Jump to content

Bret hart


Jimmy Boy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members

Great post there air_raid, sums up a lot my thoughts and points I was going to address. Only I do consider Bret the best ever and certainly the benchmark. Guys who I'd consider the top 5 could change one day to the next because it would be too close to call, but Bret would always be on top of that list.

 

Nobody has ever made me believe quite like Bret could and had me as emotionally invested. Which for me is the true art of pro-wrestling. People mock him for taking himself , The Hitman, his career and pro-wrestling too seriously but I wish more guys did if if produces the kind of work he produced. Just so fucking believable, it always felt real with Bret and like wrestling wasn't something to be ashamed of, even though you knew they were essentially play fighting.

 

He was a genius in the ring for me. Understood the art of telling a story in the ring, with your body like few else. Incredibly creative, particularly with finishes. He was at just a phenomenal level in 1997, my favourite year of any wrestler ever. But he was phenomenal long before that, all through the 90s in fact. King of the Ring '93 is an incredible piece of work and the answer to dismiss the criticisms that he always wrestled the same match, a nonsense claim by people who must watch with their eyes closed or simply don't understand wrestling in the slightest and think those non-stop finisher, near fall matches equals good wrestling. Austin vs Bret is the greatest thing in wrestling ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bret Hart match finishes were brilliant, yes. I loved how his matches could come out of nowhere (Bulldog SS92, Owen WM10 being the obvious examples) where he can lose clean, yet the fan that I was could feel sorry for him for losing as he just got caught out... You didn't see Bret in his prime take someone's finish and stare at the lights in a big match situation. He was the little dog who kept on fighting and you could absolutely get behind that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
So with that, I'd have him alongside the Macho Mans and Roddy Pipers of the world

Roddy Piper and Randy Savage drew more money than Triple H and Shawn Michaels did. And probably the Undertaker, considering there's little proof Undertaker was a stand alone draw in his prime.Special attraction draw, yes. But Undertaker was always second or third fiddle. Savage and Piper were worldwide stars who drew house show and PPV revenue for years on end spanning different eras and did it outside the WWF machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Bret will always be up there as one of the best ever, and what makes him so great is I couldn't really tell you why he was so great. Bret was all about the little things and making them mean something. He can always draw me in and make me care with and about the most subtle of things. I'm a big fan of both he and Shawn but Bret was all about the little things.

 

It's sad to see what I have of Bret in WCW where he seems to be just treading water, seemingly without that fire he once had. Yes he's in the main tagging with Hulk but those little things have gone and it's sad to know they aren't coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really rate him. Objectively, he obviously did well enough to hold the on-off top spot in the WWF for five years and he built an army of devoted fans who still love his work, so he was very good at what he did. It just wasn't for me. I think I liked him at SummerSlam '91, but by the following WrestleMania, I couldn't stand him. He was boring, and for a babyface, he ended up fighting my faves, which turned me more against him. Piper, Bulldog, Perfect. Him beating Perfect at King of the Ring annoyed me no end. He was either involved in stuff I didn't much care about or he was wrestling people I liked much better than him. I did prefer Bret to Michaels in their 1992 feud because he was the least littlenancyboyish of the two, but by the time '96 rolled around, I was firmly in camp HBK. I was quite into his heel turn in '97, but I don't find it anywhere near as great as everyone else seems to. I found Bret's matches a bit of a slog at the time, so trying to rewatch them now is a chore. I didn't realise this until I spent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's probably best remembered by the casual for the Screwjob and that awful Simpsons cameo.

 

By "casual" do you mean "people that weren't actually watching when Bret was active"? There's a big difference. Yes, people that have become fans within the last 15 years and know what they know of Bret because of WWE's output on him since will think of Bret as someone that won the World title 5 times - which isn't impressive by today's standards - and was screwed by Vince. Someone that was "also around" when Hogan was on top, when Shawn was on top, when Austin was getting near the top.

