Jump to content

Bret Hart or Kurt Angle


doinbadabing

Who is the better pro wrestler  

133 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

I think this is just down to personal preference and nothing else, maybe we're going into this a little too deep here i dunno. All i know is i'd rather watch Bret Hart than Kurt Angle. :)As someone just said Kurt works the style that WWE ask him to and that's fine, it's his job but with his character being like it is, the milk thing, virgin boy all that sort of stuff then he gets in the ring and wrestles like he does. He's a fantastic worker when it all comes down to it, but his character/wrestling skills aren't on the same wavelength. That doesn't make sense at all, but it does to me kinda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In that case, don't you think making those comparisons is unfair, because you're not comparing like for like?

I guess you could say that, but in that case, pretty much all comparisons are unfair. We can't compare Dynamite to Robinson as the best Brit ever, because they worked different places. No comparing Misawa to Kawada because one was always the top man and the other always the chaser. Sasuke vs Liger ? Liger was always in solid NJPW where as Sasuke was in spot based Michinoku Pro a lot. Flair vs Savage ? Savage was for the most part of his career in SE style WWF, where as Flair worked all the territories. See what I mean ? If you need to be 100% alike to have a fair comparson we could never have them at all. We can only judge Bret vs Angle based on what each man HAS done, as opposed to what he COULD have done. For the realness and storytelling; Bret did it. Angle didn't. Bret was a wrestler. Angle was an entertainer. Not fair maybe, but true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

We can only judge Bret vs Angle based on what each man HAS done, as opposed to what he COULD have done. For the realness and storytelling; Bret did it. Angle didn't. Bret was a wrestler. Angle was an entertainer. Not fair maybe, but true.

That's true, but considering Angle has only had since around June to work storyline-driven matches, the comparison is even more pointless about who was better in terms of believability (a Dusty Rhodes word) and storytelling.Also, watch Angle's matches with Lesnar, Austin, Benoit and The Rock, and then tell me he isn't a wrestler.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, watch Angle's matches with Lesnar, Austin, Benoit and The Rock, and then tell me he isn't a wrestler.

I have. I stand by my point. OK, to bulge a little: Angle is an entertainment wrestler. Bret or Flair went out there, and made you forget it's entertainment. When Angle or Edge comes out, it's all written on them; 'follow your character'. With Bret, you felt it was the real deal. With Edge, it just shines through that this is Adam Copeland, doing a character. Same with Angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest funaki2sweet

Bret always made you feel involved in his storylines and matches.He made them seem real, and made them seem as if they really mattered to him.Angle is an entertainer as everyone else has said - and I don't enjoy that kind of work as much as what Bret would produce.A convincing serious character is much more watchable IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so who's better: Shinjiro Otani or Mark Jindrak? But remember it's not fair to say Otani, because he's worked all over the world for over 10 years and has worked with some of the best wrestlers in the world, but Jindrak hasn't had the chance yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I think Terje made a comment in the HBK thread about Shawn's work being more accessible than Bret's and I think that applys here too. Because of their lack of substance, all-action nature and simpler use of psychology Angle's matches are far more easily digestible to the masses than Bret's were. Angle is like a blockbuster movie, hugely entertaining, easy and undemanding to watch and a great way to spend ninety minutes or so (or 15-20 in this case) :p But rarely demands repeat viewing and rarely stands the test of time. Bret on the other hand is like a deep character study, bulging with sub-text, his matches are like an emotional roller coaster ride but because of the mentally demanding nature is sometimes not an 'easy watch' but touches you emotionally in ways the blockbuster never could. Its like comparing Martin Scorsese to Jerry Bruckheimer, both undeniably great at what they do but saying the action-hack is superior to the true story teller is just mis-guided.

Superb analogy (I think that's the right word)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bret at this MOMENT, Kurt's been in the pro-wrestling biz for what 3 years, Bret was in it wrestling for around 17 years. I think Kurt has a long way to go, I think he's better suited as a heel, his babyface run/s for me have been a bit blah! Bret was a great bad guy, cool and cocky and new he was good. As a babyface he was good also, I thinkt hats where the difference is, in Kurts character it's just shouting heel at you! his "American Gold Medalist" routine was a classic heat getter and made fans hate him for being too damm cocky and full of himself. With Bret there were two sides to his character that fans could chear or boo for, a bit like The Rock's character. Mayb I'm talking shit but it's something that I think Kurt lacks. Wrestling ability, it's very hard to decide, Kurt is exceptional but so was Bret. I think Kurt edges it though as he is always produces Bret often slacked off, but stillm was great. Promo's I think Kurt's promos as a heel are excellent but as a face once again they fall a bit short. Bret could produce brilliant promos whether he was a heel or face. Here are my marks for both:Kurt: Character: 7/10Promos: 8/10In ring skill: 10/10 Total:25/30Bret:Character: 9/10Promos: 9/10In ring skill: 9/10Total: 27/30Bret wins but Kurt has a long way ahead of him and can easily one day become better than the HITMAN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Chaos Dragon

