Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 131 Posts
Joined
·
1,939 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've seen a lot of times that three of them were lumped together when people make their tier list of GOATs just because the 3 of them were in the same era and Bret was the face of that era. Also sometimes that they put Bret even higher than Taker and HBK even though the latter had longer legacy than him.

This is just my thoughts. Share yours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,897 Posts
Bret still feels like a bigger star than both. Perhaps if Bret had stayed with WWE for longer maybe that perception would have changed
 
Joined
·
1,939 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
So even with both longevity career, still not enough? I mean in Taker's case he has a streak that became a must-see show every WM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
So even with both longevity career, still not enough? I mean in Taker's case he has a streak that became a must-see show every WM.
You are an undertaker fanboy/troll, everyone has opinions but not many people agree with you that he is in the conversation of ‘goat’. The undertaker has had a good career, leave it at that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,736 Posts
From my 2005 and on perspective, HBK and Taker are far superior to Brett. I feel I'm influenced more on WWE's revisionist history, but I never saw Brett Hart more than an on-and-off again top guy. He doesn't even surpass Edge or Eddie. So, HBK and Take have definitely surpassed Brett.

Again, I started watching in 05.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,710 Posts
Personally I've always considered HBK and The Undertaker to be greater than Bret Hart. That's no knock on Bret, I just never had him on their level to begin with. Part of that might be because I didn't start watching wrestling until early 1999 so I didn't witness his run. Everything I've seen of their runs have been in he insight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,272 Posts
No.

Bret's a bigger star than Undertaker and Shawn. While Undertaker is a proven draw, he never really drew like Bret did. Shawn's not a draw, and that fact isn't going to change regardless of how WWE's revisionist history.

Bret's a far superior performer in the ring than Shawn or Undertaker.

The only thing that Undertaker has on Bret is longevity. Shawn doesn't beat Bret in any aspect of being a pro wrestler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,193 Posts
To anyone that never got to witness Bret's career, why would you even have an opinion on the matter as you lack the frame of reference to even form an opinion on Bret's work and influence?

That being said aside from recency bias(which is wildly unfair because Bret has not truly been able to perform for over twenty years and despite what people especially the WWE's rhetoric machine would have you believe longevity is not the same as influence.) I don't think there is any way to justify saying that Michaels or Undertaker are bigger stars, more influential performers or even better performers than Bret Hart was. Bret maged to transcend the industry to a larger degree than either Michaels or Undertaker ever did despite being the face of a down era in WWF's history.
 
Joined
·
1,939 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
You are an undertaker fanboy/troll, everyone has opinions but not many people agree with you that he is in the conversation of ‘goat’. The undertaker has had a good career, leave it at that.
Me? A fanboy? Fuck off. I'm here to talk about their impact and you saying that Taker has a 'good' career is seriously trolling. The man had tons of classic matches and became a part of WM draw therefore that's not a good career. Try harder next time.

Impact > Longevity

That's like saying Big Show/Kane surpassed John Cena because they had a much longer run. It don't work like that.
Are you seriously comparing BigShow /Kane to Taker/Shawn? Come on now.

Also what about Taker's streak? That had a huge impact in the business and storyline over the years too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,272 Posts
To anyone that never got to witness Bret's career, why would you even have an opinion on the matter as you lack the frame of reference to even form an opinion on Bret's work and influence?

That being said aside from recency bias(which is wildly unfair because Bret has not truly been able to perform for over twenty years and despite what people especially the WWE's rhetoric machine would have you believe longevity is not the same as influence.) I don't think there is any way to justify saying that Michaels or Undertaker are bigger stars, more influential performers or even better performers than Bret Hart was. Bret maged to transcend the industry to a larger degree than either Michaels or Undertaker ever did despite being the face of a down era in WWF's history.
I am probably the biggest Bret fan on this forum, but the truth is that Bret never transcended the wrestling business. He just happens to be the best in ring performer. Something about him made people have a connection with him. I remember in the 90s, I witnessed his popularity in the Middle East, Europe (UK, Germany, Italy) and I was astounded. I knew he was popular in Canada but having such a vast following in such places was out of the ordinary.

