HBK: 'From the Vault'

[Terje Rindal]

The UKFF needs more threads of this nature and I am sure that Terje will be in full agreeance with this.

Indeed. So let's keep it alive..

It may have been 'on another level' but it was certainly far from being a 'rare quality'......Young children saw Bret as role-model whom they could look up to and idolise (almost like they did with Hogan). Here was someone who was the epitomy of a model human being: straight laced, sensible, self respecting and...plain.

I disagree with the 'plain' tag. As you said, Bret became a true role model, and if he was just a plain human being, that wouldn't have happened. Bret was closer to a 'real person' than Shawn was, as Shawn was so, in lack of a better word, unreachable. Bret was the type of superhero that you could hope to be yourself one day. Shawn was like Superman; cool to watch, but really just a fictional character. It all depends how you define 'rare quality' I guess, but if Bret didn't have any of that, what do you make of guys like Billy Kidman ?

There was no 'edge' to Bret and his 1997 heel turn was made only memorable because of how the fans had slowly began to turn on him and favour the anti-hero Stone Cold.

While that was one of the reasons his heel stint was memorable, it's far from the only one. During this time, Bret cut some of the best promos ever heared in wrestling. I've said before that Bret's best promos blew Flair's best away, and Shawn definitely never came close. What made the heel turn the most memorable for me has to be the realness of it all. Here wasn't a guy who was pissed because he got turned on by a partner or because some psychopath had thrown a snake at him. The American society was changing, and WWF used that to perfection for their storyline.

Have to disagree with you here. It does revert back to personal preference yet again and it is a close call, but for me Michaels matches with Mankind, Undertaker and Razor were 'Match of the Year' winners for their respective years. Bret vs Owen at Wrestlemania X was sensational but over-shadowed by the show-stealing Ladder match which really captured the imagination of wrestling fans the world around.

I assume you're only talking about WWF here ? If not, I don't see any of them as a Match of the Year. Let's break them down:1994 - I agree that Shawn/Razor should be WWF MOTY. While today, Bret/Owen holds up much better than the ladder match, on that day in MSG, Shawn stole the show. There were several matches better outside of the WWF though; most notably Misawa/Kawada, and several AAA matches involving Love Machine. 1995 - I'd also have Shawn/Razor as WWF MOTY, as this was the most disapointing year of the 1990's for Bret. If you count the rest of the world, nothing can come close to the June AJPW tag. 1996 - I have both Shawn/Diesel and Bret/Austin over the Mankind match, not sure which one I'd place at the top. For the rest of the world, the AJPW RWTL finals and Liger/Otani from March smoked all of them. I'd also say Rey/Juvi from ECW was a better bout, but it's close.1997 - I have Bret/Austin miles ahead of Shawn/Undertaker. I've written it all before, but I consider the WM13 classic to be the finest bout ever in North America. The emotion, storyline, psychology, innovation, announcing, crowd heat, special ref, blood; all toppeled with a fantastic performance by Bret puts this match in a league of it's own. Probably the only WWF match ever I'd give the MOTY tag to. As good as the Misawa/Kobashi tiple crown change was, it couldn't possibly come close to this.

As much as I appreciate what you're trying to imply, the lack of anything tangible to even indicate that this was the case means that the theory doesn't carry any weight at all. None of us know what happened but I strongly doubt that this was the reason for the match dragging early on, and if anything I may suspect it was the opposite. Bret as the more experienced in this situation wanted to show his excellence and insisted that he would general and carry the match largely by himself. Makes sense as the match only really got going towards the end when we saw HBK go into big bumping, fast paced mode which had been missing from the earlier exchanges.

Actually I really believe my version to be the right one. If it is as you imply, that Bret was in control over it until the end when Shawn took over, the mat work would have meant more. As many have said, for 40 minutes it was just two guys exhanging holds, with no build at all. If Bret had been in total control, he would have made sure that there actually was a story behind the mat work, which the match totally lacked. Judging from what we 'know' about Shawn's personality, it would be very typical of him to go down the cocky route and not admitt that he wasn't as good as Bret in that aspect.

