Jump to content

The Bret Hart scoring system


Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)

HBK loses a point with each spammed kick out in a Takeover main event.

Bret loses all his points for that sit-down DVD he did with Shawn. That’s what I always come back to with those two. Despite clearly being both the better wrestler and better man overall, Bret manages to come off infinitely worse on that DVD by not admitting any fault whatsoever. Shawn’s out there holding his hands up and apologising for everything, whereas Bret just nods and continues to sulk. It’s amazing that I end up finding the druggy rapist more endearing.

Pat McAfee

Look - 7/10

Promos - 9/10

Work - 10/10

Edited by Supremo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have to apply The Albert Coefficient™ 

It’s a convoluted system that’s not worth thinking about. We should stick to the old-fashioned method, scoring out of 5 (maximum score 7).

I score HBK a 26, just because Bret is a moaning old fucker and HBK will always be better than him. It’s like D.C. and Jones. 

Hogan - look 10, promo 7, work 4 (21)

Austin - look 10, promo 9, work 6 (25) 

Rock - look 10, promo 10, work 6 (26)

Flair - look 7, promo 10, work 8 (25)

Bret - look 8, promo 7, work 10 (25)

Angle - look 8, promo 8, work 10 (26)

Guerrero - look 7, promo 7, work 10 (24)

Michaels - look 8, promo 7, work 10 (25)

Reigns - look 10, promo 7, work 8 (25)

Cena - look 10, promo 10, work 8 (28)

Undertaker - look 10, promo 5, work 8 (23)

Orton - look 10, promo 8, work 7 (25)

 

Personally I would rate Bret, Michaels, Rock and Flair over Cena but by Bret's rating system Cena wins out. I also take into account average performance NOT specific time periods (for example, Bret's promos aren't based on that magical 1997 he had nor was Hogan based on his technical matches in Japan circa 1990). 

Flair was a good worker but he had the same match every time. His matches with Sting are literally the same match over and over. 

Michaels promos weren't all that good at all. His look was good but he was on the small side for that era. 

Undertaker really gets let down by his promos - his 1996-2000 in particular were the shits. 

Orton is an interesting one. He has the look and an ok promo but his work is bland as fuck and he is very hit and miss with how good and motivated he is. 

Cena had a brilliant look, a solid promo and he had some blinders with Michaels, Angle, Edge, Rock, Punk, Lashley et al. 

Austin should have rated higher but his matches in his peak years were not good. Kick, punch, stunner. Sure the crowd loved it but I rarely go back to watch an Austin match (barring those with Bret). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

1987 Andre?

Probably right there. He looked mighty impressive but the rest of his act was meh. Maybe its looking back with 2020 eyes that gives him a dis-service.

Andre in 1987 - work 1-2/10, promo 2/10, look 7/10

 

I think Roddy Piper would also be pretty poor for a top level guy. Barring his brilliant promos. I would rate him:

look 4/10, promo 10/10, work 5/10. He simply had a few great showings but was a massive star for the actual level of ability he had. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
10 minutes ago, TheSurgeon said:

There has to be worse than Andre, even in 87, wouldn't he have a look of at least 8 still?

Generous. He just looked so broken. The poor bastard. Clearly his name meant plenty and the novelty and execution of the angle was brilliant. It drew but it breaks this "system".

9 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said:

I think Roddy Piper would also be pretty poor for a top level guy. Barring his brilliant promos. I would rate him:

look 4/10, promo 10/10, work 5/10. He simply had a few great showings but was a massive star for the actual level of ability he had. 

Piper looked great. You don't stand opposite Hulk Hogan in 1985 and have people take you serious if you don't look the part. His look declined but at his height, he was great. His work was good too. He only had great matches on occassion in the WWF but, again, you didn't get where he got without being able to work. It's another one where it's relative. Is he working like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels? No. Is he incredibly effective and drawing more money than they ever would? Yes. I'd have him at least 25 overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger_rick said:

Generous. He just looked so broken. The poor bastard. Clearly his name meant plenty and the novelty and execution of the angle was brilliant. It drew but it breaks this "system".

