Legacy Comparison: Shawn Michaels vs Bret Hart

[Ferbian]

Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, two wrestlers who have accomplished more or less everything in the wrestling business. They have scratched and clawed their ways to become what are regarded as two of the greatest wrestlers of all time. Technical, as well as overall.

Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels have more or less gone the exact same way in terms of career - Tag team wrestling, mid-card wrestling and eventually world champions. They have both wrestled more or less the same amount of years as well.

Overall, they have once been two of the greatest things the business could offer in terms of match quality, as well as great moments. Both have delivered whenever they were in the ring, and have more than enough accomplishments to back it up. Be it match of the year candidates, or actual match of the year awards, they have been in all of them.

Their accomplishments speaks for themselves. And while neither one of them have been specific jobbers, they have both served the ability to make their opponents look like gold. A rare ability.

The comparisons of these two, as well as their differences could be listed for hours. However, I'm gonna let you guys do the comparison - Who had the better legacy of the two?

 

[123NewChamp]

Well u right, the paths in their careers were very similar such as tag team, mid card, and then Main event. Also, they both had great in ring technical ability although Bret was a better technical wrestler than Shawn; But I know for a fact that Shawn Michaels was the better wrestler; and was more exciting to watch than Bret.

Don't get me wrong, Bret put on some exciting matches as well, but Shawn could do it all, great technical wrestler, high flyer, Submission Specialist, Great Moveset, way more charisma than Bret, and very serious, and in the ring. And another thing too was that at a young age, Shawn knew his way around the ring more than most young wrestlers did at his time. And Shawn was a fast learner. And he never failed to put on a great match. Even at the age of 45, Shawn still left out on top the best.

As far as Bret is concerned, I think what KINDA effected a part of his career but not his legacy, was the screwjob incident that latered on landed him in WCW. It's very unique and more appealing for a wrestler to stay in one organization rather than to go back and forth and to other promotions. And Bret landed in WCW whenever WCW started going down hill. And the competition was different and he joined the NWO, and wasn't even NWO material. But as far as wrestling goes, Bret was smart and an experienced verteran in the ring, and really didn't have to be in a feud to be in a good match. He was a highly respected character, and respected his opponets. The only negative thing I have to say about Bret was that he just lacked Charisma, his interviews and promos were just Generic and Nothing more. And I'm glad they brought him back to clear up Montreal, but why let him Wrestle knowing he suffered a stroke years before? I rather see him in the NWO.

But one more thing that u cannot deny, was that both men were very passionate about the business. U could see it as they wrestled against each other and their opponets, and they did the best to their ability to give the fans good matches. You could see to them, it ain't just a business, but it was their way of life. And for those who thought Wrestling were fake back in the 90's, if it was fake, it ain't as fake as it is now, becsuse of these 2 men, Bret The Hitman Hart, and the Heartbreak Kid Shawn Michaels. Every match they put on was real. But if u asked me who had the better legacy, I'll have to go with Shawn Michaels. Because of his versatile in ring ability, and the ability of putting on better matches than Bret.

 

[Hitman80]

I am a massive Bret Hart fan and he is the better wrestler in my opinion but that is taking nothing away from Shawn Michaels, probably my first and second favourites.

It is hard to judge really, previous to Michaels returning it would have been Hart hands down and no questions but Michaels really enhanced his legacy with his return and change of attitude.

I think Bret was a better champion and was more believable as champion but if Michaels had a longer title run after his return that may have changed.

Michaels has been lucky enough to have been able to face a better calibre of opponent since his return compared to some of the opponents both faced in the 90's.

I think just because of the fact Michaels returned after a broken back and wrestled for another 8 years with some of the best matches of his career and completely changed his attitude from being an arrogant, cocky a-hole backstage to a locker room leader he has cemented a career that will go in the history books and therefore maybe has the better legacy.... but Bret has an amazing legacy too.

I discounted Bret's WCW run from the discussion completely on mine, it was hardly his fault they had no idea what they were doing in WCW.

 

[deadtaker]

If you look at the careers up to the Montreal Screwjob you would say that Bret Harts Legacy would have been better. Shawn was looked as being a selfish person and Bret Hart respected as a true professional in the business and one of the best Technical wrestlers ever.

In the next year Shawn was injured and was thought to not be able to wrestle anymore making it seem like he would be remembered for that persona. Bret's time in WCW was a complete catastrophy. He never seemed to get back on track in WCW with middling feuds for the United States Championship and it looked like his heart wasn't into it.


Bret Harts time in WCW seemed to hurt his legacy by the time his injury ended his in ring career. Shawn Micheals return to the ring after the merger seemed to have a greater effect on his personality than what happened before. It really improved his reputation and had many great matches to add to his career.

Shawn Micheals will be remember as one of the best showman in the Business while Bret Hart is one of the Best Technical wrestlers of all time. Shawn went out on top with a great match and feud with the Undertaker while Bret Hart fizzled in WCW and came to an abrupt end in a meaningless match with Goldberg.

