents like Austin and Shawn and not sticks people like Backlund, Lawler and Issac Yankem.

Del Wilkes anyone? Seriously, that was god awful! At least his feud with Lawler in 93 was funny. His 95 feud though (which i assume you were refering to) however, was not.

I’d love to credit Bret for Summerslam, or even partly, but I think that was the novelty of such a big wwf event taking place on English people’s doorstep being the main attraction, with their favourite son bulldog in the main event being a bonus.

Buyrates were horrid for it, as it couldn't go live due to the time difference. Which is exactly the reason why WWE haven't gone live across the pond for a PPV ever since. (Unless you count One Night Only in 1997, and that didn't go live across the US either)

Bret’s no saint either certainly, but as you say being a manipulator is almost a nessessity for success in wrestling sometimes. You never said HBK as a saint, but he’s not the only guy to have carried the company in bad times, Bret did it before him and as I said before, made the most of it.And as you say, rumours are just that, so who’s the know the real truth behind any of them. I only believe what I see in fornt of me, and what I seen is Bret Hart being just as entertaining a performer as HBK, end of story for me.

Bret carried the company during bad times? Could you elaborate on that a little bit please? Because 1994 was far from a bad time in WWE, Bret was backseating to Nash and Michaels in 1995, and vanished for most of 1996! The reason i cited Shawn for 1996 was because a lot of WCW's top talent bailed on WWE (leaving Shawn wanting to do the same before that year was out), Shawn and Taker were pretty much the only two main eventers at the time, Shawn was the champion and Taker was busy putting over the likes of Vader and Mankind.

Ignorance is bliss, but it turns out Bret nearly did go to WCW in 1992 over a contract dispute, until he found out that Watts wouldn't give him anywhere near what he was making in WWE so Bret signed a new contract and the match with Piper was booked for him to get his belt back. Bret touches on this in his book i'm told (i haven't gotten that far into it yet), but i'm not entirely sure what Bret's deal was in 1996 (he doesn't say that much about it in his first shoot interview... nice and vague there, Bret! ).

Might make and effort to get stuck back into his book.
But at the end of the day, to say that Shawn's legacy is minimal compared to Bret's when Bret's done nothing in the last eight years, is just ridiculous. It's your opinion, and i respect it but i far from agree with it. Shawn's pulled several class matches since his 2002 comeback, and to take them away would be grossly unfair.

That said, it's unfair to take away from Bret as he had a good bit of Stampede time under his belt before Shawn had broken into the business.

However, Shawn isn't acting like a spoilt kid at someone elses birthday when he shows up for public appearances etc. Bret has a legacy, but his over confidence/arrogance and recent statements and actions at public appearance are examples of how he's pissing it away year after year. (watch his Behind Closed Doors shoot and the Hart Foundation shoot. Bret's gone very up himself in recent years, not so much since his retirement, but more since his stroke.

And it's stuff like that which makes it very difficult for fans like myself to sit through want watch Bret put himself on a pedestol and live off past glory. In turn, it also makes it harder to tolerate his fans, who can be on ROHbot scale of annoying in recent years.

VR!

rovert

D-FENS wrote: »

Shawn is only one part of any success WWE has had in recent years. He was a better heel, and his mic skills are miles better than almost anyone in history not just Bret's

Shawn has far more outstanding characteristics than Bret

D-FENS wrote: »

but Bret was just as good a face in a more no-nonsense, straight man role, which at one time worked very well before the need for a more outragious face.

No Bret wasnt as it didnt translate into exceptional business. Shawn Michaels could achieve far better sympathy than Bret ever could watch his match at Survivor Series 2003. Bret could never whip a crowd into frenzy like Shawn could.

D-FENS wrote: »

Bret's work with other wrestlers, young or otherwise, was also just as good as Shawn's.

Come again

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Shawn is only one part of any success WWE has had in recent years. He was a better heel, and his mic skills are miles better than almost anyone in history not just Bret's, but Bret was just as good a face in a more no-nonsense, straight man role, which at one time worked very well before the need for a more outragious face.Bret's work with other wrestlers, young or otherwise, was also just as good as Shawn's.

That's just plain wrong and either you haven't watched his post 2002 work, heavily biased, or simply blind.

You were literally made feel sorry for Shawn at the end of his matches if he lost (and in some cases if he won), as rovert pointed out, the sympathy generating babyface heat after matches like HHH in 2002 (after he was jumped when he won the match), Jericho in 2003 when Jericho low blowed him, and Survivor Series 2003 when he worked his ass off in that match.