The examples you have used here aren't necessarily the best. HBK took HHH to a decent slug-fest last year in only his fourth high profile match since March 1998. To do this despite the ring-rust which built up is impressive and although he looked less sharp than usual, it was a gutsy and hearty performance from Michaels. The Austin vs Benoit match was in 2001 when 'The Rattlesnake' was having the best matches of his career and the Summerslam 1992 epic was as Bret was on the verge of taking the main-event by storm. Neither instance is comparable to Armageddon on the grounds that Michaels had only worked a handful of matches in four years and was then forced to carry an injured HHH in a 30:00 plus battle that was gimmicked to the hilt.

I agree that Austin & Bret were on top of their game when doing those matches, but Terry Funk certainly wasn't. Here's a guy that had been out for several years, only to come back and engage in MOTYC's in no time. With a broken back to boot, I'd put that over what HBK did with HHH any day of the week.

[edgecrusher]

Iron Man - it wasn't the first; far from it. Also, it's widely known as the match that exposed Shawn of being the greatest worker on the planet. A person called one of the all-time greats should have been able to do any match asked of him (ESPECIALLY with an opponent the caliber of Bret Hart), but Shawn fell on his ass here.

But surely that goes both ways? Its extremely hard to believe that Bret had no input in the Iron Man match, especially when taken into account that Michaels did have a certain amount of professional respect for Bret. Both men have said that that was the case. Its just that they personally hated each other. I know the point is that Bret has gone 60 minute matches in the past and done good, while this was Shawn's only one and it wasn't as good, but surely Bret should have been able to do more with an opponent of Shawn's caliber? -with a loo brush

[Terje Rindal]

Its extremely hard to believe that Bret had no input in the Iron Man match, especially when taken into account that Michaels did have a certain amount of professional respect for Bret. Both men have said that that was the case.

Obviously Bret would have a lot of input in a match like that, but unless he had 100%, the other guys has to have some too. In Benoit/Austin, Benoit didn't have anything, and Austin controlled the traffic to perfection. Benoit came out looking stronger than ever. If Bret was given the green lights to do this, that would have been the case with Shawn too (providing Bret put his all into it like Austin did of course). If Bret started out with a game plan, only for Shawn to fuck it up several times, it's not Bret's fault that the match didn't go down well. You just have to see the 60 minute matches Bret had with Flair or Owen to see that Bret knew how to make it interesting. At this point in his career, Shawn didn't have the experience in a match like this, and if he wanted intput during the mat based part, that could have been enough to ruin it.I'm not going to sit here pretending to know as much about it as Bret & Shawn, but if it was up to me, I'd have Bret in 100% control of the mat based portions of the match, and giving them split control during the periods they would leave the mat to do the highspots. Shawn was as good, if not better, than Bret at highspots, so Nigel's comment about Shawn being the one to step it up in the later parts of the match is probably spot on.

[Guest Nigel Law]

It all depends how you define 'rare quality' I guess, but if Bret didn't have any of that, what do you make of guys like Billy Kidman ?

Kidman and Bret are two different kettle of fish but I can understand why you would draw comparisons between them at this point of the discussion. Whilst Kidman is flat out dull with no personality or colour, Bret was able to connect with the fans despite not posessing that much ballyhooed 'rare quality'. If anything what made people grow in appreciation for him was that he was normal, as you pointed out, he came across like a real-life human being. Just like me and you. HBK was on a pedestool and he did seem untouchable, because he had that 'x-factor', that indescribable presence which set him apart from everyone else. In wrestling a 'rare quality' is something that makes you stand out. Undertaker had it, Shawn Michaels had it and more recently The Rock and Stone Cold had it. Bret Hart didn't but that's not to say he wasn't a successful character, because he was, but in terms of doing something special that no-one else could, he just didn't have that unique quality. There will only ever be one Shawn Michaels, there's no doubts about that whatsoever, but do you honestly believe that Bret was so unique that we will never see someone achieve the same levels of success he did in that same role? Babyface Angle is a relevant comparison to draw to Hart because he comes across as a genuine person who has battled through injury and strife to become one of the biggest stars in the business. There are similarities between the two and so in my opinion this further adds weight to the argument against Bret possessing a 'rare quality' which no other worker could ever emulate.

