Bret Hart or Kurt Angle

[RMC420]

On the phoning it in debate - If Zinedine Zidane takes it easy against lesser teams (still producing obvious flashes of brilliance), but Michel Salgado busts his ass in every game, does that make Salgado a better player than Zidane? Effort has a lot going for it, but talent always shines through. Bret had more talent than Kurt. Simple.The only way people can think that Kurt is better than Bret, is if they haven't seen enough Bret - which is a crime.

[DangerouS Rick]

In my opinion, Kurt Angle is the best wrestler in the WWE at the moment. I feel criticisms of his psychology and story telling ability are unfair, as his matches with Lesnar, Edge, Rey Misterio and countless others have told a great story.However, I really don't think that Angle is anywhere near as good as Bret Hart was. I will be the first to admit that I don't have the widest wrestling knowledge, but I have been watching wrestling for over 11 years now and IMO Bret is the best wrestler I have personally seen during that time period. I can't comment on house show appearances, but I have seen all of Angles matches on RAW, Smackdown and PPV and in my opinion none of them cannot touch some of Bret's better performances, such as VS Piper (WM8), VS Owen (WM10), VS Austin (WM13) and VS Smith (SS92).As far as promos go, there is no denying that Angle is one of the best talkers in the business at the moment. But Bret's promos were just so much more intense and believable. So in conclusion, I do feel that Hart was a far better wrestler than Angle is. But, I can see why some people may prefer Angle, as he is definately hugely entertaining to watch and his style may be suited to more to people's tastes.

Edited September 23, 2003 by DangerouS Rick

[King_Slim]

I would say Bret Hart, but i would honestly love to see those two in the ring together. Shame it will never happen.

[freaky]

Ok first off I'm a huge Bret fan. However tryin to seperate these two is like splitting hairs.When it comes down to "wrestling" Kurt Angle IS THE MAN. No two ways about it. That doesn't mean i think he's better in the ring. Bret could tell a story where as with Angle it's a great match, but JUST a match. Bret's matches were "deep" where as Angle's are fast paced thrillers. However Angle is a victim of today's fast paced main event matches. If asked to do the job Bret did many moons ago, I'm certain he could compete, but unfortunately the WWE is different from Bret's WWF. Angle's job in today's climate is to provide entertainment; not a story. For this reason I can understand why people think Bret is boring or an effort to watch, but if you're after emotion, a story and a match you can watch ten years from today it's Bret every time! However i can understand why the younger fan would pick Angle when they want to see an entertaining match.In terms of the mic and character it's another tough call. Bret did screw up a promo OCCASIONALLY yes, but his variety and depth were much broader than Angle's. Angle is smoother on the mic but his character is limited as a face and a heel. He just doesn't cut a believable promo as a face and is too "funny" as a heel to take seriously. Once again though, Angle is a victim of today's wrestling climate where wrestlers are given scripts (in Angle's case comedy scripts). And once again if he was on the mic "back in the day" I'm sure he'd cut as good a promo as ANYONE. The recently more "serious" Angle is a great improvement and if he's still here in five years, i must confess that i will probably be talking about him as the "greatest".I'd have to say that for their achievements up to now Bret is better on an all round level. (Just compare their iron man matches.) Oh and please dont compare a legend like Scorcese to the idiot Bruckheimer! It just aint legal.

[MoChatra]

On the phoning it in debate - If Zinedine Zidane takes it easy against lesser teams (still producing obvious flashes of brilliance), but Michel Salgado busts his ass in every game, does that make Salgado a better player than Zidane? Effort has a lot going for it, but talent always shines through. Bret had more talent than Kurt. Simple.The only way people can think that Kurt is better than Bret, is if they haven't seen enough Bret - which is a crime.

