Wrestling Forum banner

61 - 80 of 117 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Can someone show workings that Bret was bigger star than Shawn or Undertaker in the US.

Out of the 3 Taker has mainevented more 10,000+ events but obviously he spent longer on top in WWE than either Bret or Shawn though his last decade he has only worked on average 1 or 2 matches a year.

Bret was bigger draw outside US during his career but in the US I wouldn't say there was huge difference.

Both Shawn and Taker headlined bigger drawing ppvs (Summerslam 98 and 2005) than Bret ever did. Ok they were against peak Austin and Hogan but still the set record numbers for Summerslam event.

Shawn was also responsible for putting majority of the 60,000 in the seats for 97 rumble and yes tickets were dirt cheap but people still came to see Shawn. DX sold a ton of merch in 97-early 98 as well as 2006 and 2009 comebacks and Shawn played big part in that. So argument Shawn didn't draw is weird.
Shawn not responsible for putting majority of the 60,000 in the seats for 97
 
Joined
·
1,835 Posts
Discussion Starter #63
Shawn not responsible for putting majority of the 60,000 in the seats for 97
I remember listening to a podcast that the ticket prices were lowered at that time. I don't know how true it was but since Shawn wasn't really a draw but also since the show was held on Shawn's hometown...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Imo its

1. Taker
2. Bret
3. Shawn

Like others have stated, bret in his peak was the biggest star out of all of them. Taker and Shawn were never big enough to be the main guy. However Taker has had the longest active wwe career ever, the greatest character, the streak. He,s pure iconic. Shawn is def overrated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
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.
Undertaker always had a lot of mainstream appeal, more than Bret Hart. Taker is one of the very few wrestlers that non-fans know and can identify.

Taker is arguably the best big man of all-time. He's had numerous match of the year and match of the year candidates in his career. The height he got on his jumps and topes was impressive for a man half his size. This is unheard of for a "giant".

Undertaker's streak is one of the most iconic things that happened in the history of wrestling, he was the focal point of a lot of Wrestlemania no matter who his opponent was.

He is, simply put, A PHENOM, there will never be anyone who can touch him.

Bret Hart was a good technician but he was terrible on the mic. He was the face of WWF at the time WCW took over in ratings. For 88(give or take some weeks) straight weeks WCW beat WWF in ratings while Bret was the man. Shawn Michaels was at the top with him, but Bret at the time was the face of the company.

The New Generation Era is known to be a bad time for the WWF. It lasted 3 to 4 years before the Attitude Era kicked in. Bret was top babyface of that era.

When the Attitude Era kicked in, Stone Cold, The Rock, Michaels, Undertaker and others really took off and brought in ratings for the company. While this was happening Vince opted to let Bret walk instead of resign him. Why? Because judging by viewership he wasn't the draw worthy of the contract he was asking for.


Considering the Ratings,buyrates,popularity,fanbase and the impact made in this business, Undertaker is much bigger than Bret
 
Joined
·
1,835 Posts
Discussion Starter #67
Undertaker always had a lot of mainstream appeal, more than Bret Hart. Taker is one of the very few wrestlers that non-fans know and can identify.

Taker is arguably the best big man of all-time. He's had numerous match of the year and match of the year candidates in his career. The height he got on his jumps and topes was impressive for a man half his size. This is unheard of for a "giant".

Undertaker's streak is one of the most iconic things that happened in the history of wrestling, he was the focal point of a lot of Wrestlemania no matter who his opponent was.

He is, simply put, A PHENOM, there will never be anyone who can touch him.

Bret Hart was a good technician but he was terrible on the mic. He was the face of WWF at the time WCW took over in ratings. For 88(give or take some weeks) straight weeks WCW beat WWF in ratings while Bret was the man. Shawn Michaels was at the top with him, but Bret at the time was the face of the company.

The New Generation Era is known to be a bad time for the WWF. It lasted 3 to 4 years before the Attitude Era kicked in. Bret was top babyface of that era.

When the Attitude Era kicked in, Stone Cold, The Rock, Michaels, Undertaker and others really took off and brought in ratings for the company. While this was happening Vince opted to let Bret walk instead of resign him. Why? Because judging by viewership he wasn't the draw worthy of the contract he was asking for.