I assume you're only talking about WWF here ? If not, I don't see any of them as a Match of the Year

Yes my comments about each match were relating to the WWF only. We agree that HBK took 'Match of the Year' honours in 1994 and 1995 with the two 'Ladder' matches against Razor, but for me he also took the award in 1996 and 1997 as well. '96 was the fantastic 'Mind Games' match with Cactus Jack which was absolutely tremendous and one of the WWF's slickest, diverse and ultimately most enjoyable matches of the 1990's. The psychology of how could HBK stop the crazed madman played out fantastically well and this was Michaels at his best as a babyface, getting the 'Kliq' behind him as he made his big comebacks throughout the course of the match. Bret vs Austin from Survivor Series was the runner-up but it just wasn't on the level of what Michaels and Foley did. 1997 is probably the toughest to call. On one hand you had the first ever 'Hell in a Cell' match which saw HBK and The Undertake assemble a gripping, bloody and innovative 30:00 brawl which was topped off by the emphatic arrival of Kane. However Austin vs Bret at Wrestlemania was another cracker which as you say, had all the elements necessary of a classic and was without doubt the match which really put Stone Cold on the map. Both were ****1/2 but I give the nod to HBK-Taker on personal preference only and nothing more. That's how close it is to call and both deserve the honours but for me, the 'Hell in a Cell' just pips it by a whisker.

Judging from what we 'know' about Shawn's personality, it would be very typical of him to go down the cocky route and not admitt that he wasn't as good as Bret in that aspect.

In what was the biggest match of both men's careers up to that point, I strongly doubt that Bret would have allowed HBK to take complete control of the match. There is no proof to suggest that Michaels wanted to general the early exchanges but if this was the case, then as the veteran then Bret should have been able to take charge if the match fell apart. My point is that because the first 3/4 of the contest was focused around headlocks and rest-holds, then as the more technical and experienced of the two men, 'The Hitman' is at fault for not rescuing the situation. Regardless of the negativity surrounding HBK and his attitude, if their Mania main-event was falling apart around them then I have no doubts that he would have swallowed his pride and allowed Bret to carry him, had it been a case of Michaels controlling the match. The fact that the last ten or fifteen minutes were excellent suggests to me that HBK came into his own and went all out to give fans their monies worth. We're both just surmising though and neither of us are right or wrong, but it's interesting to see how people can interpret a match differently.

[MrDanger]

The way I see it......both guys are equally to blame for the WresteMania debacle, clearly they didn't trust each other throughout the entire match and neither guy was willing to swallow their pride and drop their guard in order to let the match flow. Of course Bret was the veteran who had worked similar matches in the past so in theory he should have been the one who tried to rescue the match.....yet that didn't happen because A) Bret was clearly wary of Michaels past antics and was unwilling to put himself in a situation where he could look weak and B) Michaels wouldn't have let Bret boss the match anyway because it always had to be the "HBK Show".....which all led to the match stalling and ultimately not benefiting anybody involved.That’s my take.

[Terje Rindal]

In wrestling a 'rare quality' is something that makes you stand out. Undertaker had it, Shawn Michaels had it and more recently The Rock and Stone Cold had it.

The more I think about it, the more I think Bret had it too.I'd actually said he had it more than the Undertaker as all I saw in UT was a big man who was given a great gimmick. To his credit, he did very well with it, but I personally don't see any x-factor in him, outside of the gimmick. People always say this when talking about Bret, but the fact is that while he didn't have an over-the-top gimmick like Undertaker, his personality was much stronger, in my view.

There will only ever be one Shawn Michaels, there's no doubts about that whatsoever, but do you honestly believe that Bret was so unique that we will never see someone achieve the same levels of success he did in that same role?

I strongly disagree with that. There may not be another Shawn Michaels for many years to come, but he'll come around. Michaels is basically just a 90's version of the 1960's Buddy Rogers and the 1980's Ric Flair. Great workers, classic bouts, a ton of charisma, innovation, heel tactics, carrying ability -- they all fit under the same banner. Ditto with Bret. Go back to some Lou Thesz matches of the 50's & 60's, Jack Brisco from the 70's. They were their era's Bret Hart's. Not the over-the-top gimmicks, but loads of HUMAN personality, and fantastic wrestlers.