 

[The Pagan]

I would have to say Bret Hart on this one. He sold out stadiums all over the world. Bret was chosen number 39 of the greatest Canadians. He won more World titles than Shawn in more companies. Shawn was never King of the Ring. I think Shawn had more charisma than Bret. I think Bret was a better wrestler, better at making others look good, not to mention a better role model. Shawn hasn't really done much outside of the ring. Bret has been on several different shows and was cast for a regular part on Lonesome Dove before it was canceled. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Bret was the first person to beat Goldberg cleanly.

Oh...and Bret never posed in Playgirl.

 

[mulkeymania]

i was thinking like deadtaker--shawn was much flashier than hart and if that doesnt put his legacy as better than harts then brets finish in WCW surely did.
there was nothing he did there that stands out as memorable after he put scott hall in the sharpshooter in his match vs larry zbysko and i believe that WCW really hurt him a lot.

 

[shadowman2000]

Two reasons why Bret Hart's legacy will always be greater than Shawn Michaels' legacy.

1. International presence. This is something that Shawn Michaels never really had. Not that he didn't have a household name, but the Hitman was internationally known and loved. Even when he was booed over here in the states, the internationally audiences still cheered his name. Not only that, the Hitman has wrestled all over the world. Something which Shawn Michaels has not done.

2. Family known. Before Bret Hart even started wrestling in the WWE, his family was already known because of what his father did. The Hart name will forever be tied with wrestling glory......2nd and 3rd generation stars.

For this reason, Bret Hart's legacy will always be greater than Shawn Michaels' legacy.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I'm going to give this Shawn Michaels. Bret's my number one favorite wrestler of all-time but (like many others have said) Shawn Michaels' rebirth in the new millenium really solidified his place as one of the best of all time.

Bret is without question one of (if not) the single greatest technical wrestler of all-time, his in-ring ability is basically unparalleled. However, a significant portion of his legacy is the result of him being the son of Stu and the brother of Owen and the victim of the Screwjob. I'm not saying that those are the only reasons, but those are pretty big reasons why he has so much of the worlds love and respect, as opposed to Shawn Michaels, who was a cocky bastard backstage.

Shawn's rebirth in the new millenium was big though, because he had some of the biggest matches in his career during this time and main evented multiple Wrestlemanias again. His newfound faith in god also helped earn him the peoples love and he continued to put on 5-star match after 5-star match.

In conclusion, they both rank in my top 5 of all time, but if we are talking about the single man's accomplishments, Shawn Michaels has the better legacy.

 

[PsychoBlack]

I have never been much of a HBK fan for some reason. He is great and all, but, i could just never get into him. It always seemed like he was just there. Take his return and winning of the elimination chamber, No one wanted to see him as champ and i mean no one. Pre-retirement I just can't get over the fact that he would screw over another wrestler. It seems so low down and dirty to do something like that.

Bret on the other hand had an incredible talent for being a face or a heel despite his short comings on the microphone. He is also going to go down as: one of the greatest ring technicians ever, One of the greatest psychologists in history, and a seven time world champion. When people mention they're dream matches they mention things like, Malenko/Hart, Benoit/Hart, Liger/Hart, Jericho/Hart while i rarely hear HBK mentioned in discussions like this

 

[ilapierre]

Like he used to say: he's the best there is, was, and ever will be. Bret Hart is the best, Shawn's a very close second.
I agree with some here that its really close. But i do disagree with those 'who believe' Bret's WCW run hurt his legacy. That's a crock of shit, negative WCW regurgitation from kids and WWE loyalists who repeat everything they hear from dumb ass sources with a pro WWE agenda.

If anything, Owen's death because of the McMahons and their stupid approach to entertainment coupled with Goldberg injuring Bret Hart is what hurt Hart's legacy. Bret took almost a year off between another injury and Owen's death. This was time where he could have had amazing feuds with Hogan, Savage, Piper, etc. And Goldberg put an end to a career that could have lasted at least another half decade. Goldberg being an idiot who had no business rising through the ranks so quick made sure WCW lost its best wrestler. It was like a nail in WCWs coffin. Goldberg robbed the wrestling world of a Hitman vs Hogan dream match that was in the works for the summer of 2000. He robbed us of the Hitman taking over the NWO and robbed us of him throwing Hogan out of the NWO so Hogan could feud with the NWO in WCW rather than the lame run in WWE. The entire NWO angle could have played out properly and WCW would have a major player they hadn't overexposed already. Goldberg gave two shits about wrestling and, even though his run was intriguing, didn't really do squat for WCW. Yet his run for some bizarre reason is one of the only things that seems to get any credit from some idiots around here on the later period of WCW.

Goldberg robbed Hitman of a future of world titles, a future wrestling the best of the best in wrestling's present and future. Hitman could have put on wrestling clinics with Benoit or Guerrero. Hitman would have made Booker T and Jeff Jarrett more credible. Hitman wasn't used right by WCW but that has very little to do with WCW. He showed up smack dab out of the blue in the middle of WCW's peak when storylines were at their best and made most sense leaving him out of them. If he had of stayed in WWE, he would have been phased out of the World Title scene and managing for 25 years and fighting guys like Val Venis and Mankind. In WCW, Hitman got to feud again with Curt Henning, Ric Flair, Kevin Nash, Lex Luger, DDP, Randy Savage, Sting, Chris Benoit, and Goldberg. He beat almost every opponent thrown his way from Eddie to La Parka. He beat the best of the best in WWE and then went over to WCW and beat the best of the best there. And at the time, the best of the best were wrestling in WCW not WWE. And as bad as WWE lovers will lead you to believe WCW was back then, WWE wrestling was god awful. There was no wrestling, just shock value bull. WCW put on MUCH better wrestling. And Hitman put out some of the best work of his career.

