WWE Region, Third Round, Metal Object On A Pole Match: (2)Bret Hart vs.(7)Randy Orton

[klunderbunker]

This is a third round match in the WWE Region. It is a Metal Object on a Pole match. It will be held at the TD Garden in Boston, Massachusetts. Assume one week has passed since the first round matches.

Metal Object On A Poll Match Rules: There is a metal object on a poll hanging above a corner of the ring. Once pulled down, the object may be used as a weapon. Victory is attained by pinfall or submission.

#2. Bret Hart

Vs.

#7. Randy Orton

​

Polls will be open for four days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.

 

[Johnny Scumm]

That metal object isn't even in my top 1000 "Things made of metal".

To be honest, Hart wouldn't even need that object to beat Orton was this a normal match. I see Orton being the heel in this one, meaning that object would play a big advantage in his obviously brutal attack on Hart. However, with both men in their primes, the Hitman takes the Viper in this one, possibly never even touching said object.

 

[PsychoBlack]

Randy goes over here. Bret climbs up to get whatever the object on the pole is and jumps off to hit Orton with it instead of his middle rope elbow and Randy hops up and gets off a sweet RKO.

BTW why is Vince Russo booking matches in this tournament KB?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The stipulation of this match doesn't favor one wrestler over the other. In terms of technical ability, I'd give it to Bret. Overall athletic ability, I give the advantage to Orton, but not by a big margin.

I can see Bret putting Orton in the Sharpshooter and I can see Orton popping out of nowhere to deliver an RKO just as easily. I'll have to think on this one.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Orton goes over here. He'll use the weapon on Hart and even after a valiant effort, Hart gets hit with an RKO and ends up with the victory.

 

[deem]

Orton's career has certainly been way, way bigger than Hart's ever was. Bret is definitely better, but Orton's been more dominant and at the top end of cards more often.

I think the stipulation DOES mildly favour Orton too, due to how brutal he is with a weapon which is something we havn't really seen from Bret too often. I agree with the rest, Hart is working face and Orton working heel and this is kinda hard to split - the obvious choice is Orton just based on how much more of a big deal he is/was.

Willing to give the debate a chance in this though.

 

[The Brain]

Orton's career has certainly been way, way bigger than Hart's ever was. Bret is definitely better, but Orton's been more dominant and at the top end of cards more often.

I think the stipulation DOES mildly favour Orton too, due to how brutal he is with a weapon which is something we havn't really seen from Bret too often. I agree with the rest, Hart is working face and Orton working heel and this is kinda hard to split - the obvious choice is Orton just based on how much more of a big deal he is/was.

Willing to give the debate a chance in this though.

How has Orton's career been "way, way bigger" than Hart's? Orton is the obvious choice based on how much more of a big deal he was? I'm not seeing that at all. I think Bret Hart is a bigger name than Randy Orton in WWE history. As far as Bret not being brutal with a weapon, ask Diesel and Steve Austin about that. Good match here but Bret is just better and he deserves to move one.

 

[deem]

How has Orton's career been "way, way bigger" than Hart's? Orton is the obvious choice based on how much more of a big deal he was? I'm not seeing that at all. I think Bret Hart is a bigger name than Randy Orton in WWE history. As far as Bret not being brutal with a weapon, ask Diesel and Steve Austin about that. Good match here but Bret is just better and he deserves to move one.

I think Bret gets hugely overrated due to the fact he was the Ace during a short period while WWF was the second biggest company in the world. 5 years as a main eventer in the weakest roster the WWF has ever had, before underachieving hugely in WCW when he jumped there. That, compared to Orton in his eighth year as a main eventer in the biggest company by a mile in the world, for a large portion being billed as Cena's antagonist. I'll take Orton's 538 days as World Champion (420 with WWE title) in modern day WWE over Bret Hart's 654 while losing the ratings war.

If you wanna look at kayfabe results, I'd say this leans dramatically further towards Orton though.

Starting with Bret; first reign had PPV defences against upper midcarders Michaels and Ramon, until he dropped it to Yoko at Wrestlemania. Wins it back a year later against Yoko, before losing via DQ to an upper-midcard Diesel, retaining vs a midcard Owen Hart, before losing it to a 42yo Bob Backlund. A year after that, he gets the belt back against a now-main event Diesel. Retains against midcard Bulldog, loses by DQ to Undertaker, retains against Diesel, loses to Shawn Michaels. See the theme? Diesel twice and Yoko once are the only main eventers he's beaten during his first three title runs. Two to go! Fourth reign - won fatal fourway vs Vader/Austin/Undertaker! All three men (maybe not quite Austin, but about to become the Ace so i count him) solid main eventers! However, this reign lasted a day before losing it to Sid on Raw. Fifth reign - beating Undertaker (albeit via inadvertent shawn michaels help) at Summerslam for the strap, however another mediocre reign followed of mostly tag matches before dropping the belt in his first major defence (not including Faarooq on Raw) to Shawn in the screwjob.