Piper looked great. You don't stand opposite Hulk Hogan in 1985 and have people take you serious if you don't look the part. His look declined but at his height, he was great. His work was good too. He only had great matches on occassion in the WWF but, again, you didn't get where he got without being able to work. It's another one where it's relative. Is he working like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels? No. Is he incredibly effective and drawing more money than they ever would? Yes. I'd have him at least 25 overall.

Thought Piper looked in good shape against the King at KOTR 94. Did Piper actually ever wrestle on weekly programming or was he just a big time attraction? 

Speaking of KOTR 94 😀

Razor Ramon Look 9, Promo 7, Work 7

Bam Bam Bigelow Look 7, Promo 5, Work 7

IRS Look 6, Promo 6, Work 7

Mabel Look 6, Promo 4, Work 3

Owen Hart Look 7, Promo 7, Work 9

Tatanka Look 8, Promo 6, Work 7

123 Kid Look 6, Promo 4, Work 8

Jeff Jarrett Look 8, Promo 8, Work 8

Diesel Look 8, Promo 9, Work 7

Bret Look 8, Promo 7, Work 9

Fatu Look 6, Promo 5, Work 6

Yokozuna Look 9, Promo 1 (or 9 if Jimmy Cornette), Work 6

Crush Look 8, Promo 6, Work 6

Roddy Piper Look 7, Promo 8, Work 6

Jerry Lawler Look 7, Promo 10, Work 7

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

It's a daft system really. I've never thought it's been a decent measure of ability. It's not as simple to gauge someone's quality as it makes out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

British Bulldog - look 8, promo 3, work 8 (19)

Ultimate Warrior - look 10, promo 7, work 3 (20)

Mick Foley - look 6, promo 8, work 7 (21)

Jericho - look 7, promo 8, work 7 (22)

Chris Benoit - look 7, promo 5, work 10 (22)

Undertaker - look 8, promo 6, work 8 (22)

Brock Lesner - look 10, promo 5, work 7 (22) 

Goldberg - look 10, promo 6, work 7 (23) 

HHH - look 8, promo 7, work 8 (23)

John Cena - look 8, promo 8, work 7 (23)

Sting - look 9, promo, 7, work 7 (23)

HBK - look 8, promo 6, work 10 (24)

Macho Man - look 9, promo 8, work 8 (25)

Ric Flair - look 8, promo 9, work 8 (25)

Hogan - look 9, promo 8, work 8 (25)

Kurt Angle - look 8, promo 8, work 10 (26)

Rock - look 9, promo 10, work 7 (26)

Austin- look 9, promo 9, work 8 (26)

 

Edited by IronSheik
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Weezenal said:

Who would be the most high profile with the worst of all three categories?

Based on those in the title picture or up against the company's top face in the main-event;

 

Andre 'The Giant' - 16/30 (Look: 9/10 - Promo: 4/10 - Wrestling: 3/10)

King Kong Bundy - 19/30 (Look: 8/10 - Promo: 5/10 - Wrestling: 6/10)

Zeus - 13/30 (Look: 8/10 - Promo: 3/10 - Wrestling: 2/10)

Vince McMahon - 18/30 (Look: 6/10 - Promo: 9/10 - Wrestling: 3/10)

Ludvig Borga - 15/30 (Look: 6/10 - Promo: 4/10 - Wrestling: 5/10)

 

Edited by AndiRush
Grammar Nazi - spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
9 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

Generous. He just looked so broken. The poor bastard. Clearly his name meant plenty and the novelty and execution of the angle was brilliant. It drew but it breaks this "system".

When I started watching the WWF properly in 1992/93, I was obviously aware of Andre but only got to see him after first being familiar with Yokozuna.

Obviously only having seen his 1987-90 stuff I remember thinking that Yoko was a way more impressive specimen than this French bloke that could hardly walk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...