So all of you discrediting the Hitman's WCW run I ask: were you there? Do you remember? Has the passage of time turned you stupid? Do you enjoy repeating everything you hear from WWE loyalists when it comes to anti WCW bullshit?

Bottom line: Hitman beat the best of the best in their prime when he was in his prime. He beat the guys of the present and future in WWE and WCW, and beat the guys of the 80s like Flair, Sting, and Savage. Michaels only fought WWE guys who were nowhere near as established or as talented as the WCW guys. Michaels also didn't fight the Rock once. Michaels also disappeared at wrestling's peak between 1998 to 2002. Mind you, Michaels made up for that period by coming back from 2002 to 2010 putting forth the best 8 year run of wrestling ever from any wrestler. Michaels, in my mind, will go down as the best pure wrestler of all time because he was more entertaining than Hitman and because of his loyalty and connection to Vince and Triple H. Michaels, in my mind, is just as good as the Hitman. In the minds of youngsters who don't know any better, or do know a bit, Michaels hands down is the better guy because he faced off with the stars of the past decade, like Kurt Angle, John Cena, Edge, Orton, who the Hitman never had a chance to face due to his career ending injury.

But, the guys of today have nothing on the guys of the past. Hitman would plow through the competition of today. Michaels can't say he beat (or sometimes even wrestled) guys like Rock, Goldberg, Savage, Luger, Sting, DDP, Sammartino, Piper, Warrior, Henning etc. And Michaels was never thrown out of a battle royal by Andre the Giant. Lastly, Hitman never flopped around the ring embarrassing opponents and himself and he never showed up to end someone's career or 'screw over' a fellow competitor in the ring like a butt kissing hack. So based on who he faced and how he faced them (with dignity and not hiding behind a fake religious facade to appease his wife), i'm gonna give the nod to the Hitman. It's a pity Michaels never got to face both WWE and WCW's best when Bret did because Michaels was just as good (or perhaps even a better wrestler and entertainer), and it's a pity Hitman couldn't have faced off with the lameass generation of guys of the past 10 years and help bring them much needed credibility.

 

[theHeadliner]

One big difference was that Shawn Michaels made himself and brought himself up from scratch and hard work. He had no wrestling family or clout, was a smaller guy, but worked hard and earned everything he got the hard way. Bret was born into a wrestling family with a well known promoter as well as wrestler, sort like being born with a silver spoon in regards to wrestling.

Michaels was also no slouch when it came to technical ability. He was an efficient technical wrestler, was more versatile and exciting in the ring, and could take a major ass whooping, crazy bumps, and make his opponents look great.

Bret had more international fame, but as for Shawn, Vince purposely kept Michaels in the US on many of the foreign tours to do promotional work and wrestle with another crew of guys in the states, so he never really got the chance to shine over there and get the exposure that Bret had.

Bret could also make his opponents look great, and had the technical ability everyone talks about, but he was more vanilla in the ring and as a character, and his matches were all very similar. Don't get me wrong, they are my top two favorite wrestlers, this is just personal feelings and observations.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Legacy is a tough question to answer. What is exactly the measure of legacy? Is it the number of fans you have or your impact on the world of wrestling or both or something entirely different?

If it comes down to the number of fans its gotta be Shawn who has the bigger legacy because he performed on the main event stage of a global promotion for a longer time than Hart. Hence a lot more people have seen Shawn perform live than Bret. That includes a lot of the younger fans as well who have not seen Bret Hart perform live.

On the other hand its a really close call when you come down to their impact on the business. Sure Shawn has all his great matches and great feuds with the likes of Jericho, HHH, Undertaker, Ramon and Hart himself. But Bret Hart is the reason why Stone Cold Steve Austin became Stone Cold Steve Austin. His one feud with Stone Cold is possibly better than any feud Shawn has had. His match with Austin at Mania 13 is probably better than any match that Shawn has had. There is also the fact that Bret Hart helped create one of the biggest superstars of wrestling; something which Shawn has not done.

In the ring they were both extremely good and more or less equal. Shawn wasn't a company guy in the first half of his career but became a quinnessential one in the second half of his career. Hart was a company guy but he left WWF in a pretty unproffesional manner back in 1997. So again I guess they are more or less even there as well.

I'll go with Shawn probably because of his number of years at the top. But its real close with these two.

 

[Post]

From PsychoBlack

"I have never been much of a HBK fan for some reason. He is great and all, but, I could just never get into him. It always seemed like he was just there. Take his return and winning of the elimination chamber, No one wanted to see him as champ and I mean no one. Pre-retirement I just can't get over the fact that he would screw over another wrestler. It seems so low down and dirty to do something like that."

Well I did, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. Pure generalization on your part...

