ATH First Round Match 5 : MrKisCool v GerryBBadd

beakerjoe

Half way through the first round of ATH and its Match 5, as MrKiscool takes on GerryBBadd (Not to be confused with Marc Mero’s Johnny B Badd).



Simplified version of the rules:

I will post a topic and you have to post your response including why you made that choice within a given time limit (before the next match is scheduled to begin), take care while making your responses however as the other contestant can counter your arguement i.e pointing out possible flaws in what youve said.

*you can only counter an arguement two times so make sure your point is worth making. If someone's defense of their arguement isnt good it will count against them.

*You can use the same answer as your opponent if you wish i.e you agree with their choice however its hard to win a debate when your making the same points someone has already made

see the OP of the main thread for further details or if any examples are needed check out previous years competitions.

Question 5: Last year there was an ATH question about which was the best feud ever in WWE and why? Bret v Shawn Michaels and Austin v McMahon were the answers in a great debate.
In your view, BESIDES the 2 examples above (Bret and Shawn and Austin and Vince), what was the best feud in WWE/F and give reasons why this was the best feud in your opinion.

after your first post: why would your choice be better than your opponents?

Good Luck Guys

gerrybbadd

In my opinion, the best feud other than those excluded above, actually includes 2 of the guys mentioned - Bret Hart & Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Steve was hand-pick by Bret to face off against in his return match to the WWF at Survivor Series, and after that, things really started to heat up between the 2.

One of the very best Wrestlemania matches of all time was at Mania 13, where Austin faced Bret in a Submission match. Who can ever forget the visual of Austin, writhing in pain locked in the Sharpshooter, while blood streamed down his face. Before, finally, passing out in a pool of his own blood. This match was epic as it resulted in both stars turning, Austin to Face, and Bret to Heel. This may have been done before in the past, but not as effectively.

There was a real feeling of legitimacy in everything these guys did, you really felt like they hated each other, and would go at each other whenever they were near the other.

And Bret's feud with Steve further branched out to include members of the Hart Foundation too. This led to some epic encounters, such as at IYH Canadian Stampede (possibly the best IYH of all time), and against Summerslam, where an Owen Hart piledriver put changed the direction Austin's career would head.

A massive part of the creation of the Attitude Era has to be credited to these 2 awesome competitors, for bringing a realism and grittiness into the then WWF at that time.

mrkiscool2

There is only one feud that comes to my mind and, in my opinion, it's even better than the two posted in the question. It's the ultimate in family ties been tested, two great wrestlers going at it. It's Bret Hart vs Owen Hart.

What didn't this feud have? A whole family involved? Check. Hatred? Check. Intense matches and promos? Check. A very personal story? Check. This feud had absolutely everything you wanted to see in a proper feud. and it delivered on every single front.

It just had so many different and great aspects to it. Whether it was there match at Wrestlemania X which stole the show, there incredible title match at Summerslam (one of the rare 5 star WWE matches) to their great encounters in tag team matches with their brothers-in-law forced to pick sides and battle against each other it was bitter, intense and brilliant. Their own focus was on each other, both men trying to prove who was truly the better Hart.

Owen's desperation to get the recognition of being a legitimate wrestler and superstar, to remove himself from the shadow of his incredibly talented brother and to prove to everyone that the best Hart in the business was the man that had spent so much of his career in the limelight (in his opinion kept there by Bret). For Bret it is about getting a revenge on a man who tried to stop him achieving what he wanted, starting a war over nothing at all, not defending him, his brother, like he had defended Owen and for putting him in harm's and injuries way, as well as inflicting some of those injuries himself.

For a whole year Owen and Bret fought each other both inside the ring and outside it, trying to ruin each other's chances of glory and even trying to injure each other. Owen would cost Bret his title, using his own mother to do it while Bret would try and snap both of Owen's legs in a brutal sharpshooter. Things became so intense and heated that this has to go down as one of the greatest feuds of all time. It had everything from bitter and amazing promos to some of the greatest matches ever inside a WWE ring.

gerrybbadd

I apologise for the delay in replying, but I really wanted to think my answer through before posting. In all fairness, Bret vs. Owen is an awesome reply.

Simply awesome.

But… their feud doesn’t top the feud of Bret vs. Austin. For the following reasons:


• Their feud changed the face of the WWF. It could be argued that their one match alone at Wrestlemania 13 ushered in the Attitude Era.