Honestly, it's commonly documented how underwhelming his time in WCW was, so I'm not gonna go into that. You see the level of kayfabe competition he had during his time on top of WWF? I'll do the same in a shortened version for Orton, I realise this is laborious.

Gets title clean as a heel Vs Chris Benoit, drops it to Triple H. Two year hiatus from being champion while still main eventing PPVs, before awarded title, loses to HHH same night, beats HHH same night. Loses via DQ to HBK, beats HBK. Retains vs upper midcard Jeff Hardy, lost via DQ to Cena, beats HHH and Cena in a Triple Threat at Mania, lost it in fatal fourway to HHH feat. Cena and JBL. Stays challenging for WWE title for a year (something Hart didn't do in between reigns), wins it back at Backlash in tag match. Drops it to Dave in a cage, wins it back off HHH/Cena/Big Show in fatal fourway, retains vs HHH in 3 stages of Hell. Drops to Cena in I Quit, wins it back in HiaC, loses it to Cena in 60m ironman. Close to a year break (numerous PPV title matches), wins WWE title again in 6pack challenge vs Cena, Y2J, Barrett, Edge and Sheamus. Retains against Sheamus in a Cell, a midcard Barrett, before Miz cashes in MitB. 3 month break, off to Smackdown, wins the title against Christian. Retains vs Christian, and again at the next PPV, loses by DQ costing him the title as per the stipulation to Christian at the next, beats him in a No DQ match to win the belt back at Summerslam, retains and wins feud in a cage. Loses it to Mark Henry at the next. And nothing for last year and a half, by far the longest he hasn't held a World Title in the last 6 years.


I mean that looks more onesided than it is in truth - more PPVs for Orton modern day, two heavyweight titles to contend/hold. Still, don't look at the length of the post, look at the amount of main eventers, former champions that Orton dealt with for a far longer period than Hart did. Sure, he lost his share but I'm not arguing win/loss here - just career vs career, Orton accomplished a WHOLE lot more. I mean, between his first title win and the start of 2012 there have been 80 WWE PPV's - Orton's either main evented or had a World Title match in 53 of them. 53/80 PPVs! And sure, it's not just about title reigns - a lot of Hart's best work came without a title, such as pushing Austin, the awesome Owen feud, his work with Lawler. For all that, Orton has Mania moments and HiaC with Undertaker, feud with DX, feud with Evolution, formation of Legacy, feud with Hogan, multiple Royal Rumble top 4 finishes etc.

I dunno. All I'm saying is, if you look at the numbers alone it may seem like Hart accomplished more, but he definitely hasn't. Maybe he's more memorable as he stands out more from the 90s WWF than Orton does from 2000s WWE - that's pretty unfair when you consider how dire the product was in the mid-90s.

I mean people bandy around that Bret was a bigger draw a lot - it's hard to prove. Let's take a look.

See that spike early in the graph towards Raw? Yeah, that was Hart dropping the title to HBK. Sure it dropped away again by the summer through no fault of Bret's, but neither of his reigns tipped the balance either. Sure, when he jumped to WCW it spiked in that direction, and held for WCW for the first year he was there until 1998. The first time he had the title to carry the brand? November 1999, with the rating wars already well over.

I don't even like Orton. At all. I just don't see a way anyone could say that Hart's had the better career, in or out of kayfabe.

 

[HBsam31]

I have always had a soft spot for the object on a pole matches. Russo had put some crazy things on that pole in his WCW days. Is there anyway we can work in a ladder match for the custody of Dominick into this tournament lol. Anyway this is a really tough match for me to pick. I love Bret and have never been a fan of Orton. Orton has had a lot of reigns as champ, but that is now, where the title is easy to come by. I never really looked at Orton as a top star. Bret was a top star even though it was during down times for the WWF. It's really hard to take Bret's time in WCW into consideration as he was grossly misused. I don't think this gimmick favors either guy, and I could easily see Bret making Orton tap to the Sharpshooter. I could just as easily see Orton hitting an RKO for the win. I am going to hold off on making a decision here.