As for Bret's work with other wrestlers were as good as Shawns? I'd have to disagree there too, especially in 1997 when Bret put the crowd to sleep in his matches with Takers, but Shawn tore the house down with Taker, two PPV's in a row at Ground Zero and Badd Blood.

VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

And it's stuff like that which makes it very difficult for fans like myself to sit through want watch Bret put himself on a pedestol and live off past glory. In turn, it also makes it harder to tolerate his fans, who can be on ROHbot scale of annoying in recent years.

Exactly

If Bret's legacy SO GREAT why do himself and his fans fight to SO hard to maintain it. A legacy that great should evident to everyone with zero "maintaince". It comes across as over compensating.

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

That's just plain wrong and either you haven't watched his post 2002 work, heavily biased, or simply blind.

You were literally made feel sorry for Shawn at the end of his matches if he lost (and in some cases if he won), as rovert pointed out, the sympathy generating babyface heat after matches like HHH in 2002 (after he was jumped when he won the match), Jericho in 2003 when Jericho low blowed him, and Survivor Series 2003 when he worked his ass off in that match.

As for Bret's work with other wrestlers were as good as Shawns? I'd have to disagree there too, especially in 1997 when Bret put the crowd to sleep in his matches with Takers, but Shawn tore the house down with Taker, two PPV's in a row at Ground Zero and Badd Blood.

VR!

VR have you rewatched Undertaker/Bret at Royal Rumble 1996 in the past few years. :eek:

*Side note HBK won the Rumble with at the time a career defining performance (which he has surpassed too many times to mention since.)

ShawnRaven

rovert, i haven't watched that match in about four years. I did however have the misfortune of seeing the matches at Summerslam 97 and One Night Only earlier in the month.

In my honest opinion, neither have aged well.
VR!

Ecw-Original

"Would you please SHUT THE HELL UP?" :D

Lol, always wanted to say that in a forum post.

Yeah, eh, isnt this supposed to be about the Mania game?
Haven't people gotten blocked for less off topic debates?

start a new thread or something!

(There should be a sticky,
"Rovert and validreasoning! discussions")

D-FENS

Del Wilkes anyone? Seriously, that was god awful! At least his feud with Lawler in 93 was funny. His 95 feud though (which i assume you were refering to) however, was not.

Most of Bret’s heel heat was based on being anti-american, so the Patriot was an obvious choice of opponent, even if it did get him a undeserved title shot angle, which was awful, but I think Bret’s fate in WWF was more or less sealed by then, Vince clearly had bigger plans for both Austin and HBK, but Bret’s ring work cannot be faulted.

Bret carried the company during bad times? Could you elaborate on that a little bit please? Because 1994 was far from a bad time in WWE, Bret was backseating to Nash and Michaels in 1995

Bret was champion from November ’96 to the following wrestling, how is that not carrying the company and how is it taking a back seat to Nash and Michaels?

to say that Shawn's legacy is minimal compared to Bret's when Bret's done nothing in the last eight years, is just ridiculous.

Check my posts again sir, I’ve never once implied Shawn’s body of work was/is minimul, I slagged him and pointed out his faults sure, but I actually happen to rate him very highly, one of the best ever and enjoy watching him, there’s no “Love Bret / Have to hate Shawn” rule here for me.
I just think Bret is one of the best too, on a pretty even scale with HBK and won’t have him put miles ahead of Bret because he’s not.

However, Shawn isn't acting like a spoilt kid at someone elses birthday when he shows up for public appearances etc. Bret has a legacy, but his over confidence/arrogance and recent statements and actions at public appearance are examples of how he's pissing it away year after year. (watch his Behind Closed Doors shoot and the Hart Foundation shoot. Bret's gone very up himself in recent years, not so much since his retirement, but more since his stroke.
And it's stuff like that which makes it very difficult for fans like myself to sit through want watch Bret put himself on a pedestol and live off past glory. In turn, it also makes it harder to tolerate his fans, who can be on ROHbot scale of annoying in recent years.
I won’t disagree that some of his attitude in the last ten years could have been better, I don’t really pay much attention to it, but I don’t think it tarnishes his legacy, no more than you could take say Hogan’s legacy away from him because he’s such a d*ck nowadays ( I’m not starting to compare Bret’s star to Hogan’s either). Plus Shawn has had it pretty good the last few years, admittedly a lot due to hsis own hard work, to be complaining about anything.