From The Pagan

"I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Bret was the first person to beat Goldberg cleanly.
Oh...and Bret never posed in Playgirl."

Beat clean? That means nothing...Goldberg was a character and wasn't a great wrestler.

From The Pagan
"Bret has been on several different shows and was cast for a regular part on Lonesome Dove before it was canceled."

Really?...Better legacy because he appeared on a shitty TV show. Come on...Shawn is in production for a hunting show but that in no way adds to his legacy. Is Vader's legacy better because he was on "Boy Meets World?"

Really, we all know about Shawn's past. So, determine his legacy how you see fit. But let's not put Bret on a pedestal. Read his book. Bret was a self-professed womanizer and cheated on his wife every opportunity he could. What a great family man. And if you are using the historical aspect of his family in your argument for his legacy, WRONG AGAIN! READ his book! Listen to how he describes how f'd up they were/are.

Plain and simple, Bret's best match was against Shawn at Wrestlemania in the Iron man Match. Was this Shawn's best match? Nope! Any of these are better: Shawn v. Cena WM 23; Shawn v. Flair WM 24; Shawn v. Taker WM 25 or WM 26.

Great thread Ferbian.

 

[The Brain]

Countless times I’ve said that Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels are my all time favorite wrestlers to watch. From one day to the next I change my mind as to who is number one and who is number two. Both have put on so many great matches that I could watch over and over again. I have to admit I’ve been avoiding posting in this thread simply because I have a hard time choosing between these two.

As far as legacy is concerned I’m leaning toward Bret. It really is a coin toss, but I’m picking Bret because he did it first. Shawn kind of followed in Bret’s footsteps and walked Bret’s path. During the steroid scandal in the early 90s the WWF went through a time of change. Guys like Hulk Hogan and The Ultimate Warrior were gone and someone had to fill the void. Vince turned to the best wrestler he had to carry the load despite his somewhat more ordinary look. Bret proved that a wrestler could be a successful main event talent without the He Man physique. His main event match against Davey Boy Smith at Wembley Stadium was a turning point. Years later this is remembered as a classic and despite coming out on the losing end I think most remember this as a Bret Hart classic. Shortly after that match Bret went on to win the WWF title. He opened the door for other smaller guys, like Shawn Michaels, to become champion.

Over the years HBK has been credited for a lot in the WWF, and rightfully so, but let’s take a bit of a closer look. Shawn is credited for being the innovator of the ladder match. This is because of the great match at WrestleMania X against Razor Ramon. Bret Hart is the one who brought the idea of the ladder match to the WWF and actually beat HBK in a ladder match two years before WrestleMania X. Shawn is always credited for being the first to participate in an Iron Man Match. I hate to point out the obvious but who was his opponent that night? Bret Hart of course. Shawn is remembered for being the first grand slam champion. Bret won the three main championships before Shawn did and let’s face it; the European title never came close to holding the prestige the other titles did. I would say Bret’s King of the Ring victory was greater than Shawn’s European title reign. For some reason people think the attitude era started when HBK lost to Steve Austin at WrestleMania XIV. It would be far more accurate to say it began when Bret Hart beat Steve Austin at WrestleMania 13. Bret also won the Royal Rumble before Shawn did. I really don’t want to diminish Shawn’s achievements. It just seems that anything Shawn did Bret did first.

One advantage Shawn has over Bret is longevity, at least in the WWF. If Shawn never made the comeback I would say Bret easily has the better legacy. Despite only a one month title reign Shawn added a lot to his legacy after returning from the injury. His comeback match at SummerSlam 2002 alone added a lot. He became known as Mr. WrestleMania and put on many memorable matches. I respect the opinion of anyone who says Shawn has the better legacy. It really is almost too close to call. As I stated above I’m going with Bret just because he did it first.

So all of you discrediting the Hitman's WCW run I ask: were you there? Do you remember? Has the passage of time turned you stupid? Do you enjoy repeating everything you hear from WWE loyalists when it comes to anti WCW bullshit?

I just wanted to point out that Bret Hart himself has said numerous times that WCW was an unorgainzed company and had no idea what to do with him.

 

[PositiveBlack]

Talent is not a measurement of influence. With that being said, Bret Hart is the more talent of the two by a long shot. In the ring, he will always be the best. However, what hurts Bret legacy is the screw job. As much, a windbag young Shawn Michaels might have been Bret was the aggressor. He did not like the way Michaels did thing because he was jealous. He was jealous that this person had Vince ear and not him. He was jealous that the click ran thing and not the Hart family. Moreover, maybe he was even angry at Vince for it at some point too! Before 2008 when I would hear Bret talk about his time at WWE, he had this since of entailment. Nevertheless, I think in the end it hurt his legacy. No one is blaming him for happen at WCW but I am blaming for happen the night of the screw job. Was Vince wrong? Hell yeah! But so was Bret. You have to lose the belt. Its tradition He knew better. I think even today young people look at Michaels as the person that is willing to do anything for the company. And that kind of loyalty gets respect. While Bret was just being selfish. When it comes to Bret legacy, nothing says it best then Bret screwed Bret.

 

[The Pagan]

From The Pagan

"I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Bret was the first person to beat Goldberg cleanly.
Oh...and Bret never posed in Playgirl."

Beat clean? That means nothing...Goldberg was a character and wasn't a great wrestler.

Forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't most wresters...if not all...characters. Goldberg decimated a lot of opponents. The nWo beat him with cattle prods. I think the fact they choose Bret to beat him cleanly says a lot about his talent and his ability.

From The Pagan
"Bret has been on several different shows and was cast for a regular part on Lonesome Dove before it was canceled."

Really?...Better legacy because he appeared on a shitty TV show. Come on...Shawn is in production for a hunting show but that in no way adds to his legacy. Is Vader's legacy better because he was on "Boy Meets World?"

I think having a legacy of doing more than wrestling would add to your legacy. Wow Shawn could act in a ring. Apparently he doesn't have any more than that. Bret was also on the Simpsons, the longest running cartoon of all time. I wasn't saying it's a big factor, but it is a factor in my opinion.

Really, we all know about Shawn's past. So, determine his legacy how you see fit. But let's not put Bret on a pedestal. Read his book. Bret was a self-professed womanizer and cheated on his wife every opportunity he could. What a great family man. And if you are using the historical aspect of his family in your argument for his legacy, WRONG AGAIN! READ his book! Listen to how he describes how f'd up they were/are.

Yes Bret cheated on his wife. As I am sure 98% of famous people do. But it's not like he really should of married her in the first place. Dynamite Kid proposed to her sister. It seems like Bret just figured he might as well propose too. She found out about it early on and she should of left him then and there, but she didn't. And how does Bret's family being f'd up have anything to do with his legacy?

Plain and simple, Bret's best match was against Shawn at Wrestlemania in the Iron man Match. Was this Shawn's best match? Nope! Any of these are better: Shawn v. Cena WM 23; Shawn v. Flair WM 24; Shawn v. Taker WM 25 or WM 26.

Saying Bret's best match was against Shawn is subjective. I personally liked his match with Austin much better. I really never saw what everyone thinks is so good about Shawn. He seems like Ric Flair 2.0. Yeah he's charismatic and he's fast, but as a technician???? I don't see it. I think Shawn was good at selling and working the crowd, but I don't think you should put him up on a pedestal because he really wasn't that great IMO.

Great thread Ferbian.

Yes. A very good thread indeed.

 

[dman1373]

Take his return and winning of the elimination chamber, No one wanted to see him as champ and i mean no one.

When people mention they're dream matches they mention things like, Malenko/Hart, Benoit/Hart, Liger/Hart, Jericho/Hart while i rarely hear HBK mentioned in discussions like this

Wow
I'm pretty sure everyone wanted to see hbk win the world championship that night. Hell i've heard people complain that he hasn't won anymore since his return. Their was even a thread on it.

And i am pretty sure that on most peoples dream match lists they have atleast one or two spots for a hbk match.
Hell my whole list is filled with hbk matches.


Ok now on to the topic.

Bret Hart was a great technical wrestler. He beat ric flair for his first world title. He was the only person to be a triple crown winner in the wcw and wwf. He has been in one of the best tag teams ever (hart foundation). And was in one of the greatest stables the hart foundation. And a Canadian hero.

Shawn Michaels on the other hand is the showstoppa, the headlina, the main event, the icon. The first grand slam winner. First person to win the royal rumble from number 1. He is mr. wrestlemania. He retired ric flair(kindof). Was founder of degeneration x, a group that was partially responsible for the attitude era. And he is the greatest in ring performer. Ever.


Its clearly shawn.

 

[ilapierre]

Mulkeymania, i'm a mark not a smark. A smark is much different than a mark.

Hitman's legacy was hurt in WCW if you favoured WWE over WCW plain and simple. It wasn't hurt if you favoured WCW. What did you expect him to do, just show up in WCW and have the World Title handed to him on a platter? Hitman could bypass the entire WWE roster of the time to win the title, but in WCW there was 20 guys all vying for a title held predominantly by Hogan or other NWO members. He had to wait a while, that didn't hurt his legacy one bit.

I was there and watched every Nitro too. There are so many memorable Hitman moments for me and Bret isn't even one of my favourite wrestlers as he is a lot of fans here. From delivering Hogan's head in a box to him, from turning heel by helping Hogan win the title from Savage, to some of his classic matches with Sting, Luger, DDP, Savage etc etc. I do remember watching a really shitty match between him and Hogan but it was definitely memorable because i don't remember it ever happening before. I remember wondering for a year whether or not Hitman was NWO or not and I had a feeling that we never saw the big Hitman Hogan match because they were waiting for the right time for Hitman to throw Hogan out of the NWO and officially become their leader. There was the time that Hitman was in Toronto and Goldberg speared him and was unconscious in the ring and Hitman quit and left. There was the Hitman's world title match with Chris Benoit that he dedicated to Owen. There was his three victories over Goldberg, there was Hitman's turn to the NWO, there was Goldberg's kick to the head that injured Bret Hart, there was even the Hitman showing up in a desert 8 months later hitting Goldberg over the head with a shovel. I could keep going but those are, in order, my favourites. Hitman was in WCW for a mere two years and was hurt at least a full half year of that time. Still, he accomplished more there than he could in WWE with their shitty roster of WCW throwaways and WWE deadweight.

