Bret Hart or Kurt Angle

[Terje Rindal]

I really would love to know where this started and what are the examples behind it?

I don't know if this is where it started, but it certainly grew in 96/97 when the ECW guys would go on about how they always worked hard regardless if it was 50 people in the building for a spot show or a sold out ECW Arena, and not phoning it in like 'the WWF & WCW guys did in the same position'.With Bret being the major name in WWF around this time, a lot of that came across as digs at him.If you've ever talked to an ECW mark in a chatroom, you know that they're the most stubborn close minded wrestling fans there is, and thus Bret's reputation for sucking at house shows grew.

[Terje Rindal]

As far as video footage of his house shows is concerned, it's not like people are going to sell tapes of his house show matches that were average or poor. So obviously, most of the house show matches he worked that's doing the rounds amongst tape traders will be his best house show stuff, thus giving you a skewed view of how hard he worked at house shows.

That's bullshit. Obviously the bad matches wouldn't have made their way onto comps, but if you get any full WWF house show on handheld, they're loaded with crap matches from the Godwinns, Isaac Yankem, Ultimate Warrior and all the other crap heads.

[MoChatra]

As far as video footage of his house shows is concerned, it's not like people are going to sell tapes of his house show matches that were average or poor. So obviously, most of the house show matches he worked that's doing the rounds amongst tape traders will be his best house show stuff, thus giving you a skewed view of how hard he worked at house shows.

That's bullshit. Obviously the bad matches wouldn't have made their way onto comps, but if you get any full WWF house show on handheld, they're loaded with crap matches from the Godwinns, Isaac Yankem, Ultimate Warrior and all the other crap heads.

Yes, but you said you've watched 30 Bret house show matches, yet how many would he have had during his career?The comment about Bret being lazy at the houses comes from people who would've seen far more of him than you have, so I'd be inclined to believe them rather than you.

[natholy]

And these people would be?regards nate holynski

[Stephanie]

Bret Hart, and again for some of the reasons people have mentioned already. He's been around a lot longer the Kurt so mabye it was an unfair comparison i don't know. As much as i love Kurt Angle and all that, it mainly is for his comedic value. I never seem to take him seriously, sure his wrestling is great but y'know. Bret Hart is the guy that used to transfix me as a kid, when i was a bairn and i thought it was all still "real" so to speak.I think there was a lot more emotion about Bret Harts character and that's what gives him the edge for me. Plus i'd rather watch his matches, he's had more matches which is another point he gets just because he's been around longer. So there ya go.

[bobbins]

Bret may well have taken it easy on most house shows for all we know, but so did EVERYONE else. It's not like today's guys are working a similair schedule to those from the past. And if Angle took it easy on his body by not doing any suplexes or taking any bumps, that doesn't leave him with a lot he can do. Whereas Bret could not take any bumps but still tell a character driven story that captures the fan's imagination without the need for any 'big move' pops.

[Terje Rindal]

And these people would be?

Good question.

[Terje Rindal]

And if Angle took it easy on his body by not doing any suplexes or taking any bumps, that doesn't leave him with a lot he can do. Whereas Bret could not take any bumps but still tell a character driven story that captures the fan's imagination without the need for any 'big move' pops.

That's a great point, and one that is greatly overlooked by people who say Angle is better than Bret. Bret could go out injured, and still tell the story without the risk of further injuring himself. Of course, Angle may be able to do that after he's had a long career like Bret, but when comparing them today, Bret is better than Angle. Simple.Stephanie made a good point about the realness too. Bret was a wrestler, whereas all I see in Angle is an entertainer. A great, but very by-the-book sports entertainer. Kinda like Edge, only much better.

[Sym]

I'd have to go with Angle.He is more entertaining, plain and symple. Brets character seemed very one dimensional, although he was good on the mic his interviews and promos were really always very similar and based along the same line everytime. Though this may not be his fault, it still affects the character for me and character wise Angle takes it.The in Ring stuff of Angle also constantly keeps me entertained where as sometimes Brets stuff dragged a little. Again this may be because I was a lot younger when I watched Brets good stuff where as Angle is more recent to me.Controversial comment time: I am also yet to see Kurt Angle refuse to job to anyone!