Fozzy

I'm a big Bret fan, but I have to side with the Shawn side in this debate. Shawn's going to be much more widely remembered and deservedly so

And this is getting split off into a separate thread

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Most of Bret’s heel heat was based on being anti-american, so the Patriot was an obvious choice of opponent, even if it did get him a undeserved title shot angle, which was awful, but I think Bret’s fate in WWF was more or less sealed by then, Vince clearly had bigger plans for both Austin and HBK, but Bret’s ring work cannot be faulted.

Nobody faulted Bret's ring work, But Bret's fate had been sealed in my opinion after Wrestlemania 13 when Austin got so over that he had to do a double turn, as entertaining as Bret's anti-american/pro-canadian stance was, his main event status was pretty much done.

Bret was champion from November ’96 to the following wrestling, how is that not carrying the company and how is it taking a back seat to Nash and Michaels?

Don't know what you were watching, but Sid was champion in November 96, and remained to until January 97 when Shawn won it back. Shawn then vacated it in February, Bret had it for a day before Sid won it. And Bret won it again at Summerslam 97!

Check my posts again sir, I’ve never once implied Shawn’s body of work was/is minimul, I slagged him and pointed out his faults sure, but I actually happen to rate him very highly, one of the best ever and enjoy watching him, there’s no “Love Bret / Have to hate Shawn” rule here for me.
I just think Bret is one of the best too, on a pretty even scale with HBK and won’t have him put miles ahead of Bret because he’s not.

Well Shawn is a lot higher up on my book as far as matches and workrate go, especially post 2002 Shawn! Bret's style always bored me, but one man's pleasure is another mans poison at the end of the day.

I won’t disagree that some of his attitude in the last ten years could have been better, I don’t really pay much attention to it, but I don’t think it tarnishes his legacy, no more than you could take say Hogan’s legacy away from him because he’s such a d*ck nowadays ( I’m not starting to compare Bret’s star to Hogan’s either). Plus Shawn has had it pretty good the last few years, admittedly a lot due to hsis own hard work, to be complaining about anything.

Hogan has pissed away a lot of his legacy though as a result of his actions towards Bret, Austin, Shawn, and anyone else he felt wasn't in his league. A lot of people lost a lot of respect for Hogan because he was a selfish sh*t. Although Shawn stuck it to Hogan at Summerslam 2005 by overselling every big move Hogan had and making him look like a chump, something i generally would frown upon, but given how Hogan switched the goalposts at the last minute, i felt, as a fan, Hogan got what was coming to him.

And yes, Shawn has had it pretty good, mainly because he didn't burn every bridge he had during his 5 year layoff and worked his ass off after he came back. People change, people cop on that they were dicks in the past and move on.

Sadly, Bret can't or won't move on, and will probably die a bitter man as a result.

VR!

ShawnRaven

Fozzy wrote: »

And this is getting split off into a separate thread

Was just gonna send ya a PM to suggest so, as this has been one of the more constructive Bret v Shawn debates this forum has seen for quite some time.

VR!

Fozzy

validreasoning! wrote: »

Was just gonna send ya a PM to suggest so, as this has been one of the more constructive Bret v Shawn debates this forum has seen for quite some time.

VR!

Has there been a mention of Montreal yet?

Hope I haven't jinxed it :pac:

ShawnRaven

What happened at Montreal? Everyone knows the screwjob happened at Wrestlemania 15 when Shawn Michaels pinned Bret Hart! Hulk Hogan said so!

And everybody knows... HOGAN KNOWS BEST!... BROTHER!
VR!

Minto

I'm only a wrestling fan for about 10 years now, so I dunno how qualified I am to discuss Bret, but from what I've seen/heard etc. The guy is a serious pain in the hole! He just can't get over the fact he was wrong in Montreal! He should have dropped the title to Shawn and he didn't. He thinks he is better than Austin, which is untrue! The only guy better than Austin is Flair. So to Bret, here is a tiny wall, GET OVER IT!

ShawnRaven

You couldn't just walk past that can of worms that was sitting on the table, could you?
We're not gonna hear the end of this now once D-FENS and Dre chime in with the whole "creative control" excuse
VR!