Bret Hart has wrestled epic matches and beaten legendary champions and company front runners like Bruno Sammartino, a 2 time 12 year champion (who first won the WWF title in 1963..the SECOND all time WWF champ won the title off the first guy who only had it for three weeks.) So he essentially beat the first and longest reigning champ ever. He beat the next long term champ WWE created in Bob Backlund who was a 5 and a half year champ from 1978 to 1983. The next long term guy Hogan wouldn't let either Hart of Michaels beat him and no one else but Warrior and Jacques Rougeau. But Bret has beat every other legendary champion still wrestling during Hitman's career. He's fought classics with and beaten the champ of all champs Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan's arch nemesis Randy Savage, the Wrestlemania King Undertaker, the almost never defeated Roddy Piper, The Rock (who has beaten Hulk Hogan fair and square in the center of the ring), WCW's franchise Sting, the 178-0 guy Goldberg (3 times i might add), Lex Luger (a guy who has also beaten Hogan, Savage, Sting, Flair etc), WWE's saviour Steve Austin who revolutionized wrestling entertainment in the late 90s, Yokozuna (who was at the time basically invincible), Owen Hart, Curt Henning, Kevin Nash, Triple H (who holds the second most world titles in history), Vader, Scott Hall, DDP, Chris Benoit, Davey Boy Smith, (don't know if he ever beat him), Ricky Steamboat, Ted Dibiase, Jerry Lawler (a 30 time USWA champ) and lastly perhaps the guy who will arguably go down in history as having the greatest legacy: Shawn Michaels. I mean, really, who else was there really for him to beat. The Miz? Vinny Mac? He beat them too! Unfortunately Bret never got the chance to faceoff with Jericho (although he did a few months ago), Kurt Angle, Edge, John Cena, Randy Orton, Brock or Batista. They'd all be great matches. Cena, Orton, Jericho and Angle are guys Shawn has faced that Bret didn't but they are not yet as legendary as Bruno, Backlund, Sting or The Rock.

Bret has put on classic matches and beaten the best of the past, the best of his generation, and has beaten guys from his generation that are still wrestling classics with the guys Hitman never had the opportunity to face. Shawn had the benefit of wrestling the guys of today and is fresh in fans memory, not to mention the fact he was given one of the two best ever sendoffs a wrestler has ever had the luxury of having in calling it a career.
Bret's legacy wasn't tarnished by his WCW run. His legacy would be even stronger had he not gotten hurt and been able to finally beat Hulk Hogan and fight the top guys of the past decade he never had the chance to. It would also be stronger if he had of had the proper sendoff in 2000.

Bret is the best, it's close because you could argue Shawn is better from the viewpoint of entertaining inside and outside the ring. Back to Bret though, his WCW reign did not hurt his legacy. WCW gets this bum wrap because its gone now and Vince has rewritten history. Anything any wrestler did in WCW is discounted in this day and age, fans of today don't even know who Randy Savage is or how significant he is and they don't count the later accomplishments of old WWE guys in WCW. It's like everything they did outside WWE didn't count and only their WWE related achievements are measured up against the achievements achieved only within WWE. It's a classic example of how WWE has rewritten history to boost its own legacy and discount anything in the past that was better. And that's what drives me nuts, reading shit about WCW tarnishing guys legacies. It's such utter bull, the only people who think shit like that are WWE loving knobs with short term memories. I'm sorry Mulkeymania, it is what it is. Contrary to popular opinion, Bret had a solid two year run 'wrestling' in WCW. Entertainment-wise, he didn't exactly light anything up or outsell the big guns. He was overshadowed by wrestling's greatest and so would have Shawn had he been in WCW. But at least Bret was able to face off with the best of the best of his era and prove he was arguably the greatest of all time when it came to carrying 5 star matches against ALL of wrestlings' legends and winning almost all of those matches. It is easy to forget the importance of WCW with the passage of time and especially with all the anti-WCW bull of the past decade. If anything, it's this 'easy to forget' attitude of older fans influencing Shawn Michaels-obsessed younger fans that will most hurt Bret's legacy. The fact that he hasn't really wrestled an epic match in almost 11 years and didn't get the sendoff Shawn Michaels did 10 years after.

 

[Post]

Forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't most wresters...if not all...characters. Goldberg decimated a lot of opponents. The nWo beat him with cattle prods. I think the fact they choose Bret to beat him cleanly says a lot about his talent and his ability.


I think having a legacy of doing more than wrestling would add to your legacy. Wow Shawn could act in a ring. Apparently he doesn't have any more than that. Bret was also on the Simpsons, the longest running cartoon of all time. I wasn't saying it's a big factor, but it is a factor in my opinion.


Yes Bret cheated on his wife. As I am sure 98% of famous people do. But it's not like he really should of married her in the first place. Dynamite Kid proposed to her sister. It seems like Bret just figured he might as well propose too. She found out about it early on and she should of left him then and there, but she didn't. And how does Bret's family being f'd up have anything to do with his legacy?

