Bret Hart

[Graham Crackers]

I agreed with Bret being a big match worker but the reason for that being a strike against him isn't that being a good TV worker is essential. It's about what percentage of a wrestler's matches are great. Yes, Volk Han didn't work TV matches in the American sense but he had much better big matches than Bret and when he appeared lower on the card or in more low key match ups he still brought great work or unique qualities that can make those matches stand out. RINGS may have been a promotion that had fewer shows and thus the wrestlers had fewer matches but whenever Volk Han wrestled he looked like an elite tier worker.

 

Bringing this back to Bret, TV matches, and WWE, the problem is that Bret looked like a great worker in big matches and in (arguably) rare TV and house show appearances but because he was mediocre to good in lots of his TV or house show appearances he didn't look great as often as other workers and therefore isn't as good. I was under the impression that a popular talking point about Bret was that his top 10 may look as good as that of some other workers but his 40th best match won't be as good as another great wrestler's 40th best match. Seems accurate to me.

If you want to argue that Han's best was better than Bret's best, that's one thing. But you can't just sweep the fact that Han didn't work anything close to Bret's schedule under the rug. I think that just about any solid worker would look amazing working a handful of high-profile matches a year for less than a decade. Beyond that, I don't put much stock in percentages. Bret consistently brought it for big matches, so we can conclude that his lackluster performances are due to lack of effort rather than lack of ability. In my book, if you're great when you want to be, you're great.

 

I understand that there being less footage of Han could hurt him in some people's eyes. I think that's a weak complaint though. Joost Swarte is one of my favorite cartoonists. His output is much smaller than other notable cartoonists who have been active as long as he has but the quality is so high that he is still one of my favorites.

 

If working the McMahon death schedule reduces the average quality of your performances it's a shame but I'm not into "what if" scenarios. Of course I've seen other wrestlers work for McMahon and have great TV and house show performances. Mysterio, Finlay, Guerrero, and Regal strike me as guys who have worked in WWE and had great matches but also have consistently interesting performances at house shows and on TV. You could perhaps argue that Guerrero and Finlay didn't have runs in WWE as long or as busy as Bret's, and that's true, but they also wrestled in WCW where they did TV and houseshows with similar results.

[Ricky Jackson]

Something about Bret seems to inspire brand loyalty, at least with me. He was my first favorite wrestler. Since then, I have seen a wide variety of wrestling ... better technicians, more consistent performers. But Bret remains in my Top 5 favorites list because , in spite of everything that has happened over the years, he remains My Guy, in the same way some sports fans have Their Team, no matter how much they might lose.

I was thinking of writing some sort of pro-Bret post, but I'm lazy, so I'll just piggy back this. Bret's more or less my Home Team.

[tim]

I don't like Bret at all. Some months ago I watched some of his matches, wasn't impressed by them, and then went ahead a watch a whole bunch of his most highly regarded matches and almost every time I though Bret was just flat out boring. Even in matches where the match itself ended up being pretty good, I never noticed anything unique or interesting coming from Bret's end(which is something I value pretty highly in wrestlers, and why I love guys like Regal, Hash, etc. so much). The matches themselves I found largely overrated too, the Hennig matches I thought were nothing more than "good." Hell, if I was doing a top arbitrarily large number best wrestlers ever list, I'd start considering guys like Masters and McIntyre before I considered Bret. I'll take short careers without many notable high points but with plenty of unique and interesting performances over a solid, long career with a couple good career matches from a completely uninspired performer.

 

For what it's worth, Bret/Piper is still a legit great match imo.

[jpchicago23]

Wow masters or mcintyre over Bret? As good and underrated as they are that just seems hard for me to believe. To each his own I guess and Im a Bret guy so naturally I'm perplexed by comments of that nature

[NintendoLogic]

I understand that there being less footage of Han could hurt him in some people's eyes. I think that's a weak complaint though. Joost Swarte is one of my favorite cartoonists. His output is much smaller than other notable cartoonists who have been active as long as he has but the quality is so high that he is still one of my favorites.

