Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums - View Single Post - If you were in Vince's shoes, how would you have avoided the Montreal screwjob?

View Single Post

Old 06-12-2012, 04:11 PM   #38 (permalink)
dave 1981
Getting over in the mid-card
 
dave 1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,725
dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000dave 1981 6501 - 7000
Default Re: If you were in Vince's shoes, how would you have avoided the Montreal screwjob?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jiz View Post
Vince and Michaels had it in for Bret from the get go.

Why did they give the title to Bret?
Why does it have to be Hart v HBK when Bret was open to dropping the title to Undertaker, Mankind, and even Stone Cold?
Why was it Hitman v HBK when they were BOTH heels? [Bookings like this rarely happened back then].
1. WWE put the title back on Bret Hart because Bret Hart asked to do a storyline where if he lost he would never wrestle in America again. They first tried the storyline going into King Of The Ring which was meant to be Michaels/Hart and Austin/Pillman but because of Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart having their real life fight in Hartford that match never happened and they did Austin/Michaels instead. They then did it with Undertaker/Hart instead but the plan was always to build towards Michaels/Hart at Survivor Series which is why they had Bret Hart win against The Undertaker as he did so they could do Michaels/Undertaker and keep Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart apart until Survivor Series.

2. Stone Cold Steve Austin only came back at Survivor Series and was tied up with Owen Hart whilst The Undertaker was deep in the storyline with Kane and Mankind was a non starter. People don't seem to realise that Michaels/Hart was THE biggest feud that WWE had at that time because of the real life situation and the history on screen and off screen and WWE was in a bad way financially so Michaels/Hart simply HAD to happen business wise as well as storyline wise.

3. Back in 1997 the whole face/heel, black/white thing was blurred into shades of grey and faces feuded with faces and heels feuded with heels as Austin/Pillman as far back as late 1996 shows. Because of the history between Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart it didn't matter about a heel/heel thing as the fact was they hated each other and that made the feud rather than who was face and who was heel. Other heel/heel feuds from around that time were Austin/Pillman, Mankind/Kane and Bulldog/Owen just to name three off the top of my head so heel/heel feuds were not so rare that Michaels/Hart shouldn't happen.

To say Shawn Michaels and Vince McMahon had it in for Bret Hart from the start is very wrong because it wasn't until late 1996 that there was even a real problem between the two and up until then they had been working everyone from WrestleMania 12. As seen in another thread which shows Bret Hart is still bitter he found it hard to accept he wasn't the top guy anymore yet complains about the older wrestlers not putting him over when he had just become the top guy. Whilst Shawn Michaels had no love for Bret Hart he was actually the least involved in setting it all up as it was an idea by Triple H that Vince McMahon pushed through, Shawn Michaels was the guy that had to pull the trigger as has been said and because he was the one who had problems with Bret Hart he got way much more hate than was actually deserved.
__________________
dave 1981 is offline   Reply With Quote