Were you for Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels?

[HBKistheHOF]

Easily, HBK for me! He has always been my favorite & is the most amazing performer in virtually every way possible IMO.

I'm not sure if it was because lack of charisma or what but i've always found Bret Hart to be "the perfect opponent". He is a great worker & in ring performer & anytime he would go against anyone decent or that I was even slighlty interested in, the match was good. But when he was facing jobbers, nobodies, or had an uninteresting or unappealing opponent, the matches seemed to fall kinda flat for me. Also the years I REALLY started to enjoy Bret's work was 96 & 97, which was basically the end of his WWE career (not counting his returns in 2010). I've always enjoyed the work of Hart but he will always be on that cusp for me of being truely amazing & one of my favorites ever.

P.S. As much as I respect EVERYONES opinion in & out of the squared circle, whoever checked "neither" is either a silly prankster or a moron.

 

[BigThunder]

Brett for me. I was a Western Canadian wrestling fan who grew up watching Brett from his early days of feuding with Dynamite Kid and Leo Burke in Stuampede, so I'm biased. I always enjoyed Brett's technical style, and I think his mic work has been seriously underestimated -- Brett made me believe his promos. Shawn's persona was always too obnoxious for me; plus I never cared for the clique. I didn't really start liking and appreciating Shawn until the mid-00s, during his "God feud" with Vince.

When all is said and done, I recognize them both as all-time greats and I'm glad that the two have seemingly buried the hatchet.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

Always liked them both, but was a bigger Bret fan for sure. While I started watched WWF in the late 80's/early 90's, my earliest continuous memories of wrestling start around the time Hart became the man in the WWF and as a kid it was easy to root for him. I was old enough in 97 during his heel turn that I still remained a Hart fan while he was a bad guy. And up until recently I always reserved much blame for Montreal on Shawn.

 

[HBKperfect23]

I got into wrestling in late 91 to watch Hogan. Soon after, I started to love the sport of pro wrestling and the in ring action. Bret Hart became my favorite. Bret in 1992 is one of the best years a pro wrestler has ever had. I liked the Rockers and after the break up Shawn had become the first bad guy I had rooted for. I am a Shawn fan but still at Bret Hart guy at this point.

In 93, I really enjoyed Shawns stuff with Marty and the IC run he had. Im still a big Bret fan but Shawn had moved ahead of him as my favorite wrestler. This is mainly due to Shawn being the focal point of RAW each week.

I still enjoyed Brets matchs from 93-96 but his character was stale to me. I liked the Owen feud, the Diesil matches, and the Hakushi matches....that was about it until WM12 and the return to work with Steve.

Shawn was awesome in 95 when he entered the main event scene. The end of the Rumble was one of the best moments in history. I liked the face turn and his 96 run. Although, it was the highest rated, most have agreed Shawn was saving the company during that time. I enjoyed the boyhood dream angle and was solidly behind Shawn.

In 1997, I think they both reached new heights. I think Shawn in 1997 was the best a wrestler has ever been in the ring. Bret finally got good on the mic and was knocking it out of the park with the Hart Foundation stuff. I really hated Bret during this time, he was a great heel in 97.

Post Montreal, I hated Bret. I never understood why Shawn got heat for being a dick/not jobbing but Bret never did. I grew to have a ton of respect for Shawn the person after he his transformation. I started to like Bret again when he started to let go of all his anger. I was glad to see them bury the hatchet. The rivalrys dvd was great, nice to see them become friends.

In the end, I really enjoyed both careers. Bret is a legend and an all time great but I have to give the nod to Shawn. Hes my all time favorite and the best in ring performer ever.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

I got into wrestling in late 91 to watch Hogan. Soon after, I started to love the sport of pro wrestling and the in ring action. Bret Hart became my favorite. Bret in 1992 is one of the best years a pro wrestler has ever had. I liked the Rockers and after the break up Shawn had become the first bad guy I had rooted for. I am a Shawn fan but still at Bret Hart guy at this point.

In 93, I really enjoyed Shawns stuff with Marty and the IC run he had. Im still a big Bret fan but Shawn had moved ahead of him as my favorite wrestler. This is mainly due to Shawn being the focal point of RAW each week.

I still enjoyed Brets matchs from 93-96 but his character was stale to me. I liked the Owen feud, the Diesil matches, and the Hakushi matches....that was about it until WM12 and the return to work with Steve.

Shawn was awesome in 95 when he entered the main event scene. The end of the Rumble was one of the best moments in history. I liked the face turn and his 96 run. Although, it was the highest rated, most have agreed Shawn was saving the company during that time. I enjoyed the boyhood dream angle and was solidly behind Shawn.

In 1997, I think they both reached new heights. I think Shawn in 1997 was the best a wrestler has ever been in the ring. Bret finally got good on the mic and was knocking it out of the park with the Hart Foundation stuff. I really hated Bret during this time, he was a great heel in 97.

Post Montreal, I hated Bret. I never understood why Shawn got heat for being a dick/not jobbing but Bret never did. I grew to have a ton of respect for Shawn the person after he his transformation. I started to like Bret again when he started to let go of all his anger. I was glad to see them bury the hatchet. The rivalrys dvd was great, nice to see them become friends.

In the end, I really enjoyed both careers. Bret is a legend and an all time great but I have to give the nod to Shawn. Hes my all time favorite and the best in ring performer ever.

Not trying to get into a whole who was right/wrong thing as there are many threads on this forum that deal with that. I just want to get a feel for why you say Bret never jobbed. Shawn won the title from Bret at WM XII and before that Bret had dropped world titles to Yokozuna and Backlund, while helping put Diesel over as champ by not winning the title from him at the Rumble before beating him at Survivor Series. Also Bret worked with numberous mid card talent while a main eventer. While he wouldn't lose to those guys (as he shouldn't) simpy having matches and stories with them would give them a rub.

If this stems from Bret not losing to Shawn from 92-94 again I think it goes back to Bret not losing to mid carders at that time. Expecting Bret to lose to Shawn back than would be the equivalent to Austin losing to Rock at WM XV. Just doesn't make sense.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Not trying to get into a whole who was right/wrong thing as there are many threads on this forum that deal with that. I just want to get a feel for why you say Bret never jobbed.

Ill give you a list of my problems with Bret in the past. Again, Im a big fan of his, I just dont think he should be given a pass on his attitude/unwillingness to job. He was an all time great but a hard guy to work with at times (like Shawn)

-The British Bulldogs will only drop the Belt to the Hart Foundation (Bret Hart Shoot). Hart Foundation certainly deserved the titles, but didnt the Kliq get heat for keeping titles with in the group?

-Bret doesnt want to drop the IC title to the Mountie (Mountie Shoot) Said he wasnt deserving of it. Works the 104 degree fever angle instead of putting him over.

-Bret doesnt want to drop the IC title to Shawn Michaels at Summerslam 1992 and would rather drop it to his brother in law. Great idea, but didnt the Kliq have good ideas too and still got heat due to dropping the title between them? (Brets Book)

-Bret doesnt want to drop the WWF title to Backlund because of his age. Bret later would retract his statement and say he was happy to put him over (Bret Shoot)

-Bret wont put over world champion Diesil at Royal Rumble 1995. Ends in DQ (Nash Timeline)

-Bret complains his run isnt given the credit it deserves from SurSer 1995 to WMXII. He felt "he was just given the belt to hand to Shawn". This is ridicuous (Bret Shoot)

-Bret wont take Diesils finish at In Your House before WMXII to help build Diesil/Taker. Taker calls him out. (Nash Timeline)

-"Montreal": at the end of the day, IMO, it was all due to Bret wanting to forfeit the title on his way out. I dont want this to turn into a Montreal discussion so Im not going into too much detail.

 

[Wald]

I'll steer clear of Montreal as that has been done to death, but on your other points

- Bulldogs wanting to drop the titles to the Hart Foundation. First off that is nothing to do with Bret, he wasn't in the Bulldogs so wasn't refusing to job to anyone so it's odd to bring up. Also, I doubt the Bulldogs had that much stroke back then, certainly not as much as the Kliq.