There are similarities between the two

While there are some similarity between Bret and Angle, there's far more differences in my view. My thoughts on Bret compared to Angle are well known to those who know me, but to make it short; I'd put Bret miles above him. There's several reasons, the main one being the realness that Bret had.

Both were ****1/2

I wouldn't hesitate to call Hart/Austin a *****++ match, as I ahven't seen a better bout ever in North America. Out of interest, what matches do you find better than the ones we have discussed here; i.e above 4 1/2 ?

In what was the biggest match of both men's careers up to that point, I strongly doubt that Bret would have allowed HBK to take complete control of the match. There is no proof to suggest that Michaels wanted to general the early exchanges but if this was the case, then as the veteran then Bret should have been able to take charge if the match fell apart.

Yeah, but that wasn't my point in the first place.Michaels wouldn't have the experience at that point to carry a long mat based match, so there's no way he should have had 100% control over it. My point was that Bret should have directed it, but Shawn wanted in, and thus it became a clash. When you have two experienced mat wrestlers like Bret, Owen, Flair or Steamboat that wasn't a problem, but Shawn was never about mat wrestling, and thus didn't really have a clue on how to do a match that long.

The fact that the last ten or fifteen minutes were excellent suggests to me that HBK came into his own and went all out to give fans their monies worth.

Yeah, but that portion of the match was about highspots and near falls, and no one is suggesting that that wasn't one of Shawn's strong points. The point I was making is that he should have let Bret direct the first part of the match, in order to build for the finish. Had he let Bret do that, and also let Bret give the go ahead for when to leave the mat at various points in the match, and also decide when they were gonna leave the mat for good to take it to the highspot/near fall galore, where they would both have a lot of say in what to do, I'm sure it would have been a much better match.Have to say writing so much about this match really makes me want to dig it out, as I haven't watched it in ages. Had I only had some sort of system to my tape collection

[Guest Nigel Law]

I'd actually said he had it more than the Undertaker as all I saw in UT was a big man who was given a great gimmick

The Undertaker gimmick was one which could have gone wrong because of the farcical nature of the character. It took someone with a strong personality and presence to pull it off, which Mark Calloway did to ground-breaking success. I will admit that the gimmick itself was excellent, but it takes a strong persona to make a character unique to said worker, and there are no doubts that Calloway took the ball and went with it. It would be false to say that he was a 'big man' surviving on a strong character, because he brought that something special to the table, which shone through in light of the revolutionary gimmick.

I strongly disagree with that. There may not be another Shawn Michaels for many years to come, but he'll come around.

Drawing comparisons between Michaels, Rogers and Flair isn't accurate. The similarites with Thesz (in particular) and Bret are relevant which rubber-stamps the point I was making about the lack of a unique quality. This is in no way designed to be a knock on Bret, it's just that he didn't have that 'something special' in terms of a great character which made him stand out. He was a fantastic role-model because he was someone who children could admire and respect but that doesn't mean that he had a 'rare quality'. As a worker he may very well have possessed something very special, but the character is a little dry and too normal (for want of a better word) to be considered unique.

I wouldn't hesitate to call Hart/Austin a *****++ match, as I ahven't seen a better bout ever in North America. Out of interest, what matches do you find better than the ones we have discussed here; i.e above 4 1/2 ?

If we are talking only in terms of the WWF, then I would say that Savage vs Steamboat was as close to a ***** match as you are going to see. Michaels vs Undertaker, Bret vs Austin, The Rock vs Austin (WM X-7), Michaels vs Razor and Michaels vs Mankind are all hovering around the ****1/2-****3/4 mark.