Considering the Ratings,buyrates,popularity,fanbase and the impact made in this business, Undertaker is much bigger than Bret
But according to him, Taker has only 'good' career lol. Seriously, that guy is a troll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,347 Posts
Of course Shawn drew the house.

Nobody could have possibly wanted to see Austin in Texas in 1997.
January 97 pre Rumble, Austin was still a midcard heel but on the rise.

Shawn had been WWF champion most of the past year, he was in the mainevent of that particular event and it took place in his home town.

Shawn was much more responsible for drawing crowd than Austin. Would be another year before Austin had real effect on ticket sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Bret and Shawn were both much more valuable to WWE than Undertaker was. Vince never relied on Taker to be the face of the company. Even in 1997 when Taker was champion, the main event scene was more focused on Bret Hart and his anti-American storyline.

Undertaker has mostly been used as someone who was involved in the second or third biggest storyline in the company, and from time to time was involved in the top storyline. It's extremely hard to find someone who could be used like Taker was for as long as he was and could deliver the way he could. But at any given time during Taker's career there were a handful of other wrestlers on the roster who could fill his role. The only exception I can think of would be in 1996 after Diesel and Razor left and WWE was hurting for top talent.

I compare Undertaker to Hank Aaron. During any one season Hank usually didn't hit more than 40 homeruns. But he broke the all time homerun record because he consistently played at a high level for an extremely long time.
 

·
The Fastest of the Fastest of Jamaican Sprinters
Joined
·
3,693 Posts
Shawn not responsible for putting majority of the 60,000 in the seats for 97
January 97 pre Rumble, Austin was still a midcard heel but on the rise.

Shawn had been WWF champion most of the past year, he was in the mainevent of that particular event and it took place in his home town.

Shawn was much more responsible for drawing crowd than Austin. Would be another year before Austin had real effect on ticket sales.
You're both overlooking the fact that multiple credible sources have confirmed that that was one of the most papered events in WWE history. Free tickets, buy-one-get-one, sponsor promotions, and the (kinda weird) partnership with AAA all were desperately employed by WWE to hit that number. Sure, Shawn was the primary draw, but the number likely wouldn't have been all that different if Bret had been in that spot. They were practically grabbing hobos off the street and shoving them into the Alamo Dome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
The Undertaker is easily a bigger star and legend than Bret Hart.

Both Bret and Shawn in their autobiographies have stated that during their runs in the mid-90s while beefing with each other over the Championship belt, that the only person that they were okay with getting paid more $$$ than them was The Undertaker.

During one of Dave Meltzer's reports, he listed The Undertaker as the 3rd biggest American draw in the United States from 1990-2000 -- only behind Ric Flair #2 and Hulk Hogan #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Why do people skip Shawn as a FOTC in terms of eras and act like it was "people stuck with Bret Hart until Austin came along"

Austin?? It should be Shawn.

And according to current WWE they pretty much skip past Bret Hart in any video packages, showing montages/snippets of Hogan to Warrior/savage and THEN skip to SHAWN to Austin to Rock to Cena.

That pretty much tells Hart's standing with the company as far as legacies go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
They've absolutely surpassed him, though it's due to longevity obviously. Well, in Undertaker's case I don't think he really hit his stride until the late 90s onwards anyway. Bret was bigger and greater than both as of 1997 though.

For personal taste, I'm up to 1999 in my raw re-watch and Bret in 1997 blew away anything that the other two have done IMO. Absolutely amazing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
You're both overlooking the fact that multiple credible sources have confirmed that that was one of the most papered events in WWE history. Free tickets, buy-one-get-one, sponsor promotions, and the (kinda weird) partnership with AAA all were desperately employed by WWE to hit that number. Sure, Shawn was the primary draw, but the number likely wouldn't have been all that different if Bret had been in that spot. They were practically grabbing hobos off the street and shoving them into the Alamo Dome.
Valid reasoning and his "technical analysis" always miss very important obvious data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,309 Posts
Ok some interesting points made here. I saw all of these men in their prime and what their significant was to the company. I want to say that time has changed perception on Bret Hart and longevity has worked to favor HBK and Hart. I think some are shortchanging Bret Hart's run from '91 to '97 and the impact he had on the WWF. I know people would use the ratings against Hart, but there are obvious reasons why Hart had no chance in hell to carry on the popularity of the WWF after Hogan and Warrior's reign were over.