- Bret doesn't want to drop to the Mountie. Quite rightly, the Mountie was never over, but regardless of that Bret did still drop the title. Face champions often get an out, in fact they nearly always did back then, when losing titles to heels (manager interference, working with an injury) so I find it odd that you single Bret out for what was common practice in wrestling at the time.

- Bulldog vs Bret made a lot more business sense, so it wasn't a case of just exclusively wanting to work title programs with members of their group, which is what the Kliq wanted. Bret lost too.

- He was right to not want to drop to Backlund, a part time wrestler who hadn't been champion in 11 years at that point and hadn't been in the company for almost that long as well, particularly given Vince's New Generation slogan. He still did though so I find it odd you bring it up as a time when Bret didn't job.

Quick tally of your response to why you say Bret never jobbed at this point show that of your first four arguments Bret lost three of them and wasn't the champion for the fourth. So you're 0-4 at this point. We move on.

- So Nash says in a shoot that Bret didn't want to job to him and that is gospel? The Road Warriors said in a shoot that Shawn only got the title by agreeing to sleep with Vince so let's believe that too.

- Survivor Series to Wrestlemania 12 period. He wasn't given teh focus of the company at the time, Shawn was as he was being prepared to win the title at Wrestlemania. That's pretty obvious. But Bret shouldn't complain about it because Vince wanted to try Shawn out as the top babyface. Bret still lost anyway.

- Once again this is from the mouth of Nash in a shoot interview, but let's look closely at this one. Nash is complaining that Bret, the WWF Champion at the time and heading towards a babyface showdown in a 60 minute Iron Man match with Shawn Michaels, should take Nash's finisher to help build Nash for his undercard match with the Undertaker. I very much doubt that would be the plan, considering beating Bret is meant to solidify Shawn as the top dog at Wrestlemania, but even if it were Vince's plan I can understand why Bret would say no. It would be awful business sense.

So at the end of that we have 7 examples of Bret not jobbing, 5 in which he actually did job, another coming straight from a shoot interview with Nash (always the most reliable of sources) and another where it was someone else refusing to job and he just happened to be in the match.

I'll spare you the 'oh you're just a Bret mark' retort, cause I am, but despite that can I ask if I am wrong in what I just posted?

 

[Waylon Mercy]

I think both Bret and Shawn were the trailblazers of the "New Generation", leading into the Attitude era. Bret to me has the edge, because he was put into a really tough position in the early days as the flag bearer of the company in a time when the WWE had lost a lot of its following. Hogan had moved on to WCW, but had also been exposed for steroid use. As much as I loathe Hogan, I also give him full credit for bringing the wrestling industry into the mainstream consciousness.
Bret was always an incredible worker, and had amazing skills as a story teller in the ring. As a baby face, he was really popular (especially with the young kids). He was no Hogan, though, in terms of presence, personality and charisma. As such, there was a lot of pressure on Bret in his first championship run to carry the torch. He did so in a lot of ways, by legitimizing the sport aspect of wrestling. Through Bret's hard work and dedication to his craft and the company, he paved the way for guys like Shawn Michaels to be accepted as main event talent.
The problems between Bret and Shawn are well documented, however for the longest time in the early years, there was a high level of respect and admiration between the two. They had the same goals, in terms of overcoming the bias against the smaller guys and becoming recognized as main event players. The major difference, as time progressed, was that they had different ways to go about it. Wherever people fall on the Hart / Michaels rivalry, there is no doubt that both these men revolutionized the industry.

 

[justtxyank]

Long post that is pretty good

That's a pretty darn good post.

I'll say this on the Nash issue though:

I'm pretty sure that by January 1996, Nash was not yet on his way out. That decision didn't get made until later on. Nash was allegedly being setup to go over the Undertaker at Wrestlemania and then work a big time program with HBK over the belt.

As it was a given that Hart was taking time off after Wrestlemania that year, he was not in the plans for the summer of 1996. Hart putting over Diesel without losing would have been good business for the WWF because the plan was to use Diesel to make HBK a credible main eventer.