My point was that Bret should have directed it, but Shawn wanted in, and thus it became a clash

This is nothing more than speculation. We don't know that HBK 'wanted in' and it's equally as plausible that Bret simply had a bad day at the office, or that both men didn't click and the match suffered as a result. There's no point in playing any more games of 'what if' because we do not know what went wrong. What I do know however, is that the final minutes of the match were made bearable by a vintage HBK display, regardless of who was to blame for their mat exchanges losing direction. He may have left Bret lead the opening half of the match, we simply do not know and you can't build a firm argument without any proof of your claim whatsoever. Granted Bret did have some excellent 60:00 matches both for his father and the WWF, but he was in there with two mat guru's who themselves were superior on the ground than he was. Is it not possible that Bret allowed Flair and Owen to dictate their respective matches and as a result was lost when given the task of generalling the Wrestlemania 12 epic? Just to play Devil's Advocate. . .

[bobbins]

Drawing comparisons between Michaels, Rogers and Flair isn't accurate. The similarites with Thesz (in particular) and Bret are relevant which rubber-stamps the point I was making about the lack of a unique quality. This is in no way designed to be a knock on Bret, it's just that he didn't have that 'something special' in terms of a great character which made him stand out. He was a fantastic role-model because he was someone who children could admire and respect but that doesn't mean that he had a 'rare quality'. As a worker he may very well have possessed something very special, but the character is a little dry and too normal (for want of a better word) to be considered unique.

What qualities did Shawn have to separate him from every other headliner in wrestling history?

If we are talking only in terms of the WWF, then I would say that Savage vs Steamboat was as close to a ***** match as you are going to see. Michaels vs Undertaker, Bret vs Austin, The Rock vs Austin (WM X-7), Michaels vs Razor and Michaels vs Mankind are all hovering around the ****1/2-****3/4 mark.

As much as I love both guys, Savage-Steamboat isn't in the same stratosphere as Bret-Owen (WMX), Austin-Bret (WM13) or Austin-Bret (Survivors 96) IMO.

Is it not possible that Bret allowed Flair and Owen to dictate their respective matches and as a result was lost when given the task of generalling the Wrestlemania 12 epic?

No. Watch Bret's shoot tape.

[Guest Nigel Law]

What qualities did Shawn have to separate him from every other headliner in wrestling history?

This was covered in great detail earlier in the thread, so there is no point in re-posting the same material all over again. It should be around page three or four if you're interested.

As much as I love both guys, Savage-Steamboat isn't in the same stratosphere as Bret-Owen (WMX), Austin-Bret (WM13) or Austin-Bret (Survivors 96) IMO.

I'd like you to back your comments up here. You make a claim but don't support it with any reasoning or explanation as to why you conform to said school of thought. For me Savage-Steamboat was revoultionary by WWF standards at the time and it set the bar for a whole generation of workers to aspire to meet. Whilst the matches you mentioned were excellent, they didn't have nearly as much of a direct impact on the business as Savage-Steamboat. A mouth-watering wrestling match which is still considered by many, over fifteen years later, to be amongst the best in company history, a feat which I doubt either Austin-Bret clash will manage to achieve.

No. Watch Bret's shoot tape.

Again you are being much too vague for this to lead to a sensible discussion. Go into a little more detail about what was said and I will comment on it accordingly. I'm pretty sure I have the Bret shoot video in my collection somewhere, so I may have to dig it up, but it won't change my mind as what is said in a shoot isn't necessarily anything close to the reality of a matter.

[BionicRedneck]

For me Savage-Steamboat was revoultionary by WWF standards at the time and it set the bar for a whole generation of workers to aspire to meet.

Cool, so it was revolutionary. That doesn't mean that many matches that came after it weren't better.

Whilst the matches you mentioned were excellent, they didn't have nearly as much of a direct impact on the business as Savage-Steamboat.

Steamer-Savage had more impact than Hart-Austin at WM 13?!!!

A mouth-watering wrestling match which is still considered by many, over fifteen years later, to be amongst the best in company history, a feat which I doubt either Austin-Bret clash will manage to achieve.

I have absolutely no doubt that people will still talk about the Submission Match as one of the best American matches ever for decades to come. No doubt whatsoever. It practically made (arguably) the biggest wrestler ever, it was a fantastic match and Bret Hart turned heel. And it smokes Savage-Steamboat.

[Terje Rindal]

It would be false to say that he was a 'big man' surviving on a strong character, because he brought that something special to the table, which shone through in light of the revolutionary gimmick.

