Mike Zybyszko

There is no good excuse for refusing to job on your way out. None at all. What makes Bret Hart even worse in all of this is that he bitched endlessly about Hogan refusing to job to him. Bret STILL bitches about that to this day. Total, and complete hypocrisy.

When your boss, the one signing your checks, asks you to perform a specific task related to the job at hand you do it. It is not acceptable in any line of work to refuse to do the job you are paid to do.

Also, Bret, being the biggest mark for himself in wrestling history, seems to forget that wrestling is fake. Its not like he was really losing a fight to Michaels. It was the most unprofessional behavior of Bret's career outside of refusing to ever put Steve Austin over in a match.

__________________
"If anyone asks you if you've paid your dues, you tell 'em the check is in the mail."

Not removing until:

[ ] Hulk Hogan vs Hawk Hogan

Mike Zybyszko

If that is the case then somebody tell Bret to shut the fuck up about Hogan refusing to job to him because Hogan also had creative control.

__________________
"If anyone asks you if you've paid your dues, you tell 'em the check is in the mail."

Not removing until:

[ ] Hulk Hogan vs Hawk Hogan

wrestlinn00bz

Vince acted worse , Plain and Simple. Bret said he would drop the strap the NEXT night on RAW. He just didn't want to do it in Canada. Oh did we mention that Bret didn't even have to work that night ? He could have stayed home and Vince could have done jack shit ? You know why ? Cause his contract only said he needed to work so many dates and Bret was WAY over that. Vince is worse here not Bret.

dave 1981

I spoke about that in one of my posts earlier in the thread but it was stated in the contract that Bret Hart had "reasonable creative control" and as Vince McMahon said refusing to drop the WWE title because he didn't like Shawn Michaels or because Shawn Michaels said something Bret Hart didn't like IS NOT "reasonable creative control" in any way, shape or form. Does that mean Bret Hart should have been treated how he was, probably not but what it does mean is that Bret Hart left Vince McMahon feeling as if he had absolutely no other choice but to do what he did because Bret Hart REFUSED to lose to Shawn Michaels simply because he didn't like him and was unhappy with something he said to him.

Hulk Hogan didn't as such have creative control when in WWE in his first run but IS SAID to have simply used backstage politics to get around doing anything that made him look weak or anyone more popular than him outside of The Ultimate Warrior which was more down to the fact Hulk Hogan wanted time off than anything else. In his second run in 1993 he didn't have creative control either but is meant to have already had prior commitments in Japan and tried to use each company as a bargaining chip to make more money but as soon as he was MEANT to have been told he was losing to Bret Hart at Summerslam he decided he wanted time off as he didn't like the schedule so lost to Yokozuna in a screwy finish and left to work in Japan before going to WCW.

Hulk Hogan DID however have virtually complete creative control in his contract in his WCW when he signed a deal in 1994 and signed a similar three year deal again in 1997 which included the creative control clause again which is why it was still in effect when WCW booked Hogan/Jarrett at Bash At The Beach in 2000 and why Vince Russo couldn't make Hulk Hogan put anyone over as he wanted to. It was that clause that opened up the door for Kevin Nash and others to have the same clause and which saw people like Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Dean Malenko, Perry Saturn and The Big Show all leave because they had all had enough of the politics and special clauses and saw WWE take over in the ratings as WCW was rife with backstage politics and whilst Time Warner/AOL and Jamie Kellner were the ones who killed WCW it was those clauses in the contracts that started killing WCW as far back as Starrcade in 1997.

__________________

Sho'nuff

@KO Bossy

So because Richter, Luger and Madusa worked for Vince for a short amount of time, they're excused?

You can say all you want about HBK saying he wouldn't return the favor but at the end of the day, he wasn't asked too. Bret was asked to drop the title, so regardless of what HBK said he wouldn't "hypothetically" do, Bret should have been the bigger man and say "fuck Shawn, I'm going to do whats right for business and do what the guy who made me a star asked of me". It's easy to justify your actions by claiming you did this because your opponent said he wouldn't do that but it still doesn't make it right.

And I'm not saying Bret is the only 1 to blame but wouldn't that embarrassment not have happened if Bret just did what was best for WWE? HBK refusing to job to Austin is irrelevant, anything after Survivor Series '97 is irrelevant to the screwjob, so there is no point in bringing it up.

And you may say Bret didn't deserve it and claim Vince should have trusted him. Why, because Bret was there for 13 years? When money is involved, nobody can be trusted.

__________________

Phil_Mc_90

For me there are wrongs on both side but Bret was more wrong

Bret was an employee of the WWF, the WWF had given him everything he had and made him an international star, the only reason he got the lucrative offer from WCW was because of what he had done in the WWF. He was asked to do something by his boss, a boss who had taken a chance on him and made him the main attraction of his company and he refused to do it. Shawn Michaels was the star in the WWF in 1997 and the only guy who should have been holding the belt, Bret may not have liked him and Michaels may have been a dick backstage but that doesn't matter when it comes to business in the ring, the heat Michaels would have gotten from beating Bret clean in Canada would have been huge and really helped the company who made Bret.

What Vince did was wrong but he was left with no alternative by Bret who forgot who made him and let his ego get in the way of what is right for business. I laugh whenever Bret goes off on Hogan for using his creative control and not putting him over because if Bret had been allowed to have his way he would have done exactly the same to Michaels

__________________

KidCharlamagne

Yea, Bret was being a bitch and that's fine. Should've dropped the belt. But Vince should've grown a pair and done something about it other than the Screw-Job.

Bitch move by Bret.

Even bigger bitch move by Vince. And you all know he'd admit it too.

__________________
Bob Backlund Fan Club

Brick Heck

It's only 1 way to see things, HBK acted the worse. Surprised how he had a job for so long.

WHINY CUNT

theres a difference between having creative control and being a booker

__________________


Avatar Mafia: Town Savior
2012 Technology Section Poster of the Year

LBGetBack

Vince EASILY was worse.

Even if you 100% disagree with Bret's stance.....at least he was up front, straight forward, and honest about it.

Vince was sneaky, deceitful, and dishonest and did some real snake shit.......and those are by far the worst qualities. Vince did some real bitch ass shit.

And to me, it seems like as the years go by, more and more people(who only read about it online and were either not yet in their daddy's nutsacks, or were in diapers when it happened) are siding with Vince.......which shows how bitch-assness is ok with so many young people. It's reflected in the bitchass way a lot of these people conduct themselves. Sneaky, dishonest, passive-aggressive, scared, and quick to "tattle" and try to spin things. It's a sad trend.


Bret had never done anything to Hulk. Shawn acted like a complete bitch towards Bret. There's a big difference. Hulk had no reason to do that to Bret. Bret had a great reason to do that to Shawn.

Not to mention, in 1993 Bret was a reliable guy, hard worker, well liked, and was coming off a successful title run. There should have been no issues with him being champ. On the other hand, in 1997 Shawn was a coked up, pilled out, unprofessional and unreliable mess, who many hated and didn't trust, and had a prety disappointing run as champ in 1996.

Point being, Bret in 1993 was a much better option to pass the torch to than Shawn in 1997.

Not everyone is a dishonest bitch like that. Based on all accounts of his career, Bret wouldn't have pulled something like that. Vince or Shawn(back then) if they were in Bret's shoes? They very well may have done what you say. Seems pretty unfathomable that Bret would've though. Not everyone is a bitch-ass dude like Vince. Most have more integrity than that.