 

[HBKperfect23]

- Bulldogs wanting to drop the titles to the Hart Foundation. First off that is nothing to do with Bret, he wasn't in the Bulldogs so wasn't refusing to job to anyone so it's odd to bring up. Also, I doubt the Bulldogs had that much stroke back then, certainly not as much as the Kliq.

Not sure how this is any different then Shawn/Nash/Hall with the IC title. Shawn wasnt on the recieving end of all title wins either.

- Bret doesn't want to drop to the Mountie. Quite rightly, the Mountie was never over, but regardless of that Bret did still drop the title. Face champions often get an out, in fact they nearly always did back then, when losing titles to heels (manager interference, working with an injury) so I find it odd that you single Bret out for what was common practice in wrestling at the time.

Mountie was over. Even if he wasnt, its not Bret decision who he drops the title to. Its Vinces. He couldnt put the guy over, he did to make himself look like he got off his death bed to wrestle to drop the belt. Wasnt Shawn a face when he lost his smile? Guess thats his out.

- Bulldog vs Bret made a lot more business sense, so it wasn't a case of just exclusively wanting to work title programs with members of their group, which is what the Kliq wanted. Bret lost too.

Was the ladder match Shawn lost in any good? The kliq consisted of the top 3 workers in WWF at the time, so didnt it make business sense for them to want to work together?

- He was right to not want to drop to Backlund, a part time wrestler who hadn't been champion in 11 years at that point and hadn't been in the company for almost that long as well, particularly given Vince's New Generation slogan. He still did though so I find it odd you bring it up as a time when Bret didn't job.

Didnt Shawn drop it to Steve at WMXIV as well? Again its Vinces choice who the champion should be. Bret wasnt getting the job done and they were going with Diesil. Not sure we "has the right" to pick and choose everyone who he drops the title too.

Quick tally of your response to why you say Bret never jobbed at this point show that of your first four arguments Bret lost three of them and wasn't the champion for the fourth. So you're 0-4 at this point. We move on.

Never said he never jobbed. Said he bitched an complained every step of the way and sometimes refused to job. See Montreal. Also, even Vince himself said Shawn did we asked him to do at the end of the day. So I dont get how Bret gets away with being a dick and Shawn is blamed for it constantly.

- So Nash says in a shoot that Bret didn't want to job to him and that is gospel? The Road Warriors said in a shoot that Shawn only got the title by agreeing to sleep with Vince so let's believe that too.

Nash and Bret were friends. Both admit it. Nash said he wouldnt put him over at RR95 and wouldnt take his finish (which would end in a dq, since thats what he did wtih Taker at RR96) at IYH. Nash also put Bret over big time at the time of the shoot.

- Survivor Series to Wrestlemania 12 period. He wasn't given teh focus of the company at the time, Shawn was as he was being prepared to win the title at Wrestlemania. That's pretty obvious. But Bret shouldn't complain about it because Vince wanted to try Shawn out as the top babyface. Bret still lost anyway.

Just like Steve was the focus from series 97 to wmxiv. Thats how it works. Bret was still working with Bulldog/Taker/Nash leading into WM12.

- Once again this is from the mouth of Nash in a shoot interview, but let's look closely at this one. Nash is complaining that Bret, the WWF Champion at the time and heading towards a babyface showdown in a 60 minute Iron Man match with Shawn Michaels, should take Nash's finisher to help build Nash for his undercard match with the Undertaker. I very much doubt that would be the plan, considering beating Bret is meant to solidify Shawn as the top dog at Wrestlemania, but even if it were Vince's plan I can understand why Bret would say no. It would be awful business sense.

He was supposed to job. Just take the finish before a Taker run in. To even out what Nash did to Taker at rr96 against Bret and help build Taker/Nash. It wouldnt have hurt Bret.....he still wouldnt do it.

So at the end of that we have 7 examples of Bret not jobbing, 5 in which he actually did job, another coming straight from a shoot interview with Nash (always the most reliable of sources) and another where it was someone else refusing to job and he just happened to be in the match.