Undertaker was given a great gimmick, and did it to perfection. But if you think he had more 'rare quality' than Bret did, should he have been able to be a successful wrestler if given the name Mark 'Hitman' Calloway too ? You don't honestly think that would be the case, do you ?

Drawing comparisons between Michaels, Rogers and Flair isn't accurate. The similarites with Thesz (in particular) and Bret are relevant which rubber-stamps the point I was making about the lack of a unique quality.

How can you say the Rogers/Michaels comparison isn't accurate, yet Thesz/Hart is ?! Watching the tapes I see way more of HBK in Rogers than I do of Bret in Thesz. Watching a Rogers match makes it very clear that he was the HBK of his era, I can't possibly see how you can dispute that. Everything Rogers did, Michaels took a few steps further 30 years later. Just watch the tapes.

Granted Bret did have some excellent 60:00 matches both for his father and the WWF, but he was in there with two mat guru's who themselves were superior on the ground than he was. Is it not possible that Bret allowed Flair and Owen to dictate their respective matches and as a result was lost when given the task of generalling the Wrestlemania 12 epic?

No. Your 'Bret had a bad day at the office' theory might be a valid one, but there's no doubt in my mind that he was a much better mat wrestler than both Flair and Owen. There's really no comparison to Bret & Flair in that aspect at all. With Owen, there might be, as he was a very good amateur wrestler, but rarely (if ever) showed any mat skills even close to Bret after he turned pro.

Whilst the matches you mentioned were excellent, they didn't have nearly as much of a direct impact on the business as Savage-Steamboat. A mouth-watering wrestling match which is still considered by many, over fifteen years later, to be amongst the best in company history, a feat which I doubt either Austin-Bret clash will manage to achieve.

That's a very strange thing to say. Austin/Hart had 10 times the impact Savage/Stemaboat had. Not only did it create Austin as the next worldwide superstar and turn Bret into one of the most believable heels of the past decade all in the space of one match, it also revelusionized WWF style wrestling, as this was the first match to feature a brawl into the crowd. While I loved the WM3 match, I can't really see much long-term impact in it. And I'm confident that the Hart/Austin submission match will be talked about for a very long time.

[Guest Nigel Law]

You don't honestly think that would be the case, do you ?

Absolutely not, but you've missed my case entirely. Calloway had a 'rare quality' which allowed him to shine in the 'Taker gimmick but it was the total opposite to what you are saying Bret had. He had the presence and aura of a monster -which few giants really possess- which fitted in superbly as 'The Deadman', so therefore his character was convincing and successful. Out of interest, how many other big men do you believe would have achieved the same level of success as Calloway had they been given the 'Taker gimmick? So no, had Calloway been given the 'Hitman' name then he wouldn't have made it big, simply because the character was light-years away from the qualities and talent he brought to the table.

How can you say the Rogers/Michaels comparison isn't accurate, yet Thesz/Hart is ?!

There are more comparisons to be drawn between Thesz and Bret than there is from HBK and Rogers. The straight-shooting, focused, mat technician who could get the job done in the ring: the similarities were most definately there and I doubt few would argue with this. Comparing Rogers to Flair and then to Michaels is something which has been done a lot over the years and although I see where it comes from, I don't necessarily agree with it. The Rogers and Flair association is valid right down to the 'Nature Boy' gimmick but what Michaels did with his character is so far gone from this. If anything the 'Nature Boy' was a basis from which the 'Heartbreak Kid' was formed but HBK made the character so incredibly unique that it is hard to draw many comparisons. In fairness to Bret however, he himself took what Thesz had done to the next level, but I still consider there to be more grounds for analysis there than between Rogers and HBK.

Your 'Bret had a bad day at the office' theory might be a valid one, but there's no doubt in my mind that he was a much better mat wrestler than both Flair and Owen.

Or perhaps another argument is that Bret wanted to do too much?! He saw this as his opportunity to prove to everyone in the WWF that he was infanitely superior to HBK and so he demanded that he general the mat-work. Not having someone the calibre of Flair or Owen on the ground in there with him, he struggled and as a result it fell to pieces, only picking up momentum whenever Michaels went into over-drive towards the end. Again though we have no idea of knowing what the case is, so it's just a case of surmising and bashing out possible theories which sound plausible.