 

If working the McMahon death schedule reduces the average quality of your performances it's a shame but I'm not into "what if" scenarios. Of course I've seen other wrestlers work for McMahon and have great TV and house show performances. Mysterio, Finlay, Guerrero, and Regal strike me as guys who have worked in WWE and had great matches but also have consistently interesting performances at house shows and on TV. You could perhaps argue that Guerrero and Finlay didn't have runs in WWE as long or as busy as Bret's, and that's true, but they also wrestled in WCW where they did TV and houseshows with similar results.

Eddy's actually an interesting comparison. He had a lot of great matches, but his career also had a lot of dead spots, so I don't think he'd fare that well from a percentage standpoint. Even in the last year of his life, when he was as good as he ever was, he underperformed in quite a few big-match situations (vs. Rey at Wrestlemania, vs. Benoit at ONS). As for the other guys, I don't think their best matches were nearly as good as Bret's best. So it comes down to what you prioritize. Is it better to have more all-time great matches if it means fewer matches that are merely very good?

[Dylan Waco]

I think Eddy had far more range than Bret, but I do think he's less consistent than we tend to remember him being. That's not to say he didn't have outstanding runs because he did. But there are holes.

[Graham Crackers]

I understand that there being less footage of Han could hurt him in some people's eyes. I think that's a weak complaint though. Joost Swarte is one of my favorite cartoonists. His output is much smaller than other notable cartoonists who have been active as long as he has but the quality is so high that he is still one of my favorites.

 

If working the McMahon death schedule reduces the average quality of your performances it's a shame but I'm not into "what if" scenarios. Of course I've seen other wrestlers work for McMahon and have great TV and house show performances. Mysterio, Finlay, Guerrero, and Regal strike me as guys who have worked in WWE and had great matches but also have consistently interesting performances at house shows and on TV. You could perhaps argue that Guerrero and Finlay didn't have runs in WWE as long or as busy as Bret's, and that's true, but they also wrestled in WCW where they did TV and houseshows with similar results.

Eddy's actually an interesting comparison. He had a lot of great matches, but his career also had a lot of dead spots, so I don't think he'd fare that well from a percentage standpoint. Even in the last year of his life, when he was as good as he ever was, he underperformed in quite a few big-match situations (vs. Rey at Wrestlemania, vs. Benoit at ONS). As for the other guys, I don't think their best matches were nearly as good as Bret's best. So it comes down to what you prioritize. Is it better to have more all-time great matches if it means fewer matches that are merely very good?

 

I'd probably take the best matches of Rey, Eddy, Finlay, and Regal over Bret's best so there is a stylistic bias involved on my part as well. Bret's peak run in the 90s produced only a handful of matches I consider great, some good, but also a lot that feels mediocre to me. I love the best matches Rey was involved in and he also has lots of good to great matches from his WWE years on TV and has been a blast every time I saw him at a house show. I think a top 40 Rey matches sounds much more interesting to me than a top 40 Bret matches.

[Frankensteiner]

If you're injured in a match you automatically become the underdog.

If that's how you want to look at it that's fine (although I disagree). But I would also completely disagree that Bret is using the same storytelling or psychology working against Owen and Diesel.

I think if you have a bad wheel and it's hindering your mobility so that you're only working on one leg then you must be the underdog even if you were the favourite before the fight. I think Bret was meant to be perceived this way when he entered the Rumble in '94 and again when he walked out for the Wrestlemania main event. He may not have been the underdog heading into that Wrestlemania but it wouldn't be much of a story if things didn't change from the beginning to the end.

 

I don't think Bret worked that differently against Owen and Diesel. He got beat up, sold a lot and worked towards setting up the sharpshooter. I broke down last night and watched three Bret matches against Bigelow and honestly Bigelow could have been anyone.

 

So by "all-the time" we're up to what, 5 matches? If you have to use him faking a knee injury in a post-match angle then you're really stretching. Bret working a knee injury against Austin is not at all similar to Bret selling a knee injury for sympathy against Owen.