• This match also made a true star out of SCSA. Sure, he was getting to be quite popular after his speech at King of the Ring, but heading into the match at Mania with Bret, he was billed as a heel (if not the top heel in the company at the time). Bret was billed as a face (if not the top face at the time)

• Their match is arguably the best Wrestlemania match in history. This was storytelling at its finest. Here was a match that you could show to your non wrestling fan buddies and not be ashamed. This had a true grittiness and realism, which was true of their entire feud. This match was like watching a Rocky film – with Austin slowly building respect, gaining support, and Bret acting more and more despicable in order to put Austin away. Like Rocky IV, the fans at the end were cheering the guy they hated at the beginning of the match. A double switch had occurred, the likes of which can never be replicated again.

• The visual of Austin, locked in the Sharpshooter, with the merciless Hart cranking back, unrelenting, was and is an iconic Wrestlemania moment.
I realise I’ve waffled on about 1 single match here for ages between the 2. But the truth is, they had many fine matches down through the ages. They had a fine match for the Number 1 contendership at IYH Revenge of the Taker, which continued their personal feud, as well as Austin’s continued clashes with the Foundation, amongst many others.

Although Bret and Owen had many great matches as well, such as at Mania 10 (Owen’s upset was a great moment, but not Iconic), and in the Steel cage at Summerslam, their feud wasn’t earth moving the way that my examples are. Bret was already a star at the time. Owen, while coming along up the card, never really got any higher than mid card as a result. And certainly, their feud was personal, but it lacked the gritty realism that was on display between Austin and Bret. Without Bret Hart, it’s possible that Austin would not have gotten as big as he did, which would mean the WWF wouldn’t have exploded the way it did in the late 90’s.

Perhaps the Attitude era might not have occurred, or at least been the same as it turned out to be. Without Bret, there would have been no Mr. McMahon character, which also fuelled the fire under Stone Cold. No Corporation. No Corporate Ministry. Maybe even no blood in matches, because before Mania 13, blood had been banned. Bret secretly arranged to get colour with Steve in this match, without Vince knowing, and it made all the difference to the story.

I apologise for the length of the post. I just feel my example is better for the way it totally changed the face of the WWF. Sure, Bret and Owen had a great, family (And PG) feud. But when it was over, nothing was changed. When Bret and Steve were over, everything had changed, and nothing was ever the same again.

mrkiscool2

I'll say the same to you Gerry, Hart-Austin was a truly great feud that had some fantastic matches

But, that's all it was. Some great matches between two great superstars. I'm going to tell you why the Owen-Bret feud was so much better than Austin-Hart.

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Their feud changed the face of the WWF. It could be argued that their one match alone at Wrestlemania 13 ushered in the Attitude Era.

Can't let you away with this one. This feud was NOT the reason that the Attitude era started. It was another feud involving Bret, namely HBK vs Bret. HBK was, at the time, very much known for his cocky attitude and his playboy lifestyle. He convinced McMahon that the best way to win the Monday Night Wars was to have some more adult entertainment in the WWF programming. This involved making lewd gestures etc. So no, this match didn't changed the face of the WWF. Sure, it may have switched around the number one babyface and heel but that's about it.

gerrybbadd wrote: »

This match also made a true star out of SCSA. Sure, he was getting to be quite popular after his speech at King of the Ring, but heading into the match at Mania with Bret, he was billed as a heel (if not the top heel in the company at the time). Bret was billed as a face (if not the top face at the time)

Again, no it didn't. The crowd were already behind Austin at this stage. Going from the top heel to the top face doesn't make you a star or one of the number one guys in the company. Already being the number one heel makes you a star and one of the number on guys in the company. McMahon and co realised that Austin was getting very popular and the best way to milk the cash cow was turn him face. The fan base was already there, this just expanded it that bit more. However, the Owen-Bret interview did make a star out of Owen. For over a year, Owen Hart was the biggest heel in the company. He had gone from being a lower mid-card guy to being a guy who beat Bret at WM, won King of the Ring, competed in a WWF championship and was constantly involved in deciding who was going to be the champion. That's a way bigger rise than Austin's was during his feud. Austin peaked in his feud with McMahon, not in his feud with Bret. Owen peaked in his feud with Bret, meaning that Bret-Owen had a much more impactful influence on the career of the superstar opposite Bret. Owen would also never go back down to lower mid-card. He was always in between the top stars and the upper mid-card, winning a lot of titles before his unfortunate death.