With all due respect but I think that's a weak comparison. Football is a team sport where a player has ten guys around him that strives to win. When certain teams play distinctly inferior teams, they're not expected to carry their opponents to an entertaining game whilst trying to make them look competitive, like quality wrestlers should do with lesser opponents.Also, to say that people who rate Kurt above Bret are fans who haven't seen much of Hart is silly. I'm sure there are plenty of people who've seen tons of Bret, who rate Angle above Hart. Cattle Mutilation,re: your point about Angle not even having seen pro wrestling before 1998. He worked an angle of sorts in ECW in late 1996, not long after winning his medals, and there were plans to turn him pro in that company. However, the day he appeared at the ECW Arena, ECW ran a crucifixion angle with Raven. Kurt, being a devout Christian, was disgusted by it and walked out on the company.I'm not exactly sure when, but Angle signed a developmental with the WWF in 1997. All this talk about him being a natural is bollocks, because it took him nearly two years as a developmental worker before the WWF felt he was good enough to work TV. Now either they felt the guy was something special so they wanted to wait until the time was right to debut him (which I don't buy considering they used him as jobber fodder for Tazz at the 2000 Rumble) or he took a LONG time to reach a satisfactory level.Don't forget that in his first two years in the company, he worked with some of the all-time great modern-day workers, and I'm sure working most nights with the likes of Benoit, Austin and The Rock helped his development a whole lot.Like I said early in this thread, Bret > Angle, but Angle's nowhere near as weak a performer as some make him out to be. Then again, because some people rave so highly about him (i.e. Meltzer), a lot of the Angle backlash is due to that hype that surrounds him. In my opinion.

[Terje Rindal]

~~

[SiMania]

I'm not exactly sure when, but Angle signed a developmental with the WWF in 1997. All this talk about him being a natural is bollocks, because it took him nearly two years as a developmental worker before the WWF felt he was good enough to work TV. Now either they felt the guy was something special so they wanted to wait until the time was right to debut him (which I don't buy considering they used him as jobber fodder for Tazz at the 2000 Rumble) or he took a LONG time to reach a satisfactory level.

He took a long time to reach a satisfactory level, see if you can find any fancam footage of Angle in dark matches, he was the shits and has come a long way since then

[cattle mutilation]

Cattle Mutilation,re: your point about Angle not even having seen pro wrestling before 1998. He worked an angle of sorts in ECW in late 1996, not long after winning his medals, and there were plans to turn him pro in that company. However, the day he appeared at the ECW Arena, ECW ran a crucifixion angle with Raven. Kurt, being a devout Christian, was disgusted by it and walked out on the company.

Fiddlesticks! I'd completely forgotten about that

[DarthKillYourself]

I agree with Freaky Jason on a lot of points. I've gotta give it to Angle by a nose. Both are amazing tho.

[Terje Rindal]

but since he was pushed quickly and wasn't a big fan of pro-wrestling and doesn't take the business as personal as Bret, people have a tendency to hold it against him.

I don't think too many people hold that against him to be honest. If you're good (and nobody is saying Angle isn't good) enough to justify your push that's all that matters. Angle learned quickly and earned his spot. Same with Owen Hart. He got the push from day one when he started out, as he was a very good worker basically from the start.

Yeah, but I'm sure as you know as a fan your knowledge and appreciation of the finer points and subtleties of the sport grows the longer you expose yourself to it. Bret was literally immersed in wrestling from birth, and had been wrestling for nearly 20 years, and had been in the WWF for five of them before he became THE Bret Hart we all know and love and started delivering ***** main event matches. Angle has been around for a much shorter period and apparently didn't watch any form of pro wrestling until 1998, so its at least understandable that he has yet to produce the sort of depth in his matches that Bret routinelly delivered. Even before Bret started getting into the ring, he'd had an early childhood which because of his family consisted of nothing but wrestling. I certainly think that as good as Angle is, Bret is better than him in mosts respects, its only that the Hitman was in a more advantageous position to succeed than Kurt was.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.I agree with the points you're making, but what do they have to do with my quote ?