I'm not going to go through and catalogue every time Bret sold his leg because that would require me to watch a whole lot of Bret, which I don't want to do. I think his knee was a theme throughout his career and he liked selling leg injuries. If I was to be cynical, I'd suggest it was because he liked being the focus of every match, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it was because he thought it was important and logical to sell the effects of every move or hold that was applied in the ring and to do so consistently and thoroughly.

 

Forgetting my poor choice of words in "underdog" and "all the time", would you deny that Bret went into selling mode in just about all of his matches? You don't think he spent a large part of a match hobbling around and sucking wind?

 

On the first point, I guess I can appreciate the differences between Bret working on top/even against Owen only to shift to underdog mode after suffering an injury versus coming into the match outgunned against a monster like Diesel. That doesn't seem all that similar to me in terms of storytelling. Plus he had a number of other matches against Owen that year where the knee injury wasn't a part of the match.

 

As far as his selling, I don't consider it to be excessive or repetitive. If you compare him to other babyfaces like Steamboat, Tito, or Martel, I don't think the time he spent selling was all that different. Obviously he had a different style of selling than someone like Steamboat, but I also liked Bret's more realistic approach to selling than going the dramatic/theatrical route.

[Frankensteiner]

If working the McMahon death schedule reduces the average quality of your performances it's a shame but I'm not into "what if" scenarios. Of course I've seen other wrestlers work for McMahon and have great TV and house show performances. Mysterio, Finlay, Guerrero, and Regal strike me as guys who have worked in WWE and had great matches but also have consistently interesting performances at house shows and on TV. You could perhaps argue that Guerrero and Finlay didn't have runs in WWE as long or as busy as Bret's, and that's true, but they also wrestled in WCW where they did TV and houseshows with similar results.

I don't really think you can compare their schedules to what Bret worked. Mysterio takes months off regularly, Finlay only worked that schedule for 2-3 years at most, and Regal has had plenty of periods of inactivity. Bret was on that schedule for 8 years before entering his prime years as a worker. Pretty big difference in my view.

[Dylan Waco]

Mysterio worked a far more physically demanding style and was far more banged up than Bret because of it. I agree with the broader point that Bret's schedule was harder, but Rey is a guy who's depth of quality tv matches is almost unfathomable, and he didn't start taking big chunks of time off until fairly recently. My brother is going back and watching a lot of that stuff now and has been blown away by it. I'm no Bret hater, but Rey is a guy where even if we grade on a curve for reasons of scheduling/tv eras it's hard to see Bret being even close to as consistent as Rey.

[Frankensteiner]

I don't know that I'd accuse him of selling too much. I just think he sold the same way match after match and it got a bit old in the end. My main point of contention was that it's not great storytelling or psych. Realistic storytelling or psych, maybe, but I don't think he was a good enough actor or performer to really sell the way I think is good storytelling.

I just wanted to add that I do kinda understand where you're coming from with your Bret criticisms. What you say about Bret sounds similar to how I feel about Flair. I used to be a big fan but I just can't watch him anymore. Most every Flair match is ultimately about Flair's shtick and very much Flair-centric. For the most part, Bret's matches are Bret's matches. Much like Flair, he definitely had a set way of working. I think there's enough variations in Bret's template and he switches up enough parts to the point where I don't find the formula repetitive. In fact it's impressive to me how he can work off of his formula to tell different narratives. I wouldn't mind Flair's repetitiveness so much if his matches were smarter and not as hokey.

[Matt D]

I don't know that I'd accuse him of selling too much. I just think he sold the same way match after match and it got a bit old in the end. My main point of contention was that it's not great storytelling or psych. Realistic storytelling or psych, maybe, but I don't think he was a good enough actor or performer to really sell the way I think is good storytelling.