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Their match is arguably the best Wrestlemania match in history. This was storytelling at its finest.
You could also make that argument for Owen and Bret too though. In a list of top 10 Wrestlemania matches of all time, both of these matches would make it. Also, while Bret and Austin had a truly great match that told a story, so did Owen and Bret. It was an incredible back and forth match, two brothers out to seriously hurt each other, the pain of betrayal, jealously and hated on show for the world to see. And it is undoubtedly the best opening match in Wrestlemania history

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I realise I’ve waffled on about 1 single match here for ages between the 2. But the truth is, they had many fine matches down through the ages. They had a fine match for the Number 1 contendership at IYH Revenge of the Taker, which continued their personal feud, as well as Austin’s continued clashes with the Foundation, amongst many others.

That's the point, there is only really one big match at which to view this feud. Sure, they had some decent matches in between but nothing ever lived up to their WM 13 clash. And that's the big problem. One match does not a feud make. Owen and Bret had multiple great matches from the match at WM 10, to Summerslam, to the Lumberjack match that ended with massive controversy all the way to their final matches after the Royal Rumble, they had some amazing matches, soundly beating anything that Hart-Austin did in the ring together.

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Although Bret and Owen had many great matches as well, such as at Mania 10 (Owen’s upset was a great moment, but not Iconic), and in the Steel cage at Summerslam, their feud wasn’t earth moving the way that my examples are. Bret was already a star at the time. Owen, while coming along up the card, never really got any higher than mid card as a result. And certainly, their feud was personal, but it lacked the gritty realism that was on display between Austin and Bret. Without Bret Hart, it’s possible that Austin would not have gotten as big as he did, which would mean the WWF wouldn’t have exploded the way it did in the late 90’s.

Perhaps the Attitude era might not have occurred, or at least been the same as it turned out to be. Without Bret, there would have been no Mr. McMahon character, which also fuelled the fire under Stone Cold. No Corporation. No Corporate Ministry. Maybe even no blood in matches, because before Mania 13, blood had been banned. Bret secretly arranged to get colour with Steve in this match, without Vince knowing, and it made all the difference to the story.

I've already explained above how impactful the feud was on Owen's career and how he went from being a lower mid-card guy to one of the top guys in the company throughout the entire feud. The same cannot be said for Austin. He was left behind while Hart feuded with Undertaker and Shaun Michaels. Hart was never left behind, always at the fore-front of the feud, always there annoying and badgering Bret, costing him the WWF title and other important matches on multiple occasions, something Austin never did. It lacked gritty realism? Again, there was one gritty match in the whole feud at it was at WM 13. Owen and Bret had so much more, impassioned promos, turning a family on each other (like in a civil war, literally causing emotional pain for everyone involved) fantastic spots and of course great matches. The other thing to remember is that WWF were in a bit of a lull in the early 90s. Owen and Bret breathed life back into a company that was just content on getting by and their feud is easily the best in that decade. Again, as mentioned above Austin would have broke out anyway, the Attitude era would have happened anyway and Mr. McMahon came about due to the Montreal Screwjob. You can't credit any of that to this feud. Blood is probably the only thing you have spot on here. And exactly, without Bret a lot of that wouldn't have happened. But that's not because of the feud with Austin that's because of Bret's choice to move to WCW and Michael pushing him towards an edgier show.

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I apologise for the length of the post. I just feel my example is better for the way it totally changed the face of the WWF. Sure, Bret and Owen had a great, family (And PG) feud. But when it was over, nothing was changed. When Bret and Steve were over, everything had changed, and nothing was ever the same again.

No, only one thing had changed. Bret was a heel and Austin was a face. That was it. The crowd could now fully get behind Austin and Bret was free to be a d1ck. That's the only thing that changed. With the personal feud with Owen (and the fact it was PG didn't hinder the feud at all, it made it so much better) Bret was able to learn how to truly make a feud feel personal. With Owen-Bret there may not have been as personal an Austin-Hart feud in the first place.

When we look back at the feuds, what I see is this. Austin-Hart had a great WM match, some decent promos, some nice spots and a couple of decent matches. When I look at the Owen-Bret feud I see 4 amazing matches (WM 10, Summerslam, Lumberjack match and the Janurary 10th Raw match in which Bret locked in the brutal Sharpshooter, trying to break Owen's legs) some amazing promos, a deeply intense story, a family split apart and picking sides in the feud, some amazing manipulation by Owen to get his mother to throw the towel in for Bret to cost him a title. Austin-Hart is a great feud, but it is nothing (and may not have been as good if not for) Owen-Bret

beakerjoe

poll added

gerrybbadd

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Austin peaked in his feud with McMahon, not in his feud with Bret. Owen peaked in his feud with Bret, meaning that Bret-Owen had a much more impactful influence on the career of the superstar opposite Bret. Owen would also never go back down to lower mid-card. He was always in between the top stars and the upper mid-card, winning a lot of titles before his unfortunate death.