 

Speaking of which, if you think more people remember that Simpsons appearance than they do the Austin matches and USA/Canada feud from the same time period, you're a clown.

Yeah, that was pretty much what I meant. A casual WWE fan who might have watched it more during the Austin/Rock days, who will watch it now if they see it on telly, but won't go out of their way to check out wrestling's history, and haven't been watching for the last 15-20 years, as I'm sure most on here have.

 

I was kind of joking about the Simpsons thing, but it was a comment on Bret's mainstream appeal- he didn't have the charisma of a Austin, Rock or Hogan, or the presence of an Andre or Undertaker. You could say those 5 names to practically anyone and get some sign of recognition, I wouldn't say the same for Hart.

 

Fair points on Savage and Piper, they have had success outside the WWF in movies and such. Pointing to their drawing power over Hart is a tad unfair though IMO, more often than not their biggest draws were against Hogan, yes? Have they been positioned as the bigger star and drawn, or have they always had the benefit of a better supporting cast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you guys think of the Hitman and whereabouts he stands in wrestling history?! Was he really one of the best of all time?! We all know he has a big opinion of himself but is it all justified?! He was always my favourite growing up and had so many great matches over the years, always loved the hart foundation stuff in the mid 1980's too! Was just intrigued to see what others actually think of him, as he's always talked about as being one of the best

 

 

the best there is the best there was and the best there ever will be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Fair points on Savage and Piper, they have had success outside the WWF in movies and such. Pointing to their drawing power over Hart is a tad unfair though IMO, more often than not their biggest draws were against Hogan, yes? Have they been positioned as the bigger star and drawn, or have they always had the benefit of a better supporting cast?

Roddy Piper drew money for years in Portland and elsewhere before being the lead heel in the WWF. Also his star was so big he was initially meant to be a commentator and a heel announcer because of his size (WWF being a big mans territory) but became the promotions top heel because of his power at the box office. He was as big a star as anyone during the MTV boom in 1985. Randy Savage sold out arenas throughout the country while Hulk Hogan was filming a movie in 1988. His title reign as a monster success and his program with Hogan hit dazzling heights. The WrestleMania V match must have been on average of how many people had pay-per-view access and how many people bought it the biggest show WWF ever did. And in WCW was credited as the person who turned their house show business around with his super hot run with Ric Flair (when Hogan wasn't doing house shows). Savage also had the distinction of being the face of WWF and WCW's major sponsor in the 90s. He is one of the most recognisable faces in wrestling history. In many ways they were massive names in spite of Hulk Hogan being the number one babyface.

 

Hulk Hogan couldn't make superstars out of Tiger Chung Lee and Lanny Poffo. Just because you work with Hogan doesn't mean he should be credited for your 20 years of drawing on top in a major promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Savage and his family buried Lawler and Jarrett for years in their outlaw promotion ICW. So when Savage actually turned up in Memphis, Lawler and Savage had two memorable feuds over the next few years built on their real life heat. Their first feud started off well but eventually dipped off. The second feud did bigger business than the first with Savage winning the mid-south title from Lawler and drawing sell outs at the Mid South Coliseum. Savage went straight to the WWF following a loser leaves town match with Lawler, so more often that not he was a star name in the promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Savage for me is one of the best of all time. He was a real all-rounder in terms of match quality, star power, intensity and image. He always looked larger than life. His selling was very believable (I really thought his knee was wrecked at SummerSlam '92), he had that voice which set him apart. And he was great as babyface or heel, he could get sympathy against the likes of Andre or Jake or could play the bastard with Elizabeth and against Hogan.

 

He had everything. People often credit Bret and Shawn for opening doors for smaller wrestlers in the WWF, which is fair enough, but Savage was a legit main event superstar in a proper land of giants in the late 80s. Back when Bret and Shawn were doing the tag team thing trying to break out, Savage was already there as a household name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...