I just wanted to add that I do kinda understand where you're coming from with your Bret criticisms. What you say about Bret sounds similar to how I feel about Flair. I used to be a big fan but I just can't watch him anymore. Most every Flair match is ultimately about Flair's shtick and very much Flair-centric. For the most part, Bret's matches are Bret's matches. Much like Flair, he definitely had a set way of working. I think there's enough variations in Bret's template and he switches up enough parts to the point where I don't find the formula repetitive. In fact it's impressive to me how he can work off of his formula to tell different narratives. I wouldn't mind Flair's repetitiveness so much if his matches were smarter and not as hokey.

 

This is pretty much how I feel, though I'm not sure I'd say the last sentence quite the same.

[JerryvonKramer]

I have taken a solemn vow never to discuss ... the Flair formula topic ... ever again. So I won't.

 

What I will say is that I don't think Bret and Flair are similar. Bret's matches all seem to drive towards logic and coherence on purpose, Flair's matches are more "random" in that they are mostly being made up as they go along, if a "story" is found it's almost stumbled on. I think they are very different workers in that respect. If I was to make an illfitting and uncalled for analogy, I'd say Bret is like a poker player who studies pot odds and calculates his next move, Flair's more like the sort of player tries to get a read on his opponents and makes gut instinct calls.

 

I think Bret is a lot more conscious of what he's doing than Flair is. I honestly believe that Flair is the wrestling equivalent of a virtuoso who doesn't 100% understand exactly what he's doing -- both in the ring and in promos. Doesn't stop him being great, of course, but he's going on instinct and what comes naturally ... on flair if you want ... than on intelligence. This is just a theory I have which I accept could be 100% bullshit.

[Grimmas]

I have taken a solemn vow never to discuss ... the Flair formula topic ... ever again. So I won't.

 

What I will say is that I don't think Bret and Flair are similar. Bret's matches all seem to drive towards logic and coherence on purpose, Flair's matches are more "random" in that they are mostly being made up as they go along, if a "story" is found it's almost stumbled on. I think they are very different workers in that respect. If I was to make an illfitting and uncalled for analogy, I'd say Bret is like a poker player who studies pot odds and calculates his next move, Flair's more like the sort of player tries to get a read on his opponents and makes gut instinct calls.

 

I think Bret is a lot more conscious of what he's doing than Flair is. I honestly believe that Flair is the wrestling equivalent of a virtuoso who doesn't 100% understand exactly what he's doing -- both in the ring and in promos. Doesn't stop him being great, of course, but he's going on instinct and what comes naturally ... on flair if you want ... than on intelligence. This is just a theory I have which I accept could be 100% bullshit.

To me, that seems pretty spot on. You can tell Bret had put thought into his matches. There is a story and a logically ending that fits the story of the match. On the other hand, Flair's matches often seem like disconnected parts thrown together, which sometimes equal amazing matches and sometimes are just great parts thrown together.

[Matt D]

I like that post a lot, actually. I do think Flair didn't just do what felt right but also what he thought he was supposed to do or what he thought worked, without caring about a big picture. I'd also say that Bret was a lot more able to call an audible than that would indicate. But in general, it's not bad.

[ohtani's jacket]

I have taken a solemn vow never to discuss ... the Flair formula topic ... ever again. So I won't.

 

What I will say is that I don't think Bret and Flair are similar. Bret's matches all seem to drive towards logic and coherence on purpose, Flair's matches are more "random" in that they are mostly being made up as they go along, if a "story" is found it's almost stumbled on. I think they are very different workers in that respect. If I was to make an illfitting and uncalled for analogy, I'd say Bret is like a poker player who studies pot odds and calculates his next move, Flair's more like the sort of player tries to get a read on his opponents and makes gut instinct calls.

 

I think Bret is a lot more conscious of what he's doing than Flair is. I honestly believe that Flair is the wrestling equivalent of a virtuoso who doesn't 100% understand exactly what he's doing -- both in the ring and in promos. Doesn't stop him being great, of course, but he's going on instinct and what comes naturally ... on flair if you want ... than on intelligence. This is just a theory I have which I accept could be 100% bullshit.