Austin/Hart had 10 times the impact Savage/Stemaboat had.

This is something I have a problem with. Whilst Austin/Hart was a fantastic brawl which had one of the most effective finishes in WWF history, it has since been overshadowed by the fall out from it. It wasn't necessarily the match which had the impact but more the fact that Austin had arrived as a true superstar. Even today people talk about it less than they do about Savage-Steamboat, which as a match is still considered amongst the best of all time. It is true that people have overlooked the actual Bret/Austin match, whilst there is no doubt that the outcome will ever be forgotten, so I can't honestly imagine it being talked about for years to come.

[BionicRedneck]

It wasn't necessarily the match which had the impact but more the fact that Austin had arrived as a true superstar.

But the match made Austin into that superstar.

Even today people talk about it less than they do about Savage-Steamboat, which as a match is still considered amongst the best of all time.

Who? Who are these people? If you ask the average person here they will mention Hart-Austin before Savage-Steamboat. I wouldn't say Savage-Steamboat is still considered amongst the best matches of all time, either.

It is true that people have overlooked the actual Bret/Austin match, whilst there is no doubt that the outcome will ever be forgotten, so I can't honestly imagine it being talked about for years to come.

The average internet fan talk about that match today more than they talk about Savage-Steamboat. They don't just talk about Austin becoming a superstar after it. They talk about the match. Because the match was fucking great.

[Terje Rindal]

Out of interest, how many other big men do you believe would have achieved the same level of success as Calloway had they been given the 'Taker gimmick?

I'm not gonna argue that point, as there's no doubt that Calloway did everything to perfection and deserves a tremendous amount of respect for it. While the gimmick could have flopped, he made sure it didn't. The reason I think Bret is way ahead of him in this aspect is that Bret managed to shine through playing a character that was very close to his real life persona, which Calloway couldn't. In my view, the character made Calloway more successful than Calloway made the character.

The Rogers and Flair association is valid right down to the 'Nature Boy' gimmick

That's just on the outside. Kinda like 'Goldberg was an Austin wannabe cause he had black trunks and shaved his head', only it's true. It's very easy to compare the two due to the Nature Boy gimmicks, but that's just the beginning.

but what Michaels did with his character is so far gone from this.

If anything the 'Nature Boy' was a basis from which the 'Heartbreak Kid' was formed but HBK made the character so incredibly unique that it is hard to draw many comparisons.

How exactly ? To me, they're basically the same, with Michaels taking it up a few notches. What Rogers did in the 50's & 60's, Flair topped in the 80's. What Flair did in the 80's, Michaels took one step further in the 90's. The bumping style, the selling, the cockyness, the carrying ability, the ladies man gimmick. What did Michaels do with his character that made it so unique ?

Or perhaps another argument is that Bret wanted to do too much?! He saw this as his opportunity to prove to everyone in the WWF that he was infanitely superior to HBK and so he demanded that he general the mat-work. Not having someone the calibre of Flair or Owen on the ground in there with him, he struggled and as a result it fell to pieces

It's a possibility, but I doubt it. While Michaels wasn't a Flair on the mat, he wasn't exactly useless either.

only picking up momentum whenever Michaels went into over-drive towards the end.

I think you're going on a bit too much about this point, and how Shawn 'saved' the match at the end. It's very natural that a match like this would end in such a fashion it did, with the highspots, near falls and drama. No one is disputing that this was one of Shawn's strongest points, and I don't see anything he did as any sort of unique at all. If anything, he just did what was expected of him -- nothing more, nothing less. To me, praising Shawn for 'saving the match' at the end is just like praising a taxi driver for driving you home from the airport, taken to the extreme. This was what Shawn was SUPPOSED to do, and he didn't do it in any sort of memorable way at all. In other words; he was just doing his job.

Whilst Austin/Hart was a fantastic brawl which had one of the most effective finishes in WWF history, it has since been overshadowed by the fall out from it. It wasn't necessarily the match which had the impact but more the fact that Austin had arrived as a true superstar.