The steroid scandal hit the WWF hard to the point that it made Hogan go into hiatus in 1992 after WrestleMania. Now at that time who do you think was the star that people saw as someone who could be the future? It was Bret Hart and HBK, but HBK was still too early. Hart BEAT RODDY PIPER of all people who NEVER got pinned in the WWF during that time.

During that time UT was rising and in the vien of being the superhero type character to take over from Warrior and Hogan, but Hart was the guy people wanted because they wanted more reality based athletic workrate at the top. He basically was the heir apparent to Randy Savage in terms of being the smaller sized world champion.

Bret at the next ppv was headlining with Bulldog and helped to bring in that audience at Wembley Stadium along with Savage and Warrior and Flair and Undertaker. Of course, people ignore the significance of this event being the biggest crowd WWF got for a ppv since WM 6 with Warrior vs Hogan.

The first WM without Hulk Hogan was centered around Hart when it was clear that Luger was not Hogan's heir apparent. At that event, it was the first time HBK showed he could be the hype surrounding him of being "the wrestler of the 90's". However, he still was not there at Hart's level. Hart was used to help elevate HBK months before at Survivor Series.

In latter years, HBK admitted he just wanted the approval of Hart because Hart was indeed the top guy. Vince Mcmahon also stated that people like Pat Patterson told him he could not afford to lose Hart in 1996 to WCW which caused Vince to give Bret that 20 year contract. I say all this because I think some underestimate how valuable Bret was for the WWE during those years while HBK was coming into his own as one of the greatest of all times.

Bischoff even gave Hart a monstrous contract in 1997. Hart was one of the hottest guys after the screwjob that we have ever seen imo in the business regardless how much WCW screwed that up. Now remember, Taker was used as a special attraction during that time. Hart was the main event and it was HBK who was his real threat and his style is what became popular.

Now this is where we got to split things up as I believe the second run of HBK changes completely the perception between the tussle between Hart and HBK on the legacy tree. I think HBK was legendary with his comeback against HHH, but was just good to sometimes great compared to his 1996 run afterwards UNTIL he started Mania matches against Jericho and Angle. That is where the old HBK started to show up more to me and again he was not the same in Post 2000 DX with HBK. His match with UT however shot him back to his old school match level of 96 with matches he had with Foley.

I thin the same with Taker. The build of the streak and marketing was fantastic to increase his legacy. As someone said, it is a bit hard to actually gauge this without not having the recency bias giving HBK and UT the advantage. For instance, this is what I mean. Someone brought up how HBK influenced the new wrestlers with his style, BUT did not Bret Hart influence the whole new era with the wrestler vs. authority angles that run til this day?

Someone said DX had influence which is true, BUT was not the Hart Foundation with America vs Canada angle bigger in 1996 over DX? The recency thing plays a part hard and I think some are shortchanging how much influence Hart had on the WWF changing. Remember the WWE was still doing gimmicks when Hart was champion, but Hart was reality based champion when they were doing Duke The Dumpster Droese and The Goon etc.

I think depending on who you ask, Hart may not have been surpassed by HBK or Undertaker due to Hart being above the two in his prime when they were watching. To newer fans UT and HBK would obviously seem bigger because they performed in the bigger version of the WWE in the 00's compared to the company that was privately owned when he was champion.

I can say there is a good argument for anyone of them to be bigger, BUT imo it comes down to Hart and HBK because they were the real main event guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
If you asked me this question around 2012-13 I would say Undertaker has passed Bret Hart. But since 2014, Taker has been ruining his legacy big time imo. So I have Bret Hart ahead.

Now between Bret and Shawn, I think they’re dead even. But if i had to choose one, I’d lean toward HBK. He gets a + for his excellent run from 2002 to 2010
 
61 - 80 of 117 Posts
Top