The main criticism of Flair is that he wrestled the same match no matter who his opponent was. It's a criticism that Loss and others have gone to great lengths to disprove, but that's the criticism. No matter how true it is, there are patterns that one sees in Ric Flair matches and I don't quite see how they can be random. Instinctive and habitual, yes, but not random. Personally, I think Flair's matches build to a much bigger payoff than Bret's even if the finishes are usually shitty. The arc in a Flair match from beginning to end is generally wider than in a Bret match because he was a much more dramatic and demonstrative performer. Bret had a kind of working for the front row Misawa vibe to him without Misawa's ability to sell that he was dangerously close to losing the match.

[NintendoLogic]

Personally, I think Flair's matches build to a much bigger payoff than Bret's even if the finishes are usually shitty. The arc in a Flair match from beginning to end is generally wider than in a Bret match because he was a much more dramatic and demonstrative performer.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

[ohtani's jacket]

What I mean is that when it comes down to the business end of a match, the third act of a Ric Flair match is generally more exciting than the third act of a Bret Hart match, if you'll allow me to use that term. I find the stretch run of whether Flair is about to lose the heavyweight championship of the world more exciting than whether or not Bret will be able to apply the sharpshooter, even though I know that Flair will retain his belt through some crappy finish. I think the reason for this is because Flair is a better actor and performer than Hart and sells the finishing stretch well, and I also think there's more of a change in Flair at the beginning of a match where he's cool, calm and collected to Flair at the end of the match where he's wild-eyed and desperate. Bret goes through subtle changes, I'm sure. I used to be a big fan and big fans notice those sort of nuances, but generally speaking I think big is better. This might sound a little stupid, but Bret never really made a lot of noise in his matches. He rarely spoke during a match and he wasn't that audible a seller, either. Compare him with a Flair or a Hokuto and he's down right mute. Personally, I think Flair begging off deep in a match when he's exhausted and covered in blood is more striking than Bret doing his Gretzky "I'm the best athlete" routine, but again it's something I appreciated in the past and may do again if the wind changes.

[Frankensteiner]

Mysterio worked a far more physically demanding style and was far more banged up than Bret because of it. I agree with the broader point that Bret's schedule was harder, but Rey is a guy who's depth of quality tv matches is almost unfathomable, and he didn't start taking big chunks of time off until fairly recently. My brother is going back and watching a lot of that stuff now and has been blown away by it. I'm no Bret hater, but Rey is a guy where even if we grade on a curve for reasons of scheduling/tv eras it's hard to see Bret being even close to as consistent as Rey.

I went back just to check their workload and wow it's not even close. From '85 to '94 (10 years) Bret averaged 202 matches per year. From '03 to '11 (9 years) Rey averaged 106. So Bret basically doubles Rey in workload. Bret's first "light" year in 1995 when he was given some time off, he still worked 145 matches and that was basically equal to the highest Rey match total for a single year is (148 in 2004). Rey never worked more than 140 matches in any other year with the company.

 

After looking at this, I don't think Bret gets enough credit for remaining a high level worker into his late 30's and early 40's. How many other wrestlers worked that kind of murderous schedule and were still high level workers? I can think of Flair, but after that?

[Frankensteiner]

I also think there's more of a change in Flair at the beginning of a match where he's cool, calm and collected to Flair at the end of the match where he's wild-eyed and desperate. Bret goes through subtle changes, I'm sure. I used to be a big fan and big fans notice those sort of nuances, but generally speaking I think big is better. This might sound a little stupid, but Bret never really made a lot of noise in his matches. He rarely spoke during a match and he wasn't that audible a seller, either. Compare him with a Flair or a Hokuto and he's down right mute. Personally, I think Flair begging off deep in a match when he's exhausted and covered in blood is more striking than Bret doing his Gretzky "I'm the best athlete" routine, but again it's something I appreciated in the past and may do again if the wind changes.