This is not correct. Owen peaked in his feud with Bret, sure. But he never got any higher. In fact, he went back down the card, to mid card again. And by the time of his untimely death, he was back in the lower mid card again. So, the feud really didn't do a lot for Owen in the long term, unlike Bret & Austin's feud.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

That's the point, there is only really one big match at which to view this feud. Sure, they had some decent matches in between but nothing ever lived up to their WM 13 clash. And that's the big problem. One match does not a feud make.

To say they had decent matches and only 1 big match is again incorrect. Everytime these 2 got in the ring together, it was match of the night, starting from their first match at Survivor Series. And these guys really had a feud, not just one match. A feud in the truest sense of the word. Verbal jousting on the mic, backstage attacks, ambushes, matches, and continuity in storyline

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I've already explained above how impactful the feud was on Owen's career and how he went from being a lower mid-card guy to one of the top guys in the company throughout the entire feud. The same cannot be said for Austin. He was left behind while Hart feuded with Undertaker and Shaun Michaels. Hart was never left behind, always at the fore-front of the feud, always there annoying and badgering Bret, costing him the WWF title and other important matches on multiple occasions, something Austin never did.

Untrue. How was Austin left behind? It was his feud with Bret that brought him to prominence to begin with in the WWF. Owen may have been a "Top guy" in the WWF while feuding with Bret, but after their feud ended, was he still a top guy?


He sunk back down the card again, to tag with the likes of Neidhard and Bulldog. Opening matches at PPVs.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, only one thing had changed. Bret was a heel and Austin was a face. That was it. The crowd could now fully get behind Austin and Bret was free to be a d1ck. That's the only thing that changed. With the personal feud with Owen (and the fact it was PG didn't hinder the feud at all, it made it so much better) Bret was able to learn how to truly make a feud feel personal. With Owen-Bret there may not have been as personal an Austin-Hart feud in the first place.

Point taken and agreed on the PG thing. Makes no difference to great storytelling. This point may be one of the biggest understatments ever. The entire WWF landscape changed after Wrestlemania 13. Austin set off on a 12 month long journey to capture the WWF title, beating HBK at the following years Wrestlemania. Bret had learned how to make feuds personal in Stampede Wrestling, long before joining the WWF, so to suggest he wouldn't have been able to have a good feud with Austin, without first feuding with Owen is neither here nor there.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

When we look back at the feuds, what I see is this. Austin-Hart had a great WM match, some decent promos, some nice spots and a couple of decent matches. When I look at the Owen-Bret feud I see 4 amazing matches (WM 10, Summerslam, Lumberjack match and the Janurary 10th Raw match in which Bret locked in the brutal Sharpshooter, trying to break Owen's legs) some amazing promos, a deeply intense story, a family split apart and picking sides in the feud, some amazing manipulation by Owen to get his mother to throw the towel in for Bret to cost him a title. Austin-Hart is a great feud, but it is nothing (and may not have been as good if not for) Owen-Bret

I could copy and paste your argument here in my support, insofar as I feel there were amazing promos, a deeply intense story etc in the Bret /Austin feud.

I feel kinda torn here because in a way, I don't want to belittle what Bret and Owen achieved either. I loved Owen, and was heartbroken when he passed. With that aside, I still feel the feuding family was never as intense, never as real as the feud with Austin was. There was always a sense for me that this was just a sibling rivalry thing between Bret and Owen, like they would act like that at home too, and have scraps down in the Dungeon. With Austin, I felt like the 2 guys truly hated each other, and would rip into the other wherever they would lay eyes on each other.

To sign off, both feuds were historic. I feel my examples of how Bret & Austin were the better feud speak for themselves.

mrkiscool2

gerrybbadd wrote: »

This is not correct. Owen peaked in his feud with Bret, sure. But he never got any higher. In fact, he went back down the card, to mid card again. And by the time of his untimely death, he was back in the lower mid card again. So, the feud really didn't do a lot for Owen in the long term, unlike Bret & Austin's feud.