[cattle mutilation]

but since he was pushed quickly and wasn't a big fan of pro-wrestling and doesn't take the business as personal as Bret, people have a tendency to hold it against him.

I don't think too many people hold that against him to be honest. If you're good (and nobody is saying Angle isn't good) enough to justify your push that's all that matters. Angle learned quickly and earned his spot. Same with Owen Hart. He got the push from day one when he started out, as he was a very good worker basically from the start.

Yeah, but I'm sure as you know as a fan your knowledge and appreciation of the finer points and subtleties of the sport grows the longer you expose yourself to it. Bret was literally immersed in wrestling from birth, and had been wrestling for nearly 20 years, and had been in the WWF for five of them before he became THE Bret Hart we all know and love and started delivering ***** main event matches. Angle has been around for a much shorter period and apparently didn't watch any form of pro wrestling until 1998, so its at least understandable that he has yet to produce the sort of depth in his matches that Bret routinelly delivered. Even before Bret started getting into the ring, he'd had an early childhood which because of his family consisted of nothing but wrestling. I certainly think that as good as Angle is, Bret is better than him in mosts respects, its only that the Hitman was in a more advantageous position to succeed than Kurt was.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.I agree with the points you're making, but what do they have to do with my quote ?

Mmm, I lost the point a bit there didn't I?I think what I was meaning to say is related to Owen and Angle. Although both were good from the start Angle came from an almost completely different world than Owen. Owen's world WAS pro-wrestling so it stands to reason that he would acquire the skills easily because of his family. It must have been far more difficult for Angle who basically had to learn from scratch when he started out and even on the job during 98-2001. My point is that although you say 'Owen was a very good worker basically from the start' he was always going to be because of the obvious advantage he had, where as Kurt's progress is maybe even more of an achievement considering his lack of any previous knowledge or experience.Hope that makes sense this time!

[Terje Rindal]

Hope that makes sense this time!

*thumbs up*

I think what I was meaning to say is related to Owen and Angle. Although both were good from the start Angle came from an almost completely different world than Owen. Owen's world WAS pro-wrestling so it stands to reason that he would acquire the skills easily because of his family. It must have been far more difficult for Angle who basically had to learn from scratch when he started out and even on the job during 98-2001. My point is that although you say 'Owen was a very good worker basically from the start' he was always going to be because of the obvious advantage he had, where as Kurt's progress is maybe even more of an achievement considering his lack of any previous knowledge or experience.

The point about Owen having the advantage over Angle is spot on, but nobody's denying that in the first place. The reason I brought up Owen is that people are always quick to point out that long term wrestling fans won't take kindly to newcomers if they're pushed quickly, which Angle was. Owen was pushed, but it was OK, because he was an awesome talent. Which is also true for Kurt Angle. Which makes the 'fans will hold it against him as he was pushed from the start' arbument untrue.

[JNLister]

I'm not exactly sure when, but Angle signed a developmental with the WWF in 1997. All this talk about him being a natural is bollocks, because it took him nearly two years as a developmental worker before the WWF felt he was good enough to work TV.

I'm pretty sure it was August 98 when he started training. To me, getting from your first lesson to being considered competent enough to work a PPV match in 15 months is pretty good going.

[MoChatra]

I'm not exactly sure when, but Angle signed a developmental with the WWF in 1997. All this talk about him being a natural is bollocks, because it took him nearly two years as a developmental worker before the WWF felt he was good enough to work TV.

I'm pretty sure it was August 98 when he started training. To me, getting from your first lesson to being considered competent enough to work a PPV match in 15 months is pretty good going.

It took Karl Malone only around four weeks.

[RMC420]

The point was that even if Zidane wasn't trying his hardest, he is still going to look good and better than others. Same went for Bret. Angle can try damn hard and still be "meh". See the Iron Man/Summerslam/Generic Smackdown matches for proof.I genuinely can't fathom how people would think that Angle was better than Bret if they have seen enough Bret. Each to their own and all that, but come on!