I'll spare you the 'oh you're just a Bret mark' retort, cause I am, but despite that can I ask if I am wrong in what I just posted?

My problem isnt that your a Bret mark......I am as well. My problem is you blindly love him and think he can do no wrong. I think I look at the two objectively even though im a Shawn mark.

 

[HBKperfect23]

If this stems from Bret not losing to Shawn from 92-94 again I think it goes back to Bret not losing to mid carders at that time. Expecting Bret to lose to Shawn back than would be the equivalent to Austin losing to Rock at WM XV. Just doesn't make sense.

No, Bret was the guy then. He had every right to go over in all of those matches. But I will bring this point to everyones attention: Its common on this board for me to read, Shawn was supposed to "return the favor" after WM12 for Bret doing the job. Wasnt 3 years of him putting Bret over enough? Wheres the "favor returned" for all those jobs.

And for those who said Shawn never jobbed......care to explain the quoted post?

 

[Wald]

Your point was that Bret never jobbed right? What's that got to do with HBK outside of Montreal?

Since you bring some of them up though. You can't seriously compare forfeiting the world title as an out to losing a match working an injury? That's the height of a blinkered opinion.

Also comparing losing to Backlund, a guy who hadn't been a star in a decade, to losing to Steve Austin at WM 14 is all kinds of wow.

And to the point of Bret returning the favour to Shawn for the 1992 to 1994 period. Bret was the top star, Shawn was a mid card heel. Shawn didn't do Bret any favour Cena beats Sandow today does Cena owe Sandow a favour? Or should Sandow by happy that he worked a program with the top wrestler in the company?

For all you accuse me of being blind to Bret's faults (I'm not, I even criticised him in that post from yesterday) you seem to be grasping at straw's to explain Michaels' behaviour. And all of that distracts from the point that is you saying Bret didn't job.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

No, Bret was the guy then. He had every right to go over in all of those matches. But I will bring this point to everyones attention: Its common on this board for me to read, Shawn was supposed to "return the favor" after WM12 for Bret doing the job. Wasnt 3 years of him putting Bret over enough? Wheres the "favor returned" for all those jobs.

And for those who said Shawn never jobbed......care to explain the quoted post?

Like I said and you confirmed, when Bret beat Shawn between 92-94 it was under different circumstances. Bret was a main eventer and Shawn was a midcarder. By the time WM XII rolled around they were both main eventers thus on par with one another. I wouldn't say Shawn losing all those matches in the past when they were on different levels calls for a returning of the favor when both men are now at the top.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Like I said and you confirmed, when Bret beat Shawn between 92-94 it was under different circumstances. Bret was a main eventer and Shawn was a midcarder. By the time WM XII rolled around they were both main eventers thus on par with one another. I wouldn't say Shawn losing all those matches in the past when they were on different levels calls for a returning of the favor when both men are now at the top.

My point there was there is no such thing as returning the favor and its ridiculous for Bret to think Shawn owed him something after WMXII. Not that Bret owed Shawn anything. I stand by what I said, Shawn should have put Bret over in those years....and he did. And it doesnt matter what position each guy was in 92-94, Shawn still helped get Bret over.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Your point was that Bret never jobbed right?

Again, no its not. My point was Bret was also very hard to deal with when it came to doing jobs because he was such a mark for himself. He certainly put over guys, just like Shawn did. I just dont understand why one gets heat and the other doesnt.

For all you accuse me of being blind to Bret's faults (I'm not, I even criticised him in that post from yesterday) you seem to be grasping at straw's to explain Michaels' behaviour. And all of that distracts from the point that is you saying Bret didn't job.

Agaom, never said Bret didnt job and never said Shawn was perfect. Read above, both guys were hard to deal with at times.

 

[justtxyank]

Again, no its not. My point was Bret was also very hard to deal with when it came to doing jobs because he was such a mark for himself. He certainly put over guys, just like Shawn did. I just dont understand why one gets heat and the other doesnt.

