Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·


People say Bret is old and bitter, but in reality, Bret has every right to criticise anything related to pro wrestling, because he was ahead of his time.

Bret said that when Vince crowned him as the WWF Champion, he wanted to speak with him every day, to see him every day and Bret wasn't comfortable with that.

He was the absolute definition of a professional wrestler, but he lacked one thing and that was apparently politics.

Something Shawn did better and that's why he always gets more credit than Bret.

Bret was always serious, always professional.

Whenever Jim Neidhart, The Bulldog, Owen or Pillman were cracking jokes and having laughs, Bret Hart would be the only one to remain serious and command respect.

Over the years he lost so much.

-lost the WWF Championship to his real life rival in Canada by being screwed by his boss
-lost his spot in the company with Vince booking a midget to come out dressed as Bret Hart to his own wrestling entrance the night after
-lost his brother Owen by the company who screwed him
-lost his career because of inexperienced Goldberg
-suffered a stroke in 2002
-got diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2016
-got diagnosed with skin cancer in 2020

And after all ..

95965

95966

95967


..after all, I see people hating on him, just because of his opinions on variety of aspects in wrestling with wrestling "fans" neglecting all the hardships he suffered and overcame.

So I made this thread as an appreciation to Bret Hart's legacy.

A true inspiration and one of the absolute best!


95968
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Bret's loved by millions. Even people who aren't his fans and dislike his opinions tend to respect his work.

It is almost impossible to be unanimously loved and Bret's no exception to that. And every public personality's going to have his haters.

He's my favourite of all time but I can understand where some of the critics he gets thrown at him come from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Although he was a proven non draw in the US atleast. I always appreciated how serious Bret took himself,pro wrestling and his fans. When he would wrestle it actually looked like he was in a fight and trying to figure out his opponent. And for a guy with no “charisma” he had one of the best heel runs in 97.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
The Hitman gets his props. He was really THE GUY to show that a great technical wrestler could be WWF World Champ in Vince's new age company. Macho was a great in ring guy of course. But Macho PROVED a great high flyer could be a world champ in Vince's company. Macho was a very good technician, but that wasn't his bread and butter. Bret's bread and butter was being the excellence of execution. BUT in terms of resume, he's the GOAT technical wrestler in WWF history! He's pretty much the Lou Thesz of modern wrestling post 1984. He had ENOUGH cool factor to really modernize that type of wrestler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,504 Posts
Bret is the greatest technical in ring performer of all time and contrary to what Vince and WWE sometimes portrays him as, he's a proven draw. He's one of my favorite wrestlers and I always respected his opinions on almost everything except Owen's HOF induction. In terms of accuracy and truth, Bret was the only one who spoke the truth among all the parties involved in incidents like MSJ, Owen's death, Bruiser Brody's murder, etc. People misinterpret his objectivity and blunt straight forwardness as toxic, which is sad.

Bret at the end of the day is a survivor, always was, and always will be. He has faced calamities that most people don't. He has fought with dignity and honor, and that's what separates him from most wrestlers (not just his prodigious skills as a wrestler).

I agree, Bret does deserve more credit than what's given to him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,712 Posts
Dude Bret and Michaels are the Robert De Niro and Al Pacino of wrestling. They’re on that level as wrestlers.
 

·
The Babyface of WF
Defying the role dynamic
Joined
·
17,138 Posts
Shawn and Bret were 1a and 1b in the ring, it comes down to personal preference.
It's always a matter of Flash vs Substance between Shawn and Bret, Some prefer the more Catchy Flash style of HBK and others prefer the more Practical Technical style of Hart.

Both are complimentary opposites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
I'm not sure where this 'deserves more credit' is coming from. People give Bret tons of credit for the incredible performer he was.

I would disagree the that he didn't play politics. If you read his book and watch 'Wrestling with Shadows' it's quite clear he's a bit of a mark for himself and did plenty of politics. That's not a bad thing, it's required if you want to be a top guy and stay that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,395 Posts
Bret already gets way too much credit. He was never that special honestly, he was always the placeholder champion, he was never a draw.
Who was really drawing in the mid 90s-early 2000s besides Rock, Austin, Goldberg, Hogan, and Nash? Bret played a huge role in getting both Austin and the Mr. McMahon character over. Austin was doing nothing until his feud with Bret in late 96-97, and the heat Bret had with Shawn and Vince and the Montreal Screwjob made McMahon arguably the biggest heel in the history of the business. Bret was also red hot heading into WCW, not his fault that they fucked that up. Bret literally set the table for the Attitude Era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Bret is my favourite wrestler ever. I see Mount Rushmore lists on this site and they usually include Hogan, Flair, Austin, and Rock, and while they are more famous I really think Bret's the best. The poster who compared him to Robert De Niro is spot on. Hogan is like Arnold Schwarzenegger: household name, made a ton of money, but who would say he's better than Robert De Niro? It's hard to compare because they had different goals: Hogan and Arnold broadened their acts to appeal to as many people as possible and make as much money as possible, and they succeeded. De Niro and Bret, while understanding they are employed to make money, did so by focusing on their art and telling compelling stories to thinking adults, and they succeeded.

I guess what I'm saying is that Bret appeals to a smaller audience, but on a deeper level compared to Hogan who had a more superficial connection to a broad audience. So who you think is better depends on what you value more. Vince and other promoters would value who makes the most money. But as a fan I don't care about the gate receipts, just the entertainment value, and Bret's matches I can watch a hundred times but I don't care if I never see another Hogan match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
Bret was an amazing wrestler and had great match after great match. Sometimes he comes off as a bit annoying with how serious he takes it or how great he says he is but there’s no denying his body of work when in WWE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,374 Posts
More credit for what? He is so vastly overrated it's unreal. An awful lot of his matches were boring snoozefests.

Kurt Angle, HBK, HHH, Ric Flair, Eddie Guerrero just to name a small few were all better than him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
He's treated fairly. The guy is a bitter hack who does nothing but self righteously prop himself up while reliving every rivalry he had.

But just in terms of wrestler legacy he's treated as the best of the new gen which he was but being the best in the new gen really only puts you like 45th all time as the era he ran sucked ass.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top