D-FENS

Don't know what you were watching, but Sid was champion in November 96, and remained to until January 97 when Shawn won it back. Shawn then vacated it in February, Bret had it for a day before Sid won it. And Bret won it again at Summerslam 97!

Apologies, should have said November ‘95 to the following WM, Bret carried the company then and took a back seat to no-one.

That's just plain wrong and either you haven't watched his post 2002 work, heavily biased, or simply blind.
You were literally made feel sorry for Shawn at the end of his matches if he lost (and in some cases if he won), as rovert pointed out, the sympathy generating babyface heat after matches like HHH in 2002 (after he was jumped when he won the match), Jericho in 2003 when Jericho low blowed him, and Survivor Series 2003 when he worked his ass off in that match.

Bret garnered a lot of sympathy as a face leading up to and losing to Yokozuna, and the crowd were right behind him because of it when he surprisingly (co) won the rumble the following year and went on to regain. And when Lawler attacked him after winning KOTR (The best part of the feud)
He was also the perfect face in his feud with Owen.

As for Bret's work with other wrestlers were as good as Shawns? I'd have to disagree there too, especially in 1997 when Bret put the crowd to sleep in his matches with Takers, but Shawn tore the house down with Taker, two PPV's in a row at Ground Zero and Badd Blood.

Some guys click better than others, Shawn’s work with Curt Henning was forgettable too, but he done great stuff with Bret.
Younger guys, yeah fair enough, Shawn gets the nod, but most of the guys Bret worked with in his time were of a similar age to him anyway, Shawn’s had to opportunity to work with a lot of younger guys in the last ten years.

All in all folks, I’m not going to carry one being spit roasted by VR and Rovert here, with some voyeurs as well by the looks of it, I just think that both Bret and Shawn reached a status in the 90’s that was pretty even, and Shawn’s work since, great and all as it is, hasn’t raised him any higher. You can only become a legend once.

D-FENS

validreasoning! wrote: »

You couldn't just walk past that can of worms that was sitting on the table, could you?
We're not gonna hear the end of this now once D-FENS and Dre chime in with the whole "creative control" excuse
VR!

I'm not touching that can actually.Some Bret fans have moved on

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Apologies, should have said November ‘95 to the following WM, Bret carried the company then and took a back seat to no-one.

Other than to Shawn who's rumble win after the Owen angle made Bret v Taker look like utter dirt. But that's nothing rovert didn't already point out earlier in the thread.

Bret garnered a lot of sympathy as a face leading up to and losing to Yokozuna, and the crowd were right behind him because of it when he surprisingly (co) won the rumble the following year and went on to regain. And when Lawler attacked him after winning KOTR (The best part of the feud)
He was also the perfect face in his feud with Owen.

Not sure i'd agree with the Yoko part, mainly in part that there was no time even given before Hogan jumped right in there and yoinked the spot! Anyway, the company didn't particulary need to be carried in 1993-1994 as WCW wasn't a threat at the time, and ECW was pretty much nothing at the time. If anyone carried that company between 93-94, it would have been Pat Patterson for keeping the ship afloat while the Federal Government was trying to send Vince McMahon down the river at the time.

Some guys click better than others, Shawn’s work with Curt Henning was forgettable too, but he done great stuff with Bret.
Younger guys, yeah fair enough, Shawn gets the nod, but most of the guys Bret worked with in his time were of a similar age to him anyway, Shawn’s had to opportunity to work with a lot of younger guys in the last ten years.

I'd hardly call Hulk Hogan and Vince McMahon guys younger than him, and he still got a hell of a decent match with Vinny Mac, I can't say the same for Hogan, but that was more the fault of Hogan being an A class wanker before the match. I'll give you the Shawn v Hennig as an example, two A class wrestlers who couldn't gel together if their lives depended on it.

All in all folks, I’m not going to carry one being spit roasted by VR and Rovert here, with some voyeurs as well by the looks of it, I just think that both Bret and Shawn reached a status in the 90’s that was pretty even, and Shawn’s work since, great and all as it is, hasn’t raised him any higher. You can only become a legend once.

I'm not spit roasting you dude, just pointing out how it is. And rovert barely said anything in this entire debate (probably because he didn't have to). But the general opinion is that Shawn's recent work has raised him higher. And there's nothing that anyone can say or do that will change that. They may have been even in the 90s alright, but Shawn has gone on and followed his own standards time out of number and continiously raising the bar. While Bret has sat on the fence feeling sorry for himself.

VR!

