Bret hart/shawn michaels

irishpunter

This has probably been done lots of times b4 but I read both their books recently and am just wondering who ppl think was the better wrestler,
and who does everyone side with on the 'Montreal screwjob'?

Alex Kidd

I've also read both and I think Bret comes off as very unlikeable after reading his, still an interesting read and better than Michael's (most WWE books are poor in my opinion).

In terms of wrestling, Michaels is in the top 3 of all time and at the peak of his career was the complete package (in ring ability, psychology, on the mic etc) where as even though Bret was technically very good he doesn't have the charisma to back it up.

Vince135792003

Alex Kidd wrote: »

I've also read both and I think Bret comes off as very unlikeable after reading his, still an interesting read and better than Michael's (most WWE books are poor in my opinion).
.

If everybody was as honest as he was in their autobiographies, I'm not sure how many famous people would end up being likeable by the end of their books.

flahavaj

Vince screwed Bret.

Bret screwed Bret.

Bret screwed Sunny.

:pac:

cooker3

Michaels by an absolute country mile.

Terry

Michaels. Bret did, and still does, come across are quite bitter. It's not a likeable trait in anyone.

geeky

Funny, I'm kinda neutral on the screwjob issue. It's easy for us to judge but, from Sean Michaels' perspective, I can understand him going along with it (assuming that's what happened) more than I can Vince McMahon instigating it. The whole thing should have been settled between Hart and McMahon like adults well in time, and it's not Michaels' fault that it wasn't. He went with his employer's (pretty underhand) solution rather than a rival who was leaving the company. It'd be nice to think we wouldn't do the same in that position, but I probably would.

As for the better wrestler, I'm going to break with the mainstream and say Bret. Shawn Michaels was a phenomenal athlete, but I think Hart had a better understanding of pacing and building an engagingmatch. Michaels at his peak was better on the mike than bret, but not by all that much, and I know whose old matches I'd rather watch.

krudler

Shawn by a mile.

Tribesmen7

Bret was the better wrestler.

But overall package (in ring ability, charisma, mic work etc) then Michaels is the best of all time.

Barlett

One thing about Bret's autobiography - its a great read and he leaves no stone unturned but after a while it grated how he kept mentioning other wrestlers coming up to tell him how great he is and what an asset to business he is, also pretty much every intense behind the scenes conversation he had with other wrestlers/referees/Vince seemed to end with the other person having tears in their eyes? Maybe they did, but that sure is alot of crying for anyone's profession.

Vince135792003

flahavaj wrote: »

Bret screwed Sunny.

Sunny says it was Shawn.

sky88

shawn by miles imo but bret is a better technical wreatler but shawn is better all round on mic skills entertainment but then again i think shawn is better then everyone as he is the greatest of all time.

on the montreal screwjob i kind of side with shawn and vince bret should have just gave up the belt that night to shawn but both there egos got iin the way.

hitman79

As a massive Bret fan and someone who hasnt really followed wrestling since about 2000 i have to say Bret was the better wrestler. Have read both books and agree Bret doesnt come across as well as i hoped he would but Shawn has always come across as a bit of prat and his book backs that up.

Bret is definately the better wrestler but have to admit Shawn is better on the mic but Bret would probably admit that himself.

As for Montreal Bret was screwed but then again i could never see why losing in his own country was such a big deal for him.

Might throw on the Bret dvd tonight actually

paddyismaddy

hbk

SlickRic

having read both books, bret had too high an opinion of himself, took himself way too seriously, and that came back to bite him in the ass.

he genuinely loved WWE, and i believe never wanted to leave, but he thought he was indispensible. he wasn't.

Shawn did the right thing; but by his personal principles Bret didn't do an awful lot wrong. he had things stipulated in his contract which he was entitled to; rightly or wrongly from a business point of view. he just thought that losing to Shawn in Montreal was a bigger deal than it actually was.

1) he didn't like Shawn at that stage.
2) for whatever reason, he thought the collective psyche of Canada would collapse were he to lose.
3) he thought his character would lose a lot of value if he lost to Shawn in Montreal.

it's all too muddled, with too many crossover issues to definitively say who i side with.

Shawn did what was right for the business, so that would probably swing me his way just about.

Who is better

Batman or Superman
:rolleyes:

its all a matter of taste. As a kid i liked Bret better as i was not a fan of HBK's poncing around. Other guys like that.