Good points from Terje, Bobbins, and especially Cattle Mutilation."And these people would be?">Pretty sure Meltzer was the guy that said Bret was not as consistent at house shows compared to Kurt on the Wrestling Classics message board, which would explain a lot."To criticise Angle for not telling stories in his matches is unfair. He works the style the WWE asks him to.">Well, Austin was able to step out of the boundaries and produce some of the smartest matches in recent company history with Angle, Benoit, and Rock, and I'm sure Angle could do so as well if he CHOSE TO (or could, which he can't). Now you could argue that Austin could just do whatever he wanted, because well, he was Austin. But you can also argue that Angle has a bit of stroke himself right now if you just track down his dominance the past few months, and the fact there was an Iron Man match in the first place, Angle quoted as saying he'd like to go the distance, and it happened despite Vince not being taken with straight up wrestling in the first place. I know some of you haven't seen the Iron Man match yet, but it exposes Angle for the shallow wrestler that he is (especially compared to Bret), and he could've told any story he wanted in there in the match he requested and got. But well, you'll see. Coupled with the fact on how highly regarded he wants to be, how much he thinks of himself and his recent matches as being some of the greatest (he believes what he's doing is smart work), and his desire to be a new type of wrestler, I just can't back the 'Angle is just doing what he's told' reasoning. He knows what he's doing, he thinks it's greatness, and he has a degree of power backstage I'm sure, so I think Angle doing what he's told and being restricted applies more to mid-carders than him. He just does not strike as helpless when it comes to choosing how to work a match.

Edited by Chaos Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt: In ring skill: 10/10 Bret:In ring skill: 9/10

:laugh: So, Angle has never had a match as good as Bret did against Austin in 97 or Owen in 94, has never carried guys like Nash to good matches, doesn't have selling as good as Bret, doesn't work the crowd as good as Bret and his psych isn't as good as Bret....but he is better in the ring? hmmmmm....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I enjoy watching both men's matches and promos. Angle is one of my favourite current WWE guys, where-as Bret is one of my all-time favourites. Regarding who is better...Purely on wrestling ability: Bret Hart - Hart's combination of technical skills, brawling (see WM XIII) and all-round in-ring storytelling made for some truly compelling matches that are (generally) well-regarded to this day.A versatile grappler Bret was also capable of adapting to different situations and getting the best out of often mediocre opponents. Although, I have enjoyed many of Angle's matches (particuarly against Austin and Benoit) I enjoy Hart's style much more.As an all-round performer: Bret Hart - As a character, 'The Hitman' was equally versatile: being equally good as a heel or a face. Angle's character is far better suited to being a heel. To be honest, I enjoy both men's interview styles and find some of Angle's 'Sports Entertainment'-style one-liners more entertaining than a lot of Bret's babyface ivs... However Hart's heel promos far surpass any of Angle's best work.For me, Hart's ablity to convey the ever-changing emotions of a realistic and believable character through the combination of how he wrestled, spoke and caried himself was wrestling at its best.

Edited by TheBigBoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Good points from Terje, Bobbins, and especially Cattle Mutilation."And these people would be?">Pretty sure Meltzer was the guy that said Bret was not as consistent at house shows compared to Kurt on the Wrestling Classics message board, which would explain a lot.

I wasn't aware Meltzer had said that at the WC message board as I don't visit that site, but it does prove that Bret had the reputation, whether you like it or not.Also, Meltzer and Bret are very close and speak to one another regularly on the phone. So it's not like Meltzer has anything against Bret as he never criticises 'The Hitman' in the Observer (like Brody and Flair).Re: this point from Terje, "Bret or Flair went out there, and made you forget it's entertainment. When Angle or Edge comes out, it's all written on them; 'follow your character'. With Bret, you felt it was the real deal. With Edge, it just shines through that this is Adam Copeland, doing a character. Same with Angle."When Flair and Bret were around, kayfabe existed a whole lot more than it does now, and we as fans watched many of those matches with no internet around to pick holes and dissect every single minute detail of their matches, like what happens today with Angle. Flair and Bret didn't work in promotions that wanted to show fans the real people behind the characters through shows like Confidential, so even if you want to believe and suspend disbelief, the WWE makes it awfully hard for you to do so.Sure, Angle may appear to play a character, but once he turns it on in his matches, the fans are sucked into the bout and they forget about all the comedy Kurt's forced to do (or was forced to do, but has toned down in recent times). Heck, even Lou Thesz could see this, when he commented a couple of years back, "There's a young man in the WWF, Kurt Angle. He's a very good representative of what wrestling should be, not 'rasslin."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...