Saying Bret's best match was against Shawn is subjective. I personally liked his match with Austin much better. I really never saw what everyone thinks is so good about Shawn. He seems like Ric Flair 2.0. Yeah he's charismatic and he's fast, but as a technician???? I don't see it. I think Shawn was good at selling and working the crowd, but I don't think you should put him up on a pedestal because he really wasn't that great IMO.

Yes. A very good thread indeed.

You just proved my point. They are all characters. A "clean" win is meaningless. They chose Shawn to win clean vs Bret for the WWF title too...why? because that is what the boss wanted.

A wrestler's legacy is all about what he did in the ring a for the company. Didi you ever see the episope of the Simpsons that Bret appeared in? He had one line that last mere seconds. That is like saying that King Kong Bundy's legacy is better than Andre the Giant's because he appeared in Married with Children...smarten up.

98% of famous people do not commit adultery...another generalization. People tend to make up statistics when they have a weak argument. However, you were not the person that mentioned Bret's legacy being better because of his family's influence on the business, someone else did and I quoted them. Look at it again. My point was that his family (besides his mom, dad , and Owen's influence on him) have nothing to do with his legacy. Pay attention.

Yes, my statement that Bret's best match was against Shawn is subjective. Just like your statement that Shawn was not great is subjective.

What is not subjective is that Bret's matches were completely predictable. Anyone with a pea size brain could identify 15 seconds before what his next move was and could call one of his matches blindfolded. That is unless the match was against Shawn. Shawn Michaels was not stale in the ring like Bret was...uhhhhhh back breaker, elbow drop from 2nd rope, russian leg sweep, sharpshooter..........yawn.

 

[ilapierre]

Drewpost, Shawn's WM match with Bret was so great because Shawn got to fight Bret, an experienced main eventer, and Bret was man enough to help build Shawn into a main eventer by allowing Shawn to beat him. My statement is subjective but without Bret losing this match, where would Shawn be? Bret didn't need this match, Shawn did. Fact.

98 percent of famous people don't commit adultery? That is the strangest statement i've ever heard in my life! I don't even know if i know anyone who hasn't cheated on their wife or girlfriend let alone a celebrity. I know most women i've been with were already taken. And it's not like people go broadcasting or bragging about their infidelities but how many Hollywood couples have you seen last? And how many of those are ended by a partner moving on to another one before ending their marriage? How many long term relationships have you been in? Cheating is a part of life when your a good looking person lacking morals and it happens among much more than 2 percent of the population. I'd lean more toward 98 percent when it comes to famous people and 50 percent of regular people. I'm sure Shawn's cheated on his wife because God told him to.

Subjectively, I believe, being on a TV show or being famous overseas is not going to improve your legacy. Subjectively, i believe that a wrestler's work as a wrestling entertainer is the most important thing to go by. Andre is not famous because of the movie he appeared in. He's famous for what he did in the ring. I subjectively think. I subjectively believe Bret's matches were somewhat predictable but so were Shawn's. Shawn was more entertaining than Bret in the ring, yes, but Bret was a more credible main eventer in a larger pool of main eventers. Shawn was only dominant in WWE's regularly cited worst eras: 1995-1997 and 2002-2010. Shawn missed most of the Attitude Era and wrestling got really stale by 2005. When he was finally pushed as a main eventer in 1995, he didn't have the proper competition, minus Bret, Nash and Taker, to catapult him into the category of main event drawing. Fact: Shawn was not a big draw compared to those main eventers before and after him. Shawn just didn't face the necessary competition (in the 90s) to make him a more credible main event draw when the necessary competition had left for WCW. In his second run, Shawn may have wrestled the best match on the card for the past 8 years against WWE's best (who are nowhere near as big draws or remembered as the much more entertaining guys of the 90s) but often he wasn't part of the main event or even a champion. This would not have happened to Bret: Bret would have headlined the event, had a belt, or been part of the dominant storyline. That's not subjective opinion, that's cold hard fact. Vince had more faith in Bret than Shawn in carrying a company, he gave him more titles, he sold him to Europeans, he had Bret beat the best of the best when WWE was close to its best. Vince never had Shawn compete against the best unless WWE was experiencing a talent or rating drought and then focused on him more to attract a larger female audience. Bret's legacy among the majority of wrestling fans who do not watch today's product is much stronger than Shawn's and I subjectively think that is the most important factor in deciding whose legacy is stronger. Even many fans still watching the bland crap today labeled 'wrestling entertainment' think Bret's is better and, minus this year, he hasn't been in a ring for 10 years. That's a pretty enduring legacy. I think this topic should be revisited in a decade. I'm sure today's wrestling fans will do everything they can for the next 10 years to convince the next generation that Hart's legacy is inferior to Shawn's since all they remember watching live was Shawn and all his 5 star non title mid card matches in WWE's least watched eras where main event competition was at an all time low. To me, I will remember Shawn as the most entertaining main event wrestling technician who had an unbelievably memorable Raw sendoff: a send off Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, etc never got. I'll always be left wondering just why a guy up there in Flair and Hart's category wasn't a 13 time time world champ main eventer but instead a guy who took a ridiculous backseat position to Triple H for 8 years.

