[Rugrat]

After Hart won the 4 corners match could Hart not just have retained the belt until Mania. Or if they really wanted to have the Bret Hart rant, could he not just have won back the belt in the cage match? Given that the original plan was for Bret to leave Mania with the title, I don't see why him and Austin couldn't have wrestled each other in the main event, especially since Austin won the Royal Rumble.

Undertaker and Sid were feuding anyway, so it wouldn't have done them much harm without the belt.

 

[11Shareef]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

I say no. Austin's face turn and the year long build to his first title was great. A lot of that would've been lost had they just given him the belt then. In a lot of ways they made us sympathize for an unsympathetic character.

I know Bret won, but what I'm saying is. Had it been for a title it would've taken some focus off Austin's story. Also, a lot of Bret's frustrations came from not being champ. I don't think he would've had that great heel run if they just gave him what he wanted.

This is one of those rare matches where so much story comes from it. What happened in this match really set the tone for years to come. It's my belief that had it just been for the title it would've been forgotten by the time Bret moved on to his next challenger.

 

[Rugrat]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

I'd have had the match the same an just have Hart do his anti-America stuff. Austin could still chase the belts or the next 9 months until the next Rumble.

 

[Mifune Jackson]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

I think they did the right thing here. Undertaker was due a title run, Sid was on the way out, Hart needed to go heel, and Austin needed to be built up. Definitely a transitional WrestleMania, but a necessary one.

You put HBK back into the mix and then maybe it makes sense to put Bret in the title picture, but things didn't happen that way.

 

[dave 1981]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

Everything happened to the best it could have ever been, I don't see how it could have turned out better at all as the double turn was perfect and allowed a year build towards the top spot for Austin which he needed and Bret Hart got great heat throughout the year which helped build towards Summerslam as well as Michaels/Hart.

 

[CactusJamie]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

I say no. Austin's face turn and the year long build to his first title was great. A lot of that would've been lost had they just given him the belt then. In a lot of ways they made us sympathize for an unsympathetic character.

I know Bret won, but what I'm saying is. Had it been for a title it would've taken some focus off Austin's story. Also, a lot of Bret's frustrations came from not being champ. I don't think he would've had that great heel run if they just gave him what he wanted.

This is one of those rare matches where so much story comes from it. What happened in this match really set the tone for years to come. It's my belief that had it just been for the title it would've been forgotten by the time Bret moved on to his next challenger.

Here we go, great answer. That match elevated Austin to a crazy level of greatness. The Steve Austin that went into Wrestlemania was not the same Steve Austin that came out of it (the same could be said for Bret Hart as well). He was great before that match, but EVERYONE knew it afterwards.

And then spent the next 6 months feuding with the Hart Family, building him up even bigger. By the time he got to WM14, he was unstoppable. Bret didn't make Austin a star, Austin did, but that feud gave him the perfect platform to get to the top.

Also, the focus of the match was the hatred the two men had for each other, and adding a title to it would have been redundant. They didn't care about belts during this showdown, each man was focused solely on beating the shit out of his rival. Shawn vs. Bret are seen as eternal arch rivals, just like Austin and Rock, but to me Steve Austin and Bret Hart will always be each other's true nemesis.

Also, Undertaker was overdue to main event at Wrestlemania. It was versus Sid in a lame match, but it was 'Taker winning the belt at WM so I'm glad it happened.

 

[RyanPelley]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

No, the build and feud was absolutely perfect without the Title at Wrestlemania 13.

However, I do think the Title match at Wrestlemania 14 should have been Steve Austin defeating Bret Hart.

 

[Boots To Chests]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

Everything about the way that feud was booked makes it the GOAT for me. Nothing needs to be changed. I told Bret that was my favorite match and he agreed, saying the Ironman match with Michaels was his other favorite.

 

[promoter2003]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

I think they did the right thing here. Undertaker was due a title run, Sid was on the way out, Hart needed to go heel, and Austin needed to be built up. Definitely a transitional WrestleMania, but a necessary one.

You put HBK back into the mix and then maybe it makes sense to put Bret in the title picture, but things didn't happen that way.

Yeah you can't really argue the results and UT was due a title reign.

I'd have had the match the same an just have Hart do his anti-America stuff. Austin could still chase the belts or the next 9 months until the next Rumble.

I think this would have worked too. Austin losing to Hart would still work in the build up to the following year. It was actually an early plan to have Austin finally beat Bret at WM 14 before all the craziness that saw Bret booted out of the company.

HBK/Austin would have been much better though if HBK wasn't hurt obviously. I loved their KOR match and I think their chemistry may have swayed the company that maybe HBK/Austin should headline Mania instead.

 

[dave 1981]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

Yeah you can't really argue the results and UT was due a title reign.



I think this would have worked too. Austin losing to Hart would still work in the build up to the following year. It was actually an early plan to have Austin finally beat Bret at WM 14 before all the craziness that saw Bret booted out of the company.

HBK/Austin would have been much better though if HBK wasn't hurt obviously. I loved their KOR match and I think their chemistry may have swayed the company that maybe HBK/Austin should headline Mania instead.

Actually according to Bret Hart himself the plan from the summer was Michaels/Hart at WrestleMania 14 with Shawn Michaels winning on the basis Shawn put Bret over somewhere in between first, this is the reason the screwjob went into effect as Shawn said later on he wouldn't put Bret over first, this angered Bret and he then refused to put Shawn over at all despite Vince McMahon wanting to turn Shawn heel and have him as top heel opposite Austin as top babyface to push his new edgier product.

 

[Anton Athletic]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

The Hitman vs Stone Cold feud was good enough with out the belt. Sid Vs Taker needed the WWF belt to be relevant. The string but gallant Austin loss worked out for austin as he got the tag team, IC and World title by WM 14. I still thought Austin should of got a run with the IC title as early as summerslam 1996.

Most of the card worked out well. My only disappointment was they should of saved the Doug Furnas and Phil Lafon vs Owen and Bulldog WWF title match for WM 13 instead of the final four ppv on february.

 

[SandyRavage]

Re: Should Austin v Hart have been for the title at Wrestlemania 13?

The Hitman vs Stone Cold feud was good enough with out the belt. Sid Vs Taker needed the WWF belt to be relevant. The string but gallant Austin loss worked out for austin as he got the tag team, IC and World title by WM 14. I still thought Austin should of got a run with the IC title as early as summerslam 1996.

Agreed, the build to Austin's title win was fantastic culminating in an absolute eruption in the wrestling business and it sent Michaels out on a high (not the match but the occasion)and started a new reign perfectly