Again, never said Bret didnt job and never said Shawn was perfect. Read above, both guys were hard to deal with at times.

Bret was a mark for himself, but he was never hard to work with in the same way that Shawn was.

Bret Hart never screamed and cussed at an opponent in the middle of a match. Bret Hart never showed up stoned to a match. Bret Hart never got mad about not getting a win and punished the other worker by flopping around the ring like a dead fish. Bret Hart didn't have to fake injuries multiple times to forfeit the belt because he didn't want to lose. Someone backstage didn't have to threaten Bret Hart before a big match because they were afraid he wouldn't do the job cleanly. Bret Hart didn't throw tantrums about working with lower card guys.

Bret has an ego and he is a mark for himself. There is no disputing this. But Bret was never hated. The only time there was ever an issue with Bret was when he didn't want to lose to Shawn Michaels in Montreal. And that issue comes down to him using his contractually guaranteed right and Vince not being ok with it.

Workers may have said that Bret took himself too seriously, was bitter at the end, etc. but you never hear them saying that they had no respect for him, didn't want to work with him, hated him, etc. The list of people who have problems with HBK and his group is too long to count.

We can debate who was the better worker (I come down on the side of HBK right now) but we can't debate who was more professional. Shawn Michaels was not a professional prior to his rebirth and Bret Hart was. Even if Hart didn't want to do what he was asked to do, he still did it. When he worked with lower card guys he tried to make them look good, not show them up. He was a professional. Shawn Michaels was not.

 

[harrythem]

If we're going until Wrestlemania 14 then it'd be Bret Hart as love both their work but Hart vs Austin and Hart Foundation vs America feuds were, to me, more memorable at that time than anything HBK had done....

However, if we're including everything afterwards then HBK wins hands down, for the heel work against Hogan (and the piss-take selling during the match was awesome too) and the feuds with Jericho/Undertaker et al. HBK showed that he was (and in many ways still is) a class above pretty much everyone in wrestling, past of present, when it comes to the story-side of things.

So, I'l giving it to HBK...marginally.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Also comparing losing to Backlund, a guy who hadn't been a star in a decade, to losing to Steve Austin at WM 14 is all kinds of wow.

Lets say your boss asks you to do something you dont want to do to help someone in your company. Does it really matter if its a Backlund or Austin employee? No you shut your mouth and do it. Neither Bret nor Shawn went down easily, to me its the same thing. And its all kinds of wow how you dont see that.

And to the point of Bret returning the favour to Shawn for the 1992 to 1994 period. Bret was the top star, Shawn was a mid card heel. Shawn didn't do Bret any favour Cena beats Sandow today does Cena owe Sandow a favour? Or should Sandow by happy that he worked a program with the top wrestler in the company?

Read what I said. My point wasnt that Bret owed Shawn. My point was that returning the favor is ridiculous.

Bret Hart never screamed and cussed at an opponent in the middle of a match. Bret Hart never showed up stoned to a match. Bret Hart never got mad about not getting a win and punished the other worker by flopping around the ring like a dead fish. Bret Hart didn't have to fake injuries multiple times to forfeit the belt because he didn't want to lose. Someone backstage didn't have to threaten Bret Hart before a big match because they were afraid he wouldn't do the job cleanly. Bret Hart didn't throw tantrums about working with lower card guys.

Bret never showed up stoned, never cursed anyone out during a match, never flopped around like Shawn did vs. Hogan. Ill admit that. Shawn has been a dick at times. My point is so has Bret.And yes Bret did throw tantrums about who he worked with. See my older post regarding the Mountie/Backlund. And no one threatned Shawn before a match....Taker says it in an interview from 2001.

Bret has an ego and he is a mark for himself. There is no disputing this. But Bret was never hated. The only time there was ever an issue with Bret was when he didn't want to lose to Shawn Michaels in Montreal. And that issue comes down to him using his contractually guaranteed right and Vince not being ok with it.

Go back to my old post with the list of times he didnt want to lose.