Vince135792003

SlickRic wrote: »

Shawn did what was right for the business, .

I never understood that argument on any level.

Michaels in 1997 was not a man thinking about what was good for the business. He was looking out for number 1. 3 months later Undertaker had to physically threaten him to drop the belt to Steve Austin at Wrestlemania which Undertaker spoke about on Off the Record. That's just 1 example of about a dozen.


There is also the small matter of Vince McMahon signing Bret Hart to a contract that allowed him 30 days reasonable creative control. Clearly, one person breached that.

Bret Hart was willing to drop the belt. He suggested numerous people and places. The Observer issue of that time covers it.

There is also the myth that Bret Hart was going to show up on Nitro with the belt. Legally it could not have happened.

Again as for being good for business. By Vince doing what he did, he actually made Bret a much bigger star heading into WCW than he ever would have been. It just so happened WCW didn't capitalise on it.

In saying all that, Shawn Michaels would edge it for me as a wrestler due to the second part of his career coming back in 2002.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this!

Tribesmen7

SlickRic wrote: »

having read both books, bret had too high an opinion of himself, took himself way too seriously, and that came back to bite him in the ass.

he genuinely loved WWE, and i believe never wanted to leave, but he thought he was indispensible. he wasn't.

Shawn did the right thing; but by his personal principles Bret didn't do an awful lot wrong. he had things stipulated in his contract which he was entitled to; rightly or wrongly from a business point of view. he just thought that losing to Shawn in Montreal was a bigger deal than it actually was.

1) he didn't like Shawn at that stage.
2) for whatever reason, he thought the collective psyche of Canada would collapse were he to lose.
3) he thought his character would lose a lot of value if he lost to Shawn in Montreal.

it's all too muddled, with too many crossover issues to definitively say who i side with.

Shawn did what was right for the business, so that would probably swing me his way just about.

I would much rather Shawn than Bret and a huge HBK fan but in fairness if you had to deal with Shawn back in 1997 I doubt you would have wanted to put him over either. Bret didn't want to put Shawn over in his home country. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bret say he would drop the belt to anyone Vince wanted to except for Shawn because of the way Shawn acted. In fairness it was hard to blame Bret.

Tribesmen7

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I never understood that argument on any level.

Michaels in 1997 was not a man thinking about what was good for the business. He was looking out for number 1. 3 months later Undertaker had to physically threaten him to drop the belt to Steve Austin at Wrestlemania which Undertaker spoke about on Off the Record. That's just 1 example of about a dozen.

I always thought this was proven to be false. I remember Shawn saying so in his book anyway. Has Taker really spoken about this on tv?

Vince135792003

Tribesmen7 wrote: »

I always thought this was proven to be false. I remember Shawn saying so in his book anyway. Has Taker really spoken about this on tv?

I'll try and find the link for you now. Maybe Undertaker lied about it on tv but he would have no reason to and would trust him over the Michaels of that time.

Vince135792003

Watch from 4:55.

It's also the video where he criticises Big Show in 2002.

Tribesmen7

Brilliant. I have absolutely no recollection of that. I don't want to go off topic but was there a big thing made out of Taker criticising Big Show?

As for Shawn, well if its true, you would be quick in doing the right thing if you had a man like Taker there tapping his fists waiting to discipline you!

brick tamland

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Watch from 4:55.

It's also the video where he criticises Big Show in 2002.

I never seen taker break kayfabe before like that

Dancor

Tribesmen7 wrote: »

I would much rather Shawn than Bret and a huge HBK fan but in fairness if you had to deal with Shawn back in 1997 I doubt you would have wanted to put him over either. Bret didn't want to put Shawn over in his home country. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bret say he would drop the belt to anyone Vince wanted to except for Shawn because of the way Shawn acted. In fairness it was hard to blame Bret.

People also forget that that Shawn told Bret he would never drop the belt to him.

D.Q

A bit off topic, that video talks about taker retiring after WM 18. What an absolute testament to the guys workrate and talent, that 7 years on, he stole the show at WM 25. Mindblowing.

LighterGuy

IMO, the whole "who screwed who" over the montreal incident depends on what side of the coin you come on.


Vince:
With Alundra Blaze dropping the womens title in the trash can on nitro (which is also well known for setting back womens wrestling for years in the late 90s)
As well as not trusting what Bishoff would do if they got their current world champion on Nitro. I know Bret couldnt legally but you know yourself. Especially how its well known Bishoff was willing to do anything. Sure he even spoiled raw results when raw was pre-taped among other things.