Yeah, but to me that is missing a point behind any match. If you judge a match purely on the workrate, pacing, moves etc, I guess you could put Savage/Steamboat above it, but that misses the point about the whole WM13 classic. Even their Survivor Series match was better in that regard. But this match WAS about the outcome, the double turn, the occation, the history created. The way they both played it to perfection and how well it created the future of the WWF is what makes the match the all time greatest, not for any amount of moves they did/didn't do. It's like that old question; if two indy wrestlers today presented a mirror-like presentation of Misawa-Kawada 3.6.94 with all the exact same moves, would it be as good a match ? Like with Hart/Austin, not at all, because that's not what that match was about. In most ways, Steamboat/Savage WAS about the moves, sequences and near falls -- which makes it come up short against WM13. Edited September 21, 2003 by Terje Rindal

[bobbins]

What qualities did Shawn have to separate him from every other headliner in wrestling history?

This was covered in great detail earlier in the thread, so there is no point in re-posting the same material all over again. It should be around page three or four if you're interested.

Yeah I've read the whole thread. So Shawn was a big-bumping, hugely entertaining, charismatic guy with flashy moves for his time, and his own style of showboating? I'll even go a step further than you and say that he has great psychology. (Nothing wrong with the nip-up, it's called babyface fire) Does all this make him a great wrestler? Yes. Does it make him unique? No.

I'd like you to back your comments up here. You make a claim but don't support it with any reasoning or explanation as to why you conform to said school of thought. For me Savage-Steamboat was revoultionary by WWF standards at the time and it set the bar for a whole generation of workers to aspire to meet. Whilst the matches you mentioned were excellent, they didn't have nearly as much of a direct impact on the business as Savage-Steamboat. A mouth-watering wrestling match which is still considered by many, over fifteen years later, to be amongst the best in company history, a feat which I doubt either Austin-Bret clash will manage to achieve.

Savage-Steamboat was revolutionary by WWF standards at the time, because WWF in-ring standards were pretty abysmal at the time. There had never been a match like it since the expansion, and wasn't a match like it for another 5 years (aside from the Harts-Bulldogs matches, which weren't on a big enough stage to create the same legend as Savage-Steamboat). Savage-Steamboat is only the greatest match in WWF history to those who say there were 93,173 fans there to see it. Seriously, watch it again, then compare it to Flair-Windham Battle of the Belts II from a year earlier. Bret-Austin (WM13), Rock-Austin (WM17) and even Savage-Warrior (WM7) tell far deeper stories and encourage far more emotional involvement than what was nothing more than a really good, show-stealing mid-card match.As for impact on the business. You're kidding right, if Steamboat-Savage had been a snoozefest, nothing would have changed (except maybe Savage's push). If Austin and Bret had screwed up the submission match and double turn, Nitro might still be winning the ratings. (OK they would've imploded either way, but you see my point)

Again you are being much too vague for this to lead to a sensible discussion. Go into a little more detail about what was said and I will comment on it accordingly. I'm pretty sure I have the Bret shoot video in my collection somewhere, so I may have to dig it up, but it won't change my mind as what is said in a shoot isn't necessarily anything close to the reality of a matter.

I heartily apologise to you, good sir, on my earlier discretions. If you felt I was being curt, I must assure you that was not the case. My preferences in these situations tend to err on the side of brevity, as I find excessive verbosity on a wrestling message board to be somewhat pleonastic. I'd be amazed if anyone thought that Bret wasn't telling the truth in his shoot, but my point was this. Do you really think Owen would have wanted to control a match with Bret? Nevermind the fact that Bret wouldn't have let him. Bret mentions in his shoot his problems with Flair's psychology. Being the babyface in all of those matches, he probably would have allowed himself to be led slightly however. But if you think about it, every Bret Hart match in history has had matwork that has made sense and told a story and led somewhere else. Every match except that one he had with the egomaniac that had never done any slow-build matwork in his life, but was determined to steal the show and even show up his opponent. It doesn't take a quantity surveyor to work out whose fault it was that the match was a bit of a mess. Edited September 21, 2003 by bobbins