A sign of a truly great feud is when two men bring their all and they both elevate each other because of it. Bret and Owen elevated each other more than Hart-Austin did. Hart-Austin was already with two guys on top of the company while Bret-Owen had one guy brought to the top from the lower mid-card and another becoming the number one face in the company. This was a better elevation than Hart-Austin. And it's impossible to realise that Owen was punished by the WWF and McMahon for what happened with Bret. So the point about him going back to the Blue Blazer is neither here nor there

gerrybbadd wrote: »

To say they had decent matches and only 1 big match is again incorrect. Everytime these 2 got in the ring together, it was match of the night, starting from their first match at Survivor Series. And these guys really had a feud, not just one match. A feud in the truest sense of the word. Verbal jousting on the mic, backstage attacks, ambushes, matches, and continuity in storyline

My point wasn't just that they were decent. Match of the night does not a great match make though. The crux of my argument is that there are multiple matches one can remember from the Owen-Bret feud, their match at Wrestlemania, the cage match at Summerslam, the Lumberjack match and that great match on Raw at the start of 1995. 4 fantastic matches you can take your pick of in the feud. With Austin-Hart there is only WM 13, all the rest of the matches pale in comparison to them. As I said before one match does not a feud make. Everything you have said above also applies to Owen-Bret as well as the very personal feeling of a family been torn apart, forced to pick side and fight each other. It made it all the more personal, bitter and better than anything Austin and Bret served up

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Untrue. How was Austin left behind? It was his feud with Bret that brought him to prominence to begin with in the WWF. Owen may have been a "Top guy" in the WWF while feuding with Bret, but after their feud ended, was he still a top guy?

He sunk back down the card again, to tag with the likes of Neidhard and Bulldog. Opening matches at PPVs.

Again he was already been cheered for by the crowds before and during the feud. And this was while he was a heel! Owen got a huge push during the feud and never really went down to lower mid-card while Bret was still with the company! He was always in that tier of upper mid-carders which means he ended the feud in an elevated position anyway! Austin was already well on his way to becoming a star, the feud with Bret just brought in on by a few months

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Point taken and agreed on the PG thing. Makes no difference to great storytelling. This point may be one of the biggest understatments ever. The entire WWF landscape changed after Wrestlemania 13. Austin set off on a 12 month long journey to capture the WWF title, beating HBK at the following years Wrestlemania. Bret had learned how to make feuds personal in Stampede Wrestling, long before joining the WWF, so to suggest he wouldn't have been able to have a good feud with Austin, without first feuding with Owen is neither here nor there.

Well if it was a 12 month journey from after WM 13 aren't you just admitting that the feud really ended after that match? That neither Stone Cold or Bret really cared about it from that point forward? That's what I'm getting from your reply. This feud never even had a comprehensive finish due to injuries to both Bret and Austin. What everyone wants from a great feud is a pay-off, something we never got with Austin and Bret. With Owen and Bret however you did. Eventually Owen got his comeuppance and Bret managed to get revenge for everything Owen had cost him and done to him in their year long feud. And again I really do think Bret's feud with Owen really allowed a lot of the hatred we saw in the Austin feud to come out along with some of the great personal promos.

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I could copy and paste your argument here in my support, insofar as I feel there were amazing promos, a deeply intense story etc in the Bret /Austin feud.

I feel kinda torn here because in a way, I don't want to belittle what Bret and Owen achieved either. I loved Owen, and was heartbroken when he passed. With that aside, I still feel the feuding family was never as intense, never as real as the feud with Austin was. There was always a sense for me that this was just a sibling rivalry thing between Bret and Owen, like they would act like that at home too, and have scraps down in the Dungeon. With Austin, I felt like the 2 guys truly hated each other, and would rip into the other wherever they would lay eyes on each other.

Again I don't know how you can say this and actually believe it's true. Firstly, Austin was just like that. Austin would attack anyone he didn't like it's why he was so liked by the WWF fans at the time. Bret wasn't the only person Stone Cold wanted to rip the head off. I'll admit Austin and Bret didn't like each other but it had nothing compared to the Owen-Bret feud. The amount of bad blood that spilled over was incredible! There were just so many intense beat-downs, passioned promos from both sides, a whole family split apart. And that's something you don't want to address in your arguments. The way the whole family (Neidhart and Davey Boy included) was utilised in this feud is amazing. We have seen WWE trying to replicate this on multiple occasions and always fail. But they keep coming back to it because of how amazing the Owen-Bret feud was. It was such an intense, hateful, bitter and resentful feud with Owen convincing there own mother to basically betray her other son. That's powerful storytelling right there and way better than anything that Austin-Bret did. Finally, Austin's best feud wasn't even with Bret. Compared to his feud with McMahon and Tripe H it was nothing. Owen's far and away best feud was with his brother which is why the Owen-Bret feud has to be considered the better feud. Neither Bret nor Austin had there best feud with each other but I think that both Owen's and Bret's best feud was against one another

Omackeral

E7

beakerjoe

Bump as poll closes tomorrow