Bret:
I am not to sure if I believe Bret fully when he says it was just not wanting to loose in canada... i'm sure it was to a very big degree. (some ego huh) .. but i'm sure he didnt want to job the title to SHAWN in canada more so than just loosing in canada. In fairness its well reported Michaels was such a pr*ck.



Either way how you look at it. Vince McMahon didnt trust Bret Hart. Vince feared that if played things brets way...Either he would at worst, appear on nitro with the belt... or when it came to the RAW where he was meant to drop it, what happens if bret said "no, not doing that" ... even if hart didnt appear with the strap on nitro then (when he debuted). He'd still be the current champion. (you know wwe would just stip him on the raw he would no show. but it also means no one would of bet him, which looks bad knowing he is working for the competition)


for bret, i think he let his ego get in the way of things. But he trusted wwe wouldnt screw him over. Which you can at least see his point of view. Fact is tho, he knew well before SS97 he was going to wcw. Why go ahead with working micheals in canada at SS only to have second thoughts about jobbing? he knew he had to drop the belt. Why agree to that programme. Could of easily dropped it at the October PPV.




Eitherway you look at it. Its a testament in life that trust is a hard thing to find. But either way, one thing that is certain. Micheals was more than happy to screw over Bret.

parker kent

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is better

Batman or Superman
:rolleyes:

its all a matter of taste. As a kid i liked Bret better as i was not a fan of HBK's poncing around. Other guys like that.

Weird as a kid I really disliked HBK for that same reason. Now though I think he is the greatest wrestler of all time. Most of his active years he had the match of the year in my view. Bret is not far behind though. What I'd give to see them both in their peaks now.

parker kent

Tribesmen7 wrote: »

I always thought this was proven to be false. I remember Shawn saying so in his book anyway. Has Taker really spoken about this on tv?

Power Slam magazine reported this to be true and I normally take their word to be pretty accurate.

Alex Kidd

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is better

Batman or Superman
:rolleyes:

its all a matter of taste. As a kid i liked Bret better as i was not a fan of HBK's poncing around. Other guys like that.

Batman by miles.

Vince135792003

For everyone who enjoyed the Undertaker video, there are 2 other parts up on youtube. Just click on the video in this thread to get into youtube and it should be up as one of the videos to click on the side.

steelcityblues

The story of Shawn trying to derail Steve Austin's moment in the sun pre- WM14 makes me wonder how anyone could still take his side. Imagine the scenario if we had a winner of the biggest match at the biggest annual PPV, who has to leave afterwards anyway. Makes Survivor Series 97 look like smaller fry.

Bret might not be able to separate himself from the wrestling persona a lot of the time, but it was clear who was the more responsible, and respected by peers overall of the two.

Fozzy

I think that Bret was the better wrestler, but given Shawn's comeback run it's him who has the better body of work overall

Butch Cassidy

Vince135792003 wrote: »

For everyone who enjoyed the Undertaker video, there are 2 other parts up on youtube. Just click on the video in this thread to get into youtube and it should be up as one of the videos to click on the side.

There's loads of them Off-The-Record videos on youtube and they're nearly all worth watching aside from the slightly kayfabed Austin one from '98. Post 2002 there are some great ones. JR, Heyman, McMahon, Edge admitting abusing painkillers to get up and go to the next show and there's a few with Bret Hart.

steelcityblues wrote: »

The story of Shawn trying to derail Steve Austin's moment in the sun pre- WM14 makes me wonder how anyone could still take his side. Imagine the scenario if we had a winner of the biggest match at the biggest annual PPV, who has to leave afterwards anyway. Makes Survivor Series 97 look like smaller fry.

Bret might not be able to separate himself from the wrestling persona a lot of the time, but it was clear who was the more responsible, and respected by peers overall of the two.

Yeah absolutely. If Shawn had've pulled the plug on Austin that'd have been catastrophic.

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I never understood that argument on any level.

Michaels in 1997 was not a man thinking about what was good for the business. He was looking out for number 1. 3 months later Undertaker had to physically threaten him to drop the belt to Steve Austin at Wrestlemania which Undertaker spoke about on Off the Record. That's just 1 example of about a dozen.