 

[The Brain]

I think Bret gets hugely overrated due to the fact he was the Ace during a short period while WWF was the second biggest company in the world. 5 years as a main eventer in the weakest roster the WWF has ever had, before underachieving hugely in WCW when he jumped there.

That's funny because I think Bret is underrated due to the fact that he was given the near impossible role of carrying the company after Hogan, Savage, and Warrior among others left the company. Losing all the talent the WWF did in 1992/1993 could have destroyed the company. Vince was creating over the top cartoonish characters during a time when wrestling fans were begging for more realism. Fans were willing to sit through Papa Shango, Repo Man, Bastion Booger, and Mantuar among several other poor gimmicks to watch Bret Hart. If not for Bret Hart it's possible the WWF wouldn't have survied the mid 90s.

That, compared to Orton in his eighth year as a main eventer in the biggest company by a mile in the world, for a large portion being billed as Cena's antagonist. I'll take Orton's 538 days as World Champion (420 with WWE title) in modern day WWE over Bret Hart's 654 while losing the ratings war.

It seems to me Bret's longer reigns during a shorter period of time when there was only one title is more impressive. And there was no ratings war until Bret's third reign. The ratings were pretty even until Bret took a hiatus in 1996.

I mean that looks more onesided than it is in truth - more PPVs for Orton modern day, two heavyweight titles to contend/hold. Still, don't look at the length of the post, look at the amount of main eventers, former champions that Orton dealt with for a far longer period than Hart did. Sure, he lost his share but I'm not arguing win/loss here - just career vs career, Orton accomplished a WHOLE lot more. I mean, between his first title win and the start of 2012 there have been 80 WWE PPV's - Orton's either main evented or had a World Title match in 53 of them. 53/80 PPVs! And sure, it's not just about title reigns - a lot of Hart's best work came without a title, such as pushing Austin, the awesome Owen feud, his work with Lawler. For all that, Orton has Mania moments and HiaC with Undertaker, feud with DX, feud with Evolution, formation of Legacy, feud with Hogan, multiple Royal Rumble top 4 finishes etc.

I didn't bother quoting all the indvidual results. They're right above this post for those that want to review them again. I think your first sentence in this paragraph is more important than you're suggesting. Orton has all those statistical advantages over Bret because of how different things are now. During Orton's time on top there are anywhere from 12-16 ppvs per year. Monthly ppvs didn't start until two and a half years after Bret's first reign. Also the fact that there are two world titles now can't be overlooked. That's the most important thing. If there was still only one title there's no way Orton would have as many reigns. For all his title reigns I never got the feeling Orton was the top guy. During the mid 90s I always felt Bret was the top guy whether he had the title or not. Kind of like how Cena was the top guy last year despite Punk holding the title for so long.

I dunno. All I'm saying is, if you look at the numbers alone it may seem like Hart accomplished more, but he definitely hasn't. Maybe he's more memorable as he stands out more from the 90s WWF than Orton does from 2000s WWE - that's pretty unfair when you consider how dire the product was in the mid-90s.

Once again, Bret almost single handedly kept the company afloat while Orton had guys like Cena, Triple H, Michaels, Taker, etc. to share the load. Orton is like Chris Bosh on the Heat. A great player that benefits from strong talent around him. Bret was like LeBron on the Cavs. They were nothing without him.

I mean people bandy around that Bret was a bigger draw a lot - it's hard to prove. Let's take a look.

See that spike early in the graph towards Raw? Yeah, that was Hart dropping the title to HBK. Sure it dropped away again by the summer through no fault of Bret's, but neither of his reigns tipped the balance either. Sure, when he jumped to WCW it spiked in that direction, and held for WCW for the first year he was there until 1998. The first time he had the title to carry the brand? November 1999, with the rating wars already well over.

But Orton doesn't have any head to head competition so this isn't a fair comparison, if it's even meant to be a compariosn at all. Bret's obviously not as big a draw as Hogan. That's who he was up against during these ratings wars, a fresh new heel Hogan at that. Orton is no Hogan.

I don't even like Orton. At all. I just don't see a way anyone could say that Hart's had the better career, in or out of kayfabe.

If Bret Hart had the roster depth and the tv schedule that Orton had then he would have easily had just as much, and very likely more success than Orton. Hell, I think of Bret as more successful anyway. Yes, Orton has worked with and beaten established main eventers. Bret didn't have that luxury. Instead he had to make the best of what he had and create main eventers. Shawn Michaels, Diesel, and Steve Austin can all thank Bret Hart for making them main eventers.