 

[harrythem]

Ilapierre. You talk about Hart facing the best of the best. I'm sure I saw him mid-card a few ppv's against the likes of Hakushi, Issac Yankem and his once white-hot but eventually dragging feud with Jerry Lawler too. You say HBK main evented the least watched period in WWE history but, surely, that'd be when Bret Hart was main eventing. Hart also wasn't a tenth of the draw of those that came before him (Hogan) or after (Austin).

I'd also argue against it being a fact he'd be in the main event today as well. I'd say he'd be in the same position HBK was, right near it but not quite at the top.

I also watched his WCW stuff and, the start against Flair was superb, the turn to help Hogan was great too. Loved his trick to Goldberg with the plate (not the screw-job re-hash though) but, on the whole, Hart wasn't a success in WCW. To the level his fans had come to expect of him, he wasn't there. This has nothing to do with WWE telling me to think like this, it has everything to do with my opinion at the time that hasn't changed since.

If we're going by the end of 97 though, Hart had a much bigger legacy then HBK. As that was when things changed greatly for both of them that's my cut-off period. I still prefer HBK as a character though, but that's mainly because he's shown me a wider range of different sides to him then Hart can play.

 

[The Brain]

What is not subjective is that Bret's matches were completely predictable. Anyone with a pea size brain could identify 15 seconds before what his next move was and could call one of his matches blindfolded. That is unless the match was against Shawn. Shawn Michaels was not stale in the ring like Bret was...uhhhhhh back breaker, elbow drop from 2nd rope, russian leg sweep, sharpshooter..........yawn.

I have no problem with you picking Shawn, but I don't care for this argument. The same could be said for a number of wrestlers including HBK. Flying forearm, kick up, reverse atomic drop, bodyslam, elbow, sweet chin music. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but a lot of wrestlers use the same moves in their matches. As a matter of fact I'd say it's a good thing. The crowd knows the comeback is here and the match is climaxing. It gets them excited.

You know something Fact is fact
When Bret and Shawn were both top faces in 96, Shawn out faced bret
When Bret and Shawn were both top heels in 97, Shawn out Heeled bret
The last two Wrestlemanias they didn't face each other in Shawn had better matches.

Sorry but none of these are facts. For as much as I liked Shawn I preferred Bret a little more back then. In my opinion Bret was easily more hated than Shawn in 1997. Your comment about the mania matches is not fact at all. I don't see how you can say it is. I still have love for Shawn, but I feel he walked Bret's path and therefore Bret has the better legacy.

 

[ted sheckler]

These are my one and two of alltime BUT my honest opinion is that Shawn Michaels definitely has the better legacy. Shawn's legacy includes countless iconic moments along with some of the greatest matches in WWE history.
He's headlined 6 Wrestlemanias which is only less than Hogan(7).
He will forever be know as the guy involved in the first ladder match (yeah I know...) Hell in a Cell, Iron Man Match, Elimination Chamber match...
He's one of the major pioneers of the Attitude Era..
Won Match of the a record 10 times 93-96 and 2004-present.
Was the main founder of DX (one of the biggest drawing groups in wrestling history)
Headlined the biggest selling WWE PPV of alltime WM23
Was involved in the Montreal Screwjob.

The guy has the greatest story arch ever. The young cocky ultra talented guy works his way to the top and it all comes tumbling down.. only for him to overcome his demons and comeback 4 years later as good as he's ever been. Its a story of redemption and its capped off with the greatest ending to a wrestling career we've ever seen. He headlined Wrestlemania and then walked off into the sunset. And today he is regarded by many of his peers as the greatest in ring performer of all time.

 

[rge2010]

I was a huge Bret Hart fan back in the 90s. He was my favourite Wrestler ever. Funnilly enough my first Wrestling Event (VHS) was Wrestlemania 8 and the 2 men who stood out on that show for me were Bret against Piper and Shawn against El Matador. I remember saying to myself, I would love to see these 2 have a match! Shawn was cocky cool, Bret was just cool.

I was never a huge Shawn fan to be honest, especially after Montreal and what not. You were either Bret or Shawn. I have to say though, I think Shawns legacy is bigger than Brets. But as somebody has already stated, Brets WWE Career ended in 1997, Shawn had an extra 8-9 years as a performer in WWE. Had Shawn retired in 1998 and stayed retired, then Bret would of won hands down, so as active performers side by side, Bret wins, but over all it has to be Shawn.

I do think Bret has had the better matches throughout their respected careers, but Shawn has had the most memorable.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It's a tough call here. Both are legends. Both were great on the mic. Both were great in the ring. Both had memorable title reigns within multiple divisions. Both were at the top of WWE at one point. I think I'm going to go with Shawn Michaels though for my answer. Michaels will have the better legacy of the two because he remained one of the best his entire career. Bret Hart's last couple of matches saw him get disqualified for illegally using a chair during Summerslam 2010 and then there's his "match" against Vince at Wrestlemania 26. Michaels on the other hand went out on top. They are both legends and easily towards the top of any "best of all time" lists, but I would rank Michaels higher due to the fact that the last leg of his run was still great while Hart's wasn't as impressive.