Workers may have said that Bret took himself too seriously, was bitter at the end, etc. but you never hear them saying that they had no respect for him, didn't want to work with him, hated him, etc. The list of people who have problems with HBK and his group is too long to count.

Shawn is one of the most respected workers ever because of his 2nd run. Bret doesnt have a long list but certainly has a list of those who thought he was hard to deal with.

We can debate who was the better worker (I come down on the side of HBK right now) but we can't debate who was more professional. Shawn Michaels was not a professional prior to his rebirth and Bret Hart was. Even if Hart didn't want to do what he was asked to do, he still did it. When he worked with lower card guys he tried to make them look good, not show them up. He was a professional. Shawn Michaels was not.

Difference between them is Shawn had admited his faults and Bret has trouble admitting his.

 

[justtxyank]

Neither Bret nor Shawn went down easily, to me its the same thing. And its all kinds of wow how you dont see that.

Except you have no evidence to support the idea that Bret didn't go down easily. Voicing your opinion about character decisions is not a problem. I'm sure John Cena has expressed before whether he thinks something is a bad idea.

Bret never showed up stoned, never cursed anyone out during a match, never flopped around like Shawn did vs. Hogan. Ill admit that. Shawn has been a dick at times. My point is so has Bret.And yes Bret did throw tantrums about who he worked with. See my older post regarding the Mountie/Backlund. And no one threatned Shawn before a match....Taker says it in an interview from 2001.

You are comparing things that are so vastly different and calling them equal. Bret may have been a dick, but he was not Shawn Michaels. I make money and have money in the bank. So does Alex Rodriguez. To say we "both have money" would be disingenuous. We aren't in the same league. Neither were Bret and Shawn.

Shawn is one of the most respected workers ever because of his 2nd run. Bret doesnt have a long list but certainly has a list of those who thought he was hard to deal with.

For his in ring work, yes. As for his personality, it's hard to say how people really feel about him now because WWE bought out all the legit competition and have Vincewashed things. Some of the workers who have left WWE have said it's all bogus.

Regardless, I already said that since his return he's been a different person and I credit him for that. It doesn't change anything here.

As for the list, Shawn has a list of people who outright HATE him. Go find me youtube videos of former coworkers who shoot on Bret Hart saying how much they hate him, how horrible a person he was, screaming "F you Bret Hart" into the camera, talking about how he ruined their career, etc. You won't find them on Bret but you can find plenty on Shawn.

Difference between them is Shawn had admited his faults and Bret (who is still a mark) has trouble admitting his.[/quoted]

Bret admits he takes himself and the business too seriously. He doesn't need to admit to the type of faults that Shawn did. Bret was never Shawn Michaels. He never took dumps in people's bags, tortured workers he didn't like, berated an opponent in the middle of the ring for all to see, etc. He wasn't endangering his coworkers by being drunk and high in the ring.

Bret Hart wasn't an angel, but he wasn't Shawn Michaels. On a jerk scale of 1-10, Bret was probably a 4 and Shawn was an 8.

 

[MINISTRYrising]

I voted Shawn.
While Brett was a fantastic wrestler, I always found him boring when it came to his Mic skills and never really though he had much in the way of charisma. Shawn on the other hand seemed to have it all. While Shawn could be a pain in the ass to work with a lot of the times, there was nobody better at keeping the fans entertained then HBK.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

Bret and for me personally it wasn't even close. I have to admit my opinion today has softened, and I have a greater appreciation for his ability, back then I really couldn't care for him.

It has to do more so with style of performer, I prefer wrestlers who can go on the mat and both of these guys can, but Bret was better in that area. He was more technical, physical as opposed to HBK who was more acrobatic. Bret reminded more of a tough guy while HBK was more of a pretty boy. Not saying it's true, just saying that was my perception of him back then. Add to that his arrogance behind the scenes and in the ring, that really turned me against him. No matter who Bret worked with, he could give you a solid match and I liked that he worked with many performers and adapt to their style.

 

[Wald]

My point there was there is no such thing as returning the favor and its ridiculous for Bret to think Shawn owed him something after WMXII. Not that Bret owed Shawn anything. I stand by what I said, Shawn should have put Bret over in those years....and he did. And it doesnt matter what position each guy was in 92-94, Shawn still helped get Bret over.