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

I'm not touching that can actually.Some Bret fans have moved on

I was actually refering more to Dre, we've had countless of discussion/arguments on this over the course of the last four years that it's become almost a running joke at this stage.

VR!

Bubs101

This is pointless

ShawnRaven

Not as pointless as the three words you just posted, either contribute or get the f*ck out.
VR!

Fozzy

The "reasonable creative control" that Bret had was a legally binding agreement in his contract that if either Bret or Vince didn't want to do something with Bret then it wouldn't be done. It wasn't some subjective interpretation of "reasonable", it had a clear definition

ShawnRaven

Yes, and the term was reasonable, not complete control. And at the end of the day, it's Vince who calls the shots of the company, not Bret.

VR!

rovert

Bubs101 wrote: »

This is pointless

Reply to your ministry thread then (speaking of pointless)

Bubs101

The two above posts show why it is so pointless. Both sides have a clear and logical argument that is hard to find fault in so it just comes down to VR taking cheap shots at a man who had a stroke

rovert

Fozzy wrote: »

The "reasonable creative control" that Bret had was a legally binding agreement in his contract that if either Bret or Vince didn't want to do something with Bret then it wouldn't be done. It wasn't some subjective interpretation of "reasonable", it had a clear definition

Bret never took to the courts as his demands werent reasonable. Watch Wrestling With Shadows he didnt want to job in Canada in 1988/89 for christsakes.

ShawnRaven

That the part where he got the rib injury against Dino Bravo?
VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

That the part where he got the rib injury against Dino Bravo?
VR!

Yep, hardly professional was it?

Fozzy

rovert wrote: »

Bret never took to the courts as his demands werent reasonable. Watch Wrestling With Shadows he didnt want to job in Canada in 1988/89 for christsakes.

If he took it to court he'd just have WWE countersuing him for assaulting Vince, there'd be no winners

Sort of like the Montreal debates!

rovert

Fozzy wrote: »

If he took it to court he'd just have WWE countersuing him for assaulting Vince, there'd be no winners

Doesnt change my point, Bret would have lost both cases.

Fozzy wrote: »

Sort of like the Montreal debates!

Why did you bring it up then?

shinzon

theres no way to have a reasonable debate talk argument about bret and shawn, both have done so much for the business, each have been effective in the heel/face mode and each have drawn money, both have played the backstage politicking very well

As for Monrtreal, to me it was just a pissing contest between vince and bret, tbh i couldnt see anything wrong with bret not losing in canada and losing the next night on raw, but obviously vince had other ideas and had to exert control over the situation to let bret know in vinces mind that bret wasnt screwing him over

As for shawn i have at times hated him and admired him in the ring and on the mike, he can be a selfish bastard at times and then other times he pulls out a miracle like the flair match out of his hat

the only problem with bret and shawn is that there both sides of the same coin and i dont think any argument is gonna settle whose better between the 2

Shin

rovert

shinzon wrote: »

theres no way to have a reasonable debate talk argument about bret and shawn, both have done so much for the business, each have been effective in the heel/face mode and each have drawn money,

rovert wrote: »

Bret wasn’t the draw Shawn Michaels was/is, Shawn is a much better promo, much better at being both being a babyface AND heel, better facial expressions and had alot better and different with a wider range of people. When it comes to new young wrestlers far more influential.

So?

shinzon

the only problem with bret and shawn is that there both sides of the same coin and i dont think any argument is gonna settle whose better between the 2

i believe that explains it tbh

shin

rovert

shinzon wrote: »

i believe that explains it tbh

No it doesnt as the logic leading up to it is flawed, Shawn Michaels in the past 5 or so years has totally surpassed Bret. They are no longer on an even keal.

shinzon

In the last 5 years no shawn has not, his matches are one third bad, one third fair to middling and one third brilliant, brets record has been consistent enough even retired to keep up with shawns now

so they are on an even keel even now, and i go back to my original comment both sides of the same coin

Shin

Fozzy

shinzon wrote: »

In the last 5 years no shawn has not, his matches are one third bad, one third fair to middling and one third brilliant, brets record has been consistent enough even retired to keep up with shawns now

so they are on an even keel even now, and i go back to my original comment both sides of the same coin

Shin

One third of Shawn's matches have been bad? I'd say that in the last five years that Shawn, Kurt and Benoit were the most consistent WWE wrestlers. I really can't see how you can just rank them as even