[Guest Scott Hall's Therapist]

Bret. Far better in the ring, and more interesting character wise. Kurt comes across as way too goffy. You could blame thos on the bookers and writers, but even in the few weeks before WrestleMania where Kurts goofy antics were toned down, he still seemed too dorkish. Bret brought the WWF/WWE Title more credibility because he was presented as serious, Kurt is just too silly for me to take seriously or care about any of his matches that don't involve Benoit. There's no doubt Kurt is a good wrestler, but another problem is that he suffers way too many injuries because of his style, and wont be around as long to be truly compared to Bret. By this I mean look at the lengh of Brets career, I doubt Kurt is going to last that long, also remember Bret was still producing good matches when Goldberg ended his career, so he may have lasted another few years.

[cattle mutilation]

He is more entertaining, plain and symple. Brets character seemed very one dimensional, although he was good on the mic his interviews and promos were really always very similar and based along the same line everytime. Though this may not be his fault, it still affects the character for me and character wise Angle takes it.

I think Angle's delivery is better than Bret's was. If you remember Bret had a tendancy to sometimes trip of his own tongue in interviews. Although that was maybe down to the fact that Bret was always 'himself' as opposed to playing an OTT stand-up comedian character like Angle does.

The in Ring stuff of Angle also constantly keeps me entertained where as sometimes Brets stuff dragged a little. Again this may be because I was a lot younger when I watched Brets good stuff where as Angle is more recent to me.

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) 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.I find can always watch Angle's matches while doing something else (like writing an essay or listening to music or something) because they can be enjoyed without giving them your full attention. Bret's matches were usually so crammed with substance that they DEMANDED your full attention. And its for that reason why I can understand why some people call him bland or boring because of the level of mental participation needed when watching his matches. You WATCH Angle's matches, you EXPERIENCE Bret's. Edited September 20, 2003 by cattle mutilation

[Terje Rindal]

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) 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.I find can always watch Angle's matches while doing something else (like writing an essay or listening to music or something) because they can be enjoyed without giving them your full attention. Bret's matches were usually so crammed with substance that they DEMANDED your full attention. And its for that reason why I can understand why some people call him bland or boring because of the level of mental participation needed when watching his matches. You WATCH Angle's matches, you EXPERIENCE Bret's.

Excellent post.

[MoChatra]

And if Angle took it easy on his body by not doing any suplexes or taking any bumps, that doesn't leave him with a lot he can do. Whereas Bret could not take any bumps but still tell a character driven story that captures the fan's imagination without the need for any 'big move' pops.

That's a great point, and one that is greatly overlooked by people who say Angle is better than Bret. Bret could go out injured, and still tell the story without the risk of further injuring himself. Of course, Angle may be able to do that after he's had a long career like Bret, but when comparing them today, Bret is better than Angle. Simple.Stephanie made a good point about the realness too. Bret was a wrestler, whereas all I see in Angle is an entertainer. A great, but very by-the-book sports entertainer. Kinda like Edge, only much better.

To criticise Angle for not telling stories in his matches is unfair. He works the style the WWE asks him to. Not only that, but in recent times, when the WWE has moved more towards a less spectacular and more storyline-driven match style, Angle has produced some great matches that Bret would be proud of.Indeed, to quote the Hitman (talking about Angle's in-ring work), "In watching Angle, I could do nothing but admire his athleticism and absolute realism".

[Terje Rindal]

To criticise Angle for not telling stories in his matches is unfair. He works the style the WWE asks him to.

I never said it was Angle's fault. Obviously he's going to work the style of match his boss wants. What he would have done elsewhere is pure speculation, but as opposed to other greats like Hart, DiBiase or Flair, we'll probably never know for sure.

[MoChatra]

To criticise Angle for not telling stories in his matches is unfair. He works the style the WWE asks him to.

I never said it was Angle's fault. Obviously he's going to work the style of match his boss wants. What he would have done elsewhere is pure speculation, but as opposed to other greats like Hart, DiBiase or Flair, we'll probably never know for sure.

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