I'm sorry but what? There is no such thing as returning the favour in wrestling? Seriously?

And the midcard heel helped the top star in the company, the WWF champion to get over? Again, seriously?

 

[HBKperfect23]

I'm sorry but what? There is no such thing as returning the favour in wrestling? Seriously?

When did Savage return the favor to Ted Dibiase for WM4? Did you enjoy Hogan/Slaughter 2 when Slaughter got his win back from WM7? Im glad Rock successfully defended the title at WMX7 because Austin had to return the favor from WM15. I cant believe Sid didnt win the title back from Taker after WM13. Punk has went over Cena since July 2011. Im sure Cena has the exact tally of wins Punk owes him.

And the midcard heel helped the top star in the company, the WWF champion to get over? Again, seriously?

Andre helped get Hogan over. Rude helped Warrior get over. Hogan helped Savage get over. Many have helped Cena get over. Austin benifited from Rock. Thats how it works.

In the early 90s match quality was becoming important. Shawn and Bret were having good/great matches with each other. They were good for each others carrers.

Would all of those guys including Bret, have gotten over? Yes. Does it mean nobody helped get them over? Of course not.

 

[Wald]

When did Savage return the favor to Ted Dibiase for WM4? Did you enjoy Hogan/Slaughter 2 when Slaughter got his win back from WM7? Im glad Rock successfully defended the title at WMX7 because Austin had to return the favor from WM15. I cant believe Sid didnt win the title back from Taker after WM13. Punk has went over Cena since July 2011. Im sure Cena has the exact tally of wins Punk owes him.


Andre helped get Hogan over. Rude helped Warrior get over. Hogan helped Savage get over. Many have helped Cena get over. Austin benifited from Rock. Thats how it works.

In the early 90s match quality was becoming important. Shawn and Bret were having good/great matches with each other. They were good for each others carrers.

Would all of those guys including Bret, have gotten over? Yes. Does it mean nobody helped get them over? Of course not.

So you're saying there is no such thing as returning the favour in wrestling? That that doesn't exist and hasn't existed ever? Can I get that in e-writing here please.

As for the others. Here's the difference and I'll highlight the people you've put in the Shawn Michaels 1992-94 role

Andre the Giant was the biggest wrestling star in the world before Hogan came along, beating Andre helped make Hogan the number one guy as he toppled the then number one guy.

Rick Rude was one of the top heels in the WWF when Warrior took him on. Beating him helped Warrior jump up a few notches in fans eyes because Rude was at that time on par with Warrior in the upper mid-card.

Hulk Hogan was the biggest wrestling star in the world by the time the Mega Powers came about, teaming Savage with him helped elevate Savage to near his level.

Name me a Cena opponent that was below him at the time of their feud that helped him become the top star and I'll talk about it. Austin was already the number one star in the WWF by the time he feuded with Rock, Austin helped him get over, not the other way around. Which is exactly what happened with Bret and Shawn.

Are you getting this yet? It's basic wrestling rules we're dealing with here

 

[HBKperfect23]

So you're saying there is no such thing as returning the favour in wrestling? That that doesn't exist and hasn't existed ever? Can I get that in e-writing here please.

No, I am saying Shawn didnt owe Bret for WMXII. Its ridiculous that he thinks he did.

As for the others. Here's the difference and I'll highlight the people you've put in the Shawn Michaels 1992-94 role

I dont know how else to explain this. I didnt put ANY of them into the Shawn 92-94 role. Do you even read the posts? Let me explain it once more, Shawn should have put Bret over in that time. And he did without problem. WMXII Shawn was already a star, he did not owe Bret a job because of that. That is the only point im trying to make here.

The Warrior/Rude example is pretty close to Bret/Shawn from the time frame 92-94. Warrior was the guy, Rude helped him by having good matches. 92-94 Bret (at times) was the guy and Shawn helped him by having good matches which elevated both their carrers.

Holy shit, your hard headed.