There is also the small matter of Vince McMahon signing Bret Hart to a contract that allowed him 30 days reasonable creative control. Clearly, one person breached that.

Bret Hart was willing to drop the belt. He suggested numerous people and places. The Observer issue of that time covers it.

There is also the myth that Bret Hart was going to show up on Nitro with the belt. Legally it could not have happened.

Again as for being good for business. By Vince doing what he did, he actually made Bret a much bigger star heading into WCW than he ever would have been. It just so happened WCW didn't capitalise on it.

In saying all that, Shawn Michaels would edge it for me as a wrestler due to the second part of his career coming back in 2002.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this!

This man speaks a lot of sense! Michaels in '97 wasn't doing what was right for the business. He took loads of time off with his phony knee injuries and avoided wrestling Bret at all costs to save his own ego. All the while he was whispering in Vince's ear that Bret had to go and that DX was the way forward. Helmsley and Michaels stripping in Xmas boxers, sucking sausages and playing strip poker in the ring was not my idea of entertainment to be honest. Some of the DX stuff was good but so much of it was Michaels' deluded self image.

On the screwjob question I loved the whole match and controversy of it. I think everyone was in the wrong at some point but it made for some great watching. I remember seeing the finish on the Sky Sports replay for the first time and not having a clue what had happened. Without that screwjob finish there'd be no internet wrestling community


With regards who my favourite was, well I liked both equally. Michaels' comeback obviously edges it for many as he's put on some utterly amazing matches in the last 8years. It's worth noting that from 1992-1997 pretty much the best matches on the card were either Shawn's or Bret's. It's a shame there was never a big match set up in '94 when Bret was the champion.

GTR63

I'm no Hbk Mark but when Bret came out on Raw I Rolled my eyes asking why god won't he go,its like when foley used to turn up for no reason.He's not a COMPLETE JOKE like Flair is but bret needs to say goodbye & stay at home like Hbk to be remembered in a good way.

weareallmarks

its all subjective, some people think bret has better psychology better gimmick etc and some prefer shawns dancer thing...

for me the screwjob is irrelevant, bret was wrong. the boss tells you and you do it. regardless of creative control...

IMO bret was always better, shawn was amazing, but bret was always the man. everything he did looked great, his promos where great when he got riled up (especially with the hart foundation 2).....shawn always came across to me (only to me) as the guy at school who talked tough but could never back it up...

both awesome, but bret for me was better...

GTR63

GTR63 wrote: »

I'm no Hbk Mark but when Bret came out on Raw I Rolled my eyes asking why god won't he go

So the 13 years flew in for you then

It doesnt bother me seeing returns of the old timers. They helped build the business so they have every right to be there. At the end of the day , its entertainment.

gimmick

Haha, this topic never fails

Vince135792003

weareallmarks wrote: »

for me the screwjob is irrelevant, bret was wrong. the boss tells you and you do it. regardless of creative control...

According to Vince Mahon wrestlers are independent contractors.

Hart and McMahon made a deal of "reasonable creative control" for the last 30 days. Both agreed to it at the time. Objectively, McMahon clearly broke his part of the agreement.

GTR63

Deleted User wrote: »

So the 13 years flew in for you then

It doesnt bother me seeing returns of the old timers. They helped build the business so they have every right to be there. At the end of the day , its entertainment.

I Don't mind old stars doing Nostalgic Returns but Bret's one just sucked.It was a Huge Dissapointment that Culminated in that Worst Match of the Year Candidate at Mania.I don't want to see a phisicaly done Bret Hart Wrestle at SummerSlam.He's a Liability in the Ring especially with Otunga & Tarver.I'd like to keep the memories of Bret not to have Memories like Flair Hilarious one man performance Piece at Lockdown.If anyone can't find Flair Funny for the Wrong Reasons I just give up.

Vince135792003

GTR63 wrote: »

I Don't mind old stars doing Nostalgic Returns but Bret's one just sucked.It was a Huge Dissapointment that Culminated in that Worst Match of the Year Candidate at Mania.I don't want to see a phisicaly done Bret Hart Wrestle at SummerSlam.He's a Liability in the Ring especially with Otunga & Tarver.I'd like to keep the memories of Bret not to have Memories like Flair Hilarious one man performance Piece at Lockdown.If anyone can't find Flair Funny for the Wrong Reasons I just give up.

The Summerlsam match will be fine. There's 13 other guys in there. He'll be safe.