It is possible to have objectivity even if one hasn't witnessed the era. I am not a fan of Flair and think he's very overrated in the ring. But he is a proven draw. Easily top 10 in history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,193 Posts
Me? A fanboy? Fuck off. I'm here to talk about their impact and you saying that Taker has a 'good' career is seriously trolling. The man had tons of classic matches and became a part of WM draw therefore that's not a good career. Try harder next time.


Are you seriously comparing BigShow /Kane to Taker/Shawn? Come on now.

Also what about Taker's streak? That had a huge impact in the business and storyline over the years too.

What are these "tons" of classic matches that Undertaker had. There is maybe 5 or six matches in his entire career that reach classic
I am probably the biggest Bret fan on this forum, but the truth is that Bret never transcended the wrestling business. He just happens to be the best in ring performer. Something about him made people have a connection with him. I remember in the 90s, I witnessed his popularity in the Middle East, Europe (UK, Germany, Italy) and I was astounded. I knew he was popular in Canada but having such a vast following in such places was out of the ordinary.

It is possible to have objectivity even if one hasn't witnessed the era. I am not a fan of Flair and think he's very overrated in the ring. But he is a proven draw. Easily top 10 in history.

Bret was on magazine covers and o TV shows like The Simpsons(which was one of the biggest shows on TV at the time) even in a down era in WWE's history that's a big deal especially when taking into account how culturally insignificant WWF and wrestling, in general, was at the time. If that isn't expanding beyond the business itself to some degree then I don't know what is. It was HIS popularity that afforded him that luxury and not the WWF's. That is important to note. He was a bigger celebrity than Undertaker and Michales ever have been.
 
Joined
·
1,939 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
What are these "tons" of classic matches that Undertaker had. There is maybe 5 or six matches in his entire career that reach classic



Bret was on magazine covers and o TV shows like The Simpsons(which was one of the biggest shows on TV at the time) even in a down era in WWE's history that's a big deal especially when taking into account how culturally insignificant WWF and wrestling, in general, was at the time. If that isn't expanding beyond the business itself to some degree then I don't know what is. It was HIS popularity that afforded him that luxury and not the WWF's. That is important to note. He was a bigger celebrity than Undertaker and Michales ever have been.
Maybe tons was not right word but indeed he did have a lot of great matches.

1. UT Vs Lesnar 2002 HIAC
2. UT Vs Orton WM21
3. UT Vs HHH WM17
4. UT Vs Batista WM23
5. UT Vs Batista Backlash 07
8. UT Vs HBK WM25
9. UT Vs. HBK WM26.
10. UT Vs HHH WM27
11. UT Vs HHH WM28
12. UT Vs Punk WM29

Those are the matches I watched and liked it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Me? A fanboy? Fuck off. I'm here to talk about their impact and you saying that Taker has a 'good' career is seriously trolling. The man had tons of classic matches and became a part of WM draw therefore that's not a good career. Try harder next time.


Are you seriously comparing BigShow /Kane to Taker/Shawn? Come on now.

Also what about Taker's streak? That had a huge impact in the business and storyline over the years too.
Yes a fan boy, it’s quite obvious you have a hard on for him or are trolling, opinions are opinions, don’t be so sensitive

He did not have a good career? Is it a bad one?

What superlative would you like me to use?
 
Joined
·
1,939 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Yes a fan boy, it’s quite obvious you have a hard on for him or are trolling, opinions are opinions, don’t be so sensitive

He did not have a good career? Is it a bad one?

What superlative would you like me to use?
I have a hard for him? You're drunk get lost.

Also he did not have a good career, he had a great career and every wrestler would want to have that kind of career.
 
1 - 20 of 131 Posts
Top