 

[deem]

Actually, I agree with most of what you've said as I find myself doing in debates here so often. I do think we are somewhat arguing the same point though - Hart is better and probably would of achieved just as much, if not more, than Orton in modern day WWE. I'm not certain on that, but I'll give it.

He certainly made the most of what he did, got WWF through a hard time and I absolutely agree he was PIVOTAL in making main event stars to take the WWF forward. I'd never say Orton was better than Hart, just kayfabe comparing rosters and big names beaten, this is Orton's for right or wrong. Not Hart's fault at all though, I concur. Dragging a poor roster through a bad time is less impressive than shining in a great roster, as unfortunate as that is for Bret.

I'd also say you slightly overrate how much Hart was the Ace post-Hogan. You say he felt like the #1 even without the belt, I'd say Diesel/Shawn were certainly a bigger deal while he feuded with Lawler for example. Let's have a look at numbers with the belt post-Hogan until Hart left to compare.

Bret Hart - 480 days
Diesel - 358 days
Yokozuna - 280 days
Shawn Michaels - 256 days.
Undertaker - 133 days
Sid - 97 days
Backlund - 3 days

I mean I'd never claim Bret wasn't the top star, he was. If he was head and shoulders above the roster, single handedly carrying a federation, I think the numbers would indicate it more. The best of the era though, I agree. I just think his key work was in elevating other stars as you pointed out, rather than being the man.

Oh and, just to anyone reading. This isn't even me saying Orton would win here. I'm undecided and would base the winner on records against similar opponents, in similar matches, in win/loss on the big stage which I havn't touched upon/thought about. I'm just defending my point that "Orton>Hart in kayfabe/achievements".

edit: damn, tried to rep you Brain but apparently i need to "spread some around" first

 

[Tastycles]

I don't know it's a tough one. They're pretty similar quality and I don't prefer either.

On the one hand you have a guy that can't be trusted to be the man because he's a tosser and on the other hand you have Bret Hart, a man who never set the earth on fire really. The reason I'm going for Orton is tenuous, but bare with. This match lends itself to knobhead booking. Such is the nature of object on a pole. Orton's RKO lends itself to a shitty sloppy end better, so I'm going with him.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I don't know it's a tough one. They're pretty similar quality and I don't prefer either.

On the one hand you have a guy that can't be trusted to be the man because he's a tosser and on the other hand you have Bret Hart, a man who never set the earth on fire really. The reason I'm going for Orton is tenuous, but bare with. This match lends itself to knobhead booking. Such is the nature of object on a pole. Orton's RKO lends itself to a shitty sloppy end better, so I'm going with him.

If Hart puts him in the Sharpshooter for 37 minutes, how can he climb up to get the object on the pole?

Ill go with longevity and overall quality, personally. I could see a vote for Orton though as well. Ortons carreer was actually more prolific is you really stand back and look at it.

 

[wrestlingfan]

I'll go with Orton due to more experience with weapons.

 

[deem]

I don't know it's a tough one. They're pretty similar quality and I don't prefer either.

On the one hand you have a guy that can't be trusted to be the man because he's a tosser and on the other hand you have Bret Hart, a man who never set the earth on fire really. The reason I'm going for Orton is tenuous, but bare with. This match lends itself to knobhead booking. Such is the nature of object on a pole. Orton's RKO lends itself to a shitty sloppy end better, so I'm going with him.

Actually Tasty, I agree. When I think of "object on a pole" matches, I see dusty finishes tons, which suits Orton way better than Bret. I think when there is anything at all leaning towards Orton, that's enough to vote for him when I think his career holds up very well vs Brets, making it hard to seperate.

While you may think that Orton has struggled vs technical wrestlers, I think I can debunk that pretty efficiently by breaking it down; while at times his win/loss has been negative to worse quality than Bret Hart, his record on PPV and in gimmick matches vs them all is exemplary with the exception of Chris Jericho. This is certainly a big time match so I think PPV form is most applicable. Still, every encounter post-Summerslam 2005 is listed below for Orton.