I am kinda in 2 minds on Bret Harts return.

On the 1 hand it's his life and whatever he wants to do at this stage of his life is his own business.

On the other, I haven't liked his return. There have been some bright spots but on the whole it hasn't quite clicked.

weareallmarks

if they where independant contractors they could wear what they want, say what they want and work for who they want.

they are not independant, that is just so he doesnt have to pay health insurance..

mcmahon broke his part of the deal, but he was left with no choice. bret thought he was jesus cause he showed up to work everyday and did everything he asked......i do that in my current job and can still be fired or told what to do any time...

creative control makes no sense cause the creative (story) can change in a seconds notice...they agreed on a run in, but what if vince changed his mind in the mean time?

its stupid anyway, bret was a crybaby...seperate from how great a wrestler he was he was a crying moany child who believed his hype

Vince135792003 wrote: »

According to Vince Mahon wrestlers are independent contractors.

Hart and McMahon made a deal of "reasonable creative control" for the last 30 days. Both agreed to it at the time. Objectively, McMahon clearly broke his part of the agreement.

Tribesmen7

weareallmarks wrote: »

if they where independant contractors they could wear what they want, say what they want and work for who they want.

they are not independant, that is just so he doesnt have to pay health insurance..

mcmahon broke his part of the deal, but he was left with no choice. bret thought he was jesus cause he showed up to work everyday and did everything he asked......i do that in my current job and can still be fired or told what to do any time...

creative control makes no sense cause the creative (story) can change in a seconds notice...they agreed on a run in, but what if vince changed his mind in the mean time?

its stupid anyway, bret was a crybaby...seperate from how great a wrestler he was he was a crying moany child who believed his hype

Your boss can't just fire you at anytime. Legally anyway.

Brett had creative control so whether creative control makes sense or not is irrelevant.

And I don't buy this McMahon had no other choice. He had loads. He could have waited until Monday Night Raw where Bret said he would drop the title and if he wasn't happy with that he could have changed the storyline so as to have Undertaker or someone else win the title at Survivor Series (As far as I know he had no problem dropping the title to anyone other than Shawn even if it was in Canada).

I don't know how anyone can see it as Bret was wrong and Vince was right. This coming from a huge Shawn fan and as someone that feels Bret is not as nice as he lets on to be.

weareallmarks

Tribesmen7 wrote: »

Your boss can't just fire you at anytime. Legally anyway.

Brett had creative control so whether creative control makes sense or not is irrelevant.

And I don't buy this McMahon had no other choice. He had loads. He could have waited until Monday Night Raw where Bret said he would drop the title and if he wasn't happy with that he could have changed the storyline so as to have Undertaker or someone else win the title at Survivor Series (As far as I know he had no problem dropping the title to anyone other than Shawn even if it was in Canada).

I don't know how anyone can see it as Bret was wrong and Vince was right. This coming from a huge Shawn fan and as someone that feels Bret is not as nice as he lets on to be.

he did have other choices, but he is the owner of the company...what kind of precedent would that send if he let bret have his way....

creative control is non existant because the story contstantly changes on a second to second basis...that is why that clause doesnt really exist anymore with active wrestlers

i have a contract at work and can still be let go at any time, even if i behave myself...

if vince said 'ok bret you ARE jesus and you can do what you want with the belt' then every champ after that would have known that vince was weak ....

i dont think he was worried about the belt going to nitro i think he was more worried about how he would have looked as a boss...

Vince135792003

weareallmarks wrote: »

mcmahon broke his part of the deal

That's your only essential point I agree with.

Hart was more than accommadating offering numerous scenarios and agreeing to scenarios by McMahon himself only for McMahon to then change his mind. Reasonable creative control was the agreement and it didn't have to end like it did.