I think that is a really great summary and actually describes why I feel the complete opposite. I prefer the subtle much more than the theatrical and dopey.

[Matt Franklin]

Personally, I feel that Bret's more subtle approach to selling worked well as it made him seem more 'real' in khis often cartoonish surroundings. This is not to say he couldn't play up drama and be theatrical; see his match against Lawler at Summerslam 93 to see some genuine fire and emotion come through.

 

Bret Hart was my favourite wrestler growing up and remained so for a long time. While my tastes have broadened as I have watched a greater variety of footage (much like pretty much everyone on this board), I still find his big performances to be some of the best I have seen in the U.S.. I have previously written about my love of his KOTR 93 matches, and I still feel that it is minimum top 3 WWF performances ever when looking at the three matches, either as individual matches (whilethe Razor match is merely 'very good', the Perfect and Bigelow matches are classics) or as a connected story (selling of the cumulative damage of the night etc). The Survivor Series 96 Austin match is another of my all-time favourite WWF matches, enhanced by the build up and the excellent JR commentary.

 

While I agree that some of his CHV/TV/ house show matches are better on paper than in reality, and also agree that this inconsistency prevents him from being in top tier GOAT consideration, I really feel that peak performance is more important than smaller show lulls. If you make a comparison to music, do you judge a band by their best songs or their B-Sides? Radiohead are one of my favourite bands, is their career going to be more remembered for Street Spirit or Trans-Atlantic Drawl? Perhaps a better Bret Hart/Music analogy would be to The Beatles; they both put out some things that ranged from average to downright bad, but at their peaks they were pretty fucking awesome.

[blueminister]

Perhaps a better Bret Hart/Music analogy would be to The Beatles; they both put out some things that ranged from average to downright bad, but at their peaks they were pretty fucking awesome.

The Beatles had possibly the tightest quality control of their era making this a bizarre analogy.

[WingedEagle]

I also think there's more of a change in Flair at the beginning of a match where he's cool, calm and collected to Flair at the end of the match where he's wild-eyed and desperate. Bret goes through subtle changes, I'm sure. I used to be a big fan and big fans notice those sort of nuances, but generally speaking I think big is better. This might sound a little stupid, but Bret never really made a lot of noise in his matches. He rarely spoke during a match and he wasn't that audible a seller, either. Compare him with a Flair or a Hokuto and he's down right mute. Personally, I think Flair begging off deep in a match when he's exhausted and covered in blood is more striking than Bret doing his Gretzky "I'm the best athlete" routine, but again it's something I appreciated in the past and may do again if the wind changes.

I think that is a really great summary and actually describes why I feel the complete opposite. I prefer the subtle much more than the theatrical and dopey.

 

Agree that its a great contrast of the two. I think Flair's style led to higher peaks while Bret's often worked well in the day to day / match to match without ever getting that sense of overdoing things.

[NintendoLogic]

See, I have it the exact opposite. I think that Flair's baseline was higher than Bret's but Bret's peaks were higher than Flair's.

[Matt Franklin]

Perhaps a better Bret Hart/Music analogy would be to The Beatles; they both put out some things that ranged from average to downright bad, but at their peaks they were pretty fucking awesome.

The Beatles had possibly the tightest quality control of their era making this a bizarre analogy.

 

I love The Beatles, but tracks like Don't Pass Me By, What Goes On and One After 909 aren't going to make anyone's favourite song playlist. Plus, I was never a big McCartney guy so their may be a bias there as well. But we look back on them for their best songs (Yesterday, A Day In The Life, Norweigan Wood etc) when discussing their legacy, not an outtake from the Anthonlogy discs, which is like comparing a Wrestlemania match to a house show fancam.

 

While I may have been overstating the fact when talking about downright bad, I think the analogy holds up well, as they both have performances that are remembered as all-time greats, though perhaps not as good as some of the lesser known acts in history, and both have fans that will defend them to their death and get sensitive when it is pointed out that not everything they did was great