Shining Wiz

Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who. Allowing him to negotiate with a third party is not a breach. And, legally speaking, "reasonable creative control" is meaningless unless it was further defined in the contract. But it seems like Bret wanted closer to full creative control by dictating how/when he would or would not lose the title, and full control may not have been reasonable, Vince didn't just let him negotiate with WCW; Vince told Bret he was not going to honor his part of the contract. That's a repudiation and a breach. "Reasonable creative control" is not 'meaningless', though it can be a quagmire for future litigation. Thing is, "reasonable creative control" was defined as Bret and Vince having to agree to it. So it was defined. Depends on what he said, what he did and what they agreed to whether it really was a repudiation and a breach. Unless they actually stopped paying the contract, then it was not breached. And if they agreed to tare up that contract and operate under a new agreement, then this is a null point. And yes, I shouldn't have said reasonable creative control is meaningless, but rather incredibly vague. And the idea that it meant whatever they agreed on May actually have rendered it meaningless as what would happen if they didn't agree? Nothing would happen?

My point being, you can tell someone you can't afford to pay them, there is no actual breach until you don't pay them. Had the contract been actually breached, then Bret would have been free to leave at any point, and I don't believe he was. I believe he gave notice that he was leaving on x date, and remained under contract until that point.

It's a question of what actually happened. Say you have a contract with me, and I am supposed to pay you $100 every Monday. If, on Friday, I say I am going to be having problems paying you that in the future, but come Monday, I pay you $100, no breach. If I do not pay you, then there has been a breach. But, if you keep working for me, and I start paying you $75 a week, and you keep accepting this, this can be seen as a change of terms (this is very case dependent and by no means an iron clad comment, but a possibility). My point being, the contract may not have actually been breached. As I believe the WWF had to give Bret permission - in writing - to negotiate with WCW, then I would actually feel quite safe in saying the contract had not been breached. That is from a legal sense. No doubt that McMahon had morally breached their agreement.

Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who. Allowing him to negotiate with a third party is not a breach. And, legally speaking, "reasonable creative control" is meaningless unless it was further defined in the contract. But it seems like Bret wanted closer to full creative control by dictating how/when he would or would not lose the title, and full control may not have been reasonable,

I was just thinking there is a big difference between an actual breach of contract, and agreeing to allow someone a window to negotiate with third parties. And if Bret continued to work with the WWF after a breach, that would likely be viewed as acquiescence which can essentially remedy such a breach. All of which is to say, while McMahon may have handled business badly, Bret was still under a binding contract at the time of the PPV.

Well, Andre was never asked to do the things Show has been. Because, you know, changing standards and all.

Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt.

AJ. Far and away.

I still think, wrestling being not a legitimately competitive sport, when the guy who owns the company says you're losing the belt here to this guy, why whine so much about it? Once it came down to Bret thinking handing the belt over on raw and giving a speech about why he was leaving was a legit option, all bets were off. Bret's argument is basically "not in my home country, not to a guy I dislike." I could MAYBE see if it was in Calgary, but big whoop about Montreal. Even then though......you're being asked to lose a fake fight before you go work somewhere else. As it was, the end result of Montreal was fantastic for the WWF, and should have been for Bret but WCW messed that up royally. So, I think I second the "Bret everyday in 97, except Vince for this one."

Nothing to do with being safe. They wont do this because it is an idiotic idea. It's about as idiotic as turning their biggest heel heel.

I don't judge matches on a wrestler's breath. Also, the biggest problem I have with W2BTD's argument is the idea that modernity is progress or evolution. Sometimes it is regression or devolution. If you take progress and evolution to mean 'better', than I would agree. I presume he meant evolution in the sense that x follows y.

I generally agree with Loss in his above comments, but I think the idea that personal tastes change over time also applies on the macro scale. Just as I don't get as excited for Brutus Beefcake matches as I did when I was 8, I don't think a hair cutting male stripper who is a shitty wrestler is going to get a 10 year run in WWE nowadays.

Finally got to watch Styles/Suzuki......great match. Actually managed to work in some bjj spots without ignoring their actual purpose. As for the comment above regarding separated shoulders and cross arm breakers.....as someone who has been in one with a separated shoulder, you are far more concerned about your elbow, since the move generally puts no pressure on your shoulder.

I wonder, if I understood the commentary, if the build would have been more obvious? Either way, the finals look like a great card. Hopefully get to watch it on the flight home Monday.

That use of promo would drive me, but mark exists as a term outside the context of wrestling, so no problem with that one.

I don't think the lack of charisma was part of the gimmick, rather the lack of charisma led to that gimmick. His promo for the NWA tournament on ECW tv should show that.

I just always thought he was a good interview.

Too bad "the WCW" didn't had "The SummerSlam". Oh, Bret... Oh....I forgot about The Summerslam. Makes me cringe just writing it. Bret was BY FAR the worst for that. I think he single handedly made "The WCW" semi-acceptable.

The WWE. Though, that is a step up from "the WCW."

I have a hard time computing the concept of a hardcore TNA fan. I mean....how?......why?

I was thinking as a "most important" moments

1. Wrestlemania 3 2. Wrestlemania 1 3. Hogan pins Shiek 4. Austin/Tyson 5. Montreal/Bret screwed Bret 6. Sammartino wins first title 7. WWF buys WCW 8. The first Raw 9. ECW invades Raw 10. Xpac returns the night after Mania (honestly)

Just an opinion. I would say I enjoy Malenko matches generally better than I enjoy Flair matches. I could lie about it if you're so inclined, but different strokes for different folks.

Nope, but the way things are going around here, ask again in a week and see if I can still answer.

Sorry....my sarcasm font didn't come through well. I guess I could see that argument, though I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. I tended to really enjoy the styles of matches he put on. He offered absolutely nothing personality or character wise, but I always enjoyed his matches.