Fozzy

weareallmarks wrote: »

creative control is non existant because the story contstantly changes on a second to second basis...that is why that clause doesnt really exist anymore with active wrestlers

What Bret had was reasonable creative control. The definition of that in the contract was that both Bret and Vince had to agree on something for it to happen. Vince could veto Bret's ideas and Bret could veto Vince's. Vince broke that, it has nothing to do with an angle changing by the second

weareallmarks

lads at the end of the day hart was an employee

dont get it twisted. he was no better or worse than anyone else on the roster. he was trying to dictate to the boss. that will never go down the right way.

creative control is the most ridiculous thing in the world because of what i said earlier....who is to say the story wasnt changed in the interim.

it is about how vince would have looked if he gave into everything bret wantd.

bret wasnt special he wasnt anything better he was an emplyee who looked good because of everyone else on the roster making him look good...

serious delusions of grandeur on his part

geeky

weareallmarks wrote: »

lads at the end of the day hart was an employee

dont get it twisted. he was no better or worse than anyone else on the roster. he was trying to dictate to the boss. that will never go down the right way.

creative control is the most ridiculous thing in the world because of what i said earlier....who is to say the story wasnt changed in the interim.

it is about how vince would have looked if he gave into everything bret wantd.

bret wasnt special he wasnt anything better he was an emplyee who looked good because of everyone else on the roster making him look good...

serious delusions of grandeur on his part

Fair points, but I'd make two in response.

- Bret took less money in exchange for that 'reasonable creative control'. You could argue that that was stupid but for an employer to offer something as a bargaining chip, and then withdraw it claiming that it was impracticable, is poor form.

- Regardless of whether Vince had the right to say 'its got to be this way' or not, Vince deceived one of his most loyal employees, telling him he was happy to end a major match one way and then organising to screw him over.

For what it's worth, I think Bret has a share of the blame in this (the belt situation should have been sorted out aaaaages beforehand, which was both the holder and the booker's responsibility).

Vince135792003

weareallmarks wrote: »

he was trying to dictate to the boss. that will never go down the right way.

Factually incorrect.

weareallmarks

vince how is that not correct?

bret wouldnt drop the strap in a fake sport to someone because it was his home town...that IS dictating to the boss...

vince (big vince) was only going to react one way

bret was loyal and all that but he wasnt doing it for free, he was paid well for it. he didnt deserve special treatment....he should have done what SHOULD have been done for the company. bret is not bigger than wwf...he didnt draw huge he didnt draw sell outs every night...

i am a hitman fan but i think i was looking at him through rose tinted glasses for too long..

geeky

weareallmarks wrote: »

vince how is that not correct?

bret wouldnt drop the strap in a fake sport to someone because it was his home town...that IS dictating to the boss...

vince (big vince) was only going to react one way

bret was loyal and all that but he wasnt doing it for free, he was paid well for it. he didnt deserve special treatment....he should have done what SHOULD have been done for the company. bret is not bigger than wwf...he didnt draw huge he didnt draw sell outs every night...

i am a hitman fan but i think i was looking at him through rose tinted glasses for too long..

Again, mate, two points

- his boss convinced him to stay and take less money with a promise of 'creative control'. If that was such an unreasonable thing to look for, McMahon shouldn't have offered it.
- If McMahon felt as strongly as he claimed to subsequently, he shouldn't have deceived his employee, pretending to go along with a (fairly reasonable) solution proposed by Hart that night and then arranging something different.

Most people agree that Bret should have had a bit more perspective, but McMahon acted in a seriously duplicitous way.

jaykhunter

irishpunter wrote: »

This has probably been done lots of times b4 but I read both their books recently and am just wondering who ppl think was the better wrestler,
and who does everyone side with on the 'Montreal screwjob'?

Shawn is (IMO) the best all-round wrestler of all time. Even if Kurt Angle is a better technical wrestler, Shawn Micheals engages the audience more, cuts a better promo, has cooler finishing moves and really whips everyone into a frenzy. I love Bret, but he's nowhere the magnitude of awesomeness that Shawn is. Then again, nobody (except Angle, IMO) is.

Yep; Vince screwed Bret. Bret had the legal right to do as he pleased in the last month of his contract; Vince signed it; and should honour said contract. Although Bret should've done as Vince asked and dropped the belt at the PPV, he was under no legal obligation to do, and really hated Shawn Michaels (with good cause)....so I side with Bret.

That said, what Vince did was right for his company (really kick-starting the Attitude Era with real life edge), and Bret got much more money in WCW than Vince would've given him; so the screwjob did benefit everyone. Bret's probably the biggest mark in the business since he valued how he looked to his fans above absolutely everything else, which is one of the reasons I love Bret. A 'farewell' speech the night after Survivor Series would've been pretty bad for business - with him basically saying "thanks, but WWF can't afford me anymore" does neither Bret or WWF any good!!

Anyway, Vince did wrong, and Shawn was a pain in the arse, but the onus is on Vince. In the end, wrestlers do what he tells them to do.