Oh, did I hurt you, Bret monkey?
I wouldn't criticize Bret if people here wouldn't open threads about this pompous, arrogant, bitter human being.
By the way, to the user Alden Heathcliffe... You've green repped me... Too bad.
If Bret was actually so popular and so much of a draw (And even if he wasn't and he was just better then Michaels)- Then why Vince choose Michaels? Because he knew Michaels is better.
If Bret was so good, then why did Vince gave up on him after 1996?
Hogan and Austin couldn't be buried for a reason- They made money.
Bret didn't. So he was easy to be buried.
He just didn't fit the Attitude. He hated it. Therefore, Vince gave up on him.
And also, if Bret actually decided to not sue Vince because he wanted to keep kayfabe, then he's very very stupid.
Eh? Dammit, first DualShock, now you. At least you had the decency not to neg me, so I appreciate that.
And the rest of that is pretty much all conjecture. You don't have any figures to back up your claims. Bret's years on top in '94 and '93 weren't Hogan years or Austin years, thats true, he's not a big draw but he got them by. Compare that to Michaels in '96 and Diesel in '95, where the WWE nearly went out of business and it's clear who's years on top were superior.
He went with Michaels because he knew Bret wasn't a draw and was experimenting with other talents to see who could take them to the next level. He never went all the way with Luger, which made sense, he wasn't much of a star outside of the Southern territories, much like Flair. Diesel he tried hard to push and anyone with half a brain could tell that he failed. Michaels was pushed as well, because he was a talented guy, a wrestling magazines favourite, and he was on good terms with him. And it didn't turn out great either. '97 was Bret's year, the Undertaker's year and Austin's year. After '96, when Bret left thanks to injury, exhaustion etc. and the WWE took a dive in business he knew Michaels wasn't a sufficient draw to keep them afloat. He came back, was put in an angle with a man the WWE was clearly going to build up as a top heel and eventually a top face and he was at the focal point of most every major feud in '97. He even got his title back.
The point stands, Bret couldn't be hurt by the Kliq and that much is obvious because he was always the face of WWE's programming at the time and he was popular, and though not at all wildly so he was still McMahon's go to man when things weren't working out. I don't know where you got buried from. Even after his run in the WWE there was a lot of interest in Bret, which WCW promptly wasted and then Austin came in.
There really wasn't a whole lot for Bret to do outside of what I suggested when it came to getting screwed. He could have called Vince out on that contract he offered which Vince couldn't have paid anyway or he could have taken the job or faked his way out of it.
I'm not saying Bret is the best of all time, but much like you sig says, he was the best the WWE had at the time. Considering no one ever passed the torch to him in a major way as it typical when the guard changes, WWE's thin, barley existent midcard, and their outdated lower card scene it's rather impressive Bret and Michaels were able to at least help the WWE through the times. They both put over the man who would become the company's biggest star and I think on the whole, Bret's hard work should at least be respected.