Vs Chris Benoit - 4 wins 5 losses (On PPV 1-0 Orton)
Vs CM Punk - 13 wins 1 draw 1 loss (On PPV 2-0 Orton, he's also won all four gimmick matches Vs Punk)
Vs Chris Jericho - 4 wins 8 defeats (on PPV 1-0 Jericho)
Vs Alberto Del Rio - 19 wins 2 defeats (1-0 Orton on PPV, won all three gimmick matches)
Vs Dolph Ziggler - 16 wins 3 defeats (1-0 Orton on PPV)
Vs Daniel Bryan - 1 win, 1 draw, 1 defeat
Vs Kurt Angle - 1 win, 5 defeats (1-1 on PPV)
Vs Jack Swagger - 7 wins, 2 defeats (1-0 to Swagger in a PPV gimmick match)
Vs Eddie Guerrero - 1 defeat

Combined stats for Randy Orton Vs scientific wrestlers - 65 wins, 2 draws, 28 losses.
Randy Orton vs Scientific wrestlers on the big stage - 6 wins, 3 losses.
Randy Orton vs Scientific wrestlers with legal weapons - 7 wins, 1 loss.

I think that holds up quite well for Orton when trying to estimate his chances here - every one of them is a former heavyweight champion in WWE, despite only Punk/Jericho/Angle being comparable to the level of Bret imo.


I'm not convinced and not voting yet. Need a persuasive argument to not vote Randy for sure though, every thought I've had is him over Hart. I'll definitely give anyone a chance to make a case for Bret though and will remain unbiased, this is so close.

 

[Brewski]

This isn't really a preference as I don't really care much for either of these guys but I just see Bret winning this. It's just purely how I imagine it coming out. I think this kind of thing is right up heel Hart's alley. I see this as a mid card match on a larger PPV that goes for about 15 mins. Maybe Orton gets the thing down and somehow Hart gets it away from him and hits him with it.

Hart is a bigger name but Orton has more belts at a younger age (to be fair they get passed around more now). They're even in star power to me. Hart wins it though.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

When the resume is close, which I think is fair to say in this particular case, the stipulation plays a big part in the match-up.

I see Orton as by far the more vicious of the two when it comes to that and probably the quicker of the two also. When the chance comes, I think Orton is the more likely one to use the object, and use it more brutally. Bret is one of the cleanest, most fair fighters there ever was and would try to avoid using the object if at all possible, and Orton is going to pick it up if he gets the least bit frustrated.

I don't think this match could exist if the stipulation wasn't going to come into play into it but unless it's a sheet of metal Bret can wrap around his chest:

[YOUTUBE]GsBLOlwy-2E[/YOUTUBE]

...I think Orton is going to take this.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Two of my personal favorites, so this is a tough one.

Bret breaks guys down. That's what he does. He takes you apart, systematically, and turns the match in his favor. Randy's the same way, but not at the same level. People underestimate how sadistic and cruel Bret could be. Randy was more forward with his aggression, but Bret is the man who held Steve Austin in the Sharpshooter until he passed out, and would wrap guys legs around the ring post Figure Four style for multiple minutes.

Bret just as tough and probably the smarter of the two. I'm voting Hart.

 

[Dirk]

I think Hart and Orton are a lot alike in one aspect - neither are great talkers, but both can wrestle face or heel against any style. Both are great at brawling, too, so this would be a great match to watch. Hart has said that Orton is the best in the ring at the moment and if Randy could say anything else than "my name...is Randy Orton", he might say the same about Hart.

I am giving it to Hart, by virtue of Orton not being able to scale the pole, or do his finisher, without the use of his legs. If Hart gets RKO'ed early on, maybe Orton can get the weapon, but also remember that climbing anything in the WWE takes ten times longer than usual, while Bret recovers and pulls Randy down from there. Orton's punt is very well-suited to this stipulation, but again, if his legs are shot, he's out.

 

[jmt225]

There's a reason why Bret has won this thing twice. You make a top 50 list of the greatest matches of all time... Bret's on it as much as anyone. That plus the fact that he pretty much made Steve Austin into what he became, which was the predominant figure in the biggest and most profitable boom period WWE has ever had, definitely makes the guy a top 5 GOAT, where an argument could be made he's #1.

I like Orton a lot, one of my favorite in pro wrestling today, but he doesn't hold a candle to Bret and never will.

As far as a kayfabe match is concerned... if these guys fight 10 times, I easily see Bret winning 6 or 7 of those matches. Orton's character is tough as nails, creative, and will go to any cost to win a match, but that isn't enough to depend on him to beat a guy like Bret Hart in a situation like this. Bret would come into this match with a gameplan, and there would be nothing Orton would be able to do that would make Bret break said gameplan. Bret would find a way to win. Orton puts up a great fight, no doubt about it, but this is Bret Hart we're talking about here. He's too smart, technically sound, and physically gifted to lose a match like this to a guy like Randy Orton.

 

[deem]

I mean, between his first title win and the start of 2012 there have been 80 WWE PPV's - Orton's either main evented or had a World Title match in 53 of them. 53/80 PPVs!

I couldn't be bothered at the time as that was hugely time consuming, but I'll expend on this now in case anyone is interested in how Bret's figures compare to this, from his first title win until he left WWE. I know Orton had two titles to play with compared to Brets one, but 80% of his title run was with the WWE championship, not the World Heavyweight Title.

Number of PPV's Bret worked between Survivor Series 1992 and Survivor Series 1997 - 36
Number of WWE matches or main events in that time - 23

So 53/80 for Orton against 23/36 for Bret. 66% for Orton, 64% for Hart.

In a roster as weak as the mid 90s, as everyone has acknowledged, I think that's pretty bad for a guy that should of been the undisputed ace during that time. It's hard to factor in how relevant the second title is for Orton's success, but when you think of the number of main eventers he is competing with to challenge/hold one of two titles, compared to how thin Bret's roster was, I still say this leans towards Randy.

I think a vote for Bret is completely justified too btw, I just think Randy has more kayfabe accomplishments, has had the better career and has the edge in this type of match. Plus, he's great on the big stage vs scientific wrestlers as I posted up there a bit

Vote whoever you want. I think Randy.

 

[Loveless]

I'll make this short

Orton is essentially a crappier version of Austin

Hart beats Austin at Wrestlemania 13
Hart beats Austin at Final Four
Hart eliminates Austin from the 97 Rumble
Hart beats Austin Survivor Series 96
Austin beats Hart never.

Orton is outclassed and would be dismantled. Anyone who says otherwise either isn't old enough to remember that far back or they've got a rose-tinted view of the present.

 

[deem]

I'll make this short

Orton is essentially a crappier version of Austin

Hart beats Austin at Wrestlemania 13
Hart beats Austin at Final Four
Hart eliminates Austin from the 97 Rumble
Hart beats Austin Survivor Series 96
Austin beats Hart never.

Orton is outclassed and would be dismantled. Anyone who says otherwise either isn't old enough to remember that far back or they've got a rose-tinted view of the present.

I mean point taken, Hart was vastly dominant over Austin. Orton isn't Austin, he is worse and works a similar style though, so it's a fair point.

I'd like to point out the one time Austin beat Hart on PPV though.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x92lvq_steve-austin-vs-bret-hart-pt-3_sport#.UVpYtJNO8oo

Particularly the part where, after Austin's been laid out by a steel chair, Hart retrieves a metal object from a pole and tries to hit him with it. Sure goes well for him.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

This is a close one! My initial thought was that any match involving a weapon is going to favour Orton, due to the sadistic side of his character and his love for causing serious injury.

However, looking at it more closely I think its impossible to rule out Bret Hart in something like this, as his Sharpshooter can greatly affect Orton's ability to climb and Bret is pretty tough anyway and will be using his intelligence and skill to try and keep one step ahead of Orton in this.

When you look at their resumes, they do look quite evenly matched. I always thought Orton would be THE GUY while he was in Evolution and while he has achieved a vast amount of success since then, I have never thought of him as having fully achieved his potential. Hart, however is always thought of as one of the greatest ever, and rightly so.

I think he has enough in his locker to defeat Randy here, but not before taking alot of punishment.

Winner- Bret "The Hitman" Hart

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I mean point taken, Hart was vastly dominant over Austin. Orton isn't Austin, he is worse and works a similar style though, so it's a fair point.

I'd like to point out the one time Austin beat Hart on PPV though.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x92lvq_steve-austin-vs-bret-hart-pt-3_sport#.UVpYtJNO8oo

Particularly the part where, after Austin's been laid out by a steel chair, Hart retrieves a metal object from a pole and tries to hit him with it. Sure goes well for him.

Aw, come on - play fair! At least point out that SC only won by disqualification.

People like to discredit Hart (and Michaels for that matter) over how poorly the WWF did when they were headliners but conveniently forget how significant Bret (and, again, Shawn) was in creating the one character that can legitimately challenge Hulk Hogan as the biggest ever wrestling name in the World and the fact is that every clean win went to the Hitman. He overcame the original cutter using snake, he'd overcome this generations version too.