Terje Rindal Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 but it does prove that Bret had the reputation, whether you like it or not. Umm....no one's disputing that he had that reputation in the first place. What we disagree on is whether it's true or not. Obviously I haven't seen as many matches as your un-named people, so they're probably right. 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.Yet excellent workers like Austin, Benoit, Guerrero or Rock manages to escape that trap with ease.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryboy Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 This is a very good question, Angle did win the European, IC, King of the Ring and World titles all in his first year, which Bret never did, but Bret was IC Champ 2 times to angles once, won the King of the Ring and The Royal Rumble, and Angles never won a Rumble. You can't call yourself a legend until you've pit yourself against 29 other superstars in a fight for survival, so Brets ahead so far. Now, Angles won 4 WWF titles, but 2 were only half titles because theres another one on Raw, so rounding it up he was 3 world titles, while Bret has an awesome 5. And Bret has also won the tag titles more times, proving he doesn't buckle under the fear of having to fight not one, but TWO men at the same time. Plus, Bret managed to survive the shock of his own Brother turning on him in a dastardly manner, while Kurts brother has only ever helped him, thus proving Bret is thrice the wrestler Angle is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 This is a very good question, Angle did win the European, IC, King of the Ring and World titles all in his first year, which Bret never did, but Bret was IC Champ 2 times to angles once, won the King of the Ring and The Royal Rumble, and Angles never won a Rumble. You can't call yourself a legend until you've pit yourself against 29 other superstars in a fight for survival, so Brets ahead so far. Now, Angles won 4 WWF titles, but 2 were only half titles because theres another one on Raw, so rounding it up he was 3 world titles, while Bret has an awesome 5. And Bret has also won the tag titles more times, proving he doesn't buckle under the fear of having to fight not one, but TWO men at the same time. Plus, Bret managed to survive the shock of his own Brother turning on him in a dastardly manner, while Kurts brother has only ever helped him, thus proving Bret is thrice the wrestler Angle is. There we have it. Scientific proof.It's worth visiting KKKlassics just for Herb's posts. Do a search by member number 2122 so you don't have to traipse through the wealth of shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members herbie747 Posted September 21, 2003 Paid Members Share Posted September 21, 2003 I picked Kurt purely based on what he has accomplished in his 3 years in the business, compared to Bret's first 3 years in the business.It's hard to compare them when Kurt's career isn't over yet. He's certainly better than Bret was after 3 years as a pro.But I love still Bret Hart...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 He's certainly better than Bret was after 3 years as a pro.Is he? He's certainly a bigger star than Bret was after 3 years. I watched Bret vs Marty Jones not too long ago. I don't know how long Bret had been in the business, but he was awesome even then. And remember Kurt isn't going to be wreestling for another 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members herbie747 Posted September 21, 2003 Paid Members Share Posted September 21, 2003 (edited) I know he won't be wrestling for another 15 years, but he's got another few years left at least.Just look at what Austin accomplished in the last 5 few years of his career.It's like comparing the Ringmaster to Bret Hart a few years ago and saying that Bret Hart is miles better. Kurt still has a lot to learn, and IMO he's a very fast learner.And I still think Kurt is better now than Bret was after 3 years as a pro. Is he?Yeah! Edited September 21, 2003 by herbie747 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Dragon Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 "I know he won't be wrestling for another 15 years, but he's got another few years left at least.Just look at what Austin accomplished in the last 5 few years of his career.It's like comparing the Ringmaster to Bret Hart a few years ago and saying that Bret Hart is miles better. Kurt still has a lot to learn, and IMO he's a very fast learner.">Well Dave Meltzer, even though I disagree with him completely when it comes to painting Angle in as God, made some good points about Angle and his future, and compared to Bret actually. Here's what he said."Angle is a tons better all-around performer, but Hart got a certain aspect of wrestling that Angle doesn't get. Hart believed in his stories which made them seem real. Angle believes it is all entertainment and thus allows himself to be booked in ways Hart didn't allow himself to be booked in. Basically. Angle is much more talented. But Hart reached his full potential as a star. Angle will never reach his. Angle will never reach his potential because he only understands that pro wrestling is entertainment. Because of that, he does so many things that entertain the crowd, but remove the authenticity from his character. For everyone up and down the card except for the guy on top, that's fine. But his full potential is as a guy on top. With the exception of Austin, who is in a different stable, and perhaps Heyman, who will never be put back in a position to advise him, there is nobody who understands that well enough to teach him. And nobody in the company who wants him to know, because they've got blindres on to anything but what they want to do and are largely close-minded on things like that. He will never work for any other company so he won't have the advantage of learning from the best of other systems. What made most of the great ones reach their potential is working on top in different systems, and picking something up from all of them. Angle is more talented than Hart but he will never be in the type of program Hart was in with Steve Austin because of the limitations of the scope of what he knows as pro wrestling." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DebbieHardy Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 I don't think I can decide.Both are great wrestlers for their time. Bret was one of my biggest heroes while growing up while Angle is one of my faves right now. Both have taken part in many matches that I have enjoyed, both have the talent, heart and dedication of the wrestling business so I gotta give props.....to them both! Ah that's a hard question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stuart Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Bret, of course just watch him v backlund(was on superstars years ago) what a great technical match, loved it.Backlund was a excellent technical wrestler as well, no nonsense got in the ring and did his stuff.Love watching wrestlers like bret, angle and backlund(sadly retired now) benoit,Rvd and Jericho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pushgillberg Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 I don't think we can really judge this! Two different eras. It also depends on how you judge them. Anyhow their both great wrestlers and on match quality alone I would regard Kurt as one of the best WWE has seen. I think if Kurt was wrestling 10 years now then people would probably appreciate him more, 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. Its unfortunate Kurt's neck will always be f**ked I remember him saying he only has 2years max left in him. Pity!2 all time greats who I will always appreciate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheFranchiseera2003 Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 this is goin over personal preferance but im gunna say bret because hes some one i grew up likeing as a child and got in to his character whilst angle i find a good wrestler but some times his preformances are utter crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terje Rindal Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 I watched Bret vs Marty Jones not too long ago. I don't know how long Bret had been in the business, but he was awesome even then. Yeah, but I know many people who would have seen far more early Bret than you, and they all say Angle is better, so I'd be inclined to believe them rather than you. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Another thing to remember is that Bret still hadn't reached puberty after 3 years in the business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terje Rindal Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cattle mutilation Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts